California and Virginia Classes, hobbled by armament?

[TomS]

Anyone have any idea how much a VGAS module was estimated to weigh? I was under the impression they could have been fitted to Spruance/Tico/Kidd, so you could have wound up with Spruances with a Mk41 64 vls module and a VGAS module when they came on line. Assuming they wouldn't tip over of course.

Never seen a weight figure, though I'd bet you would be looking at anywhere from from 250 to 300 tons, of which as much as 60 tons would be ammunition. The two-barrel VGAS was sized to fit an SSES B-Module, so the same size as a 61/64-cell VLS (which approaches 320 tons fully loaded up with Tomahawk, admittedly an unrealistic loadout). Given the available volume and weight, a Spruance could have one or the other, not both.

 

[apparition13]

Anyone have any idea how much a VGAS module was estimated to weigh? I was under the impression they could have been fitted to Spruance/Tico/Kidd, so you could have wound up with Spruances with a Mk41 64 vls module and a VGAS module when they came on line. Assuming they wouldn't tip over of course.

Never seen a weight figure, though I'd bet you would be looking at anywhere from from 250 to 300 tons, of which as much as 60 tons would be ammunition. The two-barrel VGAS was sized to fit an SSES B-Module, so the same size as a 61/64-cell VLS (which approaches 320 tons fully loaded up with Tomahawk, admittedly an unrealistic loadout). Given the available volume and weight, a Spruance could have one or the other, not both.

I thought you could do one fore and aft, like in the Ticos.

 

[isayyo2]

If anyone has a half a day, they can dig through the treasure trove of the Ship Model Forums. I remember reading that NTU + VLS on the Kidd's/ Spruance's would have been pushing the weight margins to razor thin, just like the Tico's.

Calling all Spruance Fans

Reactivated and Modernized Spruance-class

 

[TomS]

Anyone have any idea how much a VGAS module was estimated to weigh? I was under the impression they could have been fitted to Spruance/Tico/Kidd, so you could have wound up with Spruances with a Mk41 64 vls module and a VGAS module when they came on line. Assuming they wouldn't tip over of course.

Never seen a weight figure, though I'd bet you would be looking at anywhere from from 250 to 300 tons, of which as much as 60 tons would be ammunition. The two-barrel VGAS was sized to fit an SSES B-Module, so the same size as a 61/64-cell VLS (which approaches 320 tons fully loaded up with Tomahawk, admittedly an unrealistic loadout). Given the available volume and weight, a Spruance could have one or the other, not both.

I thought you could do one fore and aft, like in the Ticos.

Probably not. The DDG conversion design for the Spruance had room for a large (44-round) Mk 26 aft and a small (24-round) Mk 26 forward, which is how the Kidds ended up. In the Spruances, though, I think the aft space got taken over for other purposes. That's one reason why the eventual DD VLS conversion put the single large VLS forward in place of the ASROC, rather than aft or split. Also they needed to keep Sea Sparrow, since the VLS conversion didn't add fire control for Standard Missiles or anything else to replace Sea Sparrow. Plus, looking at a drawing, there likely wasn't quite enough hull depth aft for a VLS (deeper than a Mk 26) without relocating #3 generator room.

And remember that a VLS full of Tomahawk or a VGAS module are both probably significantly heavier that the Mk 26 originally planned, which was fairly light thanks to the Standard-MR missiles, which have a lot of "wasted" space around their fuselages.

 

[apparition13]

If anyone has a half a day, they can dig through the treasure trove of the Ship Model Forums. I remember reading that NTU + VLS would have been pushing the weight margins very thinly, just like the Tico's.

Calling all Spruance Fans

Reactivated and Modernized Spruance-class

I wasn't thinking NTU. VGAS + some sized Mk41 for VLASROC and ESSM 4 packs. Essentially an ASW focused Spruance as built, but with NGS (VGAS) and better self/limited area air defense (ESSM). Incidentally, Mk71 is apparently the same size as VGAS/Mk41(64 cell), and I believe that would have replaced the forward 5", with room for a 32 cell Mk41 where the ASROC launcher was. I can't remember where I read that though.

Probably not. The DDG conversion design for the Spruance had room for a large (44-round) Mk 26 aft and a small (24-round) Mk 26 forward, which is how the Kidds ended up. In the Spruances, though, I think the aft space got taken over for other purposes. That's one reason why the eventual DD VLS conversion put the single large VLS forward in place of the ASROC, rather than aft or split. Also they needed to keep Sea Sparrow, since the VLS conversion didn't add fire control for Standard Missiles or anything else to replace Sea Sparrow. Plus, looking at a drawing, there likely wasn't quite enough hull depth aft for a VLS (deeper than a Mk 26) without relocating #3 generator room.

Stick a 32/48/64 behind the heli-pad by raising the deck the Sea Sparrow is on by a deck level? That might buy the vertical space to fit. At the cost of weight higher up.

To bring it back on topic, would it make any sense to fit VGAS to California and/or Virginia? Along with Mk41, that is. California might have more space where the ASROC and it's magazine are.

 

[TomS]

Incidentally, Mk71 is apparently the same size as VGAS/Mk41(64 cell), and I believe that would have replaced the forward 5", with room for a 32 cell Mk41 where the ASROC launcher was. I can't remember where I read that though.

That was the gist of the DD Modernization plan for the Spruances -- Mk 71 forward and 24-round Mk 26 replacing the ASROC and its magazine.

To bring it back on topic, would it make any sense to fit VGAS to California and/or Virginia? Along with Mk41, that is. California might have more space where the ASROC and it's magazine are.

Those ships would have been gone or nearly so before VGAS could become available, even if they had been refueled again. The youngest would easily be pushing 30-35 years old.

Also, on the Californias, the ASROC launcher and magazine are basically all on deck. The below-deck space under them is not really available for VLS.


.

 

[sferrin]

To say the least!

Ahhh 70s procurement cost overruns and cancellations, the only thing worse was Peace Dividend!

Another knee-caper for the MK 10 were all of the manual fin fitting before firing, no?

Here:

 

[Volkodav]

Anyone have any idea how much a VGAS module was estimated to weigh? I was under the impression they could have been fitted to Spruance/Tico/Kidd, so you could have wound up with Spruances with a Mk41 64 vls module and a VGAS module when they came on line. Assuming they wouldn't tip over of course.

Never seen a weight figure, though I'd bet you would be looking at anywhere from from 250 to 300 tons, of which as much as 60 tons would be ammunition. The two-barrel VGAS was sized to fit an SSES B-Module, so the same size as a 61/64-cell VLS (which approaches 320 tons fully loaded up with Tomahawk, admittedly an unrealistic loadout). Given the available volume and weight, a Spruance could have one or the other, not both.

I thought you could do one fore and aft, like in the Ticos.

Probably not. The DDG conversion design for the Spruance had room for a large (44-round) Mk 26 aft and a small (24-round) Mk 26 forward, which is how the Kidds ended up. In the Spruances, though, I think the aft space got taken over for other purposes. That's one reason why the eventual DD VLS conversion put the single large VLS forward in place of the ASROC, rather than aft or split. Also they needed to keep Sea Sparrow, since the VLS conversion didn't add fire control for Standard Missiles or anything else to replace Sea Sparrow. Plus, looking at a drawing, there likely wasn't quite enough hull depth aft for a VLS (deeper than a Mk 26) without relocating #3 generator room.

And remember that a VLS full of Tomahawk or a VGAS module are both probably significantly heavier that the Mk 26 originally planned, which was fairly light thanks to the Standard-MR missiles, which have a lot of "wasted" space around their fuselages.

Wasn't the 24 round Mk-26 forward selected to provide space for the retrofit of an 8" MCLG in addition to the Mk-26?

Whoops, I should have kept on reading before replying.

 

[Firefinder]

Apparently NTU could do stuff Aegis is only now getting around to.

Not exactly.

Alot of the things that the NTU could so call do better then Aegis had to do with its computers and first impressions, which was Poor for the First Aegis system ships.

The NTU ships got the UYK43 computer (A 1983 design) which allow better processing and route planning to the Ticos UYK7 (1970s design). Also it should be noted that the first Ticos had a bad habit of jamming itself due to timing issues with the SPY1 and had a terrible UI. Which meant the NTU ships at the time a better all around readiness record. The Ticos from what I have read had more issues then the Ford, LCS, and Zumwalts are have at the same between electrical, programing, and structure issues.

It should be noted that the Burke shipped with the UYK43 in 1991 with the programing issues fixed, and the NTU ships couldn't actually use the max range of the SM missiles cause their directors could not actually illumate that far*. The NTU ships also had to get a special transmitter on their masts heads to communicate the SMs since they didn't have a SPY1 to do it. This allow them to guide more missiles in theory but since they couldn't actually fire that many, it was of questionable value.

But once the SPY1 timing issues was fix it could do the same thing with more accuracy with better ECM resistance and reaction. When the Burkes launch with the UYK43 with the newer SPY1Ds, they blow the NTU ships out of the water with better networking, fire control, and ECM resistance.

Not to mention that the SPY1 was insanely better then the SPS48 that the NTU uses in pop up target detection and ECM resistances. While the NTU ships had more radars at different freq bands that would have made jamming those painful, the SPY1 just have stupid inbuilt jamming resistance. The Navy did throw a few dozen squadrons of EA6s and a 707 jammer at the Ticos once, and they couldn't do it with the Tico still managing to smack the target drone with a SM2.

*As I understand it the SPG55 system could not actually see the target at the SM2ER 100 mile max range cause it was not sensitive enough so it had issues tracking targets that far. Remember that the Terrier maxed out at 50 miles at the time...

 

[sferrin]

Apparently NTU could do stuff Aegis is only now getting around to.

Not exactly.

Alot of the things that the NTU could so call do better then Aegis had to do with its computers and first impressions, which was Poor for the First Aegis system ships.

The NTU ships got the UYK43 computer (A 1983 design) which allow better processing and route planning to the Ticos UYK7 (1970s design). Also it should be noted that the first Ticos had a bad habit of jamming itself due to timing issues with the SPY1 and had a terrible UI. Which meant the NTU ships at the time a better all around readiness record. The Ticos from what I have read had more issues then the Ford, LCS, and Zumwalts are have at the same between electrical, programing, and structure issues.

It should be noted that the Burke shipped with the UYK43 in 1991 with the programing issues fixed, and the NTU ships couldn't actually use the max range of the SM missiles cause their directors could not actually illumate that far*. The NTU ships also had to get a special transmitter on their masts heads to communicate the SMs since they didn't have a SPY1 to do it. This allow them to guide more missiles in theory but since they couldn't actually fire that many, it was of questionable value.

But once the SPY1 timing issues was fix it could do the same thing with more accuracy with better ECM resistance and reaction. When the Burkes launch with the UYK43 with the newer SPY1Ds, they blow the NTU ships out of the water with better networking, fire control, and ECM resistance.

Not to mention that the SPY1 was insanely better then the SPS48 that the NTU uses in pop up target detection and ECM resistances. While the NTU ships had more radars at different freq bands that would have made jamming those painful, the SPY1 just have stupid inbuilt jamming resistance. The Navy did throw a few dozen squadrons of EA6s and a 707 jammer at the Ticos once, and they couldn't do it with the Tico still managing to smack the target drone with a SM2.

*As I understand it the SPG55 system could not actually see the target at the SM2ER 100 mile max range cause it was not sensitive enough so it had issues tracking targets that far. Remember that the Terrier maxed out at 50 miles at the time...

Which part of that refutes what I said? (BTW I got the background from a guy who either used to Captain or XO an NTU equipped Leahy. Unfortunately he's passed.)

 

[Firefinder]

Apparently NTU could do stuff Aegis is only now getting around to.

Not exactly.

Alot of the things that the NTU could so call do better then Aegis had to do with its computers and first impressions, which was Poor for the First Aegis system ships.

The NTU ships got the UYK43 computer (A 1983 design) which allow better processing and route planning to the Ticos UYK7 (1970s design). Also it should be noted that the first Ticos had a bad habit of jamming itself due to timing issues with the SPY1 and had a terrible UI. Which meant the NTU ships at the time a better all around readiness record. The Ticos from what I have read had more issues then the Ford, LCS, and Zumwalts are have at the same between electrical, programing, and structure issues.

It should be noted that the Burke shipped with the UYK43 in 1991 with the programing issues fixed, and the NTU ships couldn't actually use the max range of the SM missiles cause their directors could not actually illumate that far*. The NTU ships also had to get a special transmitter on their masts heads to communicate the SMs since they didn't have a SPY1 to do it. This allow them to guide more missiles in theory but since they couldn't actually fire that many, it was of questionable value.

But once the SPY1 timing issues was fix it could do the same thing with more accuracy with better ECM resistance and reaction. When the Burkes launch with the UYK43 with the newer SPY1Ds, they blow the NTU ships out of the water with better networking, fire control, and ECM resistance.

Not to mention that the SPY1 was insanely better then the SPS48 that the NTU uses in pop up target detection and ECM resistances. While the NTU ships had more radars at different freq bands that would have made jamming those painful, the SPY1 just have stupid inbuilt jamming resistance. The Navy did throw a few dozen squadrons of EA6s and a 707 jammer at the Ticos once, and they couldn't do it with the Tico still managing to smack the target drone with a SM2.

*As I understand it the SPG55 system could not actually see the target at the SM2ER 100 mile max range cause it was not sensitive enough so it had issues tracking targets that far. Remember that the Terrier maxed out at 50 miles at the time...

Which part of that refutes what I said? (BTW I got the background from a guy who either used to Captain or XO an NTU equipped Leahy. Unfortunately he's passed.)

The Part that the Aegis system is just getting the capabilities that the NTU ships had. It really wasn't, it was just far more reliable.

Just have a knee jerk reaction to people saying that OMG NTU was so much better then Aegis we should have kept it blah blah, we all see it. And literaly a few hours before I posted that I had a slightly heated debate with someone just about that, so I may have been a little short about that. Sorry if I came off like that.

 

[Dilandu]

Just have a knee jerk reaction to people saying that OMG NTU was so much better then Aegis we should have kept it blah blah, we all see it.

NTU ships might have a good export market sales, though...

 

[sferrin]

Apparently NTU could do stuff Aegis is only now getting around to.

Not exactly.

Alot of the things that the NTU could so call do better then Aegis had to do with its computers and first impressions, which was Poor for the First Aegis system ships.

The NTU ships got the UYK43 computer (A 1983 design) which allow better processing and route planning to the Ticos UYK7 (1970s design). Also it should be noted that the first Ticos had a bad habit of jamming itself due to timing issues with the SPY1 and had a terrible UI. Which meant the NTU ships at the time a better all around readiness record. The Ticos from what I have read had more issues then the Ford, LCS, and Zumwalts are have at the same between electrical, programing, and structure issues.

It should be noted that the Burke shipped with the UYK43 in 1991 with the programing issues fixed, and the NTU ships couldn't actually use the max range of the SM missiles cause their directors could not actually illumate that far*. The NTU ships also had to get a special transmitter on their masts heads to communicate the SMs since they didn't have a SPY1 to do it. This allow them to guide more missiles in theory but since they couldn't actually fire that many, it was of questionable value.

But once the SPY1 timing issues was fix it could do the same thing with more accuracy with better ECM resistance and reaction. When the Burkes launch with the UYK43 with the newer SPY1Ds, they blow the NTU ships out of the water with better networking, fire control, and ECM resistance.

Not to mention that the SPY1 was insanely better then the SPS48 that the NTU uses in pop up target detection and ECM resistances. While the NTU ships had more radars at different freq bands that would have made jamming those painful, the SPY1 just have stupid inbuilt jamming resistance. The Navy did throw a few dozen squadrons of EA6s and a 707 jammer at the Ticos once, and they couldn't do it with the Tico still managing to smack the target drone with a SM2.

*As I understand it the SPG55 system could not actually see the target at the SM2ER 100 mile max range cause it was not sensitive enough so it had issues tracking targets that far. Remember that the Terrier maxed out at 50 miles at the time...

Which part of that refutes what I said? (BTW I got the background from a guy who either used to Captain or XO an NTU equipped Leahy. Unfortunately he's passed.)

The Part that the Aegis system is just getting the capabilities that the NTU ships had. It really wasn't, it was just far more reliable.

Just have a knee jerk reaction to people saying that OMG NTU was so much better then Aegis we should have kept it blah blah, we all see it. And literaly a few hours before I posted that I had a slightly heated debate with someone just about that, so I may have been a little short about that. Sorry if I came off like that.

Oh, no. I'd see them more as complementary. I'd never suggest keeping those over Aegis.

 

[uk 75]

This is a very interesting thread for me as a Brit. As some may know, there is a lot of discussion on this site about the evolution of the Brit equivalents: Seaslug (Early Terrier) and Seadart (Tartar/Standard MR).
I think there was a lot more exchange between the RN and USN around these weapons than has come out in Friedman and Brown/Moore. The destroyer evolution in the 60s by both navies is worth comparing. The USN goes for a low end Tartar frigate similar to the RN T 42 in the O H Perry class. The Spruances are a nod in the direction of the County class.

 

[Grey Havoc]

No, SM-2ER was absolutely incompatible with the Mk 26. The two-stage missile is 314 inches long and weighs 2960 pounds; the Mk 26 launcher can only accomodate missiles up to 200 inches and 2200 pounds. Plus of course, SM-2ER still required manual finning of the lower stage, which Mk 26 could not do (there was no place for it to happen and nowhere to stow the fins).

There were at one point plans to create an AEGIS ER missile that could fit both Mk 26 and VLS. But that was before Mk 41 grew to accommodate Tomahawk (the original plan had been to cap it at a 228-inch canister, which was enlarged to 264-inches for Tomahawk). At that point, AEGIS ER (later SM-2 Block IV) also grew to make better use of the longer canister and became too long for the Mk 26 as well. Edit: And this missile didn't ultimately reach IOC until 1999.

Mod 0 and Mod 2 weren't compatible with SM-2ER, but the upgraded Mod 2 developed for the Strike Cruiser and Mod 5 for the early Ticonderogas were. Of course as you have pointed out, they must have developed a new booster for the ER to allow this, but I haven't been able find any specific information on it. Unfortunately the ongoing purges over at DTIC haven't helped my attempts to run this down (yet more stuff on nuclear cruisers among other things was removed just this month). I have been wondering lately if the booster was possibly related in some way to that developed for the 'original' BGM-109E (not to be confused with the later Block IV and the even later Tactical Tomahawk) which alongside its BGM-109F sibling were actually intended to be the first Tomahawks compatible with the original design Mark 44 VLS . The E was a nuclear and conventional armed anti-ship missile while the F was a TLAM/Anti-Airfield weapon equipped with cluster munitions. The E and F may have been spun off from the MRASM program. However they both got shelved when the Mk 44 had to undergo it's major redesign around the mid 1980s.

Incidentally, both Mod 2 and Mod 5 Mk 26 launchers were also compatible with Tomahawk missiles, but Tomahawks seemingly were not deployed operationally on the early Ticos because of fears in certain quarters that it would be the final straw that would lead to Congress to cancelling what was then (early 1980s) the very troubled Mk 44 program. This I will note at the same time that the wider Navy were desperately trying to get Tomahawks on just about anything that would float, especially nuclear armed anti-ship and land attack missiles.

 

[TomS]

No, SM-2ER was absolutely incompatible with the Mk 26. The two-stage missile is 314 inches long and weighs 2960 pounds; the Mk 26 launcher can only accomodate missiles up to 200 inches and 2200 pounds. Plus of course, SM-2ER still required manual finning of the lower stage, which Mk 26 could not do (there was no place for it to happen and nowhere to stow the fins).

There were at one point plans to create an AEGIS ER missile that could fit both Mk 26 and VLS. But that was before Mk 41 grew to accommodate Tomahawk (the original plan had been to cap it at a 228-inch canister, which was enlarged to 264-inches for Tomahawk). At that point, AEGIS ER (later SM-2 Block IV) also grew to make better use of the longer canister and became too long for the Mk 26 as well. Edit: And this missile didn't ultimately reach IOC until 1999.

Mod 0 and Mod 2 weren't compatible with SM-2ER, but the upgraded Mod 2 developed for the Strike Cruiser and Mod 5 for the early Ticonderogas were. Of course as you have pointed out, they must have developed a new booster for the ER to allow this, but I haven't been able find any specific information on it. Unfortunately the ongoing purges over at DTIC haven't helped my attempts to run this down (yet more stuff on nuclear cruisers among other things was removed just this month).

[snipped Tomahawk info]

Incidentally, both Mod 2 and Mod 5 Mk 26 launchers were also compatible with Tomahawk missiles, but Tomahawks seemingly were not deployed operationally on the early Ticos because of fears in certain quarters that it would be the final straw that would lead to Congress to cancelling what was then (early 1980s) the very troubled Mk 44 program. This I will note at the same time that the wider Navy were desperately trying to get Tomahawks on just about anything that would float, especially nuclear armed anti-ship and land attack missiles.

I'd really need to see sources for this. As far as I am aware, Mk 26 Mod 5 is exactly the same as Mod 4 except that it can talk to the AEGIS Weapon System instead of the previous fire control systems. Per published naval document, there is no significant physical difference between the mods except in the electronics and the number of magazine modules sandwiched between the end units. (there are some detail engineering tweaks for cost)

http://www.alternatewars.com/BBOW/Weapons/NAVEDTRA_14109_Ch7-8.pdf

 

[Moose]

To add to the above, TLAM itself was not modded for overhead rail launch. The ABL and Gryphon TEL both supported the missile along its length, as does a VLS cell. The Navy's rail launchers didn't have anywhere near that long of a grip. And the Mk 135 booster is too short/small to support the whole missile hanging in front of it for a substantial amount of time. Mk 26 and the missile would have needed to be modded so the former could somehow hold both the booster and aft fuselage of the weapon at the same time, or "choke up" to just grab the body... which would create clearance problems.

 

[Dilandu]

To add to the above, TLAM itself was not modded for overhead rail launch. The ABL and Gryphon TEL both supported the missile along its length, as does a VLS cell. The Navy's rail launchers didn't have anywhere near that long of a grip. And the Mk 135 booster is too short/small to support the whole missile hanging in front of it for a substantial amount of time. Mk 26 and the missile would have needed to be modded so the former could somehow hold both the booster and aft fuselage of the weapon at the same time, or "choke up" to just grab the body... which would create clearance problems.

Maybe some kind of external (detachable) support frame was used?

 

[apparition13]

To add to the above, TLAM itself was not modded for overhead rail launch. The ABL and Gryphon TEL both supported the missile along its length, as does a VLS cell. The Navy's rail launchers didn't have anywhere near that long of a grip. And the Mk 135 booster is too short/small to support the whole missile hanging in front of it for a substantial amount of time. Mk 26 and the missile would have needed to be modded so the former could somehow hold both the booster and aft fuselage of the weapon at the same time, or "choke up" to just grab the body... which would create clearance problems.

Would the wider body even fit in the magazine? Harpoon and Standard are 13.5 inches, ASROC 16.6, while Tomahawk is 20.4.

 

[TomS]

Mod 0 and Mod 2 weren't compatible with SM-2ER, but the upgraded Mod 2 developed for the Strike Cruiser and Mod 5 for the early Ticonderogas were. Of course as you have pointed out, they must have developed a new booster for the ER to allow this, but I haven't been able find any specific information on it. Unfortunately the ongoing purges over at DTIC haven't helped my attempts to run this down (yet more stuff on nuclear cruisers among other things was removed just this month). I have been wondering lately if the booster was possibly related in some way to that developed for the 'original' BGM-109E (not to be confused with the later Block IV and the even later Tactical Tomahawk) which alongside its BGM-109F sibling were actually intended to be the first Tomahawks compatible with the original design Mark 44 VLS .

This whole passage has me confused.

1) AFAICT, Mk 44 was never a VLS designation. It's an alternative designation for the Armored Box Launcher, which is also referred to as Mk 143 (that may be in the same series as the Harpoon Mk 141 canister launcher). Navy missile launcher designations are intensely confusing, though, so possibly I missed something?

2) Not sure about the suggestion that BGM-109E and F were specifically VLS versions. The original E was an improved antiship version, but the B model did fit in VLS as well, so that wasn't unique to the E.

Incidentally, both Mod 2 and Mod 5 Mk 26 launchers were also compatible with Tomahawk missiles,

I did a fair bit of research on this item, and there's really no way it could be true. The baseline Tomahawk is too long and far too heavy for Mk 26. Even MRASM was only 8 inches short of the Mk 26's physical length limit of 200 inches (and 200 pounds over its weight limit of 2000 pounds). No way an 8-inch long booster could get Tomahawk safely off the rail and into level flight.

 

[uk 75]

The California and Virginia classes are very different looking ships.
The Californias give the impression of being designed for a different weapon system (Typhon?) and then built with the Tartar and Asroc launchers fitted to the Adams and Coontz classes. Early models show them fitted with the same 5" guns
The Virginia class have the new combined Tartar/Asroc launchers developed for the planned AAW Spruance class which never materialised. Just as the RN had to settle for the smaller T42 the USN had to build the austere Perry class.
Presumably if Typhon had gone into service on the DLGN as planned the AAW variant of the Spruance would have shipped Typhon MR.
The demise of Typhon and Sea Mauler within a few years of each other left the USN with major gaps in its AAW. The RN were fortunate in that Seaslug and Seacat did eventually give way to Seadart and Seawolf.albeit taking a decade to implement.
AEGIS proves too big and expensive initially but improvements in electronics gradually allow it to be fitted to smaller vessels. Initially only planned for nuclear DLG /cruisers an austere variant with one launcher is rejected in the 70s. The development of VLS Standard makes the Burkes and later Spenish and Norwegian smaller vessels possible.
The California class rather like the RN HMS Bristol look impressive but do not get the armament their size warrants.

 

[isayyo2]

Excellent thought @uk 75 I did not consider Typhon when I initially created this thread!

 

[Dilandu]

Yeah, none of that explains why they went with RIM-66 instead of RIM-67.

Mostly because RIM-67 wasn't that good. Besides range, it offered nothing that RIM-66 couldn't do - at the cost of being much harder to fit insidethe ship, and lower rate of fire. And since Soviet X-22 outranged them both, the range difference wasn't that important. Sure, RIM-67 equipped ship could start to engage on longer range - but massive Soviet ECM's would make long-range intercepts unreliable at best. And in terms of number of interceptions, the slower rate of fire of RIM-67 mostly negated its range advantage.

Essentially, RIM-67 wasn't so much an attempt to get extra range, but an attempt to provide Standard-series missiles for Terrier-armed ships to use. Extra range was a nice bonus.

 

[Volkodav]

The California and Virginia classes are very different looking ships.
The Californias give the impression of being designed for a different weapon system (Typhon?) and then built with the Tartar and Asroc launchers fitted to the Adams and Coontz classes. Early models show them fitted with the same 5" guns
The Virginia class have the new combined Tartar/Asroc launchers developed for the planned AAW Spruance class which never materialised. Just as the RN had to settle for the smaller T42 the USN had to build the austere Perry class.
Presumably if Typhon had gone into service on the DLGN as planned the AAW variant of the Spruance would have shipped Typhon MR.
The demise of Typhon and Sea Mauler within a few years of each other left the USN with major gaps in its AAW. The RN were fortunate in that Seaslug and Seacat did eventually give way to Seadart and Seawolf.albeit taking a decade to implement.
AEGIS proves too big and expensive initially but improvements in electronics gradually allow it to be fitted to smaller vessels. Initially only planned for nuclear DLG /cruisers an austere variant with one launcher is rejected in the 70s. The development of VLS Standard makes the Burkes and later Spenish and Norwegian smaller vessels possible.
The California class rather like the RN HMS Bristol look impressive but do not get the armament their size warrants.

As I recall from Friedmans US Destroyers, the Californias were the nuclear powered partner for the unbuilt 1967 (or was it 65/6) steam powered DDG. The Virginias were the partner to the Spruance.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

As I recall from Friedmans US Destroyers, the Californias were the nuclear powered partner for the unbuilt 1967 (or was it 65/6) steam powered DDG. The Virginias were the partner to the Spruance.

DDG FY67 started out as a steam-powered design, and very quickly became an 8450-ton Gas Turbine-powered design with a novel machinery arrangement with cruising turbines on the main deck supplying power to electric motors at the extreme ends of the machinery spaces to drive the shafts, hence resulting in a very quiet ship that was resistant to underwater damage.

At the time there was support in Congress for the idea that all ships over 8000 tons should be Nuclear-Powered, hence the California class were ordered instead (in spite of attempts to design a 7900-ton design, which forced a number of compromises and lost the advantages of the 8,450 ton design).

The California and Virginia classes are very different looking ships.
The Californias give the impression of being designed for a different weapon system (Typhon?) and then built with the Tartar and Asroc launchers fitted to the Adams and Coontz classes. Early models show them fitted with the same 5" guns
The Virginia class have the new combined Tartar/Asroc launchers developed for the planned AAW Spruance class which never materialised. Just as the RN had to settle for the smaller T42 the USN had to build the austere Perry class.
Presumably if Typhon had gone into service on the DLGN as planned the AAW variant of the Spruance would have shipped Typhon MR.
The demise of Typhon and Sea Mauler within a few years of each other left the USN with major gaps in its AAW. The RN were fortunate in that Seaslug and Seacat did eventually give way to Seadart and Seawolf.albeit taking a decade to implement.
AEGIS proves too big and expensive initially but improvements in electronics gradually allow it to be fitted to smaller vessels. Initially only planned for nuclear DLG /cruisers an austere variant with one launcher is rejected in the 70s. The development of VLS Standard makes the Burkes and later Spenish and Norwegian smaller vessels possible.
The California class rather like the RN HMS Bristol look impressive but do not get the armament their size warrants.

The design Californias, Virginias and Spruances all post-date the death of Typhon by a few years.

With the improvements in range performance made to Standard, the California's were equivalent to a double-ended Terrier Frigate, with a higher rate of fire for their GMLS, not to mention better performance against pop-up threats.

Austere warship designs don't make all that much sense when the combat systems you put aboard them make up a significant proportion, if not majority of the cost. Better to go for larger hulls which have better margins for further additions over their lifetimes, can have better layouts which will reduce manning, as well as better living conditions aboard to improve the retention of personnel (another major cost for navies). Small warships are a false economy.

 

[sferrin]

With the improvements in range performance made to Standard, the California's were equivalent to a double-ended Terrier Frigate, with a higher rate of fire for their GMLS, not to mention better performance against pop-up threats.

RIM-67 had way more range than RIM-66. 185km vs 74km

 

[TomS]

With the improvements in range performance made to Standard, the California's were equivalent to a double-ended Terrier Frigate, with a higher rate of fire for their GMLS, not to mention better performance against pop-up threats.

RIM-67 had way more range than RIM-66. 185km vs 74km

He's comparing to Terrier, not Standard ER. RIM-2F reached about 75 km, similar to SM-2MR.

 

[pathology_doc]

Something that's always struck me as odd was the lack of longer range RIM-67s on these nuclear powered Frigates/Cruisers, was it simply cost cutting or was there a deeper philosophy behind their design?

Boiling this entire thread to date down to its essence:

Mk 10 (Standard ER) had a 30 second gap between launches because the fins had to be attached manually before launch. Mk 26 could load and fire much faster to deal with saturation attacks, and its first-generation SM-2 MR missiles had as much reach as the final models of RIM-2 Terrier. In addition, by the time the Virginias and Californias were in planning, the Mk10 launcher was out of production.

 

[sferrin]

With the improvements in range performance made to Standard, the California's were equivalent to a double-ended Terrier Frigate, with a higher rate of fire for their GMLS, not to mention better performance against pop-up threats.

RIM-67 had way more range than RIM-66. 185km vs 74km

He's comparing to Terrier, not Standard ER. RIM-2F reached about 75 km, similar to SM-2MR.

Yes but "Terrier Frigates" eventually ended up with RIM-67C/D.

Raytheon RIM-67 Standard ER

"The Standard missile program was initiated in 1963 to provide a replacement for the RIM-2 Terrier and RIM-24 Tartar missile systems. The Tartar replacement was designated RIM-66 Standard MR (Medium Range), while the longer-range Terrier replacement became the RIM-67 Standard ER (Extended Range). The Standard is still the U.S. Navy's main medium and long range air defense missile.

All blocks of the Standard SM-1ER missile were designated as RIM-67A. They were essentially identical to the corresponding SM-1MR missile, except for the propulsion. Instead of the MR's MK-56 dual-thrust motor, the ER used an Atlantic Research Corp. MK 30 solid-fuel rocket sustainer motor, and a Hercules MK 12 booster."

 

[Dilandu]

RIM-67 had way more range than RIM-66. 185km vs 74km

Yeah, but also the fire rate was only one salvo per 30 seconds. Compare this with Mk-26 reload time (about 9-10 seconds), and you could see that actual rate of fire strongly favor the RIM-66 missiles. Yes, RIM-67 have better range. But they could not use it efficiently due to slow reload.

 

[isayyo2]

Without making an entirely new thread, I am curious what sort of new launcher systems could be developed for Terrier/Typhon/Standard-ER.

Could an upsized Mk 26 be developed for Typhon/Standard-ER? The Mk 4 was of course vertically loaded for the Boston class CAG. All Terrier GMLS used the same twin-arm Mk 5 launcher.

Say if Typhon did enter service, would a vertical and automated magazine be practical? How many men were assigned to a Mk 10 vs a Mk 26?

 

[TomS]

Without making an entirely new thread, I am curious what sort of new launcher systems could be developed for Terrier/Typhon/Standard-ER.

Could an upsized Mk 26 be developed for Typhon/Standard-ER? The Mk 4 was of course vertically loaded for the Boston class CAG. All Terrier GMLS used the same twin-arm Mk 5 launcher.

Say if Typhon did enter service, would a vertical and automated magazine be practical? How many men were assigned to a Mk 10 vs a Mk 26?

It's technically possible to build a Mk 26-like launcher for an ER-style two-stage missile. Mk 4 definitely shows how the stowage looks. It's a very, very deep configuration, though, a full deck deeper than MK 26 or strike-length MK 41 VLS, for example. And probably longer, too, since you need to hold fatter missiles than Mk 26, especially with the long and relatively wide fixed wings/strakes on the Typhon LR upper stage. Edit: And you need to revise the missile to eliminate manual finning (meaning folding fins, at least) or incorporate a finning room below the launcher, as in the Mk 4, which has an obvious impact on manning and RoF.

And then you start to run into "why" issues. A really monster missile like Typhon LR would have a long time of flight. Even with the autopilots and time-shared guidance from a Typhon or AEGIS type fire control system, you probably doesn't need to pump out LR missiles at the same rate as the medium-range launchers. The missiles take a long time to reach the target and you need time to assess between engagements or you risk wasting a lot of very expensive missiles on targets you've already killed.

 

[henshao]

Can someone clear up for me 2 things

the Mark 26 is alleged to have been compatible with Harpoon in a few places I've seen, and

What is the rationale behind giving California, with two launch rails, 5 illuminators yet giving Virginia, Kidd, and Burke with twice the fire rate or more, 3 illuminators (Tico also can only bring 3 illuminators to bear on most of the circle)

 

[Firefinder]

Can someone clear up for me 2 things

the Mark 26 is alleged to have been compatible with Harpoon in a few places I've seen, and

What is the rationale behind giving California, with two launch rails, 5 illuminators yet giving Virginia, Kidd, and Burke with twice the fire rate or more, 3 illuminators (Tico also can only bring 3 illuminators to bear on most of the circle)

The Calis were originally Tarter missile armed.

Those needed to be guided the entire way, which can take a few minutes, so to make the most of the MK13 rapid fire nature got multiple directors.

The Virginias, Kidds, and Burkes are Standard Missile armed.

Which have an autopilot allow the missile to self guide up to a point less then 5 second away from the target. Where tge director will switch on to guide it on to the kill. Allowing each director to basicallt timeshare multiple missiles.

Like the Virginias could guide over 12 missiles at once compared to the California class 4 dispite having 2 directors. The Burkes, Kidds, and Ticos could do even more.

Since they needed less directors to do the same work they got cut from the design to save weight.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Not to mention that the SPY1 was insanely better then the SPS48 that the NTU uses in pop up target detection and ECM resistances. While the NTU ships had more radars at different freq bands that would have made jamming those painful, the SPY1 just have stupid inbuilt jamming resistance. The Navy did throw a few dozen squadrons of EA6s and a 707 jammer at the Ticos once, and they couldn't do it with the Tico still managing to smack the target drone with a SM2.

That must have been one hell of an exercise to deconflict.

And beyond impressive to actually see happen.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Bummer. Still wish they'd kept the Spruances and put the planned 8" gun up front. Together with their VLS they would have been very versatile destroyers.

The 8" Mark 71 didn't add much range to the package, and lost a lot of rate of fire when compared to the 5" Mk42. 8" Mk71 was 12rpm max (and only 6rpm for guided projectiles) and 17 mile range, 5" Mk42 was downrated to 28rpm (original design was 40rpm!) and had a 15 mile range.

 

[isayyo2]

The Calis were originally Tarter missile armed.

Those needed to be guided the entire way, which can take a few minutes, so to make the most of the MK13 rapid fire nature got multiple directors.

The California's utilized the MK-74 Tartar Fire Control System, not the missile itself, and were initially armed with RIM-66 Standard Missile-1MRs as were the Virginias, Kidds, and anyone else with an SPG-51. The SM-1MRs required illumination all the way.

SM-2MR with midcourse guidance and autopilot did not arrive until after the California and Virginia classes entered service. The California class were unique as the only Mk 13 equipped vessels in the US Navy to fire the SM-2 after their deep NTU modifications.

 

[henshao]

The California's utilized the MK-74 Tartar Fire Control System, not the missile itself, and were initially armed with RIM-66 Standard Missile-1MRs as were the Virginias, Kidds, and anyone else with an SPG-51. The SM-1MRs required illumination all the way.

SM-2MR with midcourse guidance and autopilot did not arrive until after the California and Virginia classes entered service. The California class were unique as the only Mk 13 equipped vessels in the US Navy to fire the SM-2 after their deep NTU modifications.

Correct, California with its 4 (later 5*) illuminators was using the same SM-1 missiles as Virginia and Kidd with their 2 (later 3*) illuminators in spite of the latter having about twice the fire rate. A very backwards setup to me

The Calis were originally Tarter missile armed.

Those needed to be guided the entire way, which can take a few minutes, so to make the most of the MK13 rapid fire nature got multiple directors.

The Virginias, Kidds, and Burkes are Standard Missile armed.

Which have an autopilot allow the missile to self guide up to a point less then 5 second away from the target. Where tge director will switch on to guide it on to the kill. Allowing each director to basicallt timeshare multiple missiles.

Like the Virginias could guide over 12 missiles at once compared to the California class 4 dispite having 2 directors. The Burkes, Kidds, and Ticos could do even more.

Since they needed less directors to do the same work they got cut from the design to save weight.

it was not until NTU that Virginia and Kidd got SM-2, they had only 2 illuminators for 4 launch rails until then. California also received NTU/SM-2 and thus had support for terminal homing on up to 5 targets at once...with its 2 launch rails

*SPG-60 tracking radar for the gun was given an illumination capability

 

[isayyo2]

Correct, California with its 4 (later 5*) illuminators was using the same SM-1 missiles as Virginia and Kidd with their 2 (later 3*) illuminators in spite of the latter having about twice the fire rate. A very backwards setup to me

Perhaps the forward Mk 26 was mainly for ASROC, and whatever odd Standard placed in that 24 round magazines could be handled by the SPG-60?

Budget and topside weight could also explain its deletion.

 

[CV12Hornet]

I've seen it mentioned that the Mod 0/3 Mark 26 was used as a glorified ASROC launcher, yes.