Age of large ships over

[Josh_TN]

Not really. I’d say dedicated cells that can only be used for one mission set is a bigger waste of space tbh

The number of CPS is always going to be incredibly small; it does not make sense to have a four deck deep cell for everything when only a dozen of those cells actually would have IR missiles.

 

[Josh_TN]

That’s fine, just means you can fit more normal missiles in each cell.

Stacking missiles on top of each other is going to require an elaborate cold launch system or exhaust arrangement to the point that stacked cells would have almost nothing in common with CPS cells except the outer wall.

 

[Josh_TN]

Think of it this way.
Would you really prefer 120 mk41 and a dozen CPS VLS, or would you prefer 96-100 VLS(X) that can operate any missile we have meaning we could potentially have 80 CPS onboard and 16-20 cells for SAMs?

SM2 and 6 are less than 14” diameter so double packing them should be feasible into this new theoretical VLS, meaning 16 cells gives you 32 mid-long range SAMS.

Even at a split of 12 CPS and 84 cells for everything else you can still get more of our conventional missiles overall. Say 4 for TLAM, meaning 160 Standard Missiles assuming no ESSMs.

What platform is possibly going to fit 80 CPS cells?! That’s 640 tons of ordnance…

CPS is tens of millions per missile; a ship will never carry more than a dozen or two tops. Current purchases are like $60 mil; that will come down but not drastically. You can probably fill the rest of the ships mags for two dozen CPS, assuming there was sufficient displacement and freeboard to fit two dozen missiles.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Stacking missiles on top of each other is going to require an elaborate cold launch system or exhaust arrangement to the point that stacked cells would have almost nothing in common with CPS cells except the outer wall.

If the VLS(X) cells are ~48" square, you are single-packing CPS (with diameter growth possible), quad-packing any 21" weapons, 9-packing SM2s, and 16-packing ESSMs.

Without having to stack missiles 2 deep in the cell.

But I really don't see any one ship carrying more than a dozen or so CPS missiles.

Are we assuming that CPS is a 1:1 replacement for Tomahawks? If so, then a 90-cell ship is looking at carrying about 21. Let's call it 24, just so we have an even number of big tubes. A 120-cell ship is looking at carrying ~32 (30 or 36, for an even number of big tubes). (I went back and checked the list of weapons loaded into a Tico back in 2018.)

Ideally, we'd have ~90x** VLS tubes plus the CPS.

** or whatever the number is for the Tico replacement, wiki currently says 90 but I really think that 122 is more realistic due to increased missile threat.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

How many times have we heard that in the last 200 years? Particularly about surface combatants specifically?

Introduction of the torpedo and torpedo boat, ‘it’s the end of the battleship!’
Battleships continued on for another century or so.
Introduction of submarines, ‘it’s the end of large ships!’ Well over a century large ships still exist.
Introduction of naval aviation ‘it’s the end of surface combatants!’ Well over a century later large surface combatants are still integral parts of every fleet, if not the most important part.

Earliest form of this argument went back to the early 19th Century, where it was argued that paddle frigates would be able to defeat ships of the line with large cannon (56pdr or larger) and Paixhans guns.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

Only if you compare post-war cruisers to WW2 era battleships. If you compare post-war cruisers to WW2 era cruisers, growth continued, or size was held consistent with late war designs and armament dropped because of the other demands on volume. The UK's first post-war looks at truly new light cruisers in 1951 came in at 17,350t deep and 19,000t deep for 4x2x6" or 5", they had to halve the armament to get down to 10,000t

And in addition the Large Cruiser of 1960 (drawn up in 1948) didn't have a very extensive sensor suite compared to the other designs drawn, fire control aside, it had one Type 960 Air Warning set and one Type 992 Target Indication Set (plus a Type 978 for surface search/navigation). The Medium Cruisers of 1960 had a pair of Type 984s, in addition to the previously mentioned sets!

 

[johnpjones1775]

Earliest form of this argument went back to the early 19th Century, where it was argued that paddle frigates would be able to defeat ships of the line with large cannon (56pdr or larger) and Paixhans guns.

Never seen that claim anywhere before.

 

[johnpjones1775]

O

Stacking missiles on top of each other is going to require an elaborate cold launch system or exhaust arrangement to the point that stacked cells would have almost nothing in common with CPS cells except the outer wall.

who is stacking missiles on top of each other? What are you talking about?

 

[Josh_TN]

If the VLS(X) cells are ~48" square, you are single-packing CPS (with diameter growth possible), quad-packing any 21" weapons, 9-packing SM2s, and 16-packing ESSMs.

Without having to stack missiles 2 deep in the cell.

But I really don't see any one ship carrying more than a dozen or so CPS missiles.

Are we assuming that CPS is a 1:1 replacement for Tomahawks? If so, then a 90-cell ship is looking at carrying about 21. Let's call it 24, just so we have an even number of big tubes. A 120-cell ship is looking at carrying ~32 (30 or 36, for an even number of big tubes). (I went back and checked the list of weapons loaded into a Tico back in 2018.)

Ideally, we'd have ~90x** VLS tubes plus the CPS.

** or whatever the number is for the Tico replacement, wiki currently says 90 but I really think that 122 is more realistic due to increased missile threat.

Tomahawk is a million dollar upgrade kit and 3,000# class weapon; CPS is a >16,000 lb weapon that currently costs $60 mil.

 

[uk 75]

The Royal Navy has learnt the hard lesson that building ships that are too small (Type 42 AAW destroyers) is a false economy.
The Type 45 is thus bigger and more capable. But only six made it into service replacing 12 T42s.
It looks as if the RN will go back to a smaller cheaper platform. The T42 replaced the one off T82 and 8 County class ships which were larger and better armed.
The Russian Navy has focussed on the Gorshkov frigates which look a lot like French and Italian designs.

 

[johnpjones1775]

The Royal Navy has learnt the hard lesson that building ships that are too small (Type 42 AAW destroyers) is a false economy.
The Type 45 is thus bigger and more capable. But only six made it into service replacing 12 T42s.
It looks as if the RN will go back to a smaller cheaper platform. The T42 replaced the one off T82 and 8 County class ships which were larger and better armed.
The Russian Navy has focussed on the Gorshkov frigates which look a lot like French and Italian designs.

Russians have only focused on gorshkov because they can’t really build anything larger or more complicated. That’s why they went to France for an amphib, that’s why the Lidr never made beyond a model, and no new destroyers or cruisers have been built in decades.

 

[Big_Zukini]

Age of large ships just started.

 

[DWG]

Never seen that claim anywhere before.

You see a similar evolution of thought with the early Ironclads.

Though it's probably not the earliest version of that claim, I've no doubt someone in the Byzantine Admiralty will have been proclaiming Greek Fire was the end to conventional galleys.

 

[johnpjones1775]

You see a similar evolution of thought with the early Ironclads.

Though it's probably not the earliest version of that claim, I've no doubt someone in the Byzantine Admiralty will have been proclaiming Greek Fire was the end to conventional galleys.

Do you have any sources for who was saying that?

And Tbf ironclads were the end of wooden ships.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Tomahawk is a million dollar upgrade kit and 3,000# class weapon; CPS is a >16,000 lb weapon that currently costs $60 mil.

I mean operationally, not financially.

The military doesn't really care how much a weapon costs when it comes time to use them.

 

[Josh_TN]

I mean operationally, not financially.

The military doesn't really care how much a weapon costs when it comes time to use them.

But it most certainly cares when it is time to buy them or the platforms for them. Adding an order of magnitude more volume, mass, and cost means you don’t get as many launch cells or platforms, and it is silly to assume otherwise.

 

[Big_Zukini]

But it most certainly cares when it is time to buy them or the platforms for them. Adding an order of magnitude more volume, mass, and cost means you don’t get as many launch cells or platforms, and it is silly to assume otherwise.

I tend to somewhat agree with Scott here. It is evident that cost efficiency hasn't been a priority in a long time, nor does it seem to be now, despite a few small steps in that direction.

 

[Josh_TN]

I tend to somewhat agree with Scott here. It is evident that cost efficiency hasn't been a priority in a long time, nor does it seem to be now, despite a few small steps in that direction.

I do not know what US DoD budget you are looking at, but the one I am witnessing is ready to cut entire capabilities, let alone launch tubes.

It would perhaps be better to worry about what DDGX will carry when it’s fully funded to production.

 

[Big_Zukini]

I do not know what US DoD budget you are looking at, but the one I am witnessing is ready to cut entire capabilities, let alone launch tubes.

It would perhaps be better to worry about what DDGX will carry when it’s fully funded to production.

More often than not, a missile doesn't cost $5 million because that's its actual value, but rather because that's the price deemed appropriate to pay for it, by all parties.
If the interest was to make missiles that cost only half as much, that would have simply be done.
Why do you think European arms cost so much more than almost anywhere else? Because they can easily afford it.