Posted by galrahn in UncategorizedYou can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
This is an interesting development in my opinion. The Marines love the AC-130 so much, they are developing a package for their own KC-130s to arm it up for Afghanistan, but according to one spokesman, it is really about ISR.
Conway said the Marines “have lusted for years” over the AC-130′s capability but could not afford the sophisticated Air Force gunships. Instead, they are taking advantage of their KC-130J transport-tankers in a program called “Harvest Hawk,” he said. It consists of a “roll-on, roll-off package” that can be installed in hours and gives the KC-130s the ability to fire a 30mm rapid-fire gun and Hellfire missiles in support of ground forces, Conway said. “I think you’re going to see one in [Afghanistan] before the end of the calendar year.”
A Marine spokesman said later that “this is not intended to be a gunship” but a response to an urgent need of Marines in Afghanistan who want persistent intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities. “The ISR is the priority, but we also want the capability to use some weapons against targets we can see,” the spokesman said.
That last paragraph is a bit timid for the Marine Corps. Only in the Marines does one stick a 30mm on a plane and call it ISR. The article goes on to discuss another platform they would like to arm up for sending fires down range.
The commandant said he has an agreement with Adm. Gary Roughead, the chief of naval operations, to examine use of a “box of rockets” that could be installed on an LCS to provide fire support for Marines ashore. It could replace the capabilities the Marines expected from the Advanced Gun System developed for the DDG-1000 destroyer, whose production is being stopped at three ships.
LCS is designed to accept a variety of “mission packages,” which include weapons, sensors, controls and operators that enable a ship to perform a variety of combat assignments. A Marine fire-support package was not one of the three original missions developed for LCS but has been discussed recently.
Is it even possible for a “box of rockets” to replace the capabilities of the Advanced Gun System? If so, that is either one really impressive “box of rockets” or one overrated Advanced Gun System. Somehow, I don’t think any solution developed for the LCS is going to come anywhere near to the range and capability of the Advanced Gun System, although I do like the idea of an offshore MLRS system on the Littoral Combat Ship.
14 Responses to “Marines Do ISR With a Gun, MLRS With a Ship”
Leave a Reply
Recent Posts
Subscribe
Re: LCS: WEIGHT WEIGHT WEIGHT.
There’s a thousand issues with this idea. Even the “easiest,” parking an actual MLRS on the flight deck, is extremely difficult. MLRS are heavy, aren’t marinized, aren’t designed to fire on the move, and will melt the flight deck (if they don’t simply buckle the deck from their own weight). Magazine space is restricted, and re-arming would be a significant challenge.
Integration to the weapons bays only adds more issues without solving anything important, and makes the weight issue worse (more weight higher up).
USMC would be well served to crossing LCS off their list and looking for an actual solution to the fire support problem.
May 18th, 2009 at 7:37 amI will assume that any “box of rockets” will probably fit in the space provided for the ASW NLOS-LS LCS mission module, and the missiles will have a similar capability to the PAM missile proposed for the LCS ASW mission module.
Here’s the quick and dirty comparison of capability based on open source information
Range:
PAM: 40km AGS: 160km
Warhead:
PAM: ?? (120lb class rocket) AGS: 155mm 24lb
Magazine Capacity:
PAM: 45 (LCS NLOS-LS) AGS: 600 (2X300/DDG-100)
This quick and dirty (with the assumptions noted above) indicates that it will take over 13 LCS platforms to equal the magazine capacity of one DDG-1000 in terms of NGFS metrics. The AGS has over four times the range, and I am willing to bet (but cannot prove it) that the warhead of the 155 mm AGS is superior for naval gunfire support from the Marine’s perspective. This does not even take into account the rate of fires or the fact that the LCS is not necessarily optimized (in terms of stealth and survivability) to operate in a contested littoral space like the DDG-1000 is optimized to do.
From a material solution, the “box of rockets” on an LCS does not appear on the surface to be as capable as the DDG-1000 solution. I will emphasize the fact that this is just a quick and dirty analysis of material solutions only, and it is entirely possible that TTP or other DOTMLPH (non-material) adjustments could put these two systems on more equal footing.
For some further comparison:
13 LCS @ $400M = ~ $5.2B (a cost estimate that is in line with some estimates for one DDG-1000)
13 LCS X 40 crew = 520 crew compared to ~ 140 on the DDG-1000
13 LCS = 13 Command Opportunities vs. 1 Command Opportunity for the DDG-1000 solution.
Surprisingly, I find that I can make reasonable arguments for either of these material solutions depending on the perspective I choose to take.
V/R,
May 18th, 2009 at 12:36 pmGeneral Conway’s comment, “the sophisticated Air Force gunships” is just the first layer of a very complex mission set.
Do the Marines understand the processes, risk management, TTPs and training involved with fielding a direct fire aircraft of this nature in Afghanistan?
Naval Aviation just didn’t decide to land aircraft on ships one day. It took decades of evolution and process development in order to operate aircraft from ships safely. Equally, AFSOF just didn’t decide to deploy Gunships one day, they have had decades of evolution and process development which has facilitated them in operating these aircraft safely in a combat environment.
Luckily, the Marines can build upon the lessons learned by AFSOF and develop the processes, risk management and TTPs which will enable them to be successful, but it will not happen overnight. They will have to learn these processes and institutionalize them, which will take a period of time and will not be a quick answer.
Which leads to another question, is the joint solution for this oeprational need not being met, necessitating the Marines to source a solution on their own?
May 18th, 2009 at 12:47 pmWalthrop,
While the AGS has claimed a 74-83nm range (sometimes even 100nm!), the tests have only demonstrated an actual 59-63nm.
The literature on the DD(X)/Zumwalt also indicates that only 70 of the LRLAP rounds and 600 more conventional* long-range 155mm rounds (range= 24nm/44km)
If we want that range, it’s best not to depend on the successful, widespread entry of ERGM/LRLAP-type rounds, which are expensive ($50,000/shot?) and unproven.
Given the above, your estimates on the viability of the DD(X) and its abilities re: fire support from the sea need to be significantly amended downwards.
Although the specifications offered for the abilities of the AGS are tremendous, proving them will be another matter. Until they are proven, both the hypothetical capabilities of the DD(X) system with the AGS and those of the LCS are hardly comparable.
The pitifully small punch of the LCS even in the “multimission” package is unacceptable. The proposed ‘Israeli’ variants begin to approach their value, but otherwise they’ve not much to show for their size and very little for the cost.
–
Achieving a range of 24nm regularly would be a distinct improvement over the existing fire support options. The problem persists, however, and the NLOS-PAM round can provide at least a short-term, medium-range solution with a minimal footprint.
Absent a navalized MLRS system** or the re-integration of larger ship-based guns (8″ MCLWG or larger), the fire support problem will not be solved by the 155mm AGS alone.
*- i.e. Rounds with proven capabilities and known costs.
May 18th, 2009 at 7:07 pm**- Employing GMLRS, this system has consistently demonstrated a 70km range and has even gone as far as 85km (45nm) in tests (I’ve seen one report of modifications pushing this to 100km in UK MoD tests). These rounds, at a cost of ~$160k, are three times as expensive (bearing a 196lb warhead) as the proposed LRLAP (as it stands), but are, at least, proven. The ATACMs round, while quite expensive, also has a significant, proven, long range ‘punch.’ There is plenty of space on the JHSV (taking the HSV-2 Swift as a baseline) for the integration of such a system and we even have it built!
CBD,
I’ll concede that there may be concerns with the AGS, but don’t the same concerns generally exist with the PAM. One of the problems that I ran into while putting together the “quick and dirty” was that I was comparing vaporware with vaporware (although the AGS seems to be further up the learning curve than the PAM). As you can read, I came out relatively agnostic on the issue (differing from Galrahn just slightly).
The idea of putting a MLRS or even a GMLRS on a surfac ship just doesn’t grok with me right now, so I’ll have to think about it a little more. The C2 issues seem to be more than trivial, but I could be wrong.
V/R,
May 19th, 2009 at 9:58 amMy biggest concern with AGS is that, as it stands, we intend to buy just two or three ships designed to carry it. Four or six AGSs, fleet-wide, is not a real capability. It is too big to back-fit on to Burkes without major modifications (and likely losing the forward VLS). And NGFS-specific ships are easy budget-slashing targets.
At least Netfires (and perhaps a Naval MLRS) have the potential to be installed on far more vessels.
Netfires is even small enough to put on patrol boats, and landing craft.
I would like to see a PAM variant without the multi-mode seeker and an enlarged warhead. It could keep the GPS/INS guidance and datalink and be used as a less expensive area fires alternative.
CBD,
IIRC, the unguided round for AGS was canceled. DDG-1000s are supposed to carry all LRLAPs.
I like the idea of putting MLRS on JHSVs, though I would like to see a modular, palletized system that can be attached to the flight deck, and removed when not needed (99% of the time).
May 19th, 2009 at 10:26 amFor those who haven’t seen them, there are several threads (mostly from last year) on Galrahn’s blog where this topic has been bashed about. Might be a bit hard to dig for, but I think some really good discussion emerged at times.
CBD, that’s the first hard cost estimate I’ve seen for GMLRS in a long time–can you toss us a source for it? The best I’ve seen in a long time is “under six figures”, and that was likely assuming large batch orders that they’re not making yet. Likewise, the last ATACMS estimate I saw was along the lines of $500K, and that’s probably well out of date.
B. Walthrop, I believe the PAM warhead is 20lb HEAT/frag, although I could be wrong. Please note that due to the short range of PAM, it isn’t really what we pro-missile types like to consider for fire support; GMLRS from Mk41/57, a palletized VLS, or some sort of trainable launcher is a far superior basis for comparison to AGS.
Personally, here’s my view. Fire support has 3 options: 1) long range, 2) reasonable accuracy, 3) reasonable cost (cheap). Pick 2.
When you get out beyond 25NM (roughly max historical 16″ range), unguided rounds just have too large a CEP for most of the work we expect to do anymore (I understand the requirements for suppression, but even when we suppress these days, we generally impose accuracy limits). The AGS team appears to understand this; note CBD’s mention that AGS is planned to carry a *very* limited guided (expensive) magazine, with the bulk of its rounds not reaching past the Navy’s magic 25NM “no-go” line. Guided rounds are expensive; in fact, guided tube rounds are often more expensive than guided missiles with superior capabilities, because of the more stressful flight profile.
I see 2 possible non-exclusive solutions to this. If you want cheap fire support, you don’t have much choice–land something on the beach, and keep it supplied and operating within 10-25NM of the front lines. Technology from the Crusader slim-down that has resulted in NLOS-C may be useful here, as it allows for high-volume fire and self-TOT missions, allowing a smaller number of tubes to be landed and supported for a given base of fire. A variety of manpack, towed, and mechanized mortars with fire control computers is also a good idea, and for smaller fire missions, such as in support of a raid, NLOS-LS is almost an ideal solution with its ability to be mounted in a truck bed or slung under a medium-lift helo.
However, all of those options require you to land, supply, and defend extra forces just for fire support. This is not always practical, and in any event provides no support in establishing the beachhead in the first place. Therefore, I argue that a fully naval component of fire support *is* still required… but rather than AGS, I prefer something of a cross between GMLRS (long range, large warhead) and PAM (palletized launcher and fire control, datalink, multimode terminal guidance). My dream solution would be launchable from Mk41/57 or a NETFIRES-style box, carry at least a 50lb SDB-class warhead 50-100NM with terminal guidance options, purchased in such a large quantity that APUC drops below six figures.
Of course, that’s just a dream.
May 19th, 2009 at 2:29 pmBig D said : “that’s the first hard cost estimate I’ve seen for GMLRS in a long time–can you toss us a source for it?”
The FY2010 GMLRS Unitary have a flyaway cost of $107,000 per unit.
For (non-)comparison purposes, the first PAM missiles for the Navy (3 in FY2009 budget, none in the FY2010 budget) cost $926,000 per unit.
May 20th, 2009 at 7:29 amBig D said : “I believe the PAM warhead is 20lb HEAT/frag, although I could be wrong.”
PAM warhead is 16 lbs, with explosive (PBXN-9) accounting for a little less than 50%.
May 20th, 2009 at 7:57 am“If you want cheap fire support, you don’t have much choice–land something on the beach, and keep it supplied and operating within 10-25NM of the front lines.”
Disagree. Leverage some of the XM982 technology in a larger (203mm) round (more hitting power, larger bursting charge), using ERFB-BB design, one can achieve the CEP required at any range. The technology is there for a projectile (with sufficient payload, preferable for NGF in the close fight) to take advantage of the best of naval gunfire (rate of fire, range, flexibility) and minimize the worst (large error along GTL).
The “box of rockets” idea being bandied about ignores some very severe logistical burdens in an extended fight.
Cost of the Excalibur (XM982) is expected to be in the $50k range, with a rate of production of around 130/yr. How much lower could that go with a larger production run, and what would the employment of existing technology mean to a naval gun projectile of strikingly similar characteristics?
Oh, and don’t hang the gun on the amphibs.
May 20th, 2009 at 7:39 pmURR: $50K/round is not what I consider “cheap”; that’s reasonably comparable to GMLRS, which at twice the price offers range approaching 50NM with a 200lb warhead (with 5″ or 8″ equivalent warhead, range could be even longer) and also has a low production rate and plenty of opportunity for marginal cost savings.
For purposes of fire missions, I’d consider low-four-figures to be the very high end of “cheap”. You can’t have that and “guided” in the same round yet.
Scott B: The PAM price is… well, awful. You might as well buy a TLAM–heck, you could have bought a few thousand TLAMs for the R&D sunk into PAM so far. Please tell me that the insane per-unit cost is due to it still being essentially in prototype/LRIP stage. Has an expected “final volume price” been released? If it’s not under six figures, I’m going to seriously question what we just blew several billion dollars on.
May 20th, 2009 at 10:45 pm“$50K/round is not what I consider “cheap””
Me either. But the technology will get there, or at least can, as long as we don’t continue to load up a project such as I propose with marginal, unproven, very expensive “nice to haves”. Four figures sounds about right, at the very top end of cheap.
May 21st, 2009 at 5:54 amWhat keeps a GMLRS derivative from getting there as well? I know there’s an inherent cost advantage to shells over rockets at the low end, but guidance costs always blow that advantage away like a candle held in front of the mid-day sun.
I guess my thinking is based on my pessimism that long-range guided rounds will ever break below $10K, and the fact that at higher assumed prices, missiles have a number of minor advantages over shells, particularly in terms of launcher requirements for a given payload/range.
May 21st, 2009 at 11:45 am“missiles have a number of minor advantages over shells, particularly in terms of launcher requirements for a given payload/range.”
Perhaps, until one has to piece together the manufacturing and logistical requirements from the assembly line all the way to the using unit.
May 21st, 2009 at 2:07 pm