It would allow for ESSMs to be removed from some of the MK-41 cells, replaced with for additional long-range strike or AD missiles. On the large deck amphibs doubling the number of ESSMs is always good. I'm guessing maintenance for the launcher is also simpler than for the trainable launcher.
Except LCS's do have missiles. 8 NSMs and a 32 cell Longbow Hellfire VLS, plus the 11-cell SeaRAM. Realistically the hellfires were a silly missile choice given the 57mm gun outranges them by a considerable margin and they should have used the space where the longbow module is for a 16 cell SD length Mk41 instead. That would have given them the flexibility to choose between quad-packed ESSM or SM-2 Block IIICs in the cells.
Yeah, this would be amazing, especially for the Independence LCS and that massive helo deck. Pack on say 16 cells with the 4 cell configuration launcher and still maybe be able to conduct flight ops.
@@Chiggi0815 SAMs! They couldn't even operate in the Red Sea because they had nothing to offer for convoy protection. Convoy protection is like one of the key jobs of a frigate. E.g. OHPs. Build them in numbers, don't make them too expensive (That's right constellation. I'm talking to you), but with an air defense capability, even with a minimal 24-32 round magazine. Point defense won't protect a convoy. The f125 is little more than a slightly more capable LCS. You could put a cheap elta radar on and a couple of these adaptable deck launchers on a Cyclone, and it would be more capable.
Seems a bit much for a few extra short range ESSM's that can already be quad packed. But I guess It's more for ships that don't have a MK-41 installed.
I think the two biggest uses for this are like he said, they're going to double the amount of missiles in the footprint of the current essm launchers on carriers, and second, like a commenter said they're going to be able to upgrade area defenseless ships like the f125. I don't see many people using these for tomahawks, since armored box launchers weren't so popular back in the day. But then again they were in as easily reloadable. Who knows. My gut is this is going to be happening and on a big scale otherwise they wouldn't have been so far developed.
@admiralmallard7500 I feel like integrating a new radar (probably a Saab sea giraffe to match the rest of the fleet) would be well within reason if the RCN was putting the physical and financial resources into a refit as significant as what would be required to upgun the DeWolfs. I was more looking at this as a possibility for what could actually structurally fit on the boat, and while I'm not an engineer, member of the RCN, or a qualified expert of any sort, I know that there's nowhere you can reasonably put any conventional VLS cells on a Harry D. without majorly compromising the ships main mission, but these deck mounted things could possibly go on the foredeck, aft of the gun, without too ridiculous of a structural modification.
The trainable Sea Sparrow launcher holds 8 missiles. The adaptable deck launching system appears to hold to 2 VLS cells and with ESSM quad packed wouldn't that also be 8 missiles?
A four pack deck launcher would be difficult to reload at sea. One can reload the top two but the bottom two would require "threading the needle" at an angle.
I'm sure there's a logical reason why the Navy doesn't just replace the trainable SeaSparrow launchers with the Mk 56 VLS for the ESSM which has very minimal deck penetration and weighs a lot less overall, as well as enables a lot more missiles per launcher installation. The weight of a 12 ESSM cell Mk56 is half that of the 8 ESSM configuration ADLS.
The MK56 VLS’s penetration is almost an entire deck tall, despite Raytheon’s boast of minimal intrusion. Read the actual statistics in the brochure, not the marketing blurb. Vertical launch is also not feasible for aviation ships because of the FOD hazard that the ejected launch boosters cause. The French and Italians have to do a FOD sweep every time they fire missiles out of their VLS.
In addition to GINTAPPEs reasons, keep in mind USN would have to field a whole new launcher and ESSM packed in a different cell. ADL the same canister already in use can be used. Way simpler logistics.
The adaptable deck launcher makes the performance of a FAC or missile corvette to be far more effective. I guess a typical corvette with 8 harpoon analogues and 16 ESSM in 2 adaptable deck launchers would be fairly impressive.
Quit saying "you know", my answer to someone talking to me saying that is "no, I do not" just a stupid as saying "like". I am a retired Skunkworks Dual ME aerospace engineer, imprecise technical language in a conversation let alone at work is a pet peeve of mine.
@jm2453 well I didn't know about that, so it is a little surprising for me. Perhaps not so much like when my stepfather was still working in the Navy as an officer of some rank. And when the modern missile age was still young, he proposed to put missiles on cars/trucks/trailer. The defense department told him he must be stupid, no one is going to need something like that...
Keep in mind carriers do occasionally have to go it alone. Plus anything getting close enough for an ESSM shot is going to be worth the ESSM shot to avoid damage to a 13 billion dollar ship with 5k lives and another probably 13 billion in planes and ammo aboard. That and the 2 giant nuclear reactors and nuclear warheads likely aboard.
They face outwards already, they weigh twice as much for a third fewer cells (a 12 cell Mk56 is half the weight of a 2-cell ADLS, which can only hold two quad-pack ESSM cannisters). The Mk56 offers an advantage in the vertical launch allows them to fire over the shoulder as it were...once clear of the flight deck and island they can pitch over and vector towards targets on the opposing beam.
@@DeeEight This conversation also happened above. We don't do vertical due to FOD and challenge to reload at sea. We don't use Mk 56 because its an entire additional launch system with its own unique missile cannister. With ADL its the same quad packed ESSM cannister across the fleet.
This conversation also happened above. We don't do vertical due to FOD and challenge to reload at sea. We don't use Mk 56 because its an entire additional launch system with its own unique missile cannister. With ADL its the same quad packed ESSM cannister across the fleet.
They sort of have this already. Quad packed AAW missiles that go in their anti ship missile canisters. Used on their catamaran corvettes and upcoming light frigates.
Curious if ADL will only be used for SAM like ESSM? Could it fit SM-2, SM-6, RUM-139 VL-ASROC and Anti-ship missile like the LRASM and Tomahawk cruise missile.
Each launcher has 2 strike length Mk41 cells on a fixed elevation. In many ways they're an improvement on the ABLs used by the Iowa class BBs post 80s reactivation, Virginia and Long Beach CGNs, and some of the Spruances which didn't get the 61 cell Mk41. They can hold Tomahawk Block Vs, the booster equipped SM-3s and SM-6s, SM-2s, or the ASROC cannister in addition to the quad-pack ESSM. LRASM is still being adapted for the Mk41 as I recall, but its a possibilty but the UK and France are working on a new stealthy cruise missile to replace Tomahawks but be compatible to Mk41 or Sylver A57 cells.
A couple of questions I wished had been asked: How much space do these launch containers need around them? There's a number of patrol ships in the Baltic with side-apertures currently being used for RIB cranes, small torpedo tubes, mine laying equipment etc. Could these spaces be used for the ADL? Might also be interesting for Denmark looking to up-gun their new patrol ships already. Also, with the missiles being much more exposed, what considerations must employing ships make for damage control?
no, STANFLEX work much better for Danish's condition AB is theoretically has enough space for 6 module, but practically 2 module at finest, so that's not the problem
4:46 US Navy needs to build 1000 of these right now, ultimately a warship is just meant to carry firepower and this is the perfect platform to do that, you can have entire drone fleets augment existing ones or operate independently, either way something like this is a huge force multiplier for the Navy.
The Dutch Navy will add these vessels very soon for extra protection assets on the North Sea. New modular support vessel for the Royal Netherlands Navy www.youtube.com/@worldmil-tech721
It would allow for ESSMs to be removed from some of the MK-41 cells, replaced with for additional long-range strike or AD missiles. On the large deck amphibs doubling the number of ESSMs is always good. I'm guessing maintenance for the launcher is also simpler than for the trainable launcher.
Seems like a good upgrade for the LCS that have no missiles
Except LCS's do have missiles. 8 NSMs and a 32 cell Longbow Hellfire VLS, plus the 11-cell SeaRAM. Realistically the hellfires were a silly missile choice given the 57mm gun outranges them by a considerable margin and they should have used the space where the longbow module is for a 16 cell SD length Mk41 instead. That would have given them the flexibility to choose between quad-packed ESSM or SM-2 Block IIICs in the cells.
@@DeeEightnot really sure why hellfires were chosen in the first place when there were always better options out there
Yeah, this would be amazing, especially for the Independence LCS and that massive helo deck. Pack on say 16 cells with the 4 cell configuration launcher and still maybe be able to conduct flight ops.
@@DeeEight yeah better replace that hellfire with naval launched loitering suicide drones
@@brycekornett8001 the only thing that ship has going for it is the helicopters
Maybe this could be a solution or Addition for the German F 125er Frigates
F125 frigates? Oooooh you mean f125 target ships! My bad. What a collosal failure
What would be the sense in that? What weapons would you put in there?
@@Chiggi0815 Standard missles since the F 125er arent equiped with VLS cells.
@@Chiggi0815 SAMs! They couldn't even operate in the Red Sea because they had nothing to offer for convoy protection. Convoy protection is like one of the key jobs of a frigate. E.g. OHPs. Build them in numbers, don't make them too expensive (That's right constellation. I'm talking to you), but with an air defense capability, even with a minimal 24-32 round magazine. Point defense won't protect a convoy. The f125 is little more than a slightly more capable LCS. You could put a cheap elta radar on and a couple of these adaptable deck launchers on a Cyclone, and it would be more capable.
@@Mt-zr5bf It is WAY more complicated than that to integrate SM2s and those would only make sense in a Ship designed for the AAW role.
Perfect for the hunter class
Seems a bit much for a few extra short range ESSM's that can already be quad packed. But I guess It's more for ships that don't have a MK-41 installed.
I think the two biggest uses for this are like he said, they're going to double the amount of missiles in the footprint of the current essm launchers on carriers, and second, like a commenter said they're going to be able to upgrade area defenseless ships like the f125. I don't see many people using these for tomahawks, since armored box launchers weren't so popular back in the day. But then again they were in as easily reloadable. Who knows. My gut is this is going to be happening and on a big scale otherwise they wouldn't have been so far developed.
@@blackberrymw They'll do anything to not have to build DDG(X) lol
I wonder if this could be grafted onto the Harry DeWolf class AOPVs, it would be really good to get some missiles on those boats.
Great idea there's been talk of putting missiles on merchant ships as well !!!
They’re OPVs, and they don’t have radars to operate missiles
@admiralmallard7500 I feel like integrating a new radar (probably a Saab sea giraffe to match the rest of the fleet) would be well within reason if the RCN was putting the physical and financial resources into a refit as significant as what would be required to upgun the DeWolfs. I was more looking at this as a possibility for what could actually structurally fit on the boat, and while I'm not an engineer, member of the RCN, or a qualified expert of any sort, I know that there's nowhere you can reasonably put any conventional VLS cells on a Harry D. without majorly compromising the ships main mission, but these deck mounted things could possibly go on the foredeck, aft of the gun, without too ridiculous of a structural modification.
The trainable Sea Sparrow launcher holds 8 missiles. The adaptable deck launching system appears to hold to 2 VLS cells and with ESSM quad packed wouldn't that also be 8 missiles?
They also offer a 4 x 4. Just didn't seem to feature it in the video.
it actually reminds me the Soviet warships because their missiles are also in a slight angle.
A four pack deck launcher would be difficult to reload at sea. One can reload the top two but the bottom two would require "threading the needle" at an angle.
They don't stack, its 4 across.
I'm sure there's a logical reason why the Navy doesn't just replace the trainable SeaSparrow launchers with the Mk 56 VLS for the ESSM which has very minimal deck penetration and weighs a lot less overall, as well as enables a lot more missiles per launcher installation. The weight of a 12 ESSM cell Mk56 is half that of the 8 ESSM configuration ADLS.
The MK56 VLS’s penetration is almost an entire deck tall, despite Raytheon’s boast of minimal intrusion. Read the actual statistics in the brochure, not the marketing blurb.
Vertical launch is also not feasible for aviation ships because of the FOD hazard that the ejected launch boosters cause. The French and Italians have to do a FOD sweep every time they fire missiles out of their VLS.
In addition to GINTAPPEs reasons, keep in mind USN would have to field a whole new launcher and ESSM packed in a different cell. ADL the same canister already in use can be used. Way simpler logistics.
The adaptable deck launcher makes the performance of a FAC or missile corvette to be far more effective. I guess a typical corvette with 8 harpoon analogues and 16 ESSM in 2 adaptable deck launchers would be fairly impressive.
Quit saying "you know", my answer to someone talking to me saying that is "no, I do not" just a stupid as saying "like". I am a retired Skunkworks Dual ME aerospace engineer, imprecise technical language in a conversation let alone at work is a pet peeve of mine.
Enhanced Sea Sparrow Missile. Advanced was probably a knife stabbing you in the ear . Me too.
China watches this also....soon they make 100% copys if this for sure.....
funny thing is that I was thinking about something similar to ADL about 10-15 years ago. I even had a drawing that I posted at that time
Its been patented almost as long as we have had mk 41. General Dynamics used to have the patent.
@jm2453 well I didn't know about that, so it is a little surprising for me.
Perhaps not so much like when my stepfather was still working in the Navy as an officer of some rank. And when the modern missile age was still young, he proposed to put missiles on cars/trucks/trailer. The defense department told him he must be stupid, no one is going to need something like that...
Is it really needed for the carriers? Using those sea sparrows is already a very slim chance, but needing to reload them is just about fantasy
Keep in mind carriers do occasionally have to go it alone. Plus anything getting close enough for an ESSM shot is going to be worth the ESSM shot to avoid damage to a 13 billion dollar ship with 5k lives and another probably 13 billion in planes and ammo aboard. That and the 2 giant nuclear reactors and nuclear warheads likely aboard.
If it is to launch Sea Sparrow, which is the improvement over a Mk 56 launcher?
They face outwards already, they weigh twice as much for a third fewer cells (a 12 cell Mk56 is half the weight of a 2-cell ADLS, which can only hold two quad-pack ESSM cannisters). The Mk56 offers an advantage in the vertical launch allows them to fire over the shoulder as it were...once clear of the flight deck and island they can pitch over and vector towards targets on the opposing beam.
@@DeeEight This conversation also happened above. We don't do vertical due to FOD and challenge to reload at sea. We don't use Mk 56 because its an entire additional launch system with its own unique missile cannister. With ADL its the same quad packed ESSM cannister across the fleet.
This conversation also happened above. We don't do vertical due to FOD and challenge to reload at sea. We don't use Mk 56 because its an entire additional launch system with its own unique missile cannister. With ADL its the same quad packed ESSM cannister across the fleet.
I can see Taiwan putting ADL on its ships (like what they did to Knox and FRAM Gearings). If it'll be sold to them.
They sort of have this already. Quad packed AAW missiles that go in their anti ship missile canisters. Used on their catamaran corvettes and upcoming light frigates.
The 6 minute video was just released and already has 4 views??
Hi,
We have 100K subscribers, we are popular
Thank you
perfect answer @@NavalNews
Tell me you don’t know how UA-cam works without telling me you don’t know how UA-cam works, SMH.🤦
Naval news is amazing. Not just puff pieces, but good questions too. Obviously no hardballs or out of left fielders. But great content no doubt.
Curious if ADL will only be used for SAM like ESSM? Could it fit SM-2, SM-6, RUM-139 VL-ASROC and Anti-ship missile like the LRASM and Tomahawk cruise missile.
Each launcher has 2 strike length Mk41 cells on a fixed elevation. In many ways they're an improvement on the ABLs used by the Iowa class BBs post 80s reactivation, Virginia and Long Beach CGNs, and some of the Spruances which didn't get the 61 cell Mk41. They can hold Tomahawk Block Vs, the booster equipped SM-3s and SM-6s, SM-2s, or the ASROC cannister in addition to the quad-pack ESSM. LRASM is still being adapted for the Mk41 as I recall, but its a possibilty but the UK and France are working on a new stealthy cruise missile to replace Tomahawks but be compatible to Mk41 or Sylver A57 cells.
@@DeeEight this ADL looks like a naval version of Typhon system
@@jonlaurenzreyes1902 Naval version of Typhon is Mk 70 launcher by Lockmart. There is another SNA 2025 Naval News video about it.
But the old one could swivel.
These could be used to build a Slava-style warship. (I realize tbat is not the highest of compliments 🤣)
I still like the accent of the original cast, but good its good that it expand after years on youtube
A couple of questions I wished had been asked:
How much space do these launch containers need around them? There's a number of patrol ships in the Baltic with side-apertures currently being used for RIB cranes, small torpedo tubes, mine laying equipment etc. Could these spaces be used for the ADL? Might also be interesting for Denmark looking to up-gun their new patrol ships already.
Also, with the missiles being much more exposed, what considerations must employing ships make for damage control?
no, STANFLEX work much better for Danish's condition
AB is theoretically has enough space for 6 module, but practically 2 module at finest, so that's not the problem
@@baotrungnguyen3301Isn’t STANFLEX limited to missiles of a certain length?
Exhaust goes upwards so it probably can't be placed within the ship due to fire hazards.
There’s always one in every family 🙄
Lets make everybody look like a Slava-class
4:46 US Navy needs to build 1000 of these right now, ultimately a warship is just meant to carry firepower and this is the perfect platform to do that, you can have entire drone fleets augment existing ones or operate independently, either way something like this is a huge force multiplier for the Navy.
Doesn’t matter how many or what the US builds. China can build more for cheaper.
It seems like my tax dollars, well... spent
until you see the cost over runs the overpriced peripherals and the production and installation delays.
The Dutch Navy will add these vessels very soon for extra protection assets on the North Sea. New modular support vessel for the Royal Netherlands Navy
www.youtube.com/@worldmil-tech721