SNA 2024: Adaptable Deck Launcher, MK 70 Missile Launcher, PAC-3 Missile and SPY-6 Radar
Вставка
- Опубліковано 30 чер 2024
- Day 2 at the Surface Navy Association (SNA) 2024 National Symposium. In this video we cover the following topics:
00:28 - BAE Systems Adaptable Deck Launcher
05:12 - Lockheed Martin MK 70 Payload Delivery System aboard LCS
08:12 - Lockheed Martin VLS Growth next generation launcher
09:35 - Lockheed Martin PAC-3 missile integration on MK 41
11:18 - Raytheon SPY-6 V4 radar backfit aboard DDG 51 Flight IIA destroyers
=====================
For new videos every week, subscribe here! ua-cam.com/users/NavalNews?su...
Follow us on Twitter: / navalnewscom
Follow us on LinkedIn: / navalnews
Like us on Facebook: navalnewscom
Check out our daily naval defense news coverage at: www.navalnews.com/
NAVAL NEWS is fully focused on naval topics. We cover the latest naval defense shows & events. We also report on naval technology from all over the world. Navalnews.com is updated daily with in-depth features, industry, and naval forces news round-ups, event coverage, video reports and more. Our top of the line site is responsive across all mobile and desktop devices.
I had my doubts about the Adaptable deck launcher but the more I think about it the more it makes sense. It frees up full length Mk-41 cells for standard missiles/LACMs and allows you to reload ESSM's at sea.
As a German, these systems would enable our new class of cruiser sized patrolboats, the F 125, to finally have mid- to long range AA-missles, there is actually additional deck-space on these ships. Such systems would also increase the firepower of the F 126 class to somewhat suit a frigate.
Though it would suprise me if the German government actually opts for such additions and even then, if it does so in a timely manner.
Angled launchers also make more sense for point defense because the missile doesn't need to make a turn after exiting VLS, which gives it faster reaction time. That's why the Navy is using an ADL variant to replace the MK29 box launchers on carriers and amphibs.
@@GintaPPE1000True, but it's also limited to that specific field of fire now.
I'm also curious if modular deck launchers can be installed on non-naval ships, thus turning commercial cargo ships into missile launchers in a pinch.
Air force can now use cargo planes as missile launching platforms using containerized cruise missiles (Rapid Dragon). May be navy can do something similar with modular deck launchers.
@PapaOscarNovember Yeah you can but you risk putting commercial ships at risk.
additional 64 ESSM will make the burke class a beast.
I'm wondering what the possible weight penalties might be for adding that many missiles to the hull.
@@PEN0311I think the newer Burkes will have it since they are longer.
As if it already isn't
but it will make it too heavy and slow too
@@chrysllerryu4171bigger worry is that it could unbalance the ship
Considering how damn impressive the SPY-1 was and still is even after all these years... the SPY-6 is nuts.
Idk anything about the SPY radars. How good are they compared to contemporaries?
@@christopherchartier3017class leading
As a retired Aegis FC, this episode is EPIC.
Adeptable Deck Launcher: Fancy name for a box.
The military is full of stuff like this, hehehe.
Fancy name, simple device
It’s all about marketing to the top brass
Defense company rep:Scalable, adaptable, modular, iterative, revolutionary, overmatch, capability, effector, capacity! Me: I just asked where the restroom was homie, but cool model.
@lukemasmaximus1616
Imagine a restroom, or even a single toilet, that was/had/could be described as scalable, adaptable, modular, iterative, revolutionary, overmatch, capability, effector, capacity!
The ultimate "Crapper"!
So when a Commanding Officer of a U.S. Navy Destroyer leaves the Navy they go to work in the military industrial complex
Many of them do.
Heck yeah! What a sick solution. More is better than less in the Pacific Theater, especially because of the distances and just huge risks for every ship if it goes hot by the sheer volume of systems against our ships. That's cool that they have 2x, 4x and 8x variants; imagine all the ESSMs! Doubt anyone could get through all that. We could make an arsenal ships just from the deck mounts onto a Burke. IDK anything about the weight & margins though but man, this is just a badass option. I know the other options is to have them more distributed with loyal wingman drones but still think more on the main ship itself is worth it.
Also, just my random opinion but if I had an influence on this, I think Burkes should have a 2nd pair of 25mm deck guns (Mk 38 Mod 3) too.
Why do you think they need extra 25mm guns?
I remember when many were laughing on Taiwan's deck mounted SM-1s fitted on their upgraded Gearings and now to thei Knox class.
But hey, additional ESSMs were a good thing nonetheless.
Well it was said in the video its not a new idea they already have it in the 90's they just dont have a use for it.
Similar idea.
In a similar vein, there is some criticism of the Russians packing their deck space with all sorts of munitions, becomes too tight to service the systems easily due to space constraints. Now it's making sense, as they don't have enough hulls, so they found a way to arm their current hulls. Looks like America now looking to do something similar, but it only works up to a certain point, I'm sure
I really like the installation of these launchers on a LUSV.
Work well with the FFG-62 as well.
You're Awesome 💯
Nice. Very nice. Hopefully the Navy will install these launchers on our ship really soon.
How about launcher decks put between the funnels for 8-16 tomahawks &/or asrock, freeing 8-16 vl cells for more SAMs. Or for Harpoons or NSMs in cramped waters since Tomahawk would be huge waste
We need these on the HMCS Arctic Patrol ships. They are tragically underarmed.
Well done
The best thing about Adaptable deck launcher is the ability to replenish at sea. Vertical launchers require a trip back to port to reload.
Lockheed's containerized launchers are more complex, but perhaps also more flexible in deployment.
For a problem with deck mounted missiles, see Moskva.
Es un excelente video, pero lamentablemente no emplean subtítulos en español o traducción del video para los que no hablamos inglés.
Interesting
Anything you can do to add missile defense on any naval ship is a bonus. Adding up to 64 more missiles on an Arleigh Burke destroyer, or even a Ticonderoga missile ship is a no - brainer.
Not enough launchers on the Burke class destroyers is a major issue vs the Ticonderoga class cruisers.
Very interesting…..
Why there’s not an ESSM-ER in development baffles me, quad packing with a booster for extended range, really is a no brained development for the ESSM. They could even have 2 booster lengths, 1 for the tactical and one for the strike length cells.
Alright, time for SNA!
I see the revolving door system is still in full flight!!!
What do you want the man to do? Just retire and starve?
I can understand using g these to replace older Sea Sparrow launchers on carriers. But heavy loading them on Burke destroyers seems to invite issues. Weight. Speed. Stability. If the US Navy needs more guided missile ships, then find a replacement for the Ticonderoga-class.
i also think the PAC-3 would make the perfect addition to the LCS giving them an affordable, world class air defense capability allowing them to hunt subs and mines and small ships in dangerous areas while the burkes can be dedicated to protecting carriers and naval bases. Hell, LCS with PAC-3 would be plenty for patrolling the persian gulf and escorting ships in the red sea freeing up even more destroyers.
The PAC-3 will be a great addition. Ukraine has proved it is the most capable system in the world against high end threats and will be perfect for anything that makes it through the longer range umbrella of SM-3 (against ballistics) SM-6 and SM-2. It should be easily quad packed into single mk-41 cells. with proliferation of cheap drones and cruise missiles, production needs to be at least doubled or tripled. in wartime we'll be needing over 500 a month minimum.
The ADL is just ABL 2.0 - it takes up a huge amount of deck space for a very small number of missiles, which is why we dropped the concept in the '80s for VLS.
Yeah but it is done again because some ship have the space on the deck but not under
I have no experience in surface warfare,however I’m always concerned by the limitations of the cellular structure of surface combatants. My dad was with the fleets at both Okinawa and Iwo Jima. He once described the almost continuous stream of Japanese aircraft and how the entire compliment would fall asleep in the short intervals between attacks. A replenishment system seems like a common sense idea.
Seeing the animigraphic at 1:44, I would think that it would be better to give the missile launcher a lower profile, so the CIWS guns can do their thing, its blocking a couple angles.
Will lockheed martin mount/install the Pac-3 container next to HIMARS on San Antonio helo 's deck?
Bolt on Sea Sparrow, like Oerlikon 20 and 40 during WW2? cool.
My thoughts as well. Cheap(relatively) and dirty boost to defensive firepower for a stop gap
I wonder if the adaptable deck launcher is a good solution for expanding the Mk 41 cells on the constellation without significant redesign? I have seen these offered as full strike length (7.6 m) and tactical length (6.7 m), but yet to see them offered at self-defense length (5.2 m). At 2:25 he says its available in "evolved sea sparrow length," is he referring to tactical length or self defense length? Based on the shape/angle, it seems like it would be advantageous and relatively simple to put two self defense length cells under two strike/tactical length cells without adding any size to the launcher.
The ESSM fits in the self defence length, so that must be what he meant. Note that there is a hatch on the side though, so there must be a reason for someone to go into that space rather than use it for SD length canisters.
Nope, I'm wrong, the ADL only comes in tactical and strike lengths. It seems that the self defence length canisters have fallen out of use and ESSMs are packed into the tactical length Mk 25 canister even though they take up at most 2/3rds of the length.
No, this ADL is a reasonable way to add missiles to an existing ship, but you wouldn't design a new one with it in lieu of VLS.
@@stacymcmahon453I asked for that exact reason- the constellation is already being constructed but requirements for armament changed after their design. Based on congressional reports, they couldn’t increase the VLS from 32 to 48 on the first flight of ships without significant redesign and delaying the class. But with the connies now being congressionally mandated to have SM-6 and tomahawk capability, I imagine the 32-cell VLS is going to feel more limiting
Self defence length is no longer produced. Strike or Tactical only…
The Mk 70 Adaptable Deck Launcher (ADL) is an interesting concept beside ESSM, I wonder if I can mount Surface-to-Surface Missiles (SSM) like Tomahawk lang attack cruise missile or Ship-launched version of the LRASM/LARSAM-ER could be away to replace the Harpoon still mounted on the DDG-51 even newbuilt ships.
Also interesting to see proposals to improved the lethality for the Freedom-class LCS I think it is a big mistake to mothball the LCS early considering delayes with the FFG-62 frigate by one year and have yet to reach meaningful numbers (+16). LM and Austal proposal should be viewed as a stop-gap solution for the short-to-medium term, like adding Naval Strike Missile (NSM), 1 × 8-cells Mk 41 VLS for ESSM Block 2 (32 stored quadpacked), and Off the shelf TAS like the Thales CAPTAS-2.
There were a thing called armored box launchers that can house up to 4 tomahawks back a couple decades ago, phased out after they figured out it would be more space efficient to just put them into the new launching system we now call the vls.
The Mark 70 would more of a force multiplier rather than being outright replacements like vls was to arm and box launchers.
The ADL and Mk 70 are different things, the ADL being the sloped deck launcher and the Mk 70 being the quad launcher in a 40' shipping container. However they are both capable of being fitted with strike length Mk 41 VLS compatible canisters, which means they can launch Tomahawks and LRASMs. I have read in the past that work was being done to integrate the Harpoon into the Mk 41 system, but that was a while ago. Since then the NSM has been pushing the Harpoon into retirement. The NSM cannot fit in a Mk 41 canister, but the JSM can, a side effect of it being reshaped to fit inside the F-35.
What are the capability and capacity gaps that PAC-3 fills?
Weight would be my guess. The PAC3 is lighter therefore affording more missiles to be carried OR improves the ship's fuel efficiency by reducing the overall weight of the ship?
Its cheaper than SM-3 so it can be used on easier to hit targets and there are many more of them in production.
Expeditionary sea base ship ready for MK 70 missiles launcher mod 1.
i wonder if that can be added to Modern Warships game
Don't understand why the Navy would need PAC3 when they have SM6 which outperforms the PAC3
They are talking about quad packing pac 3s in one cell. Also pac3 is much cheaper
I have serious doubts on his statement of "no required underdeck structure and penetrations." You can't add this much weight on a deck without underdeck structure to prevent structural issues, also is it connected with Bluetooth 🤣 so you don't need cabling or do you just plug it in with extension cords running on the deck as EMP and trip hazards? I would also expect it has climate requirements which would add ventilation/chill water impact.
Also it would be nice if Raytheon didn't tell our enemies where our capabilities are manufactured at...just saying
Where they are built is public knowledge because it is part of lobbying Congress for funding the project. We know where the B-21 is being built and that is a far more sensitive program.
Why is it necessary to put a housing around the deck launcher? To make it look pretty, because a cell resting on scaffolding looks too 3-worldly?
So will these new solutions actually make an LCS ship useable in, say, the Red Sea to shoot down drones and missiles?
14:22 don't give me ideas😂😂
my intrusive thoughts
A lot of deckspace for not much punch. Typically they fire 2 missiles for each drone, so if you get one drone that entire side of the ship now has no missile coverage. Could have just made it vertical and fit more in, like a supplementary VLS?
The point of these dexk launchers is for ships with no space left under deck for VLS
On the LCS with 3 containers (4 strike length Cells) you can fit 16 ESSMs per container or up to 48 ESSMs per LCS.
Wouldn't it make more sense to remove the 5" on a couple of DDGs. Replace the forward with a 64 vls.
Not really, the gun is still needed
I Agree with this. They can removed the main guns of some destroyers specifically those who are task in protecting carriers.
A carrier have multiple escort ships they can remove the 5" guns of 2 of those destroyers and add 64 vls cells pack with essm that is 256 missiles additional x2 ships
512 missiles total. The other escorts will retain their main guns.
But to make that happens a major redesign is needed putting 256 missiles on the front side will put so much weight on that part they will need to balance that. Maybe putting the 96 modules or 64 of those amid ship will balance it
@@emmanueldavid8739 Im pretty sure if the Burkes could mount more cells they wouldve by now, hell theyre building an entirely new flight of them. Its really not an option
@emmanueldavid8739 Sorry, I should have been clearer. Remove the 5" and replace the 48 cell with a 64 cell. That would make up the difference of all those deck launcher.
@@Terryray123 nope your idea is fine it's just that is not that easy to do but it is very good if it will be made possible
BAE SYSTEMS is offering to up-armed Autralias Hobart class destroyers removing the 5" gun and replacing it with vls cells and removing the mission bay and add more VLS cells. It will have more than 100 Vls cells
I am surprise that a company as BAE show a model reppresenting a Burke with fake positioning "boxes" over hangar roof, just in front of Phalanx when there is space to fit them on the side of funnels for gas turbine facing foward and aft !?!
Most important:
you loose 360° launch capabilities of VLS;
looks like it uses even with just 2 cannisters same deck surface as 2 modules having 16 VLS so from half to eight times less missiles;
what happens to the "box" and to the ship if hit?
On carriers it's not a problem fit a quad packed 8 cells module in place of each one Mk-29 launcher with 32 missiles instead of 8 so reaching 4 times as many missiles as now on the 3 tilting launchers.
Only goods is being reloadable by easily moving (how?) cannisters outside all around the ship.
I believe it's easier fighting near China's mainland a ship reloading missile but with none ready to launch is going to sink or win the war having done its job!
MK.29 only can take 8 ESSM or NSSM. and the Point is that with 8 ADL Launcher around 360° with ESSM would free 16 cells of the Main VLS for other things like SM missiles
@@kqckeforyou4433
if war ignited ADL could be an emergency solution as old Harpoon's launchers too, to me the point is, it's time to build new Destroyers with double the VLS, 24 modules instead of 12, in order to have a 192 missiles starting point 96 SM-6 > 80 LRASM > 8 SM-3 > 8 VL Asroc for example or increasing point and ballistic defense 40 SM-6 > 160 (quadpacked) ESSM > 80 LRASM > 24 SM-3 > 8 VL Asroc
@@robertopiedimonte2078wont happen.
If G-VLS will be the Standard then without combination of MK.41 und G-VLS we See reduced cell Count but that is Not Abig Problem
No deck penetrations? How do you cable this thing up? They certainly are not going to be wireless. Ultimately what ADL does is enable you to burn up greater quantities of more expensive ordinance . . . not decrease the cost of effective ordinance. The ADL will never bring 600 rounds like already exist in the Mk45 gun magazine. For engagements inside 20nm the gun is a very viable an option. All we have to do not is use the existing high-G technology that already exist to make a family of 5" gun rounds that meet the need.
*Ordnance. Ordinances are what keep you from having a SPY-6 in your back yard.
🇺🇸🇬🇧👍
I'm wary of retired servicemen who keep wearing their rank.
Reloading at sea is a logistics biggie. VLS have limited abilities to be reloaded at sea.
.
I'll believe it when I see it. The Mk 41 was reloadable at sea, it even had an integrated crane (took up three cells of space). It was such a hassle that they decided that using the space for just three additional canisters was more valuable.
Will never be reloaded at sea.. end of..
yea, they kept saying that... The US stopped at sea reloads a long time ago, only at sea replenishment now is fuel/food/water, maybe gun ammunition since its small? and seeing how big these are for a 2/4 pack I can only imagine how large an 8 pack would be. Nice idea and certainly more missiles is better but I dont know if these would be the be all end all.
What about reloading those smaller drone ships inside Amphibious Assault Ship's well decks?
The MK70 flip up missile launcher is showing just how poorly designed the Freedom class LCS is. It's clearly too small and poorly laid out to accept MK 70 missile launcher without sacrificing helicopter and drone handling abilities. I could see these, instead, mounted on large paramilitary merchantman ships with a destroyer or frigate in the vicinity to command and control those missiles.
To all the people from the mil industrial companies participating in this video: for the love of God, get better suits! Uncle Sugar is paying you a premium, stop buying off the rack. My eyes are bleeding from all the sartorial terrorism.
Who let Lockheed into a Naval conference? After what they did with the LCS they should be forever banned from anything Naval related!
I don't have a problem with these presenters transitioning from military to industry as long as they aren't peddling influence, which is often the case (more connections, really), but I really dislike the presenters' canned language: "heritage, effectors, ..." It's intersting that none of the technical SMEs were the "boss-Bs" being presented in industry mass advertising.
So all of the last products are built at the same place for the last company Lockeed I think, and when the Chinese take it out we are done. What happened to diversity, the real meaning.
A better cost solution for the US Navy and USA would be not getting involved in most of these pointless things. Europeans should protect their own shipping companies and trade routes.