US Missile Launcher Designations

I may have found the Mk 31.

According to Friedman's U.S. Destroyers (page 199), there was an Mk 31 rocket launcher for NAE noise beacons as a countermeasure to passive homing torpedoes.

Apparently these automatically trained and fired and there were 2-4 mounted on ASW ships.

I found a 1953 report with a list of rocket and missile launchers (see below) and the Mk 31 it describes doesn't appear automatic. Furthermore it is unclear if this is in-fact part of the series.

https://www.bulletpicker.com/pdf/OP 1855, Missile Launchers and Related Equipment.pdf
 
I have read various forum thread posts from different websites which claimed that the Mark 11 twin-arm and Mark 13 single-arm Tartar / Standard-MR GMLS were built as drop-in replacements for the WWII-era 5"/38 twin-gun turrets and thus could fit in the same space as the gun turrets.

Is that true? If so, what are the various sources that confirm this?
 
Christopher Wang said:
I have read various forum thread posts from different websites which claimed that the Mark 11 twin-arm and Mark 13 single-arm Tartar / Standard-MR GMLS were built as drop-in replacements for the WWII-era 5"/38 twin-gun turrets and thus could fit in the same space as the gun turrets.

Is that true? If so, what are the various sources that confirm this?
Click to expand...
Friedman discusses it on page 222 in U.S. Destroyers an Illustrated Design History that the Tartar launchers could replace the turrets on a 1-1 basis.

Reality was a little more complicated. As previously mentioned in the thread the launchers were significantly taller than the mounts and generally weighed more.

That being said there are examples of such conversions occurring, those being the DDG conversions of several Forest Sherman class destroyers with the missile launcher replacing the number 3 turret (though again being significantly taller than the original). If you want to stretch the definition of conversion you could also cite the Charles F. Adams class which were basically Shermans built with the missile launcher from the start.

The 5”/54 Mk42 was itself supposed to fit within the space of a 5”/38 twin (though it was generally heavier), reinforcing the idea that the Mk11 and Mk 13 could fit within roughly the same space as the 5”/38, though it should be said that it wouldn’t be as simple as taking off the turret and dropping in the missile launcher.
 
A_Random_Guy said:
Friedman discusses it on page 222 in U.S. Destroyers an Illustrated Design History that the Tartar launchers could replace the turrets on a 1-1 basis.

Reality was a little more complicated. As previously mentioned in the thread the launchers were significantly taller than the mounts and generally weighed more.

That being said there are examples of such conversions occurring, those being the DDG conversions of several Forest Sherman class destroyers with the missile launcher replacing the number 3 turret (though again being significantly taller than the original). If you want to stretch the definition of conversion you could also cite the Charles F. Adams class which were basically Shermans built with the missile launcher from the start.

The 5”/54 Mk42 was itself supposed to fit within the space of a 5”/38 twin (though it was generally heavier), reinforcing the idea that the Mk11 and Mk 13 could fit within roughly the same space as the 5”/38, though it should be said that it wouldn’t be as simple as taking off the turret and dropping in the missile launcher.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the clarification.

I would also like to add that from 1979 to 1980, the United States Navy proposed updating their remaining obsolete FRAM Gearing class destroyers in the Naval Reserve Force as ASW escorts by replacing the WWII-era 5"/38 twin-gun turrets with one or two Mark 45 5"/54 single-gun turrets.

Comparison of Navy and GAO Estimates....PNG

SOURCE: United States General Accounting Office. (1980, July 3). Report by the comptroller general of the United States: Retention of FRAM destroyers may be impractical. (LCD-80-76). Retrieved from https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD1118946.pdf

In addition, Gardiner and Chumbley (1995) explained that in the 1960s the Italian Navy planned to modernize its two Impetuoso class destroyers by replacing the ships' existing two Mark 38 5"/38 twin-gun turrets with a Mark 45 5"/54 single-gun turret forward and a RIM-24 Tartar SAM launcher in the aft (p. 206).

SOURCE: Gardiner, R., & Chumbley, S. (Eds.). (1995). Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships 1947–1995. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press.
 
Christopher Wang said:
In addition, Gardiner and Chumbley (1995) explained that in the 1960s the Italian Navy planned to modernize its two Impetuoso class destroyers by replacing the ships' existing two Mark 38 5"/38 twin-gun turrets with a Mark 45 5"/54 single-gun turret forward and a RIM-24 Tartar SAM launcher in the aft (p. 206).

SOURCE: Gardiner, R., & Chumbley, S. (Eds.). (1995). Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships 1947–1995. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press.
Click to expand...
That Italian conversion plan is what I wish the US had done in the FRAM II upgrade instead of keeping the aft 5"/38 mount.
 
A_Random_Guy said:
Friedman discusses it on page 222 in U.S. Destroyers an Illustrated Design History that the Tartar launchers could replace the turrets on a 1-1 basis.

Reality was a little more complicated. As previously mentioned in the thread the launchers were significantly taller than the mounts and generally weighed more.

That being said there are examples of such conversions occurring, those being the DDG conversions of several Forest Sherman class destroyers with the missile launcher replacing the number 3 turret (though again being significantly taller than the original). If you want to stretch the definition of conversion you could also cite the Charles F. Adams class which were basically Shermans built with the missile launcher from the start.

The 5”/54 Mk42 was itself supposed to fit within the space of a 5”/38 twin (though it was generally heavier), reinforcing the idea that the Mk11 and Mk 13 could fit within roughly the same space as the 5”/38, though it should be said that it wouldn’t be as simple as taking off the turret and dropping in the missile launcher.
Click to expand...

These cutaway drawings of the Italian Navy's Impetuoso and Impavido class destroyers gives us an idea on how the Mark 13 single-arm Tartar / Standard-MR GMLS could have replaced the Mark 38 5"/38 twin-gun turret mount. The Impavido class guided-missile destroyers are essentially improved Impetuoso class ships with the aft gun turret replaced by a Tartar surface-to-air missile launcher along with associated fire control radars.

Impetuoso class Destroyer (War Thunder).jpeg
Impetuoso class DD ( https://forum.warthunder.com/t/indomito-class-destroyer-indomito-d559/15362 )

Impavido class Destroyer (War Thunder).jpg
Impavido class DDG ( https://old-forum.warthunder.com/in...lass-guided-missile-destroyer-impavido-d-570/ )
 
Prior to modernization in 1988-1989, the Italian Navy's two Audace class guided-missile destroyers carried a pair of OtoBreda 127/54C gun turrets at the bow.
D-551 Audace (Pre-Modernization).jpg

After modernization, the "B" turret was removed and replaced with an eight-cell Albatros missile launcher which fired the Aspide surface-to-air missile.
D-551 Audace (Post-Modernization).jpg

As you can see in the above pictures and links, the Albatros strongly resembles the Mark 29 while the Aspide is very similiar to the Sea Sparrow.

Have there been any actual proposals or is it even possible to install the Mark 29 Sea Sparrow launcher in place of the Mark 42 5"/54 gun turret carried by the U.S. Navy's warships of the 1950s thru 1970s such as the Charles F. Adams class and Forrest Sherman class DDGs?

On a related note, in one of the last modernization proposals for the Iowa class battleships during the mid-1990s as illustrated below by Tzoli, it was planned that the forward pair of 5"/38 twin-gun turrets would have been replaced with a pair of Mark 29 Sea Sparrow launchers.
modernized_iowa_in_colours_by_tzoli-d7bdgr6.png
 
Christopher Wang said:
Have there been any actual proposals or is it even possible to install the Mark 29 Sea Sparrow launcher in place of the Mark 42 5"/54 gun turret carried by the U.S. Navy's warships of the 1950s thru 1970s such as the Charles F. Adams class and Forrest Sherman class DDGs?
Click to expand...

Possible? Almost certainly. But not proposed seriously, AFAIK.

The Tartar/Standard MR on the DDG-2s was generally considered superior to Sea Sparrow and the USN didn't generally double-up SAMs on smaller ships.

The Forrest Shermans were pretty long in the tooth by the time Mk 29 came along (mid-70s, I think). No one was thinking too hard about major upgrades for the class by then, and they retired en mass around 1982-3.

The other big class with Mk42 was the Knox, which got the less capable BPDMS Sea Sparrow on the hangar and then lost it in favor of Phalanx. That probably says something about how well even improved Sea Sparrow was regarded by the USN. Better than nothing but if you could have only Phalanx orb Sea Sparrow, Phalanx was preferred.
 
 
Christopher Wang said:
Have there been any actual proposals or is it even possible to install the Mark 29 Sea Sparrow launcher in place of the Mark 42 5"/54 gun turret carried by the U.S. Navy's warships of the 1950s thru 1970s such as the Charles F. Adams class and Forrest Sherman class DDGs?
Click to expand...
Possible - yes. But question is, how practical? The early versions of Sea Sparrow were the epitome of "better than nothing"; their manually-aimed FCS and bulky launchers made them not exactly very practical weapons.
 
Christopher Wang said:
On a related note, in one of the last modernization proposals for the Iowa class battleships during the mid-1990s as illustrated below by Tzoli, it was planned that the forward pair of 5"/38 twin-gun turrets would have been replaced with a pair of Mark 29 Sea Sparrow launchers.
View attachment 731524
Click to expand...
IIRC, that would have put the Sea Sparrows too close to the 16" guns muzzle blast.

The Mk29 boxes needed to be at least 200ft and better 300ft away from the muzzles, so if installed they'd end up where the midships VLS racks are. (Note that Tzoli's sketch has the 5" turrets much more spread out than the 1980s refit left them.)
 
 
If I understand correctly, the older "A" and "B" variants of the RIM-2 Terrier with the forward control fins were only fired from the Mark 4 GMLS of the Boston class CGs, the Mark 8 GMLS of the USS Gyatt (DDG-1), and the Mark 9 GMLS of the Providence class CLGs. None of these warships and their associated GMLS used the later "C" thru "F" Terriers which replaced the forward control fins with fixed strakes and tail control surfaces and had improved performances against supersonic targets. By the time the U.S. Navy upgraded their "C" thru "F" Terrier GMLS to use the RIM-67 Standard ER in the 1980s, the aforementioned warships with their associated "A" and "B" Terrier GMLS had already been retired a decade earlier.

How feasible would it have been to upgrade the Mark 4, 8, and 9 GMLS to use the "C" thru "F" Terriers and later the Standard ER?
 
Scott Kenny said:
IIRC, that would have put the Sea Sparrows too close to the 16" guns muzzle blast.

The Mk29 boxes needed to be at least 200ft and better 300ft away from the muzzles, so if installed they'd end up where the midships VLS racks are. (Note that Tzoli's sketch has the 5" turrets much more spread out than the 1980s refit left them.)
Click to expand...
It's an old drawing of mine. Also blast issue could be solved by a simple pre WW1 technology: blast shields.
 
Dilandu said:
Below-deck - I rather doubt it. Above deck - may be possible:

View attachment 734445
Click to expand...
That's Mk 48 Mod 3, he's asking about Mod 2:

Mk-48-VLS-Gwanggaeto-class-03.jpg

Christopher Wang said:
Could the 16-cell below-deck Mark 48 Mod 2 Sea Sparrow VLS fit in the same space as the 5"/38 twin-gun turret?
Click to expand...

I'd say no, because it involves cutting large and permanent hole in the deck, not to mention that any ship with a twin 5"/38 is likely to be at the end of its life when the Mk 48 enters service in 1992, especially given the cost of the combat system to support it. Better to buy a brand new export light frigate design, or take advantage of the Peace-Dividend and buy something from a Western European nation trying to offload some surplus ships.
 
A Tentative Fleet Plan said:
I'd say no, because it involves cutting large and permanent hole in the deck, not to mention that any ship with a twin 5"/38 is likely to be at the end of its life when the Mk 48 enters service in 1992, especially given the cost of the combat system to support it. Better to buy a brand new export light frigate design, or take advantage of the Peace-Dividend and buy something from a Western European nation trying to offload some surplus ships.
Click to expand...
Except that any ship with a 5"/38 already has a hole in the deck from the gun barbette.

What are the corner-to-corner dimensions for the Mk48Mod2, and how do those compare to the diameter of a 5"/38 turret ring?
 
Scott Kenny said:
Except that any ship with a 5"/38 already has a hole in the deck from the gun barbette.
Click to expand...
It doesn't have a barbette (at least not in the sense of a larger calibre turret with significant deck penetration), the twin 5"/38 mounting is a base ring mount which sits on a cast circular steel base bolted to the ships structure, all of which is above deck. What deck penetration there is, is via a hole in the deck in the centerline of the mount, for the projectile and powder hoists.

five013.jpg

Working circle of the suspended equipment (i.e. the stuff that rotates) in the Mk 28 and 32 variants is 106 inches in diameter, for the Mk 38 variants 118 inches in diameter.
 
Last edited:
A Tentative Fleet Plan said:
It doesn't have a barbette (at least not in the sense of a larger calibre turret with significant deck penetration), the twin 5"/38 mounting is a base ring mount which sits on a cast circular steel base bolted to the ships structure, all of which is above deck. What deck penetration there is, is via a hole in the deck in the centerline of the mount, for the projectile and powder hoists.

View attachment 734452

Working circle of the suspended equipment (i.e. the stuff that rotates) in the Mk 28 and 32 variants is 106 inches in diameter, for the Mk 38 variants 118 inches in diameter.
Click to expand...
Well, damn, I thought those had a bigger deck penetration than that! No wonder the typical Mk11/Mk13-for-5"/38 swap was so tall! Ammo storage was the deck directly under the gun and the missile launchers need two decks of depth...
 
A Tentative Fleet Plan said:
It doesn't have a barbette (at least not in the sense of a larger calibre turret with significant deck penetration), the twin 5"/38 mounting is a base ring mount which sits on a cast circular steel base bolted to the ships structure, all of which is above deck. What deck penetration there is, is via a hole in the deck in the centerline of the mount, for the projectile and powder hoists.

View attachment 734452

Working circle of the suspended equipment (i.e. the stuff that rotates) in the Mk 28 and 32 variants is 106 inches in diameter, for the Mk 38 variants 118 inches in diameter.
Click to expand...
Scott Kenny said:
Well, damn, I thought those had a bigger deck penetration than that! No wonder the typical Mk11/Mk13-for-5"/38 swap was so tall! Ammo storage was the deck directly under the gun and the missile launchers need two decks of depth...
Click to expand...
I do not know how accurate this information is, but Missilery listed the 16-cell below-deck Mark 48 Mod 2 Sea Sparrow VLS dimensions as 4770 mm x 4170 mm x 4740 mm.

It also listed the weight with sixteen RIM-7s as 17648 kg or with thirty-two ESSMs as 30890 kg.
Mark 48 Sea Sparrow VLS.PNG
 
Dilandu said:
If I recall correctly, the main problem was that tail-controlled missiles were longer?
Click to expand...
@Dilandu @Christopher Wang
An except from Friedman's Cruisers below is attached below. The Bostons were slatted to be modernized under "SCB-003.68" which would have brought NTDS, SPS-48, SPG-55s, habitation/automation improvements etc etc into the aging CAGs; most importantly it would have included the usage of SM-1ERs plus all the latest Terrier variants.

So it seems like it was an financial issue, rather than an engineering limitation for the Bostons/Mk 4 GMLS to utilize Standard...
SCB-003.68 Friedman.png
 
isayyo2 said:
So it seems like it was an financial issue, rather than an engineering limitation for the Bostons/Mk 4 GMLS to utilize Standard...
Click to expand...
Well, rebuilding the whole handling system is pretty much a financial issue) Its perfectly doable, but it costs a lot of money - much more than conversion of BT/HT-capable GMLS.
 
Dilandu said:
Well, rebuilding the whole handling system is pretty much a financial issue) Its perfectly doable, but it costs a lot of money - much more than conversion of BT/HT-capable GMLS.
Click to expand...
Sounds like they're weren't intending to rebuild the handling system, but instead enable the missiles to be struck down vertically during UNREP via the launchers or a dedicated strike down elevator.
 
Last edited:
Just found this thread and it gave me at least one major piece of info that I sorely needed (namely, Mk 87 Mod 0 being the designation for the NSM quad launcher - been looking everywhere for that but it only turns up when you actually google the designation...), so I'll contribute some myself.

It appears that Mk 41 is the designation for the "whole system", including all of the launchers included within. Wikipedia has a goodly list of them, Mk 41 Mod 0 for example being the two 61-cell launchers on the Ticonderogas, and Mk 41 Mod 2 being the 90-cell installation on the Burke Flight I/II.

The actual *launch units* have their own designations - Mk 158 for the 61-cell version, Mk 159 for the 29 cell version, Mk 176 for the 64-cell version, and Mk177 for the 32-cell version. Wikipedia does not list Mk-series designations for the 8, 16 or 48-cell launchers. All of that is on wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_41_Vertical_Launching_System) which gives NAVEDTRA 14324, Gunner's Mate, Chapter 7 as the source.

A couple of other designations found:

MK 137 - launcher for SRBOC (system is MK 36, but the launcher is MK 137)


Interesting note: There is a list of MK 41 Mods on Wikipedia but it's full of holes. While googling I found a different list in an official US Navy document: https://govtribe.com/file/governmen...tion-management-plan-for-the-mk41-vls-dot-pdf

MK 41 MOD 0 - CG-47
MK 41 MOD 1 - DD-963
MK 41 MOD 2 - DDG-51/DDG-2313 (Japan)
MK 41 MOD 4 - F123 (German) (Wikipedia says this is MK 41 MOD 3)
MK 41 MOD 5 - FFH-150 ANZAC
MK 41 MOD 6 - DD-2230 (Japan)
MK 41 MOD 7 - DDG-51 Flight IIA
MK 41 MOD 8 - TRACK IIB (Turkey)
MK 41 MOD 9 - DD-2230 (Japan)
MK 41 MOD 10 - F124 (German)
MK 41 MOD 11 - LCF (Netherlands)
MK 41 MOD 12 - F100 (Spain) (48-cell)
MK 41 MOD 13 - KDX-II (Korea)
MK 41 MOD 14 - DD-2239 (Japan) (32+64-cell)
MK 41 MOD 15 - DDG-51 (32+64-cell)

Some googling adds: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA524564.pdf

MK 41 MOD 16 - Adelaide (Australia) (8-cell)
MK 41 MOD 17 - Asuka (Japan) (8-cell)
MK 41 MOD 18 - DD 2242 (Japan) - Takanami-class
MK 41 MOD 19 - Fridtjof Nansen (Norway)
MK 41 MOD 20 - DDG 2317 (Japan) - Atago-class
MK 41 MOD 22 - DDH 2319 (Japan) - Hyuga-class
MK 41 MOD 24 - F 105 Cristobal Colon (Spain)
MK 41 MOD 25 - Appears to be Hobart-class (Australia)
MK 41 MOD 26 - Possibly FFG-62 (USA)
MK 41 MOD 29 - Asahi-class (Japan)
MK 41 MOD 30 - Naresuan-class (Thailand)
MK 41 MOD 31 - This turns up in set of test questions for a US Navy course,
MK 41 MOD 32 - Asahi-class (Japan)
MK 41 MOD 33 - Asahi-class (Japan) (Seriously, I've seen three different sources give this launcher three different MOD numbers)
MK 41 MOD 36 - US Navy (turns up in a procurement contract for a US Navy DDG)

I'm giving up at this point because there's too little information on what ships these things are going on, and I can't be sure there's no misspellings - there's contracts out for procuring at least Mk41 MOD 37, MOD 47 and MOD 49 out there for the US Navy, and I have no idea what they're supposed to go with.
 
Tzoli said:
I've thought I collect here the Guided Missile Launcher Systems or GMLS designations the US Armed forces used, mostly the navy but there seems to be many missing launcher designations and sequences.
If anybody knows more designations from the missing sequences feel free to post here or inform me and I've extend the list.

Here they are:

Mark 1 - Twin arm test launcher for the RIM-2 Terrier on the USS Mississippi
Mark 2 - Twin? arm test launcher and system for the RIM-2 Terrier
Mark 3 - Twin? arm test launcher and system for the RIM-2 Terrier
Mark 4 - Twin arm launcher for the RIM-2 Terrier used on the Boston class (Vertically loaded)
Mark 5 - Twin arm land based test launcher for RIM-2 Terrier, RIM-24 Tartar and RIM-66 and 67 Standard MR/ER used on the USS Desert Ship
Mark 6 - Unknown
Mark 7 - Twin arm launcher for the RIM-8 Talos used on the Galveston class (Above deck storage and horizontally loaded)
Mark 8 - Twin arm launcher for the RIM-2 Terrier used on the USS Gyatt (Above deck storage and horizontally loaded)
Mark 9 - Twin arm launcher for the RIM-2 Terrier used on the Providence class (Above deck storage and horizontally loaded)
Mark 10 - Twin arm launcher for the RIM-2 Terrier and RIM-67 Standard ER (Below deck storage and horizontally loaded)
Mark 11 - Twin arm launcher for the RIM-24 Tartar and RIM-66 Standard MR (Vertically loaded)
Mark 12 - Twin arm launcher for the RIM-8 Talos used on the USS Long Beach (Below deck storage and horizontally loaded)
Mark 13 - Single arm launcher for the RIM-24 Tartar, RIM-66 Standard MR and RGM-84 Harpoon (Vertically loaded)
Mark 14 - Single arm launcher for the RIM-55 Typhon MR (Vertical loaded) (One artist impression shows the launcher as an inverted Mark 13, eg the missile was held above the rail and not under it)
Mark 15 - 1/2-tube test launcher system for the RGM/UGM-27 Polaris
Mark 16 - 8 cell "Pepper Box" launcher for the RUR-5 ASROC and RGM-84 Harpoon (During development 2 cell and 12 cell versions were considered for the RAT and ASROC)
Mark 17 - 8/16-tube launcher system for the UGM-27 Polaris used on submarines
Mark 18-20 - Unknown
Mark 21 - 8/16-tube launcher system for the UGM-27C Polaris A-3 used on submarines
Mark 22 - Single arm launcher for the RIM-24 Tartar, RIM-66 Standard MR and RGM-84 Harpoon (Vertical loaded, Modified Mark 13)
Mark 23- Unknown
Mark 24 - 16-tube launcher system for the UGM-73 Poseidon used on submarines
Mark 25 - 8-cell (2-4-2) launcher for the RIM-7 Sea Sparrow / BPDMS (Horizontally manually loaded)
Mark 26 - Twin arm launcher for the RIM-66 Standard MR, RGM-84 Harpoon and RUR-5 ASROC (Vertical loaded)
Mark 27 - 1/2-tube launcher system for the Zuni Chaffroc system
Mark 28 - 1/2-tube launcher system for the Zuni Chaffroc system
Mark 29 - 8-cell (4-4) launcher for the RIM-7 NATO Sea Sparrow and RIM-162 Evolved Sea Sparrow (Horizontally manually loaded)
Mark 30 - 6-rail launcher for 5" Shore Bombardment Rocket used on the LSM(R) Class (Horizontally loaded)
Mark 31 - Unknown
Mark 32 - 1/2/4-cell launchers for the RIM-66 Standard MR used on sold Iranian and Taiwanese Ex USN Ships (Horizontally automatically loaded)
Mark 33 - 1/2-tube launcher system for 112mm Chaffroc system
Mark 34 - 2-tube launcher system for 112mm Chaffroc system used on the Pegasus class hydrofoils
Mark 35 - 16-tube launcher system for the UGM-96 Trident used on submarines
Mark 36 - 4-rail launcher for 5" Shore Bombardment Rocket used on the LSM(R) Class (Horizontally loaded)
Mark 37 - single-tube/rail launcher for the Mark 60 Mark 60 CAPTOR (Encapsulated Torpedo) used on surface ships
Mark 38 - single-tube/rail launcher for the Mark 60 Mark 60 CAPTOR (Encapsulated Torpedo) used on P-3 Orion aircraft
Mark 39 - single-tube/rail launcher for the Mark 60 Mark 60 CAPTOR (Encapsulated Torpedo) used on submarines
Mark 40 - Unknown
Mark 41 - Modular (8/16/32/40/61/64) Vertical Launch System for a large number of missile types (Vertically loaded)
Mark 42 - Unknown

Mark 43 - 24-cell launcher on an improved or modified SeaRAM/Phalanx Chassis for the RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile (Horizontally manually loaded)
Mark 44 - 4-cell/tube "Armoured Box" launcher for the BGM-109 Tomahawk (Horizontally manually loaded) (Re-designation?)
Mark 45 - Vertical Launch System for the UGM-84 Harpoon and UGM-109 Tomahawk used on submarines (Vertically loaded)
Mark 46-47 - Unknown
Mark 48 - Modular (2-4/6-12/16-32) Vertical Launch System for the RIM-7 VL Sea Sparrow and the RIM-162 Evolved Sea Sparrow (Vertically loaded)
Mark 49 - 21-cell launcher for the RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile (Horizontally manually loaded, there is also the SeaRAM a modified Mark 15 Phalanx mounting with a 11 cell launcher instead of the Gatling gun)
Mark 50 - 8-tube launcher for 5" Shore Bombardment Rocket used on PT Boats (Horizontally loaded)
Mark 51-52 - Unknown
Mark 53 - 2-4-cell launcher for the Nulka anti-missile decoy (Horizontally/Vertically manually loaded)
Mark 54-55 - Unknown
Mark 56 - Modular (4/12/32) Vertical Launch System for the RIM-162 Evolved Sea Sparrow (Vertically loaded)
Mark 57 - 20-cell Peripheral Vertical Launch System for the RIM-162 Evolved Sea Sparrow, RGM-109 Tomahawk and RUM-139 VL-ASROC used on the Zumwalt class (Vertically loaded)
Mark 58-69 - Unknown
Mark 70 - 1-4-cell (2x2) Canister/Vertical Launch System for a large number of missile types, looks like simplified and modified Mark 41 (Vertically or Horizontally loaded)
Mark 71-86 - Unknown
Mark 87 - 4-cell (2x2) launcher for the RGM-84 Naval Strike Missile (Horizontally manually loaded)
Mark 88-101 - Unknown
Mark 102 - Twin launcher for 5" Shore Bombardment Rocket, designed for use on LSMR (Vertically loaded)
Mark 103-104 - Unknown
Mark 105 - Twin launcher for 5" Shore Bombardment Rocket used at least on the USS Carronade (Vertically loaded)
Mark 106-107 - Unknown
Mark 108 - Single launcher for RUR-4 Weapon Alpha (Vertically loaded)
Mark 109-131 - Unknown
Mark 132 - Modified Mark 29 8-cell launcher for Combined 6x RIM-7 NATO Sea Sparrow and 10x (2x5) RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missiles (Horizontally manually loaded)
Mark 133-140 - Unknown
Mark 141 - 4-cell/tube launcher for the RGM-84 Harpoon (Horizontally manually loaded)
Mark 142 - Unknown
Mark 143 - 4-cell/tube "Armoured Box" launcher for the BGM-109 Tomahawk (Horizontally manually loaded)
Mark 144 - 21-cell launcher for the RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile (Horizontally manually loaded)


Note:
Not sure if there are visual differences between the Mark 7 and 12, Mark 9 and 10 as well as the Mark 13 and 14 launchers.
There is a system called the RAM Mark 31 Guided Missile Weapon System (GMWS) Which might be the full designation of the system and contains the Mark 144 launcher
Click to expand...

OK, so I've been digging around all night and there's four major designation sequences for shipboard launch systems, and separate ones for aircraft.


The first and oldest one is for shipboard rocket launchers. Most of these are for bombardment rockets, and they appear to have been given out in blocks due to how they're sorted - most of the 4.5-inch systems first, then a later on all of the 3.0 inch systems in one go, with gaps in between that may be unallocated entirely. Especially prominent with the jump from 52 to 70, and then the skip from there.

Mark 1: 4.5-inch rocket launcher for landing fire support, 12 guides
Mark 2: 4.5-inch rocket launcher for landing fire support, 3 guides, not manufactured
Mark 3: 4.5-inch rocket launcher for landing fire support, 1 guide, not manufactured
Mark 4: 4.5-inch rocket launcher, for landing fire support, 1 guide.
Mark 5: 4.5-inch rocket launcher on a jeep, 10 guides, not manufactured
Mark 6: 4.5-inch rocket launcher for defensive fire on land, 3 guides, not manufactured.
Mark 7: 4.5-inch rocket launcher for landing fire support, magazine fed, 1 guide, not manufactured.
Mark 8: 4.5-inch rocket launcher for landing fire support, 12 guides
Mark 9: 4.5-inch rocket launcher for landing fire support, 8 guides, not manufactured.
Mark 10: 4.5-inch rocket launcher for artillery support on land. Parachute-droppable. 1 guide. Not manufactured.
Mark 11: 4.5-inch rocket launcher for landing fire support. Magazine fed. 1 guide. Not manufactured.
Mark 12: Unknown
Mark 13: 2.36-inch rocket launcher
Mark 14: 2.5-inch rocket launcher
Mark 15: 3.0-inch rocket launcher
Mark 16: Unknown
Mark 17: 3.25-inch rocket launcher
Mark 18: 3.25-inch rocket launcher
Mark 19: 4.0-inch rocket launcher
Mark 20: 7.2-inch rocket launcher
Mark 21: 7.2-inch rocket launcher
Mark 22: 7.2-inch rocket launcher
Mark 23: 7.2-inch rocket launcher
Mark 24: 7.2-inch rocket launcher
Mark 25: 7.2-inch rocket launcher
Mark 26: 7.2-inch rocket launcher
Mark 27: 7.2-inch rocket launcher
Mark 28-29: Unknown
Mark 30: 3.5-inch rocket launcher
Mark 31: 3.5-inch rocket launcher
Mark 32: 3.5-inch rocket launcher
Mark 33: 3.5-inch rocket launcher
Mark 34: 3.5-inch rocket launcher
Mark 35: 3.5-inch rocket launcher
Mark 36: 3.5-inch rocket launcher
Mark 37: 3.0-inch rocket launcher
Mark 38: 3.0-inch rocket launcher
Mark 39: 3.0-inch rocket launcher
Mark 40: 3.5-inch rocket launcher
Mark 41-49: Unknown
Mark 50: 5.0-inch rocket launcher
Mark 51: 5.0-inch rocket launcher
Mark 52: 5.0-inch rocket launcher
Mark 53-69: Unknown
Mark 70: 11.75-inch rocket launcher
Mark 71-100: Unknown


The second designation sequence is for specifically "Guided missile Launchers". Three are known:

Mark 5: Terrier launcher, for Mark 4, Mark 9 and Mark 10 GMLS
Mark 7: Talos launcher, for Mark 7 and Mark 12 GMLS
Mark 8: Tartar launcher, for Mark 11 GMLS

After that, all the launchers appear to have ended up in a single designation sequence starting from Mark 101:

Mark 101: 5-inch rocket launcher
Mark 102: 5-inch rocket launcher

Mark 105: 5-inch rocket launcher
Mark 106: 5-inch rocket launcher
Mark 107: 5-inch rocket launcher
Mark 108: Weapon Alpha launcher

Mark 110: Rocket Assisted Torpedo launcher, mounted on 5-inch turret

Mark 112: Matchbox ASROC launcher
Mark 113: IPDMS launcher

Mark 116: Tartar single-arm launcher for Mark 13 GMLS

Mark 123: Tartar single-arm launcher for Mark 22 GMLS

Mark 126: Typhon MR single-arm launcher for Mark 14 GMLS
Mark 132: Launcher for Mark 29 GMLS

Mark 134: Launcher for Mark 32 GMLS
Mark 135: Launcher for Mark 33 decoy launch system (RBOC)
Mark 136: Launcher for Mark 70 MOSS torpedo decoy
Mark 137: Launcher for Mark 36 decoy launch system (Super RBOC) and Mark 53 Nulka (Mod 7)
Mark 138: 25 mm autocannon?

Mark 141: Harpoon launcher

Mark 143: Armored Box Launcher
Mark 144: Launcher for Mark 49 Guided Missile Launch System

Mark 150: SMAW?

Mark 153: Shoulder-launched Multi-purpose Assault Weapon (SMAW)
Mark 154: Launcher, Mine Clearance (LMC)
Mark 155: Launcher, Mine Clearance (LMC)
Mark 158: 61-cell launcher for Mark 41 GMLS
Mark 159: 29-cell launcher for Mark 41 GMLS

Mark 165: Launcher for Mark 48 GMLS
Mark 166: Launcher for Mark 50 Decoy Launch System (SLQ-49)

Mark 168: Launcher for Mark 48 GMLS
Mark 169: Launcher for Mark 53 Nulka decoys
Mark 170: Launcher for Mark 48 GMLS

Mark 176: 64-cell launcher for Mark 41 GMLS
Mark 177: 32-cell launcher for Mark 41 GMLS

Mark 179: 16-cell launcher for Mark 41 GMLS

(I've found one singular reference to Mark 121 being the two-tube Harpoon launcher)


Finally we have the Launch *System* sequence, which includes both Guided Missile Launch Systems and Decoy Launch Systems:

Mark 1: Terrier test system (USS Mississippi)
Mark 2: Terrier test system?
Mark 3: Terrier test system?
Mark 4: Terrier early production system (Boston-class)
Mark 5: Terrier test system

Mark 7: Talos GMLS (Galveston-class), Mark 7 Launchers
Mark 8: Terrier GMLS (USS Gyatt), Mark 5 launcher
Mark 9: Terrier GMLS (Providence-class), Mark 5 launchers
Mark 10: Terrier GMLS (all subsequent Terrier ships), Mark 5 launchers
Mark 11: Tartar GMLS (Albany and Charles F. Adams-class), Mark 8 launchers
Mark 12: Talos GMLS, (Albany and Long Beach classes), Mark 7 launchers
Mark 13: Tartar GMLS. Mark 116 launcher
Mark 14: Typhon MR GMLS (modified Mark 13); Mark 126 launcher
Mark 15: Polaris test system
Mark 16: ASROC ASW launch system, Mark 112 launcher
Mark 17: Polaris A-1 BMLS

Mark 18: 40 mm Grenade Launcher system?
Mark 19: 40 mm Grenade Launcher system?
Mark 20: 40 mm Grenade Launcher system?

Mark 21: Polaris A-3 BMLS
Mark 22: Tartar GMLS, Mark 123

Mark 24: Poseidon C-3 BMLS
Mark 25: Basic Point Defense Missile System (Sea Sparrow), Mark 113 launcher
Mark 26: Tartar GMLS
Mark 27: Zuni Chaffroc launch system
Mark 28: Zuni Chaffroc launch system
Mark 29: Improved Point Defense Missile System (Sea Sparrow). Mark 132 launcher
Mark 30: ASW Training Target System?
Mark 32: Tartar coffin launch system, Mark 134 launcher
Mark 33: Rapid Blooming Offboard Chaff, Mark 135 launcher
Mark 34: Rapid Blooming Offboard Chaff, Mark 135 launcher
Mark 35: Trident C-4 BMLS
Mark 36: Super Rapid Blooming Offboard Chaff, Mark 137 launcher
Mark 37: CAPTOR for surface ships
Mark 38: CAPTOR for P-3 Orion
Mark 39: CAPTOR for submarines

Mark 41: Vertical Launch System. Mark 158, 159, 176, 177, 179 launchers (and more)
Mark 42: Countermeasures launching system
Mark 43: Rolling Airframe Missile?
Mark 44: Tomahawk launch system, uses Mk143 launchers.
Mark 45: Tomahawk VLS for submarines
Mark 46: Trident D-5 BMLS
Mark 47: Striker 40 mm Grenade Launcher
Mark 48: Sea Sparrow Vertical Launch System. Uses Mark 165, 168 and 170 launchers
Mark 49: Rolling Airframe Missile dedicated launcher
Mark 50: Launching system for SLQ-49 "rubber duck" decoy. Launchers themselves are called Mk166.
Mark 51: Potentially skipped due to conflict with Advanced Gun System?
Mark 52: Decoy launcher for the PBC patrol boat, including two six-barrel Mk 137 SRBOC launchers
Mark 53: Nulka Decoy Launch System, uses Mark 137 or 169 launchers
Mark 54: Cancelled Sea Sparrow VLS for LHDs (listed in the Mark 48 description)
Mark 55: SRBOC Decoy launch system for Arleigh Burke class
Mark 56: Sea Sparrow Vertical Launch System
Mark 57: Peripheral Vertical Launch System for Zumwalt

Mark 59: IDS3000 decoy launch system

Mark 70: Payload Delivery System, containerized VLS.

Mark 87: Naval Strike Missile launch system.


I am not done with the list yet, but I've been up for 20 hours and I've spent about five on this list, so I'm going to chow down on a burger and then I'm going to sleep.
 
Winchester said:
Mark 138: 25 mm autocannon?
Click to expand...
I'm a bit skeptical on this one. Yes, there is one online reference to the Mk 138 Machine Gun System, but the Navy seems consistent about referring to the Mk 38 Machine Gun System everywhere else, so I suspect this might be a typo.

Winchester said:
Mark 56: Sea Sparrow Vertical Launch System
Click to expand...

Specifically Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile; I don't think Mk 56 can even be configured for RIM-7.
 

Attachments

  • 1723638607247.png
    1723638607247.png
    71 KB · Views: 5
TomS said:
I'm a bit skeptical on this one. Yes, there is one online reference to the Mk 138 Machine Gun System, but the Navy seems consistent about referring to the Mk 38 Machine Gun System everywhere else, so I suspect this might be a typo.



Specifically Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile; I don't think Mk 56 can even be configured for RIM-7.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that reference is what I found too.

Mind you, the Navy has not issued any official publication calling the Mk13 launcher "Mark 116" or the Mark 22 launcher "Mark 123" since whatever year that manual Okieboat has, all the more recent manuals only talk about Mark 13 and Mark 22.

And the launcher names for the Mark 48 system did not come from English language sources, I found those on Japanese and Taiwanese sites. Same with the 16-round launcher for Mark 41.

A lot of these were found using the brute force method - google "Mark ???" Launcher or "Mark ?? System" until you find something that looks like it's talking about ships (often using image search instead of normal search), then hit Google Translate and Ctrl-F for the number to see what there was to see.

Some numbers are just plain impossible to do that with though - every search for "Mk104" will turn up the rocket motor of that name, and every search for "Mk160" will turn up the gunfire control system.

Mark 55 for example was found that way - that's from an image caption about "sailors reload the Mark 55 decoy launch system aboard DDG something or other". I think Mark 55 may be a combined SRBOC + Nulka countermeasures suite, where Mark 36 and Mark 53 are one or the other, for example - or, the control systems are different enough to require a different Mark.

I'm also not *100%* that the Mk18/19/20 and Mk47 Grenade Launchers are part of this sequence, but they fit into obvious holes and are out of sequence with other weapons, so maybe? Certainly could not find anything else underneath all the pages about those.
 
Winchester said:
I'm also not *100%* that the Mk18/19/20 and Mk47 Grenade Launchers are part of this sequence, but they fit into obvious holes and are out of sequence with other weapons, so maybe? Certainly could not find anything else underneath all the pages about those.
Click to expand...

In US Naval Weapons, Friedman has an entry in his list of post-war Gun Mounts for the Mk 47: "40mm grenade launcher on 0.30-caliber machine gun tripod developed by NOP Louisville for SEAL-RAG teams."

I think the Mk 18/19/20 are probably in the obscure Navy small arms sequence that also gives us the Mk 22 "hush puppy" pistol and Mk 48 machinegun, but I can't swear to that.
 
TomS said:
In US Naval Weapons, Friedman has an entry in his list of post-war Gun Mounts for the Mk 47: "40mm grenade launcher on 0.30-caliber machine gun tripod developed by NOP Louisville for SEAL-RAG teams."

I think the Mk 18/19/20 are probably in the obscure Navy small arms sequence that also gives us the Mk 22 "hush puppy" pistol and Mk 48 machinegun, but I can't swear to that.
Click to expand...

So it's a gun mount?

I wonder how many of these are skipped due to confusion, and how many of them are just... *lost* because of the confusion.

I mean, you can google "Mk48" and "Trident" all you want, but everything that google will turn up is about the Mk48 ADCAP torpedoes carried by Trident subs...

I wish more editions of World Naval Weapon Systems were available through the Online Library.
 
Winchester said:
So it's a gun mount?

I wonder how many of these are skipped due to confusion, and how many of them are just... *lost* because of the confusion.

I mean, you can google "Mk48" and "Trident" all you want, but everything that google will turn up is about the Mk48 ADCAP torpedoes carried by Trident subs...

I wish more editions of World Naval Weapon Systems were available through the Online Library.
Click to expand...

US Naval Weapons is an older volume (It stops c 1984) but it's got some very solid lists up to that point . The post-war gun mounts list is interesting, because it starts with Mk 43, a win 5-inch mount and appears to just continue the old 5-inch gun mount sequence across all calibers. There are very few gaps, but lots of small-caliber mounts for Vietnam-era riverine and coastal craft mixed in with larger guns. Before that, each caliber had its own sequence, so there was a 40mm mount Mk 1, a 4-inch mount Mk 1, an 8-inch mount Mk 1, etc.
 
TomS said:
US Naval Weapons is an older volume (It stops c 1984) but it's got some very solid lists up to that point . The post-war gun mounts list is interesting, because it starts with Mk 43, a win 5-inch mount and appears to just continue the old 5-inch gun mount sequence across all calibers. There are very few gaps, but lots of small-caliber mounts for Vietnam-era riverine and coastal craft mixed in with larger guns. Before that, each caliber had its own sequence, so there was a 40mm mount Mk 1, a 4-inch mount Mk 1, an 8-inch mount Mk 1, etc.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know there's some real strangeness going on with that.

I'm currently filling out the list of fire control systems as well, found a few fun things in Janes that fill in the holes a little:

Mark 18: GFCS for Pensacola-class cruisers (1920s)
Mark 24: GFCS for Northampton-class cruisers
Mark 27: GFCS for Portland-class cruisers
Mark 31: GFCS for New Orleans-class cruisers
Mark 33: GFCS for destroyers and cruisers in the 1930s
Mark 34: GFCS for cruisers (6, 8 and 12-inch guns), 1940s
Mark 37: GFCS for destroyers, cruisers and battleships, 1940s
Mark 38: GFCS for battleship guns, 1940s
Mark 40: GFCS for battleship guns (local control), 1940s
Mark 51: GFCS for anti-aircraft guns (40 mm)
Mark 54: GFCS for cruisers (203 mm), (Des Moines)
Mark 56: GFCS for anti-aircraft guns (40 mm and 76 mm)
Mark 63: GFCS for anti-aircraft guns (76 mm)
Mark 68: GFCS for dual purpose gun (5-inch/54 Mark 42)
Mark 74: Missile Fire Control System for Tartar
Mark 76: Missile Fire Control System for Terrier
Mark 86: Gunfire control system for Mk45 5-inch guns, the one with SPQ-9
Mark 87: Signaal M22, proposed for FFG-7, used on PHMs
Mark 88: Poseidon C3 FCS
Mark 91: MFCS for Sea Sparrow
Mark 92: GMFCS for FFG-7 and PHM
Mark 98: Trident C-4 FCS
Mark 99: Aegis

Mark 111: ASW FCS (Charles F. Adams)
Mark 114: ASW FCS (Forest Sherman et al)
Mark 116: Digital Underwater FCS (Spruance, Ticonderoga, Burke)

Still working on it, I may have to check some of the later books because I am *fairly* sure that Tomahawk has its own MFCS with a Mark number in the 80s.
 
TomS said:
In US Naval Weapons, Friedman has an entry in his list of post-war Gun Mounts for the Mk 47: "40mm grenade launcher on 0.30-caliber machine gun tripod developed by NOP Louisville for SEAL-RAG teams."

I think the Mk 18/19/20 are probably in the obscure Navy small arms sequence that also gives us the Mk 22 "hush puppy" pistol and Mk 48 machinegun, but I can't swear to that.
Click to expand...

After thinking about it some, the 18/19/20 and 47 all seem to fall into the "machine guns" sequence, with the Mk46 and Mk48. Also, the Mk38 and Mk44.

The problem is that there are so many gaps and so many much more well known *things* with the same designators that it's near impossible to find anything in particular - and the most random things are sometimes inserted into a sequence as if it made sense.

For example, Fire Control Systems Mark 100 to 120 all relate to ASW, except Mark 115 which is a random off-sequence director for Sea Sparrow... which was *replaced* by the Mark 91.

There is a bunch of powered gun mounts for medium caliber weapons that includes the Mk38, Mk46, and Mk49-51. But they're not in the Machine Gun sequence because the Mk46 mount is for a Mk44 *gun*, and they're not in the standard "postwar mounts" that was in Friedman.

It feels like whoever is deciding the nomenclature rolls dice in a table to determine "which of these designations that apply to this piece of hardware is the one I should put on all the public docs?"
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom