Cost Per VLS Cell

For those of you keeping score at home, here’s a comparison of the cost per VLS cell for the Burke, FFG(X), and the Zumwalt.

Cost Per VLS Cell
Burke a	$20,833,333
FFG(X) b	$31,250,000
Zumwalt c	$112,500,000

^a $2B per Burke  / 96 cells

^b $1B per FFG(X) / 32 cells (cost is speculative)
^c $9B per Zumwalt  / 80 cells

Naval Ballistic Missiles

Now that the US is officially withdrawing from the INF treaty, the Navy is free to develop short and medium range ballistic missiles.  While the INF treaty allowed naval ballistic missiles, the prevailing political climate and limited applicability and associated high costs precluded naval ballistic missile development.  Now, we're free to develop missiles that can be used by any/all the services, thereby taking advantage of commonality and economy of scale.

We already have a thousand mile cruise missile, the Tomahawk, however, it is old and bordering on obsolete.  The Tomahawk is subsonic, not maneuverable, non-stealthy, and carries no on-board electronic countermeasures or penetration aids.  Its effectiveness as a long range strike weapon is highly questionable against a peer defender.  Consider … would we have any great difficulty shooting down Tomahawks?  I don’t think so.

Setting aside the Tomahawk’s shortcomings, we need tactical ballistic missiles with ranges out to 3000 miles or so.  Just as the US is struggling to develop an effective defense against ballistic missiles, so too would any enemy struggle to stop a ballistic missile of ours.  The advantages of these missiles in both the land attack and anti-ship roles (assuming we can solve the targeting challenge) are obvious.

Many readers are terrified about using tactical ballistic missiles because the Chinese might ‘misunderstand’ their intent and respond with nuclear weapons.  Well, the Russians and Chinese, in particular, see no problem with the use of ballistic missiles and any potential ‘misunderstanding’ over their type and intention since they are fully committed to producing and using them.  Oddly, the same readers who are terrified about US ballistic missile use seem to have no concerns about Chinese ballistic missile use or our ability to discern their true nature.  Apparently, in their minds, the onus of risk is completely on the US.  That’s just ridiculous.  Turnabout is fair play so let’s develop our own.

I’ll leave the question of land based ballistic missiles to the Army other than noting that such missiles have two issues: range and vulnerability.  We have very few useful bases for ballistic missiles in the Pacific theatre (Guam being the notable one) and those we have are thousands of miles from China.  Further, the limited number of bases and the fixed or semi-fixed nature of any land based ballistic missiles makes them susceptible to first strike elimination.

This is a naval blog so let’s look at ship based ballistic missiles.  The obvious advantages of ship based ballistic missiles are:

Mobility/Survivability – Ship based ballistic missiles are more survivable simply due to the mobile nature of a ship.  Ship mounting would also ensure a survivable, retaliatory strike capability against a surprise, first strike attack whereas land sites are susceptible to first strike destruction.

Range – Ships can move closer to the target prior to launching, thereby reducing the range, if necessary. 

Stealth – In the case of submarine based ballistic missiles, the launching platform is about as stealthy as is possible.  Even for surface ships, the mobility of the ship confers a degree of stealth.

For surface ships, ballistic missiles are dependent on the Mk 57 VLS (the Zumwalt VLS system) being able to accommodate the desired missile or else a new launch system will have to be developed.  To refresh,

Mk 57 VLS Specifications
Missiles	4
Width (ft)	7.25
length (ft)	14.2
Height (ft)	26, 7.93
Weight (lb)	33,600
Max. canister width (in)	28
Max. canister length (in)	283
Max. encanistered weight (lb)	9,020

While the Mk57 VLS is not much larger than the standard Mk41 VLS, Raytheon claims that the big difference between the MK41 and MK57 is thrust capacity.  Raytheon product brochures claim the system can handle up to 45 percent greater rocket motor mass flow rate thereby allowing for much more powerful booster designs.  The Mk57 also allows for heavier canister weights:  9000 lbs vs. 6000 lbs for the Mk41.

Whether a missile with the desired performance characteristics can fit in a Mk 57 VLS is unknown.  If not, one has to seriously wonder what the rationale was behind the Mk 57 since no current or developing missile requires the extra capacity of the Mk 57.  But, I digress …

Back to naval ballistic missiles …

What specific ships would make good naval ballistic missile platforms?

Battleship - A modern battleship would make an excellent ballistic missile launch platform.  It would offer sufficient size for a significant loadout and excellent armored protection.

Submarine – A sub would obviously make an excellent ballistic missiles platform as demonstrated by the existing SSBN and SSGN vessels.

Arsenal Ship – This is another good possibility with the vessel being, essentially, a mobile ballistic missile barge.  Theoretically, the Zumwalt could be converted to a ballistic missile launch platform if a suitable missile could be designed that would fit the Mk 57 VLS.

As demonstrated by the concerns and the enormous effort the Navy, and military, in general, is putting into stopping enemy ballistic missiles, naval ballistic missiles would offer significant striking power on mobile, survivable platforms.  With treaty limitations no longer a concern, there is no reason not to develop tactical naval ballistic missiles and every reason to do so.

_______________________________

(1)Navy Matters blog, “Mk57 VLS”, 18-Jul-2016,

https://navy-matters.blogspot.com/2016/07/mk57-vls.html

Mk57 VLS

The Navy’s vertical launch system (VLS) has long been the backbone of the Navy’s offensive and defensive missile systems.

The basic VLS module is currently available in two lengths: Strike and Tactical. The smaller Self-Defense module is no longer available since it can’t accommodate the ESSM Block 2.  The Strike module is 25 ft (7.6 m) tall and can house all variants of the Standard missile, Tomahawk, and ESSM.  The Tactical module is 22 ft (6.7 m) tall and can house ESSM and non-BMD Standard missiles.

The Mk57 VLS is 26 ft tall and can accommodate an 18 in longer missile and about 3 in greater diameter. 

Here’s a quick comparison.

	Mk41 Strike	Mk57
Height, ft	25	26
Weight, lb	32,000	33,600
Max Canister Length, ft	21.4	23.6

We can see then, that the Mk57 is slightly bigger than the Mk41-Strike but not by much.

I really don’t understand the benefit of the Mk57.  Consider,

• There is no missile in the naval inventory or in development, that I’m aware of, that can’t fit in the Mk41 but could fit in the Mk57

• The Mk57 is non-standard and creates a new parts, maintenance, and training requirement.

• The Mk57 takes up more deck space and ship’s internal volume – not by a lot but it adds up when we look at a hundred modules or so.  In other words we can’t fit as many Mk57 cells as we can Mk41.

I could understand if the Mk57 were significantly bigger and could house, say, short/intermediate range ballistic missiles but, as I said, there is no such naval missile in inventory or development.

One of the rationales put forth to explain the benefit of the Mk57 is the distributed nature of the cells around the periphery of the ship.  This is claimed to offer survivability benefits.  However, to the best of my knowledge, the Navy has not claimed this benefit and logical analysis does not support the claim.  While a hit on a Mk57 equipped ship would not hit a centralized cluster of cells, as could happen with the Mk41, a missile would have a much higher probability of hitting some cells, as opposed to the less likely chance of hitting a Mk41 cluster.  The Mk57 is claimed to disperse the explosive impact of an exploding cell outward, away from the ship.  Again, this is not a claim the Navy has made, to the best of my knowledge, and seems unlikely to be significantly true.  An incoming missile hit would penetrate the Mk57 peripheral cell and continue inward, creating an opening into the ship’s hull for the exploding contents of the cell (its missile and subsequent blast wave) to follow.  Yes, some amount of the energy would be directed outward, as with any explosion, but large amounts would be directed inward.  The degree of armor protection, if any, between the cell and interior hull is unknown.  I have seen no Navy claim that the cells are individually armored.

The Mk41 cell clusters are, supposedly, encased in an armored “box” within the hull to contain explosive effects.  Again, the degree of armoring and its effectiveness is unknown.

Thus, the claims of enhanced survivability seem like an after-the-fact justification conjured by observers rather than an actual characteristic claimed by the Navy.  Logic suggests that a peripheral VLS system would offer little, if any, survivability benefit.  Further, if every peripheral cell is armored, the total weight of armor would, likely, be much greater than the armor surrounding the Mk41 box.  A ship would pay a penalty for such a system.  Of course, if the armoring were sufficient to greatly mitigate damage, the penalty might well be worth it.

The peripheral nature of the Mk57 is unique to the Zumwalt class due to the tumblehome shape of the hull.  Conventional hulls cannot accommodate peripheral cells.  They would have to be located some distance inboard due to the length of the cells relative to the outward cant of the hull.  So, the peripheral feature is not a general characteristic of the Mk57.

Finally, if the Mk57 offers significant benefits, whatever those may be, why aren’t they being incorporated into the latest Burkes?

I’m at a loss to understand why this VLS module has been put into service.

Flt III VLS

Military.com News website has an article (1) about the Zumwalt.  It’s just a sales brochure fluff piece but it did mention an interesting point.

Wade Knudson, Raytheon DDG 1000 program manager, had this to say about the Zumwalt’s Mk57 Peripheral VLS system.

“The ship is also built with a new kind of vertical launch tubes that are engineered into the hull near the perimeter of the ship. Called the Peripheral Vertical Launch System, the tubes are integrated with the hull around the ship's periphery in order to ensure that weapons can keep firing should the ship be damaged. Instead of having all of the launch tubes in succession or near one another, the DDG 1000 has spread them out in order to mitigate risk in the event [of] attack, Knudson said.

‘This divides the weapons up so if you take a hit, you don't lose all your weapons. This is a survivability enhancement,’ he added.”

I’m not at all sure that the Mk57’s placement was a survivability issue but let’s assume it was.  That begs the question why would the Navy consider moving forward with the Burke Flt III which will form the backbone of the fleet for the next four decades and carries the traditional clustered VLS system.  If the Mk41 VLS clustering has been deemed a sufficient survivability weakness to justify a radical VLS relocation in the Zumwalt, wouldn’t it also justify a redesign of the forthcoming Burke Flt III’s?  I understand that it would be nearly impossible to rework existing Burkes but the Flt III’s are new construction and are going to be extensively reworked anyway.

When you consider that the Flt III has been deemed by the Navy as unable to meet the full AMDR performance specs due to the inability to carry the full size AMDR and you combine that limitation with the survivability issue of clustered VLS, you really have to wonder why the Navy insists on moving ahead with a clearly sub-optimal Flt III rather than a new design.



Mk41 VLS - Unsafe?



Of course, the reason is obvious.  By calling the Flt III a modification to an existing design, the Navy hopes to avoid a great deal of oversight and scrutiny that would come with an officially new design.  By being unwilling to stand up a new design, take it to Congress, and justify it, the Navy is knowingly saddling itself with a sub-optimal vessel with no growth margin.  That’s just sad.

(1) http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/04/08/ddg1000-christening-pioneers-new-technology.html