NGFS in Libya?

[Admiral John Byng]

Whatever the pros and cons of naval gunfire support, there is no case for battleships.
The size of an Iowa makes it a very expensive ship to man, equip and operate. It does not have the flexibility to justify that expense.

If the USN needs a bigger gun that the 5" currently deployed (and I think there is a case for that) then it will need to fund one. However, naval gunfire would not be useful in Libya because of the risk of hitting either the wrong target or causing casualties to civilians. The operation in Libya is a political one first and foremost and the political risks of gunfire rule it out.

[navydavesof]

Whatever the pros and cons of naval gunfire support, there is no case for battleships.

"What ever the pros are...there is no case." Could I please get you to reconsider the objectivity of this statement, sir?

The size of an Iowa makes it a very expensive ship to man, equip and operate. It does not have the flexibility to justify that expense.t.

I have stated the costs, sir, and those costs come from the US Naval Sea Systems Command and the Congressional Budget Office. The yearly costs break even with 3 days of B-1 and B-52 operation in a dense tactical environment. Six or more months (180 or more days) on station for the price of three days of the same coverage by strategic bombers, that is an awfully good deal.

If the USN needs a bigger gun that the 5" currently deployed (and I think there is a case for that) then it will need to fund one.

Well, they did, sir, and it is called the Mk71 Major Caliber Light Weight Gun that fires both ballistic and guided 8" rounds. Its guided rounds landed with extreme accuracy (sinking a target ship with 5 out of 5 hits and 8 out of 10 rounds landing within 5 meters of designated land targets), and its ballistic rounds landed with greater accuracy than 5". The reason it is not used is the very same political decision you allud to later.

However, naval gunfire would not be useful in Libya because of the risk of hitting either the wrong target or causing casualties to civilians.

I would ask you to re-examine this statement, too, sir. If this statement were true TACAIR would not be used either. Because of precision guidance, TACAIR is being used very effectively. Naval gunfire can land with the same accuracy as GPS guided weapons (8-inch semi-active laser guided projectile SALG-P or Excalibur 155mm if we were to use the 155mm version of the Mk71). Both TACAIR and NGFS will land right where you designate them. All we have to do is designate the correct position.

The operation in Libya is a political one first and foremost and the political risks of gunfire rule it out.

Is there any reason for this, sir? If you mean to say that accuracy was at one time the issue, then yes, some calibers had accuracy problems in history, but that does not have to be the case anymore. Five-inch, 155mm, 8", 11", and 16" all offer precision guidance capabilities, and all but 11" and 16" have been fully developed and proofed. All the USN has to do is implement them. The reason why the USN does not have 5-inch and 8-inch laser guided and GPS guided rounds on ships right now is because they have not installed the weapon systems that provide those capabilities, nothing more.

I would like for you to consider, sir, that there is nothing super special about NGFS. All NGFS is, is delivering ordnance, and we have gotten good at guiding ordnance, both aircraft launched and tube launched.

[Admiral John Byng]

Hi navydavesof, I meant to post this in the Replacing Iowa thread so sorry for dropping it here.

I think that the technology for NGFS may be very advanced and accurate but if something goes wrong and a round lands on a hospital then it is much more difficult to justify it politically. If a bomb is dropped by a plane and something malfunctions then it is easier to explain than if a ship is firing from 25 km offshore and something goes wrong.

There will always be people who say that it was deliberate and the bad old US is up to something. I suppose having a pilot to blame makes things easier for politicians.

As for the B2 - I guess they are used because the USAF has to justify their cost in some way. I don't think there is much need for stealth in Libya.

[Atma]

News reports state that B-2 bombers have been used in the Libyan effort. As far as I know, all the B-2's are based in the continental U.S. I wonder what the cost of a round trip mission to Libya is? It can't be cheap. When you factor in fuel, crew, weapons, pre- and post-maintenance, etc., it's got to be hundreds of thousands of dollars, maybe more depending on what all you choose to include in the cost equation. War is expensive!!

Can a B-2 make the round trip unrefuelled or does it require in-flight refueling support?

Recent witnesses from NATO Suda Base in Crete, Greece are talking of B-2 landing there.

[Russ2146]

"A B-1B Lancer takes off in support Operation Odyssey Dawn from Ellsworth Air Force Base, S.D., March 27, 2011. This mission marked the first time the B-1 fleet has launched combat sorties from the continental United States to strike targets overseas."
http://www.strategypage.com/military_ph ... 24032.aspx

"A flight of three B-2 bombers left Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri to make bombing runs in Libya on March 20"
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=21208