I suppose we will need missile tenders.
Posted on 06/12/2010 8:56:05 PM PDT by ErnstStavroBlofeld
In a high-threat environment, the Navy’s AEGIS vessels have a problem. They cannot be re-armed. AEGIS cruisers have 122 vertical launch system (VLS) cells, while the destroyers have 96. Each magazine is “multi-use,” composed of specialized land attack and self-defense weapons, so a desired missile may not be available in sufficient numbers. Complicating matters, AEGIS vessels sometimes sail with a partially-filled magazines, and missile reliability rates aren’t often anywhere near 100%.
CSBA expert Jan Van Tol, in his recent AirSea Battle monograph ,is the latest to highlight this vulnerability, and pointedly suggests that, given the way high-end warfare is likely to be waged, “the Navy should continue its efforts to develop and field the capability to rearm surface ship VLS cells at sea.”
But…what efforts? VLS underway replenishment (UNREP) has been a long-standing—and long-ignored– vulnerability. Take this editorial snippet from a Fall 1988 issue of the long-unheralded UNREP Journal:
“In wartime the enemy decides when and where we expend defensive ammo, so an ammo UNREP may be needed any time, even when the seas are rough or the decks are icy. While we may be able to rearm our aircraft carriers under these conditions, our ability to handle missiles in dollies or in VLS canisters on cruisers, destroyers, and frigates is extremely poor.
(Excerpt) Read more at defensetech.org ...
Ping
I’ve always wondered about this exact problem, it seems like a huge vulnerability,
I have always wondered about the wisdom of broadcasting this to the world. I understand it’s no doubt declasified, but to serve it up on a silver platter at the click of a mouse seems, well, foolish. China doesn’t blurt out over all creation the weak points of their military hardware.
It seems that this problem and mentioned since the fall 1988 issue of the long-unheralded UNREP Journal
I suppose we will need missile tenders.
ARRRGH !!
Preparation is the key to success ! Jeez.
Will we ever freaking learn ??
It was intended that VLS be reloaded at sea (there were even design provisions to do so in the VLS) for a variety of reasons it was never fielded. One of those things I’ve been aware of, but have never really looked into the details - the history of this goes back a LONG way.
It’s not exactly a secret that VLS can’t be reloaded at sea.
Same is true of why the Harpoon missile has never been adapted to VLS.
China has built it’s own VLS system, I wonder if it’s more easily reloadable. A cursory Google search didn’t give me an answer.
Curious. IIRC we are talking deployment in the ‘80’s of this technology, and we are talking of the problem being from the git-go I believe. (somebody correct me if I’m wrong)
Being the timing it is, I would believe we have another screw-up from the infamous Jimmy Carter era once again.
But why is it still a problem with no fix?
Because we would rather reward the scum of this country with welfare cks food stamps abortion on demand and bailing out crap hole countries around the world
Especially if Guam or Diego Garcia or wherever you thought you’d sail several days to get to for a reload might have been wiped out or put out of action by an enemy missile strike. What then? You’ll have an empty ship all the way back to CONUS next month, that’s what.
The problem is that the VLS Canisters are too big to move forward and aft. We had vert rep pads near the VLS, so I suspect with the onboard crane and a vert rep we could replenish in a pinch.
The real issue is transfering the VLS Canister from a Helo to the crane, the VLS Canisters are too heavy to carry or move without that. They would need to be able to take the VLS Canister from the Helo and transfer it directly to the cranes.
The cranes suck too, because they don’[t have a long range, the Helo would have to drop the VLS Canister directly onto the VLS where the crane would grab it.
The Navy doesn’t want to take the risk that a Helo will drop a loaded VLS Canister right onto the magazine, this would be bad.
If they were willing to accept the risk, then they could pull it off, but they aren’t.
Remember, most of those are defensive anti air or anti missile missiles. There could very well be a second, third or fourth wave of attackers. Especially from countries who may have a bit lower tech, but larger numbers of aircraft and missiles. It doesn't help you much if you get 95 hits out of 100 launches, if you have 100 missiles, and the enemy sends 200 attackers, even if they do it in well separated waves. If you don't have anything left to shoot at 'em, you're dead meat.
Don't forget the subs,,,
Nav-Air also comes into play,,,
Then the B-52’s can hit any spot on earth in 12 hours,,,
Add B-1 and B-2 bombers,,,
How do they get food/etc. to the ships at sea ?,,,
A tenders or choppers or head for port,,,
I don't see any other way...
Hey,there,,,Great post,,,
I guess most folks don’t understand the range of these weapons,,,
And the point that a Carrier Strike Group covers a 1,000 miles of ocean...
I agree
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.