BAE Systems has won a U.S. Navy competition to serve as the design agent for the mechanical portion of the Mk 41 Vertical Launch System (VLS).
In a news release, BAE say that the contract calls for BAE Systems to provide design, development, test, product improvement, and sustaining support for current and legacy VLS systems. BAE Systems will also continue to design and support canisters used to store, transport, and launch the missiles from the VLS.
“This award demonstrates that BAE Systems is an industry leader when it comes to the VLS solution for the Navy’s fleet of Ticonderoga-class cruisers and Arleigh Burke-class destroyers,” said Brent Butcher, vice president of the weapon systems product line at BAE Systems.
“Going forward this contract secures our role in providing the Navy with cutting-edge design and engineering supporting this critical warfighting capability.”
The Mk 41 VLS is capable of launching a broad range of missiles, including the Standard Missile SM-2, SM-3, and SM-6 variants; the Tomahawk Land Attack Cruise Missile; the NATO Seasparrow and Evolved Seasparrow; and the Vertical Launch Anti-Submarine Rocket.
The firm say that work on this contract begins immediately and will primarily be performed in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Can we get some of these Mk 41 vls onto our T45s? Two for each would be nice…
if they’re going cheap. Then they have to fill them!
Agreed, seeing that we intend to have the Mk41s on our T26s then we could start with the T45s. They won’t go to waste as it looks like this system will be around for the next 20-30 years so we could use them also for the T83 when they come on line. The next issue is filling them, I’m sure that the tests can be done, the USN would like to see the SAMPSON capability in the BMD role as would the RN. The VL cruise missile role would also be of use, finally Aster 30s could be tested from the Mk41s and then Sea Ceptor could be quad packed into the Sylver A50s. By doing this the RN could then use not only UK missiles but NATO standard weapons as well. We don’t even need to refit all 6 DDGs four would do rather nicly. In many ways we would be killing three birds with one stone, first a boast to the T45 air defence and land attack ability, second, a MK41 and missile test bed for the T26 and T83 and third having Mk41s available for the T83 when they start to be built.
When thinking about this can anyone answer me the following question, why is our T26 with its ARTISAN radar being equipped with the Mk41 vls. ARTISAN is good for Sea Ceptor and I will call it a defensive radar, whilst the Mk41 vls is a long range strike system which could use the SAMPSON and S1850M at max range. The RN will not have VL-ASROC, I cannot imagine the T26 with ASTER 30s or ASTER BMD, ARTISAN will be of no use in that role. So the only thing I can think that might be used in the Mk41s on the T26 is cruise missiles and anti ship missiles. If that is the case is the Astutes going to give up the cruise missile role and revert to what it is really good at hunting and killing enemy submarines and surface ships?
Perhaps the way to think about the MK41 on T26 is as a silo that can leverage off-board sensors, whether those are on other ships, aircraft or satellites.
For example, a T26 might in future be fitted with Co-operative Engagement Capability (CEC). A number of navies are implementing this, not just the USN, so it seems likely the RN will too. That would allow a T26 to use data from sensors on T45/83, AEW platform, F-35B, LEO satellites, allied platforms, etc. It wouldn’t necessarily even need to have CEC, it might use other established comms to receive target information.
So then its a question of what might be qualified for MK41. Aster 30 might make sense, even “just” with Artisan, which can see out much further than Aster 30’s stated range. BAES have ambitions for a VLA, presumably based on the new lightweight torpedo. We’ll have to see if the RN see a use case for it, alongside helicopters/UAVs for torpedo delivery. If using CEC then SM-6 and SM-3. FC/ASW might be canister based but if not then we may be looking at VLS sub-sonic stealth and supersonic options from that program, with both variants suitable for land attack and ASM.
Finally, its worth noting that BAES have a roadmap that shows an Artisan upgrade around 2027. Maybe that would be a rotating AESA solution which would be a significant increase in organic sensor capability.
I think we’ll keep the option of submarine launched cruise missiles. Whether that remains Tomahawk or becomes a FC/ASW weapon, similar to what the French did with MdCN based on Stormshadow/SCALP.
GHF, I seem to remember something about CEC, I think it was in refrence to the T45 and the reason that its numbers could be reduced to six ships. However it was never fully developed. Strangly enough I could never understand why. My profession is or was signals, thats what I trained in when I was in the army, later in life when I worked on civvy/mil projects I could get a signal anywhere I wanted sometimes by making the kit do jobs that the supplier did not think possible. I did not care how, It might be scatter, line of sight, cable, microwave and yes even laser, but I would get the signal through. Once I got to the other end I would take remote control of what I needed. So to this day I am trying to understand why the MoD and all of these brain boxes spent millions on something then scrapped it when simple ex Royal Signals guys do it very often.
I agree that Artisan can see much further than the Aster 30, as far as I understand Artisan tech is based on SAMPSON so in some ways you could say it is a SAMPSON Lite but what many people forget is that the T45 uses the S1850M as the surveillance radar, whilst SAMPSON is the tracking radar. Although Aster is seen as a fire and forget missile I am not so sure I suspect that SAMPSON aids in the course correction.
Yes it is possible that the future FC/ASW will be used and if it is like the concept Perseus I am all for it.
All I am trying to ask is do we have the right launch capability on the right ship. The T45 is the carrier air defence destroyer, she has the right radar, but launcher ability? The T26s are anti sub platforms, do they need Mk41s? The T31s are GP frigates sometimes when I think of a GP frigate they need to have anti sub ability, air defence ability, land attack ability, anti ship ability, go on the gun line and supoprt a fleet, convoy or work independently. Is that not GP a ship that can do anything the Government or RN asks for. Possibly the T45s should have the boat bays removed then install Mk41s where they should be and Mk57s installed port and starboard of the hanger in place of the boat bays. The T 26s should have a hanger for two Merlins if it must have Mk41s then for VL-ASROC and cruise missiles and get rid of the midship multi use boat bay. The T26s don’t need it for what? They will work with the carriers and Amphibs so why do they need a bay for four RIBS? Use that space for extra helicopters or rotery UAVs. As for the T31s if I had the money there is a lot I could do with these ships to turn them into nice little frigates. Dependeing on how well we keep the updates for the T45 radars and weapons outfit I would tranfer most of it to these ships as well as some of the kit from the T23 ASW suite. The ASW suite might be a bit old but it is still a very good sonar fit out.
As for the Astues keeping the cruise missile fit, all I hope is that the follow on design has the six or eight cell vls tube installed possibly three such tubes. This leaves the torp room for torps, but it does mean the sub would need to be longer. Possibly one tube could be empty where either it would be used for the SBS or the cruise missile drum can be inserted depending on mission.
But that is just me thinking out loud!
CEC is really of value when you have a number of appropriate platforms to connect together to leverage the capability and all these platforms are working together in the context of a CSG or amphibious group.
So the reason we don’t have it is because we probably haven’t had a compelling context up until now; that’s changing with the carriers. Also, the T45-T23 combo doesn’t really offer much value for CEC, because T23 only has Sea Ceptor for air defence. There has also been no AEW platform to tie into them up to now.
However, as T26 enter the fleet it now makes sense to link T45-T26 because of that MK41 capacity. It also saves costs and time taking the T45s off line and upgrading them to add MK41 for just the last third of their life, especially when we don’t have any weapons qual’d to go in the cells. We might also link in Crownest, or wait until its replacement, depending on the timing of the latter.
We shouldn’t label T45 as just an AAW platform and T26 as just an ASW platform. That is their primary role, but both are capable of performing in the other disciplines. For example, if a sub gets past the T26 screen on a CSG then the T45 is going to have to go after it. T45s practice anti-sub ops. Just speculation but the T83 may well be designed as a more capable ASW platform versus T45.
It may seem semantics, but a GP frigate isn’t necessarily a high end multi-role frigate, or even one with a high end capability in a single discipline. The GP T23s aren’t. The Canadians and Australians are building high end multirole vessels from the T26 base, largely because of their vast geography’s where they need all that high end flexibility in a single ship. And its costing them to do so. In Canada’s case, its even more of a necessity because of the separation between the two coasts and no plan for AAW destroyers. The USN really need a modern ASW platform, hence the Constellation class based on FREMM. But given the USN global ambitions, especially in directly countering China, they are also providing a realtively high level AAW capability.
For me T31s are the right solution for constabulary roles as they complement and perhaps take over entirely from the SE Asia forward deployed River B2s in time. And they have the space to be significantly upgraded if required/as budgets permit. I suspect the T32 will be a more heavily armed intermediate GP frigate, closer to the French FTI or Italian PPA Full specs. Also don’t overlook all our allies when considering what our navy should look like, we don’t have to do it all ourselves.
T45s and especially T26s won’t always be escorting CSG or amphib groups. The T26 especially might support UxV platforms to expand the area it can cover for ASW ops, whether in a group or as a singleton deployment. IIRC T26 can already hanger two Merlins.
If you had the money you could actually turn the T31 into a high end AAW/ASW platform. After all Iver Huitfeldt is an AAW destroyer and the Danes are converting the Absalons to an ASW frigate role.
Good morning Ron/all, I have to say what stunning and detailed replies from everyone here. I’ve really enjoyed reading everyone’s angle, thoughts, large and small. I can’t really add anything to what’s been said just that if the T45s are remaining in service for another 10-15 years and are getting radar, software, ew upgrades and upgrades to the Asters I would like to see some affordable additional vls Mk41/ExLs or Camm x 6 silos forward/around the Aster silo (if space and engineering permits), maybe some ADLs to replace the Harpoon launches (if there’s the space) or a least an ability for 8-12+ newer/more compact ASMs to complement the 4.5” gun. I’d like to see some AS torpedo ability added in somewhere too. One thing I noticed is that the T45 Aster silos are end on aligned whereas the T26 Mk41s are across. Different packing styles. The newer French and Italian have their Aster silos across. I just wonder how many silos the T45s realistic ly could have had as several people have mentioned that there is spare space between the gun the current silo?
Adding mk41 vls to T45 would be an expensive waste of time. Much better to add a couple of ExLS 3 cell units that can be quad packed with CAMM. Each 3 cell unit can hold 12 CAMM. 2 sets gets you 24 missiles, 4 sets gets you 48. If you could mix & match with CAMM-ER, so much the better. ExLS are also much easier to reuse elsewhere when the T45’s retire. T45’s biggest weakness in modern times is its number of missiles. It needs a quad packable option (preferably in addition to rather instead of). A Canadian T26 will have 24 CAMM, 32 ESSM plus 24 SM2/6. A RAN Hobart has at least 32 ESSM plus 40 SM2/6 etc. A RAN T26 will have 32 ESSM & 24 SM2/6.
As to the T26, There is a new long range anti ship/ land attack missile under development. You can also drop an ExLS into a T26 mk41 for CAMM-ER if you wanted to. Spear 3 as well? Would prefer the Italian ASW missile which is canister launched to the US ASROC.
Adding mk41 vls to T45 would be an expensive waste of time. Much better to add a couple of ExLS 3 cell units that can be quad packed with CAMM. Each 3 cell unit can hold 12 CAMM. 2 sets gets you 24 missiles, 4 sets gets you 48. If you could mix & match with CAMM-ER, so much the better. ExLS are also much easier to reuse elsewhere when the T45’s retire. T45’s biggest weakness in modern times is its number of missiles. It needs a quad packable option (preferably in addition to rather than instead of). A Canadian T26 will have 24 CAMM, 32 ESSM plus 24 SM2/6. A RAN Hobart has at least 32 ESSM plus 40 SM2/6 etc. A RAN T26 will have 32 ESSM & 24 SM2/6.
As to the T26, There is a new long range anti ship/ land attack missile under development. You can also drop an ExLS into a T26 mk41 for CAMM-ER if you wanted to. Spear 3 as well? Would prefer the Italian ASW missile which is canister launched to the US ASROC.
I doubt we will see Mk 41 on the T45 ships at this late stage. If they were going to upgrade them, the time to do it would be when they are dry docked for the power generator upgrades, wouldn’t it? I expect we will see them in the follow-on class of ship.
Hi Dan, if the mk41 was added onto the T45 they could potentially be recycled onto a later class. I also wonder why the ExLS 6*4 Camm silos weren’t adopted on the T26 as they have been on the Canadian T26s? Does anyone have an information on the UK 6 pack Camm silos that’s on our T26s?
There were plenty of comments on the recent HMS Glasgow threads about CAAM Missile Silo’s – Ron5 put a picture up of the 6 Cell arrangement,plenty of info there.
Hi Paul, Ron, ETH, thanks for the link and image. I wonder if they have, 4, 6 and 10 pack versions? The NZ Anzacs have squeezed 20 onto the upper deck shins their phalanx. Surely they can put some of these down alongside and or in fton of the T45 Aster silo. Give it more mass Sam volume and save the Aster’s for higher value targets?
*shins…?… Lol…behind.
Are these 6 pack vls able to be reloaded at sea? I read some where that they are angled left or right at 5 degrees off the vertical but no sure if this will make things harder or easier to load/reload. It would be nice to have some of these vls on the carriers, in areas that don’t/wouldn’t inhibit the air operations.
Here’s an image – clearly adapted from the launchers on the Type 23s:
BAE wins US Navy contracts for Mk41 VLS, yet the Royal Navy uses the knock off French version. It’s tiring.
An Under-armed Royal Navy, it has become norm. They think they can sail into hostile waters show flag and impress the Chinese or Russians? Every Royal navy vessel should be armed to the teeth! Specially since the Royal has not much frigates and destroyers , so must make the most of the limited ships it has.
Low numbers, plus not armed well makes it a paper Tigger navy . Sorry I’m just being realistic and would have loved to be more optimistic
Agreed, it’s a bit disappointing how even with the advanced kit the RN fields such as Sea Ceptor, Aster 30, Storm Shadow, Sampson,F-35s; that we won’t truly have enough provisions or quantity of such things to actually make each of our assets meaningfully armed.
Furthermore seeing how much Canada and Australia have committed to their individual versions of the Type 26 Frigate show that even our model will be lacking in ability compared to what they’ll be getting out of the Type 26s in the future.
As you described, low numbers but inadequately armed and fitted ships make for a navy that on a paper seem acceptable but would fail against an opponent with an equally sized but better fitted navy. A shame all of these problems are propagated by the equally inadequate politicians.
Hi Quill, James, yes, agree, I can’t quite understand this “under-arming” thinking on the major RN ships. Even a bit more would be useful. We don’t need to show off with our “missile muscles” or be provocative but having a “big(ger) stick and (still) speak softly” could be even more effective.
Ok reality check…
So the RN buys MK41 or MK 57…8 tubes per module for around 12mil USD a set under FMS purchase.
Then you need to buy the missiles to go in it. A Standard MK6 is around 4-5 Mil dollars a pop. An ABM Standard is around the same price.
So you are already, for a one ship 6 tube fit, without spares, support, spare missiles in the Ammo depots, new handling process, training, equipment in the ops room integration into Combat Systems, Risk assessments for a new explosive stores inside a ship, Mutual interference assessments for all of the different Radar systems on a UK vessel, at something approaching 50 mil Dollars.
For 8 Missiles
50 MILLION DOLLARS.
Add in all of the above additional costs and that will go to double that.
You would then be looking at 100 Million Dollars for putting 8 missiles on a single ship.
In other words to outfit the T45s would have a cost approaching 2 x T31 Frigates
Hi GB, great replies. Is there even the option of two additional DCN Aster silos on the T45? I believe Quad Camm can be packed into those to give 48 Camm? Even another 8-16 Aster would be pretty useful.
Sorry I meant 2*32 = 64 Camm.
When you look at the two new super DDX destroyers the Italian navy will get at the end of this decade, we might start to get some “missile envy”…lol. The DDX look like a bit what I imagine a Type 83 could be? 12*8 vls. It’s already designed and about to be built. I and a lot of us here and elsewhere really know that our RN ships could all do with a “bit more” and be fully fitted out as designed first up.
I might have the number of silos wrong on the DDX, it may only be 8-10*8 after all. I would have been good to have had the additional 2 T45s in the fleet for a greater spread of SAM/ABM protection and projection.
CEC fuses data from other units into a surveillance picture so that units can see what other units see and shoot against hostile targets using off ship sensors . It also allows other units to( and here is the important bit) illuminate and control missiles whilst they are in flight, even if they did not launch them.
Most USN Standard missiles are semi active homers. You shoot them off to a future intercept point in the sky. AEGIS does the math and then uses onboard tracking radars to illuminate targets in order of threat and then allocates missiles whilst in the air to these targets. Destroy a target and the illuminator radar shifts to the next target. ABs have 3 illuminators and Ticos 4. If using Standard 6 this isnt needed as its an active homer…but it still needs a data update whilst in flight
RN ships dont have illuminators. T45 uses Sampson and T23 , now that Sea Wolf trackers have been removed have a data link dome. RN AAW missiles are all ACTIVE Homers (or home on jam if they need to switch to that mode) . Once they leave the ship they get data updates and then home on their own. no illumination required. Its an important difference.
Other unit tracking data is already available via Link pictures (11, 22 and 16). So as long as you can receive the link picture over the data link channel from someone who is tracking a target you can see it in your system. Although I would need to confirm it there should be no reason why you cannot shoot at a link track with Ceptor.
(You used to be able to do it with Dart (Semi Active homer) by taking a Link track and then lighting it up with the 909 tracker even if you did not have it on your own surveillance radar. )