The RIM-67 was fitted on ships which had the Guided Missile Launching System (GMLS) Mk 10 that was originally intended for Terrier. The California class's Mk13 GMLS and the Virginia class's Mk26 GMLS were designed around Tartar and SM-2 sized missiles, and hence did not have space for the RIM-67s with their longer boosters.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?
Okay so why not just install Mk10s?The RIM-67 was fitted on ships which had the Guided Missile Launching System (GMLS) Mk 10 that was originally intended for Terrier. The California class's Mk13 GMLS and the Virginia class's Mk26 GMLS were designed around Tartar and SM-2 sized missiles, and hence did not have space for the RIM-67s with their longer boosters.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?
Okay so why not just install Mk10s?The RIM-67 was fitted on ships which had the Guided Missile Launching System (GMLS) Mk 10 that was originally intended for Terrier. The California class's Mk13 GMLS and the Virginia class's Mk26 GMLS were designed around Tartar and SM-2 sized missiles, and hence did not have space for the RIM-67s with their longer boosters.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?
Okay so why not just install Mk10s?The RIM-67 was fitted on ships which had the Guided Missile Launching System (GMLS) Mk 10 that was originally intended for Terrier. The California class's Mk13 GMLS and the Virginia class's Mk26 GMLS were designed around Tartar and SM-2 sized missiles, and hence did not have space for the RIM-67s with their longer boosters.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?
The magazines were different for Mk26's and Mk10's. IIRC the Mk26's missiles were vertical and concentric around the launcher while the Mk10's magazines were horizontal and behind/ahead of the launcher.
That's essentially the crux of my question. Why put in all the expense of a nuclear powered cruiser and then arm them with Mk 13s and Mk 26s? The hulls were plenty spacious for a Mk 10 as seen with Truxtun and yet, they go with lightweight launchers...The RIM-67 was fitted on ships which had the Guided Missile Launching System (GMLS) Mk 10 that was originally intended for Terrier. The California class's Mk13 GMLS and the Virginia class's Mk26 GMLS were designed around Tartar and SM-2 sized missiles, and hence did not have space for the RIM-67s with their longer boosters.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?
Okay so why not just install Mk10s?
That's essentially the crux of my question. Why put in all the expense of a nuclear powered cruiser and then arm them with Mk 13s and Mk 26s? The hulls were plenty spacious for a Mk 10 as seen with Truxtun and yet, they go with lightweight launchers...
Typhon MR and later Tartar (and 5"/54s to deal with MTBs) were considered for CVA-67.To me, the really odd thing that that they never put Tartar or SM-1MR on the carriers. Sea Sparrow was obviously near useless for most of its life, and Phalanx was incredibly late (and limited). They fitted Terrier, briefly, then pulled the area defense missiles off entirely. Mk 13 (or even the smaller Mk 22) with Tartar or SM-1MR would have been a huge improvement for the carriers with very limited ship impact given their size.
Okay so why not just install Mk10s?
1)Size of Launchers (both in terms volume and centerline space)
Guided missile-armed ships of this generation were already centerline space-critical due to the Air Search and Missile Guidance radars they required.
3)Fire Rate
The Mk10 could maintain fire rate of two salvos per minute, with a 30 second reload. The Mk13 could maintain a fire rate of one every 7 seconds. With reaction time being vital to deal with pop-up threats, it makes sense to focus on smaller rapid firing launchers, especially when considering the point immediately below.
4)Improvements in Missile Design
5)Problems inherent to Nuclear-Powered Surface Combatant Design
In conventional ship design, naval architects can get around unexpected changes in weight during construction by adjusting the amounts of liquid fuel and feedwater, which can overcome considerable errors in in estimated weights and center of gravity. In Nuclear ships theses liquids are scarce, and cannot be adjusted at will. There are also requirements for clear deck space to allow access to the reactor for servicing and refueling. Radiation standards prevent areas around the reactors from being used for crew spaces.
I don't feel I need to stress why suddenly changing the volume requirements and weight distribution of a ship designed for Mk13 or Mk26 launchers, by insisting that Mk10 Launchers be installed, along with the superstructure to accommodate SPG-55s, as @sferrin is suggesting will be a bad idea.
Okay so why not just install Mk10s?
1)Size of Launchers (both in terms volume and centerline space)
Guided missile-armed ships of this generation were already centerline space-critical due to the Air Search and Missile Guidance radars they required.
Yeah, none of that really holds much water. The Leahy's had a dual rail at both ends and were much smaller than the Virginia.
3)Fire Rate
The Mk10 could maintain fire rate of two salvos per minute, with a 30 second reload. The Mk13 could maintain a fire rate of one every 7 seconds. With reaction time being vital to deal with pop-up threats, it makes sense to focus on smaller rapid firing launchers, especially when considering the point immediately below.
This, sea-skimmers, and minimum range are probably it. Though if they could make a new Mk26 there's no reason it couldn't have been a new Mk10 instead.
4)Improvements in Missile Design
As a result of the development of Typhon MR, improvements such as a new rocket motor, and the programmable autopilot developed for SM-2, which enabled the missile to fly a more energy-efficient trajectory, meant that a Tartar-sized missile had performance equivalent to that of Terrier.
5)Problems inherent to Nuclear-Powered Surface Combatant Design
In conventional ship design, naval architects can get around unexpected changes in weight during construction by adjusting the amounts of liquid fuel and feedwater, which can overcome considerable errors in in estimated weights and center of gravity. In Nuclear ships theses liquids are scarce, and cannot be adjusted at will. There are also requirements for clear deck space to allow access to the reactor for servicing and refueling. Radiation standards prevent areas around the reactors from being used for crew spaces.
I don't feel I need to stress why suddenly changing the volume requirements and weight distribution of a ship designed for Mk13 or Mk26 launchers, by insisting that Mk10 Launchers be installed, along with the superstructure to accommodate SPG-55s, as @sferrin is suggesting will be a bad idea.
Okay so why not just install Mk10s?
Are you telling me you don't think you could squeeze in two 5" guns with an additional 4,000 tons displacement? (7,800 for Leahy, 12,700 for Virginia.)Leahys had no 5" guns, the Californias and Virginias had two each.
Nuclear powered surface vessels are more difficult to design than conventionally powered ones, all the ships you listed were designed from the outset with Terrier, not converted part way through.
Mk 10 was already in service in numbers in the fairly new Leahy, Belknap classes, their nuc derivatives, Long Beach, as well as the Coontz/Dewey class, it was well covered. All received SM-1ER and many were upgraded with NTU for service through the 90s and into the 2000s(only the end of the cold war ended this), with AEGIS coming on line initially with Mk26 equipped vessels being supplemented with the Mk41, hence SM-2ER vessels in the 90s.
You can probably draw a pretty direct line from the Soviet introduction of anti-carrier SSGNs to the USN's switch to Standard-MR for the DLGNs (and the slightly later DDG/CG-47).
Up to that point, the above-surface threat to CVBGs was almost entirely from bombers and bomber-launched missiles. For those threats, "kill the archer" was the key principle -- engage the bombers (and their supporting recce aircraft and jammers) as far out as possible, preferably before they can launch their missiles. That drove the USN to Talos, Terrier, Typhon-LR, Standard-ER, etc.
Echo II was the first sign of trouble, but AIUI, it was still pretty dependent on off-board targeting that long-range SAMs could help deal with. Then along came Charlie, which it pretty much self-contained and could launch its missiles from well inside the maximum range of missiles like SM-1ER. Countering that threat put a premium on rate-of-fire and reaction time; the USN needed to be able to pump out defensive missiles extremely quickly at pop-up targets showing up anywhere around the CVBG's defensive bubble. They also need to have missiles with as near zero minimum range as possible, so the DLGNs could ride shotgun on a high-value target and engage inbounds right until the last minute.
That means they wanted a fast-cycling launcher and a single-stage missile with no booster -- hence Mk 13 and Mk 26 with Standard-MR.
To me, the really odd thing that that they never put Tartar or SM-1MR on the carriers. Sea Sparrow was obviously near useless for most of its life, and Phalanx was incredibly late (and limited). They fitted Terrier, briefly, then pulled the area defense missiles off entirely. Mk 13 (or even the smaller Mk 22) with Tartar or SM-1MR would have been a huge improvement for the carriers with very limited ship impact given their size.
Edit: The perfectionist in me had to clean up some tense issues.
Yeah, none of that explains why they went with RIM-66 instead of RIM-67.
Yep, thats Terrier as he mentioned having been fitted initially, but still no Tartar or SM-1MRView attachment 641212You can probably draw a pretty direct line from the Soviet introduction of anti-carrier SSGNs to the USN's switch to Standard-MR for the DLGNs (and the slightly later DDG/CG-47).
Up to that point, the above-surface threat to CVBGs was almost entirely from bombers and bomber-launched missiles. For those threats, "kill the archer" was the key principle -- engage the bombers (and their supporting recce aircraft and jammers) as far out as possible, preferably before they can launch their missiles. That drove the USN to Talos, Terrier, Typhon-LR, Standard-ER, etc.
Echo II was the first sign of trouble, but AIUI, it was still pretty dependent on off-board targeting that long-range SAMs could help deal with. Then along came Charlie, which it pretty much self-contained and could launch its missiles from well inside the maximum range of missiles like SM-1ER. Countering that threat put a premium on rate-of-fire and reaction time; the USN needed to be able to pump out defensive missiles extremely quickly at pop-up targets showing up anywhere around the CVBG's defensive bubble. They also need to have missiles with as near zero minimum range as possible, so the DLGNs could ride shotgun on a high-value target and engage inbounds right until the last minute.
That means they wanted a fast-cycling launcher and a single-stage missile with no booster -- hence Mk 13 and Mk 26 with Standard-MR.
To me, the really odd thing that that they never put Tartar or SM-1MR on the carriers. Sea Sparrow was obviously near useless for most of its life, and Phalanx was incredibly late (and limited). They fitted Terrier, briefly, then pulled the area defense missiles off entirely. Mk 13 (or even the smaller Mk 22) with Tartar or SM-1MR would have been a huge improvement for the carriers with very limited ship impact given their size.
Edit: The perfectionist in me had to clean up some tense issues.
Yeah, none of that explains why they went with RIM-66 instead of RIM-67.
Because they didn't fit in the in production missile launching systems available when they were built and the Mk 41 VLS, which could handle ER, was sized to replace the Mk 26 GMLS.
By all means do up a Virginia using the out of production Mk-10 launchers and submit it to the USN to build as a Ticonderoga replacement.
Yep, thats Terrier as he mentioned having been fitted initially, but still no Tartar or SM-1MRView attachment 641212You can probably draw a pretty direct line from the Soviet introduction of anti-carrier SSGNs to the USN's switch to Standard-MR for the DLGNs (and the slightly later DDG/CG-47).
Up to that point, the above-surface threat to CVBGs was almost entirely from bombers and bomber-launched missiles. For those threats, "kill the archer" was the key principle -- engage the bombers (and their supporting recce aircraft and jammers) as far out as possible, preferably before they can launch their missiles. That drove the USN to Talos, Terrier, Typhon-LR, Standard-ER, etc.
Echo II was the first sign of trouble, but AIUI, it was still pretty dependent on off-board targeting that long-range SAMs could help deal with. Then along came Charlie, which it pretty much self-contained and could launch its missiles from well inside the maximum range of missiles like SM-1ER. Countering that threat put a premium on rate-of-fire and reaction time; the USN needed to be able to pump out defensive missiles extremely quickly at pop-up targets showing up anywhere around the CVBG's defensive bubble. They also need to have missiles with as near zero minimum range as possible, so the DLGNs could ride shotgun on a high-value target and engage inbounds right until the last minute.
That means they wanted a fast-cycling launcher and a single-stage missile with no booster -- hence Mk 13 and Mk 26 with Standard-MR.
To me, the really odd thing that that they never put Tartar or SM-1MR on the carriers. Sea Sparrow was obviously near useless for most of its life, and Phalanx was incredibly late (and limited). They fitted Terrier, briefly, then pulled the area defense missiles off entirely. Mk 13 (or even the smaller Mk 22) with Tartar or SM-1MR would have been a huge improvement for the carriers with very limited ship impact given their size.
Edit: The perfectionist in me had to clean up some tense issues.
Do you know?Yeah, none of that explains why they went with RIM-66 instead of RIM-67.
Because they didn't fit in the in production missile launching systems available when they were built and the Mk 41 VLS, which could handle ER, was sized to replace the Mk 26 GMLS.
By all means do up a Virginia using the out of production Mk-10 launchers and submit it to the USN to build as a Ticonderoga replacement.
The Mk41 VLS didn't exist when then Virginias were built. The Mk 26 was a new launcher. Could have just as easily been built for RIM-67 as RIM-66 (though the magazine would have required a different orientation). The question was, why wasn't it. (No, don't answer. You don't know.)
"By all means do up a Virginia using the out of production Mk-10 launchers and submit it to the USN to build as a Ticonderoga replacement."
Who suggested anything like this?
The Mk41 VLS didn't exist when then Virginias were built. The Mk 26 was a new launcher. Could have just as easily been built for RIM-67 as RIM-66 (though the magazine would have required a different orientation). The question was, why wasn't it. (No, don't answer. You don't know.)
Friedman is someone I would love to meet and definitely love to hear speak.The Mk41 VLS didn't exist when then Virginias were built. The Mk 26 was a new launcher. Could have just as easily been built for RIM-67 as RIM-66 (though the magazine would have required a different orientation). The question was, why wasn't it. (No, don't answer. You don't know.)
We don't know, but we can make some educated guesses based on the acquisition history of the ships.
The DLGNs-38s were expected to be a fairly large class, and were initially ordered right about the same time that Advanced Surface Missile System (later AEGIS) was just beginning development, after the collapse of Typhon. ASMS was initially supposed to be built into modular deckhouses that could be dropped straight onto a suitable hull, either late in construction or conceivably as a retrofit. The DLGNs were seen as the logical host for ASMS, so they needed to be designed with that in mind. And ASMS was all about rapid reaction and ROF, which definitely called for a quick-firing launcher and a Tarter-sized missile. So it makes sense for the DLGNs, as potential ASMS platforms, to be built around ASMS-appropriate launchers.
Now, it turned out that AEGIS as built was not suitable for retrofitting onto the DLGNs, but the ships were already built by that point, making the issue of whether they would have been better off with Mk 10 and ER missiles entirely moot.
Source: When Computers Went to Sea, US Destroyers (Revised Edition), and some hazily remembered discussions with Dr. Friedman many many years ago.
The DLGNs-38s were expected to be a fairly large class, and were initially ordered right about the same time that Advanced Surface Missile System (later AEGIS) was just beginning development, after the collapse of Typhon. ASMS was initially supposed to be built into modular deckhouses that could be dropped straight onto a suitable hull, either late in construction or conceivably as a retrofit. The DLGNs were seen as the logical host for ASMS, so they needed to be designed with that in mind. And ASMS was all about rapid reaction and ROF, which definitely called for a quick-firing launcher and a Tarter-sized missile. So it makes sense for the DLGNs, as potential ASMS platforms, to be built around ASMS-appropriate launchers.
Now, it turned out that AEGIS as built was not suitable for retrofitting onto the DLGNs,
Why is that? They were able to drop the VLS into Spruance hulls, and CGN-42 was considered for the Aegis system.Now, it turned out that AEGIS as built was not suitable for retrofitting onto the DLGNs,
Why is that? They were able to drop the VLS into Spruance hulls, and CGN-42 was considered for the Aegis system.Now, it turned out that AEGIS as built was not suitable for retrofitting onto the DLGNs,
The 36s were exceptionally tight ships. The 38s less so, but the level of effort required to retrofit was just too expensive given the small number of ships. It didn't help that CNO Holloway was hoping to use AEGIS as a lever to pry lose nuclear strike cruisers, which made and effort to retrofit AEGIS to existing ships unhelpful to the cause. CGN-42 was seen as a sort fo budget Strike Cruiser, but it wasn't very budget. The ships Holloway really wanted were even more expensive.
Then when the CGSNs proved unaffordable, they looked around and found that the best economical solution was the DDG-47, since the Spruances had been designed with that degree of modularity in mind. Even so, the DDG-47s took some serious reengineering to keep stability acceptable with those big deckhouses.
Actually, I'm afraid that there is some confusion there, particularly over the CGN-42 designation.
Ahhh 70s procurement cost overruns and cancellations, the only thing worse was Peace Dividend!To say the least!
Yes thanks, I recall reading the requirement of four DLGNs per CVN and if I am not drawing to long a bow, Truxton, Bainbridge and the two Californias were to have catered for Enterprise and the Virginias for Nimitz. Long Beach was to have received an AEGIS conversion, where her Mk-10s would have been removed and replaced with Mk-26s and an 8" Gun.Actually, I'm afraid that there is some confusion there, particularly over the CGN-42 designation. What was to become the Virginia-class DLGN was designed as a dedicated escort for those CBGs that were to be built around the CVN-68 (Nimitz) class CVNs, with four DLGNs per battle group, with a minimum of 32 hulls to be procured (originally it was only planned to build 8 examples of the CVN-68 class). From the outset it was planned that this new frigate class would be built around ASMS (what became Aegis), though scoop creep began creating some technical & other delays. Though this contributed to the decision around 1967 to have early examples of the new class initially fitted for but not with ASMS, this was not the only, or even primary reason. A major issue was that McNamara hated the CVN-68 class and wanted it cancelled so he that could spend the money on 'his' priorities. This hatred naturally carried over to the DLGN class that was intended to help defend the new CVNs. McNamara routinely raided the budgets of both programs for money for various pet projects of his, causing further ongoing delays and attendant cost overruns. Matters weren't helped by McNamara viewing ASMS as a very low priority program at best, with him even trying at one stage to have it merged with the U.S. Army's SAM-D program. He failed, but the botched attempt hardly helped already stretched budgets and schedules.
The plan with DLGN-42, later CGN-42, was for it to be the first ship in the class to be fitted with ASMS/Aegis, with the previous ships then being progressively retrofitted. In 1976 however with procurement already having rather ill-advisedly been reduced to 11 hulls, CGN-42 was cancelled, with the designation being reassigned later in the year to the Strike Cruiser program. Confusing matters further was that this new incarnation of CGN-42 was initially supposed to use the Virginia class hull as the basis for it's design, though it soon evolved into a new bigger hull design altogether.
Every Spruance had the potential to be upgraded to a similar configuration to the Kidd class DDGs and could technically have been upgraded with Mk-41 fore and aft and NTU, making them into pretty much super Kidds. I recall that when the Kidds were offered to Australia there was talk of upgrading them with Mk-41and cancelling the proposed FFG MLU or FFGUP as it was known.Why is that? They were able to drop the VLS into Spruance hulls, and CGN-42 was considered for the Aegis system.Now, it turned out that AEGIS as built was not suitable for retrofitting onto the DLGNs,
The 36s were exceptionally tight ships. The 38s less so, but the level of effort required to retrofit was just too expensive given the small number of ships. It didn't help that CNO Holloway was hoping to use AEGIS as a lever to pry lose nuclear strike cruisers, which made and effort to retrofit AEGIS to existing ships unhelpful to the cause. CGN-42 was seen as a sort fo budget Strike Cruiser, but it wasn't very budget. The ships Holloway really wanted were even more expensive.
Then when the CSGNs proved unaffordable, they looked around and found that the best economical solution was the DDG-47, since the Spruances had been designed with that degree of modularity in mind. Even so, the DDG-47s took some serious reengineering to keep stability acceptable with those big deckhouses.
Every Spruance had the potential to be upgraded to a similar configuration to the Kidd class DDGs and could technically have been upgraded with Mk-41 fore and aft and NTU, making them into pretty much super Kidds. I recall that when the Kidds were offered to Australia there was talk of upgrading them with Mk-41and cancelling the proposed FFG MLU or FFGUP as it was known.
Fairly sure the Kidds already had NTU.Every Spruance had the potential to be upgraded to a similar configuration to the Kidd class DDGs and could technically have been upgraded with Mk-41 fore and aft and NTU, making them into pretty much super Kidds. I recall that when the Kidds were offered to Australia there was talk of upgrading them with Mk-41and cancelling the proposed FFG MLU or FFGUP as it was known.
I remember the Australian plans. They might well have run into weight issues if they had gotten too carried away, since the Tsrtar cponversion and the NTU added quite a bit of weight high in the ship. IIRC, the idea was to put in rather small VLS -- they might even have lost missiles compared to the Mk 26 install (2x32-cell VLS versus 1x24- and 1x44-round Mk 26). (but I could be wrong -- it's been a long time)
Remember that the Ticos had some extensive modifications, including things like heavier hull plating and a cross-flooding duct, to keep their stability at acceptable levels. They ultimately needed ballast, at least at first. If you look at reference books, you'll see the Tico's are even slightly longer than the Spruances -- that's not a hull stretch, it's because of the raised coamings around the bow pulpit needed to preserve stability in a seaway due to their increased draft and displacement.
I believe that by around 1984 the Mk 26 equipped Ticonderoga-class cruisers were all able to fire the Standard SM-2ER in addition to the MR variant (I think that particular Mk 26 upgrade originated in the Strike Cruiser program). I'm not altogther sure if the USN got around to rolling out that upgrade to the Virginia-class cruisers though.
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.Fairly sure the Kidds already had NTU.Every Spruance had the potential to be upgraded to a similar configuration to the Kidd class DDGs and could technically have been upgraded with Mk-41 fore and aft and NTU, making them into pretty much super Kidds. I recall that when the Kidds were offered to Australia there was talk of upgrading them with Mk-41and cancelling the proposed FFG MLU or FFGUP as it was known.
I remember the Australian plans. They might well have run into weight issues if they had gotten too carried away, since the Tsrtar cponversion and the NTU added quite a bit of weight high in the ship. IIRC, the idea was to put in rather small VLS -- they might even have lost missiles compared to the Mk 26 install (2x32-cell VLS versus 1x24- and 1x44-round Mk 26). (but I could be wrong -- it's been a long time)
Remember that the Ticos had some extensive modifications, including things like heavier hull plating and a cross-flooding duct, to keep their stability at acceptable levels. They ultimately needed ballast, at least at first. If you look at reference books, you'll see the Tico's are even slightly longer than the Spruances -- that's not a hull stretch, it's because of the raised coamings around the bow pulpit needed to preserve stability in a seaway due to their increased draft and displacement.
Mk-41 weighs in at 262000lb for a 61 cell, vs 218000 lb for the Mk-26 Mod 1 (44 rounds), and the weight is lower down. Going off the linked references on http://www.alternatewars.com/BBOW/Weapons/US_GMLS.htm. Maybe a pair of 48 VLS could have been used.