We’ve all seen the photos of deck mounted racks of anti-ship missiles, right? It’s almost always two 4-cannister racks mounted in a side-by-side, criss-cross arrangement so that the two racks point in opposite directions.
 |
| NSM Launcher Racks |
This arrangement is neat, compact, and efficient … and idiotically foolish from a combat perspective. It puts the ship’s entire dedicated anti-ship weaponry in one location, susceptible to a single hit which would eliminate the ship’s entire anti-ship capability.
Worse, on the Independence LCS variant, a single hit on or near the missile racks would also likely destroy the 57 mm gun since neither the racks nor the gun are armored. Simple shrapnel would destroy both missiles and gun.
 |
NSM Launchers on Independence Class - Note Proximity to 57 mm Gun |
The Freedom variant LCS has a proposed slightly different Naval Strike Missile (NSM) rack arrangement with the two racks separated a bit. I haven’t actually seen a photo of a Freedom variant with installed NSM racks yet so that arrangement is only speculative. Still, as seen in the photo below, the racks are not far apart and are even closer to the 57 mm gun than on the Independence variant. A single hit in that area would certainly destroy the two missile racks and the gun.
 |
NSM Launchers - Note Proximity to 57 mm Gun and Vulnerability to a Single Hit |
It’s not just the LCS. Below is a photo of criss-crossed Harpoon racks on a Burke class destroyer.
 |
| Harpoon Racks on Burke Class |
The criss-cross arrangement has always been a characteristic of US ships. Below is a photo of criss-crossed Harpoon racks on the stern of a Ticonderoga class cruiser.
 |
| Harpoon Racks on Stern of Ticonderoga Class |
One of the tenets of combat effectiveness and survivability is separation of equipment. In other words, don’t put all your eggs in one basket.
It’s bad enough that our ‘ship of the line’ Burke class destroyer would mount only eight dedicated anti-ship missiles - a woefully small amount for naval combat – but to risk losing all of them to a single hit is sheer idiocy that violates common sense combat design principles. The missile racks need to be separated, as far apart as possible. In general terms, one rack should be located forward and the other aft, either on the centerline or staggered offset to port and starboard.
________________________________________
On a related note, below is a photo of a Harpoon canister being loaded on a rack, for those of you who are wondering about reloading at sea during a battle. Sorry, can’t be done with the current arrangement.
 |
| Harpoon Canister Being Loaded Onto Rack |
On a related, related note, you may recall that the Perry class frigate’s Mk13 single arm missile launcher had a 40-missile magazine that could accommodate a mix of Standard and Harpoon missiles. That old, obsolete ability to carry a large number of anti-ship missiles is starting to look pretty good, now, isn’t it?
 |
| Perry Class Mk13 Missile Launcher |
What do Russians Chinese arrange
ReplyDeleteFlowers? Music? Can you ne more specific?
DeleteLRASM has already been tested in MK41 VLS and Tomahawk Block V is supposed to bring back the maritime strike capability. So it is not as if this has gone completely ignored.
ReplyDeleteSlow down a bit, there. The manufacturer performed a 'push through' test for LRASM, using a surrogate 'missile' to verify that it could push through a VLS canister. That's not the same as and end to end test. A second VLS test was performed but I don't know the details or purpose. As far as I know, VLS LRASM is no longer being pursued.
DeleteTomahawk Blk V may or may not be pursued. Even if it is, there are issues with it being deployed from VLS systems. The primary issue is that every TASM (to use the old abbreviation) loaded into a VLS takes away a cell that was previously used for anti-air or land attack (TLAM). It is not a tactically 'free' weapon. Its use comes at the cost of an existing weapon cell.
"Lockheed refurbished a Mk 41 Vertical Launch System cell for the test, combined the 500 nautical mile range LRASM with an additional booster and tied it to a Tactical Tomahawk Weapon Control System (TTWCS) for guidance – all installed on Navy’s Self Defense Test Ship, the former USS Paul Foster." from https://news.usni.org/2016/07/20/lrasm-scores-ship-launch-test
DeleteThis really gave me the impression they fired an actual missile.
Pretty sure mk 16 had 4 slots for Harpoon only. Similar to the modified matchbox launchers on Knox and a few others. I think 2 slots could arm Harpoon. If I had Standard missiles that could reach I'd make sure the Harpoons and Standards arrived at the target at about the same time. When I stab a man, I sure as hell will shoot him in the face if I have a gun too.
ReplyDeleteMy gripe is 16 ASMs should be a starting number so you can get a full 8 off without turning the ship around. Heck, mount the cannisters on a simple turn table maybe.
My other gripe is, LCS-1 NSM mounting I think is a farce. We'll never see them mounted on that bow. The green water will make a mess of it all. They need to abandon the weapon modules and cut that deck above the hangar off all together. Mount 2 Mk 38 mod IV, the NSMs, and NULKA up in that space. Get that magazine and hangar sorted out to get Hellfire and APKWS on board for MH-60 and MQ-8C. Probably the best we can hope for out of that mess.
"get a full 8 off without turning the ship around"
DeleteThe missiles are guided. They can be launched in any direction and will immediately turn to the desired path.
"I'd make sure the Harpoons and Standards arrived at the target at about the same time."
Standards are surface to air missiles. Some have an anti-surface mode but that is not the preferred usage on any except a very small target. They are not ship-killers. Also, every Standard used in anti-surface mode is one less that's available for anti-air defense.
Overwhelm the defense. If a surface ship is engaging a surface ship, odds are each is in range of the other. You better kill ASAP, then get back to AAW.
DeleteUsing expensive and limited Standard missiles as decoys is the least good way to go. Every Standard used in this manner is one less available for anti-air defense.
DeleteAlso, remember that a Standard is not a ship-killing missile. For example, the SM-6 has a 140 lb fragmentation warhead (not HE). Compare that to the Harpoon with around a 500 lb warhead or the LRASM with a 1000 lb warhead. SM-6 is a nuisance and can do some shrapnel damage but it's not a serious threat to anything larger than a patrol boat. Is it worth expending expensive, rare anti-air weapons to accomplish inflict minor damage on a ship? If that's all you've got then I guess it is but, far and away, the preferred approach is to have a heft inventory of dedicated anti-ship missiles. That Navy ships have only a meager anti-ship inventory speaks to the Navy's lack of combat focus.
"Overwhelm the defense."
DeleteOf course, if the enemy has the same philosophy and is trying to overwhelm you, are you going to use up precious anti-air missiles for a small return in the anti-surface mode?
If I have standards I better have ESSM and RAM. Let them do their job on defense. Let SM-# attack. Chinese ships are like ours, light on point defense.
DeleteAnon 11:34
DeleteFor the Saudi LCS the Harpoons are mounted on top of the hangar with the SeaRam, next to the 20mm mounts. VLS is mounted behind the 57mm
So when you engage small boats with your 20mm,
your Harpoons get ventilated by the small boat return fire, but they're dry. Progress ?
https://www.edrmagazine.eu/lockheed-martin-new-milestones-and-developments-for-saudi-mmsc-programme
"SM-6 is a nuisance and can do some shrapnel damage but it's not a serious threat to anything larger than a patrol boat. "
DeleteThis really isn't the case. The warhead is an HE warhead with focused fragmentation, but that's not really the big kill mechanism. The SM-6 is flying at Mach 3.5 (1200 m/s) at burnout, where it weighs about 239kg. When it hits, it delivers 172MJ just from kinetic energy. By comparison, a 12" HC round from an Alaska class heavy cruiser only delivers 47MJ at 18km (472m/s impact velocity).
So the SM-6 delivers 3.6 times the kinetic energy.
The 12" HC round has around 80lbs of explosive. The SM-6's 140lb Mk 125 warhead could have upwards of half its weight in HE, but I haven't found any references. They probably aren't that much different in explosive effects.
There will be some differences in the effects on a ship between the two, but it should be clear, an SM-6 in anti-surface mode is no slouch. It will produce a high-velocity cone of fragments, from both warhead AND missile body, projecting down into a ship from the impact point, along with the explosive effects.
"it delivers 172MJ just from kinetic energy."
DeleteUnfortunately, you, like most people, are under the impression that kinetic energy is some kind of instantaneous, vaporizing force. However, that's not even remotely true. You failed to relate the kinetic energy to anything meaningful.
For comparison, a kg of TNT releases 4,184,000 J. Thus, the k.e. of the missile is equivalent to around 41 kg of TNT. To put that into context, a U.S. Navy lightweight Mk54 torpedo has a warhead weight of 44 kg (we'll assume it's TNT even though it isn't). Thus, the missile has less of an impact than a lightweight torpedo (not even remotely a ship-killing weapon) and, since it doesn't hit at or below the waterline, it does even less ship-killing damage.
Going further, kinetic energy, by itself, has no effect. It must be converted to some other form, typically, thermal energy, in order to have any effect. Kinetic energy is also a very slow conversion, on a relative basis, and the effect is spread over a long time frame, again, on a relative basis. Thus, the kinetic energy conversion is a slow, low energy process as compared to an AP or HE/HC shell explosion which contains, compresses, and releases its energy instantaneously (which is why naval shells with small explosive weights produce such enormous effects).
The explosion of a missile's warhead is not contained, compressed, and released instantaneously so the effects are muted. This is the gunpowder burning in air instead of exploding, phenomenon.
Finally, the fragmentation mode of the missile further reduces the damage effect. Fragments will certainly cause damage but nothing approaching ship-killing levels of damage.
You now have a better understanding of kinetic energy, its effects, and its mechanisms. You'll be better able to evaluate systems in the future.
It is also not clear to me that the SM-6 has an impact velocity of Mach 3.5. That appears to the velocity at burnout. From that point on, the missile slows. Dense air at lower altitudes also slows the missile. Perhaps you have some data showing typical impact velocities?
From the CSIS website,
"The warhead for the SM-6 is designed for antiair missions, which may reduce its capability against larger surface targets in its antiship role. Dedicated antiship, such as the Harpoon, have a warhead weighing over 200 kg, whereas the SM-6’s warhead weighs only 64 kg. Although the SM-6’s speed adds kinetic energy to its impact, its blast fragmentation warhead may not sink larger, more hardened warships. According to analyst James Holmes, the more likely outcome of an SM-6 strike against a surface combatant is a “mission kill,” where the missile temporarily disables a target, rather than sinking it outright."
Every bullet shot into flesh is a great example of kenetic energy. More energy blows a bigger hole. Talos sunk a destroyer with no warhead in testing. We ended a Turkish ship with 2 Sea Sparrows. Death comes in many forms.
Delete"More energy blows a bigger hole."
DeleteNo. Despite my having just explained it in the previous comment, you still lack an understanding of what kinetic energy and how it applies to an attack/damage situation.
Reread the previous comment.
A bullet, no matter how fast or how slow, makes a hole in paper that is just marginally bigger than the diameter of the slug itself. Similarly, a bullet makes an initial hole in a body that is just slightly larger than the diameter of the slug. What happens once inside the body is a function of many things like the deformation of the slug, the type of slug (hollow point versus full jacket), the objects it encounters (bone, organs, tissue), deflections due to obstacles and tumbling, and so on. Speed and mass, meaning momentum, determines how far the bullet will penetrate before all its kinetic energy is depleted.
If you don't wish to accept my explanations then you need to research this for yourself so that you can make accurate statements in the future.
Regarding the Sea Sparrow incident, the missiles hit an unprepared, old WWII destroyer-minelayer. From Wikipedia,
"The explosion and resulting fires killed five of the ship's officers and injured 22. Nearby US Navy ships responded in aid to the Turkish ship, which was now without leadership. Fire and rescue teams boarded the ship and put out the fires in the bridge and the aft magazine, preventing any secondary explosions."
The ship was not sunk.
Regarding a Talos test against a ship, I have no knowledge of that. I note, however, that there has never been a realistic test firing of a missile against a ship. Ships are typically (always) prepared for the exercise by opening all watertight doors and hatches. The ship is unmanned, of course, so no damage control is performed. The ship is intended to sink.
I understand your metaphor of not keeping all your eggs in one basket, but we haven't built a surface combatant that can take a single hit and still be combat effective in a long long time.
ReplyDeleteTrue enough! And, if our philosophy is one hit and abandon ship (which is the official policy for the LCS) then I withdraw all my objections about warship design.
DeleteOn the other hand, I strive tirelessly to push the Navy into better ship design and combat philosophies. Am I succeeding? I don't know but I won't quit trying!
From my perspective, it seems that this is just another example of defeatism in modern US Naval design and strategy. We've given up on the notion that it's even possible to survive a hit from any anti ship weapon and so we don't even try to design in mitigating factors.
ReplyDeleteWhether the armor went first and then this philosophy set in or the other way around, all aspects of survivability seem to be viewed as ineffective and so we don't bother to invest in them in the first place. We see this in how we reduce crew sizes, we see this in the lax policies surrounding damage control readiness and training, and even more blatantly in how the LCS is expected to be scuttled after a single hit.
The Navy's simply stopped caring because it's spent so much time in either peacetime operation or low commitment conflict, and that's genuinely horrifying due to just how difficult and costly it is to not only relearn these lessons, but also be able to replace the lost vessels and sailors so that we can implement them in strategic and tactical planning.
"We've given up on the notion that it's even possible to survive a hit from any anti ship weapon"
DeleteYou say that and yet it's not really true. If that truly was the philosophy, then the logical conclusion would be to build every ship as small as possible and 'distribute' the capabilities over as many ships as possible to mitigate the impact of the inevitable losses. Instead, and in direct opposition to that logic, we're building our ships ever more expensive and 'concentrated' so that the inevitable loss will hurt even more.
So, that's why I say that it's not a conscious design philosophy decision. It's something else. That something else is careerism run amok. Navy leaders don't care one way or the other about ship design. They just want to advance their careers and not get caught making a mistake. The fact that they're producing worthless ships is utterly irrelevant to them.
That's true, I suppose that was me just wanting a dramatic statement, but I think I can expand upon it.
DeleteI absolutely agree with you on the careerism in Naval leadership. It drives leaders to do everything they can to appear successful while not necessarily actually achieving success, which is why I believe we see so much focus on long range missile defense as opposed to other threats.
Let's say a Naval officer wishes to advance his career. One of the best way's to do that is to be apart of or at the head of big research projects. Congrats! Missiles are the primary anti-ship weapon and new systems are being developed all the time, so it's easy to use propagandized fear of things like hypersonic weapons to get your program off the ground. It doesn't matter if your project ever reaches mass adoption in the navy, or if all your project leads to is a couple of prototypes and simulations, you can say that it's a success and move on.
The problem is, your project was damn expensive, and you weren't the only one who had a project like yours funded, nor was yours even the most expensive. So now the navy has less budget available for the next guy to advance his care- I mean develop valuable technology.
So, he has to settle for proposing cost savings measures, which free up budget and look good on his resume as well. These cost savers can be anything from decommissioning ships without immediate and adequate replacements (ala the Avenger MCMs) to decreasing crew sizes as far as you can.
But wait, how will he defend such small crew sizes in case of needing damage control? Well, our esteemed leader can argue that damage control is unneeded, as our missile defenses will ensure nothing can get through. He can also say that missiles are so powerful that if one did somehow manage to strike the vessel, nothing could be done about it anyway so the decreased crew can only be a good thing.
Eventually we loop to the next careerist leader in the Navy, who wants to have a project that increases the lethality of something like the LCS so that he can have a project that looks good on his resume. The easiest way to do so is to slap basics harpoon launchers where ever he can fit them. The logistics of the addition don't matter, the capability they add to the vessel don't matter, because the project achieved the goal of "increased lethality".
He doesn't even have to come up with unique retorts to questioning on the vulnerability of the design, as he can say our air defense can stop anything, and anything it can't stop is too powerful anyway.
And so through careerist leaders desires we have arrived at the notion that it's impossible to survive anti ship missiles, while never actually adopting that as an official naval position, and not truly improving the capabilities of our navy through the projects we've undertaken.
That was a long comment and I apologize for any mistakes or weird tangents I may have gone on, I tried to keep everything on topic and related and took out three other paragraphs in getting to this length. I'm a long time viewer and first time commenter, and wanted to say thank you for having this blog, although I can't say I've agreed with the sentiments of every post its nice to have critical analysis of things that I think a lot of people give pass to for no good reason.
Not to sound nit picky but the picture you label as harpoons on a Spruance class is actually how they were mounted on the Aegis cruisers. The Spruance DDs mounted them amidships and high up.
ReplyDeleteOops! Absolutely correct. I'll modify the caption and passage. Good catch.
DeleteWorrying about the missiles taken out is a skill issue for passive, non-aggressive captains. An aggressive captain looking for targets, with his finger on the trigger, will not worry about the shockwave of missile impacts taking out his EMPTY NSM canisters.
ReplyDeleteThe blast wave of an AShM impact cannot break your NSMs, if you have already fired your NSMs! Missiles are a sunk cost - the taxpayer paid for them years ago. Use em or lose em!
So you make zero allowance for the enemy getting the first shot and, therefore, the desirability of having separated, protected anti-ship weapons? That seems unrealistically optimistic in the extreme.
DeleteLike I said: Skill Issue. If you let the enemy get the first shot off, you obviously weren't out and about hunting for them.
DeleteIf you assume the enemy is always going to get the first shot off, which seems to be the USN assumption, then carrying only 8 AShMs makes business sense. It's only 8 missiles lost if the ship goes down.
Meanwhile the Koreans, on their Burke analogues, carry 16 Harpoons AND 32 K-Tomahawks in addition to 96 cells for area AAW SAMs. Makes you wonder who's really squaring off for a fight.
I think the KVLS also carries their VLA. Their flight II ships are actually down to 88 cells, some of which are larger. They also carry no canister ASMs. Really surprised me as they do really toss a lot of shots on their ships. I love the Incheons where they squeezed on 8 extra ASMs. 16 rounds, helo, CIWS, RAM, mk 45, mk 32, 4 main engines. Closest to a WWII destroyer out there in modern form.
Delete"Like I said: Skill Issue. If you let the enemy get the first shot off, you obviously weren't out and about hunting for them."
DeleteAre you engaging in hyperbole to make a point or do you really not have a grasp of how combat works?
Assuming the enemy is as skilled as we are (the only reasonably assumption), they'll find us first sometimes and we'll find them first sometimes (read your WWII history). For the cases where they find us and attack first, we'd like to be able to absorb the hit and keep fighting. This is elementary naval combat logic dating back to the earliest sailing ships.
I'm making a point. So long as the Navy maintains its defeatist, defensive mindset, we're not going to win.
DeleteThe surface fleet has allowed NAVAIR to completely take the ASuW mission away from them, and needs to get back into the mindset of throwing down with enemy ships instead of expecting the Hornet to do that. (But I suppose, with two thirds of the Burkes being unable to fire AShMs, that mindset is self propagating...)
Also, while it's fashionable to rag on the LCS, the problem of a single missile hit taking out the gun and the magazine goes back decades. Look at the Burkes, the Ticos, the Spruances, the Knoxes, the Kidds, the Perrys, all the ships the Navy has fielded. You take a hit to the bow, it stands a good chance of knocking out your gun and your missiles, whether they be in a magazine, or VLS, or canisters.
"For the cases where they find us and attack first, we'd like to be able to absorb the hit and keep fighting."
As your own math has shown in previous blogposts, a subsonic seaskimmer detected at the radar horizon impacts in 67 seconds. A captain should not need to spend minutes pondering the origins of that missile, he oughta fire back in the direction those missiles came from.
On other hand, I'd like to think that we had our ESM turned on so we could detect the radar seekers of missiles past the radar horizon - because the curvature of the earth means the beams will go into the sky above us, where they can be picked up - but that assumes our crews have their ESM turned on and are expecting trouble.
"You take a hit to the bow, it stands a good chance of knocking out your gun and your missiles, whether they be in a magazine, or VLS, or canisters."
DeleteWell, not quite. Note that the Burkes have TWO VLS's, with the second one in the back and far from the gun.
And the Tico's have two guns and two VLS's, one in the front and one in the back. And the Perry's have the gun on top of the superstructure, not on the front of the ship with the missile launcher. So there's that.
Of course you're correct in that for the Burke and Tico, if you take out the gun, you may well take out one VLS too.
" he oughta fire back in the direction those missiles came from."
DeleteAttacking missiles are generally fired using waypoints to avoid exactly that scenario. Blind firing multi-million dollar missiles and depleting your entire inventory of dedicated anti-ship weaponry on an unlikely blind fire is foolish.
"curvature of the earth means the beams will go into the sky above us, where they can be picked up"
That's not how electronic transmission and detection works. You need to come up to speed.
I say this gently ... you seem to lack an understanding of the fundamentals of naval technology and combat. As noted in the blog comment policy page, a certain level of basic knowledge is a requirement to comment. I urge you to engage in some research about the basics if you wish to comment.
A few point here. Great case for why Zumwalt's PVLS is a great thing. Each 4 pack is armored and then the ship is armored behind the cells. 4 areas is like having 4 missiles zone where each is harder to completely knock out. It also starts to make sense why they replace the forward gun as those cells will be forward enough that further aft may survive a hit up there. The integrity of the PVLS is maintained.
DeleteSecond on the defeatism. Yes, the Marines fighting in place is nuts. Use the helos with ASMs. Plan to hide them on these remote islands. Then on ships, still helos with NSM as primary. Yes, the job stays with Navair. If its on a ship it needs speed and range. Tomahawk and SM-6 (and future SM-6 with 21" 2nd stage) get most of that done. If we have a smaller ship like FFG, those deck mounted missiles should have reach since the helo covers the NSM role. Either decide on deck mounted LRASM or another larger, longer range ASM. Things to work on would be any aviation ISR that can extend the eyes of the ship to work independently from carriers.
"That's not how electronic transmission and detection works. You need to come up to speed."
DeleteDon't surface-to-surface search radars bounce their beams into the atmosphere to get past the problem of the radar horizon? I recall reading that the Spook 9 radar did that, to get its range beyond the radar horizon.
"helos ... hide them on these remote islands."
DeleteAre you aware of how labor/maintenance intensive helos are? How are they going to be maintained in hiding on a remote island? Fuel? Weapons?
"on ships, still helos with NSM as primary."
There is nothing less survivable against a modern ship SAM system than a helo. Helos attacking a ship is suicide. Where does targeting come from?
"Don't surface-to-surface search radars bounce their beams into the atmosphere to get past the problem of the radar horizon?"
DeleteNo. You need to research electronic sensors.
""Don't surface-to-surface search radars bounce their beams into the atmosphere to get past the problem of the radar horizon?""
DeleteWell, there ARE over the horizon radars that work this way. However, it only works for certain frequencies -- typically much lower frequencies than normal ship or air borne radar. So while they have longer range, they typically aren't accurate enough for a targeting solution.
Oh, and they also are physically much too large to fit on a ship or plane.
Very confused - if there's no way for radars to see past the radar horizon, how does the AN/SPQ-9 get credited with a 37km range, when the radar horizon is 25km?
DeleteAnd if radar seeker emissions are eaten by the waves, then doesn't that imply that ESM is pointless since it can't see whatever it's supposed to see?
"Very confused"
DeleteI'm sorry but this site requires a basic level of understanding of naval combat and technology. I wish I had time to teach the fundamentals but, unfortunately, I don't. However, there are many excellent websites that provide that basic knowledge. Here is a radar horizon calculator page: Radar Distance Calculator
Good luck!
"Very confused - if there's no way for radars to see past the radar horizon, how does the AN/SPQ-9 get credited with a 37km range, when the radar horizon is 25km?"
DeleteWhile I'm not an expert on this radar, here is what I suspect, based on the Wikipedia description.
I suspect that the 20 nm range is based on the capabilities of the electronics and not on the distance to the radar horizon. After all, the radar horizon is a variable thing, since it depends on both the height of the radar as well as the height of the target. For example, a Burke Class destroyer is much taller than a surfaced submarine and so can be seen at a longer distance, and of course an aircraft carrier is taller than both and can be seen on radar even further.
In addition, the Wikipedia entry states that the radar can also detect low altitude (about 2000 feet) aircraft, so those can also be seen beyond the radar horizon for ships.
Just to clarify slightly, I believe the radar horizon is calculated as the distance at which a radar at a particular height can detect something at the surface. However, ships are often fairly tall so the upper part of the ship may be detected even if the base is further out than the radar horizon.
DeleteOriginal missile designated for LCS was XM501, part of then Cyberfire project for both Army and Navy. You can google the web to find the whole story.
ReplyDeleteAfter spent tons of money and wasted many years, the whole project was declared failure and cancelled in 2010.
Finally, Pentagon finds the only place to install NSM on LCS is what you see.
The Freedom-based Multi-Mission Surface Combatant (MMSC) has Harpoon missiles mounted above hanger, forward of the SeaRam launcher. Multiple images show the each 4-cell launcher, separated by the width of the ship, either pointing towards each other or pointing away from the ship. That wouldn't work for the Navy's Freedom-class since that is where they mounts their 30-mm guns and Hellfire missiles.
ReplyDeleteMost missiles cannot make 180-degree turn nor they should be designed to be able as it consumes lots of fuel. This is why most favor VLS as their first choice. If VLS is unavailable, then, crossed is better than rotated arm.
ReplyDelete"Most missiles cannot make 180-degree turn"
DeleteEvery guided missile can. That's why they're called guided.
Article on Ukraine's naval drone attack https://www.navylookout.com/considering-the-implications-of-the-attack-on-the-russian-fleet-in-sevastopol/
ReplyDeleteFundraising page for them, with more details: https://u24.gov.ua/navaldrones
The concept of dispersal is one thing the periphery VLS of the Zumwalts has going for it. It reduces the number of missiles but does spread them out over a large area.
ReplyDeleteAs for the 57mm being knocked out by a hit on the missiles of the LCS, at least it wasn't a useful weapon being affected. The 57mm is an anti-patrol boat gun and that's about it. No AA capability, no shore bombardment, and unable to sink anything over 800 tons or so.
Plus the LCS was designed to be "disposable" --the only design factor they succeeded at. So if all the armament is wiped out with one hit, its a good thing because now the captain can save the life of his crew by getting away before just how disposable the LCS is sinks in...literally.