How far inland are the targets that NATO is striking in and around Misrata?
How far offshore are NATO surface combatants?
How much is it costing to to mount continuous air operations to interdict low value targets like rocket launchers and technicals?
How long between target acquisition and strike using land based or even sea based aviation, assuming it is not hanging around 24×7?
How much would this solution cost?
1. A navalised UAV that could provide persistent coverage over the target area for target acquisition and designation, launched and recovered from a frigate, amphib or similar
2. A non navalised UAV flying from land bases and able to offer the same as 1
3. A weaponised combination of 1 and/or 2
4. A navalised version of the 70km GMLRS or 300km ATACMS or simply parking the land version on a a flight deck
Why does the UK not have this because when the total bill is totted up, it would be a hell of a lot cheaper than Harriers and carriers or Tornado’s and airbases.
Are we in danger of pricing ourselves out of the market?
There is a bloke called swerve who has the hots for a certain stand-off recon/attack missile in the £80k price-band. They’ve been tested in Wales so why not stick a few samples on a number of Med-bound RFAs…?
Hi TD,
Always for this one ” A navalised version of the 70km GMLRS” but so many people tell me it can’t be done (they might just be bleating each others’ stories, without any facts, but who am I to say).
How about the OTO 127mm Vulcano as standard on all major vessels (not flat tops, or subs mind you); even the amphib’s could take it as it is more about the ammo rather than the gun (and the strain of firing it, which then makes for a massive turret, a massive turret ring…)
=> 72 nm with precision (the literature says)
Aircraft are infinitely more flexible than a GMRLS system to select just one of your examples; an aircraft can carry out non-kinetic shows of force for example which are preferable to blowing things up. The main hindrance to the use of RPAS/UAV’s is the comms delay, the MQ-9’s currently utilised in Op HERRICK suffer from a 2-3 sec comms lag with their operators at Creech AFB, a lot can happen in 2-3 sec children or reports wandering into the crosshairs for example hence the use of manned aircraft that in many cases can at least deflect the weapons of a target even once it has been engaged (Paveway IV for example). My question would be why on earth are the Coalition not utilising the AH-64 Apache? It can embark on the larger remaining RN vessels reducing basing cost and time to target. Just think how much collateral damage could be avoided if its chain gun was utilised, a few rounds from that would decimate the out-dated Soviet era equipment of the Gaddafi forces and like Afghanistan would send a strong psychological message to enemy.
And you all laughed then I said I wanted Ocean sized cruise missile carriers!
Arsenal ship was a nice concept – why did the USN drop it, to go for 3bn cruisers instead (that makes 6 unique gun systems to support, – they could be anywhere across the world!)
why was the BAe 155mm dropped in Uk plans and then offered to the US for their zummwalt class last week.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a2203d5ba-2d67-4b96-b885-82e3f50b8c2c
POLAR (Precision Over-the-horizon Land Attack Rocket) was the US Vertical Launch GMLRS-variant that was proposed. It was intended to have a 30% bigger rocket motor and thus would have greatly exceeded the 70-90km of the, then still being developed, land version; but lost out in funding to LASM (Land Attack Standard Missile). LASM in turn was cancelled in turn in 2002.
Hi paul g,
The UK 155mm was a real gun, like what the army has (same, or similar ammo).
These two “The AGS-Lite uses the same gun as the full-size AGS and the same rocket-boosted, 155-mm caliber Long Range Land Attack Projectile (developed by Lockheed Martin), so it has the same 74 nm design range. ” are rocket launchers that look like a gun, and the lite has come about because there will only be three Zumwalts for the ‘heavy’ to go onto
… what a waste of R&D
There have been various 155mm/8 inch/MLRS proposals for naval deck mounting. None have been carried through(bar Zumwalt).
The Germans wanted a deck mounted MLRS ,but that was dropped. Then they wanted a 155mm deck gun, but that was dropped.
Modern naval ships are not armoured like their WW2 counterparts, so find it hard to take the shock of large naval guns firing.
However, the Queen Mary 2 liner was given a 50% thicker than usual hull, to cope with rough atlantic weather. Yet that was still cheap enough to build & operate comercially.
A slightly thicker hull should be adopted for future naval vessels, as it would cost peanuts, but give them a longer service life.
I would kind of like to float the idea of a common new NATO naval gun of around 135 to 140mm.
Smaller calibres end up with tiny explosive warheads, once you add guidance & base bleed, while larger 155mm+ rounds are too much for most hulls to cope with. Hence my thinking that a common 135 to 140mm gun is the sweetspot.
Hi JH,
Based on this ” end up with tiny explosive warheads, once you add guidance & base bleed” once my favourite OTO Vulcano 127 mm hits the target (with precision) at the same range as GMLRS, is there any ‘bang’ left in it?
I’m beginning to think that multiple rocket launchers might be the correct way forwards for ALL artillery roles not just naval ones. The great advantage that a gun has over an MRL is that it’s ammunition is cheaper, it’s dispersion at the target is (generally) less and it can change ammunition types quickly. It’s disadvantages are that the gun itself is big, heavy, expensive and requires a heavy mounting to absorb the recoil. I would argue that the days of artillery barrages are past and the era of the precision guided round is upon us. It’s a lot easier to make a precision guided rocket than it is to make a shell. The electronics don’t have the crushing g-forces of a gun launched round to deal with and once you start using guided rounds the main expense stops being the propellent and explosive filler and start being the guidance system. If the projectile is no longer cheap, the gun becomes less attractive. It’s true that rockets take up more space in your ship’s magazines but if they hit their targets more often than an unguided shell then you need fewr of them. It’s true also that an MRL is less versatile than a gun and can’t be used, as the current RN 4.5″ can, as a secondary AA weapon but I would argue that the lighter weight of an MRL system at deck level might allow for the additional mounting of a really good AA gun such as the OTO 76mm or the Bofors 57mm.
Perhaps a vertical launch MLRS could be developed?
Not wishing to dispel the excellent commentary but I believe they UK is at the forefront of every form of UAV currently on the market. There is an awful lot going into R&D on this area not in the least by the MoD but that is matched by companies and universities. Well ahead of France that much can be said.
Oops. Didn’t spot Wstr’s POLAR reference . . .
Peter, I have thought that a Naval MLRS would be a perfect weapon. However, it seems to be difficult to perfect. Perhaps it’s thd fact that launch vehicle us moving about too much! J have DMSO thought thd new loitering munition would be an ideal candidate for the RN
OK – first very qood question
Second – Paul G – the 155mm links your posted – your misinterpreting them. The monster 155mm AGS was designed for the Zumwalt (DDG1000). This program has been curtailed at only a couple of ships. Instead the USN is buying a new development of the current Arleigh Burke class “destroyers”, for which BAe is now suggesting this so called AGS-Lite. AGS fires rocket boosted projectiles that have nothing at all to do with any standard 155mm artillary rounds, AND, this is the killer for our ships, even “Lite” is a 50 tonne plus turret, with massive firing stresses (compared to say 115mm/127mm).
This is no way, means or form related to the suggested UK 155mm howitzer, which put the 39 calibre barrel from an AS90 into a the standard RN 4.5 turret.
AGS-Lite is still big, heavy and not cheap.
ACC might be closing to the cost effectiveness mark with the 127mm Vulcano. However the longest range land attack version is a sub-calibre projectile, so your not talking about a whole lot of HE landing on the target. However a laser guided variant with operating with manned aircraft or UAV for sparkling the target might be just what TD is looking for.
N-TACMS was supposed to be developed for USN MK41 VLS, but got cancelled, and we don’t have any ships with MK41 VLS.
GMLRS – you would need to develop a VL version OR, take the mountings of our unused heavy armoured MLRS tracks, and mount them on a ship somewhere…. (limited new life for T22B3 anyone?)
So, for a totally off the shelf, available today, retro-fittable capability I say:
1. OTO Malera 127mm gun
2. OTO Vulcano long range guided ammunition
3. MQ8B FireScout
et voila…..
I’ve tried to found out why the various naval GMLRS efforts have failed for years. I read that MLRS rockets corrosive propellants that might not play well with expensive deck materials. I’ve speculated it might be related to insensitive munition issues or rocket pod handling complexity.
For the German case, it might’ve been budgetary as much as anything. Just too expensive to develop a navalized mount. But that’s also just speculation.
The Israelis did something similar with their NAVLAR system, so it doesn’t seem to be completely nuts.
Maybe it’s something more appropriate to arm a relatively inexpensive naval auxiliary (e.g. LSM(R)) dedicated to the task, rather than try to put them on warships or amphibs. Then there is less worry about corroding expensive warship decks, or installing intricate pod handling systems in confined areas.
ACC
I am not an expert on the OTO 127mm Vulcano. My understanding is that it shoots standard 5 inch rounds ok. For extra range it uses sabot, sub calibre rounds. The basic version of this does not have guidance or extra means of propulsion, so it still has a reasonable warhead. The guided rocket versions, may end up a very expensive way of delivering a hand grenade.
Is Vulcano anywhere close to production? Last I read it’s still in development.
The MLRS’s main problem are the size of the reloads. The come in a 6 rockets per reload block if they were based on the US version. They are just to large for most ships to store.
@All
I looked at POLAR, N-TACMS, Vulcano etc etc a while ago if you lot remember.
Here is my semi off the peg solution
1.
With the range and persistence of modern UAV’s you don’t necessarily need to sea launch them in this scenario so you could use Reapers/Predator or maybe one day whatever Mantis turn into to. This gives you eyes on and a weapons capability for targets that meet the weapons carried characteristics. Whilst flight control might be via satellite the targeting stuff could also be via line of sight/shorter range radio, dual control as it were. You could always use something like Jeds suggestion of a Firescout as well, or a Scan Eagle or even at a real push, Watchkeeper (either ground launched and flown in or ramp launched off a ship and recovered to land if you have no other options)
2.
Take one my my forward presence ships (if you remember, the one based on an offshore PSV) with a massive deck areas and load up with a pair of GMLRS launchers plus reloads. This would fire over the beam of the ship (exhaust gasses overboard) and any ship movement would be compensated for by the guidance system. Go here and do a 70km circle
http://www.freemaptools.com/radius-around-point.htm
Simple, cheap, effective, survivable and whilst it might not be the DS solution it would be perfectly adequate, not cost hundreds of millions
Hence, why it will never be even thought about by the MoD
Welcome to Think Defence by the way Adam
Exactly “take the mountings of our unused heavy armoured MLRS tracks, and mount them on a ship somewhere…. (limited new life for T22B3 anyone?)” what I thought
- good comms to coordinate with other means to deliver the same effect,if those are available; 70 km radius, sitting 30 km off the coast…
- high manning, though: what would they all do?
I don’t know how GMLRS is guided. I seconded the AMOS idea in our LOG discussion. However, AMOS is based on GPS coordinates of both the target and the launch vehicle. I know that inland/ archipelago type of waves don’t cause too much of a problem, but how about a good sea state?
re 2 to 3 seconds
There has to be a point when the button is pressed or the trigger pedal pushed. What about the time any stand off weapon (indeed any ordnance) takes to move between launch platform and target?
I always thought SLAM would have been a good option for the RN.
Surely if you go for MRLS on your ship it would also be best to have UAV over the target, painting it with a laser, as I thought MRLS normally GPS/inertially guided and supposedly in Mistrata we do not have any FAC’s.
Personally I am quite keen on the idea of parking Ocean 30 – 40 km of shore, and using an UOR to covert some Lynx’s or Merlin’s into cheap gunships equipped with BAE F2 turret and CRV-7 rocket pods, and send them into turn technical’s into scrap metal.
How about this for a crazy idea, lets take all 60 of our Harrier’s, and inset UAV control systems and turn them into UCAV’s and then stick a C&C system for the UCAV’s into Illustrious, and use them as a UCAV carrier
Ocean sized Cruise Missile carrier? What about a Rocket carrier?!?!
http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/carronade.html
oops my bad! got confused in my defence cramming like mad for 2 IT exams and my head is full of 3 letter acronyms!!
was this not the sort of thing fire shadow was for
If you made a cruise missile sized rocket would that make it easier to integrate into existing Royal Navy weapons systems?
I’m assuming a dumb cruise missile bereft of the clever terrain following, loitering and targeting gubbins would be too slow if not also still too expensive.
They could then appear on anything that can take a cruise missile. Subs, ships, Tornados…
Yes Mark it is, but how many would you need and how much is it going to cost you to fly them into the ground on a regular basis if no targets found. I like FireShadow but it seems like a very expensive way of doing business
Think Defense,
Yes, the PSV would make a great candidate for a naval rocket auxiliary. You could just move pods around via crane, rather than building a specialized handling system.
I still think you may need at least some stabilization. The guidance fins on GMLRS can only compensate for so much.
BTW, MDBA tested a extended range, 100km version of GMLRS back in 2005, i think.
And there are a couple other options,
1. IAI makes the larger, 150km EXTRA rocket that fits two per MLRS pod.
2. LockMart internally developed the 7-inch diameter P44 rocket that can fit 10 per pod and has a 70km range.
@ Tubby – Great minds think alike! I was remembering a STOVL UCAV AVPRO suggested years back – as I understand it the VTOL system for the F-35B was tested in a Harrier and is virtually automatic…
Adam S is right, now that I think of the photos of reloading GMLRS.
However, TD’s ships some with 70 tonne capacity cranes (or a couple smaller ones), as in “forward presence ships (if you remember, the one based on an offshore PSV) with a massive deck areas and load up with a pair of GMLRS launchers plus reloads”
- there’s your cheap arsenal ship
- and the unitary warhead rockets, I think, are actually cheaper than the Excalibur rounds (that you can’t fire off a ship, anyway). I like the “expensive hand grenade” parallel for the OTO round. Their website is very specific about the different parts, just that I don’t know how much HE is “enough”
And the other good thing about TD’s ship design: they don’t look too warlike!
TD
I would assume scavenger will do your 2 and 3 and they wont be cheap. Point 1 nothing effective really exists yet. Fire shadow could do point 4 with a little bit of 1 or 2. I dont think there’s a cheap option to 24/7 coverage with the distances required. I think there maybe needs to be several elements to satisfy this.
An MLRS rocket is smaller and lighter than a Seadart missile so, as long as the preloaded six rocket pack is abandoned, a similar, twin arm launcher with automatic relading could probably be developed if there was a demand. A Type 42 carried upto 40 seadarts and a 4.5″ gun. Plenty of magazine space there. Of course theres nothing to say that the MLRS rocket has to be used. A new artillery rocket more suited for naval (and army, let’s keep things standard . . .) could be developed.
If a ship can reload a VLS, you can reload an MLRS pod. They are no more cumbersome than a ship’s boat, the launcher incorporates a crane and the pods are transportable by forklift.
Corrosive exhaust is a problem, especially in a maritime environment, regardless of where you point the launcher. If you look at videos of the MLRS firing there is plenty of efflux alles uber de platz, not just behind the launcher.
MLRS would give a flexible weapons system. GMLRS (90kg warhead to 70+km, 6 to a pod, GPS/INS), ATACMS (~250kg warhead to 300+km, 1 to a pod, GPS/INS) and P44 (Hellfire-class warhead to 70+km, 10 to a pod, Tri-mode seeker)
A couple of points:
The main problem with hitting Ghaddafi’s forces is recognising them, now that they have started equipping and even dressing themselves like the rebels. You can’t sort that out from the air, you need someone on the ground to tell friend from foe (and even they may have problems).
Even if you can identify the baddies, in situations where you have friend and foe all mixed up in urban areas you don’t want massive destruction, you want absolute precision in order to avoid killing innocent bystanders. A hand grenade precisely on target would probably deal with most threats.
A PS to my last post – the Americans have been testing 81mm mortar bombs equipped with terminal guidance, specifically for dropping from medium-sized UAVs. Should do most jobs very well…
TW,
For me you hit the nail on the head, even in Libya the situation is different between the more open terrain in the east of the country and the suburbs of Mistrata. We therefore need access to a wide range of solutions to fit the problem. Boots on the ground is sometimes unavoidable…
However, a strong naval bombardment capability would undoubtedly give commanders more strings to their bow. It is mooted that the T26 GCS will get the 127mm medium calibre gun which would be a good start. But I would also like to see a limited number of RN vessels with a larger 155mm calibre which would be able to a larger warhead further. Perhaps a batch of 3 extended T45 cruisers anyone…
Hi Repulse,
Now “Perhaps a batch of 3 extended T45 cruisers ” I can see where your gravatar is coming from…
Hi TW,
RE “the Americans have been testing 81mm mortar bombs equipped with terminal guidance, specifically for dropping from medium-sized UAVs. Should do most jobs ”
- they just placed an order with NAMMO’s N.A. subsidiary for something like that
- but that one was developed from scratch
I too would have liked to see the BAE 155mm TMF proceeded with – the thing was costing peanuts by military procurement standards – but I’d settle for the 127mm as a second-best off-the-shelf purchase.
It’s not only a fair bit more powerful than the 4.5 inch but has the advantage of a huge customer base as well as the USN as primary user, which means that more advanced ammo types will continue to be developed for it.
I have to agree, lets go for 127mm of the shelf, but only if we are going to retro-fit it to T23′s and T45′s.
127mm is better than 114mm, but you still end up with very expensive, mini bangs from even guided 127mm long range rounds. Do you want to spend £50,000+ delivering a precise handgrenade?
This is why 8 inch or 155mm is better, as long as the hulls can be reinforced. If not my fantasy NATO 137mm compromise would still allow a reasonable bang once you added guidance/propulsion.
Mini bangs are the order of the day less likely to cause civilian casualties. 155mm maybe to big a shell. The French are using concrete bombs to reduce blast damage(always gd for a tabloid headline).
@ Mr Fred re MLRS
Um. If it were a permanent fixture the efflux could be vented away; have a look at the old SeaDart mounts on the Invincible.
But if we are talking about strapping an army MLRS to say the flightdeck of Ocean well surely a simple solution would be to have a “mat” for the vehicle to sit on.
Mark
If you want a mini bang, fine, but is it worth £50,000+(feels like I am writing for the News of the World).
X
Whether it is STOVL jets or MLRS, I do not see why we cannot cool naval decks with a fine mist spray of sea water.
JH
You would be amazed at the amount of corrosive damage boiling hot sea water and steam will do when blasted at a surface by jet/rocket efflux….
IXION
There must be a solution.
Off the top of my head.
Japan 1945. The armoured carrier Shinano. The deck was made of whatever the Japs had left. So concrete,saw dust & latex. It was very resistant to bomb damage. Perhaps add ground up ceramic dust for heat resistance? Perhaps swap latex for ground up old car/van tyres? We need a tough,flexible, cheap deck. There must be a way of doing it.
JH
I would suggest a scraficial deck made up of something like shets of CORTEN steel bolted to the main deck that can simmply be easily removed and scrapped when too cooroded/ blasted. they could be fitted too TD’s forwrd presence ships as part of ‘the kit’ when the MLRS is fitted to them and removed when it is.
Tony Williams said: “A PS to my last post – the Americans have been testing 81mm mortar bombs equipped with terminal guidance, specifically for dropping from medium-sized UAVs. Should do most jobs very well…”
There is a picture of one here.
Of course, if the NGS issue were looked at logically, it isn’t the big destroyers that should have the big guns, because the last place you want a T45 or similar is anywhere near the littoral, plinking away at land targets.
It’s a small, cheap, shallow-draught ship which can be risked close in that should be providing NGS. It would need to be designed to accept damage and be well-protected by short-range self-defence systems as well as having a big gun.
Which makes me wonder why the USN’s Littoral Combat Ships have turned out to be hugely expensive and have only a little gun…