In the way that a person without a helmet looks cool on a motorcycle to some people, older Russian ships (aka Moskva) tend to explode like matches with all the powerful missiles being unarmored above the deck. Warheads on other peoples foreheads, not on your own. Also the potential for small arms fire to bring down a billion dollar ship is just dumb.
@@ajw5032 not when in weapons ready position, and/because it takes time .. precious seconds from decision making to fire. Additionally there is no way to fire at more than 4 targets at a time(fore and aft) when using the twin arm bandits, hence the reason why they were abandoned with the advent of Aegis and fixed position phased array radars. Also I would love to see a arm launched space fairing SM3, it would have to be huge!
@yeabutwecouldbefreer The first 5 AEGIS Cruisers used the Mk-26 twin armed launchers, and yes they could put more than 4 birds in the air at one time.
A major point not mentioned is that it's even _more_ difficult to reload the magazine of the older arm launchers (in VLS, the launcher _is_ the magazine, so it's more reliable and compact enabling a larger loadout).
I'm afraid I have to disagree. DDG-21 Late flight Adams class, we could (and did) re-load the SM-1 (virtually the same body as SM-2) into our MK-13 launcher (one-arm bandit) underway. Yes, anything done underway is harder than pier side, but practice makes for speed.
These ships carry more missiles than any of the previous ships that had below-deck magazines. If they think they need more missiles the solution is to add more launch cells. A loaded cell doesn't take up more space than a reload as the reloads fit snugly in the launcher and would take up just about as much space if stowed on the ship.
the point is that you'd have a supply ship carrying the ammunition. That way, the logistics ship can travel between the destroyer and ports that have ammo stocks, instead of the destroyer wasting time traveling.
Not really. Additional rockets / containers take up space below the deck but the launcher takes up space ON the deck, so its limiting factor is volume vs space. I do agree however that the cells should be rearmed from within the ship's hull / storage holding and not by an outside crane.
China's Type 055 destroyer has 112 VLS. We need a cheaper version of Rapid Dragon concept that can be placed on top of ships in case they need to reload fast! Just have them on deposable boats that serve as missiles truck drones that go ahead of the Navy to take out the 1st wave of missles.
What are you trying to say after adding more tubes like the reasoning doesn’t make sense how it’s worded. When you say a loaded cell doesn’t take more space than a reload what do you mean because that doesn’t make sense
Regardless of what the ocean does: It is not realistic to reload VLS when still in a hostile environment anyway. It's impossible to have people on the deck near the VLS, working on a Cell , when the ship itself still has to have its other cells ready to fire to intercept a threat. One could argue that they could do replenish at the front cell while the rear cell is taking care of the defence, but in a pinch the ship cannot take half its arsenal offline in a combat zone.. That's just not acceptable. So the entire ship first has to egress the combat zone
Going off that point its been an exceptional rarity for any ship to be resupplied while in contact for all of history. Your logistics vessels are too valuable to risk in such a mission and a ship with half its missiles is still more useful than one stuck to the side of a support vessel
most ships have 2 VLS cells so if this was the case they would disarm one and arm the other therefore the crew working on it wouldnt be at risk. But also if you are reloading that means your missiles are out thus there being no risk at all to crew rearming.
Yeah, about the only thing you could do for "quickly" reloading a VLS cell would be to design a set of guide rail adapters which act like a "funnel" to capture the bottom end of a container and quickly maneuver it to the cell mouth. Perhaps a self-erecting gantry (like an ICBM erector) could be designed with a 2-axis traversing trolley, so you slide the container horizontally into the erector, erect it, then traverse it over the cell and slot it in place, but the mechanism would be very bulky and eat up a lot of deck space when not in use.... and you would still have to shut down your VLS array to use it.
@@Nediac800 and that's basically the purpose of the VLS design: to enable reliable sustained fire of all missiles aboard the ship. This is the main reason that the idea of a ship self-reloading VLS cells doesn't make sense. If the ship has the cubage to store reloads, it also has the cubage to store them upright for launching. That is to say, you'd have to store reloads on the exterior of the ship, because all the interior space you could put one in already hosts a launch cell. And sorting explosives on the exterior of a combat vessel is a nonstarter.
An old RD/OS/EW guy, now a retired chief engineer (systems/software) from a Fortune 100 defense contractor. You need to think of the larger strategic logistical picture here. The Burkes and Ticos provide 2 inherent capabilities - the Aegis networked sensor system and the weapons platform with weapons. If a ship goes Winchester, you are also removing a serious sensor platform from the area to reload. It's better to use an arsenal ship concept to augment the sensor platforms with additional weapons, and shuttle them for reloading. You can have rather simple 100 to 300-cell small decks providing a robust mixed bag inventory. Also, for the most part - let the USAF utilize their cargo aircraft for cruise missle Rapid Dragon deployment, and specialize the arsenal ships for S2A/S2Space and S2S along with ASROC mixed bag loadouts. There is no perfect solution here, but there are much better solutions available than what is currently in use. The other major con is the floating weapon inventory. You do not want a Zumwalt situation where you have the guns on deck but are unable to afford the ammunition it uses, in sufficient quantities. You have to be able to afford several of these hulls with their contingent 200+ weapons loaded out and ready to use, on station, while having foward deployed reload inventory. Another problem not addressed is the limited number of cells on any single hull. Having the ship go winchester will essentially sink that ship (and its sensors). Having an arsenal ship available within the area, solves or at least postphones this problem till the opposition's airfields are taken out by RapidDragon and/or the SSGNs. At the start of the conflict having the second arsenal ship ship leave port to relieve the soon to be emptied arsenal ship on station will get ahead of the logistics cycle. The replacement arsenal ship can start to shoot as soon as it's near the combat area, while the empty transits back for reloading. You want the Burke's and Tico's to use their own cells as their last resort. You have to think/game the entire situation through, just not the middle of the problem. This is a full up integrated end to end problem. You also need to bring on all available assets - in order to consider the best possible load out configurations and weapon utilization policies.
Man's shamed the Zumwalt in so many ways, I cannot imagine the pain that the USN has to go through to combat the 055. The DDG(X) is literally using the concepts of the 055, and semi Arsenal ship as well.
This answer really shows why we've spent so much on beam weapons and rail gun development. I wonder why we're not closer to mounting them on ships? Some questions: Would the arsenal ship concept be submersible? Supposing we could get Arsenal Ships online, how do we even use the resources if AEGIS has a data-link capacity problem? Is AEGIS at end of life?
You mean a Carronade-type IFS? Basically a container ship filled to the brim with VLS and nothing else? That would be cool. Cooler if it can perform reloads too.
Yes, cheap, plentiful arsenal ships do feel like the right answer. That way the ships providing the fire control could treat their own missile load as the "last line of defence" to protect the ship itself after all of the arsenal ships have run dry (while getting the hell out of Dodge).
Mk-41 VLS certainly can be reloaded and I have been part of a crew that did so. On our 1988/89 deployment aboard the ammunition ship USS Kiska we re-loaded the aft VLS of USS Antietam while underway in the Pacific. We brought Antietam five loaded SM-2 canisters and brought back five empties as retrograde. We did this with a CH-46D helicopter. We delivered the canisters to the main deck between the aft VLS and aft 5in/54 cal gun. We used a long rope hanging from the VLS canister so deck crew could keep the canister from spinning as we set it on deck. We had to make the lifts at minimum fuel because the missile and canister weighted about 4,200 lbs. After delivering the full canister we would land on Kiska and take a splash of fuel rotors turning. After a few minutes the Antietam crew had an empty canister for us to pick up. We'd lift off Kiska, pick up the empty and return to our flight deck before bringing Antietam another SM-2 in its canister. We transferred five SM-2s that way on afternoon after an exercise where Antietam expended some of her SM-2s. Back then one group of four VLS cells was replaced with a crane system that was designed to allow underway replenishment of the VLS system from either an alongside ammo ship or, as we did, using a VERTREP helicopter. My understanding is the Navy removed the cranes to allow their ships to carry four more Tomahawks, since the CONOPS of the Gulf Wars, war in Afghanistan and GWOT operations in general allowed ships to reload pier side in Bahrain.
So you sling loaded munitions, at sea, and also did hot refuels. That's three dangerous things combined. I'm surprised any commander would sign off on it. Oh wait this was the 80s. Different time back then. Bigger balls.
@@Oberon4278 ??? That is how it is still done. Other than the helicopter used nothing has changed and it's not especially dangerous. You could drop the whole canister on deck and aside from banging things up nothing bad would happen. Find out what "insensitive munitions" are. Hot refueling is likewise standard practice both ashore and at sea. You are not going to shut down to refuel. Big waste of time. If the ship had too small a flight deck for our helo, example most frigates, we could hover over the flight deck, lower our rescue hoist to the deck, hoist the fuel hose up into the cabin using and plug the dry break connection in to a refueling station inside the cabin. We would just fly along in a hover matching the ship's speed as we refueled. When topped up our crewman would disconnect the fuel hose and hoist it back down to the flight deck. Then we'd depart. Easy. Did that almost every day underway. Find out what HIFR, Hover In Flight Refueling is. Ashore we'd land at a set of helo pads by the fuel farm, taxi into one of the fuel pits and hot refuel before taxiing over to our hanger and shutting down.
@@philsalvatore3902 I was a weapons technician for the Apache in the Army, so I'm familiar with a lot of what you said. It must be different in the Navy because we didn't do hot refuels if it could be avoided. Don't get me wrong, they weren't vanishingly rare, and we knew what and how to do it, including reloading/rearming during a hot refuel. But we only did it during training, or if there were troops in contact who needed air support. Otherwise the risk was considered too high. I guess it should have been obvious that the munitions are safe until armed/fired. The same is true for the 30mm shells that the Apache fires. You can put them in a literal meat grinder and nothing happens. If you get the timing wrong on the gun, it will chew up the rounds and drop them out the bottom. It should go without saying that I never got the timing wrong 😉 I actually got an extremely low-ranking medal (Army Achievement Medal) for being one of the best technicians on our deployment. Caught a lot of errors other people missed that would have been a problem.
@@Oberon4278 When the carrier deploys the ammo upload is accomplished at sea from an ammunition ship or now it would be a T-AKE. The carrier pulls up alongside the T-AKE, three STREAM rigs on the port side of the T-AKE feed ammo to the carrier while aft, two helicopters in what we called a "Daisy Chain" were moving ammo from the T-AKE's flight deck to the carrier's flight deck. Both ships have fleets of battery electric and CNG powered fork lifts (some munitions were sensitive to electronic fields so they were handled with CNG powered fork lifts). We could move a lot of freight that way, 30 seconds deck to deck, about 3,000 lbs per lift. It would take 12-14 hours of solid flying to upload the carrier. Naturally we hot refueled and changed crews with rotors turning. Same thing in reverse when the carrier comes back off deployment, all the ammo is downloaded from the carrier to the T-AKE. Sometimes we'd fly out and rendezvous with the inbound and outbound carriers and simply transfer the ammo from one to the other. Those days took longer because we didn't have the T-AKE with its three STREAM rigs moving ammo. It was all done by our two CH-46Ds. It's the last bastion of stick and rudder flying in the Navy. Look up videos for HC-11 USS Sacramento. You should be able to find videos us doing VERTEP with the CH-46D.
@@philsalvatore3902 See, this is why I wish I'd joined the Navy. I had no idea what kind of operations, history, etc. you guys have, I just associated the Navy with that Village People song.
Another reliability bonus of the VLS is that even if a cell is damaged (let's assume some spy welded the door shut) the other cells aren't affected by this
MRLS systems have the same problem. That was a big thing in Israel where their SAM rockets did wonders, but they had to be manually reloaded so rockets made it through during the lucky window.
@@StruggleGaming The us still spends nearly twice as much on healthcare than it does on the military. The per capita spending on healthcare is nearly triple that of France, which has a very well developed public healthcare system. The problem isn't a lack of money, its that the money is getting spent on insurance companies and not hospitals and doctors.
I was a SMT for this System as part of my time with Naval Sea Systems Command. This was my system. Many people don’t realize the logistical challenges when carrying munitions.
I'm sure the eventuality was considered but I'd still like to know why they don't use a manipulator instead of a crane. With proper engineering it could be able to safely store the capsule in the shaft even under the most extreme conditions simply because there would always be a rigid connection between the capsule and the deck.
On a ship at sea you want that flexibility. A solid armature would make it more difficult to exchange canisters between ships because any difference in their relative motion would cause the stiff manipulater to either bend in ways that would damage itself or cause what it is carrying to impact the other ship instead, and when dealing with explosive weaponry, thats a bad thing. Manipulators large enough to move canisters of that size will not be able to move fast enough to allow for quick reaction times. Physics is just not on the side of this idea.
My guess is one bank of launchers could have reliability issues, and the potential to change the ballast of the ship too much when attempting to reload unless in drydock, making the change less efficient and a PITA in logistics
10:56 please also note The airplane in this instance turned off its transponder indicating its civilian origins And for some reason never answered numerous radio calls warning it was in danger and needed to change course or acknowledge its existence. In other words it behaved like an attacking aircraft and with the combination of the mistake the operator made in noticing the airplane ascending added up to an attacking aircraft.
You should consider reviewing the Fogarty report as well as the ICAO report. The airliner was transmitting its civilian IFF mode 3 code the entire time, from take off to shoot down. Additionally, the US sailors on the USS Vincennes did not use the IFF code when identifying the craft, they only gave general flight condition as identifying info over the civilian emergency frequency. The only time the IFF code was used as identification during transmission was by the USS Sides less than one minute before the missiles launched. The ICAO report states that the warnings given over the radio used ground speed to identify craft, but pilots use indicated airspeed. The report gives nearly a 100 knot difference between the two during the weather and flight conditions for that day. The ships also did not explicitly state to "change course or be fired upon." The command given over the radio was "you are standing into danger and MAY (emphasis mine) be subject to USN defensive measures," followed by "advise change course to X." There is zero proof the airline pilots did anything wrong, but there is a lot of proof that the US Navy messed up repeatedly.
I can think of a few ways to make this reloadable. Namely utilizing rails and a reloading arm that hold the missile box with complete stability plus modifications on the holding boxes themselves. Though it would be a MASSIVE engineering challenge.
Was thinking the same, but more a connected chute that the crane can basically slide the bottom into and tension guide it via the attached cable into the slot. Have a wide enough gap, some safety lines and it's more than possible
They shelved the VLS cranes towards the end of my active duty time in the Navy. We never used them to lift canisters. However, the crane was very useful for prepping gas management in the modules beforehand. Though I can't say I missed having to maintain or stow that damn crane.
@@kevinfisher1345 Fast enough for us to reload five SM-2s one afternoon. Took a couple of hours but it was our first time doing it. Certainly faster than sailing back to a possibly bombed out port to reload at a possibly damaged pier while maybe under attack by ballistic missiles. Darned it I would want to be tied to a pier at Guam reloading while Chinese missiles rained down.
@@philsalvatore3902 "reload five SM-2s one afternoon" Ta for proving my point ;) It took us half day to go back to UAE and then another day to fully reload 60 cells. Could not do that with the strike down crane in that amount of time. ..... HOWEVER, I do get your point. We were in the Persian Gulf, not out in the ocean, and in an area with a lot of countries around and not just near some enemy country.
@@kevinfisher1345 We had never done this before and by the third missile we were cracking them off smartly. When you do something repeatedly you get real good at it. We were noobs and so was the crew of Antietam. It was their first deployment. But we were learning fast, which was the whole point of us practicing this. WWII and Vietnam UNREPS took 12-14 hours sometimes and were all hands affairs. I have personally participated in lots of 12-14 hour ammo uploads of aircraft carriers at sea. Once upon a time in our Navy that was normal. In a naval war with China I would expect the same. Having to return to port to re-arm is going to take ships out of battle for more days than they will be in combat.
What I was trying to get at is this: Use the freighter as the dock with the crane that loads the destroyers with multi missile magazines in a few big crane lifts, instead of 96 separate small crane lifts. The freighter doesn't need the targeting systems or fighting crew, it just goes from ship to ship loading what they need and hiding the rest of the time.
They did something similar with specialised tenders and floating dry docks for the Polaris submarines, but they operated as semi-permanent installations that were moored very close to naval bases in sheltered, very well-defended coastal waters of closely allied nations. Probably the most famous example is Holy Loch in Scotland and if you look at it on a map or satellite photo you can see why it was chosen. Waters like that can literally be like a mill pond in very calm weather, whereas the open ocean is far rougher even at the best of times. These ships would be priority targets at sea while also being slow and relatively undefended - problem would be where would they hide that would be safe, and could they get to and from the fleet's location in a short enough time to be useful?
This is why I think naval guns will still have a place as a backup for when all VLS cells are spent or to degrade a target ships point defences so the missiles have a higher chance to hit.
good luck getting that close to anything tho. There's a reason that carriers have only been sunk by battleships like a couple times, whereas they've been sunk by other carriers much more. Range is KING
@sage5296 Rang is King, until you are dealing with cheap little patrol boats, then the accounts and logisticains come out to play. After all, why spend hundreds of thousands to millions when a few hundred dollar shells will be just as effective, and you would probably still out range them.
The nice thing about the logistics ship approach is that you don't have to sail the thing all the way back to a port (especially since a peer state can predict and target the US's major bases in theater that would normally do VLS reloading). The logistics ship can be less predictable and closer to the front than a port would normally be.
@@CarbideSix The guidance subsystem uses deviations to generate corrective commands to drive the missile from a position where it is to a position where it isn't, and arriving at a position where it wasn't, it now is.
@@jbrou123 Consequently, the position where it is, is now the position that it wasn't, and it follows that the position that it was, is now the position that it isn't.
They could've used a helper rail system to reload the rocket. No need for cranes, except for when placing the rocket containers onto the helper rails! Once they are placed onto the rails, they could be pushed into place, and lifted in a vertical position and lowered slowly into the cell. They could even load an entire row of cells at the same time, this way! Or even better, they could've made the entire system removable, and when needed to reload, just swap the whole ting, with all the cells at once!
Good idea, but it seems like it would be just as difficult to get the canister on the rail as getting the canister in the box. Swapping out the entire magazine might work, but the wiring and interconnects might be a night mare.
You realize these canisters are 3 stories tall, right? A helper rail in theory would need to be even longer. And realistically would need to move everything out of the way forward of the VLS (can not do it off to the sides as that would over the water), in which case there is usually something else already there such as 54 calibre gun.
The deck crane should have been the arm of an excavator with a grab to hold the missle case. Missile held not hung, arm mounted to deck to null roll. Just a big robot arm instead of a basic crane.
Exactly, they already use these for both logging and foundation pile-driving, the pile handlers can even spin their grip to align with other beams, or easily the square hatch in the deck.
I always wondered why they didn't keep the magazine-to-launcher conveyor belt of the arm launcher system, but modify it to load a vertical launcher instead of an arm launcher. Then you can reload at sea in a wider range of sea conditions like an arm launcher, but with most of the reduction in weight, space, and complexity that a VLS provides.
Because the ships need access to those missiles as fast as combat requires, if it was one modern vls ship vs several past arm launcher variants the modern one might be able to both counter every missile thrown at it and fire back at the enemies, forcing them to decide whether to shoot to kill or shoot to defend. I don't think it would get a kill unless targeting one or two of their vessels but the arm launchers won't get a kill either until it's out of countermeasures.
The great value of the Mk-41 is that each cell can carry a different weapon and the load out can be varied depending on the threat. For some missions your ship may want to replace some of their anti surface missiles with Vertical Launch ASROC (VLA for short) . The ESSM missile can be "Quad-Packed" four missiles to one VLS canister. For some threats you might want to carry more quad packed ESSM and fewer SM-6 (less advanced air threat) and use some of the VLS cells for anti-ship missiles. In other scenarios you might want to carry more SM-3 and fewer or even no Tomahawks. With the Mk-41 system this is easy to accomplish. With the old conveyor systems you don't have that flexibility.
…but nuclear subs reload from below & aren’t that much bigger so why can’t the missiles just rotate up into place like the sub’s system does so that you could stow more usable missiles onboard?
Previous destroyer ballistic missile defense guy here, if the Navy ever had to focus thier destroyer/cruiser fleet on a country, lets say China for instance, if 75% of its destroyers had to focus with 75% of thier missles in a given day, they would have over 4800 missles to run out of(many more if you count sea sparrows) And that is just sea based. The Navy can also reload an entire destroyer in less than a day(with maybe a days transit). Also going Winchester doesn't mean being defenseless, cwis can help with ships defense, and other Aegis Ships can share tracks, and fire from thier launchers with both perspectives of any incoming missiles. Not to mention any patriot batteries, and air support that may also be helping. In addition we keep making and upgrading the Burkes like an army of ants.
@@cybersentient4758 nope, but any offensive missles will be at cost parity or more with the destroyers, not including any collateral damage from a return volley.
A US destroyer just used 19 of it's VLS missiles to take down 2 regular missiles and a bunch of drones so all China would need is 4800 drones. About the same amount they used for the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics over a decade ago.
There are a thousand suitable harbors in the western Pacific Ocean to reload Arleigh Burkes by ship. Around Japan there are probably 100 safe harbors. There's probably 100 alone in the Philippines. And then there is Guam, Ulithi, Kwajalein, and Australia.
Actually, from my recollection, there was a Congressional report by one of their military accountability offices (might've actually been their budget office actually) stated that reloading of the VLS cells can only be done at specialized-purpose-built ports/docks and that the military failing to account for that when requisitioning the system on ships might've violated appropriations/allocation requirements for the VLS system. There are only a handful of port facilities that actually can do the reloading of VLS cells according to the report and if they were to ever be targeted the US Navy would not be able to operate. Any improper reloading of the VLS Cells would damage them and compromise them to the point that chain detonations within VLS clusters would indeed be possible as missiles are launched in sequence and share a common exhaust that they need to be completely intact to shield themselves from the heat to avoid in-cell detonations.
@@Edin116 Specialized purpose built ports??? You just need a crane. Also, if a warehouse is destroyed by a strike you can actually rebuild the warehouse or build another warehouse. And, the video shows a VLMS being reloaded with a nearby ship so you just need a harbor. One more thing, currently we have 73 Arleigh Burke destroyers and 92 are planned. If 73 go to war with 90 missiles, let's say 60 are standard missiles, and you have a 90% accuracy rate, that is 3,942 aircraft destroyed. China has around 2,100 aircraft so that is pretty much their entire air force, and that doesn't even count air to air missiles fired from carrier aircraft. So, the war is over by the time you have to reload.
@@twelvestitches984 It’s not just aircraft that you are shooting with SM2s etc. You are also shooting down other missiles. Trust me, China has a shitload more than 3000 of those. Truth is, the Navy needs their own version of Rapid Dragon. Call it Slow Manatee. Take an ocean going barge, install a bunch of cells on them, and drag them out to the area to be protected. Or, instead of specialized cells, build the launchers into something resembling standard ocean containers and then you could just load up a container ship in case the shit hits the fan. Hell, play a good game of hide the pea and the enemy would have a hard time knowing which of the dozens of ships in port is the one full of missiles and which one is full of tennis shoes and Christmas ornaments.
@@Bill_N_ATX Yeah, that is true. I think if we go to war with China it's going to take time for the US Navy to get there because they are going to have to conduct anti-sub ops a thousand miles out from the Chinese coastline. So, during that time our B2's will take out most of China's air force on the ground. I don't think the Chinese DF-21 ballistic missile has the accuracy to hit a moving ship. It accelerates straight up to Mach 10 and turns and comes straight down, there's no way it can manuever enough to hit a target moving at 35 mph. Plus, the Chinese will have to know where the US Navy ships are before launching.
Expeditious [meaning promptly or quickly], NOT “expeditionary” [meaning ‘pertaining to an expedition’]. (Intent is to be helpful, not critical. I love your content. Keep up the good work!)
Thank you 😊 but what I meant was indeed “expeditionary”. So like other expeditionary forces, the re-loading would also be done in an expeditionary manner. Expeditious means quickly, which could also work in that sentence, but it would change its meaning to something else.
That would have been incredible to watch, the USS Carney launch missile after missile after missile at the incoming enemy missiles! Probably the best "test" of AEGIS, SPY-1 and the SM-2 missiles the US Navy has ever had!
Question: It don't seem to take that much space on the boat, so why not just add more cells instead of reloading? Also since the logistic ship carry so many spares why not just have them fire it as well?
@@smallboy8771Sounds like the missile truck concept in the Air Force. Use your well defended and expensive ships to deploy forward and target, and have a missile truck in the rear networked to the remote fire control of the forward ships.
Displacement treaties and the fact it's bad to put all your eggs in one basket. If you have 2x as many missiles the ship costs more, so you have less ships. So one accident or lost hull is more crippling. San Antonio ships have vls spots but they aren't equipped. We aren't concerned about capacity atm.
I'd guess you'd need a lot of equipment along, that you can't have the trained personnel and costs associated and you'd rather just buy and man another warship. And more, you'd need the refuel ships just for range extension anyways. (uneducated guesses)
Lifting shipping containers is done in a port where the water is very still and the ship is securely attached with multiple lines to permanent moorings built into the dockside or sea bed. They're not trying to do it at sea and the cranes they use are enormous - put one of those on a destroyer and it'll capsize.
1:27 "making the ship useless" Stupidest take on the internet. An Arleigh Burke class destroyer isn't "useless" once it expends it's VLS anti-air missile cells because it still has harpoon missiles, torpedoes, VLS tomahawk and ASROC cruise/Anti-ship missiles, a 5 inch gun, 2x 25mm guns, a 20mm CIWS, 4x .50 cals, and a SH-60 helicopter. And on top of all that armament, it's radar and sonar suites are some of the most powerful in the world, even if it expends all of its ability to fight, it can give all that targeting data to other ships and aircraft that could defend them.
They will not fire 19 missiles for those targets. instead, Aegis system will determine the best possible combination to neutralize the target and provides suggestion to the crew. Most likely the high weighted target like cruise missiles are neutralized using vls and drones using canon or ciws.
If you look at the naval battles, from the 1973 Yom-Kippur War, through Operation Praying Mantis, the Gulf Wars and the Falklands Island war, you will see that the great majority of anti-ship missiles fired in anger that were defeated were seduced off their targets by effective electronic countermeasures. Many of the occasions were ships were hit and either badly damaged or sunk by anti-ship missiles were occasions where ECM was not employed (USS Stark, HMS Sheffield, INS Hanit). There has been only one kinetic kill of an anti ship missile in combat, by a Royal Navy DDG which fired a Sea Dart missile at an Iraqi Silkworm before it could hit USS Iowa. All the rest of the several dozen anti-ship missiles defeated in combat were defeated by ECM. In the three battles that had large numbers of both friendly and enemy missiles in the air at one time, two battles during the Yom Kippur War and Operation Praying Mantis where the Iranians were shooting SM-1s at us and we were shooting SM-2s and Skipper IIs at them all of the Iranian missiles were spoofed off target. There wasn't even any need to use the ships weapons to shoot them down.
A simple, but strong arm grasping the canister from the middle, moving it horizontally until ready to 'poke" it when it swings up and pivots its grasping device to slip it in slot. this way has no cables, no end mount dangling and allows canisters to be resupplied by ship to ship cable as they are handled horizontally. take some real strong engineering on the load arm, a simple bar on the four corners of the canisters and diesel hydraulic motors to protect from emp weapons. simple
Bravo Zulu (Well Done). An excellent explanation of a complex chain of events. One minor quibble just at the end. The Chinese Navy (PLAN) is NOT even a near peer, much less peer competitor to the US Navy. The displacement of just the US carriers exceeds that of the entire PLAN. All told, the US Navy displaces about 3.5 times that of the PLAN. The PLAN ships lack endurance and the PLAN has a negligible forward resupply capability. They might do well within the first island chain but outside that, they are largely irrelevant. This is a BIG problem for a nation that imports ~2/3 of its oil. About 2/3 of that originates a convenient 7,000NM away in the Persian Gulf and has to pass through one of three straits with a combined width of 51NM. Two of the three straits can be closed with tube artillery on shore.
What about a floating dry dock that can be deployed in the ocean that holds the ship in a calm sea state and is equipped with hundreds of loadable missile cases and cranes that can reload the ship without fully removing the ship from a theatre?
That's what I was thinking as well. It's 100 percent possible because the U.S navy had to pay to have a heavy transport ship, ship its damaged Arleigh Burke back to the U.S for repairs after a collison. So why not build one that's slightly bigger that can rearm an Arleigh Burke at sea and also carry crippled ships out of a combat zone or help preform minor repairs at sea.
Yea drydocking a 500ft long Navy destroyer is a huge logistical undertaking while in a protected port with no wind or waves, doing so in the open ocean is another thing entirely if not impossible. Plus its gunna be huge and slow and full of a massive amount of explosives. its basically a shoot here to destroy our vital logistics.
One solution may be the use of an "arsenal ship" or barge equipped with many loaded VLS cells to follow say within a mile of a Burke. It doesn't have to have all of the radar and sensors of a Burke, just the missiles that can be fired remotely from the Burke similar to the way an F-35 can launch missiles from other assets, and be able to keep up with the destroyer. I can imagine a "barge" nearly the size of an oil tanker that could be a "remote" magazine for an entire strike group of destroyers. I have to admit It would make for one heck of a juicy target for the enemy.
This is going to become a genuine problem both for VLS and also for Submarines in a potential China/Taiwan conflict. Not only are VLS nearly impossible (tried, abandoned due to complexity) to load at sea, but they're also typically only loaded in home ports or forward operating ports. Not civilian ports due to the lack of specialized equipment and the lack of available local inventory. This means that once Yokosuka and other military ports are suppressed or knocked out entirely, any surviving but empty US vessels will have to return to Pearl just to refill their VLS. This is being alleviated by quad packing VLS launchers, but it's still an issue and any high intensity combat will see ships running dry possibly in as little as a few hours with their resupply and back on station timeline being measured in weeks not days let alone the hours that may be needed in a high intensity conflict. As for submarines, they haven't practiced nor prepared for civilian port loading, so once submarines fire all torpedoes or all of their conventional armament (missiles included) the only recourse they have is to return *all the way back to Pearl Harbour* to rearm. Essentially once the vessels is empty it's useless and the timeline until its useful again might be longer than the conflict even lasts.
they can reload in Korea, Japan, Vietnam, Singapore, Taiwan, Australia and soon to be possible in the Philippines. so its not too distant they would need to travel but it is still something that must be taken into account.
That's why the forward logistics ship concept is getting looked at, since these can perform reloads in any area of calm enough water instead of fixed ports at well known locations. Resupply while underway and under threat was never feasible in the history of naval warfare, ships always had to retire out of the enemy's weapons range to get restocked.
Submarine tenders used to carry reloads for anything that would fit in the torpedo tubes. I don't know if they still do, or even if there are sub tenders in service. On that topic, what is the hull designation for these logistic ships? Sub tenders were AS, destroyer tenders were AD, repair ships were AR, etc.
@@mikespangler98 There are still sub tenders in service although I don't think any of them are capable of reloading Trident boats like they did with Polaris (much bigger and heavier missile). You can see one moored at Naval Base Guam which resupplies attack subs.
@@trolleriffic So there is. They remodeled the base rather extensively since I was last there, that was when the Hunley was at the pier. No floating dry dock either, at least not on that picture.
A mechanical arm is still subject to the laws of physics. A relatively light weight canister more than 7m long, containing multiple tonnes would likely experience unacceptable damage in the event it was held rigidly in adverse sea states. Much like container cells for freight, they are designed to transmit load along specific vectors, and are otherwise structurally fragile. Hence the rigid hinge used while transitioning vls between lateral and vertical orientation with the crane.
The missile container seems quite self-sufficient. Why store any of them in any other way than ready to launch? Having both dedicated vertical missile launcher ships, and dedicated escorting ships. In the extreme a kind of a "barge" with nothing but vertical launchers. When ammo expended, the barge would be spent and have little remaining value. Btw, I've just recently began working with cranes. And heck, do those babies offer some surprises in behavior now and then! Even a guy who has worked with'em for 24 years, indoors on dry land, finds himself maneuvering a pendeling load. And since there (on this particular crane, for some probably good reason) is a heavy object half way between the crane and the load it carries, it doesn't swing /\, it swings >
About 20 years ago when I joined the US Navy there actually was some talk about an “arsenal ship” which would basically be a barge with VLS cells and a Cooperative Engagement Computer system to let other ships fire its missiles.
Dont load vertically with a crane. Have a horizontal loading mechanism that ratchets in the vls cell so its locked in of breakaway occurs. Then once loaded the mechanism raises the cell and rotates it vertically and loads it in.
aegis is capable of a full auto defense mode and can illuminate hundreds of targets at the same time using the spy radar, but a weapon platform like this on full auto mode would be way too dangerous if mistakes are made when detecting wrong vehicles as enemies
@@KiwisCassie yeah. it uses the specific fire control radar to guide rockets in the end phase of their trajectory, with a very narrow beam, but can illuminate everything with the track and search spy radar and just fire at will. it's just very energy inefficient and makes it light up like a Christmas tree on enemy radar. it's supposed to stay stealthy as long as possible. but in open battle with known positions.. no downside.
If they're close enough and not a proportionally deadly threat, yeah it's preferable to use the gun with its much cheaper and more plentiful rounds. Even back in WWII when submarines still had deck guns, it was preferred to surface and fire with it on a fairly unarmed supply ship than it was to launch from the limited stock of torpedoes.
@@samsonsoturian6013It's not the cost to produce the drone that you need to compare the cost of the interceptor to, but the cost of the damage that the drone is capable of doing.
I know this thought might require a redesign of the ship itself but my thought was either have like a holder device that comes out of the firing module you can move the missile into then have it slide gently down the tube in the holder device so it's not like threading a needle, or have a mechanical loading system from underneath instead that starts horizontal and then rolls forward and upwards then seal up the bottom after.
To fix reloading, does the system have to be VLS? Can't they change to HLS and have it come out the side of the ship? (Yes a whole new design that would cost a lot) I think it would be a lot faster, safer and easier to place them on a deck elevator that can then move them around horizontally in the ship for reloading. This would also allow for much safer movement especially in rough seas.
The problem with that may be salvo size and internal space. I'm pretty that with a system like this, the main problem isnt deck space, but internal space. You still need to be able to go around the VLS cells to other parts of the ship, and you still need to fit systems inside. A system like this may trade the total missile magazine size and the size of a possible salvo that you could launch.
The VLS IS the better system when it comes to reloading. Creators of this video just didn't do their homework as per usual. VLS was chosen for "ease of reloading" and versatility which has recently paid off big time since they were able to painlessly go from smaller missiles to much longer ones but no matter what you do, missiles will always be extremely awkward to load due to their extremely big & long sizes and their expensive nature.
@@CheapSushi There's no good reason for the US to change over to horizontal launch and especially not to a missile that gets fired out of a torpedo tube and launches from the water. The only reason the Russian RPK-2 launches its missile component from underwater is because it was developed as a submarine-launched weapon first that had to be able to be fired from a torpedo tube like a Soviet equivalent of SUBROC. It was then added to surface vessels and for the sake of logistical simplicity and cost, they used the exact same weapon and deployed it like a torpedo rather than redesign it into something that could launch off a rail or from a VLS.
The US Navy just needs to buy a large container ship, load it with a f*ck ton of different missiles and call it a day. Sure it's not very survivable but you've got all the interceptors and strike capability you could ask for. Put the ship in the middle of a fleet and you'll be golden
It'd be too slow. The speed of the formation is its slowest link. Even aircraft carriers cruise at like 30 knots. That thing would sweat to break 15. Secondly, rearming these missiles at sea is practically impossible. So it'd be useless regardless of cruising speed
@@rykehuss3435 While your point is entirely valid its actually the cruisers that are the slowest part of the strike group. The carrier is the fastest and can outrun everything else. The Areligh burke class destroyers are also likely (not official but they don't ever say the true speed) capable of 40kts. A Nimitz class can reach 50-60kts
HII once proposed a DEDICATED BMD version of the San Antonio class. The thing possesses a full-size SPY-6, 288 MK41 cells (you're not wrong, 288) or 144 MK57s, a rail gun and a MK110. Two Ospreys (or Seahawks) could be stored in a well deck-turned-aircraft hangar.
@@mitchspurlock3626 small coastal missile boats also have significant problems with range, defensive capability, and possibly even targeting capability depending on the type of missile they use, but that is likely not a problem.
I have served on two missile systems, the MK 26 Missile System and the MK 41 Vertical Launch System, and both are issues when rearming, to reload the original MK 26 was just as difficult if not more challenging because the missiles were directly exposed to the environment and could be easily damaged with just a minor bump, so changing out the missile that is enclosed in the container is less complicated and has less of a chance to damage the actual missile. Either way a battle group is designed to allow the withdrawal and rearming of ships in an orderly manner, just like in World War II when the Battleships would fire up to 200 to 500 rounds of 16 inch projectiles. These massive ships stilled had limits to their capacities. Nothing has changed in complexity but the operational process is much safer for both service members and the actual weapons.
5:40 "Ideal" is relive here. It may not be ideal to drop your fueling probe in the water, but it's quite a bit more ideal than having antiship missiles impacting. And in the end you refueling probe is still going into the sea.
Idk man, look at what Israel has been doing to Gaza. They wouldn’t even let humanitarian aid into the Gaza Strip for the first few days, seems like they’re waging war on Gaza as a whole.
A crane dispensable crawler, that has an empty cell, plus the needed reloads seems like an option. (Or, a separate unloader and loader). It moves to the appropriate VLS section, rigidly locks onto the ship and system, making it able to operate quickly and safely, even under rougher conditions, and just slides the used cells out, and slides the reloads in. It would atill need to be placed by crane and removed by crane from a supply ship, but since it just needs to be placed safely, not accurately into a launch tube, etc, it should be more robust to sea states. And multiple crawlers could be preloaded on the supply ship, and craned over one after the other, while each preceeding crawler loads and unloads the other cells, reducing overall time of thw process.
An old landing ship or carrier would allow for a deck gantry in almost any weather. Or potentially loading from below. And the shear amount they could hold with drone swarms would be crazy.
Those tenders or floating docks were semi-permanently moored in a friendly harbour near to a naval base or in some cases they'd be moored in the base itself. There's a submarine tender at Naval Base Guam that resupplies attack subs but the way it's moored, it's almost like an extension of the dockside. Reloading at sea would be a nightmare in comparison.
Maybe, until you factor in the cost to have fighters in the air, on station, 24 hours a day for the duration of the conflict. And are they flying from bases in foreign countries that impose costs or rules for using their country? Or an aircraft carrier, that also requires other ships to escort and protect it?
The advantage of the crane was gas management configurations. Different missile types have different length canisters. Spacers (gas management) would need to be placed in the empty cells prior to onload. Since the gas management is not considered ordnance it could be delivered to a ships home port. The crew can configure the launcher in route to weapons depo. This saves time/money for civilian union crane operators to focus directly on dropping in the missiles only.
I have an idea and if it has a major flaw, please tell me, but what if there’s a flat one that’s inside of what a little bit it rises up and you sit in the sauna and it brings it down and it’ll just launch off that
I guess one think I'm not quite understanding is why they insist on a crane and not a rolling carriage system. It seems like one laid some cells out on the deck a carriage could be made to load the cells long ways into the carriage and the the carriage itself secures to the deck and or vls system. After that it becomes a hoist to lift the cell vertical and then lower it into the cell.. Don't get me wrong i don't think one of these would be simple by any means.... But we are talking about handling extremely advanced military hardware so i don't think this is outlandish.
Size, weight, cost, reliability and maintenance would all be issues. The system would be out on the front deck of a ship getting the sh!t kicked out of it by wind and waves so it would break all the time unless it was made to be so heavy duty that it would compromise other aspects of the vessel. You'd also still have the problem of how do you safely transfer missiles to that reloading system? It's a very safe bet that any concept that you, I or anyone else suggests in these comments has already been thought of by naval engineers and studied in great detail. Navies all over the world have transitioned to VLS launchers and that's not a coincidence - any drawbacks these launchers have are more than outweighed by their advantages.
Economics of battle, if you launch 200 cheaper missiles against a target that can not defend against that number and you hit it, then you win. Swarm attacks need to be figured in real fast for ships or improve the armour which means larger power plants and heavier armour = more cost
Aegis automatically determines what measures to be used against the incoming threats, worst case scenario in the future is adding more VLS cells - it's far easier to prevent a missile hitting the ship at all than it is to try prevent damage when the missile hits.
Anti-ship cruise missiles are not cheap. If you want enough stand off range to be able to launch missiles from outside the range of the battle groups air wing and long range SAMs, you need something with a 500 or so nautical mile range. Now you are talking a large expensive missile, expensive because at those ranges the missile will have to fly autonomously for an hour then scan the ocean for targets, classify everything it detects, determine what is neutral shipping and what is a legitimate target, then maneuver to engage the target including employing its own electronic countermeasures. Missiles that can do that are not cheap and most navies cannot afford enough to conduct multiple saturation attacks of 200 or more such missiles. You also need platforms able to launch these missiles and those too are not cheap or expendable. Cheap missiles are of necessity short ranged and have simple guidance. That requires the launch platform to come deep inside the battle groups substantial air defenses. Good luck with that. Coming inside 300 nm of a US Navy carrier strike group's escorts and its air wing is not an easy thing and not very survivable.
Stability whilst loading would be done via bumpstoprollers an air bumps at the base so the crane only needs to drop an stop the air bump would allow it to fall to a rest with complete safety
5:54 Actually it is possible, it's called dropping it. The VLS cell will obviously drop into the ocean and all the ships have to do is break away like normal. It's better to lose a VLS cell than to lose the cell, destroyer, and a resupply ship.
probably the space; these US VLS are pretty much from the top deck down to the lowest and in their own boxed structure. I think I've seen the Russian (and Chinese) canister launchers are more open in the bay decks, so you can reload a missile differently (like you can see each individual missile. But these are like their own boxed in thing, with protection from explosions. So there's not really space to load another one from below, let alone from the sides. The whole point was the densely pack in as many missiles, while still having room for other systems and walkways, etc.
It's a sacrificial lamb. Designed to draw fire, launch all it missiles and will be destroyed shortly afterwards by a hypersonic nuke. If it can be reloaded, that means we already won the war.
@@ianwalton284 It is not sacrificial. it is designed to intercept incoming missiles and defend the fleet. You are thinking of the soviet plan to just dump missiles and run before they get obliterated by American air power.
A mark, a yen, a buck or a pound A buck or a yen A buck or a pound. Is all that makes the world go around That clinking, clanking sound Can make the world go 'round
Coupd we not just use a layer design from the bottom up so the compartment once used could be off boarded an a new layer could be made avail reloading the ship could be done at sea as it would be a floating cartridge that would be loaded onto the ship
You make mention eventually of the GMLS Mk26 yet you showed 2 clips of the GMLS Mk10. The VLS Mk41 had issues with its crane system early on but the USN did not let FMC/NSD, the alternate domestic manufacturer, make the necessary fixes and improvements.
In the Falklands war the UK fielded the Type 42 Warship with the Sea Dart reloadable missile system - two were sunk whilst still carrying the reloads : a lot of sailors died.
What I don't understand is why not use a carriage system and load them in through the side of the ship? Or create a hole in the deck a rail system can be hooked up to and run them one at a time through the carriage system. Make the hole as wide as the magazine so they can attach a rail for each layer of the magazine and refill it exponentially faster. Basically a heavily modified version of what is used to load munitions into a submarine. Completely eliminates the need for cranes. To eliminate the need for drydocking they would need to invent something else but Basically a reverse dry dock. Instead of lowering the water so you can rest the ship on something, bring the ship to rest over a bunch of hydraulic rams that lift the ship up until its no longer using buoyancy to stay above the water and just sitting on the hydraulic rams. That would prevent the waves from moving the ship without needing to do a full dry docking process. This could also feasibly be set up at any dock it's resting position just needs to be lower than the keel of the largest ships allowed to dock there arresting wires on bouyees attached to winches can be used to guide the ship into place and hold it still while the hydraulic rams raise into place.
Ever see the flame trough under those VLS cells? It has to be flooded with seawater during launches to protect the ship from damage by the rocket motors. The flames are directed 180 degrees and blown upward out another hatch alongside the launch cells as each missile is fired. It is not so simple below decks. There are also connectors from the ship to each VLS cell so the combat management system of the ship can communicate with each missile, load mission plans or target data then fire the missile.
@philsalvatore3902 I don't see why that couldn't be worked around. It would require major reworking of the ship below the VLS system to allow for a baffle system that can be retracted down under the whole VLS system to allow for horizontal reloading. But again, I don't really see why that couldn't be done. Most of the technology is available already, all the materials needed are available, there would absolutely be some hoops that would need to be jumped through to ensure it is a reliable and most importantly safe system and the last thing you want is one of them dropping or getting jammed slightly out if place and triggering a chair fire. That ship is gone if these things manage to chain fire so I'm assuming the system as it is now has been designed in the way that bar a major defect, makes this an impossibly. As this would be a highly complex bit of machinery directly responsible for the safe functioning of a high explosive mounted to a bunch of rocket fuel there would need to be MANY fail safes and back ups. It needs a 100% function rate as when you need to fire one of these you REALLY need to fire it. Not being able to fire it will cost lives and potentially thousands of them if a carrier were hit or god forbid a full hospital in say isreal. If the iron dome runs out of ammo our VLS's may be one the only things capable of taking down those rockets considering their volume of fire. Standard anti air guns aren't handling that many rockets at once. But honestly I think our people are up to the task of creating a system like that. Just would take a willingness to spend absolute crap tons of money.
@@dcviper985a hull opening on a deck is a fairly standard thing. They seal shut when underway in bad weather. And with modern tech can be nearly completely automated. Just takes someone pressing a few buttons and then indiduals closing the few things that need to be manually closed for safety reasons. Don't want people being locked out on deck.
The basic problem here is "wrong fucking kind of crane". They need an erector that can be moved into position and locked in place, accept the module then erect it into place and lower it in within a guided rail system. This is about the simplest system of all and only needs a pair of rails to the sides and a rack to the bridge side of the compartments. A stupid boom-arm crane has always been stupid and worse, somehow, the navy lost 700 years of handling skill overnight... where are the capstans and stays? Three capstans and stays would let you load those damned things in Force 8. Some d-bag really dropped the ball on this crap.
If the logistics ship was akin to a heavey lift ship, it could submerge and then load the combat ship into a “docking bay” and then once the combat ship is secured it could start moving again, and then you wouldn’t have the issue of sea stability cause only one vessel would be in contact with the water, also the rearmament ship could have its own VLS on the opposite side of the ship so it could defend itself while the combat ship being rearmed is unable to fire
Ok, imagine this: having the VLS designed into a standard shipping container size, at least in the 2 of 3 dimensions. Fit as many missile cells in that canister, and transport it-load it and unload it as a whole. Sure it may sound like extra weight to move around, but also the transporting job of t would be incredibly easier. And one more thing, imagine having some mechanical arms that can connect a missile cruiser to a supply ship mid sea, and join them into a single vessel, which sails like a catamaran until reloading is completed. The whole thing seems to have a lot of room for development
Standard shipping containers require specialized cranes in order for them to be loaded onto ships due to their size and weight, and as already demonstrated having more specialized hardware isn't exactly cost effective for logistics.
" Go Winchester " ???? Is that from the Winchester Rifle ? Esp. " The Rifleman " with Chuck Connors ?? ( In the opening credits he basically does a full mag dump with lever action )
The quad packed missile is the RIM-162 ESSM it is a smaller missile meant for close range intercept (out to 25-35nautical miles) of anti ship missiles and aircraft. It is a very potent weapon but one with a limited range of uses. This is why you also find RGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missiles for land attack, RUM-139 rocket launched lightweight torpedo's for anti submarine warfare, RIM-66 SM-2 and RIM-174 SM-6 missiles for longer range air defense, and RIM-161SM-3 missiles for ballistic missile defense. Different weapons have different uses and by carrying a mixed load you have a much more robust ability to take on different threats.
Everyones forgetting the biggest advantage of arm launchers. They look way cooler than VLS.
In the way that a person without a helmet looks cool on a motorcycle to some people, older Russian ships (aka Moskva) tend to explode like matches with all the powerful missiles being unarmored above the deck. Warheads on other peoples foreheads, not on your own. Also the potential for small arms fire to bring down a billion dollar ship is just dumb.
@@yeabutwecouldbefreerarm launchers keep their missiles below deck
@@ajw5032 not when in weapons ready position, and/because it takes time .. precious seconds from decision making to fire. Additionally there is no way to fire at more than 4 targets at a time(fore and aft) when using the twin arm bandits, hence the reason why they were abandoned with the advent of Aegis and fixed position phased array radars. Also I would love to see a arm launched space fairing SM3, it would have to be huge!
I like both
@yeabutwecouldbefreer The first 5 AEGIS Cruisers used the Mk-26 twin armed launchers, and yes they could put more than 4 birds in the air at one time.
A major point not mentioned is that it's even _more_ difficult to reload the magazine of the older arm launchers (in VLS, the launcher _is_ the magazine, so it's more reliable and compact enabling a larger loadout).
I'm afraid I have to disagree. DDG-21 Late flight Adams class, we could (and did) re-load the SM-1 (virtually the same body as SM-2) into our MK-13 launcher (one-arm bandit) underway. Yes, anything done underway is harder than pier side, but practice makes for speed.
These ships carry more missiles than any of the previous ships that had below-deck magazines. If they think they need more missiles the solution is to add more launch cells. A loaded cell doesn't take up more space than a reload as the reloads fit snugly in the launcher and would take up just about as much space if stowed on the ship.
the point is that you'd have a supply ship carrying the ammunition. That way, the logistics ship can travel between the destroyer and ports that have ammo stocks, instead of the destroyer wasting time traveling.
Not really. Additional rockets / containers take up space below the deck but the launcher takes up space ON the deck, so its limiting factor is volume vs space.
I do agree however that the cells should be rearmed from within the ship's hull / storage holding and not by an outside crane.
China's Type 055 destroyer has 112 VLS. We need a cheaper version of Rapid Dragon concept that can be placed on top of ships in case they need to reload fast! Just have them on deposable boats that serve as missiles truck drones that go ahead of the Navy to take out the 1st wave of missles.
What are you trying to say after adding more tubes like the reasoning doesn’t make sense how it’s worded. When you say a loaded cell doesn’t take more space than a reload what do you mean because that doesn’t make sense
Or Octa pack ESSM.
Or multi-pack a boosted ESSM to imcrease range over base line ESSM while having more magazine depth.
Regardless of what the ocean does: It is not realistic to reload VLS when still in a hostile environment anyway.
It's impossible to have people on the deck near the VLS, working on a Cell , when the ship itself still has to have its other cells ready to fire to intercept a threat.
One could argue that they could do replenish at the front cell while the rear cell is taking care of the defence, but in a pinch the ship cannot take half its arsenal offline in a combat zone.. That's just not acceptable.
So the entire ship first has to egress the combat zone
Going off that point its been an exceptional rarity for any ship to be resupplied while in contact for all of history. Your logistics vessels are too valuable to risk in such a mission and a ship with half its missiles is still more useful than one stuck to the side of a support vessel
most ships have 2 VLS cells so if this was the case they would disarm one and arm the other therefore the crew working on it wouldnt be at risk. But also if you are reloading that means your missiles are out thus there being no risk at all to crew rearming.
Yeah, about the only thing you could do for "quickly" reloading a VLS cell would be to design a set of guide rail adapters which act like a "funnel" to capture the bottom end of a container and quickly maneuver it to the cell mouth.
Perhaps a self-erecting gantry (like an ICBM erector) could be designed with a 2-axis traversing trolley, so you slide the container horizontally into the erector, erect it, then traverse it over the cell and slot it in place, but the mechanism would be very bulky and eat up a lot of deck space when not in use.... and you would still have to shut down your VLS array to use it.
Ideally every threat should be taken care of with just the missiles on board the vessels in the zone
@@Nediac800 and that's basically the purpose of the VLS design: to enable reliable sustained fire of all missiles aboard the ship.
This is the main reason that the idea of a ship self-reloading VLS cells doesn't make sense. If the ship has the cubage to store reloads, it also has the cubage to store them upright for launching.
That is to say, you'd have to store reloads on the exterior of the ship, because all the interior space you could put one in already hosts a launch cell. And sorting explosives on the exterior of a combat vessel is a nonstarter.
An old RD/OS/EW guy, now a retired chief engineer (systems/software) from a Fortune 100 defense contractor. You need to think of the larger strategic logistical picture here. The Burkes and Ticos provide 2 inherent capabilities - the Aegis networked sensor system and the weapons platform with weapons. If a ship goes Winchester, you are also removing a serious sensor platform from the area to reload. It's better to use an arsenal ship concept to augment the sensor platforms with additional weapons, and shuttle them for reloading. You can have rather simple 100 to 300-cell small decks providing a robust mixed bag inventory. Also, for the most part - let the USAF utilize their cargo aircraft for cruise missle Rapid Dragon deployment, and specialize the arsenal ships for S2A/S2Space and S2S along with ASROC mixed bag loadouts. There is no perfect solution here, but there are much better solutions available than what is currently in use.
The other major con is the floating weapon inventory. You do not want a Zumwalt situation where you have the guns on deck but are unable to afford the ammunition it uses, in sufficient quantities. You have to be able to afford several of these hulls with their contingent 200+ weapons loaded out and ready to use, on station, while having foward deployed reload inventory.
Another problem not addressed is the limited number of cells on any single hull. Having the ship go winchester will essentially sink that ship (and its sensors). Having an arsenal ship available within the area, solves or at least postphones this problem till the opposition's airfields are taken out by RapidDragon and/or the SSGNs. At the start of the conflict having the second arsenal ship ship leave port to relieve the soon to be emptied arsenal ship on station will get ahead of the logistics cycle. The replacement arsenal ship can start to shoot as soon as it's near the combat area, while the empty transits back for reloading. You want the Burke's and Tico's to use their own cells as their last resort.
You have to think/game the entire situation through, just not the middle of the problem. This is a full up integrated end to end problem. You also need to bring on all available assets - in order to consider the best possible load out configurations and weapon utilization policies.
The USN has said it wants more unmanned vessels in the fleet. Having a large number of unmanned small arsenal ships might be what they’re thinking.
Man's shamed the Zumwalt in so many ways, I cannot imagine the pain that the USN has to go through to combat the 055. The DDG(X) is literally using the concepts of the 055, and semi Arsenal ship as well.
This answer really shows why we've spent so much on beam weapons and rail gun development. I wonder why we're not closer to mounting them on ships?
Some questions:
Would the arsenal ship concept be submersible?
Supposing we could get Arsenal Ships online, how do we even use the resources if AEGIS has a data-link capacity problem? Is AEGIS at end of life?
You mean a Carronade-type IFS? Basically a container ship filled to the brim with VLS and nothing else? That would be cool. Cooler if it can perform reloads too.
Yes, cheap, plentiful arsenal ships do feel like the right answer. That way the ships providing the fire control could treat their own missile load as the "last line of defence" to protect the ship itself after all of the arsenal ships have run dry (while getting the hell out of Dodge).
One thing that was not mentioned in the video - reloading the magazine on an traditional armed launcher is just as slow, if not more so, than a VLS.
I'd hate to be standing on top of one of those things when they decided to launch.
ride of a lifetime
Same
Last and fastest ride of your life.
I like the smell of gasoline 😮
@@TheFriskyComiskeyor solid rocket fuel 😮
Mk-41 VLS certainly can be reloaded and I have been part of a crew that did so. On our 1988/89 deployment aboard the ammunition ship USS Kiska we re-loaded the aft VLS of USS Antietam while underway in the Pacific. We brought Antietam five loaded SM-2 canisters and brought back five empties as retrograde. We did this with a CH-46D helicopter. We delivered the canisters to the main deck between the aft VLS and aft 5in/54 cal gun. We used a long rope hanging from the VLS canister so deck crew could keep the canister from spinning as we set it on deck. We had to make the lifts at minimum fuel because the missile and canister weighted about 4,200 lbs. After delivering the full canister we would land on Kiska and take a splash of fuel rotors turning. After a few minutes the Antietam crew had an empty canister for us to pick up. We'd lift off Kiska, pick up the empty and return to our flight deck before bringing Antietam another SM-2 in its canister. We transferred five SM-2s that way on afternoon after an exercise where Antietam expended some of her SM-2s. Back then one group of four VLS cells was replaced with a crane system that was designed to allow underway replenishment of the VLS system from either an alongside ammo ship or, as we did, using a VERTREP helicopter. My understanding is the Navy removed the cranes to allow their ships to carry four more Tomahawks, since the CONOPS of the Gulf Wars, war in Afghanistan and GWOT operations in general allowed ships to reload pier side in Bahrain.
So you sling loaded munitions, at sea, and also did hot refuels. That's three dangerous things combined. I'm surprised any commander would sign off on it.
Oh wait this was the 80s. Different time back then. Bigger balls.
@@Oberon4278 ??? That is how it is still done. Other than the helicopter used nothing has changed and it's not especially dangerous. You could drop the whole canister on deck and aside from banging things up nothing bad would happen. Find out what "insensitive munitions" are. Hot refueling is likewise standard practice both ashore and at sea. You are not going to shut down to refuel. Big waste of time. If the ship had too small a flight deck for our helo, example most frigates, we could hover over the flight deck, lower our rescue hoist to the deck, hoist the fuel hose up into the cabin using and plug the dry break connection in to a refueling station inside the cabin. We would just fly along in a hover matching the ship's speed as we refueled. When topped up our crewman would disconnect the fuel hose and hoist it back down to the flight deck. Then we'd depart. Easy. Did that almost every day underway. Find out what HIFR, Hover In Flight Refueling is. Ashore we'd land at a set of helo pads by the fuel farm, taxi into one of the fuel pits and hot refuel before taxiing over to our hanger and shutting down.
@@philsalvatore3902 I was a weapons technician for the Apache in the Army, so I'm familiar with a lot of what you said. It must be different in the Navy because we didn't do hot refuels if it could be avoided. Don't get me wrong, they weren't vanishingly rare, and we knew what and how to do it, including reloading/rearming during a hot refuel. But we only did it during training, or if there were troops in contact who needed air support. Otherwise the risk was considered too high.
I guess it should have been obvious that the munitions are safe until armed/fired. The same is true for the 30mm shells that the Apache fires. You can put them in a literal meat grinder and nothing happens. If you get the timing wrong on the gun, it will chew up the rounds and drop them out the bottom.
It should go without saying that I never got the timing wrong 😉 I actually got an extremely low-ranking medal (Army Achievement Medal) for being one of the best technicians on our deployment. Caught a lot of errors other people missed that would have been a problem.
@@Oberon4278 When the carrier deploys the ammo upload is accomplished at sea from an ammunition ship or now it would be a T-AKE. The carrier pulls up alongside the T-AKE, three STREAM rigs on the port side of the T-AKE feed ammo to the carrier while aft, two helicopters in what we called a "Daisy Chain" were moving ammo from the T-AKE's flight deck to the carrier's flight deck. Both ships have fleets of battery electric and CNG powered fork lifts (some munitions were sensitive to electronic fields so they were handled with CNG powered fork lifts). We could move a lot of freight that way, 30 seconds deck to deck, about 3,000 lbs per lift. It would take 12-14 hours of solid flying to upload the carrier. Naturally we hot refueled and changed crews with rotors turning. Same thing in reverse when the carrier comes back off deployment, all the ammo is downloaded from the carrier to the T-AKE. Sometimes we'd fly out and rendezvous with the inbound and outbound carriers and simply transfer the ammo from one to the other. Those days took longer because we didn't have the T-AKE with its three STREAM rigs moving ammo. It was all done by our two CH-46Ds. It's the last bastion of stick and rudder flying in the Navy. Look up videos for HC-11 USS Sacramento. You should be able to find videos us doing VERTEP with the CH-46D.
@@philsalvatore3902 See, this is why I wish I'd joined the Navy. I had no idea what kind of operations, history, etc. you guys have, I just associated the Navy with that Village People song.
Another reliability bonus of the VLS is that even if a cell is damaged (let's assume some spy welded the door shut) the other cells aren't affected by this
Love the little mention in the backround at the german ship incident.
"Oh Scheiße!"
(You might have guessed it but: "Oh shit!""
Imagine how much this has been studied in attempts to find better solutions by the Navy, the contractors, and all of the subcontractors.
As a European living in a landlocked country, this information was very useful.
Very interesting video tho.
you can t predict the future
Your country may get a coastline even if it is 12 miles
I wish I had healthcare, but this is a neat alternative.
Like fireworks but it's celebrating not being defeated.
MRLS systems have the same problem. That was a big thing in Israel where their SAM rockets did wonders, but they had to be manually reloaded so rockets made it through during the lucky window.
@@StruggleGaming The us still spends nearly twice as much on healthcare than it does on the military. The per capita spending on healthcare is nearly triple that of France, which has a very well developed public healthcare system. The problem isn't a lack of money, its that the money is getting spent on insurance companies and not hospitals and doctors.
I was a SMT for this System as part of my time with Naval Sea Systems Command. This was my system. Many people don’t realize the logistical challenges when carrying munitions.
Always impressed with the stock footage you guys source! The fact you were able to find VLS footage in the lab is crazy.
Thanks! Yeah this video was especially quite footage heavy. Glad to hear you enjoyed it!
I'm sure the eventuality was considered but I'd still like to know why they don't use a manipulator instead of a crane. With proper engineering it could be able to safely store the capsule in the shaft even under the most extreme conditions simply because there would always be a rigid connection between the capsule and the deck.
It just isn't a useful capability in the big picture.
It'd require redesigning the vls cells. They'd need to take side loads, not just vertical loads. Could be done but not sure about the trade-off.
On a ship at sea you want that flexibility. A solid armature would make it more difficult to exchange canisters between ships because any difference in their relative motion would cause the stiff manipulater to either bend in ways that would damage itself or cause what it is carrying to impact the other ship instead, and when dealing with explosive weaponry, thats a bad thing. Manipulators large enough to move canisters of that size will not be able to move fast enough to allow for quick reaction times. Physics is just not on the side of this idea.
As someone else said because then you have a high risk of breaking while handling extremely expensive and extremely explosive weapons.
5:24 - Why smokestack of the transport is yellow-blue? 😮❤
Instead of loading the missiles one by one, why can't we just load them all at once with one big missile container when in calm seas or ports?
tell that to the us navy
My guess is one bank of launchers could have reliability issues, and the potential to change the ballast of the ship too much when attempting to reload unless in drydock, making the change less efficient and a PITA in logistics
Because those missiles are not small.... they are over 20 feet long and several tons
separated missile kinds for different scenarios each time, also mixed together. This isn't feseable
He states one or more, but the issues remain added to a bigger boom.
10:56 please also note The airplane in this instance turned off its transponder indicating its civilian origins
And for some reason never answered numerous radio calls warning it was in danger and needed to change course or acknowledge its existence.
In other words it behaved like an attacking aircraft and with the combination of the mistake the operator made in noticing the airplane ascending added up to an attacking aircraft.
You should consider reviewing the Fogarty report as well as the ICAO report. The airliner was transmitting its civilian IFF mode 3 code the entire time, from take off to shoot down. Additionally, the US sailors on the USS Vincennes did not use the IFF code when identifying the craft, they only gave general flight condition as identifying info over the civilian emergency frequency. The only time the IFF code was used as identification during transmission was by the USS Sides less than one minute before the missiles launched. The ICAO report states that the warnings given over the radio used ground speed to identify craft, but pilots use indicated airspeed. The report gives nearly a 100 knot difference between the two during the weather and flight conditions for that day. The ships also did not explicitly state to "change course or be fired upon." The command given over the radio was "you are standing into danger and MAY (emphasis mine) be subject to USN defensive measures," followed by "advise change course to X."
There is zero proof the airline pilots did anything wrong, but there is a lot of proof that the US Navy messed up repeatedly.
I can think of a few ways to make this reloadable.
Namely utilizing rails and a reloading arm that hold the missile box with complete stability plus modifications on the holding boxes themselves.
Though it would be a MASSIVE engineering challenge.
Was thinking the same, but more a connected chute that the crane can basically slide the bottom into and tension guide it via the attached cable into the slot. Have a wide enough gap, some safety lines and it's more than possible
With modern robotics, you could design a ship to switch out the canisters automatically.
They shelved the VLS cranes towards the end of my active duty time in the Navy. We never used them to lift canisters. However, the crane was very useful for prepping gas management in the modules beforehand. Though I can't say I missed having to maintain or stow that damn crane.
They were so slow.
@@kevinfisher1345 Fast enough for us to reload five SM-2s one afternoon. Took a couple of hours but it was our first time doing it. Certainly faster than sailing back to a possibly bombed out port to reload at a possibly damaged pier while maybe under attack by ballistic missiles. Darned it I would want to be tied to a pier at Guam reloading while Chinese missiles rained down.
@@philsalvatore3902 "reload five SM-2s one afternoon" Ta for proving my point ;)
It took us half day to go back to UAE and then another day to fully reload 60 cells. Could not do that with the strike down crane in that amount of time. ..... HOWEVER, I do get your point. We were in the Persian Gulf, not out in the ocean, and in an area with a lot of countries around and not just near some enemy country.
@@kevinfisher1345 We had never done this before and by the third missile we were cracking them off smartly. When you do something repeatedly you get real good at it. We were noobs and so was the crew of Antietam. It was their first deployment. But we were learning fast, which was the whole point of us practicing this.
WWII and Vietnam UNREPS took 12-14 hours sometimes and were all hands affairs. I have personally participated in lots of 12-14 hour ammo uploads of aircraft carriers at sea. Once upon a time in our Navy that was normal. In a naval war with China I would expect the same. Having to return to port to re-arm is going to take ships out of battle for more days than they will be in combat.
@@philsalvatore3902 Ah the Antietam. Seen her lots. I was on the Foster.
What I was trying to get at is this: Use the freighter as the dock with the crane that loads the destroyers with multi missile magazines in a few big crane lifts, instead of 96 separate small crane lifts. The freighter doesn't need the targeting systems or fighting crew, it just goes from ship to ship loading what they need and hiding the rest of the time.
They did something similar with specialised tenders and floating dry docks for the Polaris submarines, but they operated as semi-permanent installations that were moored very close to naval bases in sheltered, very well-defended coastal waters of closely allied nations. Probably the most famous example is Holy Loch in Scotland and if you look at it on a map or satellite photo you can see why it was chosen. Waters like that can literally be like a mill pond in very calm weather, whereas the open ocean is far rougher even at the best of times. These ships would be priority targets at sea while also being slow and relatively undefended - problem would be where would they hide that would be safe, and could they get to and from the fleet's location in a short enough time to be useful?
This is why I think naval guns will still have a place as a backup for when all VLS cells are spent or to degrade a target ships point defences so the missiles have a higher chance to hit.
good luck getting that close to anything tho. There's a reason that carriers have only been sunk by battleships like a couple times, whereas they've been sunk by other carriers much more. Range is KING
@sage5296 Rang is King, until you are dealing with cheap little patrol boats, then the accounts and logisticains come out to play. After all, why spend hundreds of thousands to millions when a few hundred dollar shells will be just as effective, and you would probably still out range them.
The nice thing about the logistics ship approach is that you don't have to sail the thing all the way back to a port (especially since a peer state can predict and target the US's major bases in theater that would normally do VLS reloading). The logistics ship can be less predictable and closer to the front than a port would normally be.
We have to remember that the missile knows where it is at all times, mainly because it knows where it isn’t.
by subtracting from where it is
@@nursestoyland or where it isn't from where it is (whichever is greater), it obtains a difference, or deviation, which is not what you think.
@@CarbideSix The guidance subsystem uses deviations to generate corrective commands to drive the missile from a position where it is to a position where it isn't, and arriving at a position where it wasn't, it now is.
@@jbrou123 Consequently, the position where it is, is now the position that it wasn't, and it follows that the position that it was, is now the position that it isn't.
Sigh. Please read up on proportional navigation. That is the foundation of air defense missile guidance.
Who else noticed at 7:24 the soldier on the middle left of the screen giving the middle finger salute to his peer 😂😂😂
They could've used a helper rail system to reload the rocket. No need for cranes, except for when placing the rocket containers onto the helper rails! Once they are placed onto the rails, they could be pushed into place, and lifted in a vertical position and lowered slowly into the cell. They could even load an entire row of cells at the same time, this way! Or even better, they could've made the entire system removable, and when needed to reload, just swap the whole ting, with all the cells at once!
so…something like stripper clips from bolt-action rifles?
Good idea, but it seems like it would be just as difficult to get the canister on the rail as getting the canister in the box. Swapping out the entire magazine might work, but the wiring and interconnects might be a night mare.
@@jbrou123right now, we swap the whole ship
You realize these canisters are 3 stories tall, right? A helper rail in theory would need to be even longer. And realistically would need to move everything out of the way forward of the VLS (can not do it off to the sides as that would over the water), in which case there is usually something else already there such as 54 calibre gun.
@@nursestoyland Not necessarily that, but that might work too!
Transferring missile pods is a great reason to be FORKLIFT CERTIFIED *guitar riff*
The deck crane should have been the arm of an excavator with a grab to hold the missle case. Missile held not hung, arm mounted to deck to null roll. Just a big robot arm instead of a basic crane.
Exactly, they already use these for both logging and foundation pile-driving, the pile handlers can even spin their grip to align with other beams, or easily the square hatch in the deck.
I'm glad you made this - it needs to be known.
I always wondered why they didn't keep the magazine-to-launcher conveyor belt of the arm launcher system, but modify it to load a vertical launcher instead of an arm launcher. Then you can reload at sea in a wider range of sea conditions like an arm launcher, but with most of the reduction in weight, space, and complexity that a VLS provides.
Because the ships need access to those missiles as fast as combat requires, if it was one modern vls ship vs several past arm launcher variants the modern one might be able to both counter every missile thrown at it and fire back at the enemies, forcing them to decide whether to shoot to kill or shoot to defend. I don't think it would get a kill unless targeting one or two of their vessels but the arm launchers won't get a kill either until it's out of countermeasures.
Reloading that magazine is as slow, or more so, than reloading a VLS.
How would you get the missiles onto the loader or onto the ship in the first place?
The great value of the Mk-41 is that each cell can carry a different weapon and the load out can be varied depending on the threat. For some missions your ship may want to replace some of their anti surface missiles with Vertical Launch ASROC (VLA for short) . The ESSM missile can be "Quad-Packed" four missiles to one VLS canister. For some threats you might want to carry more quad packed ESSM and fewer SM-6 (less advanced air threat) and use some of the VLS cells for anti-ship missiles. In other scenarios you might want to carry more SM-3 and fewer or even no Tomahawks. With the Mk-41 system this is easy to accomplish. With the old conveyor systems you don't have that flexibility.
…but nuclear subs reload from below & aren’t that much bigger so why can’t the missiles just rotate up into place like the sub’s system does so that you could stow more usable missiles onboard?
Previous destroyer ballistic missile defense guy here, if the Navy ever had to focus thier destroyer/cruiser fleet on a country, lets say China for instance, if 75% of its destroyers had to focus with 75% of thier missles in a given day, they would have over 4800 missles to run out of(many more if you count sea sparrows) And that is just sea based. The Navy can also reload an entire destroyer in less than a day(with maybe a days transit). Also going Winchester doesn't mean being defenseless, cwis can help with ships defense, and other Aegis Ships can share tracks, and fire from thier launchers with both perspectives of any incoming missiles. Not to mention any patriot batteries, and air support that may also be helping. In addition we keep making and upgrading the Burkes like an army of ants.
So basically there's way too much missiles to run out of
@@cybersentient4758 nope, but any offensive missles will be at cost parity or more with the destroyers, not including any collateral damage from a return volley.
@@yeabutwecouldbefreer Ally ships and subs would bolster the amount of missiles ryt
@@cybersentient4758 yep
A US destroyer just used 19 of it's VLS missiles to take down 2 regular missiles and a bunch of drones so all China would need is 4800 drones. About the same amount they used for the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics over a decade ago.
Why not reload them like they do with old 6 shooters with the 6 cartridges that get slotted into the cylinder, instead of loading them 1 by 1?
There are a thousand suitable harbors in the western Pacific Ocean to reload Arleigh Burkes by ship. Around Japan there are probably 100 safe harbors. There's probably 100 alone in the Philippines. And then there is Guam, Ulithi, Kwajalein, and Australia.
Until China bombs the islands to nothing and then the ships have to go all the way to Hawaii
Actually, from my recollection, there was a Congressional report by one of their military accountability offices (might've actually been their budget office actually) stated that reloading of the VLS cells can only be done at specialized-purpose-built ports/docks and that the military failing to account for that when requisitioning the system on ships might've violated appropriations/allocation requirements for the VLS system.
There are only a handful of port facilities that actually can do the reloading of VLS cells according to the report and if they were to ever be targeted the US Navy would not be able to operate. Any improper reloading of the VLS Cells would damage them and compromise them to the point that chain detonations within VLS clusters would indeed be possible as missiles are launched in sequence and share a common exhaust that they need to be completely intact to shield themselves from the heat to avoid in-cell detonations.
@@Edin116 Specialized purpose built ports??? You just need a crane.
Also, if a warehouse is destroyed by a strike you can actually rebuild the warehouse or build another warehouse. And, the video shows a VLMS being reloaded with a nearby ship so you just need a harbor.
One more thing, currently we have 73 Arleigh Burke destroyers and 92 are planned. If 73 go to war with 90 missiles, let's say 60 are standard missiles, and you have a 90% accuracy rate, that is 3,942 aircraft destroyed. China has around 2,100 aircraft so that is pretty much their entire air force, and that doesn't even count air to air missiles fired from carrier aircraft. So, the war is over by the time you have to reload.
@@twelvestitches984 It’s not just aircraft that you are shooting with SM2s etc. You are also shooting down other missiles. Trust me, China has a shitload more than 3000 of those. Truth is, the Navy needs their own version of Rapid Dragon. Call it Slow Manatee. Take an ocean going barge, install a bunch of cells on them, and drag them out to the area to be protected. Or, instead of specialized cells, build the launchers into something resembling standard ocean containers and then you could just load up a container ship in case the shit hits the fan. Hell, play a good game of hide the pea and the enemy would have a hard time knowing which of the dozens of ships in port is the one full of missiles and which one is full of tennis shoes and Christmas ornaments.
@@Bill_N_ATX Yeah, that is true. I think if we go to war with China it's going to take time for the US Navy to get there because they are going to have to conduct anti-sub ops a thousand miles out from the Chinese coastline. So, during that time our B2's will take out most of China's air force on the ground.
I don't think the Chinese DF-21 ballistic missile has the accuracy to hit a moving ship. It accelerates straight up to Mach 10 and turns and comes straight down, there's no way it can manuever enough to hit a target moving at 35 mph. Plus, the Chinese will have to know where the US Navy ships are before launching.
Expeditious [meaning promptly or quickly], NOT “expeditionary” [meaning ‘pertaining to an expedition’].
(Intent is to be helpful, not critical. I love your content. Keep up the good work!)
Thank you 😊 but what I meant was indeed “expeditionary”. So like other expeditionary forces, the re-loading would also be done in an expeditionary manner.
Expeditious means quickly, which could also work in that sentence, but it would change its meaning to something else.
@@NotWhatYouThinkOoh-such a nicety. Well played, NWYT!
That would have been incredible to watch, the USS Carney launch missile after missile after missile at the incoming enemy missiles! Probably the best "test" of AEGIS, SPY-1 and the SM-2 missiles the US Navy has ever had!
A real world test not something they set up 2 weeks in advance with prior warning and perfect weather
Question: It don't seem to take that much space on the boat, so why not just add more cells instead of reloading? Also since the logistic ship carry so many spares why not just have them fire it as well?
I’m not sure why they don’t carry more on the attack ships, but the logistic ships likely don’t have the targeting equipment required to launch
@@smallboy8771Sounds like the missile truck concept in the Air Force. Use your
well defended and expensive ships to deploy forward and target, and have a missile truck in the rear networked to the remote fire control of the forward ships.
Displacement treaties and the fact it's bad to put all your eggs in one basket. If you have 2x as many missiles the ship costs more, so you have less ships. So one accident or lost hull is more crippling.
San Antonio ships have vls spots but they aren't equipped. We aren't concerned about capacity atm.
They do take plenty of space under the deck.
I'd guess you'd need a lot of equipment along, that you can't have the trained personnel and costs associated and you'd rather just buy and man another warship. And more, you'd need the refuel ships just for range extension anyways. (uneducated guesses)
There is a typo in your caption. At 1:29 you can see "armament lik the M1 rifle, the service rifle of the US Army during World War II and the"
The should use a system like they use to lift shipping containers with a fixed boom so it can't swing in storm conditions
Lifting shipping containers is done in a port where the water is very still and the ship is securely attached with multiple lines to permanent moorings built into the dockside or sea bed. They're not trying to do it at sea and the cranes they use are enormous - put one of those on a destroyer and it'll capsize.
1:27 "making the ship useless" Stupidest take on the internet. An Arleigh Burke class destroyer isn't "useless" once it expends it's VLS anti-air missile cells because it still has harpoon missiles, torpedoes, VLS tomahawk and ASROC cruise/Anti-ship missiles, a 5 inch gun, 2x 25mm guns, a 20mm CIWS, 4x .50 cals, and a SH-60 helicopter. And on top of all that armament, it's radar and sonar suites are some of the most powerful in the world, even if it expends all of its ability to fight, it can give all that targeting data to other ships and aircraft that could defend them.
They will not fire 19 missiles for those targets. instead, Aegis system will determine the best possible combination to neutralize the target and provides suggestion to the crew. Most likely the high weighted target like cruise missiles are neutralized using vls and drones using canon or ciws.
Correct. The drones and cruise missiles were not headed toward the ship, so no CIWS.
If you look at the naval battles, from the 1973 Yom-Kippur War, through Operation Praying Mantis, the Gulf Wars and the Falklands Island war, you will see that the great majority of anti-ship missiles fired in anger that were defeated were seduced off their targets by effective electronic countermeasures. Many of the occasions were ships were hit and either badly damaged or sunk by anti-ship missiles were occasions where ECM was not employed (USS Stark, HMS Sheffield, INS Hanit). There has been only one kinetic kill of an anti ship missile in combat, by a Royal Navy DDG which fired a Sea Dart missile at an Iraqi Silkworm before it could hit USS Iowa. All the rest of the several dozen anti-ship missiles defeated in combat were defeated by ECM. In the three battles that had large numbers of both friendly and enemy missiles in the air at one time, two battles during the Yom Kippur War and Operation Praying Mantis where the Iranians were shooting SM-1s at us and we were shooting SM-2s and Skipper IIs at them all of the Iranian missiles were spoofed off target. There wasn't even any need to use the ships weapons to shoot them down.
A simple, but strong arm grasping the canister from the middle, moving it horizontally until ready to 'poke" it when it swings up and pivots its grasping device to slip it in slot. this way has no cables, no end mount dangling and allows canisters to be resupplied by ship to ship cable as they are handled horizontally. take some real strong engineering on the load arm, a simple bar on the four corners of the canisters and diesel hydraulic motors to protect from emp weapons. simple
If the solution was simple, navies would already be doing it.
Bravo Zulu (Well Done). An excellent explanation of a complex chain of events. One minor quibble just at the end. The Chinese Navy (PLAN) is NOT even a near peer, much less peer competitor to the US Navy. The displacement of just the US carriers exceeds that of the entire PLAN. All told, the US Navy displaces about 3.5 times that of the PLAN. The PLAN ships lack endurance and the PLAN has a negligible forward resupply capability. They might do well within the first island chain but outside that, they are largely irrelevant. This is a BIG problem for a nation that imports ~2/3 of its oil. About 2/3 of that originates a convenient 7,000NM away in the Persian Gulf and has to pass through one of three straits with a combined width of 51NM. Two of the three straits can be closed with tube artillery on shore.
Great video full of informations
These ships are linked to each other so effective the ships have far more than one ship
Am I the only one that rolled starting 13:30 watching all the Russian missiles goof out, especially the one after that just starts flipping
What about a floating dry dock that can be deployed in the ocean that holds the ship in a calm sea state and is equipped with hundreds of loadable missile cases and cranes that can reload the ship without fully removing the ship from a theatre?
😂 that ship would be the second most targeted ship after the carrier
@@jessicaregina1956 either way American logistics will be targeted so it’s just cost benefit analysis at this point there really is no simple solution
That's what I was thinking as well. It's 100 percent possible because the U.S navy had to pay to have a heavy transport ship, ship its damaged Arleigh Burke back to the U.S for repairs after a collison. So why not build one that's slightly bigger that can rearm an Arleigh Burke at sea and also carry crippled ships out of a combat zone or help preform minor repairs at sea.
See again "most heavily targeted ship after the carrier"
You would need a small escort group just for it and etc****
Yea drydocking a 500ft long Navy destroyer is a huge logistical undertaking while in a protected port with no wind or waves, doing so in the open ocean is another thing entirely if not impossible. Plus its gunna be huge and slow and full of a massive amount of explosives. its basically a shoot here to destroy our vital logistics.
One solution may be the use of an "arsenal ship" or barge equipped with many loaded VLS cells to follow say within a mile of a Burke. It doesn't have to have all of the radar and sensors of a Burke,
just the missiles that can be fired remotely from the Burke similar to the way an F-35 can launch missiles from other assets, and be able to keep up with the destroyer. I can imagine a "barge" nearly the size of an oil tanker that could be a "remote" magazine for an entire strike group of destroyers. I have to admit It would make for one heck of a juicy target for the enemy.
This is going to become a genuine problem both for VLS and also for Submarines in a potential China/Taiwan conflict.
Not only are VLS nearly impossible (tried, abandoned due to complexity) to load at sea, but they're also typically only loaded in home ports or forward operating ports. Not civilian ports due to the lack of specialized equipment and the lack of available local inventory. This means that once Yokosuka and other military ports are suppressed or knocked out entirely, any surviving but empty US vessels will have to return to Pearl just to refill their VLS.
This is being alleviated by quad packing VLS launchers, but it's still an issue and any high intensity combat will see ships running dry possibly in as little as a few hours with their resupply and back on station timeline being measured in weeks not days let alone the hours that may be needed in a high intensity conflict.
As for submarines, they haven't practiced nor prepared for civilian port loading, so once submarines fire all torpedoes or all of their conventional armament (missiles included) the only recourse they have is to return *all the way back to Pearl Harbour* to rearm. Essentially once the vessels is empty it's useless and the timeline until its useful again might be longer than the conflict even lasts.
they can reload in Korea, Japan, Vietnam, Singapore, Taiwan, Australia and soon to be possible in the Philippines. so its not too distant they would need to travel but it is still something that must be taken into account.
That's why the forward logistics ship concept is getting looked at, since these can perform reloads in any area of calm enough water instead of fixed ports at well known locations. Resupply while underway and under threat was never feasible in the history of naval warfare, ships always had to retire out of the enemy's weapons range to get restocked.
Submarine tenders used to carry reloads for anything that would fit in the torpedo tubes.
I don't know if they still do, or even if there are sub tenders in service.
On that topic, what is the hull designation for these logistic ships? Sub tenders were AS, destroyer tenders were AD, repair ships were AR, etc.
@@mikespangler98 There are still sub tenders in service although I don't think any of them are capable of reloading Trident boats like they did with Polaris (much bigger and heavier missile). You can see one moored at Naval Base Guam which resupplies attack subs.
@@trolleriffic So there is. They remodeled the base rather extensively since I was last there, that was when the Hunley was at the pier. No floating dry dock either, at least not on that picture.
I question why they used a folding crane, rather than a mechanical arm, since the arm wouldn't care about the sea state at all.
A mechanical arm is still subject to the laws of physics. A relatively light weight canister more than 7m long, containing multiple tonnes would likely experience unacceptable damage in the event it was held rigidly in adverse sea states. Much like container cells for freight, they are designed to transmit load along specific vectors, and are otherwise structurally fragile. Hence the rigid hinge used while transitioning vls between lateral and vertical orientation with the crane.
The missile container seems quite self-sufficient. Why store any of them in any other way than ready to launch? Having both dedicated vertical missile launcher ships, and dedicated escorting ships. In the extreme a kind of a "barge" with nothing but vertical launchers. When ammo expended, the barge would be spent and have little remaining value.
Btw, I've just recently began working with cranes. And heck, do those babies offer some surprises in behavior now and then! Even a guy who has worked with'em for 24 years, indoors on dry land, finds himself maneuvering a pendeling load. And since there (on this particular crane, for some probably good reason) is a heavy object half way between the crane and the load it carries, it doesn't swing /\, it swings >
About 20 years ago when I joined the US Navy there actually was some talk about an “arsenal ship” which would basically be a barge with VLS cells and a Cooperative Engagement Computer system to let other ships fire its missiles.
You are overestimating the number of missiles that the US Navy has bought over the years.
Read up on something called Large Unmanned Surface Vessel, LUSV. An unmanned floating arsenal to accompany the strike group.
Dont load vertically with a crane. Have a horizontal loading mechanism that ratchets in the vls cell so its locked in of breakaway occurs. Then once loaded the mechanism raises the cell and rotates it vertically and loads it in.
aegis is capable of a full auto defense mode and can illuminate hundreds of targets at the same time using the spy radar, but a weapon platform like this on full auto mode would be way too dangerous if mistakes are made when detecting wrong vehicles as enemies
didn't know about that ability - is that on the newer baselines?
It would only ever be used like that in a war zone where the airspace would be closed
@@KiwisCassie yeah. it uses the specific fire control radar to guide rockets in the end phase of their trajectory, with a very narrow beam, but can illuminate everything with the track and search spy radar and just fire at will. it's just very energy inefficient and makes it light up like a Christmas tree on enemy radar. it's supposed to stay stealthy as long as possible. but in open battle with known positions.. no downside.
I love your videos so much you have helped me develop a better knowledge of Navy and Airforce. Thank you truly thank you. Don't stop. :)
I think I have read that the drones were mostly shot with the ship's main gun.
The rockets costs more than the average drone
If they're close enough and not a proportionally deadly threat, yeah it's preferable to use the gun with its much cheaper and more plentiful rounds. Even back in WWII when submarines still had deck guns, it was preferred to surface and fire with it on a fairly unarmed supply ship than it was to launch from the limited stock of torpedoes.
@@samsonsoturian6013It's not the cost to produce the drone that you need to compare the cost of the interceptor to, but the cost of the damage that the drone is capable of doing.
Cwis is pretty good at subsonic targets. If you have to use it on super/hypersonic targets there will be flac and collateral damage.
I don't mean CIWS. That is much shorter range.@@yeabutwecouldbefreer
I know this thought might require a redesign of the ship itself but my thought was either have like a holder device that comes out of the firing module you can move the missile into then have it slide gently down the tube in the holder device so it's not like threading a needle, or have a mechanical loading system from underneath instead that starts horizontal and then rolls forward and upwards then seal up the bottom after.
5:15 i should call her...
This is more of a “not what I ever thought about” item. Thank you for sharing anyway.
This weapons are a ,,one hit wonder''
they probably expect it to be destroyed shortly after launching it full complement of missiles, in a nuclear war.
A one-hit wonder that can be reloaded.
To fix reloading, does the system have to be VLS? Can't they change to HLS and have it come out the side of the ship? (Yes a whole new design that would cost a lot) I think it would be a lot faster, safer and easier to place them on a deck elevator that can then move them around horizontally in the ship for reloading. This would also allow for much safer movement especially in rough seas.
The problem with that may be salvo size and internal space. I'm pretty that with a system like this, the main problem isnt deck space, but internal space. You still need to be able to go around the VLS cells to other parts of the ship, and you still need to fit systems inside. A system like this may trade the total missile magazine size and the size of a possible salvo that you could launch.
The VLS IS the better system when it comes to reloading. Creators of this video just didn't do their homework as per usual.
VLS was chosen for "ease of reloading" and versatility which has recently paid off big time since they were able to painlessly go from smaller missiles to much longer ones but no matter what you do, missiles will always be extremely awkward to load due to their extremely big & long sizes and their expensive nature.
@@CheapSushi There's no good reason for the US to change over to horizontal launch and especially not to a missile that gets fired out of a torpedo tube and launches from the water. The only reason the Russian RPK-2 launches its missile component from underwater is because it was developed as a submarine-launched weapon first that had to be able to be fired from a torpedo tube like a Soviet equivalent of SUBROC. It was then added to surface vessels and for the sake of logistical simplicity and cost, they used the exact same weapon and deployed it like a torpedo rather than redesign it into something that could launch off a rail or from a VLS.
The US Navy just needs to buy a large container ship, load it with a f*ck ton of different missiles and call it a day. Sure it's not very survivable but you've got all the interceptors and strike capability you could ask for. Put the ship in the middle of a fleet and you'll be golden
Or like the Chinese are doing and just make a swarm of smaller dedicated missile boats that diversify the location of storage and launch.
It'd be too slow. The speed of the formation is its slowest link. Even aircraft carriers cruise at like 30 knots. That thing would sweat to break 15. Secondly, rearming these missiles at sea is practically impossible. So it'd be useless regardless of cruising speed
@@rykehuss3435 While your point is entirely valid its actually the cruisers that are the slowest part of the strike group. The carrier is the fastest and can outrun everything else. The Areligh burke class destroyers are also likely (not official but they don't ever say the true speed) capable of 40kts. A Nimitz class can reach 50-60kts
HII once proposed a DEDICATED BMD version of the San Antonio class. The thing possesses a full-size SPY-6, 288 MK41 cells (you're not wrong, 288) or 144 MK57s, a rail gun and a MK110. Two Ospreys (or Seahawks) could be stored in a well deck-turned-aircraft hangar.
@@mitchspurlock3626 small coastal missile boats also have significant problems with range, defensive capability, and possibly even targeting capability depending on the type of missile they use, but that is likely not a problem.
I have served on two missile systems, the MK 26 Missile System and the MK 41 Vertical Launch System, and both are issues when rearming, to reload the original MK 26 was just as difficult if not more challenging because the missiles were directly exposed to the environment and could be easily damaged with just a minor bump, so changing out the missile that is enclosed in the container is less complicated and has less of a chance to damage the actual missile. Either way a battle group is designed to allow the withdrawal and rearming of ships in an orderly manner, just like in World War II when the Battleships would fire up to 200 to 500 rounds of 16 inch projectiles. These massive ships stilled had limits to their capacities. Nothing has changed in complexity but the operational process is much safer for both service members and the actual weapons.
All it takes is one team of Schizos and obsessives to solve this problem.
It's easy, just launch a missile carrying a VLS cell from a VLS cell launcher on land and aim for the VLS launcher on the ship you need to reload
5:40 "Ideal" is relive here. It may not be ideal to drop your fueling probe in the water, but it's quite a bit more ideal than having antiship missiles impacting. And in the end you refueling probe is still going into the sea.
Minor correction, the conflict is between Israel and the terrorists organizations HAMAS based in Palestine, not Palestine as a whole
Idk man, look at what Israel has been doing to Gaza. They wouldn’t even let humanitarian aid into the Gaza Strip for the first few days, seems like they’re waging war on Gaza as a whole.
Do the words 'Israel Occupation' and 'Palestine Government-in-EXCILE' mean anything to you? Clearly not. News cycle dependant zomboid...
That's a wholly artificial distinction
@@samsonsoturian6013 suppose you think all ice cream is Ben & Jerry's too?
@@n_tas I suppose you think Gazans aren't suicidal
A crane dispensable crawler, that has an empty cell, plus the needed reloads seems like an option. (Or, a separate unloader and loader). It moves to the appropriate VLS section, rigidly locks onto the ship and system, making it able to operate quickly and safely, even under rougher conditions, and just slides the used cells out, and slides the reloads in.
It would atill need to be placed by crane and removed by crane from a supply ship, but since it just needs to be placed safely, not accurately into a launch tube, etc, it should be more robust to sea states.
And multiple crawlers could be preloaded on the supply ship, and craned over one after the other, while each preceeding crawler loads and unloads the other cells, reducing overall time of thw process.
this "Oh Scheiße" 12:29 was the perfect reaction from the Germans, haha
greetings from germany
An old landing ship or carrier would allow for a deck gantry in almost any weather. Or potentially loading from below. And the shear amount they could hold with drone swarms would be crazy.
They did successfully reload or two of a VLS using a type of floating dry dock awhile ago.
Not too sure how far into the program they are though.
Those tenders or floating docks were semi-permanently moored in a friendly harbour near to a naval base or in some cases they'd be moored in the base itself. There's a submarine tender at Naval Base Guam that resupplies attack subs but the way it's moored, it's almost like an extension of the dockside. Reloading at sea would be a nightmare in comparison.
Switch to a Horizontal cradle with hydrolics to a vertical lift. Then it's lowered into the cell. A small crane onboard to move to different cells.
Alignment with reality without loss of competence represents genius. Like the Navy doing with the seabarrows.
I love your videos
Would it not been more cost effective to have fighters with Sidewinders to intercept and destroy the Yamenise missiles?
Maybe, until you factor in the cost to have fighters in the air, on station, 24 hours a day for the duration of the conflict. And are they flying from bases in foreign countries that impose costs or rules for using their country? Or an aircraft carrier, that also requires other ships to escort and protect it?
The advantage of the crane was gas management configurations. Different missile types have different length canisters. Spacers (gas management) would need to be placed in the empty cells prior to onload. Since the gas management is not considered ordnance it could be delivered to a ships home port. The crew can configure the launcher in route to weapons depo. This saves time/money for civilian union crane operators to focus directly on dropping in the missiles only.
I have an idea and if it has a major flaw, please tell me, but what if there’s a flat one that’s inside of what a little bit it rises up and you sit in the sauna and it brings it down and it’ll just launch off that
Nonsense...
I guess one think I'm not quite understanding is why they insist on a crane and not a rolling carriage system.
It seems like one laid some cells out on the deck a carriage could be made to load the cells long ways into the carriage and the the carriage itself secures to the deck and or vls system. After that it becomes a hoist to lift the cell vertical and then lower it into the cell..
Don't get me wrong i don't think one of these would be simple by any means.... But we are talking about handling extremely advanced military hardware so i don't think this is outlandish.
Size, weight, cost, reliability and maintenance would all be issues. The system would be out on the front deck of a ship getting the sh!t kicked out of it by wind and waves so it would break all the time unless it was made to be so heavy duty that it would compromise other aspects of the vessel. You'd also still have the problem of how do you safely transfer missiles to that reloading system?
It's a very safe bet that any concept that you, I or anyone else suggests in these comments has already been thought of by naval engineers and studied in great detail. Navies all over the world have transitioned to VLS launchers and that's not a coincidence - any drawbacks these launchers have are more than outweighed by their advantages.
Good video, as usual!
Economics of battle, if you launch 200 cheaper missiles against a target that can not defend against that number and you hit it, then you win. Swarm attacks need to be figured in real fast for ships or improve the armour which means larger power plants and heavier armour = more cost
Aegis automatically determines what measures to be used against the incoming threats, worst case scenario in the future is adding more VLS cells - it's far easier to prevent a missile hitting the ship at all than it is to try prevent damage when the missile hits.
Anti-ship cruise missiles are not cheap. If you want enough stand off range to be able to launch missiles from outside the range of the battle groups air wing and long range SAMs, you need something with a 500 or so nautical mile range. Now you are talking a large expensive missile, expensive because at those ranges the missile will have to fly autonomously for an hour then scan the ocean for targets, classify everything it detects, determine what is neutral shipping and what is a legitimate target, then maneuver to engage the target including employing its own electronic countermeasures. Missiles that can do that are not cheap and most navies cannot afford enough to conduct multiple saturation attacks of 200 or more such missiles. You also need platforms able to launch these missiles and those too are not cheap or expendable. Cheap missiles are of necessity short ranged and have simple guidance. That requires the launch platform to come deep inside the battle groups substantial air defenses. Good luck with that. Coming inside 300 nm of a US Navy carrier strike group's escorts and its air wing is not an easy thing and not very survivable.
Stability whilst loading would be done via bumpstoprollers an air bumps at the base so the crane only needs to drop an stop the air bump would allow it to fall to a rest with complete safety
I was an IC on a DDG and my job for UNREP was to play the breakaway song from above the bridge on big ass speakers.
5:54 Actually it is possible, it's called dropping it. The VLS cell will obviously drop into the ocean and all the ships have to do is break away like normal. It's better to lose a VLS cell than to lose the cell, destroyer, and a resupply ship.
And when it's over the deck, halfway in, surrounded by sailors or otherwise?
Well done. Thank you.
Why not make a inside ship reloading?, like a gun magazine, when the top empty, it will eject, next armament will move up, then reload from bellow.
probably the space; these US VLS are pretty much from the top deck down to the lowest and in their own boxed structure. I think I've seen the Russian (and Chinese) canister launchers are more open in the bay decks, so you can reload a missile differently (like you can see each individual missile. But these are like their own boxed in thing, with protection from explosions. So there's not really space to load another one from below, let alone from the sides. The whole point was the densely pack in as many missiles, while still having room for other systems and walkways, etc.
Not even close to enough space. space is at a premium inside a warship.
Because the missiles are massive and there just isn't enough room
It's a sacrificial lamb. Designed to draw fire, launch all it missiles and will be destroyed shortly afterwards by a hypersonic nuke. If it can be reloaded, that means we already won the war.
@@ianwalton284 It is not sacrificial. it is designed to intercept incoming missiles and defend the fleet. You are thinking of the soviet plan to just dump missiles and run before they get obliterated by American air power.
The one good thing is atleast they got essm in quad pack to fight against swarm attack
A mark, a yen, a buck or a pound
A buck or a yen
A buck or a pound.
Is all that makes the world go around
That clinking, clanking sound
Can make the world go 'round
combine the two systems bro instead of a crane its attached to rails that slide it in to the VLS
Coupd we not just use a layer design from the bottom up so the compartment once used could be off boarded an a new layer could be made avail reloading the ship could be done at sea as it would be a floating cartridge that would be loaded onto the ship
Arsenal drone ships are the way of the future, augment any DDG or CG with an arsenal drone ship or two carrying an additional 8/16/24/32 VLS cells.
You make mention eventually of the GMLS Mk26 yet you showed 2 clips of the GMLS Mk10. The VLS Mk41 had issues with its crane system early on but the USN did not let FMC/NSD, the alternate domestic manufacturer, make the necessary fixes and improvements.
In the Falklands war the UK fielded the Type 42 Warship with the Sea Dart reloadable missile system - two were sunk whilst still carrying the reloads : a lot of sailors died.
I wonder if a ship would be fired to Winchester in any scenerio but self defense? It's defenseless and very vulnerable at that point
Surface to air missiles are by definition self defense, or in defense of another ship or target. They are not offensive.
@@Kriss_L No- the example given earlier was in defending Israel, not defending itself.
what purpose does the canister serve besides protection for the missile?
to get rid of it would be one less step!
I like all the stickers on the fuel transfer nozzle. It looks like a punk rock bar bathroom.
What I don't understand is why not use a carriage system and load them in through the side of the ship? Or create a hole in the deck a rail system can be hooked up to and run them one at a time through the carriage system. Make the hole as wide as the magazine so they can attach a rail for each layer of the magazine and refill it exponentially faster. Basically a heavily modified version of what is used to load munitions into a submarine. Completely eliminates the need for cranes. To eliminate the need for drydocking they would need to invent something else but Basically a reverse dry dock. Instead of lowering the water so you can rest the ship on something, bring the ship to rest over a bunch of hydraulic rams that lift the ship up until its no longer using buoyancy to stay above the water and just sitting on the hydraulic rams. That would prevent the waves from moving the ship without needing to do a full dry docking process. This could also feasibly be set up at any dock it's resting position just needs to be lower than the keel of the largest ships allowed to dock there arresting wires on bouyees attached to winches can be used to guide the ship into place and hold it still while the hydraulic rams raise into place.
Because hull openings can leak and cause other problems.
Ever see the flame trough under those VLS cells? It has to be flooded with seawater during launches to protect the ship from damage by the rocket motors. The flames are directed 180 degrees and blown upward out another hatch alongside the launch cells as each missile is fired. It is not so simple below decks. There are also connectors from the ship to each VLS cell so the combat management system of the ship can communicate with each missile, load mission plans or target data then fire the missile.
@philsalvatore3902 I don't see why that couldn't be worked around. It would require major reworking of the ship below the VLS system to allow for a baffle system that can be retracted down under the whole VLS system to allow for horizontal reloading. But again, I don't really see why that couldn't be done. Most of the technology is available already, all the materials needed are available, there would absolutely be some hoops that would need to be jumped through to ensure it is a reliable and most importantly safe system and the last thing you want is one of them dropping or getting jammed slightly out if place and triggering a chair fire. That ship is gone if these things manage to chain fire so I'm assuming the system as it is now has been designed in the way that bar a major defect, makes this an impossibly. As this would be a highly complex bit of machinery directly responsible for the safe functioning of a high explosive mounted to a bunch of rocket fuel there would need to be MANY fail safes and back ups. It needs a 100% function rate as when you need to fire one of these you REALLY need to fire it. Not being able to fire it will cost lives and potentially thousands of them if a carrier were hit or god forbid a full hospital in say isreal. If the iron dome runs out of ammo our VLS's may be one the only things capable of taking down those rockets considering their volume of fire. Standard anti air guns aren't handling that many rockets at once. But honestly I think our people are up to the task of creating a system like that. Just would take a willingness to spend absolute crap tons of money.
@@dcviper985a hull opening on a deck is a fairly standard thing. They seal shut when underway in bad weather. And with modern tech can be nearly completely automated. Just takes someone pressing a few buttons and then indiduals closing the few things that need to be manually closed for safety reasons. Don't want people being locked out on deck.
@@bundlesofjoe no, hull openings are not standard and require more infrastructure to stay closed and not leaking. The deck is not the hull.
The basic problem here is "wrong fucking kind of crane". They need an erector that can be moved into position and locked in place, accept the module then erect it into place and lower it in within a guided rail system. This is about the simplest system of all and only needs a pair of rails to the sides and a rack to the bridge side of the compartments. A stupid boom-arm crane has always been stupid and worse, somehow, the navy lost 700 years of handling skill overnight... where are the capstans and stays? Three capstans and stays would let you load those damned things in Force 8.
Some d-bag really dropped the ball on this crap.
If the logistics ship was akin to a heavey lift ship, it could submerge and then load the combat ship into a “docking bay” and then once the combat ship is secured it could start moving again, and then you wouldn’t have the issue of sea stability cause only one vessel would be in contact with the water, also the rearmament ship could have its own VLS on the opposite side of the ship so it could defend itself while the combat ship being rearmed is unable to fire
Ok, imagine this: having the VLS designed into a standard shipping container size, at least in the 2 of 3 dimensions. Fit as many missile cells in that canister, and transport it-load it and unload it as a whole. Sure it may sound like extra weight to move around, but also the transporting job of t would be incredibly easier. And one more thing, imagine having some mechanical arms that can connect a missile cruiser to a supply ship mid sea, and join them into a single vessel, which sails like a catamaran until reloading is completed. The whole thing seems to have a lot of room for development
Standard shipping containers require specialized cranes in order for them to be loaded onto ships due to their size and weight, and as already demonstrated having more specialized hardware isn't exactly cost effective for logistics.
" Go Winchester " ????
Is that from the Winchester Rifle ?
Esp. " The Rifleman " with Chuck Connors ??
( In the opening credits he basically does a full mag dump with lever action )
No need for a crane, rails with hydraulic jacks/pistons can do the reloading in any sea condition. But how many can be stored on the ship?
And why wouldn't they have used the quad packs? I have a sneaking suspicion they would have instead of the ballistic missile interceptor
The quad packed missile is the RIM-162 ESSM it is a smaller missile meant for close range intercept (out to 25-35nautical miles) of anti ship missiles and aircraft. It is a very potent weapon but one with a limited range of uses. This is why you also find RGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missiles for land attack, RUM-139 rocket launched lightweight torpedo's for anti submarine warfare, RIM-66 SM-2 and RIM-174 SM-6 missiles for longer range air defense, and RIM-161SM-3 missiles for ballistic missile defense. Different weapons have different uses and by carrying a mixed load you have a much more robust ability to take on different threats.