They also throw a lot more projectiles and could be reloaded much faster. Granted, they aren't very useful against modern submarines, but against torpedoes they provide much more robust defense than anti-torpedoes.
I suspect that has a lot to do with the MK 41 VLS program's, ah, complicated history. Not to mention certain ill-advised reorganisations within the USN during the 1970s, e.g. NAVORD being merged with NAVSHIPS to create NAVSEA.
Essentially it was the UGM-89 "Perseus"; a sub-launched rocket, carrying heavyweight torpedo. While the idea was solid, the project fell viction to Rickover's desire to get a new nuclear submarine; from the straightforward super-SUBROC, "Perseus" turned into a whole bunch of unrelated concepts, and eventually got cancelled, when Congress choose the Zumwalt's ideas over Rickover's.
Aside from UGM-89 Perseus, because a Mk48 weighs in at 3500lbs all by itself. And is 21ft long. Add probably 500lbs of parachute, and the whole package is just too big to fit into a Mk41 cell.
Fair point, though MILAS isn't exactly widely deployed.
Should be noted that UK MoD has an RFI that has just closed for a Mk.41 VL rocket launched system with Stingray as the 'effector'. They're looking for more range than existing systems can deliver....
Depends on what you want them to do.
The website of the company publishing the report seems like "new" to the defense and aerospace business ..... so I guess we need to take the report with a pinch of salt .....
Several problems there. First, the ESSM is not designed to be cold-launched. Second, the ESSM is not designed to survive water pressure. So either you would launch them from surface (which would be a no-go from submariner's point of view), or use some kind of hardened launch capsule to shot missile through the water (with missile motor igniting only after reaching surface). Hardened capsule would likely preclude quad-packing.
If we would be able to make a version with foldable wings & fins, capable of fitting into 160-mm diameter, then yes, they could be (theoretically) quad-packed inside individual hardened capsules in one Mk-45 tube. The range would be severly limited, though. Likely no more than 10-15 km. Likely even less, since IR-guided missile could not efficiently estimate the distance to the target.
Its possible, just not very practical. You could fit just one missile per tube, i.e. at most 12 missiles could be fit at the cost of completely dispencing with Tomahawks load. On practice, it would likley be 6-to-6 configuration, with six ESSM and six Tomahawks.
Not worth it except in very limited places. Normally you go deep and run like hell after shooting missiles.
Those tubes are actually 25" in diameter, they can just barely fit a slightly-modified ATACMS missile inside (flat-ribbon umbilical instead of round, and a different tail fin system. Details in the PDF). If the Navy would have been cool about much less resistance to shock loads, anyways. Otherwise you need about 2" of space around the outside of the missile for shock absorbtion. Handled via what look like ping-pong balls!
I'll believe it when units are delivered and demonstrated in REFORGER etc.
I still think the NMM-ER-S is more for surface strike than for AA work. In order to work for AA, the sub would have to be at periscope depth to receive offboard targeting data to send missiles up.
Yes,the trick is not losing the buoy in high sea states. Kentucky Blue managed to lose one back in 03ish. There's a reward for its return if anyone finds a black float about the size of a VW Bug in the Pacific ocean or coast.
