* The main advantage of Mk-57bis that its placed at hull side, and separated from the rest of the hull with thick bulkhead. In case of peripheral cell being hit & missile inside detonating, the explosion power and fragments would be directed outside the ship.
* The Mk-57 uses the parts of the ship, that are more or less "open" and not used for something that it could affect. It also require far less deck penetration, and those penetrations are on sides, not directly at the center of the deck.
* If the drone hit Mk-57 and missile inside blow up, you would lose one missile, and maybe two at sides. If the drone hit Mk-41 and missile inside the affected cell blow up, it would knock out several 8-cell modules at once.
With all respect, but you literally called the main advantage of the Mk-57 system - the fact that it would not blow half of the ship apart, if hit! - a major disadvantage. For the drone, it didn't matter, where exactly launcher is placed, since drones are usually not sea-skimmers, and make terminal run from steep dive. The probability of hitting Mk-57 and Mk-41 from drone point of view is generally the same. But when Tomahawk detonate in the cell that drone hit, the ship with Mk-57 would have an ugly gash in side, but not much internal damage. While ship with Mk-41 would have gutted launcher, massive internal damage, risk of subsequent detonation.
Exceptionally FPV vulnerable: Though I am sure they can be installed elsewhere, with the Zumwalts they were installed next to the skin of the ship. Everyone is worried about small drones (FPV), especially nearshore and in port. They carry small warheads, which are not too much of a concern to a big ship (however, the shaped-charge warhead of an RPG-7 many seem to be strapped with will cut right through our thin-skinned warships)...but when you have a big missile just an external bulkhead away from the side of the ship...you can figure it out from there....not to mention a Fitzgerald/McCain like collision or Cole attack.
Yes, my point was that you declared an advantage of Mk-57 to be a disadvantage. Sure, I added a bit of drama to my arguments - forgive me of being a bit of dramatic person! - but my central point is that Mk-57 is NOT more vulnerable than Mk-41, and cause less damage to the ship in case of missile explosion, than Mk-41.
a couple other perspectives- Hull thickness and construction design are useful comparison criteria in favor of the PVLS over the Burke construction, notably in a reactive armor context and security of the vitals inside the hull.
There also lies some culpability in the missile industry (and the Navy) who did not pursue weapons to leverage the larger diameter of the Z class while still fumbling around with some immature tech systems while also leaving the class to fall prey to DDG 51 scoring sheets in terms of capability and utility instead of cementing the role as something different than the Burkes.
And now that we are out of time and additionally infatuated with CPS we have further isolated the utility of the Mk 57.
We have to go to war with the Navy that LockMar and RTX supplied us.
so by that measure, if the 8" gun were successful, we'd see it replicated in other navies around the world, but don't? Even though every real analysis in the world over shows us that every real warship should have an 8" gun?
Here's the problem with your 8 inch gun. We cannot get in range to use it. Ten years ago the Chinese announced the Hongjian-12, a fire and forget anti-tank missile with a range of 2.5 miles. India has the The Nag missile with a 20 km range at a cost of $100,000.00.
Cheap, mobile missiles mean the days of grounding your ship at low tide to get a more stable platform are long behind us. The weapons to kill a tank can be easily turned on a warship if she's in range.
My understanding is the inner hull on the Zumwalt’s is significantly stronger and more protected, this design is purposefully to force blasts outwards due to far thinner outer hull mitigating the risks of seemingly being very vulnerable. New doctrine also seems to be moving for the class operating in deep blue water means the odds of small drones strike the Zumwalt’s is a lot less likely.
I agree that for most ships though, the MK41 VLS is far more viable and likely to be the logical pick of the two. The additional tube space can take larger missiles as time passes and new types of guided missile come on line. This is a collective failure of industry and government to design long range anti ship missiles to make full use of the VLS systems.
To save excessive expenditure on a new guided missile, a lengthened variant or enlarged version of the LRASM would be a shrew option to fill the MK57’s at minimal additional cost.
Exactly. Zumwalt's were designed as "survivable" ships; their whole design was based on three main ponts:
* Maximum stealth - so the ship could very easily hide its signature amongst decoys, chaffs and jamming, confusing both enemy recon systems & missile seekers;
* Multi-channel self-defense system - the Zumwalt's massive radar combine search, track and illumination, allowing it to engage simultaneously multiple targets without the limits put by number of illumination radars;
* Durable construction - peripheral launchers, separated from the rest of the ship by thick bulkhead, ensure that any kind of missile detonation inside would be directed outward, and would cause less damage to ship insides;
They were very well though-out, those "Zumwalt"-class destroyers. Their problem was, that the mission for what they were designed stopped being important.
My understanding is the inner hull on the Zumwalt’s is significantly stronger and more protected, this design is purposefully to force blasts outwards due to far thinner outer hull mitigating the risks of seemingly being very vulnerable. New doctrine also seems to be moving for the class operating in deep blue water means the odds of small drones striking the Zumwalt’s is a lot less likely.
I agree that for most ships though, the MK41 VLS is far more viable and likely to be the logical pick of the two. The additional tube space can take larger missiles as time passes and new types of guided missile come on line. This is a collective failure of industry and government to design long range anti ship missiles to make full use of the VLS systems.
To save excessive expenditure on a new guided missile, a lengthened variant or enlarged version of the LRASM would be a shrew option to fill the MK57’s at minimal additional cost.
a dumb question here. Why isn't there a way to use the open space of helo pads as a location for VLS tubes? Maybe not for SAM use, but TLAM launches would seem to be planned, and some cover installation or removal, might allow for using the acreage for both VLS and pad?
Not dumb. There's no reason why it couldn't be done on a new class of ship if the design compromises are considered worthwhile. (Deeper draft, displacement, etc.)
Generally because helicopter & missiles would interfer with each other. Helicopters often bang decks rather heavily during landing, and Mk-41 isn't exactly designed for that. You would need some additional cover over Mk-41, which would make the whole system more complicated and create more problems with gas exaust.
"Why isn't there a way to use the open space of helo pads as a location for VLS tubes? Maybe not for SAM use, but TLAM"
Interesting idea!
The Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov class had 12 P-700 Granit (SS-N-19 Shipwreck) supersonic anti-ship missiles housed in vertical-launch tubes hidden under the forward flight deck.
Yep. The original P-700 missile was designed as submarine-launched weapon; but it was so advanced (superior to P-500 Bazalt) that Soviet admirals decided to put P-700 on surface warships, too. But there was problem; the P-700 was designed for "wet" launch, from flooded tube. To avoid major redesign of booster (which would cause serious damage to any "dry" tube used), Navy decided just to adopt the submarine-type launchers, and flood them with water before launch.
The Ford is in being and has a hot production line. It also has all that nice bunkerage available to RAS the battlegroup. That nice wide beam at the also makes for extra stuff.
The armor would not help much against missiles. Supersonics would just punch through due to their speed and mass (the Mach 2.5 missile hit at more velocity than battleship's shell fired point-blank - an armor plate would just be shattered). Subsonic could be easily fitted with shaped-charge warheads, capable of punching through Yamato turret faceplate.
Against guns and small drones armor could help a bit (large drones could just carry shaped charges) - but it's very hard to armor the radar systems and other sensors, so they won't be destroyed. And without them, the ship is basically blind.
I agree, that a bit of armor might be useful, but mainly in terms of internal protection - armored deck and thick bulkheads, designed to prevent shockwave and fragments from spreading. I.e. to localize the damage, not to avoid it.
Im not sure that's accurate as far as "just punch through". Speed and mass alone don't penetrate armor- it's the cap and composition of the AP shell that gave BB guns their penetration. since modern ASMs are usually just thin skinned tubes full of explosives, electronics motors and fuel... Substantial armor could defeat or at least seriously mitigate damage. And shaped charges, though they can penetrate, are only going to damage a single compartment. Devastating against army tanks, but on a ship, much less serious. I dont know why we abandoned armor...
Just put a plug in zumwalt fore and aft raising the mk 57 number to 96 plus the cps. The extensiin in the front could be used to add 2 point defense systems while retaining a 127mm mount.
In the end the benefit might have been the ability to multi-pack some missiles that wouldn't quite fit in a MK41; MSE I'm looking at you. But with only three ships receiving MK57, there were never going to be new munitions/canisters designed to take advantages of the extra width. Without the U.S. designing munitions for MK57, navies are optimizing bespoke VLS designs differently. For example, K-VLS II is narrower but deeper to support indigenous ballistic missile designs.
It's interesting to consider the different survivability architecture, with the MK57 designed for wide cell distribution to limit damage vs MK41 relying on being more deeply buried within the hull. Both have extensive features to limit the spread of damage between cells, and particularly between groups. PVLS seems obviously better against a heavy threat like the P-800 that penetrates and detonates in close proximity to a MK41 array. But I'm not sure about the FPV threat being that different, as a HEAT warhead is going to penetrate the hatch of a MK41 cell too. In both cases though you might only lose the cell, and almost certainly lose no more than the group. One advantage to the MK41, if the Navy wanted to install a "cope cage" mechanism to defend against FPVs that would be much easier to do with MK41 than with MK57!
Does that matter? If you asked the Russians that question in early 2022 they would have had a dismissive response. They learned, and continue to learn, that lesson.
I'm going to challenge this article, and even recommend that it be retracted. The Mk-57 is "up-armored" by design, and its placement on the periphery was to provide additional, not less, armor for the ship against ASCM and even suicide boat. As a then junior member of the DDG 1000 design team (then a sub-contractor to BIW), I also affirm everything that Dilandu speaks to below, just not the tone and tenor.
I'm sure someone mentioned this in the previous post, but if you want to slap VLS in odd places, the answer is to use a variant of the Canadian Mk48 VLS. Yes, you have the disadvantage of being drone vulnerable. But a missile blowing up outside is much less damaging than a missile blowing up inside.
Okay, I apologize for the tone of my recent posts. Looking back, I saw them to be excessively bitter and ironic, and it wasn't required by situation. For that I apologize.
I do not retract anything from my recent posts meaning, on the other hand.
Different, slightly off topic dumb question. Why does the "Gator' Navy exist? Embassy NEO I understand, some disaster relief I understand, but our Geo-threats are places like China and Iran. In the early stages, won't it make more sense to load F-35s on the hulls that are capable and drones / SAM containers on every other Gator hull. After we run out of missiles, send the LPD's back to Okinawa, or PI and load grunts with bayonets.
While the big potential threats are limited to few geographically fixed locations, the places where a smaller application of US military power could be useful are everywhere. Bilateral exercises help reassure our friends and sometimes keep our rivals busy watching what we are willing to show. Port visits aren't just a good deal for the Sailors and Marines of the ARG/MEU, they apply economic and social power at the lowest possible level (1:1 interactions). Humanitarian operations, NEOs, raids, demonstrations, TRAP, airfield seizure, maritime interdiction and VBSS are all in the mission set these units train to conduct rapidly and without notice.
The alternative would be to fly airborne forces to go do those missions, and a drop of paratroopers on someone else doesn't really leave much room for de-escalation later while a MEU can get back aboard ship the same way the left the ship.
"Russian Navy base at Kronstadt, near St. Petersburg, came under Ukrainian drone attack overnight, in what may well be the first strike of its kind against the Baltic Fleet. Ukrainian drones targeted the naval base, including the Project 20380 Steregushchiy class corvette Boikiy, highlighting the fact that Russian warships are vulnerable even when hundreds of miles from Ukraine’s borders." -The TWZ Newsletter
I remember reading something a long time ago that said the same as what others have already posted: that the MK 57 distributed the missiles so as to lessen the chance of a catastrophic kill. The way the MK 41 is organized on all ships, there’s two groups of VLS about a third of a way from the either end of the ship. A Chinese or Russian anti-ship cruise missile could be programmed to strike their target about 1/3 from either end rather than amidships, increasing the chances of a catastrophic kill. I thought there was some sort of Kevlar or other armor inboard of the MK 57 to help direct the explosion of a missile in its tube outward rather than inward.
My biggest problem with Mk41 is that Lockmart makes it. They do not make Mk48 evidently and there are examples of Mk48 on/under/inside and on-top of decks of multiple small surface combatants AROUND THE PLANET. A Standard Missile is too large/long for the Mk48 VLS cell.
Standard Missiles (specifically the SM-2 Blk IIIC/CU) require at least a Mk41 Tactical Length. There are ASROC-VL that can fit in the Tactical Length Mk41. The new frigate needs some Mk41 Tactical Length for ASW weapons (ASROC-VL), and if we can stretch AAW capability to defending the Convoy from air threats out to 50nm then we need Tactical Length Mk41/57 VLS.
The frigate may be able to see far enough to employ long range AAW missiles, but that or Strike are not in its mission set. Strike Length Mk41 VLS is definitely not needed. This is perhaps where FFG-62 stretched their capability into arenas that would rarely be used, and perhaps not needed. That extra investment in capability definitely put the cost in the TOO HIGH area for very little return on investment.
Oh . . . I hear you. I'm just tired of Lockmart raping the American taxpayers of their treasure. They have high prices, and if anyone in this relationship of defending the country through Sacrificial Service is considered . . . it is NEVER Lockmart that sacrifices! They perpetrate the Aegis Radar myth, and insist their equipment is Aegis, and evidently do not support anyone else is developing GFE code into COTS equipment. Sad state of affairs! Aegis DOES NOT have to cost three prices for everything!
Any time we monkey with Core Aegis Code . . . the more likely bad things can happen. If you have ever analyzed your average COTS OS . . . MILSTD is violated so many times. We built Aegis with a solid core, and all added systems needed to do was ADD ON . . . not re-write. THAT is where malfeasance begins. Remember Lockmart built ALIS too!
How about a Type-31 with 64x VLS crammed into the midships mission bay (Basically spare hangar) and another 16x VLS up forward, beyond the main gun. Cool cost of £400,000,000 with all the kit, maybe another half billion to fully load the missile tubes.
The thing to remember is that the U.S. Navy WILL INVEST in vertical reload of VLS magazines/equipment ANYWAY. Having two systems regardless of how easy and cost effective the 2nd system might be is added cost that can be invested in things needed more.
As for Mk57 . . . I hear everybody and do not give a hoot . . . PICK ONE SYSTEM AND MOVE OUT! This 'wringing of hands' crap is just a waste of time that we do not have. SOMEONE needs to show some leadership.
Okay, nearly everything is wrong.
* The main advantage of Mk-57bis that its placed at hull side, and separated from the rest of the hull with thick bulkhead. In case of peripheral cell being hit & missile inside detonating, the explosion power and fragments would be directed outside the ship.
* The Mk-57 uses the parts of the ship, that are more or less "open" and not used for something that it could affect. It also require far less deck penetration, and those penetrations are on sides, not directly at the center of the deck.
* If the drone hit Mk-57 and missile inside blow up, you would lose one missile, and maybe two at sides. If the drone hit Mk-41 and missile inside the affected cell blow up, it would knock out several 8-cell modules at once.
Seriously, do some research.
All that information is available via links I provide. This is a blog post, not a 5000 word document. Sit down and calm down.
With all respect, but you literally called the main advantage of the Mk-57 system - the fact that it would not blow half of the ship apart, if hit! - a major disadvantage. For the drone, it didn't matter, where exactly launcher is placed, since drones are usually not sea-skimmers, and make terminal run from steep dive. The probability of hitting Mk-57 and Mk-41 from drone point of view is generally the same. But when Tomahawk detonate in the cell that drone hit, the ship with Mk-57 would have an ugly gash in side, but not much internal damage. While ship with Mk-41 would have gutted launcher, massive internal damage, risk of subsequent detonation.
I wrote no such thing. I is all there, literally, in black and white.
So it's not your post?
Exceptionally FPV vulnerable: Though I am sure they can be installed elsewhere, with the Zumwalts they were installed next to the skin of the ship. Everyone is worried about small drones (FPV), especially nearshore and in port. They carry small warheads, which are not too much of a concern to a big ship (however, the shaped-charge warhead of an RPG-7 many seem to be strapped with will cut right through our thin-skinned warships)...but when you have a big missile just an external bulkhead away from the side of the ship...you can figure it out from there....not to mention a Fitzgerald/McCain like collision or Cole attack.
How peculiar.
Nowhere is there anything about blowing a ship halfway apart. That’s all coming out of your brain not mine.
Yes, my point was that you declared an advantage of Mk-57 to be a disadvantage. Sure, I added a bit of drama to my arguments - forgive me of being a bit of dramatic person! - but my central point is that Mk-57 is NOT more vulnerable than Mk-41, and cause less damage to the ship in case of missile explosion, than Mk-41.
a couple other perspectives- Hull thickness and construction design are useful comparison criteria in favor of the PVLS over the Burke construction, notably in a reactive armor context and security of the vitals inside the hull.
There also lies some culpability in the missile industry (and the Navy) who did not pursue weapons to leverage the larger diameter of the Z class while still fumbling around with some immature tech systems while also leaving the class to fall prey to DDG 51 scoring sheets in terms of capability and utility instead of cementing the role as something different than the Burkes.
And now that we are out of time and additionally infatuated with CPS we have further isolated the utility of the Mk 57.
We have to go to war with the Navy that LockMar and RTX supplied us.
And the war after the next one...?
If it was a successful concept, you would see it replicated in other navies around the world. You don’t.
so by that measure, if the 8" gun were successful, we'd see it replicated in other navies around the world, but don't? Even though every real analysis in the world over shows us that every real warship should have an 8" gun?
No navy has deployed with an 8” gun in over half a century.
Yup. Newport News was the last ship, though we had a single gun test case on Hull. Doesn't mean that it's not a good idea
Here's the problem with your 8 inch gun. We cannot get in range to use it. Ten years ago the Chinese announced the Hongjian-12, a fire and forget anti-tank missile with a range of 2.5 miles. India has the The Nag missile with a 20 km range at a cost of $100,000.00.
Cheap, mobile missiles mean the days of grounding your ship at low tide to get a more stable platform are long behind us. The weapons to kill a tank can be easily turned on a warship if she's in range.
I believe that range on the last USN 8" in service was greater than the 20KM missile by little over 4 miles (6KM) using ballpark mental conversion.
Some of us in the program used to call those launchers the ship's reactive armor
Heh!
My understanding is the inner hull on the Zumwalt’s is significantly stronger and more protected, this design is purposefully to force blasts outwards due to far thinner outer hull mitigating the risks of seemingly being very vulnerable. New doctrine also seems to be moving for the class operating in deep blue water means the odds of small drones strike the Zumwalt’s is a lot less likely.
I agree that for most ships though, the MK41 VLS is far more viable and likely to be the logical pick of the two. The additional tube space can take larger missiles as time passes and new types of guided missile come on line. This is a collective failure of industry and government to design long range anti ship missiles to make full use of the VLS systems.
To save excessive expenditure on a new guided missile, a lengthened variant or enlarged version of the LRASM would be a shrew option to fill the MK57’s at minimal additional cost.
Exactly. Zumwalt's were designed as "survivable" ships; their whole design was based on three main ponts:
* Maximum stealth - so the ship could very easily hide its signature amongst decoys, chaffs and jamming, confusing both enemy recon systems & missile seekers;
* Multi-channel self-defense system - the Zumwalt's massive radar combine search, track and illumination, allowing it to engage simultaneously multiple targets without the limits put by number of illumination radars;
* Durable construction - peripheral launchers, separated from the rest of the ship by thick bulkhead, ensure that any kind of missile detonation inside would be directed outward, and would cause less damage to ship insides;
They were very well though-out, those "Zumwalt"-class destroyers. Their problem was, that the mission for what they were designed stopped being important.
My understanding is the inner hull on the Zumwalt’s is significantly stronger and more protected, this design is purposefully to force blasts outwards due to far thinner outer hull mitigating the risks of seemingly being very vulnerable. New doctrine also seems to be moving for the class operating in deep blue water means the odds of small drones striking the Zumwalt’s is a lot less likely.
I agree that for most ships though, the MK41 VLS is far more viable and likely to be the logical pick of the two. The additional tube space can take larger missiles as time passes and new types of guided missile come on line. This is a collective failure of industry and government to design long range anti ship missiles to make full use of the VLS systems.
To save excessive expenditure on a new guided missile, a lengthened variant or enlarged version of the LRASM would be a shrew option to fill the MK57’s at minimal additional cost.
a dumb question here. Why isn't there a way to use the open space of helo pads as a location for VLS tubes? Maybe not for SAM use, but TLAM launches would seem to be planned, and some cover installation or removal, might allow for using the acreage for both VLS and pad?
That's good out of the box thinking.
However, I think that that far astern you will be limited by available vertical height available.
gets pat on head. ok, engine rooms, etc
It's the general answer for why we can't expand the number of cells on ships, you need room in the hull for other things.
Aside from the motors and gensets, the actual height aft of where they are already located would be an issue. Plus possible sagging of the hull.
Not dumb. There's no reason why it couldn't be done on a new class of ship if the design compromises are considered worthwhile. (Deeper draft, displacement, etc.)
Well, as long as the helo isn't sitting there....
Generally because helicopter & missiles would interfer with each other. Helicopters often bang decks rather heavily during landing, and Mk-41 isn't exactly designed for that. You would need some additional cover over Mk-41, which would make the whole system more complicated and create more problems with gas exaust.
well, if u were only using for TLAM, those missions can be deconflicted with helo ops
"Why isn't there a way to use the open space of helo pads as a location for VLS tubes? Maybe not for SAM use, but TLAM"
Interesting idea!
The Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov class had 12 P-700 Granit (SS-N-19 Shipwreck) supersonic anti-ship missiles housed in vertical-launch tubes hidden under the forward flight deck.
A small correction; the P-700 launchers aren't vertical, they are inclined tubes.
Agree. They are not 90 degrees vertical. They are inclined, as are the P-700 launchers on the Kirov class battlecruisers.
Yep. The original P-700 missile was designed as submarine-launched weapon; but it was so advanced (superior to P-500 Bazalt) that Soviet admirals decided to put P-700 on surface warships, too. But there was problem; the P-700 was designed for "wet" launch, from flooded tube. To avoid major redesign of booster (which would cause serious damage to any "dry" tube used), Navy decided just to adopt the submarine-type launchers, and flood them with water before launch.
sounds like we need bigger, better armored ships, Sal.....
Like CAs and BBs?
CBG(N) built on a Ford hull.
Not a Ford hull. An Iowa-class hull with armor
The Ford is in being and has a hot production line. It also has all that nice bunkerage available to RAS the battlegroup. That nice wide beam at the also makes for extra stuff.
If you could call one ship per decade a "hot production line"...
The parts are being produced, the workforce is in place. It meets the definition of a hot production line being live and producing something.
Its also thin skinned
Not as thin skinned as a DDG or other USN hulls.
A Ford hull has armor / actual layers of protection.
Is this actually true? I've never heard of anything being "armored" since... forever...
I've heard of " kevlar in some spaces" but actual armor???
Kevlar is armor, and there's other measures in place.
But generally speaking... the hull is just standard...what??...3/8 plate... probably not HY100(??) or anything with higher standards??
Why do you need armor?
Because of drones, missiles, guns, etc
The armor would not help much against missiles. Supersonics would just punch through due to their speed and mass (the Mach 2.5 missile hit at more velocity than battleship's shell fired point-blank - an armor plate would just be shattered). Subsonic could be easily fitted with shaped-charge warheads, capable of punching through Yamato turret faceplate.
Against guns and small drones armor could help a bit (large drones could just carry shaped charges) - but it's very hard to armor the radar systems and other sensors, so they won't be destroyed. And without them, the ship is basically blind.
I agree, that a bit of armor might be useful, but mainly in terms of internal protection - armored deck and thick bulkheads, designed to prevent shockwave and fragments from spreading. I.e. to localize the damage, not to avoid it.
Im not sure that's accurate as far as "just punch through". Speed and mass alone don't penetrate armor- it's the cap and composition of the AP shell that gave BB guns their penetration. since modern ASMs are usually just thin skinned tubes full of explosives, electronics motors and fuel... Substantial armor could defeat or at least seriously mitigate damage. And shaped charges, though they can penetrate, are only going to damage a single compartment. Devastating against army tanks, but on a ship, much less serious. I dont know why we abandoned armor...
Just put a plug in zumwalt fore and aft raising the mk 57 number to 96 plus the cps. The extensiin in the front could be used to add 2 point defense systems while retaining a 127mm mount.
In the end the benefit might have been the ability to multi-pack some missiles that wouldn't quite fit in a MK41; MSE I'm looking at you. But with only three ships receiving MK57, there were never going to be new munitions/canisters designed to take advantages of the extra width. Without the U.S. designing munitions for MK57, navies are optimizing bespoke VLS designs differently. For example, K-VLS II is narrower but deeper to support indigenous ballistic missile designs.
It's interesting to consider the different survivability architecture, with the MK57 designed for wide cell distribution to limit damage vs MK41 relying on being more deeply buried within the hull. Both have extensive features to limit the spread of damage between cells, and particularly between groups. PVLS seems obviously better against a heavy threat like the P-800 that penetrates and detonates in close proximity to a MK41 array. But I'm not sure about the FPV threat being that different, as a HEAT warhead is going to penetrate the hatch of a MK41 cell too. In both cases though you might only lose the cell, and almost certainly lose no more than the group. One advantage to the MK41, if the Navy wanted to install a "cope cage" mechanism to defend against FPVs that would be much easier to do with MK41 than with MK57!
How many drones have hit a US warship to date? Of course, we could say much similar about ASMs insofar as more recent history. And torpedoes.
Does that matter? If you asked the Russians that question in early 2022 they would have had a dismissive response. They learned, and continue to learn, that lesson.
I'm going to challenge this article, and even recommend that it be retracted. The Mk-57 is "up-armored" by design, and its placement on the periphery was to provide additional, not less, armor for the ship against ASCM and even suicide boat. As a then junior member of the DDG 1000 design team (then a sub-contractor to BIW), I also affirm everything that Dilandu speaks to below, just not the tone and tenor.
Okay, you are right, my tone was far too bitter and ironic for discussion. My apologies.
Are they having the naval engineering folks look yet at the inevitable emergency “cope cage” fix for once drones start damaging our ships?
I'm sure someone mentioned this in the previous post, but if you want to slap VLS in odd places, the answer is to use a variant of the Canadian Mk48 VLS. Yes, you have the disadvantage of being drone vulnerable. But a missile blowing up outside is much less damaging than a missile blowing up inside.
Okay, I apologize for the tone of my recent posts. Looking back, I saw them to be excessively bitter and ironic, and it wasn't required by situation. For that I apologize.
I do not retract anything from my recent posts meaning, on the other hand.
Different, slightly off topic dumb question. Why does the "Gator' Navy exist? Embassy NEO I understand, some disaster relief I understand, but our Geo-threats are places like China and Iran. In the early stages, won't it make more sense to load F-35s on the hulls that are capable and drones / SAM containers on every other Gator hull. After we run out of missiles, send the LPD's back to Okinawa, or PI and load grunts with bayonets.
While the big potential threats are limited to few geographically fixed locations, the places where a smaller application of US military power could be useful are everywhere. Bilateral exercises help reassure our friends and sometimes keep our rivals busy watching what we are willing to show. Port visits aren't just a good deal for the Sailors and Marines of the ARG/MEU, they apply economic and social power at the lowest possible level (1:1 interactions). Humanitarian operations, NEOs, raids, demonstrations, TRAP, airfield seizure, maritime interdiction and VBSS are all in the mission set these units train to conduct rapidly and without notice.
The alternative would be to fly airborne forces to go do those missions, and a drop of paratroopers on someone else doesn't really leave much room for de-escalation later while a MEU can get back aboard ship the same way the left the ship.
Appears to be the new reality.
"Russian Navy base at Kronstadt, near St. Petersburg, came under Ukrainian drone attack overnight, in what may well be the first strike of its kind against the Baltic Fleet. Ukrainian drones targeted the naval base, including the Project 20380 Steregushchiy class corvette Boikiy, highlighting the fact that Russian warships are vulnerable even when hundreds of miles from Ukraine’s borders." -The TWZ Newsletter
I remember reading something a long time ago that said the same as what others have already posted: that the MK 57 distributed the missiles so as to lessen the chance of a catastrophic kill. The way the MK 41 is organized on all ships, there’s two groups of VLS about a third of a way from the either end of the ship. A Chinese or Russian anti-ship cruise missile could be programmed to strike their target about 1/3 from either end rather than amidships, increasing the chances of a catastrophic kill. I thought there was some sort of Kevlar or other armor inboard of the MK 57 to help direct the explosion of a missile in its tube outward rather than inward.
I think Mk41 installations have maybe an inch of Kevlar. I think it is a 4 inch steel bulkhead on Zumwalt's PVLS.
My biggest problem with Mk41 is that Lockmart makes it. They do not make Mk48 evidently and there are examples of Mk48 on/under/inside and on-top of decks of multiple small surface combatants AROUND THE PLANET. A Standard Missile is too large/long for the Mk48 VLS cell.
Standard Missiles (specifically the SM-2 Blk IIIC/CU) require at least a Mk41 Tactical Length. There are ASROC-VL that can fit in the Tactical Length Mk41. The new frigate needs some Mk41 Tactical Length for ASW weapons (ASROC-VL), and if we can stretch AAW capability to defending the Convoy from air threats out to 50nm then we need Tactical Length Mk41/57 VLS.
The frigate may be able to see far enough to employ long range AAW missiles, but that or Strike are not in its mission set. Strike Length Mk41 VLS is definitely not needed. This is perhaps where FFG-62 stretched their capability into arenas that would rarely be used, and perhaps not needed. That extra investment in capability definitely put the cost in the TOO HIGH area for very little return on investment.
Your beef with Lockmart doesn't really add to your response, sir, which is otherwise spot on with regard to launcher utility.
Oh . . . I hear you. I'm just tired of Lockmart raping the American taxpayers of their treasure. They have high prices, and if anyone in this relationship of defending the country through Sacrificial Service is considered . . . it is NEVER Lockmart that sacrifices! They perpetrate the Aegis Radar myth, and insist their equipment is Aegis, and evidently do not support anyone else is developing GFE code into COTS equipment. Sad state of affairs! Aegis DOES NOT have to cost three prices for everything!
You'd be surprised at the amount of GF and COTS code that LM integrates within AWS.
Any time we monkey with Core Aegis Code . . . the more likely bad things can happen. If you have ever analyzed your average COTS OS . . . MILSTD is violated so many times. We built Aegis with a solid core, and all added systems needed to do was ADD ON . . . not re-write. THAT is where malfeasance begins. Remember Lockmart built ALIS too!
LM still does build the Aegis LAN Interconnect System. :)
Oh . . . happy days . . . (tongue in cheek).
How about a Type-31 with 64x VLS crammed into the midships mission bay (Basically spare hangar) and another 16x VLS up forward, beyond the main gun. Cool cost of £400,000,000 with all the kit, maybe another half billion to fully load the missile tubes.
The thing to remember is that the U.S. Navy WILL INVEST in vertical reload of VLS magazines/equipment ANYWAY. Having two systems regardless of how easy and cost effective the 2nd system might be is added cost that can be invested in things needed more.
It's hardly a second system. You can load a Mk41 cell into a Mk 57.
As for Mk57 . . . I hear everybody and do not give a hoot . . . PICK ONE SYSTEM AND MOVE OUT! This 'wringing of hands' crap is just a waste of time that we do not have. SOMEONE needs to show some leadership.
The battle is Zumwalt Flt II vs this BBG madness.