Simple - US military did not have much of mobile short-range air defense systems to begin with. The Army inventory is only about 144 Stryker-SHORAD systems, and they would be VERY reluctant to give away any of them (because Army needs the Stryker-SHORAD to protect the troops).
Now, if you were friends with nations that store a lot of old munition - say, Russia, or North Korea, or Vietnam - they would gladly sell you literally thousands of Cold War era Shilka SPAAG and/or 23-mm dual guns. And the problem would be solved. But amongst US friends, currently there aren't many who still got a large number of old air defense guns stored around. Maybe South Korea got something.
Erm... the average tanker can't move faster than 15-17 knots. And in Hormuz they would move even slower, because of the narrow passage and other risks. So even old Shilka, bolted to deck, would be perfectly able to swat out dozens of attacking drones. All you need is to install modern sensor package to old Soviet turret, so it would be able to detect & track small drones.
Your allies didn't have much in terms of SHORAD also. IRRC, German Army have only about 20 Skyranger air defense systems on Boxer chassis.
Y'all just said tankers. Seattle was a tanker. Differentiate between a Navy tanker a and civilian tanker, adn I have no trouble with your statement if you are addressing civvie tankers.
Reflective coating is generally a bad idea against high-powered lasers. True, they increase dwell time... for a second. Then the reflective coating heats up (mirrors are rather bad in emitting heat), deforms, lose its reflectivity, and turns into just plain non-reflective coating, which would be ideal target for laser.
How many of our existing warships, let alone civilian vessels, have the power that lasers require? Lasers on warships require significant "special" power—typically in the form of high-capacity, dedicated electrical power generation systems to support, often in the 60-kilowatt (kW) to 1-megawatt (MW) range.
A, possibly apocryphal, story from the early days of the Perry frigates:
As all likely know, the 76mm gun is midships on the 02. 3 or 4 frames forward of that on the 01 is the XO's cabin (port side, IIRC, though not really germane). So they go to test fire the gun and the recoil is enough that it shatters the XO's ceramic commode. Not doubt that caused a minor kerfuffle.
We shot just about everytime we were underway in local ops. Never any restrictions.*
There were issues with the interface between the aluminum superstructure and the steel main deck. I think a lot of the FFGs developed cracks there.
*My problem was a quirky sensor, technically the loading tray up and empty sensor, giving a false positive (i.e. NOT empty). That shut down the gun as it thought you had a round in the tray when the next step should be to drop a round into it to start the firing cycle.
Not sure how that was eventually resolved. It always seemed to be a prox sensor issue, but I didn't hear of anyone else having the problem.
Did you see the diagram of the laser installation on the LPD? It took the entire space reservation for the 16 cell mk 41 and then some. Obviously the ODIN and Helios on DDG must not have had that problem, but they weren't as strong.
Project Pele is intended to build a reactor that fits in 4 20' shipping containers. That gets you the shielding, the reactor, heat exchange, power conversion, the whole thing. At least in the 1.5 MW range... that would run some serious equipment...
Admittedly not as small as Doc Brown's Mr. Fusion, but still, It's pretty compact.
I doubt the Chinese are immune from complacency. I wonder if the best thing that could happen to the USN would be to lose a Burke to a swarm attack (with no casualties, of course)! That may be what it takes to wake the admirals up.
Why can't we just snag a couple/few of those genius Chinese military planners, give them the cushiest digs and bennies that the USA has to offer, and put them to work training up new American planner recruits?
Because if history has taught us anything, its that anyone can be killed. I doubt the Chinese would spare expense on hunting down such an individual. But I would still say, let's try.
Because they are as patriotic as Americans, and because China already gave them gigs and benefits at home, so why should they be bothered? Just accept it; its not XX century anymore. USA is not automatically viewed as dreamland by other peoples. China is rich and powerful enough for the majority of educated, ambitious Chinese to view staing home as better opportunity than defecting to USA.
Even with the up-arming, we had a tough time with the kamikazes which were essentially drones with a man on board instead of back at a console. So in addition to the guns and missiles we probably need something like lasers or jammers.
Actually 5-inch DP guns weren't considered efficient against kamikaze. They were too slow-firing and slow-tracking to reliably destroy kamikaze; merely damaging it with close bursts (like against usual bombers) weren't enough. USN initiated crash program of 3-inch automatic guns exactly because experience demonstrated, that they needed weapon with both heavy shell and quick-firing enough against kamikaze.
Personally hate to use Wikipedia, but there's this, FWIW:
Deployment
Vannevar Bush, head of the U.S. Office of Scientific Research and Development (OSRD) during the war, credited the proximity fuze with three significant effects.[56]
It was important in defense from Japanese kamikaze attacks in the Pacific. Bush estimated a sevenfold increase in the effectiveness of 5-inch anti-aircraft artillery with this innovation.[57]
It was an important part of the radar-controlled anti-aircraft batteries that finally neutralized the German V-1 attacks on England.[57]
It was used in Europe starting in the Battle of the Bulge where it was very effective in artillery shells fired against German infantry formations, and changed the tactics of land warfare.
I don't know this for a fact, but I suspect that the tactic was much like that used by bomber machine gunners: You develop a track, you know where the plane has to go and when it will get there so you throw everything you have into its path. The VT helps take some of the slop out by detonating at an optimum point.
Never said they weren't important; just not veruy efficient. You see, the general function of DP guns in WW2 era was to discourage enemy from attacking by causing damage - so the enemy plane would abort the attack run and retreat. A mission-kill, basically. Against kamikaze it didn't work; even critically damaged, they would still aim for the target. To mission-kill the kamikaze, you need to destroy it. And in that matter the existing USN defenses weren't optimal. 5-inch DP guns were too slow-firing and slow to train. 40-mm autocannons fired too light shells. That's why USN started a crash program of 3-inch autocannon (smallest shell that could be equipped witn VT fuze of this time) and surface-to-air missiles.
To be clear, I agree that we need more, and cheaper, weapons systems on our ships, whether guns or lasers or missiles or what have you, aesthetics be hanged, but two problems jump out at me immediately, both related to manpower.
1. Berthing. Where are you going to put all of the additional sailors that these systems will require? QoL is already a significant factor in the Navy's retention issues, and this will exacerbate the problem.
2. Related to that, where are you going to find the sailors to man the new systems? Correct me if I'm wrong, but IIRC the Navy is already having problems maintaining its current billets. Maybe the recruiting numbers have picked back up?
Just make those systems automated and self-contained as much as possible. Best option - containerized and remotely-controlled (through Starlink terminal by operator sitting in his home in USA).
Yeah, we don't seem to plan for that enough. 400 rounds loaded in the Mk 46 30mm but the LCS mission module only includes another 240 rounds per mount after that or some weird, low number.
PACO: People Always Cheapen Out. It's cheaper to mount a couple additional defensive guns than lose a ship; but NAVAIR or Land Attack will prevent us from being attacked; so let's save the money.
I don’t understand the technical challenges of laser or other high energy weapons but it seems we’re pathetically behind considering the the technological breakthroughs the USA has had since the 50s! Do no longer possess the engineering skill? Whatever the reason, we should much further ahead than we are.
I keep hoping we are and just aren’t revealing this yet as you definitely don’t want to show your hand in the face of an enemy like the CCP.
Bottom line, I concur more weapons are needed and definitely a much more sophisticated, integrated, low cost per “round” defensive capability.
We could probably use some better offensive capability that can defeat any known defense that our adversaries have.
Tall orders but this administration is at least putting money into our military capabilities. We lost 4 years under Biden and we’ve incrementally lost military advances since Reagan because too many in Congress and in America don’t realize the threat we face. It ain’t Iran!
It's more like poorly specified requirements (due to officers in charge not understanding lasers well enough) and overcaution in deployment, reluctance to field units with untested systems.
Not just berthing but CHT, frozen/chill storage for food, fresh water generation capacity, and so on. There isn't a lot of slack in any of those habitiability factors for a huge increase in crew on a DDG based on what I know.
Unclear if it is recirculating or salt water like the Mk75.
The Mk75 cooling system was pretty simple. Pulled salt water through the barrel jacket to about the middle of the barrel and then just dumped it on deck. I'd be surprised if you could do that with the AGS, so likely it either had a separate overboard discharge or recirculated.
RCS is too valuable. Reduced RCS means that ship is easier to hide amongst decoys - which is quite important against missile attacks. Much simpler to hide something with small and nonspecific radar signature than something that could be easily identified.
Golly Dilandu, that is so 1990's. When the sun comes up in the morning, modern AI-driven sensors, including visual recognition systems, will easily locate a warship regardless of its RCS reduction features. Only a layered defense of integrated defensive sensors and active defensive systems can save a warship from being either mission killed or sunk outright. (At least for awhile, anyway.)
The Strait must be saturated with Iranian weapons systems. Why haven’t they attrited them more? No military problem is intractable if enough firepower is applied.
Because Iranian put a lot of efforts into hardening & dispercing their storage facilities. They do not put all their eggs into one backet, and they hide and harden the multiple backets they have.
At least with those 10' containers, they can be stacked and tossed overboard when expended, making room for the next one - and sling them cross deck to resupply.
Though getting them from the drop point to the launch/tie down point could be an issue. Doubt a pallet jack will suffice to move them. Even if it could, you likely couldn't get them to where you wanted to to lack of wide enough passageway. The Perry's thought of that and had a large transverse/fore-aft passageway to facilitate moving palletized items. SFAIK, nobody else before or since has had that.
The 10 foot container has a M299 launcher so is probably limited to four rounds ready to fire. Reloading is just like reloading the M299 launchers on a helicopter.
This makes me recall the efforts of the destroyers and escort destroyers of Taffy 3 in the battle of Leyte Gulf. There was a similar evolution of those tincan if you were to compare the armament in place in 1942 and 1944. Namely every nook and cranny crammed with 50 cal machine guns, Oerlikons and Bofors. And, I'll be some of that obtained and installed through back channel requisitions. And, as suicidal as the fight put up by Taffy 3's escorts, they did and had the means to do a lot of damage on the IJN cruisers and battleships. One actually manage to get under the depression of the main battery hammer that ship with everything it had.
All a skipper needs to do let his is a chiefs, gangs of sailors and a welding guns go to town.
"In a first for naval warfare, the USS Preble, an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer, used the HELIOS (High Energy Laser with Integrated Optical-dazzler and Surveillance) system to shoot down multiple Iranian drones. "
Erm. The article is mistaken. USS Preble is not deployed anywhere near Iran. It stays in Yokosuka, as far as I know. It shoot several drones with HELIOS during exercise, and those drones were claimed to be of roughly the same type as Iranian Shahed-series drones.
The best system that could be quickly bolted on seems to be Italian OTO Melara 76-mm gun in Sovraponte mount. This mount is non-penetrating; i.e. it lacks under-deck magazine, and all ready-to-use ammo (76 shells) is stored inside. The advantage is, that this mount weighted only about 4.5 tons, and could be bolted basically everywhere - on top of helicopter hangar, on superstructure, on ship's bow, ect. And since this mount support DART and VOLCANO guided round, it's extremely deadly to any drones.
Any Arleigh Burke-class could probably be upgunned with 2-3 Sovraponte guns without much troubles - at least for operating near Gulf. The general problem is, that USN seems to be reluctant to return to 76-mm guns, after fighting so hard to remove them all.
Probably more like a case of not invented here. It was really difficult to get the 76mm gun for the Perrys.
The only issue with the 76mm bolt on mount is ammo supply. Those guns can burn through it fast. Though with high end ammo the demand is lessened. But again, not invented here is an issue.
I'd consider a bolt on 57mm as well. Or both. Or 30mm, 57mm, AND 76mm...
To be fair, I don't imagine any of the bolt on mounts under discussion are particularly easy to reload once ready rounds are exhausted. If you're lucky they will just be a PITA.
And of course, doing it under pressure of an incoming raid won't make it any easier.
Mk 110 isn't from here either. I would love a general recompete, especially with the Sovraponte as we might actually be able to swap out mounts without as much yard time. Maybe.
Mk 110 is a nancyboy pop gun. The cutter I was on did an NGFS exercise with its Mk 75 and the FTs did a great job inputting spotting corrections and getting rounds on target.
aaaaaand... whenever we get around to actually designing and building new ships at a faster rate, leave room on them for containers, containers and containers. Sting/Wild hornet packed ones for CIWS like coverage for drones. Hellfire equivalent for others. And whatever new pops up that is not >250k a shot. AI will inevitable have some role in replacing humans in the loop, but finding people to reload these things, and finding a way to get more ammo quicky and effectively to them is a huge challenge in itself.
Well said as usual from the Cdr. That being the case the Navy will most likely need to do yet another fleet study to decide what actions they're not going to take. Again ad nauseum. Until accountability is introduced to the DOD nothing will change. When the Chicoms finally do decide to move on Taiwan our Navy will have a very rough time. If we're scared to sail our supposedly robust Aegis warships into the Persian Gulf, the South China Sea is going to be a chainsaw. Then the handwringing will commence as to who is responsible for the losses and lack of options. I for one am over it. Incompetence and self enrichment rule in the federal govt and will continue until it no longer can.
Sal...the lack of self defense for the USNS isn't quite as bad as you suggest. After all, every USNS ship can counter the torpedoe threat. You see, each USNS is equipped with (wait for it...wait...wait...)...NIXIE! The same NIXIE that I sailed with some 50 years ago!
My opinion is, that if yoy really worried about torpedoes, you should have RBU-12000 on your ship tail. Autoloading multiple-tube launcher with underdeck magazine, narrow-beam sonar for torpedo tracking, three types of munitions (floating decoys, floating mines with proximity fuzes, and old-fashioned deprh charges in case first two defense layers would fail to stop the torpedo).
Simple - US military did not have much of mobile short-range air defense systems to begin with. The Army inventory is only about 144 Stryker-SHORAD systems, and they would be VERY reluctant to give away any of them (because Army needs the Stryker-SHORAD to protect the troops).
Now, if you were friends with nations that store a lot of old munition - say, Russia, or North Korea, or Vietnam - they would gladly sell you literally thousands of Cold War era Shilka SPAAG and/or 23-mm dual guns. And the problem would be solved. But amongst US friends, currently there aren't many who still got a large number of old air defense guns stored around. Maybe South Korea got something.
Erm... the average tanker can't move faster than 15-17 knots. And in Hormuz they would move even slower, because of the narrow passage and other risks. So even old Shilka, bolted to deck, would be perfectly able to swat out dozens of attacking drones. All you need is to install modern sensor package to old Soviet turret, so it would be able to detect & track small drones.
Your allies didn't have much in terms of SHORAD also. IRRC, German Army have only about 20 Skyranger air defense systems on Boxer chassis.
Courtney had to rendezvous with Seattle to take on fuel in 1972. We tracked her at 30 knots.
USS Seattle is not a civilian tanker, it's a fast combat support ship.
Y'all just said tankers. Seattle was a tanker. Differentiate between a Navy tanker a and civilian tanker, adn I have no trouble with your statement if you are addressing civvie tankers.
No such thing as a 30 knot tanker
Not now.
Not ever, if we are talking about civilian oil hauler, not the combat support tanker.
Civilian tankers, yes. They do well at 12-15 knots.
Because they need it for the length of both the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman.
It's only a matter of time until we sail to our own Tsushima.
The Battle of Tsushima where Japan beat the Russian Navy?
Yes.
Lasers and guns. even the Hellfire is more expensive than many drones which it will target. And the ammo locker doesn't have an infinite number.
Reflective coating is generally a bad idea against high-powered lasers. True, they increase dwell time... for a second. Then the reflective coating heats up (mirrors are rather bad in emitting heat), deforms, lose its reflectivity, and turns into just plain non-reflective coating, which would be ideal target for laser.
How many of our existing warships, let alone civilian vessels, have the power that lasers require? Lasers on warships require significant "special" power—typically in the form of high-capacity, dedicated electrical power generation systems to support, often in the 60-kilowatt (kW) to 1-megawatt (MW) range.
Few, and that's why all future USN designs should have integrated electrical propulsion.
The immediate concern is that we cannot just slap a laser on our existing warships.
Yup, like Sal says:
"I want more weapons topside, NOW." (emphasis added)
Aside from Zumwalts and Ford.
And it needs to be sized for multiples (3x, 4x) of the estimated load at launch....because demand always grows.
in any scenario, a mix of weapons is good. and I bet lasers can be mounted in more places than guns, given the lack of an ammo mag below.
don't put all your money on a single system.
Yeah, gun recoil is not to be minimized.
A, possibly apocryphal, story from the early days of the Perry frigates:
As all likely know, the 76mm gun is midships on the 02. 3 or 4 frames forward of that on the 01 is the XO's cabin (port side, IIRC, though not really germane). So they go to test fire the gun and the recoil is enough that it shatters the XO's ceramic commode. Not doubt that caused a minor kerfuffle.
Less funny, I read practice was limited less the superstructure would start cracking.
We shot just about everytime we were underway in local ops. Never any restrictions.*
There were issues with the interface between the aluminum superstructure and the steel main deck. I think a lot of the FFGs developed cracks there.
*My problem was a quirky sensor, technically the loading tray up and empty sensor, giving a false positive (i.e. NOT empty). That shut down the gun as it thought you had a round in the tray when the next step should be to drop a round into it to start the firing cycle.
Not sure how that was eventually resolved. It always seemed to be a prox sensor issue, but I didn't hear of anyone else having the problem.
Did you see the diagram of the laser installation on the LPD? It took the entire space reservation for the 16 cell mk 41 and then some. Obviously the ODIN and Helios on DDG must not have had that problem, but they weren't as strong.
Sounds like an argument for microwaves.
Still needs power.
Maybe bolt on one of those mini nuke reactors we keep hearing about.
I hear the new fusion ones, like in Doc Brown's DeLorean, are plenty small and fuel efficient...
Project Pele is intended to build a reactor that fits in 4 20' shipping containers. That gets you the shielding, the reactor, heat exchange, power conversion, the whole thing. At least in the 1.5 MW range... that would run some serious equipment...
Admittedly not as small as Doc Brown's Mr. Fusion, but still, It's pretty compact.
I think that Leonidas system has promised. Being able to kill things in a box, without having to aim precisely, like lasers do, is a huge plus.
I doubt the Chinese are immune from complacency. I wonder if the best thing that could happen to the USN would be to lose a Burke to a swarm attack (with no casualties, of course)! That may be what it takes to wake the admirals up.
Why can't we just snag a couple/few of those genius Chinese military planners, give them the cushiest digs and bennies that the USA has to offer, and put them to work training up new American planner recruits?
Because if history has taught us anything, its that anyone can be killed. I doubt the Chinese would spare expense on hunting down such an individual. But I would still say, let's try.
That Hyman Roth knew a thing or two...
Because they are as patriotic as Americans, and because China already gave them gigs and benefits at home, so why should they be bothered? Just accept it; its not XX century anymore. USA is not automatically viewed as dreamland by other peoples. China is rich and powerful enough for the majority of educated, ambitious Chinese to view staing home as better opportunity than defecting to USA.
Your tongue-in-cheek detector needs tuning...
Even with the up-arming, we had a tough time with the kamikazes which were essentially drones with a man on board instead of back at a console. So in addition to the guns and missiles we probably need something like lasers or jammers.
Think of where we would have been if the proximity fuse had not been fielded on our AAA.
Actually 5-inch DP guns weren't considered efficient against kamikaze. They were too slow-firing and slow-tracking to reliably destroy kamikaze; merely damaging it with close bursts (like against usual bombers) weren't enough. USN initiated crash program of 3-inch automatic guns exactly because experience demonstrated, that they needed weapon with both heavy shell and quick-firing enough against kamikaze.
Personally hate to use Wikipedia, but there's this, FWIW:
Deployment
Vannevar Bush, head of the U.S. Office of Scientific Research and Development (OSRD) during the war, credited the proximity fuze with three significant effects.[56]
It was important in defense from Japanese kamikaze attacks in the Pacific. Bush estimated a sevenfold increase in the effectiveness of 5-inch anti-aircraft artillery with this innovation.[57]
It was an important part of the radar-controlled anti-aircraft batteries that finally neutralized the German V-1 attacks on England.[57]
It was used in Europe starting in the Battle of the Bulge where it was very effective in artillery shells fired against German infantry formations, and changed the tactics of land warfare.
I don't know this for a fact, but I suspect that the tactic was much like that used by bomber machine gunners: You develop a track, you know where the plane has to go and when it will get there so you throw everything you have into its path. The VT helps take some of the slop out by detonating at an optimum point.
Never said they weren't important; just not veruy efficient. You see, the general function of DP guns in WW2 era was to discourage enemy from attacking by causing damage - so the enemy plane would abort the attack run and retreat. A mission-kill, basically. Against kamikaze it didn't work; even critically damaged, they would still aim for the target. To mission-kill the kamikaze, you need to destroy it. And in that matter the existing USN defenses weren't optimal. 5-inch DP guns were too slow-firing and slow to train. 40-mm autocannons fired too light shells. That's why USN started a crash program of 3-inch autocannon (smallest shell that could be equipped witn VT fuze of this time) and surface-to-air missiles.
To be clear, I agree that we need more, and cheaper, weapons systems on our ships, whether guns or lasers or missiles or what have you, aesthetics be hanged, but two problems jump out at me immediately, both related to manpower.
1. Berthing. Where are you going to put all of the additional sailors that these systems will require? QoL is already a significant factor in the Navy's retention issues, and this will exacerbate the problem.
2. Related to that, where are you going to find the sailors to man the new systems? Correct me if I'm wrong, but IIRC the Navy is already having problems maintaining its current billets. Maybe the recruiting numbers have picked back up?
Just make those systems automated and self-contained as much as possible. Best option - containerized and remotely-controlled (through Starlink terminal by operator sitting in his home in USA).
Still need to reload. And if its a particularly bad day, likely reload in the middle of engagements.
Yeah, we don't seem to plan for that enough. 400 rounds loaded in the Mk 46 30mm but the LCS mission module only includes another 240 rounds per mount after that or some weird, low number.
PACO: People Always Cheapen Out. It's cheaper to mount a couple additional defensive guns than lose a ship; but NAVAIR or Land Attack will prevent us from being attacked; so let's save the money.
As Brett said, PACO, or it's a tacit admission you're not likely to survive the encounter.
Gun ammo, even most of the high tech stuff, is pretty cheap. And it can't take much of a magazine to store several thousand rounds of 30mm.
640 rounds? Heck, the front porch has more than that (admittedly not 30mm; prohibitively expensive for the suburbs)
I don’t understand the technical challenges of laser or other high energy weapons but it seems we’re pathetically behind considering the the technological breakthroughs the USA has had since the 50s! Do no longer possess the engineering skill? Whatever the reason, we should much further ahead than we are.
I keep hoping we are and just aren’t revealing this yet as you definitely don’t want to show your hand in the face of an enemy like the CCP.
Bottom line, I concur more weapons are needed and definitely a much more sophisticated, integrated, low cost per “round” defensive capability.
We could probably use some better offensive capability that can defeat any known defense that our adversaries have.
Tall orders but this administration is at least putting money into our military capabilities. We lost 4 years under Biden and we’ve incrementally lost military advances since Reagan because too many in Congress and in America don’t realize the threat we face. It ain’t Iran!
It's more like poorly specified requirements (due to officers in charge not understanding lasers well enough) and overcaution in deployment, reluctance to field units with untested systems.
Hot bunking, and packing only dungarees for the duration.
Not just berthing but CHT, frozen/chill storage for food, fresh water generation capacity, and so on. There isn't a lot of slack in any of those habitiability factors for a huge increase in crew on a DDG based on what I know.
Storage capacity issues, at least, you can mitigate via more frequent resupply.
Good catch on the water, I hadn't thought of that.
Plus the systems may need water too.
Electronics might require recirced chilled water. Gun cooling can probably be salt water as was used on Mk75 76mm.
Mk 110 is air cooled. ZUmwalt's would have been Glycol?
Seems to be water cooled: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Gun_System#Description
Unclear if it is recirculating or salt water like the Mk75.
The Mk75 cooling system was pretty simple. Pulled salt water through the barrel jacket to about the middle of the barrel and then just dumped it on deck. I'd be surprised if you could do that with the AGS, so likely it either had a separate overboard discharge or recirculated.
We’re not exactly flush with CLF ships unfortunately.
RCS is too valuable. Reduced RCS means that ship is easier to hide amongst decoys - which is quite important against missile attacks. Much simpler to hide something with small and nonspecific radar signature than something that could be easily identified.
Golly Dilandu, that is so 1990's. When the sun comes up in the morning, modern AI-driven sensors, including visual recognition systems, will easily locate a warship regardless of its RCS reduction features. Only a layered defense of integrated defensive sensors and active defensive systems can save a warship from being either mission killed or sunk outright. (At least for awhile, anyway.)
The Strait must be saturated with Iranian weapons systems. Why haven’t they attrited them more? No military problem is intractable if enough firepower is applied.
Kinda' depends on that whole priority thingy.
Because Iranian put a lot of efforts into hardening & dispercing their storage facilities. They do not put all their eggs into one backet, and they hide and harden the multiple backets they have.
Gotta remember this one...
They're working on it. But it doesn't take much to hide a truck-mounted system.
At least with those 10' containers, they can be stacked and tossed overboard when expended, making room for the next one - and sling them cross deck to resupply.
Now, put some SAMs in them too.
If your ship has a crane.
High line may work.
Though getting them from the drop point to the launch/tie down point could be an issue. Doubt a pallet jack will suffice to move them. Even if it could, you likely couldn't get them to where you wanted to to lack of wide enough passageway. The Perry's thought of that and had a large transverse/fore-aft passageway to facilitate moving palletized items. SFAIK, nobody else before or since has had that.
Zumwalt's have a Broadway on the main deck like BBs did. Or so I was told.
Or a helo
The 10 foot container has a M299 launcher so is probably limited to four rounds ready to fire. Reloading is just like reloading the M299 launchers on a helicopter.
This makes me recall the efforts of the destroyers and escort destroyers of Taffy 3 in the battle of Leyte Gulf. There was a similar evolution of those tincan if you were to compare the armament in place in 1942 and 1944. Namely every nook and cranny crammed with 50 cal machine guns, Oerlikons and Bofors. And, I'll be some of that obtained and installed through back channel requisitions. And, as suicidal as the fight put up by Taffy 3's escorts, they did and had the means to do a lot of damage on the IJN cruisers and battleships. One actually manage to get under the depression of the main battery hammer that ship with everything it had.
All a skipper needs to do let his is a chiefs, gangs of sailors and a welding guns go to town.
And a credit card
Psssh. A good cumshaw artist needs no credit card.
Credit card? HERESY!
The same thing with PT boats a couple of years earlier: The crews would add any gun that wasn't welded down and guarded.
I recall a brief scene on that issue in the movie 'PT109.'
"In a first for naval warfare, the USS Preble, an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer, used the HELIOS (High Energy Laser with Integrated Optical-dazzler and Surveillance) system to shoot down multiple Iranian drones. "
Erm. The article is mistaken. USS Preble is not deployed anywhere near Iran. It stays in Yokosuka, as far as I know. It shoot several drones with HELIOS during exercise, and those drones were claimed to be of roughly the same type as Iranian Shahed-series drones.
https://www.twz.com/sea/uss-preble-used-helios-laser-to-zap-four-drones-in-expanding-testing
The best system that could be quickly bolted on seems to be Italian OTO Melara 76-mm gun in Sovraponte mount. This mount is non-penetrating; i.e. it lacks under-deck magazine, and all ready-to-use ammo (76 shells) is stored inside. The advantage is, that this mount weighted only about 4.5 tons, and could be bolted basically everywhere - on top of helicopter hangar, on superstructure, on ship's bow, ect. And since this mount support DART and VOLCANO guided round, it's extremely deadly to any drones.
Any Arleigh Burke-class could probably be upgunned with 2-3 Sovraponte guns without much troubles - at least for operating near Gulf. The general problem is, that USN seems to be reluctant to return to 76-mm guns, after fighting so hard to remove them all.
Probably more like a case of not invented here. It was really difficult to get the 76mm gun for the Perrys.
The only issue with the 76mm bolt on mount is ammo supply. Those guns can burn through it fast. Though with high end ammo the demand is lessened. But again, not invented here is an issue.
I'd consider a bolt on 57mm as well. Or both. Or 30mm, 57mm, AND 76mm...
God, not the 57 mm. Once the on mount ready rounds are gone, it comes to vertical to reload.
I learned something new!
To be fair, I don't imagine any of the bolt on mounts under discussion are particularly easy to reload once ready rounds are exhausted. If you're lucky they will just be a PITA.
And of course, doing it under pressure of an incoming raid won't make it any easier.
30x173mm with dual feed has 400 ready rounds. 2 full minutes of fire. That's the most ready to go fire time of any mount I am aware.
2 full minutes is a lot of shooting.
76mm Mk75 has approximately a minute's worth in standard mount, though you could, theoretically, load on the fly.
It's a product of experience. Having worked on LCSRON-2 ships for several years with the weapons department, I saw it first hand.
Mk 110 isn't from here either. I would love a general recompete, especially with the Sovraponte as we might actually be able to swap out mounts without as much yard time. Maybe.
Swapping mounts is likely the easy part.
Firecontrol systems and additional ammo mag space could be an issue.
Mk 110 is a nancyboy pop gun. The cutter I was on did an NGFS exercise with its Mk 75 and the FTs did a great job inputting spotting corrections and getting rounds on target.
Wondering about stability with 4.5 tons how far aloft from kG.
Less weight than Phalanx, SEARAM, or even just RAM I think.
aaaaaand... whenever we get around to actually designing and building new ships at a faster rate, leave room on them for containers, containers and containers. Sting/Wild hornet packed ones for CIWS like coverage for drones. Hellfire equivalent for others. And whatever new pops up that is not >250k a shot. AI will inevitable have some role in replacing humans in the loop, but finding people to reload these things, and finding a way to get more ammo quicky and effectively to them is a huge challenge in itself.
30mm to 50mm CROW stations with an optical sensors for anti-air.
and anti-boat
Well said as usual from the Cdr. That being the case the Navy will most likely need to do yet another fleet study to decide what actions they're not going to take. Again ad nauseum. Until accountability is introduced to the DOD nothing will change. When the Chicoms finally do decide to move on Taiwan our Navy will have a very rough time. If we're scared to sail our supposedly robust Aegis warships into the Persian Gulf, the South China Sea is going to be a chainsaw. Then the handwringing will commence as to who is responsible for the losses and lack of options. I for one am over it. Incompetence and self enrichment rule in the federal govt and will continue until it no longer can.
Are the Taiwanese mass producing drones of all types? They ought to be.
Unknown on my part. I do agree though.
Sal...the lack of self defense for the USNS isn't quite as bad as you suggest. After all, every USNS ship can counter the torpedoe threat. You see, each USNS is equipped with (wait for it...wait...wait...)...NIXIE! The same NIXIE that I sailed with some 50 years ago!
So there!
Modern torpedoes would likely not be impressed. And wire-guided or wake-homing ones would not even notice Nixie.
Isn't Nixie simulating the wake?
My opinion is, that if yoy really worried about torpedoes, you should have RBU-12000 on your ship tail. Autoloading multiple-tube launcher with underdeck magazine, narrow-beam sonar for torpedo tracking, three types of munitions (floating decoys, floating mines with proximity fuzes, and old-fashioned deprh charges in case first two defense layers would fail to stop the torpedo).