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 system in old Spruance DD's
keensetofpeepers    3/10/2008 5:46:53 PM
i was at a bookstore the other day and came across an interesting book called US Destroyers or 50 years of US Destroyers. anyway, I was reading about the Spru-cans when something jumped out at me. It said that VLS systems could not be installed in the aft (something I always wondered about) because of a lack of machinery and the propeller shafts were in the way. i know the Tico hulls are slightly longer than the Spru-cans, but is the slight length enough to allow the installation of the VLS in the aft, or is it something else (different machinery layout?) if the hulls are essentially the same, how did they find the space to squeeze in the VLS in Ticos' aft? i also found it interesting the Kidds held only 24 missiles in their forward launchers and 44 in the aft....unlike the symmetrical armament of the Ticos with 44 front and back
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
benellim4       3/13/2008 4:10:50 PM
If you were to put a VLS aft on a SPUCAN, you'd have to remove the Mk29 launcher for the NSSMS. Considering the US didn't field the ESSM until after the majority of the class was decommed, this would have been a bad move.

The hulls are essentially the same, but the cruiser does have more room and does have a slightly different layout.
Quote    Reply

tomahawkgod    MK 41 VLS   3/20/2008 4:12:16 PM
I spent 5 1/5 years on DD970 (USS CARON) (A Spruance).
Back aft, where you would put a VLS system was where the NATO launcher was.  Internal configuration of DD963 class wasn't set up for MK41 there.  On KIDD class, MK 26 was designed in from the get go.  Something to remember about MK 26 is that it is a rotory magazine which stores the missiles vertically. Two mods of that launcher, one with one ring of missiles, one with two rings of missiles.  Back aft superstructure is wide enough for two rings as you can sort of rearrange placement of things back there.  Can't do that with MK 41.  Size is fixed at about 24' x 24'.  Also, VLS is configured to launch TLAMs and it (MK 41) is taller than MK 26.  MK 26 missile is about say 15 feet long more or less.  VLS missile cell is about 24 feet long.  MK41 would require much more internal rearrangement. CG-52 (First MK 41 CG) was significantly re-arranged especially back aft, even though the hull from main deck down is essentially the same layout.
Quote    Reply