Minor semantic point; it's not "two gun batteries" so much as a "two-gun battery" (or a "three-gun battery"). Your battery is all of your weapons of a certain type.
As an old Gun Boss, I gotta say we've lost considerable capability gunnery-wise since the Mk 42's went out. The Mk 42 had redundant systems, the Mk 45 is a one-trick pony. Any single component of the Mk 45 goes down and the gun's down. With the Mk 42 you have two of nearly everything; e.g. one hoist goes down, you have another. Of course that's why the Mk 45 weighs about half of the Mk 42. Mk 45's barrel is much thinner too; you're pretty much in "hot gun" territory as soon's you've let your first round go.
Couple of things: in 1974 I was attending Jarhead Amphibious Warfare School as a senior Captain, up for Major, and the heartburn of the day was lack of Naval guns for our support. I recall at the time we were told the only guns left in the Navy were the 5 inchers on the DDs.
Other thing is that I grew up literally across the road from Adm. Wayne Meyer's parents, and his elementary school teacher was my Aunt Helen Duncan. Years later she was MY teacher but that's another story.
Wayne taught me fly fishing on his dad's farm pond. We caught largemouth bass.
As Sal points out, two becomes one, and one becomes none. On another topic, the profile view of the lightweight 8” mount on the foredeck of USS Hull (DD 945) was very impressive.
I feel an obligation to note that the lightweight 8 program was cancelled because it was determined that it would have been no more effective in combat than the up-and-coming 5” rocket assisted projectiles - a program which never actually happened either. And ALL of this was a prequel to the anti-surface warfare ship known as DDG 1000. Not only did the Navy install a 155mm gun on that ship for which it could NEVER afford the ammunition, the contract for the ship’s fire control software failed to include any capability for the ship to engage a surface target with its main/only gun battery. I brought that grevious omission up in more than one conversation during the ship’s early design phase, and was told quietly and politely to sit down and shut up. <sigh>. Of course we would always like to engage our targets at missile ranges, but the enemy also gets a vote.
And, the above discussion totally ignores the fact that our two most likely adversaries have weapons that out-range us by more than a few country miles. <double sigh>. Air power will not always be available. Deal with it.
Down at the deck plate level we were all mooning over the proposed 8" and some of its magic munitions. I heard that the cost of the ammo helped kill it and that also there were some who said the proposed loadout of ammo was too small compared to 5". (.45 ACP v. 9mm or 7.62mm v. 5.56mm ?) I recall that we used 5" RAP rounds in Vietnam. They had reach, but less accuracy. We used them for H&I and area fire. Given what I saw 33 years ago on an Aegis CG which could accurately place rounds on air, ASCM, surface and land targets I have to believe that now in 2023 that a modern 8" could give more bang for the buck. But the Ukraine bailout. <triple sigh>
Didn't start out as a "gun guy" as a Radarman. First ship had 3"/50's. Second had 5"/54's. I saw the GLO, the Weps LT, in agony at Bloodsworth Island and Culebra working his voodoo while getting beaten up by the Captain and wanted no part of it. Third ship had 5"/38's, a 6"/47 mount and that wonderful 1-Able analog computer to make NFGS easy. They handed me a Comanche Board and told me I was the NGFS supervisor. My good fortune was that the team was experienced. I was 22. We were forward deployed, so we did NGFS off I Corps every month that I was aboard (20 months). What fun we had. There was a long hiatus (1971 to 1990) until my next time with the guns. I was on leave enroute to a CG having just finished 5 months of Aegis and other training. Got a phone call on day 2 of my leave, a Saturday, telling me I had to be on the ship on Monday to certify with the NGFS team. I drove the 400 miles on Sunday, arriving about sunset. The CDO handed me "GUN-13" and told me to refresh myself on NGFS. Monday morning my new boss, the Ops Officer, asked me my experience with NGFS. I told him I had read most of "GUN-13" the night before and had dabbled a little about 20 years before. He said, "NGFS isn't any more difficult than giving birth to a cow. I'll be standing near and if I think you need it I'll unscrew the top of your head, reach in and grab your brain, put it on the DRT table, scramble it with an egg whisk and then pour it back in your head." What could I say except, "Yes Sir, thank you"? It was agony. In the end I really liked and appreciated the guns. Except for driving a ship, guns are the most fun you can have on a ship. Being mess caterer in a Chief's Mess or Wardroom is the least.
IF being a SWO was about driving ships and shooting guns; I'd NEVER have left. Decision point for me was when I went to Weps about a gun casualty and all he wanted to talk about was my DivO notebook
If being a SWO required being an 1110 junior officer, I doubt it would have ever been in the stars for me. Tried 3 times. Applied for NESEP twice as an RD2 and finally got told that my 20/400 vision meant I could never be a Naval Officer and drive ships. Went to OCS in 1981. Long story, short stay. Going to boot camp a second time as an EWCS(SW) just wasn't my cup of tea. Two and half years later I got my SWO pin and had my dream job of driving an FFG as a CWO2. Hat's off to all of you 1110's and junior officers who did it the hard way. Being a 7121 and 6120 was so less painful. Even so, being a 30 year man from day 1, I retired at 26, burnt out. That FFG is still in service in the Polish Navy. I'd go tomorrow if they called me. Might need a %BF waiver.
Well we started out being 1160/1165, designator changed once your got your letter/pin. OCS was a PITA, don't blame you for not subjecting yourself to it, a real test of patience for "priors" (My roomie was an EMC)
The Perry FFG's were a great ship; what the LCS never could be despite all of the money thrown at it. We could do (and have, obviously) far worse than to update the Perry's and buy as many as we can.
I know I’ve railed with about this before and that won’t stop me this time; the new FFG we are building is based on the FREMM class. Both versions carry at a minimum a 120 round per minute 17 mile range or a 5 inch 64, 34 rounds per minute 56 mile range guns. So, what do we pick for our version? A 5 mile range 57mm gun.
Never got to shoot a missile at a enemy target, but did enage with 5 inch during Praying Mantis from a Spruance, (USS Merrill) higher command could not decide if they wanted air burst or surface burst, so Mt 51 and Mt 52 had different loadout in the drums. They finally decided on air burst. I told the captain we could download the point det by hand and it would take 10-15 minutes, or through the barrel and it would take less than 2 minutes. We elected to go through the barrel. By that time the Iranians had evacuated after the first couple gunners who opened up on us only had 38 seconds before they got a 50 foot airburst directly over their mount. Love that HE/MT/PD. But, the point is that assuming you don't need to be capable of surface action with a gun is short sighted. You need the flexibility since you don't know the circumstances you will be faced with, but we do know that total war is unlikely. Later in my career faced off with an Iranian patrol boat. He pointed his guns and when I pointed the 5 inch back at him, he backed down. The 5 inch is the swiss army knife of weapon systems, it does everything but only if you have the foresight to give it full capability.
VT lacks precision against a surface target. I had a Marine spotter in a helo whose comment after the first round detonated at 50 feet directly over the offending gun mount was “ target on fire and burning, film at 11” . VT goes off where it wants to, MT goes off where you want it to.
MT goes off where the fuze-setter and Fire Control computer tell it to do so. Whether that's "where you want it" or not depends on your FO, your solution, et al.
VT detonates at distance to the "return" echo.
Precision is nice, but a bullet "close enough" is really what the customer wants
Would someone please explain the rationale behind that ridiculous 57mm gun on the new frigate? Surely anyone who thought about it from a warfighter's perspective would conclude that gun has to be a 5".
Follow the money. It was there simply to let the people who built the LCS compete for the program. Absolutely disgusting example, red in tooth and claw, of the corruption that was wormholed our acquisition system.
Mar 18, 2023·edited Mar 18, 2023Liked by CDR Salamander
This Marine wholeheartedly agrees. The abandonment of modern ballistic efficiency and modern propellants in pursuit of a very long range naval gun was to sentence every engagement outside of CIWS range to require expenditure of very limited and very expensive missiles.
VT goes off when it wants to, MT goes off exactly where you want it to. I had a Marine spotter in a helo whose comment after the first round detonated directly over the offending gun mount was “target on fire and burning, film at 11” . VT frag against an air target is good, VT against a surface target lacks precision accuracy.
A 5" naval gun is about the perfect all-around weapon for the Navy. The round can be easily moved by sailor muscles, the semi-fixed case works for handling, and the mounts are already dual purpose. Against small flying things, a cloud of flack should help. It's a reliable utility weapon.
Yes, to having mounts 51 and 52 at a minimum for a CG-74 design. We used to have ships with multiple single mounts.
With respect to gun size, I'd love to see a larger caliber, but can there be enough built to make sense to Congress, be useful in all combat situations, and be mounted in quantity? Remember, USS Long Beach (CGN-9) mounted a pair of 5"/38 mounts amidships because missiles were unreliable. I'm not saying that modern weapons systems are those of the 1960's, but the reliability should not be forgotten.
As for the maintenance, there's currently 657 GM sailors in the Navy Reserve E6 and below. Send some to school to be 5" techs, and send them down to the fleet once a quarter, and two weeks a year. It would help with the gundecking for the in port maintenance.
Minor semantic point; it's not "two gun batteries" so much as a "two-gun battery" (or a "three-gun battery"). Your battery is all of your weapons of a certain type.
As an old Gun Boss, I gotta say we've lost considerable capability gunnery-wise since the Mk 42's went out. The Mk 42 had redundant systems, the Mk 45 is a one-trick pony. Any single component of the Mk 45 goes down and the gun's down. With the Mk 42 you have two of nearly everything; e.g. one hoist goes down, you have another. Of course that's why the Mk 45 weighs about half of the Mk 42. Mk 45's barrel is much thinner too; you're pretty much in "hot gun" territory as soon's you've let your first round go.
Couple of things: in 1974 I was attending Jarhead Amphibious Warfare School as a senior Captain, up for Major, and the heartburn of the day was lack of Naval guns for our support. I recall at the time we were told the only guns left in the Navy were the 5 inchers on the DDs.
Other thing is that I grew up literally across the road from Adm. Wayne Meyer's parents, and his elementary school teacher was my Aunt Helen Duncan. Years later she was MY teacher but that's another story.
Wayne taught me fly fishing on his dad's farm pond. We caught largemouth bass.
As Sal points out, two becomes one, and one becomes none. On another topic, the profile view of the lightweight 8” mount on the foredeck of USS Hull (DD 945) was very impressive.
I feel an obligation to note that the lightweight 8 program was cancelled because it was determined that it would have been no more effective in combat than the up-and-coming 5” rocket assisted projectiles - a program which never actually happened either. And ALL of this was a prequel to the anti-surface warfare ship known as DDG 1000. Not only did the Navy install a 155mm gun on that ship for which it could NEVER afford the ammunition, the contract for the ship’s fire control software failed to include any capability for the ship to engage a surface target with its main/only gun battery. I brought that grevious omission up in more than one conversation during the ship’s early design phase, and was told quietly and politely to sit down and shut up. <sigh>. Of course we would always like to engage our targets at missile ranges, but the enemy also gets a vote.
And, the above discussion totally ignores the fact that our two most likely adversaries have weapons that out-range us by more than a few country miles. <double sigh>. Air power will not always be available. Deal with it.
Down at the deck plate level we were all mooning over the proposed 8" and some of its magic munitions. I heard that the cost of the ammo helped kill it and that also there were some who said the proposed loadout of ammo was too small compared to 5". (.45 ACP v. 9mm or 7.62mm v. 5.56mm ?) I recall that we used 5" RAP rounds in Vietnam. They had reach, but less accuracy. We used them for H&I and area fire. Given what I saw 33 years ago on an Aegis CG which could accurately place rounds on air, ASCM, surface and land targets I have to believe that now in 2023 that a modern 8" could give more bang for the buck. But the Ukraine bailout. <triple sigh>
Didn't start out as a "gun guy" as a Radarman. First ship had 3"/50's. Second had 5"/54's. I saw the GLO, the Weps LT, in agony at Bloodsworth Island and Culebra working his voodoo while getting beaten up by the Captain and wanted no part of it. Third ship had 5"/38's, a 6"/47 mount and that wonderful 1-Able analog computer to make NFGS easy. They handed me a Comanche Board and told me I was the NGFS supervisor. My good fortune was that the team was experienced. I was 22. We were forward deployed, so we did NGFS off I Corps every month that I was aboard (20 months). What fun we had. There was a long hiatus (1971 to 1990) until my next time with the guns. I was on leave enroute to a CG having just finished 5 months of Aegis and other training. Got a phone call on day 2 of my leave, a Saturday, telling me I had to be on the ship on Monday to certify with the NGFS team. I drove the 400 miles on Sunday, arriving about sunset. The CDO handed me "GUN-13" and told me to refresh myself on NGFS. Monday morning my new boss, the Ops Officer, asked me my experience with NGFS. I told him I had read most of "GUN-13" the night before and had dabbled a little about 20 years before. He said, "NGFS isn't any more difficult than giving birth to a cow. I'll be standing near and if I think you need it I'll unscrew the top of your head, reach in and grab your brain, put it on the DRT table, scramble it with an egg whisk and then pour it back in your head." What could I say except, "Yes Sir, thank you"? It was agony. In the end I really liked and appreciated the guns. Except for driving a ship, guns are the most fun you can have on a ship. Being mess caterer in a Chief's Mess or Wardroom is the least.
IF being a SWO was about driving ships and shooting guns; I'd NEVER have left. Decision point for me was when I went to Weps about a gun casualty and all he wanted to talk about was my DivO notebook
If being a SWO required being an 1110 junior officer, I doubt it would have ever been in the stars for me. Tried 3 times. Applied for NESEP twice as an RD2 and finally got told that my 20/400 vision meant I could never be a Naval Officer and drive ships. Went to OCS in 1981. Long story, short stay. Going to boot camp a second time as an EWCS(SW) just wasn't my cup of tea. Two and half years later I got my SWO pin and had my dream job of driving an FFG as a CWO2. Hat's off to all of you 1110's and junior officers who did it the hard way. Being a 7121 and 6120 was so less painful. Even so, being a 30 year man from day 1, I retired at 26, burnt out. That FFG is still in service in the Polish Navy. I'd go tomorrow if they called me. Might need a %BF waiver.
Well we started out being 1160/1165, designator changed once your got your letter/pin. OCS was a PITA, don't blame you for not subjecting yourself to it, a real test of patience for "priors" (My roomie was an EMC)
The Perry FFG's were a great ship; what the LCS never could be despite all of the money thrown at it. We could do (and have, obviously) far worse than to update the Perry's and buy as many as we can.
I know I’ve railed with about this before and that won’t stop me this time; the new FFG we are building is based on the FREMM class. Both versions carry at a minimum a 120 round per minute 17 mile range or a 5 inch 64, 34 rounds per minute 56 mile range guns. So, what do we pick for our version? A 5 mile range 57mm gun.
Never got to shoot a missile at a enemy target, but did enage with 5 inch during Praying Mantis from a Spruance, (USS Merrill) higher command could not decide if they wanted air burst or surface burst, so Mt 51 and Mt 52 had different loadout in the drums. They finally decided on air burst. I told the captain we could download the point det by hand and it would take 10-15 minutes, or through the barrel and it would take less than 2 minutes. We elected to go through the barrel. By that time the Iranians had evacuated after the first couple gunners who opened up on us only had 38 seconds before they got a 50 foot airburst directly over their mount. Love that HE/MT/PD. But, the point is that assuming you don't need to be capable of surface action with a gun is short sighted. You need the flexibility since you don't know the circumstances you will be faced with, but we do know that total war is unlikely. Later in my career faced off with an Iranian patrol boat. He pointed his guns and when I pointed the 5 inch back at him, he backed down. The 5 inch is the swiss army knife of weapon systems, it does everything but only if you have the foresight to give it full capability.
MT/PD is nice, but VT gives you your airburst without requiring fuze-setting. Lazy man's solution.
VT lacks precision against a surface target. I had a Marine spotter in a helo whose comment after the first round detonated at 50 feet directly over the offending gun mount was “ target on fire and burning, film at 11” . VT goes off where it wants to, MT goes off where you want it to.
MT goes off where the fuze-setter and Fire Control computer tell it to do so. Whether that's "where you want it" or not depends on your FO, your solution, et al.
VT detonates at distance to the "return" echo.
Precision is nice, but a bullet "close enough" is really what the customer wants
Would someone please explain the rationale behind that ridiculous 57mm gun on the new frigate? Surely anyone who thought about it from a warfighter's perspective would conclude that gun has to be a 5".
Follow the money. It was there simply to let the people who built the LCS compete for the program. Absolutely disgusting example, red in tooth and claw, of the corruption that was wormholed our acquisition system.
This Marine wholeheartedly agrees. The abandonment of modern ballistic efficiency and modern propellants in pursuit of a very long range naval gun was to sentence every engagement outside of CIWS range to require expenditure of very limited and very expensive missiles.
URR!!! Love you man! Miss you in comments. Please visit often ... and I hope time finds you well.
Well...Artillery IS the "Ultimate Answer to Kings". It also lends dignity to what is otherwise a brawl.
Seems like the Navy has the same attitude about naval gunfire support that the Air Force has about CAS.
Not just NGFS, but gunnery in general.
VT goes off when it wants to, MT goes off exactly where you want it to. I had a Marine spotter in a helo whose comment after the first round detonated directly over the offending gun mount was “target on fire and burning, film at 11” . VT frag against an air target is good, VT against a surface target lacks precision accuracy.
VT against ground targets is startlingly effective.
A 5" naval gun is about the perfect all-around weapon for the Navy. The round can be easily moved by sailor muscles, the semi-fixed case works for handling, and the mounts are already dual purpose. Against small flying things, a cloud of flack should help. It's a reliable utility weapon.
Yes, to having mounts 51 and 52 at a minimum for a CG-74 design. We used to have ships with multiple single mounts.
With respect to gun size, I'd love to see a larger caliber, but can there be enough built to make sense to Congress, be useful in all combat situations, and be mounted in quantity? Remember, USS Long Beach (CGN-9) mounted a pair of 5"/38 mounts amidships because missiles were unreliable. I'm not saying that modern weapons systems are those of the 1960's, but the reliability should not be forgotten.
As for the maintenance, there's currently 657 GM sailors in the Navy Reserve E6 and below. Send some to school to be 5" techs, and send them down to the fleet once a quarter, and two weeks a year. It would help with the gundecking for the in port maintenance.
There are few battles lost by too many troops or demolitions that fail for having too much demo.