Long Range Guns Still Have Their Place Today in 21st Century Warfare.

Monday, March 4, 2002 NN Volume 19, Number 10 Long-Range Guns Still Have A Place In The 21st Century War By Tracy A. Ralphs MAJ (P) USAR At a time when some defense analysts wonder whether the United States could go to war against Iraq today because it has exhausted its supplies of some types of precision-guided, high-tech, expensive munitions, a reserve officer makes the case that even in the 21st Century, there is a place in the contemporary theater of war for an old but formidable force, longrange guns, including those mounted on battleships. This is an excerpt from his paper, "Dangerous" Naval Surface Fire Support (NSFS) Problem Won’t Disappear. Marine Lt.Gen. Emil Bedard recently stated: "The kind of fire support that the Marines need for maneuver ashore in the littorals is not the tactical Tomahawk, it's the kind that comes from a gun. We don't have it…We have a hard requirement for a gun. We are not going to fall off that requirement." Despite the Navy's successful firing of Alliant Techsystems' (ATK) 5-inch autonomous naval support round (ANSR) to a range of 51 nautical miles, its 25-pound-combined high explosive/tungsten fragments payload remains ineffective against tanks and other hard targets. Navy destroyer magazines are too small to stow a sufficient amount of ammunition (230 rounds) to meet volume requirements. Current concepts for [the planned ships] DD(X) and LCS indicate they would carry even less. Small guns on small ships will carry ammunition that will last just 25 minutes into a firefight, and an amphibious operation won't be over in 25 minutes. Further, large-caliber ordinance is far more lethal. If the same techniques used in the ANSR were applied to 16-inch projectiles designs, they could produce ranges in excess of 100 nautical miles. In 1968, Gerald Bull's Space Research Corp fired a 740 lb., 11-inch SABOT projectile (An Army 280mm Atomic Cannon projectile) from a 16-inch gun to a distance of 51 nautical miles. The projectile achieved this performance without any rocket-assist technique. In 1990, based on Bull's tests, DARPA [Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency], designed a 500-pound, 16-inch diameter gun firing an 11-inch sub-caliber rocket-assist projectile. If built, it would have had a range of 100 nautical miles. Additionally, these projectiles would carry between 10 and 20 times the payload of today's smaller projectile designs for about the same cost. Laser guidance would transform these projectiles into precision-guided munitions. For the interim, only battleships' major-caliber guns with large magazine capacities can provide sustainable, tactically responsive, lethal, high volume fires. There are those who believe the battleship issue to be moot and that we should consider other solutions. This would be an acceptable line of reasoning if: a) there were a proposal that would meet naval surface fire support (NSFS) requirements and, b) there weren't so many lives at risk. Even if the Navy had an acceptable program, on average, new programs take 10 to 15 years to deploy. The naval surface fire support gap can be quickly and affordably bridged for the interim by reactivating and extensively modernizing the battleships Iowa and Wisconsin, creating a new ship class—the battleship, guided-missile (BBG). This could be accomplished in about one year and for about $1 billion for both, or the original cost of the USS Cole (DDG-67). Each BBG would provide 96 Tomahawks sooner and at half the cost of fielding the 98 Tomahawks on an SOF-configured SSGN (converted from SSBN). Moreover, such SSGNs can perform only 2 missions, whereas the BBGs can perform at avy News & Undersea Technology N least sixteen. Additionally, the BBG would have a counter-battery radar, a common fire support command and control system, four 5-inch diameter, 62 guns, magazine space for 4,000 to 5,000,000 ANSR rounds (over 15 destroyers) and 1,364 16-inch projectiles and 8 unmanned aerial vehicles for precision engagement. Outside Afghanistan, the war on terrorism will be largely littoral in nature (e.g., Sudan, Somalia, Iraq). Due to the political instability in the region, regional staging bases may not be available. Much of the military operations could be required to operate from carriers (e.g. the Kitty Hawk) and/or amphibious ships such as the Wasp-class LHD and the Tarawa-class LHA. Air power is not all-weather, 24/7, despite Navy claims to the contrary. Only naval gunfire remains to support littoral ground forces. Should a larger military response be needed, a forced-entry may be required. In all cases, the need for tactically responsive naval surface fire support is paramount. However, in the case of a forcedentry, it is absolutely essential and key leaders have identified the need for naval surface fire support and battleship reactivation. Commandant of the Marine Corps, General James L. Jones stated: "I know of no combat shortfall that’s more important in my book, for the Marine Corps, than bridging the gap between the absence of naval gunfire and our own organic firesupport systems." In an October 15, 2001 letter, CENTCOM Commander in Chief General Tommy R. Franks wrote: "The importance of having sufficient naval artillery support, to complement the long reach of our cruise missiles, cannot be overstated. …naval surface fire support will remain the key to the success of future littoral operations…" And littoral operations will be the norm for many years to come. Former Secretary of the Navy, John Lehman, stated: "The battleship has a place, I believe, for naval gunfire ... There may well be a useful role for the [AGS] gun, but it does not replace the 800 tons of accurate munitions a battleship can generate in a half hour … the ability to pulverize any concentration of forces near the coast is invaluable. Obviously, the battleships are very old…" (So, too, is the B-52, which was first flown on April 15, 1952 and is scheduled to continue flying until 2040.) "That doesn't mean it's obsolete…you can equip them with the latest technology…if I were in charge today, I'd reactivate two battleships. I'd equip them with many more cruise missiles than just the armored box launchers that we put on them 20 years ago. And I would deploy them as crisis-management tools. Those 16-inch guns have a kind of power that no airborne or other precision-guided weapon can produce … Because they're so well protected, you could never have a USS Cole (DDG-67)-type of incident with a battleship." HASC [House Armed Services Committee] Chairman Bob Stump cogently stated: "It is imperative that two battleships be returned to active service as soon as possible" to close the "dangerous" naval surface fire support gap. President Bush stated that the military's defining mission "is to deter war_ and win wars when deterrence fails." He has promised the military, "…you will have everything you need—every resource, every weapon, every means to assure full victory for the U.S. ..." While watching the movie Black Hawk Down, President Bush was appalled by the scene where American soldiers were cut to pieces for lack of fire support from gunships. According to a senior aide, President Bush vowed, "he would never allow such a thing to happen". As Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, President Bush should be made aware U.S. troops need credible naval gunfire if they are to perform military operations in the littorals. Without battleships, they won't have it for a very long time and the above scene could very well happen again. The battleships Iowa and Wisconsin are truly national assets and should be operated as a national "crisis management tool". Because they are so intimidating, battleships can deter war. (Sun Tzu's defines this as "supreme excellence"— defeating enemies without fighting). However, when deterrence fails, battleships provide overwhelming force, as prescribed by Clausewitz, to win wars. Tracy A. Ralphs, MAJ (P), U.S. Army Reserve, currently serves as joint intelligence officer for U.S. Transportation Command, Newport News, Va., and also serves as deputy executive director and program director for the U.S. Naval Fire Support Association (USNFSA).

Monday, March 4, 2002 NN Volume 19, Number 10

Long-Range Guns Still Have A Place In The 21st Century War

By Tracy A. Ralphs MAJ (P) USAR

At a time when some defense analysts wonder whether the United States could go to war against Iraq today because it has exhausted its supplies of some types of precision-guided, high-tech, expensive munitions, a reserve officer makes the case that even in the 21st Century, there is a place in the contemporary theater of war for an old but formidable force, longrange guns, including those mounted on battleships.

This is an excerpt from his paper, "Dangerous" Naval Surface Fire Support (NSFS) Problem Won’t Disappear.

Marine Lt.Gen. Emil Bedard recently stated: "The kind of fire support that the Marines need for maneuver ashore in the littorals is not the tactical Tomahawk, it's the kind that comes from a gun. We don't have it…We have a hard requirement for a gun. We are not going to fall off that requirement."

Current concepts for [the planned ships] DD(X) and LCS indicate they would carry even less. Small guns on small ships will carry ammunition that will last just 25 minutes into a firefight, and an amphibious operation won't be over in 25 minutes.

Further, large-caliber ordinance is far more lethal. If the same techniques used in the ANSR were applied to 16-inch projectiles designs, they could produce ranges in excess of 100 nautical miles.

In 1968, Gerald Bull's Space Research Corp fired a 740 lb., 11-inch SABOT projectile (An Army 280mm Atomic Cannon projectile) from a 16-inch gun to a distance of 51 nautical miles. The projectile achieved this performance without any rocket-assist technique.

Additionally, these projectiles would carry between 10 and 20 times the payload of today's smaller projectile designs for about the same cost. Laser guidance would transform these projectiles into precision-guided munitions.

For the interim, only battleships' major-caliber guns with large magazine capacities can provide sustainable, tactically responsive, lethal, high volume fires.

There are those who believe the battleship issue to be moot and that we should consider other solutions. This would be an acceptable line of reasoning if:

a) there were a proposal that would meet naval surface fire support (NSFS) requirements and,

b) there weren't so many lives at risk.

Even if the Navy had an acceptable program, on average, new programs take 10 to 15 years to deploy. The naval surface fire support gap can be quickly and affordably bridged for the interim by reactivating and extensively modernizing the battleships Iowa and Wisconsin, creating a new ship class—the battleship, guided-missile (BBG).

This could be accomplished in about one year and for about $1 billion for both, or the original cost of the USS Cole (DDG-67).

Each BBG would provide 96 Tomahawks sooner and at half the cost of fielding the 98 Tomahawks on an SOF-configured SSGN (converted from SSBN).

Moreover, such SSGNs can perform only 2 missions, whereas the BBGs can perform at avy News & Undersea Technology N least sixteen.

Additionally, the BBG would have a counter-battery radar, a common fire support command and control system, four 5-inch diameter, 62 guns, magazine space for 4,000 to 5,000,000 ANSR rounds (over 15 destroyers) and 1,364 16-inch projectiles and 8 unmanned aerial vehicles for precision engagement.

Outside Afghanistan, the war on terrorism will be largely littoral in nature (e.g., Sudan, Somalia, Iraq). Due to the political instability in the region, regional staging bases may not be available.

Much of the military operations could be required to operate from carriers (e.g. the Kitty Hawk) and/or amphibious ships such as the Wasp-class LHD and the Tarawa-class LHA.

Air power is not all-weather, 24/7, despite Navy claims to the contrary. Only naval gunfire remains to support littoral ground forces. Should a larger military response be needed, a forced-entry may be required.

In all cases, the need for tactically responsive naval surface fire support is paramount. However, in the case of a forcedentry, it is absolutely essential and key leaders have identified the need for naval surface fire support and battleship reactivation.

Commandant of the Marine Corps, General James L. Jones stated: "I know of no combat shortfall that’s more important in my book, for the Marine Corps, than bridging the gap between the absence of naval gunfire and our own organic firesupport systems."

In an October 15, 2001 letter, CENTCOM Commander in Chief General Tommy R. Franks wrote: "The importance of having sufficient naval artillery support, to complement the long reach of our cruise missiles, cannot be overstated. …naval surface fire support will remain the key to the success of future littoral operations…"

And littoral operations will be the norm for many years to come. Former Secretary of the Navy, John Lehman, stated: "The battleship has a place, I believe, for naval gunfire ... There may well be a useful role for the [AGS] gun, but it does not replace the 800 tons of accurate munitions a battleship can generate in a half hour … the ability to pulverize any concentration of forces near the coast is invaluable. Obviously, the battleships are very old…" (So, too, is the B-52, which was first flown on April 15, 1952 and is scheduled to continue flying until 2040.)

"That doesn't mean it's obsolete…you can equip them with the latest technology…if I were in charge today, I'd reactivate two battleships. I'd equip them with many more cruise missiles than just the armored box launchers that we put on them 20 years ago. And I would deploy them as crisis-management tools. Those 16-inch guns have a kind of power that no airborne or other precision-guided weapon can produce … Because they're so well protected, you could never have a USS Cole (DDG-67)-type of incident with a battleship."

HASC [House Armed Services Committee] Chairman Bob Stump cogently stated: "It is imperative that two battleships be returned to active service as soon as possible" to close the "dangerous" naval surface fire support gap.

President Bush stated that the military's defining mission "is to deter war_ and win wars when deterrence fails." He has promised the military, "…you will have everything you need—every resource, every weapon, every means to assure full victory for the U.S. ..."

While watching the movie Black Hawk Down, President Bush was appalled by the scene where American soldiers were cut to pieces for lack of fire support from gunships. According to a senior aide, President Bush vowed, "he would never allow such a thing to happen".

As Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, President Bush should be made aware U.S. troops need credible naval gunfire if they are to perform military operations in the littorals. Without battleships, they won't have it for a very long time and the above scene could very well happen again. The battleships Iowa and Wisconsin are truly national assets and should be operated as a national "crisis management tool".

Because they are so intimidating, battleships can deter war. (Sun Tzu's defines this as "supreme excellence"— defeating enemies without fighting).

However, when deterrence fails, battleships provide overwhelming force, as prescribed by Clausewitz, to win wars.

Tracy A. Ralphs, MAJ (P), U.S. Army Reserve, currently serves as joint intelligence officer for U.S. Transportation Command, Newport News, Va., and also serves as deputy executive director and program director for the U.S. Naval Fire Support Association (USNFSA).

I agree. Here it is converted:

At a time when some defense analysts wonder whether the United States could go to war against Iraq today because it has exhausted its supplies of some types of precision-guided, high-tech, expensive munitions, a reserve officer makes the case that even in the 21st Century, there is a place in the contemporary theater of war for an old but formidable force, longrange guns, including those mounted on battleships. This is an excerpt from his paper, "Dangerous" Naval Surface Fire Support (NSFS) Problem Won't Disappear.

Despite the Navy's successful firing of Alliant Techsystems' (ATK) 5-inch autonomous naval support round (ANSR) to a range of 51 nautical miles, its 25-pound-combined high explosive/tungsten fragments payload remains ineffective against tanks and other hard targets. Navy destroyer magazines are too small to stow a sufficient amount of ammunition (230 rounds) to meet volume requirements. Current concepts for [the planned ships] DD(X) and LCS indicate they would carry even less. Small guns on small ships will carry ammunition that will last just 25 minutes into a firefight, and an amphibious operation won't be over in 25 minutes. Further, large-caliber ordinance is far more lethal. If the same techniques used in the ANSR were applied to 16-inch projectiles designs, they could produce ranges in excess of 100 nautical miles. In 1968, Gerald Bull's Space Research Corp fired a 740 lb., 11-inch SABOT projectile (An Army 280mm Atomic Cannon projectile) from a 16-inch gun to a distance of 51 nautical miles. The projectile achieved this performance without any rocket-assist technique.

In 1990, based on Bull's tests, DARPA [Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency], designed a 500-pound, 16-inch diameter gun firing an 11-inch sub-caliber rocket-assist projectile. If built, it would have had a range of 100 nautical miles. Additionally, these projectiles would carry between 10 and 20 times the payload of today's smaller projectile designs for about the same cost. Laser guidance would transform these projectiles into precision-guided munitions. For the interim, only battleships' major-caliber guns with large magazine capacities can provide sustainable, tactically responsive, lethal, high volume fires.

There are those who believe the battleship issue to be moot and that we should consider other solutions. This would be an acceptable line of reasoning if: a) there were a proposal that would meet naval surface fire support (NSFS) requirements and, b) there weren't so many lives at risk. Even if the Navy had an acceptable program, on average, new programs take 10 to 15 years to deploy.

The naval surface fire support gap can be quickly and affordably bridged for the interim by reactivating and extensively modernizing the battleships Iowa and Wisconsin, creating a new ship class—the battleship, guided-missile (BBG). This could be accomplished in about one year and for about $1 billion for both, or the original cost of the USS Cole (DDG-67). Each BBG would provide 96 Tomahawks sooner and at half the cost of fielding the 98 Tomahawks on an SOF-configured SSGN (converted from SSBN). Moreover, such SSGNs can perform only 2 missions, whereas the BBGs can perform atleast sixteen. Additionally, the BBG would have a counter-battery radar, a common fire support command and controlsystem, four 5-inch diameter, 62 guns, magazine space for 4,000 to 5,000,000 ANSR rounds (over 15 destroyers) and 1,364 16-inch projectiles and 8 unmanned aerial vehicles for precision gagement.

Outside Afghanistan, the war on terrorism will be largely littoral in nature (e.g., Sudan, Somalia, Iraq). Due to the political instability in the region, regional staging bases may not be available. Much of the military operations could be required to operate from carriers (e.g. the Kitty Hawk) and/or amphibious ships such as the Wasp-class LHD and the Tarawa-class LHA. Air power is not all-weather, 24/7, despite Navy claims to the contrary. Only naval gunfire remains to support littoral ground forces. Should a larger military response be needed, a forced-entry may be required. In all cases, the need for tactically responsive naval surface fire support is paramount. However, in the case of a forced entry, it is absolutely essential and key leaders have identified the need for naval surface fire support and battleship reactivation.

Commandant of the Marine Corps, General James L. Jones stated: "I know of no combat shortfall that´s more important in my book, for the Marine Corps, than bridging the gap between the absence of naval gunfire and our own organic fire support systems."

Former Secretary of the Navy, John Lehman, stated: "The battleship has a place, I believe, for naval gunfire ... There may well be a useful role for the [AGS] gun, but it does not replace the 800 tons of accurate munitions a battleship can generate in a half hour … the ability to pulverize any concentration of forces near the coast is invaluable. Obviously, the battleships are very old…" (So, too, is the B-52, which was first flown on April 15, 1952 and is scheduled to continue flying until 2040.) "That doesn't mean it's obsolete…you can equip them with the latest technology…if I were in charge today, I'd reactivate two battleships. I'd equip them with many more cruise missiles than just the armored box launchers that we put on them 20 years ago. And I would deploy them as crisis-management tools. Those 16-inch guns have a kind of power that no airborne or other precision-guided weapon can produce … Because they're so well protected, you could never have a USS Cole (DDG-67)-type of incident with a battleship."

HASC [House Armed Services Committee] Chairman Bob Stump cogently stated: "It is imperative that two battleships be returned to active service as soon as possible" to close the "dangerous" naval surface fire support gap. President Bush stated that the military's defining mission "is to deter war_ and win wars when deterrence fails." He has promised the military, "…you will have everything you need—every resource, every weapon, every means to assure full victory for the U.S. ..."

The battleships Iowa and Wisconsin are truly national assets and should be operated as a national "crisis management tool". Because they are so intimidating, battleships can deter war. (Sun Tzu's defines this as "supreme excellence"— defeating enemies without fighting). However, when deterrence fails, battleships provide overwhelming force, as prescribed by Clausewitz, to win wars.

Tracy A. Ralphs, MAJ (P), U.S. Army Reserve, currently serves as joint intelligence officer for U.S. Transportation Command, Newport News, Va., and also serves as deputy executive director and program director for the U.S. Naval Fire Support Association (USNFSA).

Source: The United States Naval Fire Support Association
Title:Long-Range Guns Still Have A Place In The 21st Century War

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.