The Ship Model Forum

Great link. Thank you. A couple of weeks ago I read an internal Navy report about the FlightIIIs and AMDR. It's interesting what the Navy is trying to pursue and what it's not.

The 8" SALGP was also an extended range round. The range is an unpublished number.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

AGS Light:



Only 180 rounds...worth it, or should they go with the Mk71 with 208 in the magazine and 75 in the ready service loader?

However, one of the coolest things about the AGS-Lite is that it's only a little bigger than the Mk45. I wonder if it will be able to fire NATO 155mm ammunition or if it can be modified to accept them. They're so close to an entire existing family of ammunition....so close.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

According to this: http://events.us.baesystems.com/SAS/pro ... S-LITE.pdf
AGS-Lite can have a max loadout of 240 rounds, though only the first 180 are fully automatic.

Admittedly, a much more recent AGS Lite summary presentation makes no mention of anything more than 180: http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2012armaments/ ... 4weyer.pdf

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?

The interesting thing about the recent report is not the overall magazine capacity (180 rounds) but the loading mechanism (ready service loader drum) itself: 12 rounds per minute.



I really hope this gets picked up, because there is a certain possibility that this weapon system will be adapted to carry standard US Army and USMC 155mm rounds. If so, this will be the revolutionary gun mound the USN has been looking for since the arbitrary cancelation of the Mk71:

As fitted for the DDG-51 class:


The mechanical inner workings of the mount.


When it comes down to brass-tacks, the Mk71 8-inch is proven. The AGS Light is not. The Mk71 8-inch can fire 8-inch heavy and laser guided rounds up to 22nm and with a sabot, it can fire the 155mm LRLAP. The AGS can only fire the LRLAP.

...one way or ther other, the Mk71 8-inch is still the best way to go...

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Not quite, NATO standard 155mm rounds used modular propelling charges (including bags) - AGS (and MK71) use a case to marry the projectile and propelling charge. The advantage of using a case as opposed to using modular charges is that the gun/howitzer can be comletely loaded in one ramming cylce for projectile and propellant.

Modular charges require an addition (second) ramming cyle for the propellant. The second cyle slows the ROF of the gun roughly in half. Modular charges are also a pain to handle, but give the option to minimize propellant usage, and also the ability to fine tune the trajectory of the projectile.

It is unclear to me if existing stocks of 155mm ammunition can be economically adapted to case versus modular charges for use in the AGS, although it should be economically possible to make new rounds capable of using cases. Here is a picture of a modern U.S. M795 projectile, which was not designed for use with cases.



I am also assuming (a dangerous thing) that AGS is a true gun and not a howitzer: it is also unclear what existing stockpiles of fuzes will survive the much higher g-forces being generated in the barrel of AGS. Admittedly, this is probably not so much an issue for newer NATO rounds as modern field artillery has been blurring the difference between high velocity guns and low velocity howitzers for some time.

One more point is ROF. Modern 155mm systems are capable of getting off between 5 (towed U.S. M777) and 8-9 (automatic German PZH2000 and Swedish FH 77) rounds per minute. The critical number is the how many projectiles an artillery battery can place on target in 10 seconds. After 10 seconds, the number of casualties inflicted by the firing battery tends to drop rather precipitously because the enemy either "gets off the X," or takes cover. This makes tactics like time on target - TOT (all guns and batterys coordinate to land rounds at the same time) and Multiple Rounds Simultanious Impact - MRSI (each gun fires multiple projectiles at diferent trajectories and velocities to land at the same time on a given target). Sustained ROF are less important. The FH 77 is notable in that it can fling three 155mm rounds in eight seconds, and under ideal circumstances can put 6-rounds MRSI. Automated guns are generally found in self propelled batteries of four to six tubes.

The jist of all this is that a ship firing 155m projectiles really needs to be able to put at minimum of 9 rounds on target within 10 seconds to equal a modern artillery battery, and ideally would put 18 rounds on target within 10 seconds. In fairness, land based artillery systems cannot sustain high rates of fire (the tubes will overheat), and it is a rare artillery battery that can carry even 60 rounds per gun - most top at 30-40 maximum.

Practically this calls for a minimum of three (3!) AGS systems to equal a first class modern self propelled howitzer battery. Perhaps the triple gun turrets of yester-year point the way to the future? The rapid fire 6"/47 and 8"/55 clearly show this was possible.

The 15cm gun-howitzer has become the standard field artillery piece around the world for a reason: it is both highly efficient and highly effective for 90%+ of fire missions, and has eclipsed both larger and smaller caliber systems. Most fire missions are called for suppression or neutralization, not destruction, but a 100lb 155mm round will deliver 20lbs or so of HE on target: more than enough for dropping houses and destroying even reinforced concrete bunkers.

This is an interesting point. Let me ask: Isn't it more a concern of the modular charge being shaped to mate to the base of the 155mm round instead of the base of the round mating to the charge? The projectile is a steel case. I imagine it can take being pushed by a modular propellant case into the rifling of a gun. Isn't it an issue of designing a new modular propellant case and not a new projectile?

This is another reason why I think the 155mm version of the Mk71 is a better choice than the AGS(L). The 155mm Mk71 would have been capable of firing, with a single ram of projectile and powder, 15 or more NATO rounds per minute.

Makes perfect sense. Get 'em while they're out. This is probably why the Newport News was so much more effective than the Baltimore-class CAs in Vietnam. She could loft 90 rounds before the first one hit the target. Then it was a full minute of 90 8" rounds pounding the target area.

Indeed. The 155mm Mk71 backfitted onto CGs or onto a new hull with 2 guns would provide 30+ rounds per minute on target.

Interesting. The re-introduction of 8-inch gunnery would be a game changer. After Vietnam, the combat analysis of the effectiveness of 155mm vs 8-inch was that 8-inch was twice or more effective than the 155mm. If we successfully employed laser guided 8-inch rounds in the late 1970s, just imagine what a modern 8-inch round could contribute.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

No, you cannot ram NATO 155mm projectiles and the propelling charge at the same time. If you try, you run the risk of crushing the powder bags, or for the newer extruded modular charges, crushing the cases. If you do this you will get unreliable ignition resulting in wide variations in projectile velocity, which in turn will ruin accuracy. Worst case you could end up with a projectile stuck in the barrel, or even burst the chamber, or barrel. The proceedure is: First the projectile gets rammed (loaded) to seat the projectile driving bands and then the propelling charge is rammed (loaded seperately).

Field artilery ammunition comes in four parts : the fuze, projectile, propellant charges(s) (could be one to eight charges), and the primer. The propellant is "built up" by combining different charges of to get the desired amount of propellant, the more you add, the greater the velocity of the projectile. You can change range by changinging gun elevation or propelling charge, or both. Bags of granular propellant (M3A1, M4A2, M119, M203A1, etc.) are still in the system, but the new modular charge technology is to stack pressed charges (they stack like tuna cans). Here is a 28lb M203 charge and its carrying container (yes that is 28lbs in a single charge):


Here is how the new modular charges equal the older bag system.

The rapid fire 6"/47 and 8"/55 guns used fixed charges loaded into a brase case that in turn was crimped to the projectile almost like a rifle cartridge. Again, I am not certain that current 155mm ammunition can be be mated to a fixed case without modification (maybe they can use some super adhesive?), but it should be trivial to make future projectiles compatable with cases and bagged charges.

Although bagged/modular charges seem to be cumbersome, they do give the firing battery a tremendous amount of flexibility in controlling the trajectory of fired rounds and help make tactics like MSRI possible. Fixed charge ammunition is very inflexible by comparison.


The name of the game is no longer ROF per minute, but number of rounds on target from zero to ten seconds give or take.

Fudging a little: two (2) MK71 guns get you eight rounds in twelve seconds. A four tube modern 155mm field artillery battery (automatic loading) can put 16 rounds on target in twelve seconds and depending on range, has the option of employing MRSI (potentially up to 24 rounds landing on target all at the same time). Ergo field artillery has caught up to, and in terms of flexibility, certainly surpassed the RF 6" and 8" guns. Ships have a huge advantage in ammunition capacity that no land artillery battery will match.

I think that three to four tubes are now a requirement if you want to give a ship the equivalent effectiveness of field artillery battery.


Again, the requirement is to maximise the maximum number of rounds on target before the enemy can take cover, or escape, not rate of fire per minute. This means you need three to four tubes.

I would skip the MK71, go back to the RF 6" and 8" three-gun turrets designs as a starting point, and see what tricks from the MK 71 could be applied to make a truely effective RF multi-gun turret.

Oh, I think I see what's wrong. I mistook what you said as
"modular" to mean the same type of thing the Navy does in its 5-inch, 155mm,
and 8-inch. Your impression of how medium to major caliber naval gunnery is
set up is incorrect. The Navy guns stack the projectiles on top of the
propellant canister; they are not crimped/attached to each other. The 57mm
and 76 are. I don't know how the 6"/47s did it, but I am that the Mk16 (Des
Moines), Mk71, and AGS are not fixed rounds like you are describing. They
are considered "semi-fixed", or "separate". They are even stored separately
as projectile and propellant and then brought together for use in the gun.
In the Mk16 gun, the projectile and propellant come up in two different
hoists, and both are brought together from either side of the gun to
centerline where a rammer could then ram the propellant case into the back
of the projectile, thus ramming them both into the gun. That's the only
time the propellant and projectile were together in the Mk16 gun. In the
Mk71, the projectiles and propellant charges were stored separately in cages
inside the magazine exactly like 5" rounds are in the Mk45. Then, when it's
time to load the 75 round loader drum, a projectile is lifted and loaded
onto a loading tray, then a propellant case is set behind it. Then, those
two are lifted/rammed up and into the hoist as one 80"-88" tall unit. Then
that is hoisted up into the loader drum. However, the projectile is still
merely sitting on top of the propellant casing.

While this sounds like it would be a noteworthy goal, I don't think
it should be a goal post. The only time a ship is going to be performing
NSFS is when there is no reliable air cover, real field artillery units, and
the NSFS really is "support". Sure with GPS guided rounds they can be used
for point destruction of targets, but the minimum desire of credible
NSFS/NGFS is as lethal cover fire. A heavier projectile or mass of
projectiles that could be used for area fire would be great, but when a ship
has one or two guns, it seems like heavier and bigger is significantly
better.

How has it eclipsed 8-inch? Other than
mobilityof a field artillery piece, how does it measure up to or surpass the
effectiveness of 8-inch rounds?

Like I said before, after Vietnam, the combat analysis of the effectiveness
of 155mm vs 8-inch was that 8-inch was twice or more effective than the
155mm. BAE has stated that precision guidance can be added to 8-inch
without a large R&D foot print. The laser guided 8-inch round already
exists, and the 155mm Excalibur guidance techniques can be applied to
8-inch.

I understand this
concept, and it makes all kinds of sense. However, when that is not
possibly, what kind of compromise is there? If you can only have 1 or 2
barrels, what about a heavier projectile that can bring say 8-inch rounds
that are twice as effective as 155mm directly on individual targets instead
of having to rely on carpeting an area?

I agree
totally! The 3-round clips the Mk71 uses would be an excellent system to
use in an forward-to-aft technique instead of a circular ready service
magazine. Each barrel could possibly have 24 or so rounds loaded in the
clips to hoist up into the gun. Then each turret could have 2 to 4 barrels,
and then begin a significant volume of fire.

Interesting! Please let me know if I misunderstood anything you stated.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

No you don't - I already have responses!


Thanks for this description, this clarifies (for me anyway) how semi-fixed ammunition is loaded in the RF 6", 8", and AGS. It also makes me think that there is a possibility of using different propelling charges for the projectile, meaning that MRSI may be possible with semi-fixed ammunition. I do not think you could get more than two to three rounds on target at the same time from the same gun given that ships will probably chose to fire at extended ranges. But MRSI capability is desirable.



My point remains that "if you want to give a ship the equivalent effectiveness of modern field artillery batteries" you are going to need more tubes.

Two AGS or MK 71 systems would at least be a start in the right direction…



I have not seen the Vietnam study you reference, but in the intervening 35-40 years, concepts, doctrine, and technology for field artillery have evolved considerably. After decades of intensive study, no one in the world is building, field guns or howitzers larger than 155mm, and rockets systems like MRLS have replaced the big-gun as Corps artillery, being longer ranged (by ground force standards) and more effective at counter-battery fire.

I think there is a major mis-understanding of ground force requirements for artillery batteries. What ground commanders want artillery to do for them in a (conventional) fight:

1. Neutralize enemy artillery (include AA systems) to free friendly units from its effects, [Note that this mission and counter-battery fire is primarily the responsibility of MRLS systems, but if gun-howitzers are in range, they will certainly be called upon for this mission.]
2. Suppress (pin down/isolate) enemy units so that friendly units can maneuver, close and destroy those same enemy units.
3. Interdict enemy forces, and prevent them from reinforcing, or launching attacks against friendly units.

These priorities call for very short, but extremely intense, area fire from medium caliber guns (155mm), or engagement of point targets (a single house, an isolated SP howitzer, etc.). AA systems are area targets. Anti-armor strikes are area targets. Field artillery batteries are area targets. Enemy infantry units are area targets. Laying an anti-armor minefield by artillery (tube or MLRS) is an area target. Fuel and logistics units are area targets.

The 155mm gun-howitzer fits these priorities with a vengeance. It delivers 20lbs +/- of HE, or other special munitions, which works great for 90% of these fire missions, which are delivered against area (not point) targets. Even when called upon to destroy point targets, a PGM 155mm shell will collapse an ordinary masonry house, or kill everyone in a concrete bunker nicely.

Destructive fires from large caliber guns are not in demand. The bigger is better theory is fine if all things are equal, but they are not. That analysis completely ignores the downside of over-killing targets and discounts the enormous waste of shooting a 335lb 8" projectile at targets where a 100lb 155mm projectile will do the job.

If you still doubt me look at what weapons are currently in the inventory of pretty much every army around the world, particularly pay attention to what systems have gone away. Large artillery pieces like the: 175mm, 8"/203mm, 210mm, 240mm, even 15" and 42cm - have all gone the way of the dodo bird.


The obvious solution is to concentrate more ships on target if you cannot change your battery.

Beyond a certain point, delivering three times as big a shell does not make a weapon three times as effective. Blast effect from the much bigger 8” battery does not completely make up for ROF (really the 10-second burst ROF), or number of guns when firing conventional HE projectiles.

That said, the much larger 8” round is a *much more* efficient carrier of ICM type munitions (bomblets) than 155mm projectiles. This will meet with wailing cries from the anti-cluster munitions crowd, but there is no pleasant way to kill, and I would rather the enemy get it than our guys... DPICM would put the 8" gun back in the game.

MRSI would also help ease the solution.

In the end, I believe that if the Navy wants to get back into the fire support business, it needs some type of rocket like GMLRS or ATACAMs to supplement (not replace) guns.

The bottom line is delivering effect to target.

Ashore, that effect must be delivered in a short ammount of time to be effective. This requires a medium to high RoF over a short timespan. At sea, and when you have fewer tubes, sustained rate is more important

IF those rounds deliver the same ammount, eventually you need more tubes.

What if each round has a higher effective payload? Then you can exploit fewer tubes with a high rate of fire to generate the needed effect.

155 is now the defacto standard, but not because it is the ONLY effective caliber. It simplifies logistics, training, and familiarity to have only one caliber. You only need to develop ammo for one caliber, etc.

Basically, am I insane in thinking two 8" tubes with a 12 to 15 rnd RoF could deliver the same or similar effect to three 155mm tubes with a RoF of 6 to 10?

Land artillery batteries are pretty much standardized on 4 or 6 tubes per battery (the high ROF automatic systems are generally self propelled); are you trying to compare shipboard weapon options, or trying to compare ship board guns versus field artillery batteries?

BL: “Effect” is not linear with caliber, or shell weight, and "it depends".

1. If the scenario is suppression/interdiction using conventional HE rounds, a four-gun automated 155mm battery beats the 2-gun 8” ship battery.
2. If the scenario allows DPICM, or calls for laying minefields by artillery, the 8” gun absolutely dominates the 155mm battery.
3. I give the nod to the PGM 8” round for destroying point targets, but note that 8” is probably overkill for most targets. The PGM 155mm projectile is a damn effective weapon.

Consider that artillery has more uses than just throwing HE, DPIC, and PGMs, Ground commanders very much appreciate things like smoke and other munitions. There are also many cases where more tubes is desirable. Also note that newer projectiles (thermobaric!) change the rules.

8” guns can throw projectiles weighing up to 335 lbs, 155mm projectiles weigh ~103 lbs: the 8” gun carries a much larger payload, but HE blast effectiveness drops rapidly (inverse cube) so a shell needs to be ~ nine times bigger just to double blast effectiveness". But the situation changes with DPICM (cluster bomblets), bigger projectiles are much more efficient carriers of sub-munitions; from memory the 8” round can carry 195 DPICM bomblets versus 80 for a 155mm projectile. DPICM rounds are a contentious weapon and may go the way of napalm. DPICM is also not appropriate for certain fire missions (shooting close to friendly troops, creeping barrages followed closely by infantry, etc.).

As I noted before: 2x MK71 guns get you eight-rounds in twelve seconds. A four-tube modern 155mm field artillery battery (automatic loading) can put 16-rounds on target in twelve seconds and depending on range, has the option of employing MRSI (potentially up to 24-rounds landing on target all at the same time).

That math implies the same rate of fire for the two 8" tubes as the four 155mm tubes (all at 4rnds/tube in 12 sec), and even implies a higher rate for the 155mm to generate the MRSI number. My question was a higher rate of fire on the fewer tubes.

The reason I ask is that one of the intrinsic advantages to at-sea guns is the ability to carry a heavier weapon system - say, one which is more automated and can handle a higher rate of fire, or higher burst rate. M109's published RoF is 6 RPM, PZH 2000 10 rpm. A Mk 71 with only 12 rpm doubles the RoF of M109, with a heavier shell.

Therefore, I'm am coming from the idea that 1 Mk 71 could equal or exceed two M109s, although all those rounds coming from one tube instead of two may impact the MRSI ability. Maybe that is made up for in the heavier shell, maybe not. Thus, two Mk 71 could equal or exceed four M109s.

Two Mk 71 with 15 RPM could make the trade with three PZH 2000 in the rounds delivered department.

In other posts I have put forward the idea that the 203mm use a collar for standard 155mm rounds to deliver them from a greater distance, if possible.

I am not assuming a direct correlation of 'twice as heavy = twice as effective' for rounds delivered, but it was great of you to break that out as I had not said as much. That being said, one 8" round will have more blast than a 155mm round, the only real debate is how much more. Of course, blast effect is only one trait of gunfire, albeit a major one. I do see the larger gun as a delivery system for more than just blast as you have indicated - PGM, DPICM, etc. Thermobaric makes me drool at the possibilities...

In the case of Naval Gunfire against a vessel, the larger individual round is MUCH more effective, as penetration and 'deep' destruction into the vessel is much more relevant than a blast on the outside (surface) of the target. Blast against exposed personnel and sensors can be effective for a mission kill, but real, old school 'send-you-home'/'can't fight no more because I'm trying to save my ship' damage in generated within a ship.

MRSI is really about manipulating the trajectories of the rounds, not ROF. There is a minimum time interval between round for MRSI for each combination of range, trajectory, velocity, but the point is for a given system (fixed ROF) you need to play with velocity and elevation.

If the 8" gun used modular charges, liquid propellant, etc. it could certainly fire MRSI missions.


The real advantage of guns on ships is their large magazine size, and ability to fire for sustained periods!

The largest guns ever built (size of projectile, range, weight, etc.) were built on land.

The M109 is an aging system.


Again, not sure why you keep going with this argument

Artillery batteries are organized around 4 or 6 tubes for a reason: effectiveness against specific target types. If you want to deliver similar effects against land targets, then you have to design your ship board battery around similar principals.

A PzH 2000 Battery is four (4) tubes, and it dominates the Mk 71 for fire missions against land targets. Over time the MK 71s will deliver more ordanance, but If you are looking to achieve effect on target, and then service other targets, the modern battery is better for the majority of fire missions.

Rounds delivered in 10-15 seconds is far more important than rounds per minute, or magazine size. The effectiveness of a fire mission is determined in what happens in the first 15 seconds of fire: this is when the most casualties occur, this is when the enemy morale is crushed, this is when the enemy is either driven to ground, or escapes (vehicles).

This is why capabilities like MRSI, and weapons like MRLS have proliferated.


Sabots are certainly a posibility.

I would not automatically assume that a standard 155mm round is suitable for shooting out of an 8" gun with a sabot.


With standard HE, much of the increased blast of 8" guns is wasted (inverse cube disappation) meaning that the 8" gun is not really much better than a 155mm.

ICM/DPICM changes the picture considerably, note how the MRLS rocket stacks up against the 155mm and the 8"/203mm:

-155mm M483A round = 88 dual purpose sub-missiles
-8 inch M509 = 195 dual purpose sub-missiles
-GMRLS rocket (MRLS) = 404 dual purpose sub-missiles

But, there are issues with ICM type munitions. DPICM leaves duds that are dangerous to friendly troops and non-combatants. DPICM is not good for shooting close to friendly troops. DPICM is not good for rolling barrages. DPICM is most effective in open terrain, less effective in others. DPICM is also a political issue. I am not making a political statement: it simply is an issue.

Yes.

M109 is aging, but it is what the US uses currently.

Naturally manipulating elevation of the weapon and altering charges are critical for MRSI, but it is ALSO about rate of fire - once the first round leaves the tube, the timer starts and ends when the last round has to be delivered to make it to the target on time. No burst rates are published, all I have to work with is Rate of Fire - there has to be a equivalent measure when comparing items.

We seem to be approaching the problem a little differently - you seem to see an equivalent battery as a lower threshold, I see it as an objective. NGFS would not have to equal a four gun (PZH-2000) 155mm battery, but it sure would be nice if it could.

(I had actually read somewhere that there was consideration of reducing PZH-2000 batteries to three units due to the increased fire capabilities, but I'm off shooting for the weekend and can't find those references right away. May have been the producers marketing...so I have to treat that as supposition for now)

Suppression fire is one of the mission of the naval gun mount - but not the only one. I'm good with a two-tube set up which more or less equals four M109s. Yes they would be exceeded by four PZH-2000 style - but the land battery would not have the ammunition capacity the vessel has either. That capacity could mean longer sustained fire, more fire missions across a shorter time, and/or increase in the options of capability to be delivered via tube.

In the case of the origin of this thread, to grossly over-simplify my opinion:

one AGS-Lite equals one M109
one Mk 71mod equals two M109

Naturally, the mod to Mk71 has to be variable charge and high elevation.

If the AGS-L could fire 12 rpm, they would be really close, with the exception of weight of projectile.

At this point, I'm not sure which mod would be more realistic - Mk71 mod may be easier.

My point in all of this remains this: if you are trying to fill a stated capabilities gap for fires, then you have to meet the objective requirements of current/near-future artillery systems. Otherwise, you are adding some degree of capability, which is certainly better than nothing, but not meeting the actual requirements of the USA and USMC. The latter is problematic in terms of budgeting and allocation of resources. Not impossible, but problematic.

I think that the reality of this problem calls for either a double or triple-gun turret configurations in 155mm or larger caliber, or a MRLS type weapon system (possibly employing VLS) - preferably both.

And nothing in this discussion gets to a true shortfall of ships, which is integrating a modern fire direction center into CIC to control fires (part of a greater C4ISR issue with integrating naval and land forces), nor the proper training of the fleet in how to perform this mission and other support missions for troops ashore. If these issues were met, you could use multiple ships (and different weapons) to respond to the same fire mission (shooting the same target).

We seem to be in vehement agreement there - but for the purposes of Modifying Flt I DDGs ('available hull') to get SOME kind of support, I am limited by realism (yes, even though it is a WHIF) to one tube. On a new-build platform I'd certainly add more.

I am 100% behind VLS MLRS - heck, I'd wanted them to use the ASROC box to hold four packs of the M26 rockets for years.... Now the Unitary warhead and increased range would make that an even better idea.

Love this:

http://www.difesa.it/Segretario-SGD-DNA ... lcano.aspx

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2tSQbFD ... re=related

Uses the sub-caliber concept, which we already know I like, and they are making a 155mm version. What would a 203mm version be like...

the Italians are handing us our butts on Naval Gun and ammunition development...

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNIT_5-64_LW.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-unZOJEZ ... re=related

25 RPM from a Lightweight 5"/64 mount with developed ammunition.
The 'older' compact spits 40 RPM...

Harumph.

(edited to add videos)

Another item to add to the updated DDG-51 weapons load-out, but no model impact.

Clearly this would work on many platforms, including the LFS Spruance WIF.

More data on a proposed but not developed fire support option, mentioned in other posts:

https://mfcbastion.external.lmco.com/mi ... -POLAR.pdf

At the time of the proposal, only the submunition version of MLRS was in service - no reason to think the unitary/others would not have also worked - they are even mentioned on the sheet.

LASM was selected over POLAR for development, LASM was subsequently cancelled.

Add to the list of good ideas that didn't go far enough - MK 71, SMARTROC, POLAR....

Mr. Gui,

When do you plan to build a model of this fine vessel?

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Hey SumGui, what's the date on that POLAR PDF?

_________________
Drawing Board:
1/700 Whiff USS Leyte and escorts 1984
1/700 Whiff USN Modernized CAs 1984
1/700 Whiff ASW Showdown - FFs vs SSGN 1984

Slipway:
1/700 Whiff USN ASW Hunter Killer Group Dio 1984