Anybody know the specific envelope size of Mk 57 VLS and Mk41 VLS Cells?

Sferrin

Sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
3 June 2011
Messages
18,335
Reaction score
12,234
All I've been able to find are the usual, vague, external module sizes and weights. What I'm looking for is the size of the cell interior. I figure with the Mk41 the length of SM-3 and diameter of it's booster is probably pretty close. AFAIK the Mk72 booster was as big as they could make it and still fit the missile stack in the cell. The Mk57 is a bit more mysterious. I'd swear it was something like 23.5 feet long and 26" dia. but who knows? I have a slide here that says the SM-3 Block IIB would have had a 27" diameter missile which wouldn't fit in either current VLS so I'm not sure what to make of it. Anyway, any help would be appreciated. I know this isn't the first time this has come up but it doesn't seem anybody has had that info in the past. :-\
 
The interior of the Mk41 cell is 22" square, the Mk57 cell is 25" square. The interior of a strike-length (longest so far) Mk41 cell is 258" long, the Mk57 cell on Zumwalt is 276" long.
 
Moose said:
The interior of the Mk41 cell is 22" square, the Mk57 cell is 25" square. The interior of a strike-length (longest so far) Mk41 cell is 258" long, the Mk57 cell on Zumwalt is 276" long.
Click to expand...

Sweet! Thank you! Where did you find the dims?
 
sferrin said:
Sweet! Thank you! Where did you find the dims?
Click to expand...
You are welcome. The information comes from BAE documentation about the canisters they produce, pretty sure it can be found in PDF form on Google.
 
TomS said:
Are you looking for the inside dimensions of a Mk 57 compatible canister? The maximum outside dimensions of the canister are in a brochure we've discussed before -- 28" square x 283" long.
Click to expand...

Inside dims. I found those brochures with exterior dimensions about 40 times while looking (5 times on my NAS alone :) ). Even the Tomahawk user's manual didn't have them.
 
Moose said:
sferrin said:
Sweet! Thank you! Where did you find the dims?
Click to expand...
You are welcome. The information comes from BAE documentation about the canisters they produce, pretty sure it can be found in PDF form on Google.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I hit the BAE site as well with no luck. Might have been their once and they removed them or something. I've noticed other sites do that as well. For example LM use to have a lot more information on the Mk41 VLS.
 
sferrin said:
Moose said:
sferrin said:
Sweet! Thank you! Where did you find the dims?
Click to expand...
You are welcome. The information comes from BAE documentation about the canisters they produce, pretty sure it can be found in PDF form on Google.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I hit the BAE site as well with no luck. Might have been their once and they removed them or something. I've noticed other sites do that as well. For example LM use to have a lot more information on the Mk41 VLS.
Click to expand...
I'd post my copy if I could, sorry.
 
Moose said:
sferrin said:
Moose said:
sferrin said:
Sweet! Thank you! Where did you find the dims?
Click to expand...
You are welcome. The information comes from BAE documentation about the canisters they produce, pretty sure it can be found in PDF form on Google.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I hit the BAE site as well with no luck. Might have been their once and they removed them or something. I've noticed other sites do that as well. For example LM use to have a lot more information on the Mk41 VLS.
Click to expand...
I'd post my copy if I could, sorry.
Click to expand...

No problem. The dimensions are all I really needed so. :)
 
I don't know if this is the right thread for but I just stumbled across this "Defence Updates" video about a recent USN test concerning reloading Mk-41 canisters at sea:

 
The Mk 57 VLS should be able to fit 5 ESSM or 2 SM-2 blk 3. If the SM-2 and ESSM continue to be the cell packers rather than the more expensive SM-6, this strengthens the argument for Mk 57. The wasted volume when packing the current SM-6 and SM-3 would be made up for by the increased space efficiency of SM-2 and ESSM loading. Unless, of course, the Navy wants to use more of the SM-2 Blk IV with its larger booster. Mk 57 has better gas management, space for larger future missiles, easier compatibility with new missiles of any type. Why would the Navy not want Mk 57 on DDG(X).

1745233067359.png 1745233082055.png
 
joshjosh said:
The Mk 57 VLS should be able to fit 5 ESSM or 2 SM-2 blk 3. If the SM-2 and ESSM continue to be the cell packers rather than the more expensive SM-6, this strengthens the argument for Mk 57. The wasted volume when packing the current SM-6 and SM-3 would be made up for by the increased space efficiency of SM-2 and ESSM loading. Unless, of course, the Navy wants to use more of the SM-2 Blk IV with its larger booster. Mk 57 has better gas management, space for larger future missiles, easier compatibility with new missiles of any type. Why would the Navy not want Mk 57 on DDG(X).

View attachment 767542View attachment 767543
Click to expand...

You're ignoring the fins on the SM-2, and the need for walls between the missiles in ESSM.

And of course the problem of creating an entirely new inventory of canisters for Mk57 ships (all three of them) and Mk 41 ships. DDG(X) will probably not have Mk 57 because it has some very specific installation needs (it is designed for deck-edge mounting) and takes almost twice the volume as a Mk 41 module.
 
joshjosh said:
I thought quoted diameters included any fins or strakes
Click to expand...

No, it's the missile body diameter for SM-2. The strakes extend outside of a notional box around that diameter.

It is possible to dual-pack a modified (no strakes/fins) SM-2 MR in a Mk41, just barely. Possibly you could fit two unmodified missiles dual-packed in a Mk57 cell but your drawing doesn't quite prove it.

Post in thread 'US Navy Standard Missile Family' https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/us-navy-standard-missile-family.7671/post-336010
 
joshjosh said:
That can't be the case, 25" is smaller than the internal diameter of the Mk 41
Click to expand...

The strakes fit the diagonal of the Mk 41 canister. Remember Pythagoras -- a square 21 inches on a side has a diagonal dimension of just under 30 inches.
 
TomS said:
It is possible to dual-pack a modified (no strakes/fins) SM-2 MR in a Mk41, just barely.
Click to expand...

How would the performance of the SM-2 be effected if the strakes were eliminated?
 
NMaude said:
How would the performance of the SM-2 be effected if the strakes were eliminated?
Click to expand...

I don't know, honestly. The strakes serve several purposes — the provide lift and stability, they may also be vortex generators. (More mundanely, they also cover cable chases between the seeker and the steering mechanisms.) Removing the strakes would change a lot of basic aerodynamics of the missile but how exactly isn't obvious.
 
Another function of the strakes would be in stiffening the SM-2's fuselage so that it can pull higher G-manouvres than without them.
 
TomS said:
I don't know, honestly. The strakes serve several purposes — the provide lift and stability, they may also be vortex generators. (More mundanely, they also cover cable chases between the seeker and the steering mechanisms.) Removing the strakes would change a lot of basic aerodynamics of the missile but how exactly isn't obvious.
Click to expand...
Probably less lift, especially at higher altitudes. They not only give more lifting area, for maneuverability, they move the CP forward which also helps with turning.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom