Yes. I'm thinking you shouldn't drink and post.
Yeah your right but the shorter he meant is actualy about the G-VLS which should exceeds the MK.41 size. He is proposing to cut it down into a shorter MK.41 strike length sized VLS.
"Burke’s’ Mk41s be ripped out"
Yeah as its kinda hard to replace them and still leaving them.
G-VLS IS the Lockheed Martin VLS which comes after MK 41 / MK . 70 and kinda replaces / supplement it. Tought the official concept until now is too large for a replacement in the Burke without large modifications which is why he said strike length sized G-VLS.
www.navalnews.com
Or twice the fun in the same package tought not without problems
Closer to 96 tons. An empty Strike Length module is 32,000 lbs. Assuming we scale back from 12 to 6 modules, that saves 192000 pounds. And this isn’t accounting or any advanced in material science or other things weight reduction measures.
“You could take an eight-cell Mk 41 out -- the modules come in eight cells -- you could essentially put a four-cell of this CPS launcher and it has one cylindrical exhaust,” he continued. “But those four cells could either be ‘quad-packed’ with all the traditional Mk 41 missiles, or you can hold a CPS missile in there.”
Hah. I’m not even out of high school yet.
"Back in my day" I knew people who started drinking in middle school. (They weren't necessarily the brightest bulbs in the chandelier.)
Yeah tought a thinner wall could be possible for it which would give ous a little bit more space tought we still would be somewere around 46-47 in cells which also is large. And that would be not very thick walls for it.I found a slightly different version of the description here :
| InsideDefense.com
insidedefense.com
The repetition does seem to rule out the possibility that this was a mistake of some sort, so I guess they think they can do it. This version does leave a little more daylight for the "quad-pack" using a different type of canister than the existing Mk 41-compatible ones. But it's still very tight.
Over the last 20 or so years, I obviously have no provable evidence other than observation, but if you were working against the US would you be doing anything different than what we are doing ourselves?
Fill the spaces around the missiles with styrofoam and it would be virtually unsinkable
Tactical mobility and stealth isn't a thing in a "30,000+ public commercial orbital AESA arrays blasting the oceans 24/7" era. There is no hiding nor dodging satellite tracks or kill chains. There is only taking it on the chin.
You said using a shorter launcher. Great. Now you cannot load anything Tomahawk length, which IIRC includes SM3 and SM6, and may include SM2ER and VL-ASROC.
Guys do you read the Channel? Afterall we just talked it trought with sferrin. Yes the way He wrote it could be said to be missleading but we talked about it already. He means the G-VLS (what is designed for CPS) to be shortend to MK.41 Strike length so it fits in an arleigh burke class without needing extra structure to replace the MK.41 VLS. He was thinking that with that one could reduce the VLS Count while having the same VLS Cell capability as each G-VLS Cell is supposed to be able too quadpack an SM-6 (for example).
Wonder whether this will also be integrated into the Typhoon, JTLV and other land based launchers?Yeah as its kinda hard to replace them and still leaving them.
G-VLS IS the Lockheed Martin VLS which comes after MK 41 / MK . 70 and kinda replaces / supplement it. Tought the official concept until now is too large for a replacement in the Burke without large modifications which is why he said strike length sized G-VLS.
Lockheed Martin Developing New, Larger VLS for DDG(X) - Naval News
Lockheed Martin revealed to Naval News that the company is developing a brand new Vertical Launching System known as G-VLS for DDG(X).
Alright, I’m going to go over this one more time. Read these two articles real quick, they’re both really short.
www.navalnews.com
Are you using empty launcher weights or loaded weights?Alright, I’m going to go over this one more time. Read these two articles real quick, they’re both really short.
Lockheed Martin Developing New, Larger VLS for DDG(X) - Naval News
Lockheed Martin revealed to Naval News that the company is developing a brand new Vertical Launching System known as G-VLS for DDG(X).| InsideDefense.com
Big takeaways from these articles
- Lockheed Martin is developing a new VLS system called “G-VLS”
- G-VLS is big enough to fit CPS
- Each G-VLS module is built to the same dimensions as a Mk41. But, because it fits CPS, a full G-VLS installation is ~15 feet taller than a Strike Length Mk41
- G-VLS has 4 cells, and each cell can quadpack Standards or Tomahawks. So you can fit 16 SM-6s per launcher instead of 8, all within the Mk41 footprint. This means you’re doubling the payload density.
What I am proposing:
Take a G-VLS installation (the new thing that can fire CPS), and cut it down to Strike Length. You now have a shortened G-VLS installation that can fire the exact same missiles as a Mk41. You’re going from ~40 feet —> 25 feet. It’s still Strike Length, you just can’t fire CPS from it.
Next, you rip all the Mk41s out, and install our shortened G-VLS. You could install just 6 modules and still retain the equivalent for 96 cells. Meanwhile, you need 12 Mk41 modules to carry 96 missiles. Quick napkin math says this will save nearly 90-something tons, and half the launcher space.
Any questions?
We don’t know the empty weight of G-VLS. But, the bottom line is you only need half the number of launchers, and we’re looking at 40+ years of advances in engineering and material science. Weight should come down quite a bit.
No, 16 ESSM per cell. Because one cell can fit 4 Mk41 canisters, and each canister can hold 4 ESSMs.
The only thing that could not allow this would be the extra stuff around the cell (exhaust and all) which if taken in a strike length cell into account may exceed the size of an MK.41 while having the same length. Tought until we know more it is an hypothical problem.
cdrsalamander.substack.com
Yeah, that's called a lack of AAW Flag spaces, not a lack of capabilities. A Burke has a good 85-90% of the capabilities of a CG. (3/4 the weapons capacity, but the only thing a Tico has that a Burke doesn't is flag space)I Come to Bury CRUDES, not to Praise Her
Decline Changes Your National Language
aviationweek.com
www.thedefensepost.com
Sounds Like an AN/SEA Venom with an jet engine or a Gray Wolf reiteration.New Startup Reveals Mini-Cruise Missile Project For Smaller Targets
New Startup Reveals Mini-Cruise Missile Project For Smaller Targets | Aviation Week Network
Technology startup Ares Industries emerged from stealth mode on Aug. 20 with a plan to develop an extremely low-cost anti-ship missile.
Ares Industries
Ares Industries: Building low-cost cruise missiles | Y Combinator
Building low-cost cruise missiles . Founded in 2024 by Devan Plantamura and Alex Tseng, Ares Industries has 2 employees based in El Segundo, CA, USA.www.ycombinator.com
Ares Industries Flight-Tests New Cruise Missile, 10x Smaller, Cheaper
Ares Industries has announced the first flight-test of a new anti-ship cruise missile being developed for the US military.
Sounds like something to throw on the superstructure and call it a day.
