US Missile Launcher Designations

Tzoli

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
1 February 2011
Messages
2,693
Reaction score
2,837
I've thought I collect here the Guided Missile Launcher Systems or GMLS designations the US Armed forces used, mostly the navy but there seems to be many missing launcher designations and sequences.
If anybody knows more designations from the missing sequences feel free to post here or inform me and I've extend the list.

Here they are:

Mark 1 - Twin arm test launcher for the RIM-2 Terrier on the USS Mississippi
Mark 2 - Twin? arm test launcher and system for the RIM-2 Terrier
Mark 3 - Twin? arm test launcher and system for the RIM-2 Terrier
Mark 4 - Twin arm launcher for the RIM-2 Terrier used on the Boston class (Vertically loaded)
Mark 5 - Twin arm land based test launcher for RIM-2 Terrier, RIM-24 Tartar and RIM-66 and 67 Standard MR/ER used on the USS Desert Ship
Mark 6 - Unknown
Mark 7 - Twin arm launcher for the RIM-8 Talos used on the Galveston class (Above deck storage and horizontally loaded)
Mark 8 - Twin arm launcher for the RIM-2 Terrier used on the USS Gyatt (Above deck storage and horizontally loaded)
Mark 9 - Twin arm launcher for the RIM-2 Terrier used on the Providence class (Above deck storage and horizontally loaded)
Mark 10 - Twin arm launcher for the RIM-2 Terrier and RIM-67 Standard ER (Below deck storage and horizontally loaded)
Mark 11 - Twin arm launcher for the RIM-24 Tartar and RIM-66 Standard MR (Vertically loaded)
Mark 12 - Twin arm launcher for the RIM-8 Talos used on the USS Long Beach (Below deck storage and horizontally loaded)
Mark 13 - Single arm launcher for the RIM-24 Tartar, RIM-66 Standard MR and RGM-84 Harpoon (Vertically loaded)
Mark 14 - Single arm launcher for the RIM-55 Typhon MR (Vertical loaded) (One artist impression shows the launcher as an inverted Mark 13, eg the missile was held above the rail and not under it)
Mark 15 - 1/2-tube test launcher system for the RGM/UGM-27 Polaris
Mark 16 - 8 cell "Pepper Box" launcher for the RUR-5 ASROC and RGM-84 Harpoon (During development 2 cell and 12 cell versions were considered for the RAT and ASROC)
Mark 17 - 8/16-tube launcher system for the UGM-27 Polaris used on submarines
Mark 18-20 - Unknown
Mark 21 - 8/16-tube launcher system for the UGM-27C Polaris A-3 used on submarines
Mark 22 - Single arm launcher for the RIM-24 Tartar, RIM-66 Standard MR and RGM-84 Harpoon (Vertical loaded, Modified Mark 13)
Mark 23- Unknown
Mark 24 - 16-tube launcher system for the UGM-73 Poseidon used on submarines
Mark 25 - 8-cell (2-4-2) launcher for the RIM-7 Sea Sparrow / BPDMS (Horizontally manually loaded)
Mark 26 - Twin arm launcher for the RIM-66 Standard MR, RGM-84 Harpoon and RUR-5 ASROC (Vertical loaded)
Mark 27 - 1/2-tube launcher system for the Zuni Chaffroc system
Mark 28 - 1/2-tube launcher system for the Zuni Chaffroc system
Mark 29 - 8-cell (4-4) launcher for the RIM-7 NATO Sea Sparrow and RIM-162 Evolved Sea Sparrow (Horizontally manually loaded)
Mark 30 - 6-rail launcher for 5" Shore Bombardment Rocket used on the LSM(R) Class (Horizontally loaded)
Mark 31 - Unknown
Mark 32 - 1/2/4-cell launchers for the RIM-66 Standard MR used on sold Iranian and Taiwanese Ex USN Ships (Horizontally automatically loaded)
Mark 33 - 1/2-tube launcher system for 112mm Chaffroc system
Mark 34 - 2-tube launcher system for 112mm Chaffroc system used on the Pegasus class hydrofoils
Mark 35 - 16-tube launcher system for the UGM-96 Trident used on submarines
Mark 36 - 4-rail launcher for 5" Shore Bombardment Rocket used on the LSM(R) Class (Horizontally loaded)
Mark 37 - single-tube/rail launcher for the Mark 60 Mark 60 CAPTOR (Encapsulated Torpedo) used on surface ships
Mark 38 - single-tube/rail launcher for the Mark 60 Mark 60 CAPTOR (Encapsulated Torpedo) used on P-3 Orion aircraft
Mark 39 - single-tube/rail launcher for the Mark 60 Mark 60 CAPTOR (Encapsulated Torpedo) used on submarines
Mark 40 - Unknown
Mark 41 - Modular (8/16/32/40/61/64) Vertical Launch System for a large number of missile types (Vertically loaded)
Mark 42 - Unknown

Mark 43 - 24-cell launcher on an improved or modified SeaRAM/Phalanx Chassis for the RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile (Horizontally manually loaded)
Mark 44 - 4-cell/tube "Armoured Box" launcher for the BGM-109 Tomahawk (Horizontally manually loaded) (Re-designation?)
Mark 45 - Vertical Launch System for the UGM-84 Harpoon and UGM-109 Tomahawk used on submarines (Vertically loaded)
Mark 46-47 - Unknown
Mark 48 - Modular (2-4/6-12/16-32) Vertical Launch System for the RIM-7 VL Sea Sparrow and the RIM-162 Evolved Sea Sparrow (Vertically loaded)
Mark 49 - 21-cell launcher for the RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile (Horizontally manually loaded, there is also the SeaRAM a modified Mark 15 Phalanx mounting with a 11 cell launcher instead of the Gatling gun)
Mark 50 - 8-tube launcher for 5" Shore Bombardment Rocket used on PT Boats (Horizontally loaded)
Mark 51-52 - Unknown
Mark 53 - 2-4-cell launcher for the Nulka anti-missile decoy (Horizontally/Vertically manually loaded)
Mark 54-55 - Unknown
Mark 56 - Modular (4/12/32) Vertical Launch System for the RIM-162 Evolved Sea Sparrow (Vertically loaded)
Mark 57 - 20-cell Peripheral Vertical Launch System for the RIM-162 Evolved Sea Sparrow, RGM-109 Tomahawk and RUM-139 VL-ASROC used on the Zumwalt class (Vertically loaded)
Mark 58-69 - Unknown
Mark 70 - 1-4-cell (2x2) Canister/Vertical Launch System for a large number of missile types, looks like simplified and modified Mark 41 (Vertically or Horizontally loaded)
Mark 71-86 - Unknown
Mark 87 - 4-cell (2x2) launcher for the RGM-84 Naval Strike Missile (Horizontally manually loaded)
Mark 88-101 - Unknown
Mark 102 - Twin launcher for 5" Shore Bombardment Rocket, designed for use on LSMR (Vertically loaded)
Mark 103-104 - Unknown
Mark 105 - Twin launcher for 5" Shore Bombardment Rocket used at least on the USS Carronade (Vertically loaded)
Mark 106-107 - Unknown
Mark 108 - Single launcher for RUR-4 Weapon Alpha (Vertically loaded)
Mark 109-131 - Unknown
Mark 132 - Modified Mark 29 8-cell launcher for Combined 6x RIM-7 NATO Sea Sparrow and 10x (2x5) RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missiles (Horizontally manually loaded)
Mark 133-140 - Unknown
Mark 141 - 4-cell/tube launcher for the RGM-84 Harpoon (Horizontally manually loaded)
Mark 142 - Unknown
Mark 143 - 4-cell/tube "Armoured Box" launcher for the BGM-109 Tomahawk (Horizontally manually loaded)
Mark 144 - 21-cell launcher for the RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile (Horizontally manually loaded)


Note:
Not sure if there are visual differences between the Mark 7 and 12, Mark 9 and 10 as well as the Mark 13 and 14 launchers.
There is a system called the RAM Mark 31 Guided Missile Weapon System (GMWS) Which might be the full designation of the system and contains the Mark 144 launcher
 
Last edited:
I've thought I collect here the Guided Missile Launcher Systems or GMLS designations the US Armed forces used, mostly the navy but there seems to be many missing launcher designations and sequences.
If anybody knows more designations from the missing sequences feel free to post here or inform me and I've extend the list.

Mark 22 - Single arm launcher for the RIM-24 Tartar, RIM-66 Standard MR and RGM-84 Harpoon used on the Baleares class (Vertical loaded, Modified Mark 13)



Note:
Not sure if there are visual differences between the Mark 7 and 12, Mark 9 and 10 as well as the Mark 13 and 14 launchers.
There is a system called the RAM Mark 31 Guided Missile Weapon System (GMWS) Which might be the full designation of the system and contains the Mark 144 launcher
The Mark 22 launcher was first used in the USN's 6 Brooke class FFGs (commissioned 1966-67): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooke-class_frigate.

The 5 Spanish Baleares class were commissioned 1973-76.
 
Last edited:
Thx I thought they used the Mark 13
To make things more interesting, the Bureau of Ordnance distinguished rocket launchers from missile launchers, so that RAT and ASROC launchers were in a Mk 100 (ASW launcher) series (I had not realized that lower numbers were also applied to them). In this series, RAT was Mk 110 (the two-armed launcher built atop a 5in/38 mounting), and ASROC was Mk 112. That is how the Weapon Alfa launcher was Mk 108. At some point the system seems to have disintegrated, which may explain why the Harpoon canister launcher was in the Mk 100 series -- there are other examples of that, such as using SQQ-89 for the integrated ASW sensor systems in the 1980s, or the versions of AIM-7 which did not follow the usual A, b, C, D sequence (e.g. AIM-7M for Monopulse). I was going to write that perhaps somone decided that Mk 100 really meant unguided, which would put the canister launcher in the series -- but it would not quite explain why vertical launchers are in the main guided weapon series. Incidentally, Mark numbers for rocket launchers include decoy launchers, but it may be that some of hte lower numbers apply that way. Also, BuOrd tended to apply Mark numbers to all sorts of things, and sometimes you see a component number applied to the whole assembly -- I suspect that is why there are so many apparent gaps. Sometimes you can't get a good answer, for example with Weapon Systems -- why was Aegis Mk 7? Or was it? Incidentally, one of the missing launcher numbers may apply to a box launcher proposed by GD Pomona about 1956, which was intended to cut the cost of a Tartar system (of course most of the cost was in the electronics; it went nowhere).
 
Interesting! Also the missing mark numbers might be allocated to abandoned or concept launchers? Like say a single arm Talos and Terrier launcher? Or multi arm (3-4) Tartar? What about the twin canister Harpoon and maybe Tomahawk? If you say that unguided rocket launchers were in the 100 series that means Hedgehog, Mousetrap, Squid, Weapon Alpha or the USS Carronade's rocket launchers should be here as well? Or non-adopted but likely tested launchers like the Bofors 305mm ASW Mortar?
 
Last edited:
So... by this logic:

Mark 30 - 6-rail launcher for 5" Shore Bombardment Rocket used on the LSM(R) Class (Horizontally loaded)
Mark 36 - 4-rail launcher for 5" Shore Bombardment Rocket used on the LSM(R) Class (Horizontally loaded)
Mark 50 - 8-tube launcher for 5" Shore Bombardment Rocket used on PT Boats (Horizontally loaded)
Mark 102 - Twin launcher for 5" Shore Bombardment Rocket, designed for use on LSMR (Vertically loaded)
Mark 105 - Twin launcher for 5" Shore Bombardment Rocket used at least on the USS Carronade (Vertically loaded)
Mark 108 - Single launcher for RUR-4 Weapon Alpha (Vertically loaded)
Mark 110 - Twin launcher for the RAT (Rocket Assisted Torpedo)
Mark 112 - 8-cell Launcher for the RUR-5 ASROC

Found this document about the Rocket launchers:

The ASW launchers might not fit into this sequence?

Mark 10 - Hedgehog ASW launcher, elliptical pattern
Mark 11 - Hedgehog ASW launcher, circular pattern
Mark 15 - Trainable Hedgehog ASW launcher, circular pattern
Mark 20 - 4-rail Mousetrap ASW launcher
Mark 21 - 4-rail Mousetrap ASW launcher for training, land used
Mark 22 - 8-rail Mousetrap ASW launcher

On the Lockheed-Martin site I've found a Canister/VLS launcher desginated as Mark 70 Payload Delivery System:
 
Last edited:
I've found a unique launcher though no designation as of yet.
The two FRAM II Upgraded Allen M. Sumner Class ships USS Zellars and Stormes were modified before sold to Iran as Babr and Palang, and among the modifications were four twin launchers for the RIM-66 Standard SM-2. The navypedia site states these were Anti ship missile versions labelled RGM-66, but other sites states that the development of these missiles were cancelled in 1975. Similarly the ex British Battle class destroyer HMS Sluys (Artemiz / Damavand) received either two quads or 4 twins of the same missiles in the mid 1970's.
I don't know if these ships had anti ship versions of the Standard missiles as stated by navypedia or just the SAM versions.
The missile canisters looks like smaller scale ABL of the Tomahawk missile.

 
The below source describes them as Mk 32 Mod 2 launchers. Similar launchers were on the Asheville class gunboats.

 
The Iranians had normal RIM-66 SAM missiles and their secondary anti-ship capability was limited to the radar horizon.

The RGM-66D was an anti-radar missile with an AGM-78 seeker (the AGM-78 of course being an air-launched development of Standard MR), the RGM-66F anti-ship missile was indeed cancelled in 1975 but neither was exported.
 
I've found a unique launcher though no designation as of yet.
That is the "real" Mk32, according to Shipbucket, for USN's Asheville-class gunboat. There were 2 types -- "shorter" and the "longer" ones. Both types can fire only one missile at a time, while the "longer" type has a storage and reloading system on its front part. The second missile must be reloaded to the same place before firing.
1700929867388.png

USS Ready PGM-87
1700929878279.jpeg

The Iranian Sumners had the same ones, the "longer" version.
IIS Palang D-9
1700933070759.png


And about Taiwan's "Old Yang-class" destroyers... I hardly regard that launcher as the same thing as Mk32, although Friedman said it was. Some Chinese reference takes it as something "localized version" of Mk32, but I can't find any official designation about it.

ROCS Hwai Yang FFG-937
1700930167293.png

ROCS Fen Yang FFG-934
1700930634659.png

The anti-ship version of SM-1 has three variants:
RGM-66D Standard ARM SSM: RIM-66B Standard 1 MR Block V with AGM-78 Standard ARM's seekers, for Mk32 launchers.
RGM-66E Standard ARM SSM: Adaptive version for Mk16 matchbox launchers.
RGM-66F Standard SSM: Active radar version, the backup of RGM-84 Harpoon, was canceled after the Navy had chosen the Harpoon.
 
Last edited:
A quiestion: did I correctly understood, that the reason why Mark-32 - and not Mark-22 - launchers were used on refitted Gearing's and Sumner's, was the inability to fit vertically-stored missiles into WW2 destroyers?

I got interested in Taiwanese and Iranian destroyers refit, and got puzzled, why Mark-32 box launchers were used instead of (theoretically) more capable Mark-22 single-rail rotating launchers. Looking at blueprints I realized, that there were practically no space to fit vertically-stored RIM-66 missiles on the rear (unless the whole GMLS would be above the waterline, and considering the size of missiles it would make the whole thing too top-heavy). The central position between the funnels have limited fire arcs. But what about bow position - in place of superfiring turret?
 
@Tzoli - I'm not sure about the Mk45 submarine VLS ever having Harpoons in it. I have only ever seen reference to Sub-Harpoons getting launched out of torpedo tubes, and Tomahawks in the VLS.

@merriman You were a TM, did you ever hear about Harpoons in a submarine VLS? Or was that after your time?

A quiestion: did I correctly understood, that the reason why Mark-32 - and not Mark-22 - launchers were used on refitted Gearing's and Sumner's, was the inability to fit vertically-stored missiles into WW2 destroyers?

I got interested in Taiwanese and Iranian destroyers refit, and got puzzled, why Mark-32 box launchers were used instead of (theoretically) more capable Mark-22 single-rail rotating launchers. Looking at blueprints I realized, that there were practically no space to fit vertically-stored RIM-66 missiles on the rear (unless the whole GMLS would be above the waterline, and considering the size of missiles it would make the whole thing too top-heavy). The central position between the funnels have limited fire arcs. But what about bow position - in place of superfiring turret?
I think the problem is depth. The 5" guns only go down two decks, the missile launchers need 3. The few photos I have seen of a Mk22 or Mk13 installation in a 5" location have the launcher raised up a deck.
 
I think the problem is depth. The 5" guns only go down two decks, the missile launchers need 3. The few photos I have seen of a Mk22 or Mk13 installation in a 5" location have the launcher raised up a deck.
Understood. And for FRAM destroyers such increase in upper weight would probably be too much.
 
Understood. And for FRAM destroyers such increase in upper weight would probably be too much.
Quite likely, the FRAM refits basically used up all the expansion capability of the hulls as is.

Which is really too bad, because a Mk13 in place of a forward 5" gun would have made an awesome addition to the capabilities of a Gearing, and a Mk22 for Fletchers and Sumners.
 
Which is really too bad, because a Mk13 in place of a forward 5" gun would have made an awesome addition to the capabilities of a Gearing, and a Mk22 for Fletchers and Sumners.
Well, at the time of FRAM conversion the Soviet missile threat for anti-submarine ships wasn't considered serious yet - Soviet submarines were still only torpedo-armed, and missile-armed bombers like Tu-16 did not have range to operate in mid-Atlantic. As far as I understood, the need of SAM's for escort ships was realized much later.
 
Quite likely, the FRAM refits basically used up all the expansion capability of the hulls as is.

Which is really too bad, because a Mk13 in place of a forward 5" gun would have made an awesome addition to the capabilities of a Gearing, and a Mk22 for Fletchers and Sumners.
A question; was it possible to launch surface-to-air RIM-66 missiles from ASROC launcher? If I recall correctly, the anti-surface version RGM-66E was launched from ASROC Mark 16 launchers. So, presumably, the basic RIM-66 could be launched from Mark 16 also?
 
A question; was it possible to launch surface-to-air RIM-66 missiles from ASROC launcher? If I recall correctly, the anti-surface version RGM-66E was launched from ASROC Mark 16 launchers. So, presumably, the basic RIM-66 could be launched from Mark 16 also?
Eh, Maybe? You'd be stuck with no reloads in that case... And then you have 3 different missiles competing for space in an 8rd "matchbox:" ASROCs, Harpoon, and Standard. Sticking a pair of Harpoons into the Matchbox left you with 6x ASROCs.
 
Well, at the time of FRAM conversion the Soviet missile threat for anti-submarine ships wasn't considered serious yet - Soviet submarines were still only torpedo-armed, and missile-armed bombers like Tu-16 did not have range to operate in mid-Atlantic. As far as I understood, the need of SAM's for escort ships was realized much later.
True, but the FRAM IIs did still serve into the late 1970s, where a relatively simple drop-in AA upgrade would have been highly desirable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleet_Rehabilitation_and_Modernization

A Mk22 or Mk13 on the aft gun mount would probably be the best location on Sumner/Gearings:
1280px-USS_Bryce_Canyon_%28AD-36%29_with_destroyers_at_Terminal_Island_c1962.jpg

The DD closest to the camera is a FRAM 1 Gearing, you can tell by the ASROC box launcher and the larger gap between funnels. The other 3 are FRAM 2 Sumners, note the mix of 12.75" triple tubes and 21" singles amidships instead of the ASROC box launcher.

The Fletcher at the top of the picture does not appear to have received any FRAM update, but Fletchers were low priority for the US.

While installing a Mk22/Mk13 in place of the aft gun mount of a Sumner/Gearing would foul the flight deck, the DASH drone helicopters had been retired starting in 1969. I think I'd also change the midships weapon arrangement from the FRAM2 style to FRAM1, to regain some ASW standoff with ASROCs.

For a 1970s update to any Fletchers still in US service (most Fletchers got sold off to allies), I'd replace the aft 5" gun (#5 turret) with a Mk22 and put the illuminator radars on top of the aft deckhouse. Then I'd look at sticking an ASROC launcher onto the spot of the #4 turret.
 
Eh, Maybe? You'd be stuck with no reloads in that case... And then you have 3 different missiles competing for space in an 8rd "matchbox:" ASROCs, Harpoon, and Standard. Sticking a pair of Harpoons into the Matchbox left you with 6x ASROCs.
I was mainly thinking about installing a second Matchbox on the rear of FRAM II destoryer, in place of rear 5-inch mount. Yes, it would be limited to eight missiles - but that's about what Taiwanese and Iranian refitted Gearing could manage too (Taiwanese carried ten ready rounds without reloads, Iranian carried four ready rounds and four reloads). And additional Mark 16 launcher in place of rear 5-inch looks like a more weight- and place-efficient solution, that multiple Mark 32 launchers pointing in every direction.
 
True. Albeit I think for 1970s the RIM-7 Sea Sparrow would be preferable.
Maybe so. The ideal would be both a Mk13/Mk22 (in the aft 5") and a Sea Sparrow (on what was the DASH helo deck), but that would depend on top weight.
 
Maybe so. The ideal would be both a Mk13/Mk22 (in the aft 5") and a Sea Sparrow (on what was the DASH helo deck), but that would depend on top weight.
I suppose that if there were more threat of Soviet air/missile power in early 1960s, there may actually be a FRAM upgrade centered on air defense.
 
FRAMs were mainly intended as fleet ASW escorts, plenty of Terrier frigates and Talos cruisers to provide air defence. By the late 1970s, they are at end of life, in fact after the intended end of their life, the FRAM upgrade was only intended to extend the life of Second World War Destroyers by 5 or 8 years (FRAM II and FRAM I respectively). Better to put resources into building more of their intended replacement, the Spruance-class.

Some of the improvements added by Hip Pocket (especially Sea Chaparral) seem to be a good way of adding improved austere AA capabilities.
 
Maybe so. The ideal would be both a Mk13/Mk22 (in the aft 5") and a Sea Sparrow (on what was the DASH helo deck), but that would depend on top weight.
I suppose that if there were more threat of Soviet air/missile power in early 1960s, there may actually be a FRAM upgrade centered on air defense.
Friedman in U.S. Destroyers briefly mentions a potential FRAM III and FRAM IV (proposed June 1969) for the Gearings and Forest Shermans to add a hanger for LAMPS and Sea Sparrows.

Ten years later the 12 remaining FRAMs serving in the Naval Reserve Force were looked at again for a further life extension of ~10 years or so. Air defense is mentioned in passing, specifically Mk92 and CIWS, but they also wanted Harpoon canisters while updating the machinery and electronics. This would have brought the FRAMs to a Knox class level of capabilities, though crew habitability would have sucked.

 
Friedman's U.S. Destroyers does mention attempts to put Tartar on board FRAM conversions (p.287-288). Initially there was an attempt by General Dynamics in April 1959 to market a ten-round pepperbox to be mounted on the after twin 5"/38 mount, and illuminated by CW illuminator on top of the 5" director, with missile-checkout equipment replacing the 5-inch magazine.

Later BuShips drew up a variety of sketches for a Tartar installation which would replace either the gun mount or ASROC of a FRAM I, with the latter being preferred as the Tartar launcher would degrade DASH Operations in sea state 5. DDR FRAM IIs were viewed as more satisfactory as they were not going to receive DASH, and still had their three gun mounts, with short-hull Sumners being the least satisfactory due to the close proximity of the VDS to the launcher. BuOrd did it's own study and concluded that they could fit 12 missiles stored vertically in a ring, but the project died in July 1959 due to cost escalation and misgivings over limited magazine capacity.
 
FRAMs were mainly intended as fleet ASW escorts, plenty of Terrier frigates and Talos cruisers to provide air defence. By the late 1970s, they are at end of life, in fact after the intended end of their life, the FRAM upgrade was only intended to extend the life of Second World War Destroyers by 5 or 8 years (FRAM II and FRAM I respectively). Better to put resources into building more of their intended replacement, the Spruance-class.

Some of the improvements added by Hip Pocket (especially Sea Chaparral) seem to be a good way of adding improved austere AA capabilities.
My thinking is for point air defense of the ship and maybe air defense of convoys (which would really ideally be served by a DLG or CG).
 
Friedman's U.S. Destroyers does mention attempts to put Tartar on board FRAM conversions (p.287-288). Initially there was an attempt by General Dynamics in April 1959 to market a ten-round pepperbox to be mounted on the after twin 5"/38 mount, and illuminated by CW illuminator on top of the 5" director, with missile-checkout equipment replacing the 5-inch magazine.
Very interesting! Thank you!
 
DDR FRAM IIs were viewed as more satisfactory as they were not going to receive DASH, and still had their three gun mounts, with short-hull Sumners being the least satisfactory due to the close proximity of the VDS to the launcher
I have a suspicion that some of those plans were used as basic for Iraniah Sumner's refit in early 1970s. The whole refit - with four Mark 32 GMLS installed in such way (two cris-crossed in place of upper gun mount, two mid-hull), that no more than one missile could be launched in any given direction, with Mk-25 radar atop the old director to guide them, and large blind area astern - doesn't exactly looks like something for areas like Persian Gulf. It looks more like "minimal" air defense refit for ocean escorts, mainly to fend off patrol planes. So I suspect that USN just took some of its own rejected refit proposals and tested them on Iranians.
 
I have a suspicion that some of those plans were used as basic for Iraniah Sumner's refit in early 1970s. The whole refit - with four Mark 32 GMLS installed in such way (two cris-crossed in place of upper gun mount, two mid-hull), that no more than one missile could be launched in any given direction, with Mk-25 radar atop the old director to guide them, and large blind area astern - doesn't exactly looks like something for areas like Persian Gulf. It looks more like "minimal" air defense refit for ocean escorts, mainly to fend off patrol planes. So I suspect that USN just took some of its own rejected refit proposals and tested them on Iranians.
Wouldn't surprise me.
 
Mark 2-3 - Unknown
Mark 8 - Unknown
Mark 15 - Unknown

Mark 17-21 - Unknown
Mark 23-24 - Unknown

Mark 27-28 - Unknown

Mark 33-35 - Unknown

Mark 37-40 - Unknown

Mark 42-44 - Unknown

According to the following book the Mk 8 GMLS was the Terrier missile launcher fitted to the USS Gyatt (DDG). According to U.S. Naval Weapons it consisted of two, 7 missile rings instead of the larger 20 missile rings as found on the later Mk 10.

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Gunner_s_Mate_M_1_C/Q1wAKZbXX0UC?hl=en&gbpv=1

Here are some other launchers you have missing, found in Appendix IV-1 of U.S. Naval Weapons, page 273 to 274.

Mark 2 - Described as a system rather than launcher type, it was one of two kinds of Terrier Missile systems for the USMC consisting of four launchers.

Mark 3 - Similar to the Mark 2, also for the USMC it incorperated sixteen launchers instead of four.

Mark 8 - Previously mentioned, the Terrier Missile launching system mounted on USS Gyatt with two 7 missile rings similar to the later Mk 10.

Mark 15 - "Polaris missile launching system; two tubes had provision for test and evaluation missiles."

Mark 17 - "Polaris launcher group for ballistic missile submarines."

Mark 18-20 - Missing

Mark 21 - "Polaris A-3 launcher group."

Mark 23 - Missing

Mark 24 - "Poseidon C-3 launching system."

Marks 27 and 28 - Shipboard Chaff rocket launchers using Zuni rockets.

Mark 33 - Another Chaff rocket launcher, firing 112mm cartridges.

Mark 34 - Two barrel chaff launching system for the Pegasus class hydrofoils. 112mm caliber as well.

Mark 35 - "Trident C-4 launcher for strategic submarines."

Mark 37 - CAPTOR mine launcher for surface ships.

Mark 38 - CAPTOR mine launcher for P-3 Orions.

Mark 39 - CAPTOR mine launcher for submarines.

Mark 40 - Missing

Mark 42 - Missing


Mark 43 - Box launcher for 24 RAM missiles on a Phalanx chassis. Part of ASMD Weapons System Mk EX-31 (pictured below)
https://secwww.jhuapl.edu/techdigest/Content/techdigest/pdf/V02-N03/02-03-Bruns.pdf

Mark 44 - Armored Box Launcher for Tomahawk Weapons, I am not sure how this differentiates from the Mk 143.
 

Attachments

  • IV-1 Guided missile.pdf
    1.4 MB · Views: 5
  • Mark_43_RAM_Launcher.jpg
    Mark_43_RAM_Launcher.jpg
    91.8 KB · Views: 24
  • MK_8_GMLS.jpg
    MK_8_GMLS.jpg
    13 KB · Views: 22
Mark 32 - 1/2/4-cell launchers for the RIM-66 Standard MR used on sold Iranian and Taiwanese Ex USN Ships (Horizontally manually loaded)
Actually I'm almost completely sure that Taiwanese launchers weren't Mark 32. They are fixed-elevation box launchers, while Mark 32 was "coffin" type, with missilestored horizontally and raised before launch.

Also, reload wasn't manual. The Mark 32 have one-round storage magazine in front of the launcher itself, from which it could be horizontally reloaded after the first missile was launched. Apparently there was also version without magazine, but I saw no photos of it (not counting the modern Iranian derivatives).

So essentially it was one-cell, coffin-type non-trainale launcher (horizontal reload)
 
Mark 44 - Armored Box Launcher for Tomahawk Weapons, I am not sure how this differentiates from the Mk 143.
I have a suspicion that the old 'rocket launcher' sequence mentioned in Post 4 was (sometimes) applied to the launcher itself, with the 'guided missile launch system' applied to a configuration of equipment including the launcher and some part of the weapon control system. That explains how ASROC used both Mark 16 and Mark 112 at the same time; it seems possible that something similar may apply to Tomahawk.
 
Actually I'm almost completely sure that Taiwanese launchers weren't Mark 32. They are fixed-elevation box launchers, while Mark 32 was "coffin" type, with missilestored horizontally and raised before launch.

Also, reload wasn't manual. The Mark 32 have one-round storage magazine in front of the launcher itself, from which it could be horizontally reloaded after the first missile was launched. Apparently there was also version without magazine, but I saw no photos of it (not counting the modern Iranian derivatives).

So essentially it was one-cell, coffin-type non-trainale launcher (horizontal reload)
USS Benicia PGM-96 had the shorter version Mk32.
1704963365065.png
1704963593930.png
 
Last edited:
Thank you! So, at least it existed.

If I recall correctly, on gunboats those launchers were used not for RIM-66 air defense missiles, but for RGM-66 anti-ship ones with passive-homing on active radar?
This was the US Navy's response to INS Eilat's sinking. The Navy urged some missile boats like the USSR had, but lacked ship-to-ship missiles (the RGM-84 Harpoon was under development), so they converted AGM-78 Standard ARM missiles into the ship-to-ship role, the RGM-66D Standard SSM-ARM.

The RGM-66E was the adaptive version for the Mk112 matchbox launchers. The RGM-66F had an active homing radar, and the Navy took it as the backup of the Harpoon. The RGM-66F had not gone into mass production before Harpoon was introduced to the Navy.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom