Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Surface Forces Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: vls on u.s. carriers
stinger    2/6/2008 1:21:40 AM
are they going to install vertical launch system on the new carriers , so they can fire sm-2 or sm-3 missiles, essm or even a salvo of tomahawks, that might be a little over kill, but at least be capable of defending itself in the modern days.it would be such a waste if not. the destroyers and cruisers can still protect the carrier in choke points and straits but focus more on destroying the enemy than providing cover at all times but just in critical areas.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12   NEXT
benellim4       2/8/2008 7:15:07 PM
The French excuse for an aircraft carrier using VLS:
32 Aster 15
12 Mistral

CVN-65 without VLS
16 SeaSparrow (can be upgraded to ESSM)
42 RAM

Source: Wiki

VLS does not always mean you can defend yourself better. VLS is great for engaging large numbers of threats at long range. Exactly what we built the Mk41 to do three decades ago. It isn't always the best choice for targets that don't give you much of an opportunity to kill them. 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       2/8/2008 7:23:16 PM

Herald :

""Wonder why.""



Since when a Carrier shouldn 't have VLS ? As an Admiral , I 'd like to see all my ships equipped with VSL .

Btw Herald , get stuffed .



Cheers .



No originality.

Can't you at least try to come up with something original like:

"I have positionally located your head, BW, by noting its close proximity to where inside your body  you generate and produce your "irrefutable" facts. Of course I have two minor questions. How do you manage to contort into such an awkward position and how do you see?"

Herald
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy       2/8/2008 7:28:31 PM
I am a little confused at why so many of you are confusing the notion of a VLS with long range missiles.  The VLS is just a mechanism for launching ordnance, it does not directly relate to the type of ordnance.

I don't believe anti-ship, land-attack, or long range SAM's should be fitted to carriers.  These are offensive weapons, while the offensive capabilities of a carrier are in their air-wing, and as much space and weight allocation as possible should be allotted to this air-wing.

However their is no logical reason as to why an aircraft carrier should sacrifice self-defence capability in doctrine.  Short-range SAM's and CIWS's are invaluable.  To leave them out of the design on space issues is inane due to their comparative small size, while excluding them on cost grounds is insane given the overall cost of the platform and number of crew on-board..

I don't know much in the way of naval doctrine.  However I would suggest it is stupid to turn the radars off on an aircraft carrier while under attack.  Aircraft carriers are not stealth ships.  They are huge chunks of metal, and any post 1940's era radar will be able to see them if they are on the right side of the horizon.  The answer to defence is in lots of radars, lots of ECM, lots of chaff, and lots of missiles.

The VLS is superior to the rail launcher.  It does not require a separate magazine or loading mechanism.  It does not require to be aimed.  All its missiles are ready to fire.

 
Quote    Reply

benellim4       2/8/2008 7:38:06 PM

I am a little confused at why so many of you are confusing the notion of a VLS with long range missiles.  The VLS is just a mechanism for launching ordnance, it does not directly relate to the type of ordnance.

However their is no logical reason as to why an aircraft carrier should sacrifice self-defence capability in doctrine.  Short-range SAM's and CIWS's are invaluable.  To leave them out of the design on space issues is inane due to their comparative small size, while excluding them on cost grounds is insane given the overall cost of the platform and number of crew on-board..

I don't know much in the way of naval doctrine.  However I would suggest it is stupid to turn the radars off on an aircraft carrier while under attack.  Aircraft carriers are not stealth ships.  They are huge chunks of metal, and any post 1940's era radar will be able to see them if they are on the right side of the horizon.  The answer to defence is in lots of radars, lots of ECM, lots of chaff, and lots of missiles.

The VLS is superior to the rail launcher.  It does not require a separate magazine or loading mechanism.  It does not require to be aimed.  All its missiles are ready to fire.


You should read your part in yellow. I hate to say stay in your swim-lane, but you get the idea.

No one is confusing VLS for long range missiles. I understand it is a launcher. I've been in one. Have you? If so how large was it? I've participated in missile firings from them, have you?

I'll recount a personal experience. I was on an FFG. We were doing a missile exercise with Aegis destroyers and cruisers all VLS equipped. We all got permission to fire at the same time. My little FFG with its old Mk92 FCS and it's old Mk13 launcher got it's old SM-1 to the target faster. YOU tell me why that was.

One more point. The mechanical launchers we have on carriers now all have their birds ready to go, unlike the Mk13 that had to reload after every missile. They can also be reloaded. It's hard to reload a VLS at sea. In fact, it was done so rarely the capability to reload VLS underway was removed with the Flight IIAs. 

VLS is NOT superior in every respect. It is a damned fine launcher for what it was designed for, but it is NOT the answer to every question.
 
Quote    Reply

benellim4       2/8/2008 7:44:57 PM

I am a little confused at why so many of you are confusing the notion of a VLS with long range missiles.  The VLS is just a mechanism for launching ordnance, it does not directly relate to the type of ordnance.

However their is no logical reason as to why an aircraft carrier should sacrifice self-defence capability in doctrine.  Short-range SAM's and CIWS's are invaluable.  To leave them out of the design on space issues is inane due to their comparative small size, while excluding them on cost grounds is insane given the overall cost of the platform and number of crew on-board..

I don't know much in the way of naval doctrine.  However I would suggest it is stupid to turn the radars off on an aircraft carrier while under attack.  Aircraft carriers are not stealth ships.  They are huge chunks of metal, and any post 1940's era radar will be able to see them if they are on the right side of the horizon.  The answer to defence is in lots of radars, lots of ECM, lots of chaff, and lots of missiles.

The VLS is superior to the rail launcher.  It does not require a separate magazine or loading mechanism.  It does not require to be aimed.  All its missiles are ready to fire.


You should read your part in yellow. I hate to say stay in your swim-lane, but you get the idea.

No one is confusing VLS for long range missiles. I understand it is a launcher. I've been in one. Have you? If so how large was it? I've participated in missile firings from them, have you?

I'll recount a personal experience. I was on an FFG. We were doing a missile exercise with Aegis destroyers and cruisers all VLS equipped. We all got permission to fire at the same time. My little FFG with its old Mk92 FCS and it's old Mk13 launcher got it's old SM-1 to the target faster. YOU tell me why that was.

One more point. The mechanical launchers we have on carriers now all have their birds ready to go, unlike the Mk13 that had to reload after every missile. They can also be reloaded. It's hard to reload a VLS at sea. In fact, it was done so rarely the capability to reload VLS underway was removed with the Flight IIAs. 

VLS is NOT superior in every respect. It is a damned fine launcher for what it was designed for, but it is NOT the answer to every question.
 
Quote    Reply

stinger       2/8/2008 8:11:25 PM
forget the VLS I'm just saying if its possible to include more air defense missiles like SM-2 or 3 to be included in a CVN armament package.If you were to launch a massive missile strike at a carrier and had to rely only on the CG and destroyer for your air defense that would be wrong.  Especially long range, high altitude,  bombers using long range missiles. the whole point is to try to destroy the target before they fire. SM missiles are defensive weapons. please don't jump all over me for saying this but in the movie  sum of all fears,  the Russians put a hurt on the CBG. the escorts were overwhelmed.  If the carrier had SM missiles it might have gotten a few of them before the local air defense had to be used. Carriers when you think about it really only has last defense technology. remember people this is just a forum where we throw ideas and comments around, there is no need to insult or degrade the other person. that's why were all here talking, and making up ideas and throwing it around,,,  aloha.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    More or less.   2/8/2008 8:20:38 PM
Can launchers are not single arm launchers like the Mark 13, but Benellin has the right of it. Rail launchers can point the missile AT the threat faster than it can flop over in flight..

A can launcher like the one for the RAM missile  has the missile in a canister ready to go-combining the cell features of a VLS and the slew and elevate features of a rail launcher. Trouble is its only good for small fastburner missiles.

As for the hulk being a big  radar target?  If I'm a DUMB cruise missile zipping in at Mach 2.5 at 1oo meters over the water, when will I see the carrier?

Hsub1=100
Hsub2=50

Radar about 75,000 meters

Now hypothetically I just flew off a radar/infrared target decoy that returns an RCS  5x or 10x the echo return of a Nimitz?

Hsub1=100
Hsub2=250

Radar about 106,000 meters. Carrier  goes one way, the decoy either hangs astern or mimics the carrier  motion on a different vector. The confused vampire turns on his IR and RDF homers. The carrier goes cold and silent since all her fighting radars are flying overhead in the Hawkeye. The Tico lights up heat and radio since it has to engage, just in case the confused vampire picks the carrier at 75,000 meters in spite of all the countermeasures.

The carrier for the most part will use self homing last chance defense rockets for very good reason.

Since the enemy cruise missiles are not likely to get the Hawkeye it can keep radiating and the AEGIS defense will operate off of it as much as it can. Surface ship radars will only be used to the extent necessary to track and solve for the actual engagements required. The preferred method is to DECOY at the middle distance bands, if its possible.

Herald

 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy       2/8/2008 8:29:14 PM



I am a little confused at why so many of you are confusing the notion of a VLS with long range missiles.  The VLS is just a mechanism for launching ordnance, it does not directly relate to the type of ordnance.

However their is no logical reason as to why an aircraft carrier should sacrifice self-defence capability in doctrine.  Short-range SAM's and CIWS's are invaluable.  To leave them out of the design on space issues is inane due to their comparative small size, while excluding them on cost grounds is insane given the overall cost of the platform and number of crew on-board..

I don't know much in the way of naval doctrine.  However I would suggest it is stupid to turn the radars off on an aircraft carrier while under attack.  Aircraft carriers are not stealth ships.  They are huge chunks of metal, and any post 1940's era radar will be able to see them if they are on the right side of the horizon.  The answer to defence is in lots of radars, lots of ECM, lots of chaff, and lots of missiles.

The VLS is superior to the rail launcher.  It does not require a separate magazine or loading mechanism.  It does not require to be aimed.  All its missiles are ready to fire.


You should read your part in yellow. I hate to say stay in your swim-lane, but you get the idea.

No one is confusing VLS for long range missiles. I understand it is a launcher. I've been in one. Have you? If so how large was it? I've participated in missile firings from them, have you?

I'll recount a personal experience. I was on an FFG. We were doing a missile exercise with Aegis destroyers and cruisers all VLS equipped. We all got permission to fire at the same time. My little FFG with its old Mk92 FCS and it's old Mk13 launcher got it's old SM-1 to the target faster. YOU tell me why that was.

One more point. The mechanical launchers we have on carriers now all have their birds ready to go, unlike the Mk13 that had to reload after every missile. They can also be reloaded. It's hard to reload a VLS at sea. In fact, it was done so rarely the capability to reload VLS underway was removed with the Flight IIAs. 

VLS is NOT superior in every respect. It is a damned fine launcher for what it was designed for, but it is NOT the answer to every question.
You should read the part in yellow.

Oh, and how many simultaneous missile attacks could your FFG have shot down with it's old Mk13 launcher before one potentially hit you?

 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy       2/8/2008 8:31:12 PM

Can launchers are not single arm launchers like the Mark 13, but Benellin has the right of it. Rail launchers can point the missile AT the threat faster than it can flop over in flight..


But Herald, assuming the launchers are positioned around the corners of the carrier for a reason, can a launcher in the starboard rear corner engage a target approaching from the port fore corner?

A lone VLS can engage all threats.

 
Quote    Reply

benellim4       2/8/2008 8:39:04 PM

forget the VLS I'm just saying if its possible to include more air defense missiles like SM-2 or 3 to be included in a CVN armament package.If you were to launch a massive missile strike at a carrier and had to rely only on the CG and destroyer for your air defense that would be wrong.  Especially long range, high altitude,  bombers using long range missiles. the whole point is to try to destroy the target before they fire. SM missiles are defensive weapons. please don't jump all over me for saying this but in the movie  sum of all fears,  the Russians put a hurt on the CBG. the escorts were overwhelmed.  If the carrier had SM missiles it might have gotten a few of them before the local air defense had to be used. Carriers when you think about it really only has last defense technology. remember people this is just a forum where we throw ideas and comments around, there is no need to insult or degrade the other person. that's why were all here talking, and making up ideas and throwing it around,,,  aloha.


Not jumping all over you, but Sum was the WORST movie I've ever seen as it pertains to naval combat. Taking lessons from that is like trying to learn history from watching the History Channel.

Do yourself a favor. Look up the cost of CVN-21, aka CVN-78. Then look up the cost of Aegis. Then look up the cost of a Mk41 VLS. Then look up the cost of the SM-2 Block III missile. Add those together. How many ships do you think we could afford? We certainly couldn't maintain 12 of those with that cost. If we did, we'd have to give up surface combatants, which were are already woefully short of. We can't afford "gold-plated" ships. The submarine community learned that with the Seawolf-class, and the surface community is about to learn that with DDG-1000.

CVN-65/CVN-68 already carry 58 surface to air missiles in a ready condition. How many more do you want?

As for your long-range high-altitude bombers, the carrier already carries the best defense against this. It's called SuperHornet armed with AMRAAM. Kill the archer. That's what F-14/AWG-9/AIM-54 was designed to do, and that's what SuperHornet/APG-79/AIM-120 can do for you today. 


 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics