Weight of Tartar missile systems?

[saltedfish]

This is my first post and I'm stressing a bit about where to put it -- I hope this is an appropriate place to post this. If not, please let me know and I can move it. Thank you!

While the context is hypothetical vessel design, the reason I'm posting here is I've been trying to find the total tonnage of the Mk11/Mk13 launcher system, but I'm having a hard time getting a firm number. Wikipedia and other sources are pretty useless for specifics.

One document I found on this forum (GMM 3 and 2 CHAPTER Guided Missile Launching Systems) suggests the Mk 11 Launching System, without missiles and auxiliary equipment, weighs approximately 66 tons. But this is the only figure of its kind I can find, and it would be nice if there was another reference to verify the number or get a more accurate one. Ideally, I'd like the hypothetical I'm modeling to be as accurate as possible.

Can anyone direct me to some literature that might have a more comprehensive overview of the weight of early US Navy SAM systems? Or just more specific information about these systems in general?

Thank you in advance, and apologies if this should be somewhere else.

 

[BlackBat242]

This table from Norman Polmar's Ships and Aircraft of the US Fleet 12th Edition (early 1981) has launcher system weight (excludes missiles and hydraulic fluid) as:
Mk 11: 165,240 lb
Mk 13: 132,561 lb - 135,079 lb.



The Mk 11 weight is more than that in the below entry from Jane's Weapons Systems.
The Mk 13 mod 4 weight matches that in the below entry from Jane's Weapons Systems:



The Mk 13 mod 4 weight matches that in this brochure from the manufacturer:

 

[saltedfish]

Wow! Thank you so much for the info, really appreciate you taking the time to post multiple sources!

 

[Archibald]

Wow! Thank you so much for the info, really appreciate you taking the time to post multiple sources!

The very reasons that makes this very forum one of the best around.

 

[saltedfish]

I recall reading somewhere that the VLS systems were incapable of replenishment while underway (I'm assuming this is because the constant movement of vessels underway makes handling delicate and explosive missiles a risky proposition, to the point that the loading cranes integrated with the VLS systems were eventually removed), but did the Mk 11, Mk 13, and Mk 22 launchers all have this same limitation?

 

[NMaude]

I recall reading somewhere that the VLS systems were incapable of replenishment while underway

The USN did an experiment late last year IIRC where they managed to reload a Mk-41 VLS cell underway so it would appear that it can be done but it's a bit tricky.

 

[TomS]

I recall reading somewhere that the VLS systems were incapable of replenishment while underway (I'm assuming this is because the constant movement of vessels underway makes handling delicate and explosive missiles a risky proposition, to the point that the loading cranes integrated with the VLS systems were eventually removed), but did the Mk 11, Mk 13, and Mk 22 launchers all have this same limitation?

The rail launchers all in theory could replenish at sea. I don't think it was done often, but STREAM was designed to carry missiles from ship to ship in special handling dollies. They could then be loaded into the launcher.

 

[saltedfish]

The rail launchers all in theory could replenish at sea. I don't think it was done often, but STREAM was designed to carry missiles from ship to ship in special handling dollies. They could then be loaded into the launcher.

Would this have been done by transferring each missile one by one from the resupply ship, and then loaded into the magazine through the hatches? Sounds like a lot of work to refill a magazine

 

[TomS]

Would this have been done by transferring each missile one by one from the resupply ship, and then loaded into the magazine through the hatches? Sounds like a lot of work to refill a magazine

Yep, it was. Not quite as slow as reloading a VLS, since you didn't have to pull out the empty canister first, but still very time consuming. A full reload could take several hours alongside.

 

[saltedfish]

Yep, it was. Not quite as slow as reloading a VLS, since you didn't have to pull out the empty canister first, but still very time consuming. A full reload could take several hours alongside.

Did the developers of these systems ever experiment with, say, keeping a store of missiles in crates somewhere else onboard, and then moving them onto deck and loading them into the rotary magazine? Like a secondary magazine? Would such a thing even make sense?

I'm imagining a secondary magazine with the missiles in their transport canisters/crates, and some sort of rail or track to transport them to the magazine loading hatch, tipping them up, sliding the missile into the magazine, and then returning the now-empty crate to the reserve magazine.

Then, as part of the replenishment underway, the reserve magazine handles the stowage and transfer of the crates/canisters (exchanging empty ones for full ones), providing more room to work with and fewer steps since the actual transfer of the missile to the magazine happens via a different process. The point being you can separate the replenishment process and the loading process into two separate areas/procedures, as well as gain a reserve of extra missiles in case you run out. And the loading itself could be potentially a lot easier since the crate/canister containing the missile would be on a track from stowage to magazine and thus easier to manipulate.

Maybe not worth the effort on the Mk 11 and Mk13 versions, but the Mk 22 with it's smaller magazine might benefit.

 

[TomS]

Did the developers of these systems ever experiment with, say, keeping a store of missiles in crates somewhere else onboard, and then moving them onto deck and loading them into the rotary magazine? Like a secondary magazine? Would such a thing even make sense?

I'm imagining a secondary magazine with the missiles in their transport canisters/crates, and some sort of rail or track to transport them to the magazine loading hatch, tipping them up, sliding the missile into the magazine, and then returning the now-empty crate to the reserve magazine.

Then, as part of the replenishment underway, the reserve magazine handles the stowage and transfer of the crates/canisters (exchanging empty ones for full ones), providing more room to work with and fewer steps since the actual transfer of the missile to the magazine happens via a different process. The point being you can separate the replenishment process and the loading process into two separate areas/procedures, as well as gain a reserve of extra missiles in case you run out. And the loading itself could be potentially a lot easier since the crate/canister containing the missile would be on a track from stowage to magazine and thus easier to manipulate.

Not that I've ever heard of. Basically, what you're describing resembles the earlier Terrier and Talos launcher concepts, where there was storage space for both ready service rounds and deeper storage for reserve rounds. That fell away in favor of making all the rounds immediately available.

Maybe not worth the effort on the Mk 11 and Mk13 versions, but the Mk 22 with it's smaller magazine might benefit.

The Mk22 only shows up on really tight designs that don't have the space or weight for a Mk 13. And if you don't have space for a Mk 13, you definitely don't have space for extra missiles in transport cases. Those Mk 13 and Mk 22 magazines are just about the most compact way of storing Tartar- size missiles you can manage. It's even more compact than VLS in many ways.

 

[apparition13]

The Mk22 only shows up on really tight designs that don't have the space or weight for a Mk 13. And if you don't have space for a Mk 13, you definitely don't have space for extra missiles in transport cases. Those Mk 13 and Mk 22 magazines are just about the most compact way of storing Tartar- size missiles you can manage. It's even more compact than VLS in many ways.

Yup. The Mk13 has 40 missiles in an area you could fit maybe three Mk41 vls modules for 24 cells. The fire rate is anemic by comparison though. And once you get quad packed ESSMs you're better off with Mk41 on rounds carried as well.

 

[Dilandu]

but did the Mk 11, Mk 13, and Mk 22 launchers all have this same limitation?

No, because their reload was achieved through launcher:



The misisle in transfer dolly was connected to rear end of the launcher arm, a special adapter was used to align missile with the rail. Then the missile was pulled on rail. After that, the dolly was disconnected, launcher arm moved to magazine hatch; magazine rotated so the empty slot was directly beneath the hatch; the arm raised vertically and lowered missile down into the magazine empty slot. Then the next missile was transported to launcher, and process repeated.

 

[saltedfish]

No, because their reload was achieved through launcher:

View attachment 766632

The misisle in transfer dolly was connected to rear end of the launcher arm, a special adapter was used to align missile with the rail. Then the missile was pulled on rail. After that, the dolly was disconnected, launcher arm moved to magazine hatch; magazine rotated so the empty slot was directly beneath the hatch; the arm raised vertically and lowered missile down into the magazine empty slot. Then the next missile was transported to launcher, and process repeated.

Oh shit, that's really cool! Thanks for showing how that would work. Actually quite clever to use the launcher itself to aid in the magazine reloading process.

What they really shoulda done is make an enormous en bloc clip for the missiles

"Missile away!"
DEAFENING PING

Do you have a source for that image? I'd be interested in reading more about the process

 

[Dilandu]

Oh shit, that's really cool! Thanks for showing how that would work. Actually quite clever to use the launcher itself to aid in the magazine reloading process.

Yep) After all, launcher arm have un-loading capability by definition (in case of missile being prepared, but launch cancelled for some reason), so it was logical to use it for magazine loading also.

Of course, it worked only with Tartar missiles, which were single-stage and relatively short. Larger missiles like Terrier or Talos - which have separate booster - were loaded through special hatches in the magazine roof. Missiles and boosters were lowered into magazine separatedly (together they would be too big & clumsy to move on deck), and accembled inside before being loaded into magazine drum or tray.

 

[saltedfish]

Yep) After all, launcher arm have un-loading capability by definition (in case of missile being prepared, but launch cancelled for some reason), so it was logical to use it for magazine loading also.

Of course, it worked only with Tartar missiles, which were single-stage and relatively short. Larger missiles like Terrier or Talos - which have separate booster - were loaded through special hatches in the magazine roof. Missiles and boosters were lowered into magazine separatedly (together they would be too big & clumsy to move on deck), and accembled inside before being loaded into magazine drum or tray.

It actually sorta blew my mind to learn that the Terrier and Talos missiles had to be assembled before launch. I didn't realize how big they were, and that a huge space below deck was devoted to bringing the components up from storage, assembly, and then transfer to the launch rails. Wild.

IIRC the documentation I read did state that the Tartar missiles, once loaded onto the rails, had to have their fins manually stowed before returning them to the magazine, since they would automatically deploy but there was no provision for them to automatically collapse. Some poor guy would have to run out there and do it before they could be returned to the magazine.

 

[TomS]

It actually sorta blew my mind to learn that the Terrier and Talos missiles had to be assembled before launch. I didn't realize how big they were, and that a huge space below deck was devoted to bringing the components up from storage, assembly, and then transfer to the launch rails. Wild.

IIRC the documentation I read did state that the Tartar missiles, once loaded onto the rails, had to have their fins manually stowed before returning them to the magazine, since they would automatically deploy but there was no provision for them to automatically collapse. Some poor guy would have to run out there and do it before they could be returned to the magazine.

To be fair, you're only stuffing an unfired round back into the magazine if the threat has dissipated. If a round fails to launch in combat, you'll eject it overboard and load a new one.

 

[saltedfish]

To be fair, you're only stuffing an unfired round back into the magazine if the threat has dissipated. If a round fails to launch in combat, you'll eject it overboard and load a new one.

Speaking of, how do those strikedown systems work? I see the little protrusions on the decks of the ship, is it some sort of hydraulic piston that just punts the missile off the rail or something?