Ask anything Thread

[Tam]

Hey,

For you, what are the advantages of a Universal-VLS ? I can't think of any major positive aspects of having a VLS capable of firing every types of missiles compared to a panoplie of VLS with their own missiles.

Growth. Versatility. Standardization. Larger VLS makes all three things possible.

Let's take growth first.

If the missile becomes obsolete, so will the VLS and the entire ship, and you will need to replace the VLS during its midlife refit. Small cells means small missiles, which will stuck you with short range missiles.

Let's take versatility next.

The bigger the VLS, the more things you can put on it. Those VLS dedicated to smaller SAMs can't be used with ASROCs, antiship or cruise missiles. So our frigate would need dedicated launchers for the ASROCs, ASMs and CMs.

Let's finally take standardization.

Frigate A class uses a VLS different from Destroyer B and so they both fire different missiles, and their munitions are incompatible with each other. This is a logistical headache for one ship to return to base only to find munition stocks available for the other ship.

 

[AndrewS]

Why does the VLS have to be for an existing missile? Having a larger VLS able to accommodate future missiles of larger size than legacy naval VLS would enable the development of specific navalized missiles.


Specifically...

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

It doesn't have to be for an existing missile, but it's a lot easier to reuse a similar missile body.

Eg. The JL-1 and JL-2 are naval variants of land based missiles.

 

[Tetrach]

Growth. Versatility. Standardization. Larger VLS makes all three things possible.

Let's take growth first.

If the missile becomes obsolete, so will the VLS and the entire ship, and you will need to replace the VLS during its midlife refit. Small cells means small missiles, which will stuck you with short range missiles.

Let's take versatility next.

The bigger the VLS, the more things you can put on it. Those VLS dedicated to smaller SAMs can't be used with ASROCs, antiship or cruise missiles. So our frigate would need dedicated launchers for the ASROCs, ASMs and CMs.

Let's finally take standardization.

Frigate A class uses a VLS different from Destroyer B and so they both fire different missiles, and their munitions are incompatible with each other. This is a logistical headache for one ship to return to base only to find munition stocks available for the other ship.

I think you misunderstood what I said. I totally understand the advantages of large diameter VLS just as their disadvantages. But this is not the debate. Neither Am I looking on a global scale but rather a ship per ship comparaison.

The russian Admiral Nakhimov is being modernised with three different VLS; Fort-FM, Redut and UKSK. Three systems when only one can do the same job, like the Mk-41 or the Type 052D's VLS. hypothetically, if those systems where comparable in dimensions, the only advantage of the universal VLS would be less space wasted. At least that's my answer to the problem.

 

[Jura The idiot]

...

The russian Admiral Nakhimov is being modernised with three different VLS; Fort-FM, Redut and UKSK. ...

link:

(as far as I know, only fanart is available)

plus by "Fort-FM" are you saying they'd keep the S-300 revolvers??

 

[Tetrach]

It's logical; The Redut will be implemented to replace the older Fort and Kinzhal. But it's way to small to take the 48N6DMK missile the gov stated the Admiral Nakhimov will have; So they still need the Fort system. I don't need to speak about the UKSK.

Anyway, if you want links:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The Pyotr Velikiy already has the S-300FM and we can see the rotary system is kept.

 

[Jura The idiot]

It's logical; The Redut will be implemented to replace the older Fort and Kinzhal. But it's way to small to take the 48N6DMK missile the gov stated the Admiral Nakhimov will have; So they still need the Fort system. I don't need to speak about the UKSK.

Anyway, if you want links:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The Pyotr Velikiy already has the S-300FM and we can see the rotary system is kept.

I want you to link an article supporting this claim you made 39 minutes ago
:
"The russian Admiral Nakhimov is being modernised with three different VLS; Fort-FM, Redut and UKSK."

 

[Tetrach]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Jura The idiot]

inside:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"Все дело в том, что крейсер будет располагать 80 ячейками УКСК, 92 (вероятно) шахтами ЗРК С-300ФМ и 20 533-мм торпедами либо ПЛУР «Водопад». Иными словами, в боекомплект ТАРКР входит 192 крылатых и противокорабельных ракеты, тяжелых ЗУР и ПЛУР"

but you claimed "The russian Admiral Nakhimov is being modernised with three different VLS; Fort-FM, Redut and UKSK." 48 minutes ago

what did I miss?

 

[Tetrach]

"В сравнении с тремя фрегатами ТАРКР «Адмирал Нахимов» представляет собой настоящий плавучий арсенал. Все дело в том, что крейсер будет располагать 80 ячейками УКСК, 92 (вероятно) шахтами ЗРК С-300ФМ и 20 533-мм торпедами либо ПЛУР «Водопад». Иными словами, в боекомплект ТАРКР входит 192 крылатых и противокорабельных ракеты, тяжелых ЗУР и ПЛУР, в то время как три фрегата проекта 22350 могут нести только 48 таких боеприпасов в установках УКСК (по данным с сайта корпорации «Алмаз-Антей» УКСК может быть использована для применения тяжелых ЗУР). При этом боекомплект ЗРК «Редут», а он скорее всего будет установлен на ТАРКР, вероятнее всего будет соответствовать таковому на всех трех фрегатах типа «Адмирал флота Советского Союза Горшков»."

=>УКСК (UKSK), С-300ФМ (S-300FM) and Редут (redut).

also:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"Глубокая модернизация крейсера должна завершиться до 2021 года. Крейсер, в частности, получит на вооружение крылатые ракеты «Калибр», ЗРК «Полимент-Редут» , его зенитный боекомплект будет увеличен в разы. "

 

[Tam]

I think you misunderstood what I said. I totally understand the advantages of large diameter VLS just as their disadvantages. But this is not the debate. Neither Am I looking on a global scale but rather a ship per ship comparaison.

The russian Admiral Nakhimov is being modernised with three different VLS; Fort-FM, Redut and UKSK. Three systems when only one can do the same job, like the Mk-41 or the Type 052D's VLS. hypothetically, if those systems where comparable in dimensions, the only advantage of the universal VLS would be less space wasted. At least that's my answer to the problem.

Exactly. Just take the very example you gave. Its a mess. Its easier to manufacture one different VLS than three, so you not only are saving space, you can be potentially saving money in manufacturing costs. You only need to maintain one VLS rather than learn how to deal with three. The Nakhimov is more of a mess earlier, at least Redut is trying to replace Gauntlets and Gekko, hard to see why you would need two kinds of point defense SAMs. When you are dealing with a single or two blocks of the same VLS, its probably cleaner and more space efficient inside than the complexity of two or three different sized VLS. On top of that, the various legacy VLS used by that ship are full of round designs that are less space efficient. Building around these designs will also result in less stealthy designs. Look at the round features built for the Osa launchers.