Littoral Combat Ship Mk 110 57mm gun for naval fire support?

Exosphere

New Member
I know that the 57mm isn't exactly a big gun, and I know the military stated that it wasn't designed for naval fire support in the response to the "Big Bucks, Little Bang" article, but I had an idea about a way to utilize the Mk 57 for the fire support role, and was wondering if anyone else could give any feedback as to whether or not it's a good idea:

One issue that might be faced in an amphibious landing onto defended terrain is barbed wire/razor wire. The Mk 110 might be able to clear wire obstacles -- it has a high rate of fire to allow it to "chew through" wire quickly, and I don't think a large charge would be required to do the job (although I don't exactly have experience with the use of explosives to clear barbed wire, so I may be wrong). In fact, the 57mm's small size and the 3P's airburst setting could be a major advantage, as it would not create large craters that would hinder landing forces (a la World War 1).

Is that a feasible idea? I know the 57mm won't be useful against hardened structures or indirect fire support (the five inch or 155mm guns would be better for that), but I feel that it could be good for clearing light obstacles, such as wire, without damaging the terrain.
 

the road runner

Active Member
There are other ways to get troops to shore than just the D-Day type landings.
Helicopters can be used to maneuver troops around the battle field.

Fire support would probably use Aircraft carriers launching waves of aircraft to destroy an enemy. Similar to how most of the last wars such as Afghanistan,Iraq have been fought.
 

RobWilliams

Super Moderator
Staff member
AFAIK 57mm is quite a flexible gun calibre, it's ok for shore bombardment but don't expect a hell of a lot of reach or you gotta expect to be getting closer to shore (the sort of place where the LCS is expected to be) but can chew up FAC very well in rapid succession (again, the sort of targets the LCS is expected to have to deal with) and can do some AAW work too if needed.
 

Bonza

Super Moderator
Staff member
AFAIK 57mm is quite a flexible gun calibre, it's ok for shore bombardment but don't expect a hell of a lot of reach or you gotta expect to be getting closer to shore (the sort of place where the LCS is expected to be) but can chew up FAC very well in rapid succession (again, the sort of targets the LCS is expected to have to deal with) and can do some AAW work too if needed.
Dunno if you'd want the LCS so close to the shore that it's within 57mm gun range though... puts you within easy reach of any number of anti-ship capabilities. That and I think the infantry themselves probably carry equipment more suited to clearing wire than 57mm shells. And then there's the fact that a contested amphibious assault is very unlikely to occur without significant battlefield shaping by other assets before the troops hit the beach...
 

My2Cents

Active Member
One issue that might be faced in an amphibious landing onto defended terrain is barbed wire/razor wire. The Mk 110 might be able to clear wire obstacles -- it has a high rate of fire to allow it to "chew through" wire quickly, and I don't think a large charge would be required to do the job (although I don't exactly have experience with the use of explosives to clear barbed wire, so I may be wrong). In fact, the 57mm's small size and the 3P's airburst setting could be a major advantage, as it would not create large craters that would hinder landing forces (a la World War 1).

Is that a feasible idea? I know the 57mm won't be useful against hardened structures or indirect fire support (the five inch or 155mm guns would be better for that), but I feel that it could be good for clearing light obstacles, such as wire, without damaging the terrain.
Air burst munitions have almost no effect on barbed wire. [nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcXxcnQgVHU"]VTS_01_1.VOB - YouTube[/nomedia]


Clearing barbed wire requires that you either uproot the anchors or cut the wire/tape. HE detonated at ground level works, but the 57mm shell is likely to have too small of a radius of effect.
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Artillery (mega tons of it) was spectacularly unsuccessful at clearing wire on the Western Front WW1
 

colay

New Member
[nomedia]http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ed-1k7LvHOU[/nomedia]

Razor wire can be dealt with by something like this, an evolution of the Bangalore torpedo.
 

RobWilliams

Super Moderator
Staff member
Dunno if you'd want the LCS so close to the shore that it's within 57mm gun range though... puts you within easy reach of any number of anti-ship capabilities. That and I think the infantry themselves probably carry equipment more suited to clearing wire than 57mm shells. And then there's the fact that a contested amphibious assault is very unlikely to occur without significant battlefield shaping by other assets before the troops hit the beach...
Which is why I didn't say i'd use it for clearing the way ;)

The UK doesn't do contested landings, but IIRC isn't that the sort of the thing the USMC did - or used to - train for? Straight at the jugular?
 

colay

New Member
Which is why I didn't say i'd use it for clearing the way ;)

The UK doesn't do contested landings, but IIRC isn't that the sort of the thing the USMC did - or used to - train for? Straight at the jugular?
My understanding is the USMC playbook emphasizes maneuver warfare to "hit 'em where they a'int". The gators could execute airborne operations deep inland and bypass fixed enemy strongpoints to land amphibious forces, if needed, where defenses are lax or absent. The enemy will be off-balanced, having to redeploy forces and exposing them to interdiction from air and sea.
 

the concerned

Active Member
Could the 57mm be stripped down enough to be used as a replacement for the 40mm gun on airborne gunships, or is it just too heavy. what are the weights between a 40mm and 57mm.
 

My2Cents

Active Member
Could the 57mm be stripped down enough to be used as a replacement for the 40mm gun on airborne gunships, or is it just too heavy. what are the weights between a 40mm and 57mm.
The problem isn't weight, it's muzzle blast, recoil, and effective range (dispersion).

The current crop of airborne gunships is moving completely away from cannon to precision guided munitions so they can operate high enough to be immune to MANPADS.
 

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Barbed wire of the military ilk is damn hard to clear, especially when employed professionally. Dropping a couple dozen 57mm shots onto a proper wire obstacle may very well be close to useless.

There is a reason why it can be used to build antitank obstacles out of it...
 

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
I'm sure the 57mm could be used to support exfil for SF troops if the mission had gone bent but using them in an opposed landing would seem to be an egregious misjudgement.
 

Exosphere

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #14
Air burst munitions have almost no effect on barbed wire.


Clearing barbed wire requires that you either uproot the anchors or cut the wire/tape. HE detonated at ground level works, but the 57mm shell is likely to have too small of a radius of effect.
Okay, from the responses, I get the feeling my concept is a spectacularly bad idea. :eek:hwell

Yeah, I guess seventeen (or less, depending on how far inland the defenses were) kilometers isn't a particularly long range -- although even the sixty-two caliber five inch only has an effective range of 24.1 kilometers, which isn't much more than the LCS's Mk 110 57mm, so that might not be very good either. I guess the LRLAP would be better for shore bombardment, although with only three DDG-1000s, six AGS systems, and at most one hundred rounds per ship, I'm not sure how good it is for sustaining a high volume of fire.

Regarding the use of aerial bombardment instead of ship-to-shore fire, I've heard that aircraft have a rather dismal track record of destroying land targets using their own sensors/systems -- they tend to need someone on the ground to designate targets if the opponent is camouflaged, concealed, or utilizing deception tactics. Obviously, no one would want to land on a beach without air support, but would pre-landing aerial bombardment (i.e. without boots on the ground to find, positively ID, and designate targets) actually be effective?

EDIT: The 57mm gun on the LCS has an effective range of 8.5 kilometers, not seventeen. That's its maximum range.
 
Last edited:

RobWilliams

Super Moderator
Staff member
Lockheed Martin + BAE Systems are working on a 5in LRLAP projectile for . . . .well . . .5in guns to give the current gun a extended range capability if needed. But contested landings are very much a concept of a past era so it's not really an area that requires a lot of thought.

NGFS on the other hand is something else entirely however.

An aerial attack on any sort of fixed position will be devastating, through ISR and SIGINT/ELINT assets across a wide variety of platforms the vast majority of the key positions like C&C centres, AA sites can be eliminated (plenty of historical examples of this occuring) as well as armoured vehicles and artillery emplacements without needing troops to guide weapons on target.

Ideal example is Op Unified Protector (Libya) in 2011, devastating air campaign on Gaddafi forces but with JTACs required, so is GW1 for the older lags AFAIK ;)
 

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
To get ground recon into the area is preferred before any amphibious or air insertion is performed although that might not always be feasible or effective in the face of a good defense.

As long as the airspace is somewhat safe the US may also call in several heavy hitters. A couple of B-1bs together with NGFS by 155mm and 127mm guns may at least shake the enemy positions long enough for the Marines to gain a foothold.

Storming a beach or air assaulting a landing zone in the face of a well trained, prepared and equipped enemy is a recipe for desaster.

Just a platoon of modern tanks can pump out 24 rounds in half a minute with a hit probability of 90%+. That's half the maximum number of Amtracs (and 500 marines) carried by a Wasp gone in 30 seconds. 30 seconds is not that much to react, identify and attack a threat. One would basically need a Supercobra on the right spot to silence them immediately.

The same applies to modern ATGM and/or MANPAD teams. Very hard to spot but a bit easier to surpress.

Even nastier is just a small forward observer team. Them getting a good range results in a battery of modern SPHs, not located prior to the landing, may pump out 24 rounds in 10 seconds. Give them something like SMArt or BONUS and that means 48 intelligent submunitions above the assault force some seconds later.

IMHO the ability of an amphibious assault force to surpress and eliminate enemy threats hasn't evolved in the same way as modern weaponry is capable of ruining an assault.

On the other hand one still has to guess right where the attack takes place...
 

colay

New Member
I guess the LRLAP would be better for shore bombardment, although with only three DDG-1000s, six AGS systems, and at most one hundred rounds per ship, I'm not sure how good it is for sustaining a high volume of fire.
Only if Navy can't afford to buy them in quantity because the ship's magazine can accommodate a lot more.
 

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
Okay, from the responses, I get the feeling my concept is a spectacularly bad idea. :eek:hwell

Yeah, I guess seventeen (or less, depending on how far inland the defenses were) kilometers isn't a particularly long range -- although even the sixty-two caliber five inch only has an effective range of 24.1 kilometers, which isn't much more than the LCS's Mk 110 57mm, so that might not be very good either. I guess the LRLAP would be better for shore bombardment, although with only three DDG-1000s, six AGS systems, and at most one hundred rounds per ship, I'm not sure how good it is for sustaining a high volume of fire.

Regarding the use of aerial bombardment instead of ship-to-shore fire, I've heard that aircraft have a rather dismal track record of destroying land targets using their own sensors/systems -- they tend to need someone on the ground to designate targets if the opponent is camouflaged, concealed, or utilizing deception tactics. Obviously, no one would want to land on a beach without air support, but would pre-landing aerial bombardment (i.e. without boots on the ground to find, positively ID, and designate targets) actually be effective?

EDIT: The 57mm gun on the LCS has an effective range of 8.5 kilometers, not seventeen. That's its maximum range.
Have a look at the thread on the A10 (the groundpounders friend) for a few clues on CAS and the way it works. I get the impression you're churning over a very out of date scenario - getting over the beach is much more likely to be a vertical envelopment used to get troops into place rather than chewing their way through a pile of barbed wire and stuff.

AGS carries 350 rounds per gun from memory so that's 700 rounds per Zumwalt - assuming any are available of course.
 

Exosphere

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #19
Have a look at the thread on the A10 (the groundpounders friend) for a few clues on CAS and the way it works. I get the impression you're churning over a very out of date scenario - getting over the beach is much more likely to be a vertical envelopment used to get troops into place rather than chewing their way through a pile of barbed wire and stuff.

AGS carries 350 rounds per gun from memory so that's 700 rounds per Zumwalt - assuming any are available of course.
Wikipedia, an always reliable source :rolleyes: , says that each Zumwalt is only going to be equipped with "seventy to one hundred rounds" of LRLAP ammunition; the rest will be regular 155mm.

Of course, that's just from the Wikipedia page on the DDG-1000. I'm not sure if that's completely true, and I know the loadout could be changed depending on the situation, but as far as I know with the limited information I have, the standard LRLAP loadout is only seventy to one hundred rounds.

As far as CAS -- I read that thread, and I definitely found it interesting. I know that the F-35 has an unprecedented array of sensors, an amazing computer system to fuse the information and pull the useful info out of the clutter, and a great display for making the information easy to see, but I just don't know how well it'll do against complicated decoys.

I know that the F-35 will do a lot better than the A-10 in that role, but considering that the A-10's main sensor is the Mk 1 eyeball, with perhaps a LITENING pod, "better" may be in a strictly relative sense. Is there any information regarding the F-35's ability to discern between, say, a decoy SAM site/artillery piece/tank column/command post and a real SAM site/artillery piece/tank column/command post using EOTS or the APG-81's SAR mapping capabilities? The F-35 apparently has a lot of algorithms to differentiate between targets using sensor information, and the EOTS could identify a target using differences in temperature (i.e. a SA-2 site with a running radar/electronics outputs more waste heat than a group of painted tree trunks on an inflatable truck), but I don't know how easy it will be to spot the difference at operationally significant distances, where detection becomes more difficult and angular resolution tends to suffer.

Like I said, though, regardless of how good the F-35 will be at discriminating between decoys and the real deal, I'm pretty sure (based on what I've heard) that it'll be better than anything else we (or the other guys) have, so at least that's a good thing.
 

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
The unguided BLRP round for AGS seems to have been dropped some time ago - I can't find a definite source to cite however. As far as I'm aware, the decision was made that there was no practical reason to fund an unguided weapon, and no existing 155mm round will fit the weapon. Certainly the current BAE and related articles make no reference to unguided projectiles any more.
 
Top