ESSM VLS systems

Didn’t originally have this mode, but tested back in May 2007 – so I guess its operational in this role.

Isn’t it the case that any SARH SAM could in principle be used for anti-ship (missile homes in on reflected radar emissions: just point the radar illuminator to a ship rather than to an aircraft). See Sea Sparrow and Standard missiles.

Here you can find a drawing of the different loads of a Mk 41. VLS:
http://navy-matters.beedall.com/images/vls.jpg
http://navy-matters.beedall.com/daring1-3.htm

Doesn’t the ESSM have or is supposed to be getting an ability to target surface threats? Attack incoming missile boats and such?

Logan Hartke

Didn’t originally have this mode, but tested back in May 2007 – so I guess its operational in this role.

Correct

Unicorn

Doesn’t the ESSM have or is supposed to be getting an ability to target surface threats? Attack incoming missile boats and such?

Logan Hartke

Yep

Doesn’t the ESSM have or is supposed to be getting an ability to target surface threats? Attack incoming missile boats and such?

Logan Hartke

It also gives more options in terms of load-out – if you’re primarily facing surface ships, then you could carry more anti-ship missiles. If you are facing someone like North Korea, who would send lots of missile boats at you, just having eight Harpoons may not be enough, VLS Harpoon gives you more options. Ultimately, the idea is to simply build ships with as many VLS cells as possible for their size, and then load them with whatever fits the situation.

It is actually arguable that the situation vis a vis VLS cells has become akin to the old battleship guns argument, i.e. whichever ship has the largest number of VLS cells has the edge. It’s a poor argument, but there is a degree of truth to it. Lots of cells does give you more flexibility, depending of course on sensors, allowing for instance Tomahawks, SM-2s, SM-3s, ESSMs, ASROCs and Harpoons. The smaller the number of available cells, the smaller the mix you can carry, and given the need to carry a basic number of missiles for self defence, it may prevent you from carrying enough of a particular type.

The quad Harpoon launcher is anything but stealthy, dropping the Harpoons into a VLS would alleviate that problem.

Unicorn

Or you could go the French route and just hide the launchers in a stealthy ‘well’ or bury them in the superstructure.;)

I asked whether Harpoon could be launched from VLS and now I have the answer. Would there be any benefits, apart from some deck space saved (no dedicated launchers?

Regards,

P

The quad Harpoon launcher is anything but stealthy, dropping the Harpoons into a VLS would alleviate that problem.

Unicorn

Whats the inner-diameter of the canisters? Is all canisters same widht?

I know there’s the Mk 41, the Mk 48 (Mod 0, Mod 1, Mod 2, Mod 3), and the Mk 56, but there’s some significant differences between the different mods. Can anyone give me any specifics on the different versions of the VLS systems (including the mods)?

Mk 41 comes in 3 lengths
Self defence is 530 cm deep (ESSM)
Tactical is 675 cm deep (SM2)
Strike is 770 cm deep (Tomahawk)
The lengths probably include the exhaust system, etc

ESSM is 366 cm and can be quad packed in Mk 41 or dual packed in Mk 56

SM2MR is 472 cm long. They attempted a slimmer msl round for diagonal dual packed SM2MR-followon but I guess the missile lost performance and never went ahead.

Tomahawk is 625 cm long.

Unfortunately the original Mk 41 design was for the tactical version. The reloading crane was sized for SM2MR (708 kg) and couldn’t handle the Tomahawk (1470 kg) or SM3 msls – hence it was recently removed.

Basically, I’m trying to understand the differences between them in dimensions, number of missiles in a canister, use, etc. I know the Mk 41 is quad-pack for ESSM, the Mk 56 is dual-pack, and the Mk 48 is single-pack (normally). For example, what VLS system would you use on a 2000 ton ship, 4000 ton, 8000 ton? Can the Mk 48 or Mk 56 fire ASROC?

VL ASROC requires a Mk 15 cannister in a Mk 41 launcher, length is 490 cm (longer than the SM2MR)

The Mk 48 launcher is for the ESSM only, height is 478 cm – VL ASROC would not fit.
Mod 0 is 2 cells and has the exhaust between the msls for in deck.
Mod 1 is also 2 cells and has exhaust on outside for msls attached to bulkheads.
Mod 2 is 16 cells, with exhaust as Mod 0
Mod 3 has 6 cells, exhaust as Mod 0

No idea on Mk 56, although it said to be half size (wide at least) of the Mk 48, and lighter. Wouldn’t be VL ASROC capable.

The deck edge Mk 57 for the DDG-1000 is 762 cm deep, ISTR also wider – so can handle anything.

I asked whether Harpoon could be launched from VLS and now I have the answer. Would there be any benefits, apart from some deck space saved (no dedicated launchers?

Regards,

P

I suppose, but dont really know,that if the Harpoon was shifted to the launcher it would free up space for another weapons system eg CIWS, this would depend on the ship involved and wether there was topweight available for more systems. The fact that no one has bothered with it suggests it is not worth losing other anti air- missile capacity in the launcher to make way for it.

Minor piece of information Logan, the Mk.41 can fire the Harpoon according to a Boeing feasibility study ,but a fully integrated firing system has not been developed. The first user prepared to pay the costs will get this feature plus future royalties but so far no takers.

I asked whether Harpoon could be launched from VLS and now I have the answer. Would there be any benefits, apart from some deck space saved (no dedicated launchers?

Regards,

P

Mk41 and harpoon

Minor piece of information Logan, the Mk.41 can fire the Harpoon according to a Boeing feasibility study ,but a fully integrated firing system has not been developed. The first user prepared to pay the costs will get this feature plus future royalties but so far no takers.

I’ve been trying to get some information on the different types of VLS systems for the ESSM (and other missiles, but ESSM is the common denominator in this case).

I know there’s the Mk 41, the Mk 48 (Mod 0, Mod 1, Mod 2, Mod 3), and the Mk 56, but there’s some significant differences between the different mods. Can anyone give me any specifics on the different versions of the VLS systems (including the mods)?

Basically, I’m trying to understand the differences between them in dimensions, number of missiles in a canister, use, etc. I know the Mk 41 is quad-pack for ESSM, the Mk 56 is dual-pack, and the Mk 48 is single-pack (normally). For example, what VLS system would you use on a 2000 ton ship, 4000 ton, 8000 ton? Can the Mk 48 or Mk 56 fire ASROC?

Also, does anyone know of any thing else like this?

Dualpack DP48 Canister

In something like this, you could effectively double the number of ESSMs on a ship equipped with the Mk 48 VLS. Would something like that work in any Mod of the VLS?

Thanks in advance to anyone that can help me out with this.

Logan Hartke

Not in any configuration based on the MK41 VLS. It’s a pretty tight squeeze getting four per cell as it is. The cell is designed for a 21″ diameter missile (Tomahawk) maximum and the ESSM is 10″ in diameter so you can see that with four of them in the cell there isn’t much room left. Add the fact that there has to be walls between the rounds to keep exhaust away from adjacent rounds and you’ll see you’re pretty much out of room. The most compact ESSM setup I’ve seen is the 8-cell/32 round VLS. Don’t know what the Mk number is off the top of my head but it looks like your standard 8-cell Mk but half-depth.