Posted on 12/19/2016 6:04:42 AM PST by sukhoi-30mki
When last we heard from the USS Zumwalt, the Navy had admitted that the brand-new stealth destroyer couldn't fire because its custom ammo was too expensive. Now, the service may have settled on a replacement to get the vessel and its brethren back in business.
The U.S. Navy says its Zumwalt-class destroyers, state-of-the-art ships designed to bombard targets on land, could be equipped with the Excalibur precision-guided artillery round originally developed for land forces.
The three Zumwalt-class land attack destroyers were designed around the Advanced Gun System (AGS). The 155-millimeter AGS gun, paired with the brand-new Long Range Land Attack Projectile (LRLAP), can strike targets on land as far as 60 miles away. A single Zumwalt destroyer, packing two guns, could drop 1,200 precision-guided shells on enemy targets an hour. At shorter ranges, a single howitzer could fire multiple rounds on different trajectories at the same target, ensuring they all hit the target at exactly the same time.
Unfortunately for the Navy, the cost of the LRLAP artillery round spiraled out of control. In 2001, Lockheed Martin claimed the artillery round would cost "less than $50,000 each"—an absolute bargain. By November 2016, the cost per-round had ballooned to $800,000. Suddenly, firing 1,200 shells looks like a good way to spend 1/600th of the entire Department of Defense operating budget in a single hour. The Navy canceled the LRAP round.
A M777 self-propelled howitzer with 1st Battalion, 12th Marines fires an M982 Excalibur round in Afghanistan, 2011. Department of Defense photo.
According to USNI News, the Navy is now looking to replace LRLAP with the Excalibur artillery round. Excalibur was designed for Army and Marine Corps howitzers to provide precision-guided artillery fire at long ranges. Both services have used the round in both Afghanistan against the Taliban and in Iraq against the Islamic State. Excalibur is the same diameter as LRLAP and thus packs the same punch but has a range of roughly 30 miles, or half that of the canceled round.
On the ground, Excalibur is revolutionary in its own way. While unguided artillery often needs to be "walked" onto target by firing single rounds and adjusting the howitzer's aim, Excalibur can hit targets on the first try—GPS guidance ensures that the shell will strike within 16 feet. This improves the element of surprise, as the enemy doesn't see a line of artillery rounds inching toward them and take cover appropriately.
Excalibur is also much cheaper to shoot; US Naval Institute news cites an approximate cost of 1/4 the cost of LRLAP. According to other sources the land version costs just $70,000 a round. While manufacturer Raytheon says it's compatible with every 155-millimeter howitzer it's been tested with, there could be some design changes that have increased costs for the seaborne version.
At that price, the Excalibur sounds like an acceptable compromise, even with the shorter range. One problem, though, is that it means the Zumwalt will have to get closer to the coastline in hostile territory. This will minimize Zumwalt's reaction time against shore-based anti-ship missiles. Cruising ten miles off a coastline to engage a target twenty miles inland, Zumwalt would have about fifty seconds to track, identify, lock onto, and shoot down an incoming C-802 anti-ship missile flying at Mach 0.9. That's the missile Houthi rebels used to heavily damage the HSV Swift, a catamaran-hulled transport used by the United Arab Emirates in the Bab-el-Mandeb strait. Zumwalt will have Evolved Sea Sparrow Missiles to down the threat. Bottom line: The shorter range will incur greater risk.
Excalibur is also much cheaper to shoot; US Naval Institute news cites an approximate cost of 1/4 the cost of LRLAP. According to other sources the land version costs just $70,000 a round. While manufacturer Raytheon says it's compatible with every 155-millimeter howitzer it's been tested with, there could be some design changes that have increased costs for the seaborne version.
At that price, the Excalibur sounds like an acceptable compromise, even with the shorter range. One problem, though, is that it means the Zumwalt will have to get closer to the coastline in hostile territory. This will minimize Zumwalt's reaction time against shore-based anti-ship missiles. Cruising ten miles off a coastline to engage a target twenty miles inland, Zumwalt would have about fifty seconds to track, identify, lock onto, and shoot down an incoming C-802 anti-ship missile flying at Mach 0.9. That's the missile Houthi rebels used to heavily damage the HSV Swift, a catamaran-hulled transport used by the United Arab Emirates in the Bab-el-Mandeb strait. Zumwalt will have Evolved Sea Sparrow Missiles to down the threat. Bottom line: The shorter range will incur greater risk.
One possible benefit to Excalibur, though, is that the high-tech round is capable of hitting moving targets, something LRLAP couldn't do. A new variant of Excalibur, Excalibur S, has a semi-active laser seeker. Once fired, the shell can home in on a laser painting an enemy target. While that would require an airplane, drone, or human actually pointing a laser at the target, that would also mean the shell would be useful against enemy ships. Raytheon is also considering a millimetric-wave seeker, which would allow the Navy to simply fire the shell in the direction of an enemy vehicle or ship and the shell would guide itself toward the target.
According to USNI News, it might cost $250 million to modify the three Zumwalt-class destroyers to use the Excalibur artillery round. While an expensive modification, it the ships need to use something, and the cheaper overall cost of the new rounds probably makes it worth it in the long run.
Zumwalt was the first PC CNO and a disaster while doing it. No reason to believe this ship burdened with his name won’t be the same.
Did they fix the leaking prop shaft?
Stop buying BioFuel and buy real fuel and you’ll save billions right there
Thank you!
Nice!
The M982 Excalibur (previously XM982) is a 155 mm extended range guided artillery shell developed by Raytheon Missile Systems and BAE Systems AB. It is a GPS-guided munition capable of being used in close support situations within 150–75 metres (492–246 ft) of friendly troops. The United States plans to procure 7,474 rounds at a FY2015 program cost of $1,934.1m ($258,777 average cost per unit). As of September 2015, nearly 770 Excalibur shells had been fired in combat.[
The 1000 does not have a rail gun, nor is it planned to. It’s planned for 1001 and 1002 and maybe retrofit 1000 later.
Yep the ship arrived in San Diego over a week ago.
Lockheed Martin claimed the artillery round would cost "less than $50,000 each"—an absolute bargain. By November 2016, the cost per-round had ballooned to $800,000.
That's a whole lot'a BOHICA!
Guess Ike was right...
[Eisenhower’s “Military- Industrial Complex” Speech]
Origins and Significance
US National Archives
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gg-jvHynP9Y
Who armed ISIS?
>>A M777 self-propelled howitzer with 1st Battalion, 12th Marines fires an M982 Excalibur round in Afghanistan, 2011. Department of Defense photo.
Anyone with half a clue about artillery would recognize that as a towed howitzer, not self-propelled. Heck, I know that, and have never been anywhere near Fort Sill, nor ever served in the Army or Marines.
You’re kidding, right? Guided missiles are a lot more expensive than artillery rounds.
Our Marine Nephew served two Tours in Afghanistan assigned to Artillery. I remember him telling me about how amazing the Excalibur Guided Round was.
He came home, graduated College and started a great Job.
A Month later he died in a Motorcycle Accident after some moronic Woman made a left turn in front of him at a Traffic Light. He was killed instantly.
According to the article, not necessarily, when talking guided rounds. And the transport and launch hardware is a lot cheaper. An artillery round has to be constructed to withstand the high "G" forces of gun launching, which is probably what is driving the expense. G forces for a missile are much less (and hence less expensive to build).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.