...In the instance of a choice between a very large turret, all its gears, gizmos, feeders, hoists, bells, and whistles, plus its magazine containing however many hundred rounds, 

or a large multicelled, quadpackable (or more) VLS,

does someone sit around and do the math as to what exactly is the fair trade off point?

(at what point is a turretless VLS array the better option,

and at what point is no-VLS-but-large-turret,-mechanisms,-and-magazine

the better alternative?)

 

Something simple I never took into account on mounting a large AGS-type turret: barrel swing.

Everything around the turret has to create a clear enough deck area to allow the gun to traverse effectively and safely,

especially when we're talking about a barrel that's somewhere between 25-30 feet long.

 

But at some point, there would be an arc behind the turret, in front of the superstructure,

where we aren't comfortable with the gun's muzzle blast getting that close to whatever's at the front of the superstructure (windows, sensors, etc), especially moreso in a 6" gun than anything 5" and less (which would be compounded if we adapted land-based artillery tubes equipped with those side-deflecting muzzle brakes).

 

A VLS, while certainly having its own issues with flame efflux and backblast from exiting missiles, doesn't have to worry about traversing clearances; you can just cover the gun's equivalent traverse acreage in VLS cells, providing there's adequate volume belowdecks.

Which gives you more munitions?

an AGS magazine with a large turret requiring 60 or so feet (diameter from the center of the turret's rotation) of all-around traversing clearances,

or a 60-some-feet-on-one-edge VLS array?

(Do any of you guys have on hand that website showing exact VLS cell dimensions?)

 

MASS is not the issue but storage volume of the space the missile uses as opposed to the shell is.

Article source....

Those rockets are HUGE and more than 70/30 propellant to cargo ratio. I've said this THREE times already.

Herald

Mk 41 Strike Length: keep these as is for the big heavy hitters: TLAMs, Harpoon types, SM-2,-3,-6, etc,

 & some future scrammer that fits inside the same cells. Might even be feasible to develop an extended range, quadpacked POLAR (the cell length is there), or even dedicated longer-ranged land attack ESSMs (in quads also, using that 10-inch diameter motor section).

 

Mk 41 Tactical: still gonna need that AsRoc capability. Here's where we quadpack the ESSMs and standard-range POLARs, and P44s too (try for denser packing: 7-inch diameter vs up to 10-inch in ESSM).

 

Mk 57 PVLS: DDG1000, and maybe CG(X), specific.

We're looking for fallbacks, as a very limited run of both ships is likely.

 

Mk48/Mk56: Why keep older RIM-7s in service when ESSM is obviously the superior product?

Single POLAR capability for those allies who want OTH attack capability but lack Harpoon & TLAM volume.

Don't have anything small enough to quadpack in here, but if we really wanted it, lengthening Mistral-sized (8-9cm diameter) missiles could provide coastal capability for FACs and other corvettes that can't carry Mk41 cells.

Range, judging by the AVIBRAS Skyfire 70 2.75" rockets, would exceed 15km, warheads to 20 pounds (based on a 70mm holding 15 pounds).

Not quite SeaRAM sized, but in that neighborhood (can't really exceed 4-inch diameter if quadpacking).

Be interesting to see if these smaller VLS cells can be made SLAMRAAM (Fire&Forget) and Umkhonto (IR) compatible, possibly even launch Israel's SYPDER/Derby series...

And could a mini-AsRoc, firing those Penn State-designed minitorps (16cm diameter?) be developed, to supplement over-the-side 12.75" TTs? Could still poke holes in smaller AIP-equipped SSK types.

Gets real tricky when the vessel in question may only have space for only 16 cells...

 

Something also to consider: a smaller format PVLS, with the intent of arming frigates and smaller craft. These would most likely also be of the size class to hold single ESSMs and these similar systems (standard-range POLAR, P44, even extended range NetFires PAMs, etc).

DDG1000 ideas are supposed to spiral out into other platforms, correct?

I have addressed this, 

AGS + 320 rnds equals a 61 cell VLS plus a 5" Mk45 mount plus ammo.

A 61 cell VLS mount with 9 x 7" missiles per cell is 549 missiles.

That's 229 munitions more than the AGS option.

And that doesn't count the Mk45 mount.

As doggtag said, you can't just count gun projectiles and propellant.  You have to take the whole package - AGS, plus hoists and magazines, and so on. 

There's a lot of dead volume and deckspace there.

Cell separation, flame diverters,  electronics runs, quench plumbing, ARMOR,  man maintenance runs, yeah a lot of dead space. And you still haven't addressed the fact that you can reload a gun magazine AT SEA, whereas with a VLS you have to port to reload.

That is on top of the rockets' volume.

Nothing is as SIMPLE as it seems. And yes I took the feeds and hoists into account.

Herald.

I have said that reloading at sea is an issue.  However we did develop a mechanism to do so, we just deemed it unnecessary and removed it.  Certainly a new, more effective system could be developed at far less expense than a massive gun mount with automated magazine. 

 

Again, this partially comes back to issues of just how many of those on-hand missiles do we need?

300 mix-n-match VLS shots, roughly ESSM sized rounds each,

already gives us:

-more SAMs than most nations we'll face have aircraft to shoot down (are our naval SAMs so unreliable that we'll need at least a 2:1 ratio to guarantee kills?)

-more ASW rockets/torps than said nations have subs to sink,

-and still have nearly 100 surface attack rounds, which is still a helluva lot of targets (and with a 90kg-sized POLAR warhead, a good many of those could be targets that even SDBs can't tackle).

 

Station just two USN ships equipped with those 300-shot VLS arrays (not every threate nation can lob BMs at us, so SM-3 ABM capability isn't always a necessity, either),

and you've got enough firepower off a given nation's coast that could seriously cripple any warfighting ability within reach of those vessels.

So it may not even be necessary to even have to UNREP a VLS array, which was one of the other arguments for removing strikedown/reloading equipment from USN ships: just how many of our how-many-thousand VLS cells will we ever actually need to use in a given conflict?

Will a given vessel actually need to expend every last munition to accomplish a mission, without having fully-stocked vessels coming to relieve it before the ship reaches zero missiles left?

 

Quadruple that number with quadpacks of smaller munitions for use against less-sophicated, less-well-equipped troublemakers, and just how many ships will you need to subdue him?

 

(Is it really cost effective to park a DDG1000 off the coast of some 3rd world nation whose total resource value doesn't even match the cost of a single Zummwalt?)

 

My argument also.

I don't want USN-specific.

I want to make more money by selling it to as many allies as possible, keeping them wrapped up in our associated technical support and spare parts chains also.

Again, there are far more VLS-and-5-inch-gun users than there will be AGS/LRLAP users.

 

You will get four per cell. Recompute your assumptions.These are ROCKETS not sausages or metal storm rounds. Why do you think ESSM is a quadpack in a Mark 41 cell?
(Herald )