You make a great point, but in peace time, the priority should be keeping hull counts up even if that means having under gunned or armed ships so long as they have capacity to add later. It is much easier and faster to up arm a ship that exists then to built them from scratch.
In the strictest sense you are correct. But if you don't have those guns sitting in a warehouse you have to procure them, which takes time that you won't really have.
If you are proactive and procure the guns ahead, why have them sitting in a warehouse?
For the cost of a single hull I would bet you could buy all the guns you could possibly want for everything that is afloat or soon to be afloat.
Yes it is a tradeoff, but we're at the point we have to make hard decisions. I think one less hull for the armament to potentially save dozens from the kamikaze is the way to go. Hulls on the bottom aren't helpful.
Agreed. And I don't understand the counter-argument: Why NOT put the guns on the ships now? It's not like they particularly wear out, or if they do those mx patterns need to be understood and programmed for.
Also, if there is excess power available for the guns and the guns are missing, the power will be used for something else...
If the ship is at sea, the gun is wearing out/rusting. Because oceans do that.
Yeah, there may be deterioration in a warehouse, but not nearly as much.
On the other hand, I wonder how often "fit for but not with" ends up being "oops we have to modify" once they actually try to fit what's supposed to be there. Putting them on in the first place would settle that sooner.
Especially this gun. Every time I see a picture of all that exposed hardware on top I wonder how many barrels of WD-40, or whatever they use these days (LPS?) they have to keep on board.
Midnight requisition... Will never forget my intero...interview with the Ft. Campbell chief of aviation mx regarding some USA H-60 parts that somehow migrated to a USAF H-60. Fortunately, we reached a mutually beneficial exchange of hardware. Ended up win-win. A near run thing, that.
Depends. If talking modular self contained weapons, like SeaRAM or the former versions of the MK38 then weapons can be placed only on the units headed to places where they matter when they matter, including your logistics ships. If the limited number that can be produced are on ships in places they aren't needed then they might as well not exist.
In the case of guns such as this version of the Mk38, which require integration with separate systems they need to be on the ship, because they are not really modular in a meaningful way.
My suggestion: do both -starting by putting the older guns these MK38mod4s are replacing going into warehouses, but they will probably be scrapped.
Have to disagree. We will go to war with the ships we have... and if they're underpinned, and not as capable as possible... they'll be sent anyway, because there won't be time for most ships to make a stop for a quick upgrade. Yes... hull count is important, but I'd prefer a lesser amount of fully capable ships than the alternative.
The Defense Mechanisms that capture, contain and destroy low flying Drones…
The security of our hull, our steering and propulsion mechanisms…
These and much more our Shipmates here can speak to! I gracefully defer!
To that single person, who so incorrectly commented on Russia’s Special Military Operation, calling same “Invasion”, I cordially ask that person to keep her opinions to herself…
CDR we have such an upheaval on International Law it will take years or perhaps never, to sort out.
About the threat on our East Asian Pacific waters, absolutely not enough guns on our Ships… boats, landing crafts and possibly our submarines to counter any incoming force … that “Surprise” hidden so well.
Have you read about the Artificial Intelligence infrastructure? That’s the focus of CHINA now! That’s where our great Naval minds must take a Deep and Long Deployment to understand because this “AI” crosses many industries and will affect many persons across those industries. POTUS has asked for a special group to monitor this growing “Threat/Opportunity”. It’s not Johnny Horton singing “Spin those guns around…”
It’s our United States Navy saying…put your Stanley Kubrick thinking cap on. It’s Space/Planet Earth Odyssey 2026. And we are so far behind! Time to catch up folks! Thank you! If you agree snd wish to send me a comment, please do! Stay strong! God Bless America… Nurse Jane
Your reference back to your "copybook headings" post reminds us that perhaps this Iran War will not be as short as we think it will be. It hasn't been so far. Not that I'm opposed to it at all.
Guns and drones. That is what we should be investing in. Guns provide the most cost effective answer to the low slow flyer threat that is the drone. Drones make very effective ASUW and close in strike assets that go beyond the range of the guns.
I’m a Marine, and therefore I like guns, but bigger ones. I’d love to see a comeback of the lightweight 8”. Or how about at least develop a commonality between the Navy and the Army when it comes to caliber of the weapon. A company is in the process of developing a 155 HE round, successfully tested by the way, that has a current range of approximately 90 miles, and can achieve a speed of Mach 3!
Why not the faster firing, not hard to reload ER-GMLRS with greater range, accuracy, and effect? You can have a barrage of them on a 40 million dollar MUSV vs exposing a 4 billion dollar destroyer.
I doubt that 8-inch gun would make a comeback. The Mk-71 lightweight gun was designed at least partially because USN still have hundreds of thousands of 8-inch HC Mark 25 shells (retained after last gun cruisers were reduced to reserve) and wanted a gun to use existing munition. By now, the supply of naval 8-inch shells is gone, and Army 8-inch munition is likely mostly gone too. Creating a new 8-inch gun would require essentially to introduce a new caliber and to produce thousands of new shell - while US military industry having problems with supply of 155-mm ones.
A 155-mm naval gun, though, is perfectly possible, and likely could even be designed to use 127-mm AA shells (with sabots) too.
The 8-inch Mk-71 lightweight gun was designed to be installed on large destroyers and missile cruisers. Spruance-class ships specifically have reinforced frames under bow 5-inch DP mount, because it was anticipated that 8-inch Mk-71 might replace it.
A shame... ive been an 8in redux guy forever... mostly because the plans and prototype exist... but even Moreno, because 8in is kind of that sweet spot balance between shell weight and mount size/weight. It's quite doable on today's ships as far as soace/weight, and its throw weight is huge compared to the 5in we've clung to forever. Sure... we've gotta build new ammo... but since we already have to build a new gun...why not?? The 8in still gets my vote!!
Like I said I’m a Marine, specifically an artillery officer. The targets I envision are the ones naval gunfire has always engaged ashore during an amphibious assault or in operations ashore.
FYI, the full install of an MK71 "lightweight" as planned for the Spruances still outweighed 2 Mark 45/64 5" guns with their full magazines. An 8" would be about useless without a second mid caliber gun of at least 57mm on the same ship.
Would love to see a new naval gun that uses semi-fixed ammunition, standard NATO 155mm projectiles and a separate powder casing like a scaled up 5"/38.
BAE TMF....see posts 1 for the full BAE slide deck and the images on post 2...unfortunately canned, used the AS-90 Braveheart ordnance...was a lot further on than many thought...
A question born strictly from ignorance: Why was the .50BMG added to the 30mm in the Mk 38 mount? My thought is that if you're going to shoot something, you should plan to kill it quickly. Bigger ba-da boom.
Regarding procurement cycles - Just prior to Desert Shield, I ran the 6th Fleet Ship Repair Det in Bahrain. One day we needed to install a Hughes Chain Gun on the deck of a DD that was scheduled to pass thru the Red Sea. Our installation was necessary because that gun mount had to be swapped between ships headed for that mission simply because we didn't have enough of them to install on all of our ships. Sad then. Sad that the lesson never sank in.
Warning shots, targets that get in close before revealing they are a threat. Saving the good ammo for the right threat. Something that can still be firing while also reloading? No different than a coax m2 on a tank.
Naive question on my part but why is a 30mm round 26x the cost of a 25mm round, as appears to be the case from that cost sheet. Exotic fuzing? The “more” question might have an answer in that cost difference. Might also be the reason to co-axial the .50cal. At closing in on $1200/round you’re over the cost of a Shahed after a few bursts.
I don't think the C-UAS round is proximity fused, its programmed with the detonation range when leaving the muzzle. That could be done from a radar, IR or optical sight. A proximity round might be problematic when firing from above down on a target at or near sea level and relatively low density drone airframes at altitude with the same round.
In that chart there is both 25mm and 30mm TP-T ammo costing $37.23 and $55.01 respectively.
The 30mm ammo costing $1077.65 per round is a C-UAS round which appears to be either
American Rheinmetall's 30x173mm KCE-ABM (Airburst Munition), AHEAD ammunition or their similar ABM air burst round. It the difference between good old wooden rounds and sophisticated ones.
Yes, excellent. Definitely the right thing to buy. Now put them on everything that has “rail mounted Ma Deuce” as the only assigned supplemental defence guns.
And am I correctly seeing the 50 on that mount only has one ammo can, so 100 rounds? M2 cyclic is 450-550 rounds per minute, at least on the land version. Even if the computer does short bursts in terminal defence mode, that’s at most a couple minutes of firing for the M2 before Seaman Bob gets to go load a new box. Seems a bit light.
Well, the 30mm x 173mm is the main gun on that mount, with the M2 as a coax, apparently an upgrade from the prior mod’s 7.62NATO MG coax mount. My concern is sustained engagement ammo load for the 50, which I assume conceptually is on the mount to cover reloads when the 30mm runs dry.
Actually on further consideration I am certain they would have to shut down the mount to enable any reloads, so I am not sure what the ma deuce actually buys this mount, except perhaps “don’t shoot that target with the expensive ammo” flexibility.
No matter what, this is still way better than “bolt a ma deuce to the rails” and should frankly be mass production buys, and if for some dumb reason not installed as they are delivered, with deck space allocated and reinforced as needed, power and data runs in place, and red arcs painted on all USN floaty things.
I remember making, in the 2016 election runup, some remark about "enough" ammunition to my OR crew. Simultaneously everyone, nurses, tech and anesthesiologist to a person shouted that there was no thing as "enough ammunition." That's Wyoming for you. I was instructed.
The interesting things about the past are that we had the moral equivalent of drone warfare in WWII--the kamikaze's.
It's also interesting that the Fletcher class destroyer was essentially five 5" guns and torpedos in 1942. By 1944 someone manage to pack in to every availiable deck space Bofors and Olekanons. Probably some of it by some savvy chiefs and some creative back-channeling. And that back channeling mattered when Evans turned his destroyer at the Japanese fleet threatening Taffy 3 in Leyte Gulf.
I suspect some of our destroyer skippers will have a discussion of "redecorating" the destroyer with his chiefs. And, not ask how some of that stuff arrived on his ship.
I "Redecorated" my AO with an additional 2X M-60 plus 2X M-79 grenade launchers along with 4 M-14s on the bridge during Lebanon ops. Can be done--all "Temporary" mounts of course, so as not to run afoul of NAVSEA weenies.
Our CG was fitted out with mounts for 25mm's for Desert Storm but we never got the guns. We spent most of our time in the Northern Persian Gulf sailing where the mines were. Never saw one, thank God. But the consensus was that it'd have been nice to have a 25mm to destroy floating mines with than using a .50 cal or sending out our EOD guys to blow it up. In a word(s), the consensus was "Effing beancounters!".
I have been pointing how the Italians get it right with their love of 76mm gun for a long time. That the USN hasn't seen the need to build 'gun boats' for the Gulf to me has pointed that the US isn't really serious about the theatre.
The MK49 requires a combat system, a radar, an IRST and integration of all of the above and contiguous support by them. The SeaRAM doesn't. So not only is it easier to install, its also a fail safe since degradation of the ships systems doesn't affect the SEARam. I believe it can even operate for a limited time with loss of ships power.
In peacetime you have all the time and none of the money and in wartime you have the opposite - all the money and no time to spend it. Strategy comes making the best use of what you have and making the transitions at whatever level of risk, Resourcing is policy; all else is rhetoric.
The first year of a war you have nothing that you need, the second year you have half of what you need and the third you have all that you need, you just can't use it.
It is like the Willow Run plant that Ford built to assemble the B24. Ford said, "the first year we will make tools and train workers. The second year we will build parts that someone else will assemble. The third year we can make as many B24s as you want for as long as you want." We were fortunate that the first years occurred before 1943. This same theme appears on this site with regard to shipyards and skilled tradespeople.
What’s the strat to 🔝to vet
You make a great point, but in peace time, the priority should be keeping hull counts up even if that means having under gunned or armed ships so long as they have capacity to add later. It is much easier and faster to up arm a ship that exists then to built them from scratch.
In the strictest sense you are correct. But if you don't have those guns sitting in a warehouse you have to procure them, which takes time that you won't really have.
If you are proactive and procure the guns ahead, why have them sitting in a warehouse?
For the cost of a single hull I would bet you could buy all the guns you could possibly want for everything that is afloat or soon to be afloat.
Yes it is a tradeoff, but we're at the point we have to make hard decisions. I think one less hull for the armament to potentially save dozens from the kamikaze is the way to go. Hulls on the bottom aren't helpful.
Agreed. And I don't understand the counter-argument: Why NOT put the guns on the ships now? It's not like they particularly wear out, or if they do those mx patterns need to be understood and programmed for.
Also, if there is excess power available for the guns and the guns are missing, the power will be used for something else...
If the ship is at sea, the gun is wearing out/rusting. Because oceans do that.
Yeah, there may be deterioration in a warehouse, but not nearly as much.
On the other hand, I wonder how often "fit for but not with" ends up being "oops we have to modify" once they actually try to fit what's supposed to be there. Putting them on in the first place would settle that sooner.
If only we could know the day and time the war will begin...
And knowing what wears out / rusts is handy for knowing how many spares re needed for the war to be.
"the gun is wearing out/rusting"
Especially this gun. Every time I see a picture of all that exposed hardware on top I wonder how many barrels of WD-40, or whatever they use these days (LPS?) they have to keep on board.
Just let your chief know. Just don't ask how the stuff shows up.
MFOB -
Materials found on base.
Midnight requisition... Will never forget my intero...interview with the Ft. Campbell chief of aviation mx regarding some USA H-60 parts that somehow migrated to a USAF H-60. Fortunately, we reached a mutually beneficial exchange of hardware. Ended up win-win. A near run thing, that.
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjukm_o5jIE2YtS6d9m4hFHOvmbTrOcjo53UDVwcE1f4NXHsUMz2IipclT89o_k2P9tTTYdkx7e-uZJiqLdtU5TqiGNwFGUMQ1W3VKEoR9dCCHCA9x5L187kPb_a11mYEt7SuOSKbI1gPIoqWK_D9ONV1_nCaXArd3RtDgxb-42_0GXUjUwQnfMkw/s1038/IMG_3749.jpeg
Ah, yes, Strategically Transferring Equipment from an Alternate Location.
" which takes time that you won't really have."
As someone famous once said, "You may ask me for anything you like except time.".
Depends. If talking modular self contained weapons, like SeaRAM or the former versions of the MK38 then weapons can be placed only on the units headed to places where they matter when they matter, including your logistics ships. If the limited number that can be produced are on ships in places they aren't needed then they might as well not exist.
In the case of guns such as this version of the Mk38, which require integration with separate systems they need to be on the ship, because they are not really modular in a meaningful way.
My suggestion: do both -starting by putting the older guns these MK38mod4s are replacing going into warehouses, but they will probably be scrapped.
Know of Ching Lee?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cu9Mi0ury38&t=17s
About the 15:00 mark they go into his time at the Bureau of Ordinance.
About the 21:50 mark they go into guns.
I am marking this message, "FRANTIC."
"This is Ching Lee. I',m coming through"
Great episode!
make sure all the gun mounting locations are over engineered.
Have to disagree. We will go to war with the ships we have... and if they're underpinned, and not as capable as possible... they'll be sent anyway, because there won't be time for most ships to make a stop for a quick upgrade. Yes... hull count is important, but I'd prefer a lesser amount of fully capable ships than the alternative.
30mm+APKWS is even better....
In the case of the mod IV you have dual feed and lose the second feed when you add the missiles. APKWS is fine, but keep it on a second launcher.
Can APKWS rockets handle marine environ? Building launcher/housing I'm sure isn't a problem but, is there any improvement over RAM/SeaRAM?
It is wildly cheaper and easier to produce than RAM.
Good Morning CDR Salamander!
The Guns that fire…
The Defense Mechanisms that capture, contain and destroy low flying Drones…
The security of our hull, our steering and propulsion mechanisms…
These and much more our Shipmates here can speak to! I gracefully defer!
To that single person, who so incorrectly commented on Russia’s Special Military Operation, calling same “Invasion”, I cordially ask that person to keep her opinions to herself…
CDR we have such an upheaval on International Law it will take years or perhaps never, to sort out.
About the threat on our East Asian Pacific waters, absolutely not enough guns on our Ships… boats, landing crafts and possibly our submarines to counter any incoming force … that “Surprise” hidden so well.
Have you read about the Artificial Intelligence infrastructure? That’s the focus of CHINA now! That’s where our great Naval minds must take a Deep and Long Deployment to understand because this “AI” crosses many industries and will affect many persons across those industries. POTUS has asked for a special group to monitor this growing “Threat/Opportunity”. It’s not Johnny Horton singing “Spin those guns around…”
It’s our United States Navy saying…put your Stanley Kubrick thinking cap on. It’s Space/Planet Earth Odyssey 2026. And we are so far behind! Time to catch up folks! Thank you! If you agree snd wish to send me a comment, please do! Stay strong! God Bless America… Nurse Jane
Your reference back to your "copybook headings" post reminds us that perhaps this Iran War will not be as short as we think it will be. It hasn't been so far. Not that I'm opposed to it at all.
Someday we will be thanking Putin for playing his hand too soon. Iran reinforces the need to realize that we are at war.
Guns and drones. That is what we should be investing in. Guns provide the most cost effective answer to the low slow flyer threat that is the drone. Drones make very effective ASUW and close in strike assets that go beyond the range of the guns.
Drones are effective.... against ships that aren't paying attention. Their main use is to distract from your Anti-Ship missiles.
I’m a Marine, and therefore I like guns, but bigger ones. I’d love to see a comeback of the lightweight 8”. Or how about at least develop a commonality between the Navy and the Army when it comes to caliber of the weapon. A company is in the process of developing a 155 HE round, successfully tested by the way, that has a current range of approximately 90 miles, and can achieve a speed of Mach 3!
https://nextgendefense.com/tiberius-ramjet-artillery-shell/
Why not the faster firing, not hard to reload ER-GMLRS with greater range, accuracy, and effect? You can have a barrage of them on a 40 million dollar MUSV vs exposing a 4 billion dollar destroyer.
Almost a match; 155mm is 6.1". Yeah, I know that 6.1 inches isn't 5 inches.
I doubt that 8-inch gun would make a comeback. The Mk-71 lightweight gun was designed at least partially because USN still have hundreds of thousands of 8-inch HC Mark 25 shells (retained after last gun cruisers were reduced to reserve) and wanted a gun to use existing munition. By now, the supply of naval 8-inch shells is gone, and Army 8-inch munition is likely mostly gone too. Creating a new 8-inch gun would require essentially to introduce a new caliber and to produce thousands of new shell - while US military industry having problems with supply of 155-mm ones.
A 155-mm naval gun, though, is perfectly possible, and likely could even be designed to use 127-mm AA shells (with sabots) too.
Keep in mind also the ships then had armored belts and more robust bulkheads/ribs to handle such weight and shock impulse.
The 8-inch Mk-71 lightweight gun was designed to be installed on large destroyers and missile cruisers. Spruance-class ships specifically have reinforced frames under bow 5-inch DP mount, because it was anticipated that 8-inch Mk-71 might replace it.
If only they'd have followed through!!! Preying Mantis mightve been more entertaining...!!!
If only they'd have followed through!!! Preying Mantis mightve been more entertaining...!!!
A shame... ive been an 8in redux guy forever... mostly because the plans and prototype exist... but even Moreno, because 8in is kind of that sweet spot balance between shell weight and mount size/weight. It's quite doable on today's ships as far as soace/weight, and its throw weight is huge compared to the 5in we've clung to forever. Sure... we've gotta build new ammo... but since we already have to build a new gun...why not?? The 8in still gets my vote!!
The 155-mm seems to be the current optimum, and apparently no one is interested much to switch for the bigger guns.
I'm wondering what target you envision for the 8" gun?
It seems to me (admittedly I'm just a civilian foreigner) that the 8" gun is either too much gun or not enough.
Like I said I’m a Marine, specifically an artillery officer. The targets I envision are the ones naval gunfire has always engaged ashore during an amphibious assault or in operations ashore.
That makes sense.
I admit my thinking was only for naval targets (including flying targets over water), which is unnecessarily limited.
I believe Navy wants to use Tac Air for those targets, question is, will the sky be clear for Tac Air to go in.
Perhaps a B2 or B-52 would do the job.
But an Eight inch would seriously be need.
Former assaultman here Semper Fi!
TacAir in concept the of combined arms is only truly effective when field artillery and naval gunfire (when within range) can support it.
With a near peer adversary the best we can plan for is either air parity or local air superiority.
There it is!
FYI, the full install of an MK71 "lightweight" as planned for the Spruances still outweighed 2 Mark 45/64 5" guns with their full magazines. An 8" would be about useless without a second mid caliber gun of at least 57mm on the same ship.
Would love to see a new naval gun that uses semi-fixed ammunition, standard NATO 155mm projectiles and a separate powder casing like a scaled up 5"/38.
BAE TMF....see posts 1 for the full BAE slide deck and the images on post 2...unfortunately canned, used the AS-90 Braveheart ordnance...was a lot further on than many thought...
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/bae-ro-155mm-naval-ordnance.41649/
A question born strictly from ignorance: Why was the .50BMG added to the 30mm in the Mk 38 mount? My thought is that if you're going to shoot something, you should plan to kill it quickly. Bigger ba-da boom.
Regarding procurement cycles - Just prior to Desert Shield, I ran the 6th Fleet Ship Repair Det in Bahrain. One day we needed to install a Hughes Chain Gun on the deck of a DD that was scheduled to pass thru the Red Sea. Our installation was necessary because that gun mount had to be swapped between ships headed for that mission simply because we didn't have enough of them to install on all of our ships. Sad then. Sad that the lesson never sank in.
Warning shots, targets that get in close before revealing they are a threat. Saving the good ammo for the right threat. Something that can still be firing while also reloading? No different than a coax m2 on a tank.
2 guns better than 1
3 better than 2
Quad 4 rocks
6 barrel gatling gun
More
More
More
Naive question on my part but why is a 30mm round 26x the cost of a 25mm round, as appears to be the case from that cost sheet. Exotic fuzing? The “more” question might have an answer in that cost difference. Might also be the reason to co-axial the .50cal. At closing in on $1200/round you’re over the cost of a Shahed after a few bursts.
1000x cheaper than a missile though and way more uses.
25mm has no proximity air burst.
I don't think the C-UAS round is proximity fused, its programmed with the detonation range when leaving the muzzle. That could be done from a radar, IR or optical sight. A proximity round might be problematic when firing from above down on a target at or near sea level and relatively low density drone airframes at altitude with the same round.
In that chart there is both 25mm and 30mm TP-T ammo costing $37.23 and $55.01 respectively.
The 30mm ammo costing $1077.65 per round is a C-UAS round which appears to be either
American Rheinmetall's 30x173mm KCE-ABM (Airburst Munition), AHEAD ammunition or their similar ABM air burst round. It the difference between good old wooden rounds and sophisticated ones.
Yes, excellent. Definitely the right thing to buy. Now put them on everything that has “rail mounted Ma Deuce” as the only assigned supplemental defence guns.
And am I correctly seeing the 50 on that mount only has one ammo can, so 100 rounds? M2 cyclic is 450-550 rounds per minute, at least on the land version. Even if the computer does short bursts in terminal defence mode, that’s at most a couple minutes of firing for the M2 before Seaman Bob gets to go load a new box. Seems a bit light.
200 .50 rounds ready to fire. https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2022/04/usgcs-cutters-to-receive-30mm-mark-44/#:~:text=50cal%20(12.7mm)%20M2HB%20heavy,the%20Mark%2038%20Mod%204.%E2%80%9D
It backs up a 30mm carrying 400 rounds in dual feeds.
The M230 30mm chain gun which uses a lower velocity round but includes an air burst round is actually a good replacement for the .50 caliber. https://chuckhillscgblog.net/2024/10/10/northrop-grumman-unveils-the-next-generation-of-bushmaster-chain-gun-news-release/
Well, the 30mm x 173mm is the main gun on that mount, with the M2 as a coax, apparently an upgrade from the prior mod’s 7.62NATO MG coax mount. My concern is sustained engagement ammo load for the 50, which I assume conceptually is on the mount to cover reloads when the 30mm runs dry.
Actually on further consideration I am certain they would have to shut down the mount to enable any reloads, so I am not sure what the ma deuce actually buys this mount, except perhaps “don’t shoot that target with the expensive ammo” flexibility.
No matter what, this is still way better than “bolt a ma deuce to the rails” and should frankly be mass production buys, and if for some dumb reason not installed as they are delivered, with deck space allocated and reinforced as needed, power and data runs in place, and red arcs painted on all USN floaty things.
MORE DAKA!!! ALL THE DAKA!!!!
Damn it all! We are 'Mericans! We should have BIG GUNS on EVERYTHING!
UAS are the new kamikaze. Moar guns are better.
Truer words. sir - Have never beem spoken!
The mod III actually has a 7.62mm coax. We still need to make the mod IV the standard ASAP.
I remember making, in the 2016 election runup, some remark about "enough" ammunition to my OR crew. Simultaneously everyone, nurses, tech and anesthesiologist to a person shouted that there was no thing as "enough ammunition." That's Wyoming for you. I was instructed.
The interesting things about the past are that we had the moral equivalent of drone warfare in WWII--the kamikaze's.
It's also interesting that the Fletcher class destroyer was essentially five 5" guns and torpedos in 1942. By 1944 someone manage to pack in to every availiable deck space Bofors and Olekanons. Probably some of it by some savvy chiefs and some creative back-channeling. And that back channeling mattered when Evans turned his destroyer at the Japanese fleet threatening Taffy 3 in Leyte Gulf.
I suspect some of our destroyer skippers will have a discussion of "redecorating" the destroyer with his chiefs. And, not ask how some of that stuff arrived on his ship.
I "Redecorated" my AO with an additional 2X M-60 plus 2X M-79 grenade launchers along with 4 M-14s on the bridge during Lebanon ops. Can be done--all "Temporary" mounts of course, so as not to run afoul of NAVSEA weenies.
Our CG was fitted out with mounts for 25mm's for Desert Storm but we never got the guns. We spent most of our time in the Northern Persian Gulf sailing where the mines were. Never saw one, thank God. But the consensus was that it'd have been nice to have a 25mm to destroy floating mines with than using a .50 cal or sending out our EOD guys to blow it up. In a word(s), the consensus was "Effing beancounters!".
I have been pointing how the Italians get it right with their love of 76mm gun for a long time. That the USN hasn't seen the need to build 'gun boats' for the Gulf to me has pointed that the US isn't really serious about the theatre.
More of this and more SeaRAM
Moar guns yes, more SeaRAM no thanks. I'd rather have the 21-round Mk 49 launcher.
The MK49 requires a combat system, a radar, an IRST and integration of all of the above and contiguous support by them. The SeaRAM doesn't. So not only is it easier to install, its also a fail safe since degradation of the ships systems doesn't affect the SEARam. I believe it can even operate for a limited time with loss of ships power.
In peacetime you have all the time and none of the money and in wartime you have the opposite - all the money and no time to spend it. Strategy comes making the best use of what you have and making the transitions at whatever level of risk, Resourcing is policy; all else is rhetoric.
The first year of a war you have nothing that you need, the second year you have half of what you need and the third you have all that you need, you just can't use it.
Winston Churchill
He had the ... advantage?... of a multi-year war
It is like the Willow Run plant that Ford built to assemble the B24. Ford said, "the first year we will make tools and train workers. The second year we will build parts that someone else will assemble. The third year we can make as many B24s as you want for as long as you want." We were fortunate that the first years occurred before 1943. This same theme appears on this site with regard to shipyards and skilled tradespeople.