US Missile Launcher Designations

[Dilandu]

The RGM-66E was the adaptive version for the Mk112 matchbox launchers. The RGM-66F had an active homing radar, and the Navy took it as the backup of the Harpoon. The RGM-66F had not gone into mass production before Harpoon was introduced to the Navy.

Yep, that I knew.

 

[A_Random_Guy]

I may have found the Mk 31.

According to Friedman's U.S. Destroyers (page 199), there was an Mk 31 rocket launcher for NAE noise beacons as a countermeasure to passive homing torpedoes.

Apparently these automatically trained and fired and there were 2-4 mounted on ASW ships.

I found a 1953 report with a list of rocket and missile launchers (see below) and the Mk 31 it describes doesn't appear automatic. Furthermore it is unclear if this is in-fact part of the series.

https://www.bulletpicker.com/pdf/OP 1855, Missile Launchers and Related Equipment.pdf

 

[Dilandu]

By complete accident, I found the Mark 32 launcher schemes and description in "Gunners Mate Manual 3_2":

 

[Scott Kenny]

By complete accident, I found the Mark 32 launcher schemes and description in "Gunners Mate Manual 3_2":

View attachment 719104
View attachment 719105
View attachment 719106

What year? (Because new books in that series come out pretty often)

 

[Dilandu]

What year? (Because new books in that series come out pretty often)

1977.

 

[Christopher Wang]

I have read various forum thread posts from different websites which claimed that the Mark 11 twin-arm and Mark 13 single-arm Tartar / Standard-MR GMLS were built as drop-in replacements for the WWII-era 5"/38 twin-gun turrets and thus could fit in the same space as the gun turrets.

Is that true? If so, what are the various sources that confirm this?

 

[A_Random_Guy]

I have read various forum thread posts from different websites which claimed that the Mark 11 twin-arm and Mark 13 single-arm Tartar / Standard-MR GMLS were built as drop-in replacements for the WWII-era 5"/38 twin-gun turrets and thus could fit in the same space as the gun turrets.

Is that true? If so, what are the various sources that confirm this?

Friedman discusses it on page 222 in U.S. Destroyers an Illustrated Design History that the Tartar launchers could replace the turrets on a 1-1 basis.

Reality was a little more complicated. As previously mentioned in the thread the launchers were significantly taller than the mounts and generally weighed more.

That being said there are examples of such conversions occurring, those being the DDG conversions of several Forest Sherman class destroyers with the missile launcher replacing the number 3 turret (though again being significantly taller than the original). If you want to stretch the definition of conversion you could also cite the Charles F. Adams class which were basically Shermans built with the missile launcher from the start.

The 5”/54 Mk42 was itself supposed to fit within the space of a 5”/38 twin (though it was generally heavier), reinforcing the idea that the Mk11 and Mk 13 could fit within roughly the same space as the 5”/38, though it should be said that it wouldn’t be as simple as taking off the turret and dropping in the missile launcher.

 

[Christopher Wang]

Friedman discusses it on page 222 in U.S. Destroyers an Illustrated Design History that the Tartar launchers could replace the turrets on a 1-1 basis.

Reality was a little more complicated. As previously mentioned in the thread the launchers were significantly taller than the mounts and generally weighed more.

That being said there are examples of such conversions occurring, those being the DDG conversions of several Forest Sherman class destroyers with the missile launcher replacing the number 3 turret (though again being significantly taller than the original). If you want to stretch the definition of conversion you could also cite the Charles F. Adams class which were basically Shermans built with the missile launcher from the start.

The 5”/54 Mk42 was itself supposed to fit within the space of a 5”/38 twin (though it was generally heavier), reinforcing the idea that the Mk11 and Mk 13 could fit within roughly the same space as the 5”/38, though it should be said that it wouldn’t be as simple as taking off the turret and dropping in the missile launcher.

Thank you for the clarification.

I would also like to add that from 1979 to 1980, the United States Navy proposed updating their remaining obsolete FRAM Gearing class destroyers in the Naval Reserve Force as ASW escorts by replacing the WWII-era 5"/38 twin-gun turrets with one or two Mark 45 5"/54 single-gun turrets.



SOURCE: United States General Accounting Office. (1980, July 3). Report by the comptroller general of the United States: Retention of FRAM destroyers may be impractical. (LCD-80-76). Retrieved from https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD1118946.pdf

In addition, Gardiner and Chumbley (1995) explained that in the 1960s the Italian Navy planned to modernize its two Impetuoso class destroyers by replacing the ships' existing two Mark 38 5"/38 twin-gun turrets with a Mark 45 5"/54 single-gun turret forward and a RIM-24 Tartar SAM launcher in the aft (p. 206).

SOURCE: Gardiner, R., & Chumbley, S. (Eds.). (1995). Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships 1947–1995. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press.

 

[Scott Kenny]

In addition, Gardiner and Chumbley (1995) explained that in the 1960s the Italian Navy planned to modernize its two Impetuoso class destroyers by replacing the ships' existing two Mark 38 5"/38 twin-gun turrets with a Mark 45 5"/54 single-gun turret forward and a RIM-24 Tartar SAM launcher in the aft (p. 206).

SOURCE: Gardiner, R., & Chumbley, S. (Eds.). (1995). Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships 1947–1995. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press.

That Italian conversion plan is what I wish the US had done in the FRAM II upgrade instead of keeping the aft 5"/38 mount.

 

[Christopher Wang]

Friedman discusses it on page 222 in U.S. Destroyers an Illustrated Design History that the Tartar launchers could replace the turrets on a 1-1 basis.

Reality was a little more complicated. As previously mentioned in the thread the launchers were significantly taller than the mounts and generally weighed more.

That being said there are examples of such conversions occurring, those being the DDG conversions of several Forest Sherman class destroyers with the missile launcher replacing the number 3 turret (though again being significantly taller than the original). If you want to stretch the definition of conversion you could also cite the Charles F. Adams class which were basically Shermans built with the missile launcher from the start.

The 5”/54 Mk42 was itself supposed to fit within the space of a 5”/38 twin (though it was generally heavier), reinforcing the idea that the Mk11 and Mk 13 could fit within roughly the same space as the 5”/38, though it should be said that it wouldn’t be as simple as taking off the turret and dropping in the missile launcher.

These cutaway drawings of the Italian Navy's Impetuoso and Impavido class destroyers gives us an idea on how the Mark 13 single-arm Tartar / Standard-MR GMLS could have replaced the Mark 38 5"/38 twin-gun turret mount. The Impavido class guided-missile destroyers are essentially improved Impetuoso class ships with the aft gun turret replaced by a Tartar surface-to-air missile launcher along with associated fire control radars.


Impetuoso class DD ( https://forum.warthunder.com/t/indomito-class-destroyer-indomito-d559/15362 )


Impavido class DDG ( https://old-forum.warthunder.com/in...lass-guided-missile-destroyer-impavido-d-570/ )