Comments on: Putting Warheads (More Accurately) on Foreheads

By: demophilus

demophilus — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 21:24:51 +0000

Chief:
Thanks for the colloquy, and your service.
As for container/RORO NSFS, I was thinking it’s more of a patch than a solution. Still better to have something than nothing.
In more direct response to your comments, I think base bleed and rocket assist are available for 155mm. IIRC, Raytheon and the Navy are working on the Extended Range Guided Munition for the 5″ guns, a PGM/RAP with a quoted range of 63 miles. I’ll believe that when I see it with my own eyes.
I agree with your take on the Tomahawk. FWIW, the Navy’s been working on something called the “Affordable Weapon System”, a containerized cruise missile that was planned to deliver the some of the same capability at 10% of the cost. Last I heard, they were having problems with that. Wouldn’t be surprised if it ends up over budget.
AWS containers and other “modules” have been suggested as load outs for the “Sea Fighter”/“X craft” program — high speed catamarans mission-configured with containerized weapons, etc. Maybe someone’s thinking about NSFS missions for those, or the “littoral combat ship”. Don’t know if they’ll have the deck space for a big punch, but you never know; maybe with networked fires and shoot and scoot tactics, you could lay down something. Sometimes a pack of wild dogs is as bad as a bear. Small, fast “container” ships make also make a good fit for MLRS, or some other artillery rocket system.
Apart from the “network centric” aspects, which is an easy sell, that would tend to put bluejackets back in the alligator or brown water navy business. That’s a hard sell. Don’t know if you can get Admirals to go there.
Unless they have to; necessity really is the mother of invention.
And, to Rob:
Thanks for your service, as well. You make a good point: having high tech fire support isn’t worth much if you can’t get the chain of command off the dime. FWIW, I’ve seen that discussed vis-a-vis the conventional Trident program — apart from such a launch scaring the piss out of the Russians, Chinese, etc., what’s the sense of having a weapon that can strike anywhere in half an hour if it takes you two hours to clear it with JAG, and State, the White House, etc., etc.?
Pretty discouraging to hear you’d have a similar problem getting a 155mm strike with eyes on target. That sucks.
Don’t know what to say, except that Achilles’ heel is a metaphor. All this whiz bang high tech, deadly bullshit, one of the finest military machines in human history, and all you need to derail it is one f*cknut in the mix.
He who hesitates…
Hoo boy — I need a drink.

By: Crusty Old Chief

Crusty Old Chief — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 18:53:43 +0000

Re: Demophilus
Hey, I

By: Rob

Rob — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 15:03:12 +0000

Hello everyone,
well have been there didn’t like it, got the T shirt.
We need to get faster and smarter, the weapon systems can do it, can our C3-C5 respond. No they can’t. Not in real time, not with the eyes on the ground. Actually the systems are there, enpower the eyes on the ground.

By: Rob

Rob — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 14:56:45 +0000

By: demophilus

demophilus — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 19:53:39 +0000

Boy howdy, Chief — if you’re “mildly irritated” now, I’d hate to see you pissed off.
At the risk of that, does anyone know anything about the feasibility of launching 155mm, MLRS, or ATACMS from ships? For example, RORO or container vessels? I realize that a thin-skinned vessel filled with ordnance is dead meat for counterbattery fire or cruise missiles, but some systems outrange the former, and picket ships (for example, AEGIS cruisers) or combat air patrol might hedge some of the risks of the latter.
I’m not saying such a quick, cheap and dirty approach could ever replace a BB, but it seems like it would make for a nasty surprise. I mean, one day it’s a prepositioned container ship, covered with boxes and tarps, and the next it sheds camo, and starts tossing fire.
I’d be surprised if some LCDR hasn’t already PowerPointed it out. I’d be even less surprised if he got cashiered for it.

By: Max

Max — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 17:27:26 +0000

BTW, I was a sailor in the early 80s when the BB’s were still on active duty. The New Jersey was lobbing shells near Beirut while my ship (USS Virginia (CGN-38)) was there, and I’m only 47, so I know for a fact that there are plenty of not-so-old sailors out there who would be happy to come back on active duty just for the privilege of training new sailors on the old BBs. In other words, there is no lack of expertise available if the Navy asks for it, so that is not an excuse for not bringing them back.

By: Max

Max — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 17:04:04 +0000

Once again, Chief, I think you’ve pegged it just about right.
I think it’s mostly about politics, and a lot of it can be traced right back to the halls of Congress, where certain members hold the military hostage to their desire for home-state jobs at ANY cost.
Personally, I’m not against new weapon systems. I was a part of the software team for the (now canceled) Crusader Howitzer, which would have replaced the Paladin. It was a great idea and a great weapon system, IF we were still in a cold war with the Soviet Union. Some of the capabilities, like multiple-launch simultaneous impact (fire several rounds quickly so they all end up on the same target at almost the same moment), are great, and I’m sure the Army could use them, even in Iraq. Some of the others, like displaying the fuel consumption, odometer data, vehicle speed, etc on the crew monitor displays were hugely expensive and unnecessary.
But what the Chief has been saying is right in my view. Especially when you compare what you could have with a new, updated (nuclear-powered) Battleship that could fire a 16-inch round (or a volley of them) perhaps hundreds of miles inland with rocket assist. Can you imagine the intimidation factor of the New Jersey sitting off the coast of Iran with such powerful weapons that could strike large areas of the country with impunity? There is no missile or gun defense against 16-inch rounds (at least not yet)!! In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if the 16-inch armor piercing round (with rocket assist) wouldn’t be the exact thing that is needed to knock out the deeply buried bunkers that hide Iran’s nuclear facilities. Too bad we didn’t keep at least one of them active, so we could use it now.

By: Crusty Old Chief

Crusty Old Chief — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 15:36:20 +0000

Re: wpnexp
“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
“We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.“
And so Ike warned us more than 50 years ago. That warning, unheeded, has left us at a lamentable juncture:
Our manufacturing base for ships, planes, and weapons systems has been steadily eroded to the point that only a few companies now exist;
Our upward spiral of ever more complex armaments has been accompanied by attendant increases in cost;
And, at the top of this spiral we find ourselves with companies completely dependent on Uncle Sugar’s crackhead pursuit of the next high. And Uncle Sugar unable to pay for it. The B-2, F-22, DD(X), F-35, FCS, and most of these “leap ahead” projects are just ever larger pieces of crack — not only are they not needed, they’re killing us.
Iraq should be, by now, a shattering Come-to-Jesus moment for DoD leadership, Congress, and the directors of Raytheon, LockMart, Boeing, etc. All the sexy gigabuck weapons systems in theater aren’t winning this war. This war is being won by the grunt, humping it through the alleyways, and kicking Johnny’s ass up close and personal. Those grunts need a better rifle, not a helmet mounted supercomputer. Those grunts need more A-10s or AC-130s ready to bring Johnny instant karma in the giant economy size, not the Rodeo Drive boutique F-22 that costs so much you’d be a damned fool to do CAS with one. Those grunts need to know that they can call on arty and NSFS fires that can hit a point target (in apocalyptic volumes if Johnny insists), not a megabuck Tomahawk that’ll get there in an hour or so. Those grunts need a bomb truck at 38,000′ waiting for the GPS coordinates of where Johnny wants his JDAM delivered, not a billion dollar B-2 flying in from Guam.
Do we REALLY need an F-35, or can we still whip anybody’s ass with the F/A-18, F-16, F-15 equipped with upgraded systems? How is it that we can’t restart the production lines for a bombtruck like the A-6, but can INVENT a production line for the F-22? How is it that we can go through untold iterations of DD(X)/CG(X) but can’t simply reactivate a BB? For that matter, why can’t we take the basic design of an IOWA, DES MOINES, ALASKA, apply modern materials, manufacturing, weapons, and systems and build a wholly new ship?
In my humble opinion it is because the military-industrial complex would go into life-threatening crack withdrawal without a steady supply of new and ever more expensive weapons.
Its time for an old-fashioned intervention: Send the entire Congress packing at the earliest opportunity, clean out the Pentagon, and let’s get back to the honorable profession of killing our enemies — not providing welfare to industry.
Cheers,
(a mildy irritated) Chief B.

By: Crusty Old Chief

Crusty Old Chief — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 14:46:57 +0000

Re: ajay on the logistics train
With all due deference to the good Mr. Page, and if I haven’t taken both he and ajay out of context, it seems that you’ve both made the common error of not accounting for TIME in your assessment.
The assessment does hold up if we’re using only a discreet mission. However, if we extend the assessment over the course of many missions and a long period the argument falls apart.
Here’s why: 1) That arty sitting at a FOB or (ahem) the BB sitting of the coast has only to be brought into theater once. The airdropped super sexy JDAM has to be flown off the airbase or CVN everytime. 2) Having ordnance hanging off an airframe that’s doing the piddle-diddle over the theater WAITING for a target eats up fuel, manpower, useful life of the airframe, and hours of maintenance. Not every sortie drops all its ordnance — that JDAM has to be brought back to the airbase or CVN, downloaded from the plane, disarmed, and stowed. Whereas the gun crew or NSFS ship loads and fires rounds ONLY when they have a fire mission.
Put another way, its like calling a taxi and having it sit, with the meter running 24/7, because you MIGHT need to go somewhere. Moreover, would you call a local taxi (the arty at the FOB or NSFS ship) or would you call the taxi from out of town (airbase or CVN aircraft)?
Cheers,
Chief B.

By: wpnexp

wpnexp — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 12:53:17 +0000

Everyone seems to forget that we don’t create weapons based on the cost required to kill a target. Having planes handy to destroy or disorganize a mass of tanks or to strike deep targets is ideal, but having them around to kill a few terrorists when the guys on the ground need help seems as good a reason to have them to me. On the other hand, Excalibur, GMLRS, BBs and all that are good too. It is unfortunate that we just can’t afford them all, and choice have to be made. I get upset when the choice is just plain stupid, like cancelling the B-2 after just 21 planes. I bet people wish we could have more of them capable of dropping 80 x 500lb JDAMs each on different targets of some bad guys in the future. The number of weapons from all services that have been cancelled just as they were about to go operational is stunningly poor leadership and planning on our part. Here is a short list, M-8 Sheridan light tank, ADATS, possible the Marine Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle if we don’t watch out, we gave up on the XB-70 so we could keep the older, lumbering, slow B-52 around for nearly 80 years?, the Land Attack Standard Missile. We are cutting short the F-22 just as it is proving to be the worlds best fighter. Funny, the Chinese haven’t stopped buying fighter aircraft, and the Russians, Europeans and others are building them too. The F-22 is so good the Japanese and Israelis (albeit with our money most likely) want to buy some. We stopped buying the Seawolf SSN so we could buy a more expensive Virginia-class SSN that is marginally more effective (and all of the extra capabilities of the Virginia could have been placed in the Seawolf without major redesign). Well enough said.