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.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom