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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
Seems like the Navy has the same attitude about naval gunfire support that the Air Force has about CAS.
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.
There are few battles lost by too many troops or demolitions that fail for having too much demo.