UK Defence Forum

Googled MK41 to confirm weight of missile that could be launched and so possible max weight of a future ISL FC/ASW supersonic land attack variant and compatible with Mk41, found a 2018 BAE Inc pdf for their Adaptable Deck Launcher, ADL.

BAE Inc manufacture the missile canisters for both the Mk41 and Mk57 VLS, quotes [Mk41] strike length canister weight both empty and loaded, taking the difference as approx missile weight, Tomahawk III/IV 3,990lbs and SM-3 Blk IIA 4,650 lbs, heavier than figures previously seen. Of interest the empty weight of the Mk29 canister for the SM-3 IIA is 1,700 lbs whereas the earlier SM-3 Blk I Mk21 mod 2 canister is 2,980 lbs, canister has been subject to a serious weight reduction exercise to enable increased weight of the heavier IIA, overall total weight of SM-3 IIA and canister 6,350 lbs (Mk41 would not be able launch missile with similar capability as the BrahMos which is 6,600 lbs).

Raytheon quoted max weight of canister and missile for the one third larger in volume Mk57 as 9,020 lbs (Mk57 only ever installed on the three Zumwalts), Raytheon also claim Mk57 VLS able to handle up to 45 percent greater rocket motor mass flow rate than current-generation rocket motors [Mk41].

Would suggest need VLS similar to Mk57 capacity to launch FC/ASW land attack missile with weight and power if you want capabilities equivalent to a BrahMos, deck launchers look much the better option cost wise but drawback limiting numbers, a supersonic missile with Tomahawk capabilities looks very expensive, £ billions including development ?

The USN is questioning whether even MK57 cells are going to be large enough for their future, surface launched weapons:

The after-market payload module is necessary because the conventional prompt strike missiles are at least 30 inches in diameter, and the current 80-cell VLS launcher on the DDG-1000 design, while larger than the standard Mark 41 VLS on the cruisers and destroyers, maxes out at missiles that are 28 inches in diameter.

Defense News: https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2021/ ... big-ideas/

Jensy wrote:The USN is questioning whether even MK57 cells are going to be large enough for their future, surface launched weapons:

The after-market payload module is necessary because the conventional prompt strike missiles are at least 30 inches in diameter, and the current 80-cell VLS launcher on the DDG-1000 design, while larger than the standard Mark 41 VLS on the cruisers and destroyers, maxes out at missiles that are 28 inches in diameter.

Defense News: https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2021/ ... big-ideas/

The USN hypersonic land attack missile currently under joint development with the US Army, USN Conventional Prompt Strike, CPS / Army, Long Range Hypersonic Weapon, LRHW, uses a large and powerful rocket motor to launch its long range glide body/warhead. CPS rocket dia 34 1/2" too large in dia for Mk57, too powerful and too long? USN will use version of the Trident VLS cell as used in Columbia and Dreadnought, the Advanced Payload Module, four APM VLS cells will be fitted to the Virginia Block V with its Virginia Payload Module, a mid-hull plug of ~80' and ~2,400t, three CPS per APM VLS cell, Congress said to have flinched when given costs and cut back funding in FY2021 NDAA.

Would be very surprised if Congress funded the conversion of the three Zumwalts by ripping out their AGS 155 guns and very large magazines to fit APS VLS cells, additional $billions?, the three Zumwalts current cost to completion $26 billion and USN is desperately trying to justify the spend by finding a use for the ships, latest setback is having replace Zumwalts new SPY-3 radars, USN have not disclosed reason why.

Recently seen the USN are also funding hypersonic variant of the SM-6 IB AAM by integrating a new rocket booster that will allow it to fly at hypersonic speeds, Mach 5+, also mention of an air breathing scramjet HyFly2, funded by OUSD(R&E) in collaboration with the Navy “to mature a hypersonic air-launched cruise missile concept compatible with aircraft carrier operations.” for launch from SH.

NickC wrote:conversion of the three Zumwalts by ripping out their AGS 155 guns and very large magazines to fit APS VLS cells, additional $billions?, the three Zumwalts current cost to completion $26 billion and USN is desperately trying to justify the spend by finding a use for the ships

A Surface Action Group could thus turn up, without a carrier (it's in the name) and do other things than just sink ships?

Jensy wrote:The USN is questioning whether even MK57 cells are going to be large enough for their future, surface launched weapons:

The after-market payload module is necessary because the conventional prompt strike missiles are at least 30 inches in diameter, and the current 80-cell VLS launcher on the DDG-1000 design, while larger than the standard Mark 41 VLS on the cruisers and destroyers, maxes out at missiles that are 28 inches in diameter.

Defense News: https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2021/ ... big-ideas/

IMHO, not a bad idea, to turn Zumwalts into a hypersonic missile carriers.

abc123 wrote:

Jensy wrote:The USN is questioning whether even MK57 cells are going to be large enough for their future, surface launched weapons:

The after-market payload module is necessary because the conventional prompt strike missiles are at least 30 inches in diameter, and the current 80-cell VLS launcher on the DDG-1000 design, while larger than the standard Mark 41 VLS on the cruisers and destroyers, maxes out at missiles that are 28 inches in diameter.

Defense News: https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2021/ ... big-ideas/

IMHO, not a bad idea, to turn Zumwalts into a hypersonic missile carriers.

No shortage of ideas on what to do with the Z's. Razer blades is the most popular.

Remington Steel?

Ron5 wrote:

abc123 wrote:

Jensy wrote:The USN is questioning whether even MK57 cells are going to be large enough for their future, surface launched weapons:

The after-market payload module is necessary because the conventional prompt strike missiles are at least 30 inches in diameter, and the current 80-cell VLS launcher on the DDG-1000 design, while larger than the standard Mark 41 VLS on the cruisers and destroyers, maxes out at missiles that are 28 inches in diameter.

Defense News: https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2021/ ... big-ideas/

IMHO, not a bad idea, to turn Zumwalts into a hypersonic missile carriers.

No shortage of ideas on what to do with the Z's. Razer blades is the most popular.

It's 13+ bln. USD allready spent. It would be a shame to make them a total waiste of money. So, US semi-Kirov's, me like it...

They need to remove the guns sooner rather than later as they are the most obvious and visible symbol of the failed project. Then use them and their existing VLS in Carrier or Amphibious Groups providing additional missile capacity, whilst they work out what to do next.

abc123 wrote:
It's 13+ bln. USD allready spent. It would be a shame to make them a total waiste of money. So, US semi-Kirov's, me like it...

To clarify the total Zumwalt programme cost $26.1 billion split $12.1B development and $14B procurement per the June 2020 GAO report, FY2020$

The high development costs reflecting its oddball stealth tumblehome hull, weapons and systems eg AGS155 gun/ LRLAP projectile, Mk57 VLS, special to type ESSM/SM-2 AA missiles, TSCE CMS not Aegis, SPY-3 & 4 radars, SQS-60 & 61 sonars etc, etc

USN used the strong support in Congress for the USMC (both Dept of Navy) to squeeze 'xtra' budget for a battleship-monitor... and now can't fund their next cruiser.

The upside is that the design has power reserves to add directed energy weapons (if this hyper-velocity thing goes nowhere; and anyway the former would be defensive and the latter for offensive action... so why not both )

abc123 wrote:

Ron5 wrote:

abc123 wrote:

Jensy wrote:The USN is questioning whether even MK57 cells are going to be large enough for their future, surface launched weapons:

The after-market payload module is necessary because the conventional prompt strike missiles are at least 30 inches in diameter, and the current 80-cell VLS launcher on the DDG-1000 design, while larger than the standard Mark 41 VLS on the cruisers and destroyers, maxes out at missiles that are 28 inches in diameter.

Defense News: https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2021/ ... big-ideas/

IMHO, not a bad idea, to turn Zumwalts into a hypersonic missile carriers.

No shortage of ideas on what to do with the Z's. Razer blades is the most popular.

It's 13+ bln. USD allready spent. It would be a shame to make them a total waiste of money. So, US semi-Kirov's, me like it...

You have to know when to fold them. Even when its not your money.

ArmChairCivvy wrote:USN used the strong support in Congress for the USMC (both Dept of Navy) to squeeze 'xtra' budget for a battleship-monitor... and now can't fund their next cruiser.

The upside is that the design has power reserves to add directed energy weapons (if this hyper-velocity thing goes nowhere; and anyway the former would be defensive and the latter for offensive action... so why not both )

If by DEW referring to lasers I'm sceptical as after three decades / $billions of funding in the US no high energy laser development has resulted in a fielded weapon, I subscribe to the now old adage "lasers are the weapons of the future, and they always will be"

Currently US funding high on numerous laser weapon developments for Air Force, Army and Navy so will be of interest if any HEL able to reach TR7 level and live up to the hype, which so far they have spectacularly failed to do so in the last 30 years.

PS Any recent news on the RN proof of concept low power Dragonfire laser in its trials, last report by AviationWeek Nov 2020 said Dragonfire suffering year long delay.

NickC wrote:no high energy laser development has resulted in a fielded weapon

I agree that so far the closest has been burning through some UAVs (were the test ones made of balsa wood?), but my point was that there is a hedge -though a v costly one - in place.
- the AB designs are already struggling with top weight... batteries might help as ballast but where do you put the extra power required

Meanwhile back in the real world.

written answers 29th Mar 2021 :-

https://questions-statements.parliament ... -22/172898

So no change in status then. When was this Interim Missile supposed to enter service, and is a capability gap opening up. We also need an AShM cleared for use on at least the Typhoon if not the P-8A and F-35B in addition to the Martlet, that is the bigger one isn't it?

It will be interesting to see what the ambitions is with the interim missile. We have already stated a land attach capability so we are at least aiming for something that can do more than what we have. But it is an Interim Missile, so will it be bare minimum? basically a like for like replacement of Harpoon bolted onto the deck of a escort and that is it? Or are we going to put it on different platforms? in vertical launchers and maybe ever air launch the new missile from non Navy assets?

As an interim purchase, my money would go with Tomahawk block V. :-

https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2020/ ... ould-know/

Lord Jim wrote:We also need an AShM cleared for use on at least the Typhoon if not the P-8A and F-35B in addition to the Martlet, that is the bigger one isn't it?

It's going to be Spear 3 (the bigger one is Sea Venom).

jonas wrote:As an interim purchase, my money would go with Tomahawk block V. :-

The interim purchase is for T23, so you need something with the same footprint as Harpon, which rules out Tomahawk.

RichardIC wrote: rules out Tomahawk.

Further, the moving-target capable Tomahawk V slots into a Mk41. The old land-attack versions could use armoured box-launchers (which were a nice size-fit for battleships).

In theory, a dual use (two-different seeker heads) Tomahawk would be a nice addition as the tube-launched version for subs will be discontinued... so once we fire away the current inventory; that will be it

ArmChairCivvy wrote:In theory, a dual use (two-different seeker heads) Tomahawk would be a nice addition as the tube-launched version for subs will be discontinued... so once we fire away the current inventory; that will be it

I'm absolutely cool with tube launched Tomahawk going. It hugely compromises our SSNs. There's nothing that says, "hello, submarine hiding over here," like firing a lumbering great cruise missile from it.

RichardIC wrote:

ArmChairCivvy wrote:In theory, a dual use (two-different seeker heads) Tomahawk would be a nice addition as the tube-launched version for subs will be discontinued... so once we fire away the current inventory; that will be it

I'm absolutely cool with tube launched Tomahawk going. It hugely compromises our SSNs. There's nothing that says, "hello, submarine hiding over here," like firing a lumbering great cruise missile from it.

Sometimes that a good thing

Ron5 wrote:Sometimes that a good thing

Works even better (more cost effective) if the sub is not there - or only on its way)
- Tomahawk would not be so much in that picture, though

Good job that this WAS NOT the case in the S. Atlantic in ‘82!

ArmChairCivvy wrote: or only on its way

Scimitar54 wrote:the case in the S. Atlantic in ‘82

the exact case behind my wording: caused tremors (on the Argie side) while still - de facto - only steaming onto the scene
- or did we have foresight; and it/ they was/were prepositioned? The releases were tailored to create ambiguity.