One more new idiocy and ignorance, common on this Forum!
I find your tone rather disrespectful.
152/203mm systems to fire at the range of 70/120km
The 152mm Coalition land based artillery system has a range of 70km... that is a fact.
It is known that the land based Coalition was a joint development with the navy to produce a long range artillery weapon, so a naval version was also designed and tested.
There is no classical ammunition, even ERFB/BB, super, hyper BB, or else to fire at such range.
They have stated that the guided rounds reach 70km and the standard rounds 50km. I would expect no less for the naval rounds.
You need state of the art guided/homing ammunition, whose price will soon amount to 1 million $ for a single 203mm missile of doubtful usefulness, not to talk about HE effect on target of one single 50kg warhead!
We are talking about Russian weapons, not gold plated American ones... and 152mm shells are 45kgs, 203mm shells would be more like 110kgs... which is pretty much equivalent to half the weight of a normal aircraft delivered bomb... which has plenty of effect as long as it is accurate enough.
What kind of C4I would you need to achieve accuracy on such range. Counter-battery radars, UAVs, what kind of UNOBSTRUCTED surveillance on the battlefield in real war. KINDERGARDEN THOUGHTS!
Of course... kindergarten amateurs... that is what the Russian Navy is... they would never consider recon... they just fire their guns at random for shock and awe...
Now if you have finished being a dick...
The Russian Army has decided to not retire their 203mm guns and 240mm mortars, and to keep them operational for situations where their special features might be more useful than standard weapons. Situations like mountain warfare or urban warfare... which means keeping the 203mm and 240mm ammo in production... in fact continuing to develop new guided rounds for those weapons.
But obviously I am being unreasonable to suggest that if the Army wants to keep 203mm ammo and weapons that the navy might want to introduce a 203mm version of a 152mm gun they have already joint developed with the army.
But if they do introduce a 203mm gun... what are the chances it will have a 30km range, when the 152mm gun is known to have a range of 70km?
Naw... that is all just kiddy stuff... why would the Russian navy expect their gun artillery to have performance figures like US naval gun artillery? ... after all it is not a race...
Paper data is one thing, but real chance of hitting something 60km far is nearing 0. Of course you can use guided ammo, but it is prohibitively expensive & makes very small amount of total quantity of rounds. Not to mention destructive effect of one/two hits of 127mm caliber on 5.000tD frigate, which is small, except if it directly hits C&C quarters or powerplant! . The recent catastrophe of RNM Helge Ingstad frigate tells a lot about design flaws and vulnerability of modern fighting ship. Shame!
We are talking about NGS.... naval gunfire support... if the target is a 5,000 ton frigate then they would use anti ship missiles obviously.
If the target is inland and is a machine gun position firing on Russian troops during a beach landing then a 40kg HE shell from 70kms away is just the ticket to make them go night night...
Besides... a 40kg HE shell through the bridge front window would certainly effect the performance of any corvette or frigate... while a tanker that refuses to stop can be stopped with a 40kg shell just below the water line on the bow... unless it wants to sink...
USN MK51 AGS LRLAP is cancelled as foolishly expensive and of doubtful efficiency! One LRLAP missile round amounts to 1million $!!! which is completely mad thing!
All calibres of Russian artillery have guided rounds and they are not expensive... in fact even the french have bought them for their 155mm guns... Krasnopol-M.
there was talk of a new fuse for Russian artillery of 152mm and larger calibre that has control fins and replaces the nose fuse of the old rounds that turns them into GLONASS guided shells... less than $1,000 each... which is pretty damn cheap if you ask me.
Putin has already stated that guided rounds are a good way forward so that fewer rounds will be needed to get the job done... and do the job faster which is also important too.
An important issue to survive missile attacks would be the manoeuvrability of the aircraft, since the rotor is not loaded during high speed operation it is possible that the overloads attainable would be substantially higher than in current helicopters, maybe even approaching that of fixed wing aircraft. With the added advantage in this case that the high speed helo can do all those things normal ones do, like using low speed and altitude to hide.
Sorry, I can't agree with that... if you think an aircraft can dodge incoming modern missiles then you are not being serious... most would flash past in an instant with no time to manouver...
Artillery is always the best solution for cheap attack at short range, but at the distances you mention you would need ammo which is currently very expensive , way more than dumb bombs.
I disagree... we know US attempts to create accurate long range artillery are expensive, but we also know that shorter range guided artillery rounds are widely used by Russia and are a fraction of the cost of western equivalents.
And remember the Syrian lesson is rather to increase the size of the warhead than to reduce it, in order to destroy fortification work of the enemy and compensate for less than perfect precision.
Precision means smaller payloads can still be effective... old cruise missiles with a CEP of 250metres would only be effective with a nuclear warhead because they could miss the target by 250m or more. A CEP of 5 metres means it will at least hit the building so a 400kg warhead can be used... if the CEP was 10cm then you could probably make it a kinetic weapon with no warhead for killing individual people...
Yes, for COIN a very good solution would be a long endurance UCAV, but I don't know if that could be practically deployed from LHDs.
I am talking about a separate NGS ship... a vessel designed to provide dedicated gunfire support to landing or landed troops.
Guns on carriers for fire support would need enormous range to keep the carrier a safe distance from the shore.
As I said a Coalition gun on a Serna landing craft could be deployed offshore to fire on targets on land during the landing and then once the position is secured they could land and provide support as the ground forces moved inland...