In reference and continuing to my previous post about VLS in future-usn-frigate-design-speculation.51745/post-924746
Since this kind of discussion tends to derail and keep happening in almost every related threads and with the very same discussions & arguments & interests.
I've decided to create this as an independent (art project) discussion.
The art is just a means to give people something substantial to look at rather than just words. Most of this will be theoretical and are my own thougths, though reality has caught up a bit in the little time it took me to make the drawings.
As I've talked about before the next generation VLS would preferably pack more. And that next step up would be similar to the Mk-70 in packing 4 SM-2/SM-6 in a larger canister.
The canister would be 38" with a "standard" opening of about 35.5". Like the Mk-41 it's possible to accomodate oversized rounds.
This would be able to pack 9 ESSM. A 6-cells with about the same size as a Mk-41 8-cell block could increase magazine depth by 24/8=3x or 54/32=1.6875x respectively.
For other packing & fitting options see drawing.
As it turns out the size I derived seems to be the same size as SouthKorea's KVLS-II design or perhabs a bit larger by 1"? And from what's been said about LockMart's Growth VLS / G-VLS both seem to be of similar size.
The Korean designs are a bit inconvenient in size but not too bad. Their 4-cell block design is obviously aimed at increasing the rate of fire for a farm.
Similarly, the KVLS is designed to launch every cell independly, although, a bit too big with large inbetween spacing. I've created a more efficient alternative which happens to be similar to an abandoned patent.
The problem with these is that simultaneous launching missiles could collide with each other due to ship swaying & wind, missile reorienting bearing after launch etc. This reduces theoretical rate of fire to half.
Now, that the Naval Modular Missile concepts are public we got more packing options, too.
Overall, it's possible to combine a mix of larger magazine depth with higher rates of fire for a VLS farm setup.
Another option not discussed but already solved for TLAM is stacking rounds. In this case, self-defense length rounds could be stacked in a CPS length launcher.
Alternatively, a launcher system with an automatic magazine loading feature could increase magazine depth some more. However, this would only become feasible with farms with a Mk41 cell count or 64 or more like the Mogami FFM-AAW variant with 80 cells. Hence, it's an option better suited for an arsenal ship design.
But for smaller launchers (NASAMS/RAM) and rounds (ESSM/RAM) the space needed, the mechanics, the fire rate, and number of ready fire rounds are much more favorable.
Another option is to mount RAM launchers to main cannon turrets to take advantage of their sensor guidance system and coordinate and improve its defensive fire.
Applying these to DDG(X) with 2x64 Mk41 cells and (12) CPS G-VLS cells but leaving CPS alone.
Replacing Mk41 with RoF of 16(simplified not actual) for 6x 6-cell G-VLS blocks; 4x 4-cell G-VLS blocks and 4x 6-cell quick-shot G-VLS blocks with max RoF of 22 and sustained RoF of 10.
And 52*4+12=220x SM2 or 52*9+12*4=516 ESSM.
or
Replacing Mk41 with RoF of 16 for 6x 6-cell G-VLS blocks; 8x 4-cell G-VLS blocks with RoF of 14.
And 68*4=272x SM2 or 68*9=612 ESSM.
or
Replacing Mk41 with RoF of 16 for 16x 4-cell G-VLS blocks with RoF of 16.
And 64*4=256x SM2 or 64*9=576 ESSM.
As you can see raising RoF isn't a good trade with the independent & individual quick shot launchers since they don't have magazine depth beyond the single-shot.
The 4-cell block is the far better option but due to size can't increase total RoF. A complete different variable VLS design and setup offering denser cell arrangement is needed to outdo the current state of things.
The reloadable launcher turrets would be best located at the stern, aft and below the helipad similar to this over 21 year old illustration based on the Murasame-class destroyer.
Since this kind of discussion tends to derail and keep happening in almost every related threads and with the very same discussions & arguments & interests.
I've decided to create this as an independent (art project) discussion.
The art is just a means to give people something substantial to look at rather than just words. Most of this will be theoretical and are my own thougths, though reality has caught up a bit in the little time it took me to make the drawings.
As I've talked about before the next generation VLS would preferably pack more. And that next step up would be similar to the Mk-70 in packing 4 SM-2/SM-6 in a larger canister.
The canister would be 38" with a "standard" opening of about 35.5". Like the Mk-41 it's possible to accomodate oversized rounds.
This would be able to pack 9 ESSM. A 6-cells with about the same size as a Mk-41 8-cell block could increase magazine depth by 24/8=3x or 54/32=1.6875x respectively.
For other packing & fitting options see drawing.
As it turns out the size I derived seems to be the same size as SouthKorea's KVLS-II design or perhabs a bit larger by 1"? And from what's been said about LockMart's Growth VLS / G-VLS both seem to be of similar size.
The Korean designs are a bit inconvenient in size but not too bad. Their 4-cell block design is obviously aimed at increasing the rate of fire for a farm.
Similarly, the KVLS is designed to launch every cell independly, although, a bit too big with large inbetween spacing. I've created a more efficient alternative which happens to be similar to an abandoned patent.
The problem with these is that simultaneous launching missiles could collide with each other due to ship swaying & wind, missile reorienting bearing after launch etc. This reduces theoretical rate of fire to half.
Now, that the Naval Modular Missile concepts are public we got more packing options, too.
Overall, it's possible to combine a mix of larger magazine depth with higher rates of fire for a VLS farm setup.
Another option not discussed but already solved for TLAM is stacking rounds. In this case, self-defense length rounds could be stacked in a CPS length launcher.
Alternatively, a launcher system with an automatic magazine loading feature could increase magazine depth some more. However, this would only become feasible with farms with a Mk41 cell count or 64 or more like the Mogami FFM-AAW variant with 80 cells. Hence, it's an option better suited for an arsenal ship design.
But for smaller launchers (NASAMS/RAM) and rounds (ESSM/RAM) the space needed, the mechanics, the fire rate, and number of ready fire rounds are much more favorable.
Another option is to mount RAM launchers to main cannon turrets to take advantage of their sensor guidance system and coordinate and improve its defensive fire.
Applying these to DDG(X) with 2x64 Mk41 cells and (12) CPS G-VLS cells but leaving CPS alone.
Replacing Mk41 with RoF of 16(simplified not actual) for 6x 6-cell G-VLS blocks; 4x 4-cell G-VLS blocks and 4x 6-cell quick-shot G-VLS blocks with max RoF of 22 and sustained RoF of 10.
And 52*4+12=220x SM2 or 52*9+12*4=516 ESSM.
or
Replacing Mk41 with RoF of 16 for 6x 6-cell G-VLS blocks; 8x 4-cell G-VLS blocks with RoF of 14.
And 68*4=272x SM2 or 68*9=612 ESSM.
or
Replacing Mk41 with RoF of 16 for 16x 4-cell G-VLS blocks with RoF of 16.
And 64*4=256x SM2 or 64*9=576 ESSM.
As you can see raising RoF isn't a good trade with the independent & individual quick shot launchers since they don't have magazine depth beyond the single-shot.
The 4-cell block is the far better option but due to size can't increase total RoF. A complete different variable VLS design and setup offering denser cell arrangement is needed to outdo the current state of things.
The reloadable launcher turrets would be best located at the stern, aft and below the helipad similar to this over 21 year old illustration based on the Murasame-class destroyer.
