Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook

kqcke for you said:
It could if it uses its own cell design and not just 4 mk.41 cells (as i understand). Given that for 4 SM-6's we only need an 42 inch square tought for Safe measure and internal Walls we go up to 44 Inch square or 4 22×22 Inch squares. Mk.41 has only 2,06 Inch walls tought thinner ones should also be possible. But when we add them we get an 48,12×48,12 G-Cell. Small enough to fit 4 into the VLS and have an exhaust system with an 37,75×100 in space. Well if my math is right.
Click to expand...
www.navalnews.com

Lockheed Martin Provides Updates on Naval PAC-3 MSE and G-VLS - Naval News

The U.S. Navy continues in their effort to integrate and field PAC-3 MSE on U.S. Navy destroyers. The capability would bring...
www.navalnews.com www.navalnews.com
" Now [with] the Growth VLS, all bets are off, because that’s a big 34-inch diameter. It would definitely be a possibility.”
Only 34 Inch? That doesn't seem to fit as the SM's (or any large missiles for that measure) are 21 inch and we can't really fit them tighter
 
kqcke for you said:
www.navalnews.com

Lockheed Martin Provides Updates on Naval PAC-3 MSE and G-VLS - Naval News

The U.S. Navy continues in their effort to integrate and field PAC-3 MSE on U.S. Navy destroyers. The capability would bring...
www.navalnews.com www.navalnews.com
" Now [with] the Growth VLS, all bets are off, because that’s a big 34-inch diameter. It would definitely be a possibility.”
Only 34 Inch? That doesn't seem to fit as the SM's (or any large missiles for that measure) are 21 inch and we can't really fit them tighter
Click to expand...
You could maybe dual-pack the 21" missiles and quad pack SM-2s or PAC-3s, maybe even THAADs.
 
Forest Green said:
You could maybe dual-pack the 21" missiles and quad pack SM-2s or PAC-3s, maybe even THAADs.
Click to expand...
Well 34 inch for GVLS could just mean that the large single missile canister is only 34 for inch. Any quad standard missile solution should be around ~48 inch. On that note one could argue that that the larger VLS canister gives space for an cold launched solution for Lrwh
 
kqcke for you said:
Well 34 inch for GVLS could just mean that the large single missile canister is only 34 for inch. Any quad standard missile solution should be around ~48 inch. On that note one could argue that that the larger VLS canister gives space for an cold launched solution for Lrwh
Click to expand...
No, only SM3s are currently 21" diameter. Well, IIRC SM6s have a 21" booster, so I guess we can count them. But SM2s are 13.5", maybe 15.5" if you count the wing fold hinges. So you can definitely stuff 4 of those into a 34" square box.
 
Scott Kenny said:
No, only SM3s are currently 21" diameter. Well, IIRC SM6s have a 21" booster, so I guess we can count them. But SM2s are 13.5", maybe 15.5" if you count the wing fold hinges. So you can definitely stuff 4 of those into a 34" square box.
Click to expand...
SM-3, SM-6 and TLAM all come in an 21 ~inch package. That would mean only SM-2, ASROC, PAC-3 and ESSM would fit it with an munition increase.
Side note but i do think there was an explicit statement about quad SM-6 but i can't find it
 
kqcke for you said:
SM-3, SM-6 and TLAM all come in an 21 ~inch package. That would mean only SM-2, ASROC, PAC-3 and ESSM would fit it with an munition increase.
Click to expand...
Sure, and quadpacking (or more) SM2s and PAC3s would be very desirable. Not so sure about ASROCs and ESSMs, it seems a waste of tube length to stick them into a ~30ft long tube. Unless they can be double depth?


kqcke for you said:
Side note but i do think there was an explicit statement about quad SM-6 but i can't find it
Click to expand...
That would be amazing if there was a way to quadpack SM6s!
 
Scott Kenny said:
Sure, and quadpacking (or more) SM2s and PAC3s would be very desirable. Not so sure about ASROCs and ESSMs, it seems a waste of tube length to stick them into a ~30ft long tube. Unless they can be double depth?



That would be amazing if there was a way to quadpack SM6s!
Click to expand...
Well (napkin) math says it does work but we're talking about huge cells
 
Would quadpacking 21" missiles really be much more compact thatn just using 4 of the existing Mk41 tubes though.
 
TomS said:
I don't see how that math works. To quad pack a 21-inch missile, you need a tube more than 42 inches square. That gives you two cells in the same footprint as 8 21-inch square cells.
Click to expand...
A mk.41 is 100' × 134' and each cell canister should be around ~48' which means we can fit 2 together which means 96' × 48' are 2 cells. With an length of only 48 inch we can fit 2 of those rows next to each other and still have ~38 inch left for an ~38 × 100 inch space for an exhaust. Very tight but possible until actualy tried.
 
kqcke for you said:
A mk.41 is 100' × 134' and each cell canister should be around ~48' which means we can fit 2 together which means 96' × 48' are 2 cells. With an length of only 48 inch we can fit 2 of those rows next to each other and still have ~38 inch left for an ~38 × 100 inch space for an exhaust. Very tight but possible until actualy tried.
Click to expand...

I can't check the numbers right now, but it did occur to me that cold launch might help. Really big missiles get cold launched so you don't need an exhaust plenum sized for their massive and very energetic efflux.
 
How much would fortified underground aircraft/missile shelters and runways cost relative to new ships?
 
Forest Green said:
How much would fortified underground aircraft/missile shelters and runways cost relative to new ships?
Click to expand...

Probably more than you would think, in the second island chain. Construction workers, equipment, and materials have to be brought in; there is no little local capacity.

There are probably also environmental issues…how deep can you dig before you hit water?
 
www.navalnews.com

Denmark selects Atlas Elektronik for ASW towed array sonar for frigates - Naval News

Denmark has selected Atlas Elektronik to supply Low Frequency Active Towed Array Sonar (TAS) systems for the two Absalon-class frigates.
www.navalnews.com www.navalnews.com

The anti-submarine warfare (ASW) upgrade of the two Absalon-class ships, HDMS Absalon and HDMS Esbern Snare, was first announced as part of Denmark’s 2018-2023 Defence Agreement. DALO commenced initial procurement activity back in late 2020, but the original competition was cancelled in June 2023 owing to changed requirements arising from Russia’s attack on Ukraine in February 2022. According to DALO, Russia’s aggression, and the subsequent admission of Finland and Sweden to NATO, “changed the geographical focus of a Danish ASW capability and tightened the operational requirements for the Armed Forces in order to be able to carry out ASW operations in the North Atlantic in cooperation with relevant allied nations”.


A revised tender for a Low Frequency Active TAS was subsequently issued by DALO. This outlined requirements for a dedicated blue water ASW solution “interoperable with existing Danish sonar systems in a bistatic and multistatic sonar environment, and [being] the primary sensors for future Torpedo Counter Measure systems”.


As well as requiring a system able to fit in a limited footprint on the stern of the Absalon design, the tender called for the TAS ‘wet end’ elements to be deployed and recovered without any mechanically connecting/disconnection by the deck handling crew. Associated deliverables include a shore based TAS simulator; training services; and an in-service support contract extending for up to 25 years.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom