North Vietnam violated the 1973 Paris Peace Accords, and we failed to come to South Vietnam's aid when the North invaded in 1975. We betrayed them because we had war fatigue. We never did get that "peace with honor" that Nixon had touted in 1973. My Frigate was there for Operation Frequent Win. It was a sad affair.
With this one ship we see mobile forward deployed maintenance and repair capability/infrastructure that we casually threw in the scrap heap, NGFS capabilities to supply around 60 rounds of 5” per minute and resupply 7000 rounds of 5” at the front lines. This ship also had decent AAW capabilities. Why cant we do this now?
Why no ships of the size and NGFS capability of DDG-14? We traded the problems we had with steam power plants for the huge volume demands of gas turbine intakes and uptakes, side-stepping diesels. Also, the volume and weight associated with modern anti-air/missile systems (the updated threat) drove extensive gun systems off the ship. Personally, I would also add the volume and tonnage demanded by today's luxury accommodations (Arrrrgggg!) Every ton of capability added also ends up adding on the order of seven tons of "support" (personnel, HVAC, power, fuel, etc.). I don't remember the multiplier for volume.
Why no logistics capability to support ships near the front lines? Here is my thought sequence - Logistics ships have never been the quick path to promotion. (Remember the lament of Henry Fonda (Lt Roberts) "sailing from Tedium to Apathy and back again"?) Since Vietnam, the fleet has shrunk dramatically, and even now the surviving SWO caste thinks in terms of DDG/CG command. This was greatly emphasized by the transfer of so much of the logistics fleet to MSC control. Apparently no one in the Potomac Fleet needs logistics support and therefore does not think in those terms. Maybe we could cross-deck a good Quartermaster Corps General from the Army?
Imagine if you will the new FFG the USN is building with a modern 5” gun on it that fire 75 miles at a higher rate than the current USN MK 45 we use now. Wait, you don’t have to imagine it. It already exists. The FFG the USN is building is actually an Italian design. In the Italian Navy one of the two versions they make has this gun https://electronics.leonardo.com/documents/16277707/18299996/OTO+127-64+LW+%28MM08728%29_LQ.pdf?t=1643204551796
I respectfully bow to your superior knowledge, sir. My first guess is that the Vulcano-specific ammunition uses a separately loaded booster to achieve its 100km range. Is that correct? I sincerely hope that Leonardo is more successful at keeping ammo costs in line than was BAE. To state the obvious, the greater the range at which NGFS is possible, the harder it is to accomplish land-based counter-battery fire.
I’m pretty sure the various companies that have all failed at making extended range gun ammunition are using either relabeled Leonardo Vulcano rounds or licensed copies of Leonardo Vulcano.
Good choice for FBF for sure. Brings up a point: in theater tender support. How about a deep dive in all those capabilities we used to have, but have conveniently "forgotten"?
I just put this up on X: "During the Vietnam War, destroyer tender USS Piedmont (AD–17) was in Da Nang harbor. Of many things, when our ships "shot out" their guns, they just pulled in to Da Nang to have Piedmont re-gun them.
In the next Pacific War, where can surface ships get depot level work done?"
camel's nose in the tent........Kiribati (and other Pacific island nations) has been in discussions with Chinese to upgrade airfields and port facilities; but with caveat that Chinese "police" be on hand, first, to oversee such work.
This last week, Kiribati agreed to the police force.
Our good CDR Salamander has made past posts on these sorts of sneaky PLAN moves..
All attention has been given to battles ashore by Army and Marines with very little attention or reports of the large Naval Air/sea battles in the gulf of Tonkin Yacht club sailors and Marines.
Battles that went unsung and unnoticed.
Land battles would have been tough without the 7th Fleet.
Regarding regunnig. Anyone know how long it takes to change a liner on a 5” mount? Also, how many shells can be fired before the liner should be changed?
I took command of Buchanan not long after she returned from that deployment. There were many in the crew who were on board for the deployment you describe. They were very proud of their performance, but the ship paid a high price for focusing on combat: shipboard maintenance was ignored to a dangerous degree. After close to two years of hard work, with a crew determined to bring her back to real readiness, Buchanan was awarded the Arleigh Burke Fleet Trophy for the most improved combat unit in the Pacific.
When you have cut crew to a minimum and some of them are women, does that affect the crew's capability to perform damage control - eg, carry wounded out of danger, carry and use heavy hoses and extinguishers, remove debris, all while wearing heavy firefighting gear? No doubt the Navy has carefully investigated and found there is really no problem and everything is just fine.
In terms of weight and stability, the 57mm gun just BARELY squeaked aboard. If you remember, LCS-1 would not have passed muster regarding damage stability calcs if the usual standard had been applied. After much twisting of arms and heavy rolling of eyes within the technical side of NAVSEA, the stability standard for LCS was dropped to a dangerously low value. Just one more way that LCS was a badly balanced design.
I have wondered about that stability thing for a long time now. It seems to me that modern warships have most of their weapons, etc. at or near main deck level; guns, missiles, aircraft, anchors, etc. Then there is the increasing number of sensors & antennae even higher. That would seem to me to make the ship top-heavy. Then requiring, in the case of LCS, a shallow draft seems to be asking for trouble. Perhaps they are counting on the enemy putting holes below the waterline only, so the incoming seawater acts as ballast.
This is not a modern problem. Sailing warships always required ballast (commonly stones) and the cannon on their lower decks to counter-balance the force on their sails. I believe the oldest documented fubar of this type was the 1628 maiden voyage of the Royal Swedish Navy ship Vasa. With insufficient lower weight and a new design by a somewhat flukey builder, Vasa sank within 1,300m of the pier on her first (premature) sailing. There are lots of YouTube videos of similar error-prone launchings.
A shallow draft usually isn’t a problem, per se. Lateral stability is more greatly affected by a ship’s beam, which drives the moment of inertia of the ship’s waterplane. SWATH designs take advantage of this phenomenon by placing a pair of very slender struts along the ship’s port and starboard extremes. This solution simultaneously provides serious lateral stability and de-couples the ship from wave action. See T-AGOS 19 thru 25.
Figure the smallest mk 45 ships are Meko 200s from Turkey, Nareusan from Thailand or more recent, Incheon from Korea.3000-3250 tons. Smallest with a 127/64 are the Meko A200 at 3700 ton. The Incheon and A200 also carry 16 ASMs, helo, and ASW suite. Even keeping he gun and swapping ASMs for quad-packed GMLRS with the helo swapped for UAVs to do spotting and you still don't have much firepower per dollar for a small ship close to shore. Just keep shrinking the ship and adding more quad packed GMLRS. The gun isn't worth it purely from a NGFS perspective. Would I want the gun for a gray zone engagement gone hot with another ship, yes.
My father was an officer and plank owner on the Buchanan. She was a heck of a ship, with a strong crew led by an outstanding commander. Their performance in the South China Sea proved the ability of ship and crew.
I participated in RIMPAC 2000.
North Vietnam violated the 1973 Paris Peace Accords, and we failed to come to South Vietnam's aid when the North invaded in 1975. We betrayed them because we had war fatigue. We never did get that "peace with honor" that Nixon had touted in 1973. My Frigate was there for Operation Frequent Win. It was a sad affair.
Lest We Forget...
Joe Biden was a junior Senator at the time and voted to defund the South Vietnamese.
In 2021, I noted the election of a member of Watergate Congress had it’s consequences.
With this one ship we see mobile forward deployed maintenance and repair capability/infrastructure that we casually threw in the scrap heap, NGFS capabilities to supply around 60 rounds of 5” per minute and resupply 7000 rounds of 5” at the front lines. This ship also had decent AAW capabilities. Why cant we do this now?
Why no ships of the size and NGFS capability of DDG-14? We traded the problems we had with steam power plants for the huge volume demands of gas turbine intakes and uptakes, side-stepping diesels. Also, the volume and weight associated with modern anti-air/missile systems (the updated threat) drove extensive gun systems off the ship. Personally, I would also add the volume and tonnage demanded by today's luxury accommodations (Arrrrgggg!) Every ton of capability added also ends up adding on the order of seven tons of "support" (personnel, HVAC, power, fuel, etc.). I don't remember the multiplier for volume.
Why no logistics capability to support ships near the front lines? Here is my thought sequence - Logistics ships have never been the quick path to promotion. (Remember the lament of Henry Fonda (Lt Roberts) "sailing from Tedium to Apathy and back again"?) Since Vietnam, the fleet has shrunk dramatically, and even now the surviving SWO caste thinks in terms of DDG/CG command. This was greatly emphasized by the transfer of so much of the logistics fleet to MSC control. Apparently no one in the Potomac Fleet needs logistics support and therefore does not think in those terms. Maybe we could cross-deck a good Quartermaster Corps General from the Army?
Imagine if you will the new FFG the USN is building with a modern 5” gun on it that fire 75 miles at a higher rate than the current USN MK 45 we use now. Wait, you don’t have to imagine it. It already exists. The FFG the USN is building is actually an Italian design. In the Italian Navy one of the two versions they make has this gun https://electronics.leonardo.com/documents/16277707/18299996/OTO+127-64+LW+%28MM08728%29_LQ.pdf?t=1643204551796
I respectfully bow to your superior knowledge, sir. My first guess is that the Vulcano-specific ammunition uses a separately loaded booster to achieve its 100km range. Is that correct? I sincerely hope that Leonardo is more successful at keeping ammo costs in line than was BAE. To state the obvious, the greater the range at which NGFS is possible, the harder it is to accomplish land-based counter-battery fire.
I’m pretty sure the various companies that have all failed at making extended range gun ammunition are using either relabeled Leonardo Vulcano rounds or licensed copies of Leonardo Vulcano.
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNIT_5-64_LW.php
Thanks for the details.
Even the 5"/54 Mk 45 can't do it. The Mk 42's could.
This is why I won’t shut about this gun:
https://electronics.leonardo.com/documents/16277707/18299996/OTO+127-64+LW+%28MM08728%29_LQ.pdf?t=1643204551796
Good choice for FBF for sure. Brings up a point: in theater tender support. How about a deep dive in all those capabilities we used to have, but have conveniently "forgotten"?
I just put this up on X: "During the Vietnam War, destroyer tender USS Piedmont (AD–17) was in Da Nang harbor. Of many things, when our ships "shot out" their guns, they just pulled in to Da Nang to have Piedmont re-gun them.
In the next Pacific War, where can surface ships get depot level work done?"
uh...as of last week, probably not Kiribati
What happened last week?
camel's nose in the tent........Kiribati (and other Pacific island nations) has been in discussions with Chinese to upgrade airfields and port facilities; but with caveat that Chinese "police" be on hand, first, to oversee such work.
This last week, Kiribati agreed to the police force.
Our good CDR Salamander has made past posts on these sorts of sneaky PLAN moves..
They agreed to the police force? Ouch ouch. Thanks for the update, I missed that.
Kiribati just gave up their national sovereignty. Makes a person wonder how big the payoff was.
Great read!
They don’t make ‘em like they used to.
Sailors or ships
All attention has been given to battles ashore by Army and Marines with very little attention or reports of the large Naval Air/sea battles in the gulf of Tonkin Yacht club sailors and Marines.
Battles that went unsung and unnoticed.
Land battles would have been tough without the 7th Fleet.
"The next time they invaded in '75, the Democrat Congress took away all funding and support - and we know how that ended."
The surest proof that Putin is not a communist; if he were, the Democrats in Congress would be cheering him on.
Because Democrat Republican alignment hasn't changed a bit in the intervening 49 years.
Has, actually, insofar as Republicans have become more conservative, on average, and Democrats have moved even further hard left.
Regarding regunnig. Anyone know how long it takes to change a liner on a 5” mount? Also, how many shells can be fired before the liner should be changed?
I took command of Buchanan not long after she returned from that deployment. There were many in the crew who were on board for the deployment you describe. They were very proud of their performance, but the ship paid a high price for focusing on combat: shipboard maintenance was ignored to a dangerous degree. After close to two years of hard work, with a crew determined to bring her back to real readiness, Buchanan was awarded the Arleigh Burke Fleet Trophy for the most improved combat unit in the Pacific.
Best. Jim
A very tough climb. Congratulations, sir.
When you have cut crew to a minimum and some of them are women, does that affect the crew's capability to perform damage control - eg, carry wounded out of danger, carry and use heavy hoses and extinguishers, remove debris, all while wearing heavy firefighting gear? No doubt the Navy has carefully investigated and found there is really no problem and everything is just fine.
Monsieur Ming, il n'y a rien à voir, veuillez passer votre chemin.
Here I go, not familiar much with Naval things, but - the LCSs have a 57mm gun? 2.2 inches? Are they shooting peas, or what?
Here I was thinking 5in were introduced a century ago…
5"/38's came into the Fleet in the 1930's. IIRC there were 5" single-purpose guns on some of the heavier "Destroyer Leaders" about that time as well.
The Mk 42 was an improvement over the the 5"/38, more automated but still a robust and heavy (70 tons?) that could really shoot
Exactly. The 1930's. And the new LCSs have only 2.2in?!?!?! I don't get it.
Our very first destroyers used 6 pounders. Its a CIWS that looks like a gun. Think in those terms.
In terms of weight and stability, the 57mm gun just BARELY squeaked aboard. If you remember, LCS-1 would not have passed muster regarding damage stability calcs if the usual standard had been applied. After much twisting of arms and heavy rolling of eyes within the technical side of NAVSEA, the stability standard for LCS was dropped to a dangerously low value. Just one more way that LCS was a badly balanced design.
I have wondered about that stability thing for a long time now. It seems to me that modern warships have most of their weapons, etc. at or near main deck level; guns, missiles, aircraft, anchors, etc. Then there is the increasing number of sensors & antennae even higher. That would seem to me to make the ship top-heavy. Then requiring, in the case of LCS, a shallow draft seems to be asking for trouble. Perhaps they are counting on the enemy putting holes below the waterline only, so the incoming seawater acts as ballast.
This is not a modern problem. Sailing warships always required ballast (commonly stones) and the cannon on their lower decks to counter-balance the force on their sails. I believe the oldest documented fubar of this type was the 1628 maiden voyage of the Royal Swedish Navy ship Vasa. With insufficient lower weight and a new design by a somewhat flukey builder, Vasa sank within 1,300m of the pier on her first (premature) sailing. There are lots of YouTube videos of similar error-prone launchings.
A shallow draft usually isn’t a problem, per se. Lateral stability is more greatly affected by a ship’s beam, which drives the moment of inertia of the ship’s waterplane. SWATH designs take advantage of this phenomenon by placing a pair of very slender struts along the ship’s port and starboard extremes. This solution simultaneously provides serious lateral stability and de-couples the ship from wave action. See T-AGOS 19 thru 25.
Loved: …three hours later BUCHANAN was again striking enemy targets.
Figure the smallest mk 45 ships are Meko 200s from Turkey, Nareusan from Thailand or more recent, Incheon from Korea.3000-3250 tons. Smallest with a 127/64 are the Meko A200 at 3700 ton. The Incheon and A200 also carry 16 ASMs, helo, and ASW suite. Even keeping he gun and swapping ASMs for quad-packed GMLRS with the helo swapped for UAVs to do spotting and you still don't have much firepower per dollar for a small ship close to shore. Just keep shrinking the ship and adding more quad packed GMLRS. The gun isn't worth it purely from a NGFS perspective. Would I want the gun for a gray zone engagement gone hot with another ship, yes.
My father was an officer and plank owner on the Buchanan. She was a heck of a ship, with a strong crew led by an outstanding commander. Their performance in the South China Sea proved the ability of ship and crew.