sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,743
Reaction score
3,715
My point is that these weapons require a much different level of volume and weight (apparently 16,000lbs each sans launcher) and you are going to waste a lot of volume and freeboard crushing that into an escort. The range of the weapon is stated to be 1750 miles by the army (I assume that is a very rough number); the launch platform could be well past the first island chain and still strike hundreds of miles inland. Maybe the platform needs defending, maybe it doesn’t, maybe it operates with a CSG, maybe it doesn’t. But it makes sense to me to separate this offensive capability out from the escort screen rather than shoehorn it into ships that are already already taxed by their mission requirements.
Hopefully they'll do something like this:

1635954169742.png
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,980
Reaction score
2,568
Fairly certain that the stated plan is to use modified 3-round MACs. Again, saving on unique engineering work by recycling kit from another effort rather than designing new hardware that might end up as a three-ship application.
 

A Tentative Fleet Plan

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Apr 9, 2018
Messages
261
Reaction score
483
I understand that the Navy version of LRHW is meant to be cold-launched, so they might still want to cant the MACs a few degrees from the vertical to eject any LRHWs will failed motors over the side, rather than having several tons of solid-rocket motor fall back on the deck.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,743
Reaction score
3,715
Fairly certain that the stated plan is to use modified 3-round MACs. Again, saving on unique engineering work by recycling kit from another effort rather than designing new hardware that might end up as a three-ship application.
Fair enough but I hope they at least make it modular.
 

A Tentative Fleet Plan

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Apr 9, 2018
Messages
261
Reaction score
483
Fairly certain that the stated plan is to use modified 3-round MACs. Again, saving on unique engineering work by recycling kit from another effort rather than designing new hardware that might end up as a three-ship application.
Fair enough but I hope they at least make it modular.
Wasn't AGS supposed to be modular? If that is the case surely it would be fairly simple to replace them each with a box-shaped module of the same dimensions containing a MAC or two (aside from concerns about top-weight, hull depth, and changes in weight distribution affecting trim).
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,743
Reaction score
3,715
Fairly certain that the stated plan is to use modified 3-round MACs. Again, saving on unique engineering work by recycling kit from another effort rather than designing new hardware that might end up as a three-ship application.
Fair enough but I hope they at least make it modular.
Wasn't AGS supposed to be modular? If that is the case surely it would be fairly simple to replace them each with a box-shaped module of the same dimensions containing a MAC or two (aside from concerns about top-weight, hull depth, and changes in weight distribution affecting trim).
Depends if the "box" the AGS sits in is deep enough.
 

Moose

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,564
Reaction score
694
I understand that the Navy version of LRHW is meant to be cold-launched, so they might still want to cant the MACs a few degrees from the vertical to eject any LRHWs will failed motors over the side, rather than having several tons of solid-rocket motor fall back on the deck.
USN cold-launch isn't done with a little compressed gas bottle, remember that it's designed for throwing missiles to the surface from a submerged submarine. They flash boil water into steam with an explosive charge, on a surface vessel these suckers will come out of the tubes fast. With some aero surfaces, either on CPS itself or the pusher plate, the guidance system should be able to steer it over the side pretty well in the event of booster no-start.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,743
Reaction score
3,715
I understand that the Navy version of LRHW is meant to be cold-launched, so they might still want to cant the MACs a few degrees from the vertical to eject any LRHWs will failed motors over the side, rather than having several tons of solid-rocket motor fall back on the deck.
USN cold-launch isn't done with a little compressed gas bottle, remember that it's designed for throwing missiles to the surface from a submerged submarine. They flash boil water into steam with an explosive charge, on a surface vessel these suckers will come out of the tubes fast. With some aero surfaces, either on CPS itself or the pusher plate, the guidance system should be able to steer it over the side pretty well in the event of booster no-start.
With no fins or TVC that might be difficult. ;) Not sure you'd want the added complexity of a "pusher plate".. (I assume you mean something like the SS-18 has?)
 

Moose

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,564
Reaction score
694
I understand that the Navy version of LRHW is meant to be cold-launched, so they might still want to cant the MACs a few degrees from the vertical to eject any LRHWs will failed motors over the side, rather than having several tons of solid-rocket motor fall back on the deck.
USN cold-launch isn't done with a little compressed gas bottle, remember that it's designed for throwing missiles to the surface from a submerged submarine. They flash boil water into steam with an explosive charge, on a surface vessel these suckers will come out of the tubes fast. With some aero surfaces, either on CPS itself or the pusher plate, the guidance system should be able to steer it over the side pretty well in the event of booster no-start.
With no fins or TVC that might be difficult. ;) Not sure you'd want the added complexity of a "pusher plate".. (I assume you mean something like the SS-18 has?)
With cold-launch, you either need a piston to throw the missile or a base plate for the gas/steam to act against without giving your booster an enema. CPS is quite long, I doubt there's room for a piston underneath one in a VPM tube. A small plate would be workable.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,743
Reaction score
3,715
I understand that the Navy version of LRHW is meant to be cold-launched, so they might still want to cant the MACs a few degrees from the vertical to eject any LRHWs will failed motors over the side, rather than having several tons of solid-rocket motor fall back on the deck.
USN cold-launch isn't done with a little compressed gas bottle, remember that it's designed for throwing missiles to the surface from a submerged submarine. They flash boil water into steam with an explosive charge, on a surface vessel these suckers will come out of the tubes fast. With some aero surfaces, either on CPS itself or the pusher plate, the guidance system should be able to steer it over the side pretty well in the event of booster no-start.
With no fins or TVC that might be difficult. ;) Not sure you'd want the added complexity of a "pusher plate".. (I assume you mean something like the SS-18 has?)
With cold-launch, you either need a piston to throw the missile or a base plate for the gas/steam to act against without giving your booster an enema. CPS is quite long, I doubt there's room for a piston underneath one in a VPM tube. A small plate would be workable.
Peacekeeper didn't have either. Not sure what S-300/400 uses. S-300V (and Sprint) use a powder charge.

Peacekeeper_missile.jpg

AchingSandyFishingcat-size_restricted.gif
 

Moose

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,564
Reaction score
694
I understand that the Navy version of LRHW is meant to be cold-launched, so they might still want to cant the MACs a few degrees from the vertical to eject any LRHWs will failed motors over the side, rather than having several tons of solid-rocket motor fall back on the deck.
USN cold-launch isn't done with a little compressed gas bottle, remember that it's designed for throwing missiles to the surface from a submerged submarine. They flash boil water into steam with an explosive charge, on a surface vessel these suckers will come out of the tubes fast. With some aero surfaces, either on CPS itself or the pusher plate, the guidance system should be able to steer it over the side pretty well in the event of booster no-start.
With no fins or TVC that might be difficult. ;) Not sure you'd want the added complexity of a "pusher plate".. (I assume you mean something like the SS-18 has?)
With cold-launch, you either need a piston to throw the missile or a base plate for the gas/steam to act against without giving your booster an enema. CPS is quite long, I doubt there's room for a piston underneath one in a VPM tube. A small plate would be workable.
Peacekeeper didn't have either. Not sure what S-300/400 uses. S-300V (and Sprint) use a powder charge.

View attachment 667247

View attachment 667248
Sprint's powder charge propelled a piston, the dramatic fireball was gas venting but the push came from the piston.
 

donnage99

"Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Joined
Jun 17, 2008
Messages
1,001
Reaction score
86
The ship built entirely around a gun now is getting the gun replaced with non gun stuff. You cant make this stuff up
IF that were true that would be something. Zumwalt wasn't "built entirely around a gun". The Zumwalt hull was to form the basis of the Ticonderoga replacement which would have swapped out at least one of the guns for more missiles.
from what I remember, the cruiser replacement program settled with the Zumwalt hull for cost reason (which is good) not that the hull was formed as the basis for the cruiser. At the time, the navy formed 2 teams considering several options - 2 prevailing options were the zumwalt hull for cruiser and the san antonio hull for even more decked out BMD cruiser. Both were attractive because they utilize existing hulls or would-be existing hulls, cutting down on R&D
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,980
Reaction score
2,568
The ship built entirely around a gun now is getting the gun replaced with non gun stuff. You cant make this stuff up
IF that were true that would be something. Zumwalt wasn't "built entirely around a gun". The Zumwalt hull was to form the basis of the Ticonderoga replacement which would have swapped out at least one of the guns for more missiles.
from what I remember, the cruiser replacement program settled with the Zumwalt hull for cost reason (which is good) not that the hull was formed as the basis for the cruiser. At the time, the navy formed 2 teams considering several options - 2 prevailing options were the zumwalt hull for cruiser and the san antonio hull for even more decked out BMD cruiser. Both were attractive because they utilize existing hulls or would-be existing hulls, cutting down on R&D

The original SC-21 program envisaged both cruisers and destroyers using the same HM&E. LPD-17 derivatives really only came into consideration after SC-21/DD-21 had collapsed into DD(X) and it was obvious that there was not going to be a large production run leading into a CG(X).
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Top