carr wrote:
No, I was considering only the NSFS mission since that is the purpose for producing the modifications. If the NSFS mission can be killed fairly easily then the ship is just another destroyer and the modifications wouldn't be worth doing.
Can’t agree here. To use argumentum ad absurdum, why do anything if someone may be able to stop you on occasion? That the gun MAY be lost in battle is not legitimate reason not to mount it.
I will agree with the general concept that you want to make mission success as likely as practicable and that if mission success is not reasonably sure within a reasonable risk, it should not be done. I don’t think that is the case here. The weapon would be an incredible asset, and a fiberglass gun house does not diminish that. Without armoring, it is still of much greater effectiveness in NGFS that existing non-armored mounts – and not by a small margin.
In fact one could argue that the added range improves the defenses of the mount and ship itself by placing the vessel farther from the targeted threat, increasing the potential area the enemy has to search and increasing the vessels reaction time through added distance.
The armored gun house would add functionality through potential durability, but I do not believe the lack of that armor makes it non effective, especially when compared to currently deployed weapons.
Quote:
It would be rather difficult to specifically target one of these systems, as you first have to get close enough, then be accurate enough under fire (even the flare of the DDG-51 bow would make the angle to the Mk 71 from a skiff with a M2 hard, once you were finally close enough) – but the concern of swarming is perfectly legitimate.
carr wrote:
Well, this is the crux of the matter. I think small speedboat swarming would be very effective and difficult to counter, to say nothing of swarming by small missile boats. If you feel that this is not a particularly dangerous scenario then you don't need the kinds of changes I'm suggesting. Of course, since it's never been done or tested realistically, who can say whether I'm overstating or understating the problem? So, make your best assessment and go with it. I won't argue further.
Not sure why I’m sensing acrimony here – I agree that the swarming small boats are a significant threat, and that your suggestion of armoring the mount would provide added benefit. Smaller groups I would expect to be dealt with by ship’s systems before they got close enough, but there is always that possibility of bleed-through.
Missile boats are a different issue – most big enough to mount significant anti-ship weaponry likewise become Big enough to be the Mk 71’s dinner…and AEGIS (SM-2 and ESSM) and CIWS (be it Mk110, Mk15, or RAM) is aboard to deal with the missiles themselves . The armoring of the gun houses will help prevent cheap-kill damage from airbursts of weapons from missile boats.
Maybe where we disagree is with the ‘fairly easily’ condition. I agree that the threat is real and significant, but I do not believe the theoretical effect could be achieved ‘fairly easily’. A swarm would require a reasonable effort on the part of the adversary, that build up may be detected, then it has to be coordinated, then it has to travel to the target area, etc..
I’m of the opinion that there are many opportunities to mitigate the threat at many levels, but still agree passive armor should be included as one of those mitigations.
So, simply, we both agree the threat is significant enough to add passive armor.
carr wrote:
Excellent. I wonder what the effectiveness of EO would be against a high speed, maneuvering target? I was not aware that SPY-1 could be effectively used against that type of target at extreme close range. Are you sure that Aegis can discriminate small surface targets at a ranges of a few hundred yards sufficiently well for gun targetting?
As SPY-1 loses effectiveness on a surface target with closure of that target, the effectiveness of the EO is increasing at the same time. Keep in mind – I did say loss of the SPQ-9 would be degradation – certainly surface fire will be more effective with SPQ-9 than without, but loss of the SPQ-9 does not mean a total end to the ability to track and take surface targets under fire.
Truth is, we need not be sure that SPY-1 can discriminate small surface targets at a few hundred tards - SPQ-9 will do that. We only need to be sure we have some alternative if we lose SPQ-9. Clearly, the SPQ-9 option will always be better, if it isn't why mount it?
Love the feedback.
At this point, I’m leaning toward the forward Mk110 with two Mk46 on the quarters of the missile deck – with all guns in armored houses.