Above you see the commissioning photo of the USS Tarawa. Notice the two 5 inch guns on its bow?
What happened and why did we lose these weapons?
If the requirements are changing and we expect assault echelon ships to make runs toward the beach to disembark its Marines (since holding at 25 miles off shore is no longer considered any safer than 10 miles in)...then why don't we have these fabulous weapons, along with modern warheads to engage shore based missile batteries, small boats and other threats in the littorals.
Maybe its time to take a blast from the past and put guns back on amphibs!
They were removed becuase the AV-8 took over the offensive firepower role.
ReplyDeleteThe Tarawa Class were originally designed and laid down before the AV-8 entered US service and so were only intended to operate helicopters. As such there was a requirement for an offensive capability for dealing with threats from sea and from shore. With the adoption of the AV-8, it took over the force projection/force protection role and so the 5 inch guns were deemed superfluous.
Good call, but I think 5vers are a bit of overkill for the kind of small boat threats they are likely to face. The 57mm from the LCS coupled with whatever is replacing the NLOS missiles would be a perfect fit. Come to think of it that would make the LHA's more potent littoral platforms than the LCS's can ever hope to be...Navy won't allow that to happen in a million years (or a billion $'s...)
ReplyDeleteIn any case they have used that particular space up for SAM and CIWS systems so things will need to be moved out of the way me thinks.
Just ring the amphibs with CIWS; Phalanx, RAMs and .50cals. (Big) guns need radars (which eats up valuable ship spaces), which need operators (increases crew) and of course loads of ammo (requiring secure storage).
ReplyDeleteGators never sail without escorts, so it's their job to protect the amphibs against anything from subs, small (swarm) boats and incoming (shore based) cruise missiles.
Railguns and lasers
ReplyDeleteWhile the guns could obviously be use for self-protection, I think they were originally there for fire support. I think delarnn is right in that other things reduced their utility below that of their operational uses and costs.
ReplyDeleteIf you want fire support today, I would think they would need to be 6- or 8-in guns. 5-in just doesn't have the range. The NLOS would have been a good fit too, I think.
If firepower was really an issue then perhaps the Chinese model offers some pointers; just park a battalions worth of M-109s and/or M270 MLRS on the flight-deck!
ReplyDeleteMarcase has it about right. Yes add multipe defensive weapons to all amphibs. Unfortunately the ESGs of before and ARGs of today DO sail without escorts and that is a BAD thing I think.
ReplyDeleteI continue to maintain that major caliber guns should be added to the LPD17 class because (their is space and weight reserved) those ARE the ship directly supporting amphib assault and they WILL be the ships to move closer to the beach once the assault wave succeeds.
leesea - Good point on the LPD-17s.
ReplyDeleteIf large guns are needed, then perhaps the compact German Donar 155mm would be a good option, as it uses the same 155mm grenades and charges as the M777/M109 and is ERGM compatible.
Ideally of course would be the Zumwalt's 155mm.
oooh, i'm getting kinda tired of attempting to marry land based artillery to naval requirements.
ReplyDeletethe use indicates a need for a totally different weapon.
naval artillery should have a large magazine, automatically reload, have long range precision warheads and be capable of operating across the spectrum...from anti-air, anti-surface and shore bombardment.
a conversion to the M777 won't get that done. i don't know enough about the donar to comment
I thought the AGS system was coming along and Could fit on LPD17?
ReplyDelete