R2RS1%AKRONVM@vm1.cc.UAKRON.EDU (Suku) (06/20/91)
From: Suku <R2RS1%AKRONVM@vm1.cc.UAKRON.EDU>
Missile pods on Soviet warships
===============================
Sometime back I was looking at photographs of Guided missile ships of
Soviet make and saw that most of them have their SSM pods mounted
externally on either side of the superstructure. Doesnt that make them
very vulnerable. A hit from an incoming shell or missile would wipe out
their missile capability easily, not to mention the damage caused by
exploding warheads and propellant. Does it not make sense to have vertical
launched missile magazines situated inside the ship hulls giving a little
more protection and survivability ? Have there been any Soviet made ships
involved in combat which took such hits that made them inoperable/sunk ?
I understand that the latest Soviet makes have vertical launch capability.
BTW I have also seen some US ships upgraded with Harpoon canisters similarly
mounted externally. Any ideas/thoughts ?
*************************************************************************
* R SUKUMAR.....................(R2RS1@VM1.CC.UAKRON.EDU) *
* THE UNIVERSITY OF AKRON - DEPT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING *
* AKRON OH 44325 *
* (216)434-6335 - (R) My thoughts are my own *
* (216)972-6002 - (O) So are my opinions *
*************************************************************************deichman@cod.nosc.mil (Shane D. Deichman) (06/21/91)
From: deichman@cod.nosc.mil (Shane D. Deichman) >From: Suku <R2RS1%AKRONVM@vm1.cc.UAKRON.EDU> [Stuffed about vulnerability deleted] >Does it not make sense to have vertical >launched missile magazines situated inside the ship hulls giving a little >more protection and survivability ? Not as easy as it sounds -- vertical launch capability, while nice and tidy in terms of redundancy and reduced vulnerability, is a complex process requiring mucho CPU time. On the other had, the Soviet scheme of stacking their missiles in armored box launchers (like some of our TLAM/ TASM launchers on BBs and CGNs) is more secure than our old twin-arm SM2 launchers -- the CGs (all TICOs before, I think, BUNKER HILL), DDs, DDGs, CGNs, and FFGs have the twin arm launcher that must be loaded via rails. Before that can happen, the missiles must be loaded onto the rails. To do that, they have to be brought up from the magazine (and fins attached, and the rails secured, and etc. -- all while vampires are coming in... I think you get the point). One thing goes wrong, the whole kit-and-caboodle is pretty useless... (though the LONG BEACH (CGN-9) has two sets of twin arm launchers -- one is essentially a spare...). With the Mk 41 VLS, though, just flick a switch and rock-n-roll! (If a tube doesn't respond -- big deal! You've got 121 others! >BTW I have also seen some US ships upgraded with Harpoon canisters similarly >mounted externally. Any ideas/thoughts ? I've never seen a vertical-launch Harpoon. Perhaps McDonnell-Douglas and friends are working on it, but for now those are canister-launched... -shane -- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ | deichman@cod.nosc.mil | "There's no heavier burden than a | | <affix favorite disclaimer here> | great potential!" -Linus Van Pelt | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
nanis@llex.ll.mit.edu ( Jeff Nanis) (06/21/91)
From: nanis@llex.ll.mit.edu ( Jeff Nanis) In article <1991Jun20.020943.1923@cbnews.cb.att.com> R2RS1%AKRONVM@vm1.cc.UAKRON.EDU (Suku) writes: >Sometime back I was looking at photographs of Guided missile ships of >Soviet make and saw that most of them have their SSM pods mounted >externally on either side of the superstructure. Doesnt that make them >very vulnerable. Yes. Much of Soviet ship design philosophy, though, was driven by a) the humongous size of their SSMs, and b) the philosophy, espoused by Adm. Gorshkov, of the "battle of the first salvo" as the important tactical moment. Basically, the plan was to fire everything at the enemy. If that didn't work, his carrier air would make the issue of at sea reloading moot. >Does it not make sense to have vertical launched missile magazines situated >inside the ship hulls giving a little more protection and survivability ? Yes, a number of their SAMs are housed and launched vertically. It's just that up till now, at least, they have favored the big monster variant of SSM versus the small, low-flyerr that U.S. technical expertise has allowed. (All information from Combat Fleets of the World and Jane's.) -- Jeff Nanis Radars 'r' us. nanis@ll.mit.edu An official opinion? Not on my life.
ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Allan Bourdius) (06/22/91)
From: Allan Bourdius <ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu> >the CGs (all TICOs before, I think, BUNKER HILL), DDs, DDGs, >CGNs, and FFGs have the twin arm launcher that must be loaded via rails. I'm reasonably sure that I read in AvWeek or Proceedings that all of CG 47 class were now equipped (either built with or retrofitted) with the Mk 41 VLS. The DDG 2 class (Charles F. Adams) is being retired. All the new DDG 51's will have VLS. A significant number of DD 963's (Spruance) have also recieved their VLS upgrades. > twin arm launcher that must be loaded via rails. >Before that can happen, the missiles must be loaded onto the rails. To do >that, they have to be brought up from the magazine (and fins attached, and >the rails secured, and etc. -- all while vampires are coming in. The missiles are stored in the magazine rings ready to fire (fins attached, etc.) In my naval weapons class, we saw a film of a twin arm launcher test. In the space of about twenty seconds, 12 missiles had been launched in three or four different directions. The arm launchers are *very* fast, but not as fast as a VLS. A CG 47 with two twin-arm launchers can empty its magazines in something like two minutes. With a VLS, it can do it in about 1 minute, 30 seconds. >(though the LONG BEACH (CGN-9) has two sets of twin arm >launchers -- one is essentially a spare...) Wrongo. The Long Beach has two separate magazines for each launcher, one holds 80 missiles and the other 40. Allan ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Allan Bourdius [USMC Officer Candidate/Brother, Phi Kappa Theta Fraternity] ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu or 1069 Morewood Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15213 "I used to be disgusted, now I'm just amused" "Give, expecting nothing thereof." The opinions in this post/mail are only those of the author, nobody else.
freeman@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Jay Freeman) (06/22/91)
From: freeman@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Jay Freeman) The idea is to get those missiles off before the other guy does. Since most Soviet missiles are longer ranged than their NATO counterparts, this is certainly a feasible strategy. The problem that remains is the same problem we have with our long range ASCM's, and that is targeting. -- ************************************************************************* * 73 de Jay, WT9S Internet: freeman@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu * * Packet: wt9s@n9hhi.il.usa.na * *************************************************************************
deichman@cod.nosc.mil (Shane D. Deichman) (06/25/91)
From: deichman@cod.nosc.mil (Shane D. Deichman) >From: Allan Bourdius <ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu> > >I'm reasonably sure that I read in AvWeek or Proceedings that all of CG >47 class were now equipped (either built with or retrofitted) with the >Mk 41 VLS. I saw the VINCENNES (CG-49) coming past Pt. Loma (home of NOSC), still armed with twin-arm launchers. It's my understanding that there is no intention of retrofitting the first five TICOs with the Mk. 41 VLS; this was confirmed by our Fleet Liaison Section here at NOSC. >The missiles are stored in the magazine rings ready to fire (fins >attached, etc.) >From my recollection of a tour abord LONG BEACH (CGN-9) late last year, the walls of the loading bay were covered with "snap-on" fins for the SM2s. When they ran two missiles up from the magazine (which looked just a giant revolver cylinder) and ran them out the rails onto the launcher, they went sans fins (because they didn't have the crew there to give us the "full demo."). My main point, though, was that the Mk. 41 VLS is a much more capable system in the sense that it doesn't have nearly as many moving parts (i.e., as many possible "problem" areas). With the VLS, all you need to do is open the hatch and launch the weapon -- if a non-VLS equipped vessel were to sustain a hit in the vicinity of it's twin-arm launcher, you'd have a much more serious problem.... -shane -- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ | deichman@cod.nosc.mil | "There's no heavier burden than a | | <affix favorite disclaimer here> | great potential!" -Linus Van Pelt | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
rcm@mtuxo.att.com (R Craig Montero) (06/27/91)
From: rcm@mtuxo.att.com (R Craig Montero) In article <1991Jun20.020943.1923@cbnews.cb.att.com> Suku <R2RS1%AKRONVM@vm1.cc.UAKRON.EDU> writes: > > >From: Suku <R2RS1%AKRONVM@vm1.cc.UAKRON.EDU> > Missile pods on Soviet warships > =============================== >Sometime back I was looking at photographs of Guided missile ships of >Soviet make and saw that most of them have their SSM pods mounted >externally on either side of the superstructure. Doesnt that make them >very vulnerable. One rationale given for the external mounting is that they are a first strike platform. That is if you fire first, then there is no concern about where they are mounted. The other dimension of the problem is that they are typically very long range (>200km) weapons and are going to be fired before any US weapons (except A-6s) are within range. >Have there been any Soviet made ships >involved in combat which took such hits that made them inoperable/sunk ? No. The Soviet Navy has had no combat experiences since WWII. >I understand that the latest Soviet makes have vertical launch capability. >BTW I have also seen some US ships upgraded with Harpoon canisters similarly >mounted externally. Any ideas/thoughts ? The externally mounted Harpoons tended to be retrofitted into existing platformsor in the case of the Tico-class CG (pre VLS) added as a late after thought where all the available hull space had been taken. > >************************************************************************* >* R SUKUMAR.....................(R2RS1@VM1.CC.UAKRON.EDU) * >************************************************************************* R. Craig Montero AT&T Bell Labs
002@pnet16.cts.com (J.W.Cupp Lcdr/Usn) (06/27/91)
From: 002@pnet16.cts.com (J.W.Cupp Lcdr/Usn) deichman@cod.nosc.mil (Shane D. Deichman) writes: >My main point, though, was that the Mk. 41 VLS is a much more capable system >in the sense that it doesn't have nearly as many moving parts (i.e., as many >possible "problem" areas). With the VLS, all you need to do is open the >hatch and launch the weapon -- if a non-VLS equipped vessel were to sustain >a hit in the vicinity of it's twin-arm launcher, you'd have a much more serious Allow me to point out that ANY vessel sustaining a hit near its missile launcher (or any where else onboard explosives are stored) is going to have a lot of problems, only one of which relates to launchers being out of action! Again, I fully agree that VLS is a quantum improvement, but I'm not sure that battle damage hardness is one of its better points. Let me return to the earlier discussion about firing intervals and see if I can close the book on that one. The "TERRIER" missile system (succeeding by the Standard-Extended Range) needed 'fitting out' of fins, etc as it passed through the magazine towards the rail. A practiced crew could get pretty good, but there was still some delay. The "TARTAR" missile system (succeeded by the Standard-Medium Range) needed no human involvement. Fins deployed automatically once on the rail. Both Standard ER and MR are still in use today. Many, many time when I used to give tours on the guided missile frigate visitors would comment on the one, single arm missile launcher. Invariably they would wonder whether the launcher could sustain a firing rate such as would be needed in battle. I think anyone who asks that is probably thinkin g of 5" guns in movies that go into a sustained firing mode during the heat of battle. What these people overlook is guidance. _Guided_ missiles have to be _guided_ by something. In most scenarios the refire rate (or reiliability, for that matter) of a single- or dual-arm launcher is not the tough part. The radar guidance systems, which are always at least installed in twos, are the limiting factor. VLS is wonderful, but the AEGIS fire control system is the beauty of the whole idea. Without AEGIS you couldn't make much use of the VLS capabilities even if it was installed. (Btw, most SPRUANCE class destroyers won't have VLS...they weren't guided missile ships in the first place.) J. W. Cupp UUCP: humu!nctams1!pnet16!002 Naval Telecommunications Center ARPA: humu!nctams!pnet16!002@nosc.mil P.O. Box 55 INET: 002@pnet16.cts.com Pearl Harbor, Hawaii 96860 The above is merely my opinion, and not to be construed as anything else.
lam@mozart.cs.colostate.edu (mark lam) (06/27/91)
From: lam@mozart.cs.colostate.edu (mark lam) In article <1991Jun22.041034.1688@cbnews.cb.att.com> ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Allan Bourdius) writes: > > >From: Allan Bourdius <ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu> > >the CGs (all TICOs before, I think, BUNKER HILL), DDs, DDGs, >>CGNs, and FFGs have the twin arm launcher that must be loaded via rails. > >I'm reasonably sure that I read in AvWeek or Proceedings that all of CG >47 class were now equipped (either built with or retrofitted) with the >Mk 41 VLS. The DDG 2 class (Charles F. Adams) is being retired. All >the new DDG 51's will have VLS. A significant number of DD 963's >(Spruance) have also recieved their VLS upgrades. > Well, I happened to see CG-49 Vincennes in San Diego harbor last month, and she still had twin-arm launchers. Most of the Spruances in port did have the VLS systems. CV-62 Independence was also in port, and I saw something that caught my eye: some workers on scaffolding were welding a hardpatch on the hull just above the waterline. I'm pretty sure that Independence was in the Gulf, so did she hit a mine? (This could have happened and I might have missed it when it did!! :- -- Mark Lam lam@mozart.cs.colostate.edu -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
norton@manta.nosc.mil (LT Scott A. Norton, USN) (06/28/91)
From: norton@manta.nosc.mil (LT Scott A. Norton, USN) In article <1991Jun27.015710.2794@cbnews.cb.att.com> 002@pnet16.cts.com (J.W.Cupp Lcdr/Usn) writes: > >VLS is wonderful, but the AEGIS fire control system is the beauty of the whole >idea. Without AEGIS you couldn't make much use of the VLS capabilities even >if it was installed. (Btw, most SPRUANCE class destroyers won't have >VLS...they weren't guided missile ships in the first place.) As a former Terrier cruiser sailor, I have to jump up and say, "Its not the Aegis system that gets you around the limitations of directors, its the SM-2." That is, the SM-2 (MR on the Aegis ships, CGNs and DDG-993s, and ER on the CG-16s, 26s and CGN-9) is what allows you to launch the missile without having to guide it the whole way. The SM-2 is smart enough to fly to a given point in space, and then look for illumination. SM-1 was semi-active the whole way, and needed a dedicated director. Now, Aegis is cool, combining a very capable radar with a good command and control system. And vertical launchers greatly reduce the risk of a single failure disabling the missile battery. (I spent time off the coast of Lebanon with both launchers down due to some failed hydraulics. Fortunately for us, the PLO was more interested in shooting each other than shooting us.) Scott Norton <norton@NOSC.NMIL>
jkmedcal@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Jeff Medcalf) (06/28/91)
From: jkmedcal@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Jeff Medcalf) rcm@mtuxo.att.com (R Craig Montero) writes: >In article <1991Jun20.020943.1923@cbnews.cb.att.com> Suku <R2RS1%AKRONVM@vm1.cc.UAKRON.EDU> writes: >>Have there been any Soviet made ships >>involved in combat which took such hits that made them inoperable/sunk ? >No. The Soviet Navy has had no combat experiences since WWII. The question was about Soviet-made ships, not necessarily just Soviet Navy vessels. The only incidents that I can think of are the US Navy sinkings of Libyan patrol boats (these were Osa class, weren't they?) in the 1980s. Several vessels were sunk by carrier-based aircraft. I would like to hear from someone who is more knowledgeable (sp?) about this. -- Jeff Medcalf jkmedcal@uokmax.{uucp|ecn.uoknor.edu} !chinet!uokmax!jkmedcal BoB smokes *my* pipe! We carry in our hearts the true country... In 1869, the waffle iron was invented, thus solving the annoying tendency of waffles to wrinkle in the dryer. No new tale to tell.