VLS on the KSS-III?

[Maury Markowitz]

As the Canadian decision date between the 212DC and KSS-III approaches, I found myself wondering about one differentiating feature of the two, the KSS-III's VLS.

Looking around, I can't seem to find any definitive information on the size of the cells. One source suggests the 4-4 missile inside is 533 mm, which would imply could also be horizontally launched (or possibly anyway), but another suggests the 4-4 is a version of the Iskander which I can't imagine could be scaled to that size.

Anyone have any good details on all of this?

 

[Scott Kenny]

As the Canadian decision date between the 212DC and KSS-III approaches, I found myself wondering about one differentiating feature of the two, the KSS-III's VLS.

Looking around, I can't seem to find any definitive information on the size of the cells. One source suggests the 4-4 missile inside is 533 mm, which would imply could also be horizontally launched (or possibly anyway), but another suggests the 4-4 is a version of the Iskander which I can't imagine could be scaled to that size.

Anyone have any good details on all of this?

If the 4-4 missile is hot launched, it's not going to be able to be horizontally launched. Or at least no one is going to want to try, as a hot running missile stuck in the tube will have the rocket exhaust blowtorch through the inner door, every bulkhead between it and the pressure hull, and then the pressure hull in a few seconds. Yes, that would sink the ship, but the crew would be dead before the pressure hull breached.

I'm also kinda doubting a 500km range ballistic missile with a 500kg warhead that is only 21" in diameter.

• ATACMS is only 300km range with a 250kg warhead, and is 24" in diameter (side note: those do actually fit into the US "21-inch" cold-launch VLS tubes on submarines, as the tube is ~25" inside diameter. It's intended to have some shock padding between the missile and the tube to fill up the usual 2" gap).
• Iskander is 500km range with a 500-750kg warhead, but is 3ft/0.92m in diameter.

So I expect that the Hyunmoo 4-4 is Iskander sized, 36" diameter.

Though I'd honestly expect that a KSS-III bought by the Canadians would not have the VLS loaded, just ballasted. Or at best, sleeved for smaller things to launch, like antiship missiles.

 

[Maury Markowitz]

Though I'd honestly expect that a KSS-III bought by the Canadians would not have the VLS loaded, just ballasted. Or at best, sleeved for smaller things to launch, like antiship missiles.

For sure, my question is really about the dimensions of the VLS and what else might go in there. Assuming the 36" diameter, are there other "off the shelf" options? I suspect they would not be buying either 4-4 or Iskander.

Things like anti-ship, and even shorter range land attack seem to be filled perfectly well by 533mm weapons already. So the issue is whether or not the VLS, which is featured prominently in their press materials, actually offers anything in practice that we might use.

They wouldn't seem to be of great use for northern patrols, which the KSS has the advantage on, and I don't think either of the subs would be used for force projection land-attack missions, although I suppose maybe that is something they would look at.

 

[TomS]

If the 4-4 missile is hot launched, it's not going to be able to be horizontally launched

It's not. It has cold-gas ejection with an air-start motor, like any sensible design for an SLBM.

View: https://youtu.be/D7nFOwPuphk?si=hY2Kp3u64Zn7ySvd


Hyunmoo IV-4 is probably closer to 26 inches, which fits with the reports that the same VLS could handle BrahMos for the Indian Navy KSS-III offer.

I do wonder if Canada wouldn't be better off removing that section, though. It's not very relevant to the High North/Artic defense mission.

Alternatively, using the space to garage oversized UUVs could be interesting. But Canada won't be developing those on their own, most likely.

 

[Apophenia]

... Alternatively, using the space to garage oversized UUVs could be interesting. But Canada won't be developing those on their own, most likely.

Seriously? British Columbia alone is home to PoCo-based ISE (International Submarine Engineering Ltd - with ROV and AUV work dating back to 1974) and Burnaby-based Cellula Robotics!


Cellula is already contracted by DND to provide Solas-LR 2000 km range UUVs; partnered (with TAS) to develop a 12m XLUUV for Australia's Project SeaWolf; and has a 10 year agreement with BAE to continue development of their Herne XLAUV.

I'm pretty sure Canada could knock together a tube-launched XLUUV without much problem. (NDHQ screwing up any such requirement is a separate issue.)

 

[TomS]

More a budget question, I was thinking, than a capability one. But I was not aware of the scope of the existing efforts. Mea culpa.