It's not so much that we abandoned the concept as we designed ourself into a box with the great idea of VLS*. It sounded great and we were off to the races with the next new shiny thing. No real thought and no real operational testing of how it was really going to work.
And so here we are 40 years on realizing that maybe it's not the greatest thing ever. But it's too late because its all we have, so we're going to have to live with it or create equally unrealistic fixes to pretend we can unrep missiles. At least we only got 3 Zumwalts, cut the LCS production short, and realized we screwed the pooch on Constellation before the first one was built. (Fords and EMALS, et. al. are likely going to linger on forever though.)
I'd submit that VLS is the first if the big NAVSEA screwups.
*And when you think about it, what is the advantage of VLS? It's not less deck space. It's not less magazine space. It's sure as hell not ease of reload. SFAIK the only thing that it claims is potential redundancy when damage starts accruing. I.e. not all the cells will become inop and you will still be able to shoot. Even that seems somewhat shaky, IMO.
The advantages of VLS are that missiles don't need to move to be shot, exposed to weather for a period of time, and remove maintenance on a weather exposed piece of equipment. All those are important factors for maintaining the system in readiness.
A ship that fires off the entire magazine has to return anyway. If a complete reload is needed, missile loading rate from a CONREP will mean it will be longer to fill the magazine than just alongside.
And when you have to reload in Bremerton, or San Diego?
Because Pearl, and Guam, and Yokohama are certainly going to be unavailable....
So, your destroyer scoots back to 'Diego, and reloads/refuels, and turns around and heads back to the first island chain and does what, with empty fuel tanks? Because we don't have any oilers....
Well, imagine a typical (planned) Cold War era engagement; a full regiment of Soviet Tu-22 supersonic bombers (24 machines), converging on your battle group from several direction (a typical tactics was to divide regiment in two group approaching target from different directions, and each group into "high altitude" and "low altitude" attack groups), under heavy jamming from escorting EW planes, and firing high-supersonic X-22 missiles from about 300 km standoff range. Now, you have four waves of Mach 3.5 missiles, coming at you from different directions, half of them targeting your escorts, half aiming at your largest ships (carriers, battleships, amphibious assault ships, ect.). Since the moment they would enter your SAM's envelope, you have about 3-4 minutes to shoot them all. Or you are dead.
So, which weapon you would prefer? A easy-to-replenish Mk-26 rail launcher that would allow you to launch about 12 missiles before X-22 would hit? Or hard-to-replenish Mk-41 VLS, that would allow you to fire all your SAM's beofre X-22 would hit?
I'd design the attack in two pieces - one as you describe (likely with drones spoofing real aircraft) and after everyone is winchester, another wave comes in with ship killers....
rate of fire and 360 degree coverage. Pretty sure it saves space too. Tico with 2 arms had 44 tactical length rounds vs 61/64 strike length thereafter.
The Mk-41 require more space per missile than Mk-13 drum storage because:
* Mk-41 designed to accomodate large-diameter missiles, like Tomahawk (as a result space is wasted for smaller diameter missiles, like SM-2);
* Mk-41 required to be fire-proof, blast-protected and have gas exhaust system, because missile is fired directly from it (while on Mk-13 it was launcher arm that handled this matters);
Fortunately, we never had to deal with a penetration or detonation with the Mk13's magazine. Flip it around, who thought/approved Zumwalt's Mk-57 VLS along the perimeter of the ship's hull was a good idea?
There were some inquires about "could Perry's Mk-13 be replaced with VLS", and he conclusion was, that the bow would fell away. The ship is VERY tightly build, and replacing round hole in decks (for Mk-13) with a square hole (for Mk-41) would compromise hull strength fatally.
The main advantage of VLS is the rate of fire. With VLS, you could launch a missile each 1-2 seconds. Old-type rail launchers - even the best, like Mk-13 and Mk-26 - could release a missile only each 10-15 seconds. So during the Cold War, when the typical engagement foreseen involved dozens of heavy supersonic missiles coming from several directions, supported by heavy jamming - the rate of fire was viewed as most important.
Well, I was there as you might say. If you compare Spruances with 2 ABL vs VLS you see the advantages. But the decision that all destroyers should be G ships plays a role. The concept behind THawk was that the AUR would be kept in the can.
Also not sure Mk 13 and Mk 26 launchers were all that great either. We put Harpoon in the Mk 13 magazine but then you needed to be able to select it.
Speaking as a guy who had to move around ammo, the idea of CONREP and having missile moving around on deck a lot at speed in the open ocean gives me the willies. It seems like a great way to loose a man or a missile in an industrial accident.
Those missiles are being held relatively low horizontally, and moved through a single loading location. Now, the loading tubes will be moved into a vertical orientation, and held up over an individual cell. The older system looks a lot more fault tolerant than the current one.
Also, where on a ship is there space for shipping tubes and the equipment to move them? Those aren't light things, and start taking up space really quick.
Phalanx is good for what 3-4 engagements before it needs reloading? RAM/SeaRAM is where it's at or, develop a dual gun/missile system since the drone threat is broad & varied and exigent.
"Also, where on a ship is there space for shipping tubes and the equipment to move them? Those aren't light things, and start taking up space really quick."
Shame nobody had the cojones to bring all that up. I was around when VLS was new and sexy. We knew our rate of fire and magazine capacity wasn't up to the threat, but we also immediately wondered what would happen if you lived long enough to have to reload.
You can't, "Stop the program. Stop the clock", in the Gulf of Oman.
I agree, loading at sea would not have been a fun day.
It's been long enough that I don't remember specifics, but IIRC a full missile loadout pier side took a good part of the day. It certainly would have taken more time along side unrepping.
But getting ten or even half a dozen beats none. And it was possible and had one just gone through an attack that put them winchester, or close, there would be motivation to get it done. With VLS it doesn't seem that there's any real chance of getting it done.
The main problem was, that VLS wasn't exactly very good in terms of loading. Old-type rail launchers have drum or conveyor horizontal magazines (like Mk-10 Terrier/SM-1ER GMLS), that could be reloaded easily; the missile was rolled on transport carriage toward the loading hatch, and lowered into magazine with special elevator. The systems that stored missiles vertically (like Mk-13, Mk-22, Mk-26 Tartar/SM-1MR GMLS) have loading-through-launcher capability; the missile was rolled toward the launcher, attached to lowered launcher rail, the launcher dragged missile on rail, turned it vertically and dropped missile into magazine hatch.
OK, but I am writing about Tomahawk reloading and magazine capacity ABL vs VLS. Keep in mind when TLAM was designed, the concept was it was strategic only, primarily we wanted to have TLAM-N at sea. From a launcher standpoint, TASM was the main consideration and the salvo doctrine was like two missiles.
Then for Desert Storm we were asked if we could ripple-fire 16 TLAMs out of the DD VLS. We hadn't ever tested that. Back then when the VLS LCUs ran on UYK-20s it was a pretty good stress test.
Logistics suck! Why would anybody care about them? We can design systems that require choke point transit, loading, WITH CONTRACTOR SUPPORT, and can fix the ship while under fire. Oh say, where is C5F's staff anyway?
The problem, Sid, is not the 'type of launcher'. All VLS-equipped ships once upon a time came with an embedded crane in one of the 8-cell modules (making that unit actually only 5 cells). Somebody decided that including the crane ate up space that could be used to pack in a handful of additional launchers. So instead of upgrading the cranes to work better, we threw them away.
We lived, for a time, in a world where the USN was the Imperial Navy, and nobody could stand against it. The risk of a sailor being injured by a swaying missile outweighed the risk of going Winchester.
Solution: Put the cranes back in. Make them robotic, so it's not a human trying to carefully maneuver a heavy missile cannister by eye in a heavy sea. We have better steels to make the crane out of. We have better, more powerful motors that can be used to make the cranes more robust.
Take advantage of all that computing power to make it easier. There's plenty of ways to skin the cat. It just needs to be somebody's priority because, right now, it isn't.
Given the instances of ships on the 'missile line' outside the Persian Gulf going 'Winchester', this will hopefully act as a wakeup call to Caudle and Hegseth to push the VLS reloading process forward.
"All VLS-equipped ships once upon a time came with an embedded crane in one of the 8-cell modules (making that unit actually only 5 cells). Somebody decided that including the crane ate up space that could be used to pack in a handful of additional launchers. So instead of upgrading the cranes to work better, we threw them away."
Exactly!!!!
Restating again that the USN abandoned the ability to reload at sea.
Was the system in place in my day great? No.
But it was a capability that existed.
Did the early VLS crane system work?
Not really. It was in its gestational stages. Could it have been made to work?
At the time the USN wasn't interested in trying.
So, today, the Navy has to leave the fight, and expose its ships to very significant risk to reload in foreign ports.
Low ammunition inventories dulls the vitriol that comes from this Administration’s political approach. Put up or shut up comes to mind. It’s going to be tough exerting U.S. foreign policy with a big broken stick.
Unfortunately, this requires actual forethought, and right now the only high-level decisionmaker in DC who *can* think that far ahead *and* would be willing to expend the political capital needed to get Congress to appropriate the needed funds is SecState.
I learned the phrase from my dad when he was XO of a CVA in Alameda.
He took me sailing for the very first time, and I asked why the ship looked pretty good on the starboard side against the pier after her very long deployment, but not so much on the port side we were looking at.
There are aircraft and brave men and women who fly them and they can use smart bombs, or standard dumb bombs. Maybe not as accurate and not as safe for the crews and pilots or as fast but the pilots and red shirts are loyal and ready to do the job.
We actually don't know how much Missile/ammo there is OpSec comes into play.
CDR Salamander, for once in your most recent posts, you are absolutely correct about missiles! We don’t have enough of what we need and where we need them. I know this by reading my news sources; my sources from TASS.
May I recommend we continue to be vigilant at our many Navy Bases here on our lower 48, in Alaska, Hawaii and on our American territories. We must “pass the word” if we see an unusual number for what may be PRC Fishing Boats forming a Blockade anywhere South of Taiwan. If you give some thought, right this very minute…for the Pacific ASEAN area, ask..
What will the PRC do to impede American interests?
Sadly, Indonesians were killed in one of the Middle East raids. Any idea how Indonesia will react?
“One War at a Time”! Yes!
Calling NATO a “Paper Tiger” is provocation!
CDR may I kindly ask your followers here to post what they see or read which gives them concern for American Safety? I’ll verify via my sources and reply back.
Three American Air Craft Carriers in the Middle East leaves which Air Craft Carriers in our Pacific region, above or below the equator! Thanks shipmates for helping me out here…
My Russian news reports success in a particular region Russia has worked on securing since 2022. Only when a Peace Negotiation is achieved in the Middle East, will heads turn to say, Let’s have a Ukrainian Election so we, too (Russia), may negotiate “Cease Fire! Peace!”
"What will the PRC do to impede American interests?"
Probably a lot short of risking its actual assets. The opening moves badly damaged the PRC and its faith in its gear, and coupled with the purges at home it is probably busy licking its wounds and "leading from behind" as it does a quick check up and tries to heal. It'll give intelligence, diplomatic and economic cover, and other forms of support to the Iranians but ultimately it cannot break through our ships and planes (let alone those of any other players like the rest of the Strait Coalition, or friendly neutrals to us like India) to help. So ultimately Iran is expendable to them, as much as they may not like it.
"Sadly, Indonesians were killed in one of the Middle East raids. Any idea how Indonesia will react?"
Probably muted. Indonesia doesn't care that much about its nationals being hideously mistreated and even enslaved by Iranian and Gulf Arab states in general and this won't change. It is also divided in that it has a kneejerk anti-Israeli bias to some degree, but as a moderate Sunni state and one focused on stability (especially internally) it's made some bad remarks about Iran, while triangulating between our camp and the Iranians (hence condemning Israel for striking Iran, condemning Iran for nuclear threats, making a deal with Japan over energy, and stating it is willing to convoy with the Strait Coalition).
Ultimately Indonesia's way more focused on its own internal problems and the controversy its President has and is bent on neutrality/non-alignment, so it probably isn't going to do much. Probably some vocal statements and posturing about its nationals and making some prep to limit the risk before going on its way. Right now its President is dealing with pretty widespread protests though, so that'd be priority.
"My Russian news reports success in a particular region Russia has worked on securing since 2022."
Who is the provider of your Russian News report, and secondly which particular region are we talking about?
Because bluntly, not only has Russian news gotten a justifiably godawful reputation for accuracy but it has if anything gotten even worse recently as the war has gone on, particularly about who holds what and who has secured what. Which is again why you literally have pro-Kremlin, pro-war non-regime commentators and analysts calling an audible saying that this endemic over-claiming on territory is going to get some of their people killed and resources destroyed. This is particularly evident on Kupyansk, which Putin and co repeatedly claimed was secured only for Zelenskyy to publicly visit it.
If you're talking about Luhansk Oblast like I think you are, yes the Russian government does indeed control the vast majority of it. But the Ukrainians still hold on to toeholds out West, and there are still endemic guerilla operations by Ukrainian loyalists behind the lines.
"Only when a Peace Negotiation is achieved in the Middle East, will heads turn to say, Let’s have a Ukrainian Election so we, too (Russia), may negotiate “Cease Fire! Peace!”"
That's not how the Ukrainian constitution works, for better or worse. The only reason Poroshenko got elected during 2014 was because the caretaker government under Yatsenyuk began the process before the Little Green Men arrived in Crimea and the Donbas, leading to the elections taking place during the outbreak of combat. And the only reason why Zelenskyy was elected and defeated Poroshenko in 2019 was because the fighting in the Donbas was not recognized as a formal war and so elections could go on in the areas not directly affected by it. But that's not the case now, and for better or worse (I mostly think worse) the Ukrainian Constitution forbids elections during a state of war or national emergency, which Ukraine recognizes itself as being in since 2022.
(Don't look at me, I think it's a dumb move. Similar to how they never fixed or codified a way to get rid of a Yanukovych like "Fled the duties of President but still claiming to be President" situation>0
There's also a nonzero chance that whoever was elected if not Zelenskyy would be more hawkish, not later. And the Kremlin isn't interested in negotiating or ceasefire, hence the moving goal posts over the last decade or so.
My fears have been that we are not ready to make the commitments necessary for the defense of our country. As much as I like Trump he has not prepared the country for the necessary changes in our government expenditures to BEGIN to prepare for our defense.
It will be too late when the first nuc destroys a major US city.
we need some solutions. even partial would help. Production of arms takes money and initiative; with a happy second benefit of creating jobs. creating jobs is a good thing. Maybe a new governmental push to create (not "loans") but DIRECT VENTURE FUNDING of companies similar to Anduril would result in new, multiple, sources for the various weapons we need. as with any venture, some will fail, but the few that succeed may become hugely important and beneficial.
I've got some buddies at the Air War College. War games against China all magically end at D+15 to avoid the embarrassment of depleted missile inventories.
Well, you can, "Hide in Plain Sight" like the Marines have deluded (better way to say it, bought into the analysis free approximation they made for logistics in their games...) themselves into believing how the LSM's will make it work.
I seem to recall the Imperial Japanese Navy running war games before the Battle of Midway, and when the officers playing the American side positioned carriers north of the island and then ambushed and clobbered the Japanese fleet, the referees reset the game and started over.
Because that kind of outlandish thing would never happen.
Indeed, and that's an absurd stance. But it's also pretty emblematic of a lot of war games, whether they're meant to be "we win" or even "we lose" (hence a lot of the estimates about things like Russian blitzkriegs in the Baltic). Don't get me wrong, the opening hours, days, weeks, and months of a conflict with the PRC would be important and you'd see a lot of front loading, but realistically speaking it would probably take much longer to play out. War can be a spring, a marathon, or both, and realistically speaking any hot war with the PRC would see vastly more targets at hand than we would have missiles to fire even if our stockpiles were vastly higher than they are. Which is one reason why production and resupply is so important.
Which is one thing most of the world and we have fallen short on.
I get that war fighters don't like REMFs, especially of the accountant variety. (Full disclosure: I am one. But I am also a pistol shooter and understand the need for a full magazine, including the tactical reload.) But I think that the accountants are just the messengers. The entire culture has Short Attention Span Disorder. (SASD). You can look at C-Suite bonuses based on quarterly earnings or Just In Time or the focus on metrics which are always short term or 1000 point swings in the Dow based on one tweet from Trump or the metastasis of short videos on TikTok or whatever. No one seems to have any idea about history either. I am not talking about the Roman Empire only but the 1980s. A lot of my internet commentary consists of history lessons.
Loading SM1-ER's prior to landing the Marines in Beirut in 1982...
https://live.staticflickr.com/3141/2594694067_df354a47a0_b.jpg
And loading 5" 54' and ASROC forward...
https://flic.kr/p/4MbTUt
The post WWII dry bulk UNREP system was centered around reloading missiles at sea.
Then we abandoned the concept.
Go figure.
This is what they took from us
It's not so much that we abandoned the concept as we designed ourself into a box with the great idea of VLS*. It sounded great and we were off to the races with the next new shiny thing. No real thought and no real operational testing of how it was really going to work.
And so here we are 40 years on realizing that maybe it's not the greatest thing ever. But it's too late because its all we have, so we're going to have to live with it or create equally unrealistic fixes to pretend we can unrep missiles. At least we only got 3 Zumwalts, cut the LCS production short, and realized we screwed the pooch on Constellation before the first one was built. (Fords and EMALS, et. al. are likely going to linger on forever though.)
I'd submit that VLS is the first if the big NAVSEA screwups.
*And when you think about it, what is the advantage of VLS? It's not less deck space. It's not less magazine space. It's sure as hell not ease of reload. SFAIK the only thing that it claims is potential redundancy when damage starts accruing. I.e. not all the cells will become inop and you will still be able to shoot. Even that seems somewhat shaky, IMO.
The advantages of VLS are that missiles don't need to move to be shot, exposed to weather for a period of time, and remove maintenance on a weather exposed piece of equipment. All those are important factors for maintaining the system in readiness.
Important enough to go Winchester and take two weeks to go reload?
A ship that fires off the entire magazine has to return anyway. If a complete reload is needed, missile loading rate from a CONREP will mean it will be longer to fill the magazine than just alongside.
It wont take two weeks.
And you cant even do a partial reload as seen above in any less time.
Really M. That book will do alot to chip away at your cynicism.
Especially as he recounts how he had to fight that along with a whole heap of Don't Give A Shite.
The book is a serious work that needs to be unearthed and passed about in your world.
The “two weeks” is the timeline YOU keep harping on about a VLS ship being out of the fight having to reload.
And when you have to reload in Bremerton, or San Diego?
Because Pearl, and Guam, and Yokohama are certainly going to be unavailable....
So, your destroyer scoots back to 'Diego, and reloads/refuels, and turns around and heads back to the first island chain and does what, with empty fuel tanks? Because we don't have any oilers....
Well, imagine a typical (planned) Cold War era engagement; a full regiment of Soviet Tu-22 supersonic bombers (24 machines), converging on your battle group from several direction (a typical tactics was to divide regiment in two group approaching target from different directions, and each group into "high altitude" and "low altitude" attack groups), under heavy jamming from escorting EW planes, and firing high-supersonic X-22 missiles from about 300 km standoff range. Now, you have four waves of Mach 3.5 missiles, coming at you from different directions, half of them targeting your escorts, half aiming at your largest ships (carriers, battleships, amphibious assault ships, ect.). Since the moment they would enter your SAM's envelope, you have about 3-4 minutes to shoot them all. Or you are dead.
So, which weapon you would prefer? A easy-to-replenish Mk-26 rail launcher that would allow you to launch about 12 missiles before X-22 would hit? Or hard-to-replenish Mk-41 VLS, that would allow you to fire all your SAM's beofre X-22 would hit?
You forgot about what the NTU...New Threat Upgrade...was about.
https://youtu.be/I7pHxouLlw8?si=RjU_zkOp7btzwx8Y
It was killed by the Aegis Mafia.
The NTU was good, but it added nothing to launchers reload rate.
I'm a fighter pilot.
I'd design the attack in two pieces - one as you describe (likely with drones spoofing real aircraft) and after everyone is winchester, another wave comes in with ship killers....
rate of fire and 360 degree coverage. Pretty sure it saves space too. Tico with 2 arms had 44 tactical length rounds vs 61/64 strike length thereafter.
Perry frigates had 40 rounds, including Harpoon, in their MK13. No way it could have put 40 VLS into the same footprint.
But that's the difference in the hull size.
From AI:
Capacity: 40 missiles, organized into two concentric rings (24 in the outer ring, 16 in the inner ring).
Module Diameter: 5.08 meters (Mods 1-3) to 5.15 meters (Mod 4).
Module Height: 5.80 meters below deck.
Above Deck Height: Approximately 3.15 meters to the top of the trunnion.
Loaded Weight: Approximately 85 tons (long tons).
Rate of Fire: One missile every 8–10 seconds.
Mk 41 would penetrate deeper from the deck and you can get 24 cells in that volume. Of course, that can be 72 rounds these days. Always trade offs.
Meant 96 rounds
The Mk-41 require more space per missile than Mk-13 drum storage because:
* Mk-41 designed to accomodate large-diameter missiles, like Tomahawk (as a result space is wasted for smaller diameter missiles, like SM-2);
* Mk-41 required to be fire-proof, blast-protected and have gas exhaust system, because missile is fired directly from it (while on Mk-13 it was launcher arm that handled this matters);
Fortunately, we never had to deal with a penetration or detonation with the Mk13's magazine. Flip it around, who thought/approved Zumwalt's Mk-57 VLS along the perimeter of the ship's hull was a good idea?
There were some inquires about "could Perry's Mk-13 be replaced with VLS", and he conclusion was, that the bow would fell away. The ship is VERY tightly build, and replacing round hole in decks (for Mk-13) with a square hole (for Mk-41) would compromise hull strength fatally.
"rate of fire and 360 degree coverage"
The double enders did alot to fix that.
https://www.navysite.de/cruisebooks/cg34-85/index.html
Sometimes you have to Macross Missile Massacre, and you can't do that with an arm launcher.
Can't do diddly with an empty VLS box...
Or no ship there at all, with none back any time soon.
Need a ship to carry missiles to reload your arm launchers, and we don't have enough of those....
True.
But those are best simulated in the games!
The main advantage of VLS is the rate of fire. With VLS, you could launch a missile each 1-2 seconds. Old-type rail launchers - even the best, like Mk-13 and Mk-26 - could release a missile only each 10-15 seconds. So during the Cold War, when the typical engagement foreseen involved dozens of heavy supersonic missiles coming from several directions, supported by heavy jamming - the rate of fire was viewed as most important.
Well, I was there as you might say. If you compare Spruances with 2 ABL vs VLS you see the advantages. But the decision that all destroyers should be G ships plays a role. The concept behind THawk was that the AUR would be kept in the can.
Also not sure Mk 13 and Mk 26 launchers were all that great either. We put Harpoon in the Mk 13 magazine but then you needed to be able to select it.
Speaking as a guy who had to move around ammo, the idea of CONREP and having missile moving around on deck a lot at speed in the open ocean gives me the willies. It seems like a great way to loose a man or a missile in an industrial accident.
There was a time when it was an Operational capability.
Even with the giant Talos...
https://www.okieboat.com/Copyright%20images/123%20UNREPS%20Refuel,%20rearm%20and%20resupply%204%201024%20C.jpg
And here is the book on how the UNREP system to make it happen was designed and built...Written by the gent who drove it through.
First thing that stands out is how Big Navy couldn't give two poohs about what he was up to.
https://books.google.com/books/about/Designing_the_U_S_Navy_s_Underway_Replen.html?id=kfrsE1v9hHsC
Those missiles are being held relatively low horizontally, and moved through a single loading location. Now, the loading tubes will be moved into a vertical orientation, and held up over an individual cell. The older system looks a lot more fault tolerant than the current one.
Also, where on a ship is there space for shipping tubes and the equipment to move them? Those aren't light things, and start taking up space really quick.
Read that book...find the hard copy if you can.
Those Port Hueneme folks came up with ways to load the Adams class single arm bandits. And even had a mechanism to handle the Talos vertically
And especially check out the last chapter. The author was working on reloading VLS cells in the 80's.
But nobody was interested in carrying it forward when he retired...
Until now.
Yeah. VLS has all the advantages you mention, but the inability to reload at sea negates them to a great...and potentially battle losing...extent.
Gets into reloadability of point defenses. RAM/Phalanx/Mk 38/Mk 110
That was certainly sorted by the Battle of the Phillipine Sea. Check out this newly dropped vid.
https://youtu.be/I56eLwuAETc?si=NH3j6g0Cky4rqz5P
All this great knowledge that got dumped when History Ended in 1991.
It's a hoot to see the Really Smart Guys! coo about 'new' epiphanies.
Phalanx is good for what 3-4 engagements before it needs reloading? RAM/SeaRAM is where it's at or, develop a dual gun/missile system since the drone threat is broad & varied and exigent.
"Also, where on a ship is there space for shipping tubes and the equipment to move them? Those aren't light things, and start taking up space really quick."
Shame nobody had the cojones to bring all that up. I was around when VLS was new and sexy. We knew our rate of fire and magazine capacity wasn't up to the threat, but we also immediately wondered what would happen if you lived long enough to have to reload.
You can't, "Stop the program. Stop the clock", in the Gulf of Oman.
I agree, loading at sea would not have been a fun day.
It's been long enough that I don't remember specifics, but IIRC a full missile loadout pier side took a good part of the day. It certainly would have taken more time along side unrepping.
But getting ten or even half a dozen beats none. And it was possible and had one just gone through an attack that put them winchester, or close, there would be motivation to get it done. With VLS it doesn't seem that there's any real chance of getting it done.
The main problem was, that VLS wasn't exactly very good in terms of loading. Old-type rail launchers have drum or conveyor horizontal magazines (like Mk-10 Terrier/SM-1ER GMLS), that could be reloaded easily; the missile was rolled on transport carriage toward the loading hatch, and lowered into magazine with special elevator. The systems that stored missiles vertically (like Mk-13, Mk-22, Mk-26 Tartar/SM-1MR GMLS) have loading-through-launcher capability; the missile was rolled toward the launcher, attached to lowered launcher rail, the launcher dragged missile on rail, turned it vertically and dropped missile into magazine hatch.
Tomahawk ABL wasn't that easy to reload.
The ABL was container launcher, not the rail one.
OK, but I am writing about Tomahawk reloading and magazine capacity ABL vs VLS. Keep in mind when TLAM was designed, the concept was it was strategic only, primarily we wanted to have TLAM-N at sea. From a launcher standpoint, TASM was the main consideration and the salvo doctrine was like two missiles.
Then for Desert Storm we were asked if we could ripple-fire 16 TLAMs out of the DD VLS. We hadn't ever tested that. Back then when the VLS LCUs ran on UYK-20s it was a pretty good stress test.
Logistics suck! Why would anybody care about them? We can design systems that require choke point transit, loading, WITH CONTRACTOR SUPPORT, and can fix the ship while under fire. Oh say, where is C5F's staff anyway?
The problem, Sid, is not the 'type of launcher'. All VLS-equipped ships once upon a time came with an embedded crane in one of the 8-cell modules (making that unit actually only 5 cells). Somebody decided that including the crane ate up space that could be used to pack in a handful of additional launchers. So instead of upgrading the cranes to work better, we threw them away.
We lived, for a time, in a world where the USN was the Imperial Navy, and nobody could stand against it. The risk of a sailor being injured by a swaying missile outweighed the risk of going Winchester.
Solution: Put the cranes back in. Make them robotic, so it's not a human trying to carefully maneuver a heavy missile cannister by eye in a heavy sea. We have better steels to make the crane out of. We have better, more powerful motors that can be used to make the cranes more robust.
Take advantage of all that computing power to make it easier. There's plenty of ways to skin the cat. It just needs to be somebody's priority because, right now, it isn't.
Given the instances of ships on the 'missile line' outside the Persian Gulf going 'Winchester', this will hopefully act as a wakeup call to Caudle and Hegseth to push the VLS reloading process forward.
"All VLS-equipped ships once upon a time came with an embedded crane in one of the 8-cell modules (making that unit actually only 5 cells). Somebody decided that including the crane ate up space that could be used to pack in a handful of additional launchers. So instead of upgrading the cranes to work better, we threw them away."
Exactly!!!!
Restating again that the USN abandoned the ability to reload at sea.
Was the system in place in my day great? No.
But it was a capability that existed.
Did the early VLS crane system work?
Not really. It was in its gestational stages. Could it have been made to work?
At the time the USN wasn't interested in trying.
So, today, the Navy has to leave the fight, and expose its ships to very significant risk to reload in foreign ports.
If those governments will allow it that is.
Reminds me of the shelf's of my local gun store....Empty !
If you want ammo here Chiraq Chicago, head over to O Block.
They keep a healthy inventory there...
https://youtu.be/MTBDZYTPmoo?si=sRZfNmz-Z2_gWtWj
Low ammunition inventories dulls the vitriol that comes from this Administration’s political approach. Put up or shut up comes to mind. It’s going to be tough exerting U.S. foreign policy with a big broken stick.
In those immortal words, "Reasons to be cheerful..."
Unfortunately, this requires actual forethought, and right now the only high-level decisionmaker in DC who *can* think that far ahead *and* would be willing to expend the political capital needed to get Congress to appropriate the needed funds is SecState.
https://x.com/CrankyHankJ/status/2039345378546381256/photo/1
No worries...our dear orange leader has stated we have "an unlimited" supply of ammunition.
He doesn't have anyone loyal enough in the Navy to let him in on the "Paint The Side The Admiral Sees!" ploy.
There are plenty though who are ok "Queeging" him.
I call them "Keefers"...
https://www.youtube.com/results?sp=mAEA&search_query=Caine+mutiny+party#bottom-sheet
A saying back in the day when admirals cared about properly painted ships with a passion.
I learned the phrase from my dad when he was XO of a CVA in Alameda.
He took me sailing for the very first time, and I asked why the ship looked pretty good on the starboard side against the pier after her very long deployment, but not so much on the port side we were looking at.
https://www.militarymuseum.org/Resources/NASAlamedaAC.jpg
He chuckled and said, "paint the side the Admiral sees..."
In retrospect, dont think he wanted to think about that for the moment!
There are aircraft and brave men and women who fly them and they can use smart bombs, or standard dumb bombs. Maybe not as accurate and not as safe for the crews and pilots or as fast but the pilots and red shirts are loyal and ready to do the job.
We actually don't know how much Missile/ammo there is OpSec comes into play.
CDR Salamander, for once in your most recent posts, you are absolutely correct about missiles! We don’t have enough of what we need and where we need them. I know this by reading my news sources; my sources from TASS.
May I recommend we continue to be vigilant at our many Navy Bases here on our lower 48, in Alaska, Hawaii and on our American territories. We must “pass the word” if we see an unusual number for what may be PRC Fishing Boats forming a Blockade anywhere South of Taiwan. If you give some thought, right this very minute…for the Pacific ASEAN area, ask..
What will the PRC do to impede American interests?
Sadly, Indonesians were killed in one of the Middle East raids. Any idea how Indonesia will react?
“One War at a Time”! Yes!
Calling NATO a “Paper Tiger” is provocation!
CDR may I kindly ask your followers here to post what they see or read which gives them concern for American Safety? I’ll verify via my sources and reply back.
Three American Air Craft Carriers in the Middle East leaves which Air Craft Carriers in our Pacific region, above or below the equator! Thanks shipmates for helping me out here…
My Russian news reports success in a particular region Russia has worked on securing since 2022. Only when a Peace Negotiation is achieved in the Middle East, will heads turn to say, Let’s have a Ukrainian Election so we, too (Russia), may negotiate “Cease Fire! Peace!”
Very respectfully, Nurse Jane
"What will the PRC do to impede American interests?"
Probably a lot short of risking its actual assets. The opening moves badly damaged the PRC and its faith in its gear, and coupled with the purges at home it is probably busy licking its wounds and "leading from behind" as it does a quick check up and tries to heal. It'll give intelligence, diplomatic and economic cover, and other forms of support to the Iranians but ultimately it cannot break through our ships and planes (let alone those of any other players like the rest of the Strait Coalition, or friendly neutrals to us like India) to help. So ultimately Iran is expendable to them, as much as they may not like it.
"Sadly, Indonesians were killed in one of the Middle East raids. Any idea how Indonesia will react?"
Probably muted. Indonesia doesn't care that much about its nationals being hideously mistreated and even enslaved by Iranian and Gulf Arab states in general and this won't change. It is also divided in that it has a kneejerk anti-Israeli bias to some degree, but as a moderate Sunni state and one focused on stability (especially internally) it's made some bad remarks about Iran, while triangulating between our camp and the Iranians (hence condemning Israel for striking Iran, condemning Iran for nuclear threats, making a deal with Japan over energy, and stating it is willing to convoy with the Strait Coalition).
Ultimately Indonesia's way more focused on its own internal problems and the controversy its President has and is bent on neutrality/non-alignment, so it probably isn't going to do much. Probably some vocal statements and posturing about its nationals and making some prep to limit the risk before going on its way. Right now its President is dealing with pretty widespread protests though, so that'd be priority.
"My Russian news reports success in a particular region Russia has worked on securing since 2022."
Who is the provider of your Russian News report, and secondly which particular region are we talking about?
Because bluntly, not only has Russian news gotten a justifiably godawful reputation for accuracy but it has if anything gotten even worse recently as the war has gone on, particularly about who holds what and who has secured what. Which is again why you literally have pro-Kremlin, pro-war non-regime commentators and analysts calling an audible saying that this endemic over-claiming on territory is going to get some of their people killed and resources destroyed. This is particularly evident on Kupyansk, which Putin and co repeatedly claimed was secured only for Zelenskyy to publicly visit it.
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/putin-is-lying-zelenskyy-visits-front-to-expose-false-claims-of-russian-gains/
If you're talking about Luhansk Oblast like I think you are, yes the Russian government does indeed control the vast majority of it. But the Ukrainians still hold on to toeholds out West, and there are still endemic guerilla operations by Ukrainian loyalists behind the lines.
"Only when a Peace Negotiation is achieved in the Middle East, will heads turn to say, Let’s have a Ukrainian Election so we, too (Russia), may negotiate “Cease Fire! Peace!”"
That's not how the Ukrainian constitution works, for better or worse. The only reason Poroshenko got elected during 2014 was because the caretaker government under Yatsenyuk began the process before the Little Green Men arrived in Crimea and the Donbas, leading to the elections taking place during the outbreak of combat. And the only reason why Zelenskyy was elected and defeated Poroshenko in 2019 was because the fighting in the Donbas was not recognized as a formal war and so elections could go on in the areas not directly affected by it. But that's not the case now, and for better or worse (I mostly think worse) the Ukrainian Constitution forbids elections during a state of war or national emergency, which Ukraine recognizes itself as being in since 2022.
(Don't look at me, I think it's a dumb move. Similar to how they never fixed or codified a way to get rid of a Yanukovych like "Fled the duties of President but still claiming to be President" situation>0
There's also a nonzero chance that whoever was elected if not Zelenskyy would be more hawkish, not later. And the Kremlin isn't interested in negotiating or ceasefire, hence the moving goal posts over the last decade or so.
Well said, Sal.
When I become king the MBAs will be swingin' from the lampposts.
So, offshoring our manufacturing was a tremendous idea. Factories in the Midwest were emptied out and knocked down. Thanks, guys.
My fears have been that we are not ready to make the commitments necessary for the defense of our country. As much as I like Trump he has not prepared the country for the necessary changes in our government expenditures to BEGIN to prepare for our defense.
It will be too late when the first nuc destroys a major US city.
I don't think they'll bother with a city. 85,000 ft on the east coast will cause months of calamity, perhaps years
we need some solutions. even partial would help. Production of arms takes money and initiative; with a happy second benefit of creating jobs. creating jobs is a good thing. Maybe a new governmental push to create (not "loans") but DIRECT VENTURE FUNDING of companies similar to Anduril would result in new, multiple, sources for the various weapons we need. as with any venture, some will fail, but the few that succeed may become hugely important and beneficial.
That is already happening every day. I am curious to see if we have many hard assets by the end of the current term.
I'm sure we'll have some, but whether we'll have enough, or they won't be improved out of fast production, remains to be seen.
Spot on analysis!
I've got some buddies at the Air War College. War games against China all magically end at D+15 to avoid the embarrassment of depleted missile inventories.
It's not a problem if you don't acknowledge it!
Well, you can, "Hide in Plain Sight" like the Marines have deluded (better way to say it, bought into the analysis free approximation they made for logistics in their games...) themselves into believing how the LSM's will make it work.
I seem to recall the Imperial Japanese Navy running war games before the Battle of Midway, and when the officers playing the American side positioned carriers north of the island and then ambushed and clobbered the Japanese fleet, the referees reset the game and started over.
Because that kind of outlandish thing would never happen.
Same thing came to my mind
Indeed, and that's an absurd stance. But it's also pretty emblematic of a lot of war games, whether they're meant to be "we win" or even "we lose" (hence a lot of the estimates about things like Russian blitzkriegs in the Baltic). Don't get me wrong, the opening hours, days, weeks, and months of a conflict with the PRC would be important and you'd see a lot of front loading, but realistically speaking it would probably take much longer to play out. War can be a spring, a marathon, or both, and realistically speaking any hot war with the PRC would see vastly more targets at hand than we would have missiles to fire even if our stockpiles were vastly higher than they are. Which is one reason why production and resupply is so important.
Which is one thing most of the world and we have fallen short on.
Life long builder of SM 1-3-6 out in Tucson
Thanks for the pat on the back, “ exquisite “ indeed. They are smarter than most high school students today.
Which is all to say, you better find a way to make accommodations.
I get that war fighters don't like REMFs, especially of the accountant variety. (Full disclosure: I am one. But I am also a pistol shooter and understand the need for a full magazine, including the tactical reload.) But I think that the accountants are just the messengers. The entire culture has Short Attention Span Disorder. (SASD). You can look at C-Suite bonuses based on quarterly earnings or Just In Time or the focus on metrics which are always short term or 1000 point swings in the Dow based on one tweet from Trump or the metastasis of short videos on TikTok or whatever. No one seems to have any idea about history either. I am not talking about the Roman Empire only but the 1980s. A lot of my internet commentary consists of history lessons.
Richard:
Today, "history" means which websites you visited in the last 24 hours.
History B.A., supply chain guy and worker in a large defense contractor. Spot on to the both of you and Sal too.
Those who study history are doomed to see everyone else repeat past mistakes...
History doesn't repeat itself, but it rhymes...
There's still no joy in Mudville.