So Congress is putting the brakes on the BBGN until its proposed weapons are proven. Since the only unproven weapon proposed is the railgun the simple solution is to delete it from the first 2-4 BBGN and add more VLS... in keeping with the theme of the post.
The trick is to leave enough space for future high power megawatt-class lasers without leaving too much unused volume in the superstructure and in the hull which can't be used for other purposes while those future lasers are under development. My latest version of an alternative BBGN design -- it isn't quite finished yet -- directly addresses that issue.
As has been written about (by Cdr Salamander if I'm not mistaken), good enough right now is better than perfect later, and possibly too late. A similar quote by Gen. Patton, "A good plan executed violently now, is better than a perfect plan executed next week."
There is actually a third version of the Mk 41, the self-defense module. This is considerably shorter and is designed for quad-packed ESSM. The Austalians used this version when they upgraded their Perry-class frigates when they put an eight-cell Mk 41 in front of their single-rail Standard launcher to give each ship an additional 32 ESSM.
As long as the blueprints exist and the market is there for it, the self-defense module can easily be put back into production. Obviously, it only differs in length from the tactical and strike length modules and thus shares considerable commonality with those versions.
The 14 day time limit is critical. Any decent team consisting of a naval architect, a marine engineer, a sensors guy, and a software engineer can provide a solution (with believable outcome tolerances) for each ship class in a fortnight. Give the team more time than that and all of the Good Idea Faeries will come out of the woodwork.
Worked on the Zumwalt proposal in my short time in the shipyard. The VLS cells were singles in a ring around the outer hull. The NAVSEA people adamantly opposed it, citing safety concerns. It was determined to be much safer than the VLS approach in use, and over NAVSEA's objections, won the proposal. Not sure if that design translates to other hulls but does indicate that the VLS and the old M6 / 26 launcher approach are not the only ways to skin the cat.
There are a series of problems that kill the idea of "just put more VLS anywhere":
* The VLS raise the upper weight quite significantly. They are vertical, after all; the missile weight is distributed in height. One ton six meters high is more problematic than ten tons below;
* The VLS require deck cuts to be installed. And this isn't exactly good from the hull integrity point of view;
* The VLS require free space around, so neither the missile itself would collide with something, nor its hot gases would damage something (don't forget, your missiles are hot-launch ones!)
In short, the idea of "just put more cells everywhere you could" looks nice on paper, but on practice the most likely answer would be "well, we can't, since we already have VLS in places where we could fit them"
If the constraints are stop signs, then like the Mulberries "...the difficulties will argue for themselves." A core problem with transformationalism is that the difficulties are used as the playground for every Fae with snake oil to sell.
True. But their combination make the whole idea far less attractive than in original cdr.Salamander article. While it is possible that some additional VLS could be put on some warships, it most likely would be impractical.
I love this idea, but I can tell you from leading the LPD17 mid life requirements push that we burned through the SWAP-C and weight/moment for a forward VLS years and years ago. Even with a fuel oil comp, we are nowhere near what we would have to be in order to pass compliance. Now, does that mean we don’t have options? No, it just means that it won’t be below deck VLS.
Now to get the missiles to launch 🚀. I hope they are in emergency mode to radically cut the time to build the multiple ordnance units we need. Before the Democrats cut our defense budget and spend the money on fraud.
The RUM-139A/B/C Vertical-Launch Anti-Submarine Rocket (VL-ASROC or VLA) is an anti-submarine missile in the ASROC family that is launched from Mk41 VLS. You only gave ASW VLA a mention.
The RUM-139 VL-ASROC (VLA) is fired from the Tactical length variant of the Mk41 VLS, which has an internal cell length of approximately 22 feet (6.7 meters). It can also be accommodated in the longer Strike length variant, which is about 25 feet (7.6 meters) long. Tactical length is significantly longer than Self-Defense length. This should be the minimum capability for the new FF(X) Frigate.
The concept of weapons in a container are good for things like cargo ships, auxiliaries, T-ATS, or other ships that have lots of deck space, power, and extra hotel services available. This does not describe a frigate or any other small surface combatant.
To continue the analysis . . . extra weight sitting above the waterline on a small surface combatant is never a good idea particularly if it might enjoy heavy weather. The smaller the ship the more impactful any mass added above the waterline is.
If one has the options and the time weapons systems should be designed within the platform saving the precious extra weight of the container, and that weapon system mass be ‘programmed in’ as efficiently and effectively as possible. Containers on deck where deck space is not generous, excess power even less . . . is just asking for trouble when adding weight topside, and is never good for stability. Anyone suggesting such an option either are not qualified, or have watched too many movies.
In the final argument the entire concept of just putting things in containers on deck is indicative of the just how unqualified those dealing with these design issues are.
When I read "...so in-sea reloading isn't a problem for them at all." I begin to wonder if this person has EVER BEEN UNDERWAY at all, or even conducted operations pier side with a crane. There is always dangers, and safety concerns . . . before you throw in the 'at sea' or 'pier side' equation!
Working parties transporting things aboard pier side at home port is one thing . . . doing any of the activities overseas, underway or not introduces its own variables with which one must deal. Tied up along side in a Pacific Atoll will not be a cakewalk when transferring ordinance.
A point, I agree. Still, it's simpler to reload horizontal launcher cell, than vertical one. Moving missile on powered trolley across the deck is not exactly "simple" - but much simpler, than hauling the missile with crane vertically.
Small surface combatants have the SMALLEST margins metacenter wise. Two large containers topside on the fantail will screw up the weights and balances and effect handling so bad that the idea will be given up immediately after it is tried and tested. The margins are small for putting heavy things above the center of gravity. Its just physics. I would not want to be in heavy weather above the Arctic Circle with two large Mk70 containerized launchers tied down aft.
Much like WWII, it was discovered that the anti-aircraft gun loadouts on ships at the beginning of the war were totally inadequate, particularly in the Pacific Theater. Ships started getting 40mm and 20mm guns stuck on them everywhere there was space and guns of lesser utility were replaced. Sure, the need for larger crews and magazine spaces cropped up along with additional berthing needs, but they figured it out. Granted, the crews suffered with cramped spaces, but the alternative was inadequate AA protection. New construction could take account for some of the space problems, but not as much as may have been desired.
Don't quote me on this, but I believe our 57mm cannon during WWII was based on the British six pound cannon. In the meantime the 3” gun had been around for a few decades, was navalized and a known quality.
Unimproved atolls, gulfs, and archipelagos will still exist. No infrastructure might remain, but the shelter provided by the land and the shallow water provided by the sea will both remain.
If we can't reload VLS cells underway, and guaranteed safe pierside facilities are a 4000+ nautical mile transit away, what other options will we have?
Aerospace engineers have the AIAA professional group, which hosts annual undergrad/grad design competitions.
We need a similar US-based naval architecture design competition for college students. Cut them loose on things like this. Have them design a new frigate, or unmanned surface vessels. With help from industry, you will get innovative concepts to play with.
Give them LCS and a mission to upgun it to ride shotgun on a CVBG or convoy as an anti-drone/small boat shooter, like a naval cavalry scout. I bet you’d get some interesting concepts.
LCS is a failed design, period. Trying to fix them will likely cost more than the original ships. The aluminum hulls crack, so they are speed limited, they were designed with the main fuel line over top of the engines, so a crack will cause a fire, the helo support area doesn't really support the helo det well, and they break down frequently. When they are working, they are on water hours. My daughter cruised on one in the IO...towed into port twice, on water hours the entire cruise, and a real nightmare for the crew.
There's also Adaptable Deck Launchers from BAE Systems. That's a bolt-on 1x2 cell solution that is proven for use with the MK 25 Quad Pack for Evolved Sea Sparrow. The video shows it being placed on a DDG where the Harpoons were mounted, but it could easily be on other ships. Now, how do we route fire control information to those mounts when placed aboard ships?
It is to be used to replace Mk 29 launchers on carriers and amphibs as NGELS, but we have yet to see it debut. That and Mk 70 would be more my focus, although single cell VLS would be great if we ever did look at a small, manned combatant.
They have 4 inches of steel inside the VLS perimeter. Think they picked the forward gun to remove and emplace CPS merely do to the magazine location? No, its also on the outside of a reinforced bulkhead and maintains the PVLS scheme.
So Congress is putting the brakes on the BBGN until its proposed weapons are proven. Since the only unproven weapon proposed is the railgun the simple solution is to delete it from the first 2-4 BBGN and add more VLS... in keeping with the theme of the post.
The lasers and CPS are at present also unproven.
The lasers are already combat proven. See USS Preble.
Lasers are in service on a number of ships and CPS is being installed on Zumwalts.
Not the lasers planned for BBG and we are still pending a CPS test shot. I didn't say we aren't close, but we aren't there yet either.
The trick is to leave enough space for future high power megawatt-class lasers without leaving too much unused volume in the superstructure and in the hull which can't be used for other purposes while those future lasers are under development. My latest version of an alternative BBGN design -- it isn't quite finished yet -- directly addresses that issue.
OK.
As has been written about (by Cdr Salamander if I'm not mistaken), good enough right now is better than perfect later, and possibly too late. A similar quote by Gen. Patton, "A good plan executed violently now, is better than a perfect plan executed next week."
Don't the Danes have a StanFlex that can hold 12 ESSM? Might be very useful to procure logistics vessels with StanFlex system mounts ASAP.
Trick is you now have a stand alone container for them with its own logistics chain. Ngels/adm, mk 70 and mk 41 all use the same containers.
There is actually a third version of the Mk 41, the self-defense module. This is considerably shorter and is designed for quad-packed ESSM. The Austalians used this version when they upgraded their Perry-class frigates when they put an eight-cell Mk 41 in front of their single-rail Standard launcher to give each ship an additional 32 ESSM.
Sir (or others) - Can somebody provide a photo or link to that arrangement?
https://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed-martin/rms/documents/naval-launchers-and-munitions/MK41_VLS_factsheet.pdf
The self-defense version is now out of production, AFAIK.
As long as the blueprints exist and the market is there for it, the self-defense module can easily be put back into production. Obviously, it only differs in length from the tactical and strike length modules and thus shares considerable commonality with those versions.
Yes, but seems that it wasn't a very popular solution due to being only able to handle ESSM.
trends change...and they can change again.
Incidentally, the Turkish Navy did exactly the same thing with several of their Perry-class frigates as well.
This is so simple and complete common sense. I can't believe someone hasn't already done it.
This is so simple and complete common sense, it's hard to imagine our Navy even considering it.
The 14 day time limit is critical. Any decent team consisting of a naval architect, a marine engineer, a sensors guy, and a software engineer can provide a solution (with believable outcome tolerances) for each ship class in a fortnight. Give the team more time than that and all of the Good Idea Faeries will come out of the woodwork.
Add a 4-hour review with an experienced CO of each ship class and let him pick appropriate E-8/9 to identify any obvious flaws.
Good plan. If I were King, I'd have them do an initial review after one week's work, and then have them on the 14 day review board.
Also run the drawings past a handful of smart 8 year old boys for review. If they ask a question nobody else thought of, pay attention.
Ask the sailors who will man the damn things
Worked on the Zumwalt proposal in my short time in the shipyard. The VLS cells were singles in a ring around the outer hull. The NAVSEA people adamantly opposed it, citing safety concerns. It was determined to be much safer than the VLS approach in use, and over NAVSEA's objections, won the proposal. Not sure if that design translates to other hulls but does indicate that the VLS and the old M6 / 26 launcher approach are not the only ways to skin the cat.
There are a series of problems that kill the idea of "just put more VLS anywhere":
* The VLS raise the upper weight quite significantly. They are vertical, after all; the missile weight is distributed in height. One ton six meters high is more problematic than ten tons below;
* The VLS require deck cuts to be installed. And this isn't exactly good from the hull integrity point of view;
* The VLS require free space around, so neither the missile itself would collide with something, nor its hot gases would damage something (don't forget, your missiles are hot-launch ones!)
In short, the idea of "just put more cells everywhere you could" looks nice on paper, but on practice the most likely answer would be "well, we can't, since we already have VLS in places where we could fit them"
These are constraints, not stop signs
IMHO, these are serious constraints -- serious enough that they will prove to be stop signs in actual practice.
If the constraints are stop signs, then like the Mulberries "...the difficulties will argue for themselves." A core problem with transformationalism is that the difficulties are used as the playground for every Fae with snake oil to sell.
True. But their combination make the whole idea far less attractive than in original cdr.Salamander article. While it is possible that some additional VLS could be put on some warships, it most likely would be impractical.
I love this idea, but I can tell you from leading the LPD17 mid life requirements push that we burned through the SWAP-C and weight/moment for a forward VLS years and years ago. Even with a fuel oil comp, we are nowhere near what we would have to be in order to pass compliance. Now, does that mean we don’t have options? No, it just means that it won’t be below deck VLS.
Now to get the missiles to launch 🚀. I hope they are in emergency mode to radically cut the time to build the multiple ordnance units we need. Before the Democrats cut our defense budget and spend the money on fraud.
The RUM-139A/B/C Vertical-Launch Anti-Submarine Rocket (VL-ASROC or VLA) is an anti-submarine missile in the ASROC family that is launched from Mk41 VLS. You only gave ASW VLA a mention.
The RUM-139 VL-ASROC (VLA) is fired from the Tactical length variant of the Mk41 VLS, which has an internal cell length of approximately 22 feet (6.7 meters). It can also be accommodated in the longer Strike length variant, which is about 25 feet (7.6 meters) long. Tactical length is significantly longer than Self-Defense length. This should be the minimum capability for the new FF(X) Frigate.
Apparently they want to solve the problem with Mk-70 containerized launcher; which have less hull size limitation and could accomodate ASROC-VL also.
I have said it before and I will say it again:
The concept of weapons in a container are good for things like cargo ships, auxiliaries, T-ATS, or other ships that have lots of deck space, power, and extra hotel services available. This does not describe a frigate or any other small surface combatant.
To continue the analysis . . . extra weight sitting above the waterline on a small surface combatant is never a good idea particularly if it might enjoy heavy weather. The smaller the ship the more impactful any mass added above the waterline is.
If one has the options and the time weapons systems should be designed within the platform saving the precious extra weight of the container, and that weapon system mass be ‘programmed in’ as efficiently and effectively as possible. Containers on deck where deck space is not generous, excess power even less . . . is just asking for trouble when adding weight topside, and is never good for stability. Anyone suggesting such an option either are not qualified, or have watched too many movies.
In the final argument the entire concept of just putting things in containers on deck is indicative of the just how unqualified those dealing with these design issues are.
On the other hand, the Mk-70 could be easily reloaded in horizontal position, so in-sea reloading isn't a problem for them at all.
When I read "...so in-sea reloading isn't a problem for them at all." I begin to wonder if this person has EVER BEEN UNDERWAY at all, or even conducted operations pier side with a crane. There is always dangers, and safety concerns . . . before you throw in the 'at sea' or 'pier side' equation!
Working parties transporting things aboard pier side at home port is one thing . . . doing any of the activities overseas, underway or not introduces its own variables with which one must deal. Tied up along side in a Pacific Atoll will not be a cakewalk when transferring ordinance.
THIS is ANOTHER argument for T-ADs.
A point, I agree. Still, it's simpler to reload horizontal launcher cell, than vertical one. Moving missile on powered trolley across the deck is not exactly "simple" - but much simpler, than hauling the missile with crane vertically.
Small surface combatants have the SMALLEST margins metacenter wise. Two large containers topside on the fantail will screw up the weights and balances and effect handling so bad that the idea will be given up immediately after it is tried and tested. The margins are small for putting heavy things above the center of gravity. Its just physics. I would not want to be in heavy weather above the Arctic Circle with two large Mk70 containerized launchers tied down aft.
Reloading?
Have four-pack connex box VLS as a get-you home solution as moving out of the theater. ESSM only in them.
Not an optimal solution, but it could be done easily, and procedurally treat as a single munition.
Likely couldn't be done without designing a new generation warships with build-in reloading equipment.
Much like WWII, it was discovered that the anti-aircraft gun loadouts on ships at the beginning of the war were totally inadequate, particularly in the Pacific Theater. Ships started getting 40mm and 20mm guns stuck on them everywhere there was space and guns of lesser utility were replaced. Sure, the need for larger crews and magazine spaces cropped up along with additional berthing needs, but they figured it out. Granted, the crews suffered with cramped spaces, but the alternative was inadequate AA protection. New construction could take account for some of the space problems, but not as much as may have been desired.
And IIRC even the 20mms were somewhat inadequate.
The 40mm were also being replaced by 3" mounts as well.
Makes me wonder if the 57mm adoption was for a known sweet spot we had never pursued.
Don't quote me on this, but I believe our 57mm cannon during WWII was based on the British six pound cannon. In the meantime the 3” gun had been around for a few decades, was navalized and a known quality.
Good idea.
Now, about reloading at sea......
... or, barring that, at anchor in calm waters in a place like Ulithi, Leyte Gulf, or Kerama (near Okinawa).
Think those harbors are going to be around D+1?
Unimproved atolls, gulfs, and archipelagos will still exist. No infrastructure might remain, but the shelter provided by the land and the shallow water provided by the sea will both remain.
If we can't reload VLS cells underway, and guaranteed safe pierside facilities are a 4000+ nautical mile transit away, what other options will we have?
Indeed. What other options?
Does the Navy have sufficient ships with the cranes, etc to load VLS cells in those atolls? Do they have sufficient VLS cells at all?
I think we both know the answers are uniformly "no."
Aerospace engineers have the AIAA professional group, which hosts annual undergrad/grad design competitions.
We need a similar US-based naval architecture design competition for college students. Cut them loose on things like this. Have them design a new frigate, or unmanned surface vessels. With help from industry, you will get innovative concepts to play with.
Give them LCS and a mission to upgun it to ride shotgun on a CVBG or convoy as an anti-drone/small boat shooter, like a naval cavalry scout. I bet you’d get some interesting concepts.
LCS is a failed design, period. Trying to fix them will likely cost more than the original ships. The aluminum hulls crack, so they are speed limited, they were designed with the main fuel line over top of the engines, so a crack will cause a fire, the helo support area doesn't really support the helo det well, and they break down frequently. When they are working, they are on water hours. My daughter cruised on one in the IO...towed into port twice, on water hours the entire cruise, and a real nightmare for the crew.
That may all be true, but they float, which is going to be better than most of the Pacific fleet after a month of war with China.
There's also Adaptable Deck Launchers from BAE Systems. That's a bolt-on 1x2 cell solution that is proven for use with the MK 25 Quad Pack for Evolved Sea Sparrow. The video shows it being placed on a DDG where the Harpoons were mounted, but it could easily be on other ships. Now, how do we route fire control information to those mounts when placed aboard ships?
https://www.baesystems.com/en/product/adaptable-deck-launcher
It is to be used to replace Mk 29 launchers on carriers and amphibs as NGELS, but we have yet to see it debut. That and Mk 70 would be more my focus, although single cell VLS would be great if we ever did look at a small, manned combatant.
Bluetooth?
Realistically, though, I'd hate to have a wireless, hackable fire-control circuit
If it’s an existing mount replacement, it’ll be easy to route the data. A new one, less so.
Picture the division's sole FCSN frantically running out to the launcher with a USB stick.
Nah, I’m thinking CAT5 jumpers here, duct taped in place!
lolol
Hang them on the outside and weld them in. Call them "reactive armor".
Ala Zumwalts
They have 4 inches of steel inside the VLS perimeter. Think they picked the forward gun to remove and emplace CPS merely do to the magazine location? No, its also on the outside of a reinforced bulkhead and maintains the PVLS scheme.