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 8:52:21 PM



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?

Actually, more than you know.  Even with our sustained fire rate of 8 seconds 
(ht tp://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/mk13-gmls.pdf), we could hold our own. The Mk29 doesn't have that 8 second limitation because it doesn't have to reload. Neither does the Mk49 RAM launcher.

The Mk41 was designed to deal with a Soviet style attack using Kingfisher missiles from TU-22Ms. Last time I checked, that is not the threat today. For the threat today the Mk29 has many advantages over a VLS. 

I'm not down on VLS. In fact, I entrust my life to it. However, I realize that it has limitations and it is not the best choice for every situation/mission. 

 
Quote    Reply

benellim4       2/8/2008 8:54:10 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.

Only if you put it somewhere where it competes for space with the flight deck.

 
Quote    Reply

benellim4       2/8/2008 8:56:31 PM

 starboard rear corner
port fore corner?

We call that the starboard quarter and the port bow, BTW.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    What one second costs in an engagement.   2/8/2008 9:11:13 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.

Remember that I pointed out the VLS rocket pops up and then it has to flop over and either be captured by guidance or acquire the vampire in its FoV?

I wrote that could cost up to a second. in same cases [in a certain famous crap missile for example] you may fail to capture to update or it may not pick up in its FoV and you just fired a brick.

What happens when you popped out a Mach 4 interceptor to stop a Mach 2.5 vampire from a VLS and you had that 1 second delay?  You just lost 1755 meters of separation in the one second it took to acquire.

Now suppose you launch every second on the second and you have 5 vampires incoming.

All distances of separation are in meters at one second intervals presumed missile is Aster with 80%PK  enemy  vampires acquired at nominal  horizon line after countermeasures fail Interceptor is Mach 4 and inbound vampire is Mach 2.5 with 1000 kg warhead.

Descending time scale is read from bottom to top.

0 vampire 5 hits you
1755 second rocket on vampire 4 leaves acquisition at 0 vampire 4 hits you
3510 first rocket on vampire 4 leaves acquisiton 1755 miss
5265 second rocket on vampire 3 leaves 3510
7020 first rocket on vampire 3 leaves acquisition
8775  second rocket on vampire 2 leaves  acquisition 7020
10530  first rocket on vampire 2 leaves acquisition 8775
12285   second rocket  on vampire 1 leaves  acquistion 10530
14040  first rocket on vampire 1 leaves 1 second acquisition 12285

Now......same setup except:
RAM fired from  fore and aft slew/elevate can launchers ripple at same threat/same time

All distances of separation are in meters at one second intervals presumed missile is RAM with 90%PK  enemy  vampires acquired with no measured flopover delay at nominal  horizon line after countermeasures fail

Forward can launcher                                                  Aft can launcher
0 no engagement                                                          0 no engagement
1755 no engagement                                                    1755 no engagement    
3510  no engagement                                                   3510 no engagement
5265 third rocket on vampire 3 leaves kill                     5265 no engagement
7020 first rocket on vampire 5 leaves                            7020 second rocket on vampire 5 leaves kill   
8775  first rocket on vampire 4 leaves                           8775 second rocket on vampire  4 leaves kill
10530  first rocket on vampire 3 leaves                       10530 second rocket on vampire 3 leaves miss
12285  first rocket  on vampire 2 leaves   &nbs
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy       2/8/2008 10:01:31 PM

The Mk41 was designed to deal with a Soviet style attack using Kingfisher missiles from TU-22Ms. Last time I checked, that is not the threat today. For the threat today the Mk29 has many advantages over a VLS. 

I'm not down on VLS. In fact, I entrust my life to it. However, I realize that it has limitations and it is not the best choice for every situation/mission. 


Benelli, the threat today is not relevant, so long as other threats have the potential to exist.  I know as well as you do, that a Oliver Hazard Perry would be a relatively easy target for a missile attack, compared to modern frigates fitted with VLS.  For instance a Type 23 frigate can fire 32 short-ranged SAM's almost as fast as the directors can guide them.  This is necessary to counter modern threats, such as a diesel submarine launching a salvo of 4-6 missiles, passing through weigh-points and attacking from different directions simultaneously.

As I said, I am no expert at naval doctrine, and I don't pretend to be.  I am not disagreeing with you in general, however in the context of point defence of a carrier, I don't think the VLS should be overlooked.  I think the French have the right idea with the Charles De Gualle (shame about the name, De Gualle was a t***).

 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy       2/8/2008 10:02:57 PM


Only if you put it somewhere where it competes for space with the flight deck.


But why?  You could stick a VLS MICA system in an iso container, and bolt it onto the side of the bridge, if you wanted to.  Then just stick a couple of directors on the funnel.

I'm being simplistic, but you get my point.
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy       2/8/2008 10:04:02 PM



 starboard rear corner
port fore corner?

We call that the starboard quarter and the port bow, BTW.
Meh, I was going to say back-left and front-right.

 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd       2/9/2008 2:10:45 AM



Only if you put it somewhere where it competes for space with the flight deck.



But why?  You could stick a VLS MICA system in an iso container, and bolt it onto the side of the bridge, if you wanted to.  Then just stick a couple of directors on the funnel.

I'm being simplistic, but you get my point.


A VLS system bolted on the side of the bridge would probably block some critical electronics.
 
Another factor to consider is exhaust impingment on surrounding equipment.  Look at existing VLS installations, there are no sensors or other electronics, flight decks, etc. directly adjacent to them.  These launchers effect far more real estate than the area with the hatch covers.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       2/9/2008 3:22:00 AM

Remember that I pointed out the VLS rocket pops up and then it has to flop over and either be captured by guidance or acquire the vampire in its FoV?

I wrote that could cost up to a second. in same cases [in a certain famous crap missile for example] you may fail to capture to update or it may not pick up in its FoV and you just fired a brick.

What happens when you popped out a Mach 4 interceptor to stop a Mach 2.5 vampire from a VLS and you had that 1 second delay?  You just lost 1755 meters of separation in the one second it took to acquire.

Now suppose you launch every second on the second and you have 5 vampires incoming.

All distances of separation are in meters at one second intervals presumed missile is Aster with 80%PK  enemy  vampires acquired at nominal  horizon line after countermeasures fail Interceptor is Mach 4 and inbound vampire is Mach 2.5 with 1000 kg warhead.

Descending time scale is read from bottom to top.

0 vampire 5 hits you
1755 second rocket on vampire 4 leaves acquisition at 0 vampire 4 hits you
3510 first rocket on vampire 4 leaves acquisiton 1755 miss
5265 second rocket on vampire 3 leaves 3510
7020 first rocket on vampire 3 leaves acquisition
8775  second rocket on vampire 2 leaves  acquisition 7020
10530  first rocket on vampire 2 leaves acquisition 8775
12285   second rocket  on vampire 1 leaves  acquistion 10530
14040  first rocket on vampire 1 leaves 1 second acquisition 12285

Now......same setup except:
RAM fired from  fore and aft slew/elevate can launchers ripple at same threat/same time

All distances of separation are in meters at one second intervals
presumed missile is RAM with 90%PK  enemy  vampires acquired with no measured flopover delay at
nominal  horizon line after countermeasures fail

Forward can launcher                                                  Aft can launcher
0 no engagement                                                          0 no engagement
1755 no engagement                                                    1755 no engagement    
3510  no engagement                                                   3510 no engagement
5265 third rocket on vampire 3 leaves kill                     5265 no engagement
7020 first rocket on vampire 5 leaves                            7020 second rocket on vampire 5 leaves kill   
8775  first rocket on vampire 4 leaves                           8775 second rocket on vampire  4 leaves kill
10530  first rocket on vampire 3 leaves                       10530 second rocket on vampire 3 leaves miss
12285  first rocket  on vampire 2 leaves                      12285 second rocket on vampire 2 leaves kill
14040  first rocket on vampire 1 leaves                       14040 second rocket on vampire 1 leaves kill

That is why th
 
Quote    Reply

benellim4       2/9/2008 7:54:08 AM






The Mk41 was designed to deal with a Soviet style attack using Kingfisher missiles from TU-22Ms. Last time I checked, that is not the threat today. For the threat today the Mk29 has many advantages over a VLS. 



I'm not down on VLS. In fact, I entrust my life to it. However, I realize that it has limitations and it is not the best choice for every situation/mission. 







Benelli, the threat today is not relevant, so long as other threats have the potential to exist.  I know as well as you do, that a Oliver Hazard Perry would be a relatively easy target for a missile attack, compared to modern frigates fitted with VLS.  For instance a Type 23 frigate can fire 32 short-ranged SAM's almost as fast as the directors can guide them.  This is necessary to counter modern threats, such as a diesel submarine launching a salvo of 4-6 missiles, passing through weigh-points and attacking from different directions simultaneously.

As I said, I am no expert at naval doctrine, and I don't pretend to be.  I am not disagreeing with you in general, however in the context of point defence of a carrier, I don't think the VLS should be overlooked.  I think the French have the right idea with the Charles De Gualle (shame about the name, De Gualle was a t***).

The threat isn't relevant? You you serious? You're nuts.

Is an OHP less-capable than a new frigate? I should hope so! The combat system was from the late 50s/early 60s! That does not mean they were incapable of defending themselves. But the main limiting factor was NOT the launcher.

You're assuming the US overlooked VLS. I can assure you we have not. We have carefully looked at the options, especially for CVN-21 and VLS does not have the advantage for HVU protection.

You're looking at French and Russian examples of aircraft carriers. I don't think you could draw from two poorer examples of aircraft carriers.

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



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics