US Naval Fire Support - Part 1 - What Are Our Current Capabilities?

Thanks for watching Learning Military! The US Navy is tasked with providing naval fire support for troops landing ashore during an amphibious assault. There have been a lot of programs that the US Navy has tried to come up with to support the Marine Corps as they are conducting an amphibious landing. In this first part of this military research, we will look at the current capabilities of naval gunfire support as we look at the Tomahawk cruise missile and the naval support that a destroyer or cruiser can bring to bear onto the enemy and look at the military specifications of the weapons used aboard these ships. In addition, we will also look at USMC requirement for the navy to provide effective support.

Hopefully, this military documentary formatted video will help you learn something new about US military power or even the united states military as a whole.

If you want to join in on the discussion, please join the WiH discord at the link below and support me on Patreon to help pay for more access to resources, books, and tuition.

All footage is either being used under a creative commons license or is able to be used through the fair use act as this information is for educational purposes.

[michaelsteveharristonquisp]

I think the only feasible option at this point is stick 5 or 6 howitzers on on ships decks and develop rounds that can get to that range

[RednerKlallamStrong]

Have some ships that'll fire different missiles or rockets for land attack missions

[RednerKlallamStrong]

Put the hell fire missile on land armor vehicles

[antonye]

Very informative and well researched. The delivery is perfect and engaging! Great video. Looking forward to more.

[iamnotpaulavery]

Why in the world should we find your college tuition, including books?!?! How does that relate to this channel?!?! Are you majoring in "US military studies"?? BTW, thanks alot for information that is already well known!!

[jtstonewallaggieclassof]

Very well done video. Right now we are facing a serious Naval Coastal Gunfire Support:
1.) The Iowa Class BBs were supposed to be "mothballed" until the gap is filled....that will not happen, even though they are being preserved to be called into support while in Museum status

2.) The Arleigh Burke Destroyers with their 1-5" Gun and VLS modules are and the Ticonderoga Cruisers with their 2-5" Guns and VLS modules:
- Limited In Range, firepower, and ammo capacity via their guns
- They are thinly hulled vessels
- The VLS modules, as you stated, have a limited capability and need to carry a mix for fleet defense
- Even when used the Tomahawks are Subsonic and prone to be shot down in a "peer/near peer" A2/D2 environment
- The time frame from 2.5 minutes from FSM call to "splash down" going to 2.5 minutes from FSM call to fire time is ridiculous (The Marines or soldiers on the beach need heavy fire support)

3.) I thought the DDG-1000's (originally ordered for 32) with 2-AGS 155mm guns would do the trick, but because of the ammo cost of the LRLAP shells that has turned into a DOD debacle. Additionally, I don't know why they can't use the M982 Excalibur Rounds used by the land artillery 155mm Howitzers, or even why they can't use standard the standard 155mm family of munitions as a stop gap).

4.) The Nimitz and (one day - Ford) Class Carriers are limited in their air support role in A2/D2 environments against any enemy with a capable AA system. We need to have CATOBAR 
"jeep carriers" that are smaller in size and carry less air wings to minimize loss of personnel and equipment in the case of the loss of a Carrier. In his last military White Paper, deceased Senator John McCain (who I always didn't agree with, but almost always did regarding military issues) touched upon the need for smaller CATOBAR carriers for the reason I stated above, and to have more carriers available for more regions with airframes necessary for the role they will be needed given the tactical situation.

5.) The LCS classes have been jokes (the only redeeming value was the success of the HIMARS system of the stern helicopter pad, showing that an MLRS/HIMARS system can work from sea to shore for fast, hard to defeat fire support)

6.) The Amphibious class ships are just for sea to land connection via helo rotary, Osprey class interchangeable helo rotary to direct rotary, and for transport via amphibious assault vehicles/hovercrafts and don't have any fire support other than fixed wing and rotary wing attack assets

This being said, until the Electromagnetic Railgun can be successfully used from a ship (the DDG 1000 class being the perfect candidate with all of the electric power they carry) the only stop gap I see is:

1.) Purchasing OTS thick hulled Container/Tanker Ships and refitting them with all of the necessary electronics, comms gear, advanced Radar, Sonar, FLIR, Advanced targeting systems, etc., in order to get such a hull up to USN combat readiness standards. 

Such a ship could use a skeleton crew of Naval Officers and Sailors for the navigation, joint command ops, and staffing all of the duties which the USN takes on a ship. 

Basically, these ships would be a "stop-gap" while also fitting on old style dual 5" manned gun turrets, placing MLRS/HIMARS Rocket Systems with 360 degree rotation platforms, placing 155mm 1-2 gun turrets (or have heavy steel protection for a crew to man such guns without the restraints of a turret, I wouldn't even mind seeing a twin or triple barrel turret of 8" guns (heck I would even be happy with one of the old Heavy Cruiser 8" Guns), and also looking at the dual 120mm Patria NEMO/AMOS mortar systems they are using on patrol boats in Scandinavia. All of the aforementioned weapons are of course for Coastal Fire Support, and these weapons platforms could be operated by USMC personnel. The precedent for Marine Gun Crews on USN ships has already been set. 

For defense against littoral vessels (Cutters, Patrol boats, etc) utilizing 40mm Bofors Guns, 40mm Automatic Grenade Launchers, 30mm Chain Guns, 20mm Chain Guns (And Electric Gatling Systems for munitions capable of such weapons) and .50 caliber MGs, etc. for smaller targets. These weapon systems could also be manned, or remotely controlled via consoles, by a skeleton crew of Marines.

2. Use the same weapons, but rather than purchasing OTS commercial ship hulls, commissioning a small fleet (10-15) Heavy, Thick Steel armor hulled ships for mounting these weapons platforms and all of the other necessities (Admin, Food, Berthing, Comms, Radar, Sonar, FLIR, etc.).

These would basically be an update of the role outdated Battleships and Cruisers, or when Merchant Vessels have been "up-gunned" with 1-2 heavy gun turrets and requisitioned by various navies in the past for use as Coastal Fire Support/Littoral Combat "Monitors". 

Not they 19th century ironclad models, but the WWI and WWII versions, which have also been used in later conflicts where a shallow draft hull, with a heavy steel protected hull, weapons platforms, and Command Deck with Combat and Information Control Centers below the navigational levels are solidly protected. 

The skeleton crew to man the ship and use of USMC personnel to man the weapons lowers the chance of a heavy casualty loss, while providing adequate, on demand, accurate, and effective fire support prior to the infantry, armor, artillery, and other personnel and vehicles are hitting the beach. 

As well as continuing to take out "hard targets" and other "heavy defensive systems" when called on by the Fire Support Liaisons during the initial phases of advancing inwards from the beach.

It is in the style of the "Arsenal Ship" which some "maverick" USN Flag Officer Brass thought of in the mid 1990s (White papers by politicians, USN brass, USMC brass, and USN/ Advanced Officer Training School as well as USMC Advanced Staff College students have been written). However, most of them base their design on a "semi-submersible" surface ship with a submarine "identity crisis" that is loaded with nothing but VLS missile cells.

I am at a loss at how the U.S. Navy & USMC (and possibly the U.S. Army if called to also participate in amphibious landings). In the midst of the "Pacific Pivot" where amphibious landings will not just be likely, but probable and we are in a terrible "gap" regarding proper Coastal Fire Support until a beachhead for land artillery systems and air control can be obtained. 

This area is a "hotbed" with China claiming the Spratly Islands, and building more manmade "islands" with the infrastructure for; rotary and fixed wing air assets, Naval support facilities, armed anti air, anti ship, and anti personnel weapons platforms causing a terrible political and economic mess. 

The Philippines, Japan, Taiwan, Vietnam, Brunei, and Malaysia all have claim to partial parts of the territorial waters which China has simply invaded (Much like Hitler and the "Anschluss" of Austria and the Sudetenland "which turned into all of what was then Czechoslovakia). 

Additionally, the Spratly Island chain and China's military and political claim of the vastly important economic shipping lanes which run right through an area they have heavily militarized and make threats regarding their sovereignty claim to both the water and airspace (demanding non-militarized USAF planes to exit the airspace, which they know are conducting surveillance, but pose no immediate threat). 

They are threatening any Navy who sails through what is international war (or the territorial waters of the aforementioned in addition to international water). They've even taken military action against the Vietnamese military, years ago, before they militarized their "unsinkable aircraft carriers", man made land based "tinder ships", and manned garrisons with artillery and missile launching capabilities. 

How long before they begin seizing non-military vessels conducting international commerce by shipping goods through said waters.

I look forward to your next video, as your first was excellent. It was well researched, professionally presented, you clearly have a solid knowledge base and high level of proficiency on the subject matter. You have a solid understanding of the economic, political, and military importance of this region (as well as other areas where the U.S. may need to conduct amphibious operations, such as Iran in the Persian Gulf, Russia in the Black Sea/Crimea region, the Arctic region, and the Pacific region around Vladivostok, or even in the Mediterranean if the Levant coastline becomes "really hot" again . And, we can never forget the "wild card" that is North Korea). 

Additionally, you have a firm grasp on the USMC FM regarding Amphibious Warfare Operations and Joint Support with air and naval coastal fire support. The USN has dropped the ball when it comes to their air wing and the surface fleet, especially in Littoral Combat Support.

I'm glad you're going to present the topic based on the subject matter you prefaced in your reply. I really look forward to reading your article.

I would definitely give you an A+ if you were in one of my advanced Master's or PhD level classes for your work.

-JT (Professor of U.S. Military History, European Military History, U.S. Legal & Political History, Western Civilization, and the History of Comparative Religion)

[olddogg]

Learning a lot by watching your videos. 👍

[toprjf]

The Marine Corps has a unit called ANGLICO (Air and Naval Gunfire Liaison Company) ANGLICO provides teams to Army and US allies to support them with Naval Surface Fires and Close Air Support from Navy and Marine aircraft. During Desert Storm the US Army attached their Tiger Brigade to the 2nd Marine Division. ANGLICO teams were attached to the Tiger Brigade to controlled the Navy and Marine close air support they had. If within range of NSFS they would have controlled that also

[RKnVa]

You lost me when you asked for me to pay for your school.

[barryhill]

The Tomahawk is far far too slow in todays military environment In a full scale war it is doubtful that many would survive to their target … just my opinion,

[regiselijah]

Just put around 20 M109 self propelled howitzer or more on the starboard side of any LHD/LHA, if those howitzer has any sort of stabilizers. If they don't have it, forget it.

[RednerKlallamStrong]

So put missiles on them land armor vehicles that will go on land and if they need fire support then they'll have them on armor vehicles !? . such strikers and tanks and robot tanks like the ripsaw if they'll have it ??

[sparkc]

Alot has to due with military not wanting to build proper missile guided heavy cruiser/battler cruiser or just light cruiser. a battle cruiser is cheaper than battle ship and just needs to big enough to withstand the recoil of huge gun. So moderate armored ship of 17, 000 ton can do. This would be cheaper than a battleship. The range only be reach by rocket artillery. 20 miles can be reach with rocket assisted projectile. I think even longer range achieved but at high cost.

[sparkc]

I found out that 8 inch guns are best for navel fire support because they can take out land fortifications. the navy has disconnect form army. It is too focus on building destroyers than building few heavy cruisers that do the job. heavy cruiser are not too much bigger than our current destroyers. The different is that it have 8 inch gun.

[StanTheMan]

Don’t think your numbers of 5” rounds is correct. @300 per mount is more accurate. So, 600 onboard is more accurate.

[John_Henry]

I am a Former Marine First Lieutenant. Very good video. But with all the numbers and jargon the bottom line is this. The Navy just does not care about Marines on the ground. No skipper would pull his ship in so close into a hostile shore to support Marines on a beach and put his ship at risk of some illiterate native with a shoulder fired missile with an amour piercing round. So when the Marines hit a beach these days they are just on their own. The Navy's answer for the last 40 years the Navy's has been.."Well you can always call in an air strike" But a pilot in a plane is a LOT more valuable and irreplaceable than a 14 inch shell. And I will not even get into the ineffectiveness of the H.E. explosive in a 5' shell versus the 2000 pounds 14 inch shell.

[pepper]

We have missiles for everything, no need for big guns.

[jakatomsic]

The Navy cant really help the land troops anymore.

[ChrisPBacon-ienh]

Just an idea, but...when asking wanting to see military content... to contribute through Patreon, DON'T say that "There are some areas you cannot access because it costs money, so your contribution helps with my tuition!" If I'm going to donate money for someone doing a research site on the internet, I want to see PROPER research, INCLUDING footage from those places that cost money!

[Ronald-vd]

Man is you thinking the time as well as cost to produce how many tomahawk do you think you can produce in a year you need continuous shooting that big guns can do and 5" guns don't shoot far enough if you want fire gun support re-up the Zumwalt with it's 920 6" rounds produce 32 × 920=29440 155mm rounds that shoot 63 miles and about 4 new battleships with 1000 16" 2700ib rounds that shoot at 24 miles the time to produce and cost shouldn't be a problem plus it can give a lot of Americans some good paying jobs so not only the few can be getting rich for giving America very little