A design in which a crane mounted by the side of the physical cells on the perimeter with little deck penetration and no overhang onto the launch path of the missiles, would be extremely suited to this application. Something like this could be mounted on a track that runs the perimeter of the cells. Even multiple would be able to be installed and stored at the rear or sides of the cells, allowing for surge capacity to reload while in port or a forward base.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
I think possibly a capsule within a capsule. Mount the reload capsule within an outer capsule and lift them onto the empty silo using something similar to a long reach forklift. The outer capsule would be rigid and is fitted to the hoist by a clamp. Lift the outer capsule over the empty silo and lower it until it sits on top of the silo, then lock the outer capsule to the silo. Lower the inner capsule reload into the silo and then unlock and remove the outer capsule. Would not have the reload capsule swing around as if it was in a normal crane. Just a thought.
For the sake of showing clearly what needs lifting in to place without any added capsule, try this photo.
oldsig
Re the VLS discussion:
I get that the vertical launch profile is preferred, especially for rapid response ordinance.
I get that 'muzzle loading' is implied for these, there is only so much lower deck space available which excludes a logical 'breech loading' solution for a VERTICAL launch cell.
But these AA rounds are typically smaller/lighter, correct? There must be a crane/winch solution somewhere, surely?
What about the longer, and heavier, strike (VLS) cells being mounted at an angle, say eg 45deg? - Harpoon is!
This might facilitate a more practical internal replacement magazine arrangement and allow a more stable 'breech load' solution.
I feel, as I've tried to state previously, that the ability to reload is a substantial force multiplier.
Simplistically, for example the ability to 100% reload your VLS ineffect gives you the combat endurance capability of 2 ships for the price of one.
Surely this would mean an astonishing leap in effectiveness of deployed forces for a navy the size of the RAN.
That would be a doubling of capability of deployed assets.
I feel the only reason no one has bothered to engineer a fix to this so far is purely because contemporary naval ops have had the luxury to not require large ammunition expenditure, or numbers of assets (ships) being tactically required to replace those forced to retire from the AO.
Just sayin.
I get that the vertical launch profile is preferred, especially for rapid response ordinance.
I get that 'muzzle loading' is implied for these, there is only so much lower deck space available which excludes a logical 'breech loading' solution for a VERTICAL launch cell.
But these AA rounds are typically smaller/lighter, correct? There must be a crane/winch solution somewhere, surely?
What about the longer, and heavier, strike (VLS) cells being mounted at an angle, say eg 45deg? - Harpoon is!
This might facilitate a more practical internal replacement magazine arrangement and allow a more stable 'breech load' solution.
I feel, as I've tried to state previously, that the ability to reload is a substantial force multiplier.
Simplistically, for example the ability to 100% reload your VLS ineffect gives you the combat endurance capability of 2 ships for the price of one.
Surely this would mean an astonishing leap in effectiveness of deployed forces for a navy the size of the RAN.
That would be a doubling of capability of deployed assets.
I feel the only reason no one has bothered to engineer a fix to this so far is purely because contemporary naval ops have had the luxury to not require large ammunition expenditure, or numbers of assets (ships) being tactically required to replace those forced to retire from the AO.
Just sayin.
Looks easy, can't imagine why they dropped it, so to speak.
I can see reloading ESSM, CAMM, SeaRAM is more technically feasible. Because the missiles are so much smaller. But then again, Why would you be running out of those, that no effective reason to do it. Perhaps asymmetric threats will be a bigger issue in the future.
If you had a two sets of NSM launchers they could be replaced, possibly by helicopter. Would be as hard as moving a half container.
But then again it might just be easier to pair up a FF or DDG with a OPV with additional antishipping missiles when things get hot.
I can see reloading ESSM, CAMM, SeaRAM is more technically feasible. Because the missiles are so much smaller. But then again, Why would you be running out of those, that no effective reason to do it. Perhaps asymmetric threats will be a bigger issue in the future.
If you had a two sets of NSM launchers they could be replaced, possibly by helicopter. Would be as hard as moving a half container.
But then again it might just be easier to pair up a FF or DDG with a OPV with additional antishipping missiles when things get hot.
Simple solution. Practice using the surface of the LHD's as arsenal ships.
1) secretly load missiles in cargo containers so no one can see them.
2) set sail
3) when underway, set up huge tarp over surface of flight deck, about 10-20 feet high, like a tent. On the top, the pieces of tarp are a mirror image of the flight deck, so satallite images show the deck as per normal.
4) bring up all the deck mounted missiles. LRASM mounted like bolted on harpoons, use the BAE adaptable deck launcher :
for other missiles.
It can be done. Similar camouflage was used back in WW2.
A stranded Dutch warship evaded Japanese bombers in WWII by disguising itself as an island
After missiles are fired, reload missiles by crane into the launchers, or throw the launchers overboard and bring up new ones from below.
China had to build an island to launch cruise missiles. We can use a 230m moving one instead.
(I know many of you more in the know people will probably want to ban me for this post)
1) secretly load missiles in cargo containers so no one can see them.
2) set sail
3) when underway, set up huge tarp over surface of flight deck, about 10-20 feet high, like a tent. On the top, the pieces of tarp are a mirror image of the flight deck, so satallite images show the deck as per normal.
4) bring up all the deck mounted missiles. LRASM mounted like bolted on harpoons, use the BAE adaptable deck launcher :
It can be done. Similar camouflage was used back in WW2.
A stranded Dutch warship evaded Japanese bombers in WWII by disguising itself as an island
After missiles are fired, reload missiles by crane into the launchers, or throw the launchers overboard and bring up new ones from below.
China had to build an island to launch cruise missiles. We can use a 230m moving one instead.
(I know many of you more in the know people will probably want to ban me for this post)
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Thanks for the image, as it illustrates part of the complexity of reloading a VLS cell at sea.
There do seem to be a few other factors that members are not addressing though.
The first is that a Mk 41 VLS is both a vertical launch system for the missiles, and a contained space (much like a magazine) to hold the missiles, complete with fire suppression systems to prevent or mitigate a catastrophic event.
I bring this up because so far, it seems people have focused on just getting new missiles/canisters in an emptied VLS cell. This begs asking the question, "where is the missile or canister reload coming from?"
If the answer is that reloads are already available aboard the ship, say from a magazine somewhere below deck, that in turn triggers a few additional questions. One being, where is this hypothetical magazine going to be located? The second would be how is the missile/canister going to be raised from where it is located to the VLS to be reloaded? Thirdly, if there is additional space/displacement available aboard a ship so that it can house a magazine with replacement missiles, why not just increase the size of the VLS and not fool around with a magazine?
If the reloads are not already aboard a ship, then that would mean RAS from an AOR and most likely using a helicopter to lift canisters as underslung loads from one vessel to another, with all the potential risks for accident and damage with moving an object of those dimensions and weight via hanging cable.
In fact, anything involving a load-bearing cable (from helicopter, crane, etc.) is going to sway as the ship(s) move, or as the lifting body (helicopter) moves. The only way I see everything moving together at the same time and in the same direction would be to use an articulated arm instead of a crane. However, there would still be the problem of getting a loaded canister off a replenishment ship and onto the receiving warship.
As a side note, I do not anticipate such problems for SeaCeptor or RAM, but then again neither of these missiles are currently in RAN service, and at present the RAM has little reason to adopt SeaCeptor.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
The problem with the idea of using the LHD as a missile launch platform (apart from possibly RAM/SeaRAM for self-defence) is that such operations would be at the expense of what and why the LHD's were acquired. If the flight deck is covered with missile launchers, then it cannot be used for helicopters to take off or land, thus limiting the LHD's ability to land or recover troops, move supplies, etc. There would also be the matter of whether or not any launchers fitted to the flight deck can provide the degree of fire protection and containment needed, like magazines and VLS do, and without either penetrating the deck or protruding too much from the deck.
Loading a missile into a Mk 41is a precision activity and one which has to be done with care; the clearances are small. One does not want to put force on the side of the container, for example, so the launcher and the canister have to stay in alignment. I have never done it, although I seen it done and, as Todjaeger has said, i wouldn’t want to try to do it in a seaway. I have replenished a Mk 13 equipped ship at sea and that was challenging enough, even though we could strike down using the launcher.
Even at anchor or alongside it is probably impractical to try to use a helo. The aircraft never hovers perfectly still over one place on the deck, it is always moving in one of the three dimensions.
Not sure about how practical it woul be to try to reload CAMM at sea for obvious reasons, but suspect it would not be easy.
You couldn’t just angle a Mk 41, you’d have do at least some redesign, even without allowing for the fact that nobody has seriously contemplated loading the thing from the inboard end. And it would make for a very large ship.
Even at anchor or alongside it is probably impractical to try to use a helo. The aircraft never hovers perfectly still over one place on the deck, it is always moving in one of the three dimensions.
Not sure about how practical it woul be to try to reload CAMM at sea for obvious reasons, but suspect it would not be easy.
You couldn’t just angle a Mk 41, you’d have do at least some redesign, even without allowing for the fact that nobody has seriously contemplated loading the thing from the inboard end. And it would make for a very large ship.
Last edited:
Before we pre-packed missiles into VLS cells we simply had missile launchers. The relatively small Adelaide class has a magazine of 40 sm2-MR and harpoon missiles and a single arm missile launcher. We also managed to fit an 8 cell VLS launcher as well.
I know that missile launchers have their own issues but it seems to me that they also give you a certain flexibility that VLS doesn't. The weapons can be stored below deck reducing the top weight problem, ships could possibly be rearmed at sea, and the system is more compact than VLS.
The downside is a lower rate of fire, and it is a more complex system mechanically but there could be benefits in having both VLS cells and a conventional launcher. Just look at the old Adelaide class for example. A mix of 72 missiles, and yet there is still enough space on top for two helicopters, and a CIWS all on a 4200 ton hull.
I know that missile launchers have their own issues but it seems to me that they also give you a certain flexibility that VLS doesn't. The weapons can be stored below deck reducing the top weight problem, ships could possibly be rearmed at sea, and the system is more compact than VLS.
The downside is a lower rate of fire, and it is a more complex system mechanically but there could be benefits in having both VLS cells and a conventional launcher. Just look at the old Adelaide class for example. A mix of 72 missiles, and yet there is still enough space on top for two helicopters, and a CIWS all on a 4200 ton hull.
Last edited:
Yep I am aware what is required. I have a similar photo plus info on the Mk-41 VLS, so I am not unaware of the problems.
Yes, and Oz was getting briefed on LRASM way back when the program first started, so I know there's plenty of interest. Having said that, the interest there was in anti-ship, and land strike was just a "nice to have" that happened to be compatible with the anti-ship missile. Wouldn't surprise me if there's more interest in land strike now, just that that's what was discussed way back then.
Definitely agree. Question is what the ADF/RAN views as it's goals vis a vis Chinese expansion. And what the thresholds are between missions to be assumed by the ADF/RAN independently, and what are assumed to involve a Coalition level effort.
Don't disagree that VLS loadout management is always a pain.
My point is more that I would never want to be that close to death a sufficient number of times to get 32 ESSMs off.
But do agree in general with desirability of reloading at sea, and agree it would likely be easier with the smaller, lighter missiles.
Trainable launchers are better when you're shooting smaller missiles.
VLS's main issue is that it can't take advantage of topside space...you generally can't bolt it above the main deck, in other words.
However, in terms of shipboard volume, it is actually pretty damn compact...you do not really add much, if any non-essential equipment. As stated before, it also accounts for the necessary magazine fire/damage protection that would be built into a normal launcher.
It's onboard footprint really isn't much bigger than the actual missiles carried.
Basically, as long as you stuff it with big missiles that make use of most of the volume in each cell, you're going to be pretty dang efficient.
My response wasn't aimed specifically at you NG. There's been a lot of discussion on this subject and some of it seemed not to appreciate the sheer size of the thing and how awkward the act of reloading, so I appended a photo to inform everyone. That at least has us on the same page when considering adding reloading equipment of whatever sort.
oldsig
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
A big advantage that VLS have over loadable launcher like the Mk 13 is that a VLS does not have so many points of failure that will disable the missiles. If the Mk 13 has a malfunction or gets damaged, the remaining contents of the magazine become potentially explosive ballast unless the Mk 13 can be restored to functionality. With a VLS, a single cell or set of cells can be damaged or malfunction, but the remaining VLS cells can still be used.
From my POV, that sort of advantage is worth trading the loss of usable topside space, and not being able to reload at sea.
Precisely. Plus, there is the latency issue, in the Mk 13 a missile has to be selected from the carousel and then loaded onto the launcher, which then has to rotate towards the threat. All that takes much mote time than a Mk 41 launch. And of course firing a salvo requires the whole process to be repeated.
Yes, which is why everybody, even the Chinese and Russians, are pretty much going to all-vertical launch methods.
The exceptions are when you're firing really small missiles. Like RAM. RAM in a vertical launch arrangement would make absolutely no sense.
That makes sense using cargo ships, but also frightening, because a certain country I won't mention has thousands of them. Imagine in ten year's time, 100+ cargo ships offshore every country , said country holds world hostage.
Absolutely correct, the complexity of the Mk 13 system and the multiple points of failure is why it has not evolved along with slow rates of fire. People think a VLS is hard to reload ? try doing a Mk 13 !
As has been mentioned the space for a VLS v Mk 13, I know what I would rather have in a ship, having spent many years bunked next to the bulk of a Mk 13 mag.
Cheers
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Not really the problem you seem to be imagining. A cargo ship that is designed to haul a fair displacement in cargo, that gets the hold changed to mount VLS is going to handle differently than designed, since the displacement of VLS is going to be lower than if the holds are full. If one pictures instead a container ship that instead of stacks of containers, has a VLS, both the profile of the vessel and the displacement is going to be different.
That also does not get into the cost, which was another reason why the concept of an arsenal ship has been conceptualized, but never actually developed. The arsenal ship concept with a loadout of ~500 missiles, would cost about USD$900 mil. assuming it was loaded with TacTom's, and that cost is just for the missiles themselves, not the vessel, launch systems, or any of the other system necessities to properly utilize the munitions. To have 100 vessels fitted out like this would be over USD$90 bil. and again this would be just for the missiles themselves.
Then there is the issue that detecting, tracking, and identifying ships has gotten much more advanced from back in WWII. There are radar systems which can gather information to create a radar image of a vessel for identification. E/O systems which can take images of vessels in a broad spectrum, which potentially detect hidden or disguised features, like the VLS cell hatch covers, etc.
Plus if a nation wanted to launch such a large strike, it would invite retaliation from other countries.
- Status