Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook

Maybe its time to develop a better arm launcher that can be reloaded at sea like in the old days. Or design a VLS that can be reloaded at sea. It seems odd that you can strikedown missiles through a small hatch like in the case of Mk-26 but not a VLS cell that looks about equal size.
 
NilsD said:
Maybe its time to develop a better arm launcher that can be reloaded at sea like in the old days. Or design a VLS that can be reloaded at sea. It seems odd that you can strikedown missiles through a small hatch like in the case of Mk-26 but not a VLS cell that looks about equal size.
Click to expand...
That's because in the old launchers (which were both maintenance and space-intensive), the missile was the round, and the launcher was the storage, whereas in a VLS system, the canister is the round AND the storage.

In the old launchers the provisions for guiding a round on a certain path were all build-in: The missile was allways moved under positive control.
In a VLS system, there's no systems for moving a round around at all. Which is why you need external equipment to reload VLS cells. If you give VLS cells the equipment for positive movement control over the rounds (the cells), you give up on two of the major advantages of a VLS system: Reduced maintenance, and reduced space, because you're adding stuff back in which was taken out when transferring to VLS.
 
How are VLS cells loaded in port? Is it a simple crane? I assume the problem is one of stability and seastate? I would have thought any seastate that allowed for UNREP should allow for some a transfer of maanutions by crane, but it would probably require a very large crane to be stable enough and possible some kind of guide/alignment mechanism on the target to eliminate sway. The USN does employ a half dozen heavy lift crane ships; it should be possible to use them in this role with a little modification I would think.

en.wikipedia.org

SS Flickertail State - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org


Of course the question I would have is whether the USN has enough missile inventory such that reloading is even a serious concern to begin with. Anecdotally I've heard that a lot of ships go out half empty; I don't know for a fact that it is true and if it is, this many simply be to reduce wear and tear deployment time on the ordnance rather than a dearth of ammunition, but its a question worth asking.
 
Josh_TN said:
How are VLS cells loaded in port? Is it a simple crane? I assume the problem is one of stability and seastate? I would have thought any seastate that allowed for UNREP should allow for some a transfer of maanutions by crane, but it would probably require a very large crane to be stable enough and possible some kind of guide/alignment mechanism on the target to eliminate sway. The USN does employ a half dozen heavy lift crane ships; it should be possible to use them in this role with a little modification I would think.

en.wikipedia.org

SS Flickertail State - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org


Of course the question I would have is whether the USN has enough missile inventory such that reloading is even a serious concern to begin with. Anecdotally I've heard that a lot of ships go out half empty; I don't know for a fact that it is true and if it is, this many simply be to reduce wear and tear deployment time on the ordnance rather than a dearth of ammunition, but its a question worth asking.
Click to expand...
It how you have to load up the VLS is the problem.

Most of the new missiles are 20 foot long, with the Hypersconics lookign at being 30 foot long.


Which means you need to have a crane able to go up about... Call it 50 foot tall.

Since you need to load the missile vertical, in any seastate that is not lable as glass, at little movement on the ship will get the missile swinging back and forth dangerously even with tie downs on the bottom.

Then you run into the issue of what to do with the missile casing that holds the missile to launch. With the old arm launchers it was easy enough to collapse them down by hand and send the them back on the other crane since the missile came in 10 foot sections. The Missile and the booster if needed. With vls you have these 20 foot long tubs. Which you have to remove before loading in the missile.

The Image beloe shows how the Navy tried to unrep VLS, you can see how in a slighter heavier seastate that be dangerous. And You can unrep in far worse. The navy has tryed to use a robot arm deal that grabs the missile case for positive control but it had a habit of damaging the thing by mistake in new and unique ways. And the Brits did have a set up that apperantly worked well up to Sea State 4 ircc, but they still ran into issue of waht do you do with the empty casings. They are to big to move by hand while being needed to make the system work.

So in the ended the navy decide to just give up on it in the mid-90s. Its why the Burke has 90 missile cells and not 96 like her newer sisters. The navy stopped giving out the crane module which was to be use to unrep it which took up 3 missile spots per VLS farm, instead taking it back to have 6 extra missiles.

They do have an idea to do it in coves and shelter waters seeming to how you used to Coal a ship at the turn of the last century which they might be testing.
 

Attachments

  • 14.jpg
    14.jpg
    65.5 KB · Views: 22
  • mk-41-vls-pc008-053.jpg
    mk-41-vls-pc008-053.jpg
    92.3 KB · Views: 23
  • Mk-41-VLS-035.jpg
    Mk-41-VLS-035.jpg
    253.3 KB · Views: 22
We have no experience of combat between modern surface ships of any size.
The damage done to ships in the Falklands and in incident involving damage to individual US ships suggests that their life in combat would be short.
For ecample a Tico class cruiser providing air defence for a task group was likely to be destroyed by Soviet missiles or torpedos before it had expended its VLS tubes.
A clash with the PLAN is likely to be similarly bloody.
 
The Navy issued the first contracts to companies that will compete for about $8 billion worth of military construction projects at shipyards in Hawaii and Washington state.

They are slated to be completed by November 2029.
news.usni.org

Navy Issues Contracts in First Step Toward $8B to Rebuild Two Public Shipyards - USNI News

The Navy issued the first contracts to companies that will compete for about $8 billion worth of military construction projects at shipyards in Hawaii and Washington state, two of its four public shipyards long overdue for modernization that can support the fleet’s growing repair and maintenance...
news.usni.org news.usni.org
 
www.navalnews.com

Latest Details on South Korea's Arsenal Ship Project - Naval News

On October 6, the ROK Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) officially announced a plan to develop ‘customized deterrente’ in response to North Korea's growing nuclear weapons and missile capabilities. To fulfill this goal, the JCS confirmed plans to procure arsenal ships as a long-term project to counter...
www.navalnews.com www.navalnews.com
 
cdrsalamander.blogspot.com

Fullbore Friday

A little different topic this Fullbore Friday as ... I want to make you mad. I won't be subtle or clever here ... thanks to a simple tweet ...
cdrsalamander.blogspot.com cdrsalamander.blogspot.com
 
TomS said:
Strike-length, judging by the canister he pulled out of the model. I think the USN is not interested in other cell lengths because that creates problems in the logistics chain. Different ships need different types of canisters for the same missiles, which is undesirable.

Come to think of it, has anyone bought Tactical or Self-Defense Mk 41 at all? Or are they all Strike-Length?
Click to expand...

I finally did some digging and found at least one confirmed proposed sale of a Tactical Length Mk 41. No doubt there were more.

Chile – Evolved Seasparrow Missiles (ESSMs) | Defense Security Cooperation Agency

www.dsca.mil www.dsca.mil

Major Defense Equipment (MDE):
Thirty-thirty (33) Evolved Seasparrow Missiles (ESSMs)
Six (6) Evolved Seasparrow Telemetry Missiles
Three (3) MK 41 Vertical Launching Systems (VLS), tactical version, baseline VII
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
TomS said:
TomS said:
Strike-length, judging by the canister he pulled out of the model. I think the USN is not interested in other cell lengths because that creates problems in the logistics chain. Different ships need different types of canisters for the same missiles, which is undesirable.

Come to think of it, has anyone bought Tactical or Self-Defense Mk 41 at all? Or are they all Strike-Length?
Click to expand...

I finally did some digging and found at least one confirmed proposed sale of a Tactical Length Mk 41. No doubt there were more.

Chile – Evolved Seasparrow Missiles (ESSMs) | Defense Security Cooperation Agency

www.dsca.mil www.dsca.mil

Major Defense Equipment (MDE):
Thirty-thirty (33) Evolved Seasparrow Missiles (ESSMs)
Six (6) Evolved Seasparrow Telemetry Missiles
Three (3) MK 41 Vertical Launching Systems (VLS), tactical version, baseline VII
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I know that Japan had bought Tactical Length MK41 as well.

They didn't really want "offensive" weapons like the Tomahawks due to that one Article in their constitution relating to their military IRC. Both their Akizuki and Hyūga-class destroyers are the two I know of force sure.
 
Firefinder said:
TomS said:
TomS said:
Strike-length, judging by the canister he pulled out of the model. I think the USN is not interested in other cell lengths because that creates problems in the logistics chain. Different ships need different types of canisters for the same missiles, which is undesirable.

Come to think of it, has anyone bought Tactical or Self-Defense Mk 41 at all? Or are they all Strike-Length?
Click to expand...

I finally did some digging and found at least one confirmed proposed sale of a Tactical Length Mk 41. No doubt there were more.

Chile – Evolved Seasparrow Missiles (ESSMs) | Defense Security Cooperation Agency

www.dsca.mil www.dsca.mil

Major Defense Equipment (MDE):
Thirty-thirty (33) Evolved Seasparrow Missiles (ESSMs)
Six (6) Evolved Seasparrow Telemetry Missiles
Three (3) MK 41 Vertical Launching Systems (VLS), tactical version, baseline VII
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I know that Japan had bought Tactical Length MK41 as well.

They didn't really want "offensive" weapons like the Tomahawks due to that one Article in their constitution relating to their military IRC. Both their Akizuki and Hyūga-class destroyers are the two I know of force sure.
Click to expand...

But we know the Kongos have strike length because of SM-3.
 
www.navalnews.com

U.S. Navy CNO: ‘We Need a Naval Force of Over 500 Ships’ - Naval News

The U.S. Navy needs a fleet of more than 500 ships to meet its commitments to the soon-to-be released National Defense Strategy, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Mike Gilday said on Friday.
www.navalnews.com www.navalnews.com
news.usni.org

CNO Gilday: ‘We Need a Naval Force of Over 500 Ships’ - USNI News

SAN DIEGO, Calif. – The U.S. Navy needs a fleet of more than 500 ships to meet its commitments to the soon-to-be released National Defense Strategy, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Mike Gilday said on Friday. “I’ve concluded – consistent with the analysis – that we need a naval force of over 500...
news.usni.org news.usni.org
 
Is the tanker shortage finally being addressed and how long will it take to get the
needed ships built and in service.
 
If you’re talking about the Kaiser replacement, yes. There’s a new class in construction; I think the first already launched.
 
ARLINGTON, Va. — The Aerosonde unmanned aerial system has been deployed on a U.S. Navy Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer serving in the U.S. 7th Fleet, giving the Flight I/II DDG — which does not have the organic helicopter facilities of the Flight IIA and subsequent versions of the DDG — an organic aerial surveillance capability.
Click to expand...

seapowermagazine.org

Navy’s Flight I/II DDGs Get UAS Capability with Textron’s Aerosonde - Seapower

Navy’s Flight I/II DDGs Get UAS Capability with Textron’s Aerosonde Front Page
seapowermagazine.org seapowermagazine.org

With the modernization cancelled, all Flight I/II vessels will be gone by ~ 2034?
 
In the budget application of fiscal year 2023, USN only has 2ddg, and the number of f35c purchased is far from enough. At the current speed of launching 2-3 warships every year, USN's ability can not meet the requirements. An ideal state is to launch 4ddg and 2ffg every year
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Probably most of them, yes. I think the USN is only interested in updating the IIAs; it's felt the previous flights need too much work to be modernized. Hopefully FFGX can get a second yard to increase production to make up for the coming shortfall.
 
Without hangars, Flight I/II are severely crippled for distributed operations anyway. At best, they get to ride shotgun on the big decks and mooch off their helos.
 
Forest Green said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1508578131120168960
View: https://twitter.com/JimInhofe/status/1508578131120168960
Click to expand...
Shipcount is a meaningless measure. The ability of the combined force to achieve missions within a budget is what matters.

Blindly chasing numbers is asking for a hollow force of parade pieces that can not stand real conflict. Recent event have shown how disastrous this can be.
-----
With reduction in relative budgetary position, traditional means of force superiority is increasingly difficult. Leveraging sole ownership of low cost space launch for "A2AD" that spans entire oceans is likely the better way.
 
And if you're making numbers by retaining ships that don't contribute to warfighting capacity [cough] LCS [/cough] then you're just spending money without improving the ability to execute the mission.

There's a sunk cost fallacy at work here (pun not intended). Yes, we spent an inordinate sum on LCS that in hindsight should have been spent elsewhere. But it doesn't make sense to continue funding them once it becomes clear that they aren't contributing to the mission.
 
TomS said:
And if you're making numbers by retaining ships that don't contribute to warfighting capacity [cough] LCS [/cough] then you're just spending money without improving the ability to execute the mission.

There's a sunk cost fallacy at work here (pun not intended). Yes, we spent an inordinate sum on LCS that in hindsight should have been spent elsewhere. But it doesn't make sense to continue funding them once it becomes clear that they aren't contributing to the mission.
Click to expand...
The Independence class is finding a solid niche is being Marine Fast Taxis, minesweepers, and low level area patrol boats. Helps that not only do they work, that big deck and hanger of theirs allows for nearly every copter in the Force to use them.

Hell they can even squeez in a few of those Robo NSSM cars in a pinch as well. Which works nicely with the Marines new doctrine.

Those LCS are more then earning their keep.

The fucking Freedoms, which are the 8 to 10 being retired, on the other hand...

Why did we buy that class again?
 
Firefinder said:
TomS said:
And if you're making numbers by retaining ships that don't contribute to warfighting capacity [cough] LCS [/cough] then you're just spending money without improving the ability to execute the mission.

There's a sunk cost fallacy at work here (pun not intended). Yes, we spent an inordinate sum on LCS that in hindsight should have been spent elsewhere. But it doesn't make sense to continue funding them once it becomes clear that they aren't contributing to the mission.
Click to expand...
The Independence class is finding a solid niche is being Marine Fast Taxis, minesweepers, and low level area patrol boats. Helps that not only do they work, that big deck and hanger of theirs allows for nearly every copter in the Force to use them.

Hell they can even squeez in a few of those Robo NSSM cars in a pinch as well. Which works nicely with the Marines new doctrine.

Those LCS are more then earning their keep.

The fucking Freedoms, which are the 8 to 10 being retired, on the other hand...

Why did we buy that class again?
Click to expand...
One reason I wish they'd hadn't f--ked up the Zumwalt program - that big flight deck and hangar.
 
Firefinder said:
TomS said:
And if you're making numbers by retaining ships that don't contribute to warfighting capacity [cough] LCS [/cough] then you're just spending money without improving the ability to execute the mission.

There's a sunk cost fallacy at work here (pun not intended). Yes, we spent an inordinate sum on LCS that in hindsight should have been spent elsewhere. But it doesn't make sense to continue funding them once it becomes clear that they aren't contributing to the mission.
Click to expand...
The Independence class is finding a solid niche is being Marine Fast Taxis, minesweepers, and low level area patrol boats. Helps that not only do they work, that big deck and hanger of theirs allows for nearly every copter in the Force to use them.

Hell they can even squeez in a few of those Robo NSSM cars in a pinch as well. Which works nicely with the Marines new doctrine.

Those LCS are more then earning their keep.

The fucking Freedoms, which are the 8 to 10 being retired, on the other hand...

Why did we buy that class again?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm with you. I thought about making that distinction and decided to err on the side of brevity.
 
TomS said:
Firefinder said:
TomS said:
And if you're making numbers by retaining ships that don't contribute to warfighting capacity [cough] LCS [/cough] then you're just spending money without improving the ability to execute the mission.

There's a sunk cost fallacy at work here (pun not intended). Yes, we spent an inordinate sum on LCS that in hindsight should have been spent elsewhere. But it doesn't make sense to continue funding them once it becomes clear that they aren't contributing to the mission.
Click to expand...
The Independence class is finding a solid niche is being Marine Fast Taxis, minesweepers, and low level area patrol boats. Helps that not only do they work, that big deck and hanger of theirs allows for nearly every copter in the Force to use them.

Hell they can even squeez in a few of those Robo NSSM cars in a pinch as well. Which works nicely with the Marines new doctrine.

Those LCS are more then earning their keep.

The fucking Freedoms, which are the 8 to 10 being retired, on the other hand...

Why did we buy that class again?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm with you. I thought about making that distinction and decided to err on the side of brevity.
Click to expand...

How are is the Independence Class being used as minesweeper?

I didn't think the MIW package was delivered yet??

I'm not looking to argue, just looking to learn.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom