I'd say two guns beats one gun any day.
Not when you are bound to an offboard or even (gasp) infantry ETAC type targeting capability (i.e. first you bump into them, then you scream on the
radio, then we shoot, seven minutes later, we kill the guy standing on your corpse. Of course if there is a drone or a jet or an AFV _there already_
why not make the target:kill loop much more immediate?).
Not when _max range_ is only 96nm inland in the 6" variant. And the 'think beyond the beach!' doctrine of the Marines is getting a minimum
50-100nm inland with STOM and then _driving away_ from there to FFTS distances.
Also, the DD(X) will have a better ASW setup since it will still have the tail.
As for towed arrays ainnnh.... I think if we advertised how completely the ASW game has changed with blue light and long baseline arrays half the
world would stop building SSKs. OTOH, acoustics in shallow water are nearly worthless, active or passive and so you are left asking yourself if it's
smart to play 'reach for the gun in the nightstand as the burglar comes through the bedroom door!' on the basis of inshore defending against a super
quiet diesel or AIP boat which has you pinned inshore as it slings anything from Exocet to Alpha class weapons from 20+nm away.
I still say the principle white water threat (should you /absolutely have to/ go there) is conventional mines and boghammers along with potentially
some kind of moored SCT device. All of which are better dealt with before they reach range equivalency for anything from RPG to 14.5-23mm deckguns.
By a loitering drone or missile which can scoot about at 300 knots and look over the lee side of whatever traffic you are sharing your coastal
waterway with (think PGW-I and Earnest Will as well as the Brit Patrol).
Thats way to high! I told the navy not to go with the platinum with gold trim, diamond encrusted round.
The post-Cold war Navy has recognized the need to focus on land attack, but Admirals cannot grasp the need for shore bombardment FIREPOWER. They now
plan to further degrade the Navy's firepower by wasting billions of dollars on an expensive 5-inch Extended Range Guided Munition (ERGM); which is a
$50,000 gun launched missile which delivers 72 submunitions over 40 miles away using GPS satellites for accuracy.
Honest Kanizzle Schnizzle.
But seriously, im assuming the shells will be made out of tungsten, but still, There is no explosize involved, they should be no more then 10 grand
Excalibur is unitary. ERGM is cluster. Largely because it was designed to support Marines engaging area targets while 'compensating' for fairly
extreme GPS capture trajectory requirements and 'stereo error' (sat signal anaprop) which led to a fairly hefty miss distances for burst height (see
It is also worth noting that even the 6" round is only 19lbs (Hellfire has a 26lb shaped warhead or a 33lb D/A blast/thermobaric option) with 72 EX-1
submunitions whose dud rate can be as high as forty percent.
And so you are looking at less the capability to 'soften up' a target than to clog the approaches to it with UXO passage denial hazards.
My opinion is this: High Value Assets (which ANY billion or more platform _must_ be considered to be) must be able to leverage like-unto 'war winner
not fighter' enemy strategic targets (bridges, refineries, factories, power generation, comms and control, transport) before they can even be
/considered/ for inshore operations where they are exposed to god knows what cheapo 'cigarrette boat mine layer' countermeasures.
Since, where you have a choice, you have to be a moron to place such facilities within 100nm commando/terrorist easy reach of any coastline, the
reality then is WHAT MISSION can the DD(X) fulfill with AGS?
An EML equipped vessel might be more useful IF it could sling unitary rounds 290-390nm inland (i.e. competing with the carrier airwings for strike
depth in the littoral environs, itself a ballsy move in the face of naval aviation's political pull), with sufficient weight of explosive or kinetic
impact to be able to destroy or disable the aforementioned _heavy structural_ target set.
But I see absolutely ZERO 'here to there' progressive logic justification for switching from a 127mm turret to a 155mm design as a means to get to
the EML which uses none of the same components and likely not even the same turret stack.
Nor is it clear to me that even if you DO NEED an ERGM class shooter, that a DDG-51 or CG-47 couldn't accept the larger AGS mount if the 127mm design
(and 60nm) isn't enough.
That right there kills both the gun launched projectile and the hull class new-start justifications of DD(X) in one fell swoop.
P.S. To the guy who said 'what next, a carrier?' I couldn't agree more. Except that I would very much LIKE to see what a pure VTOL jet UAV could
be designed to for both weight and sensor/payload fraction without all the manned-mission and 'fighter' performance modifiers that JSF brings.
I'm betting that No Cockpit would, by itself, reduce the empty weight of a jet by 10,000lbs. Add to this a much more conservative radius requirement
(say 300nm around the boat) and a lower up and away performance spec (remember, SDLF _gives you_ the equivalent of F135 dry thrust in a start-stop
separate power module) of say 500 knots sprint and 350 knots sustained over a 25-30,000ft altitude band. And I wouldn't be at all surprised that you
couldn't make an 5-7,000lb empty weight aircraft (less than an SH-60) perform vertical takeoff in an 18-22,000lb gross. In full hot+high
_Do just that much_ as a function of getting organic high-horizon ISR to the surface navy and you can completely alter the way we do business with
SAGs replacing CVSF in perhaps 40-50% of the world ocean basins, 70% of the year.
THAT in turn would mean simply a /massive/ savings in in cruise costs, just for oil alone.
It would also allow us to envision a 'land attack' platform that employed combinations of aeroballistic short response weapons for strike warfare:
"10 minutes to 800nm".
And loitering turbomissile systems like a longrange Delilah to support engaged forces within that 400nm definition of littoral /before/ Forward From
The Sea made Marines effectively self sustaining, or else.
Targeting is king. With it you can afford to have in-air fire support missiles _close by_ as a function of fast engagement of time sensitive
(fleeting) targets. At which point the ground force exists soely to enable airpower by flushing the enemy like pheasants before the hounds.
No ISR however; and any attempt to use expensive missiles as 'maybe' called fires falls on it's face.
While intelligent naval gunfire support is itself massively more expensive. And simply not worth it (responsiveness wise) compared to the same
systems in a 120mm mortar tube assigned to the unit in question.
That is why I made reference to the Ise in another DD(X) thread. There being absolutely no reason to have that much flat deckspace if you are not
going to USE IT to give yourself more than rotary wing airpower.