tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post7134555350753641984..comments2024-01-03T05:18:54.650-05:00Comments on CDR Salamander: At least someone has an ASCMCDR Salamanderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05981221786954902349noreply@blogger.comBlogger112125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post-55476166523832062012010-06-05T02:23:03.848-04:002010-06-05T02:23:03.848-04:00Hi
Very nice and intrestingss story.Hi <br />Very nice and intrestingss story.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post-24911397034181149952010-03-22T13:23:07.427-04:002010-03-22T13:23:07.427-04:00Well your article helped me terribly much in my co...Well your article helped me terribly much in my college assignment. Hats incorrect to you send, will look ahead in the direction of more related articles in a jiffy as its anecdote of my pet issue to read.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post-28467686471345170322010-03-22T05:31:58.551-04:002010-03-22T05:31:58.551-04:00Good post and this fill someone in on helped me al...Good post and this fill someone in on helped me alot in my college assignement. Thanks you on your information.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post-47803296723001667662010-03-14T14:14:57.000-04:002010-03-14T14:14:57.000-04:00Like General Turgidson says in "Dr. Strangelo...Like General Turgidson says in "Dr. Strangelove":<br /><br />"Boy I wish we had one o' those things, huh, Charlie?"UltimaRatioRegisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post-23156912354913294932010-03-14T13:39:14.000-04:002010-03-14T13:39:14.000-04:00http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/03/mach-6-cru...http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/03/mach-6-cruise-missile-ready-for-prime-time/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter<br /><br />lookie what I've found...<br />mach 6 ASCM anyone? Defend against this, Kirov!ewok40knoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post-86955897226444202012010-03-14T08:21:57.000-04:002010-03-14T08:21:57.000-04:00very nice shotvery nice shotTom Mowrynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post-18818383663366758282010-03-14T01:49:45.000-05:002010-03-14T01:49:45.000-05:00CDR S, It was USS HULL (DD-945), a FORREST SHERMAN...CDR S, It was USS HULL (DD-945), a FORREST SHERMAN Class DD, not the BROOKE-class FFG that was the test platform for the MK 71. She had a forward magazine capacity of 600 rounds of 5/54, as did most 5/54 ships of that vintage. At the time they were considering installing the MK 71 on the CALIFORNIA and VIRGINIA class CGNs where they had space to expand the magazines. But, as I noted above, the lackluster test results from the HULL op-eval, restricted funding during the Carter years, and an emphasis on the BBs in the '80s that killed the program.<br /><br />As for the BURKE class, I believe they carry 600 rounds of 5" but will defer to someone who has served in one.C-dore 14noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post-12604548537531009502010-03-13T22:35:39.000-05:002010-03-13T22:35:39.000-05:00What is the 5" stowage on a BURKE? What is the 5" stowage on a BURKE? SCOTTtheBADGERnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post-22940192844890222702010-03-13T18:54:01.000-05:002010-03-13T18:54:01.000-05:00Sid, not sure about the newest DDG's, but th...Sid, not sure about the newest DDG's, but the earlier flight of Arleigh Burke's reportedly carried right around 450,000 gallons or slightly more, of fuel for their gas turbines, plus a very small amount of diesel fuel. From everything I've heard about LCS-1 class, they hold just about exactly 50,000 gallons of gas turbine fuel, plus a much smaller amount specifically for diesels. I read a Naval Post Graduate School report showing LCS-2 class carried just about 200,000 gallons of fuel, or 4 times the total of LCS-1 class. You've obviously been around long enough to experienced fuel conservation measures while underway all over the world: running on one engine per shaft, or just using one shaft and dragging the other, limiting max speed as much as possible, etc. Most likely, LCS-1 class will be topping off their fuel every single day so that they do not get below a _____ certain percentage in reserve. And the MSC has insufficient quantitiy of underway replenishment oilers. Perhaps Navy amphibious ships will be able to give fuel to LCS's while they are deployed in the future. Otherwise, LCS will be just a showboat adorning calendars, because Fleet commanders will not be sending them into many ports all over the world, since USS COLE trajedy. Or perhaps, the Fleet Commanders will just say No Thanks when they INCHOP for deployments. We will see.RhodeIslandernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post-57870564782493805602010-03-13T18:52:41.000-05:002010-03-13T18:52:41.000-05:00... but a ship the size of a BROOKE FFG (test plat...... but a ship the size of a BROOKE FFG (test platform not designed to carry an 8" gun) is not the size ship that would have the MK-71. A Flight II BURKE sized ship - that is where I want to talk to the engineers.cdrsalamandernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post-44232089666042867512010-03-13T18:13:30.000-05:002010-03-13T18:13:30.000-05:00retired now:
sirrah ( i may be wrong) but i belie...retired now:<br /><br />sirrah ( i may be wrong) but i believe that the fuel on board for main propulsion once it gets through the various purifiers and filters just might be aviation grade.<br /><br />diesels will burn av jet fuel and gas turbines are what its for.<br /><br />Cpknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post-76895098212266198612010-03-13T17:52:44.000-05:002010-03-13T17:52:44.000-05:00cd-14:
the sad fact of the matter is that during ...cd-14:<br /><br />the sad fact of the matter is that during the viet nam fun and games the 5"54's would destroy the compartments beneath them by the recoil shock of shooting. this was especially true of the 01 level mount aft. most of the ships that had them had the chiefs mess and quarters just below the mount. as a west pac cruise went along and they got down to work the mess cooks would gradually sweep almost all of the insulation, paint, light fixtures..... into dust pans and over the side. i was on a destroyer tender stateside and in hawaii and whenever one of those ships would return our shipfitters would work 12 hour shifts putting those compartments back together.<br /><br />Cpknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post-27377521839160749432010-03-13T17:43:26.000-05:002010-03-13T17:43:26.000-05:00big D:
i believe that they gang was getting 50nm=...big D:<br /><br />i believe that they gang was getting 50nm= out of an experimental 5" 54 in the late 70's. (i remember seeing a brag in that little safety/publicity newsletter that the aberdeen gang used to publish.)<br /><br />C pknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post-25779143559502232262010-03-13T14:57:58.000-05:002010-03-13T14:57:58.000-05:00My BROOKE-Class FFG deployed with HULL in '76-...My BROOKE-Class FFG deployed with HULL in '76-77 while she had the Mk 71 installed. Interesting idea but several problems with the system had several problems beyond the hydraulic and micro-switch issues common to the Mk 47 5"/54. Her CO, whom I worked with later in the Pentagon, tried to put a positive spin on the op-test but admitted that it wasn't all that satisfactory. Concussion from firing caused a great deal of damage on the bridge and the wardroom, although I never heard what the structural results were. The biggest limitation, however, on a destroyer-sized ship was in the magazine. HULL only had space for 75 rounds in a forward magazine that normally carried 600 5" rounds. Not sure what a SPRUANCE magazine would have carried but having been aboard NEWPORT NEWS on a night raid when she fired 475 rounds in 17 minutes can see where magazine capacity would have been a significant issue for a shore bombardment system.<br /><br />When HULL returned in '77, the Carter Administration had taken over and they weren't spending a lot of money on new military programs. It's interesting, however, that the Reagan Administration never sought to resurrect the Mk 71 during the naval expansion of the early '80s. Assume that's because the emphasis was on recommissioning the four IOWA class BBs.C-dore 14noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post-174130413632533282010-03-13T10:35:42.000-05:002010-03-13T10:35:42.000-05:00I see a lot of similarities between the supply and...<em>I see a lot of similarities between the supply and logistics difficulties with MLRS and VLS. </em><br /><em></em><br />Wonder <a href="http://www.msc.navy.mil/sealift/2006/February/visit.htm" rel="nofollow">how this is coming along</a>?<br /><br />Sustainment at sea <a href="http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/g10000/g14166.jpg" rel="nofollow">used to be the strong point of the USN</a>.<br /><br />We would <a href="http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/g20000/g20989.jpg" rel="nofollow">never have prevailed in this battle </a>without it.sidnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post-1049223422691219722010-03-13T09:52:47.000-05:002010-03-13T09:52:47.000-05:00I'm not talking about putting Burkes on the gu...<em>I'm not talking about putting Burkes on the gun line firing GMLRS at shore targets and running dry on Day 1 (I'd like to, but not without a second discussion about UNREP and VLS). </em><br /><em></em><br />Nice shot of one of my old boats <a href="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2465/3762541289_687ef25ce4_o.jpg" rel="nofollow">preparing to take on SM1 ER's aft </a>while also taking on 5'54" forward (where I was) just prior to <a href="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3058/3079724688_5b0dce84af_o.jpg" rel="nofollow">landing the Marines in Beirut</a> (not me in the pic also check out the LST off the port bow which was just outside the surfline by the airport)...<br /><br />Never made any sense to me why the USN abandoned the capability to UNREP missiles...and even at the time I thought it was shortsighted that we couldn't bring aboard 'poons.sidnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post-49609561308842391642010-03-13T09:00:08.000-05:002010-03-13T09:00:08.000-05:00Big D,
I see a lot of similarities between the su...Big D,<br /><br />I see a lot of similarities between the supply and logistics difficulties with MLRS and VLS. The ordnance is much larger per unit than a one-up round. The weight, space, and handling requirements stress logistical transport. This is true all the way from CONUS to using unit. I don't see this being any different for VLS. The requirements of shipboard handling and storage won't make things any easier. And the quantities delivered for the same logistical effort are significantly less than those of conventional cannon ordnance. <br /><br />Agreed that we need to remedy both the present and future gaps. Yes, we have hulls capable of carrying the Mk71 or a modified version. The Ticonderogas are built to do so. The Burkes can be modified to mount the system similarly to how the Spruances were reinforced, and future DDG-51s built with those mods. If the US Navy can FRAM the Gearings so extensively in the middle of their service lives and serve another two decades, then the modest modifications to the 51s are more than achievable. UltimaRatioRegisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post-70957625890536854382010-03-13T07:35:15.000-05:002010-03-13T07:35:15.000-05:00Sid-I hadn't thought about it, but you have a ...Sid-I hadn't thought about it, but you have a point. The difference is that the German military, while emphasizing complex "silver bullet" solutions (Me-262, Type XXI submarine, etc) still understood the importance of giving the weapon system some significant firepower. It seems to me that we (the USN) are not even doing that with the LCS. CV60noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post-23243589038041173012010-03-13T07:14:16.000-05:002010-03-13T07:14:16.000-05:00Kidd class was built with the bracing for the MK 7...Kidd class was built with the bracing for the MK 71, our first CSO had the drawings of what DDG 995 would look like with the mount, he used to bring them up to CIC on the midwatch to tease the GM's and FC's, even if the US Navy wasn't gong to by the mount our understanding was that the Shah intended to install them during the first overhaul after deliveryTom Mowrynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post-9863635261450980402010-03-13T07:05:36.000-05:002010-03-13T07:05:36.000-05:00maybe I need to start using an alias here and go b...maybe I need to start using an alias here and go by my ATACO (I know they changed it but I am stubborn) call sign FangsTom Mowrynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post-5147292186290952822010-03-13T07:01:58.000-05:002010-03-13T07:01:58.000-05:00C-dore just a SWAG but would you have flown N-F-V-...C-dore just a SWAG but would you have flown N-F-V-C from the mast ;)Tom Mowrynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post-76771200610124233742010-03-13T00:07:37.000-05:002010-03-13T00:07:37.000-05:00My point remains--can you put it on the ships we h...My point remains--can you put it on the ships we have afloat? Can you do so at a reasonable cost? If so, great, I don't have as much of a problem with it as you think I do.<br /><br />If not--if you can't put this 6" or 8" capability on our existing ships, then I don't see how it brings much to the table. We have an immediate gap in our surface force right now where our existing ships are short on ASuW firepower. Fixing our next generation of designs is critical, but no less so is fixing the stuff we would actually go to war at sea with within the next few years.<br /><br />Also, when you bring up issues with resupplying MLRS... do you mean VLS? I just want to make sure I'm not misunderstanding you, here, because I'm not seeing a good connection between supplying the two.Big Dnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post-53585986524464898012010-03-12T22:28:50.000-05:002010-03-12T22:28:50.000-05:00Big D,
Who in the world mentioned designing a shi...Big D,<br /><br />Who in the world mentioned designing a ship around the Mk 71 except you? Myriad hulls exist out there right now capable of carrying it. One of the reasons I think it makes sense. DD-21 never enters into the argument. Future Burkes could have similarly reinforced hulls as with the Ticos. Hardly designing a ship around a gun.<br /><br />My "allergic reaction" to VLS is not that, and is not to say it does not have a place. Perhaps it is a short-term answer to a large cap that currently exists. But I have watched the logistical maelstrom involved with resupplying MLRS from CONUS to using unit. It isn't pretty, even in a permissive environment. Taint gonna be easy with gray hulls, and if we are expending munitions at greater than peacetime estimates (since when don't we?) then we have a sustainment problem. <br /><br />The proposal is for a naval gun. Leveraging technology that is maturing rapidly or is already well proven. We used to have a lot of naval guns. We sure as hell didn't have to build ships around them. And we don't need to always select the sexiest and most exorbitantly expensive solution.UltimaRatioRegisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post-24440757410593694212010-03-12T22:09:00.000-05:002010-03-12T22:09:00.000-05:00Sure... but you do realize that that's how we ...Sure... but you do realize that that's how we wound up with 3(?) DDG-$$$$s? The Mk57s and DBR were sort've tacked on along the way, but the primary weapon was always the AGS, which was intended for *exactly* the sorts of things for which you're advocating building a new ship design with a new 8" gun around. Do you honestly expect things to turn out well "this time"?<br /><br />Meanwhile, what do you intend to do with the dozens of Burkes already in the fleet? Consign them (especially the IIAs) to their fate, armed only with unguided 5" and SM2/ESSM (in WVR) against surgace threats? My whole point is that *they* are the weak points in surface actions, and need a capability that has been sorely neglected.<br /><br />Look, refighting the war over DD-21, with the benefit of a decade's worth of tech improvements and lessons learned in gun designs, superior shell guidance, etc., sounds fun, but it doesn't fill the gaping hole that exists within the fleet today. If you can't put your solution into our existing ships at reasonable costs, it ain't gonna happen, and ain't worth taking seriously right now, especially in the budget climate that is closing in on us.<br /><br />Finally, your allergic reaction to VLS based upon the cost of missiles (vs. a $2B ship?) and inability to reload at sea (which IMHO is a stupid mistake on our part) just doesn't match up with the frequency and duration of the threat. I'm not talking about putting Burkes on the gun line firing GMLRS at shore targets and running dry on Day 1 (I'd like to, but not without a second discussion about UNREP and VLS). I'm talking about restoring the ability of a Burke (or FF/FF replacement) to defeat a swarm of small surface threats or a couple of large ones, if either situation should arrive--and even if not a single shot is fired, just having the capability yields serious benefits in peacetime, just by providing a potential threat to our opponents.<br /><br />Personally, I think the Navy kinda has the right idea with "the best anti-ship platform is a sub, followed by a plane"... I just think it's reckless to deprive our warships of any significant capability whatsoever to engage minor and/or major surface threats when they arise, particularly since ROE provides the (potential) enemy with considerable leeway and initiative.Big Dnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7704146.post-58990499508820633852010-03-12T21:38:30.000-05:002010-03-12T21:38:30.000-05:00That was the post that got me hooked on this place...That was the post that got me hooked on this place.<br /><br />If I were sitting in the Oval Office today, my first order to SecDef would be "Kill LCS" (and about a half a dozen other boondogles), and within about 3 minutes, we'd get to the question of why there aren't Mk-71s being built.xbradtcnoreply@blogger.com