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.
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.
I love how they talk. We can bring expanded modularized versatile underway replenishable VLS systems to multiple fleet players, expanding lethality, versatility, and multi-domain firepower to any asset down to fleet tugboats!
@@christopherchartier3017the Spy-6 and Spy-7 are contemporaries, just from different makers!! Spy-6 is from the maker of Spy-1 I believe (Raytheon) and a contemporary of that radar system while the Spy-7 is from a different producer(Lockheed Martin) and what was chosen to update the ballistic missile defense radar or Long Range Descriminatory Radar!! I know a few new naval designs from a couple countries chose the Spy-7 I just can’t remember who it was, maybe Canada, Spain, and maybe Japan. I know Japan purchased 2 radars for Aegis ashore which they cancelled and will use on two anti air destroyer now instead so I figure those will be Spy-7 because that’s what we chose for Hawaii and the LRDR but nfs. Lockheed says it’s Spy-7 is the backbone of Aegis and most advanced radar but if that’s the case Nfs why our Navy chose Spy-6. Lockheed does make Aegis management system so I guess they would know how to optimize it even if it was equipped with a different radar for years. Also says adopted on 24 platforms so far across four countries. I know both radars are compatible with Aegis so Nfs about either being the backbone. I think most others have chosen Spy-6 because that’s what the US Navy chose. Most countries seem to be just placing them on their anti air frigates or destroyers meaning just a few ships except for Canada which is building 15 multi purpose frigates instead and will prolly outfit all them with one. Memo: on lockheeds website it says 3/4 countries are Spain with their F110 multi purpose ASW focused frigate which 5 are on order with an option for 2 more. It will be v2 as it’s first country outside of US to purchase it and will use SCOMBA CMS which is supposedly Navantiaw own version of Aegis CMS (Nfs if they are calling it aegis because of the radar like a lot of countries are doing like Taiwan or if it’s based of Lockheeds Aegis CMS and they have to pay a royalty to Lockheed for it, I’d lean towards later because Spain is entered as one of the countries that uses Aegis and that Canada will be so the CMS-330 developed by Lockheed Canada must be another form of Aegis as well), Canada was second customer for its 15 River class destroyers(really a frigate) which will be v3 and oddly enough use Lockheed Martin Canadas Combat Management System or CMS-330, and Japan which will be v4 for its future air defense destroyers which I believe is only 2 so Nfs who the fourth country is or where the other 20 platforms they claim come from but that’s it so far. Spy-7v1 was developed for the (LRDR) Long Range Descriminatory Radar so maybe it’s counting our ballistic missle stations and US as fourth country but I dunno, didn’t think we had that many radar stations. Believe we closed a lot down as radars have improved. Anyways spy-7 is a gallium nitride based (doesn’t say what that means or where) solid state AESA radar where the solid state blocks can be added or removed to scale up or down the radar to size. The Spy-7 is an AESA radar designed as a scalable radar, with each sensor array assembled from RMA or Radar Modular Assemblies, self contained radar modules. The transmit-recieve modules use Gallium Nitride semiconductor technology allowing for a higher power density than the previous Gallium arsenide radar modules. It requires twice the power over the Spy-1D but proves 35 times the radar power or 30 times the erformamce. Both are capable of BMD!! On paper they look damn similar so tbh I’m nfs the difference.
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"!
@@Jon.A.Scholtdon’t temp the military, they will spend billions finding out how to optimize the lid for dual sex comfort and compatibility!! It would take someone in Congress to explain to them a toilet is already co-Ed but then the military will retort it’s not modular or optimized for both sexes tho!! Wonder if male/female blouse and pants are the same cut/pattern? 🤔 shit we better not tempt them, there’s another billion just for them to cancel the program at 80% complete. Or they’ll donate the billion to Israel, have their contractors build it but us have no rights to it and have to pay for licensing agreements to use it with zero access to a source code!! Just like Obama did with the Iron Dome. That’s like giving the weed man money to reup and not working out the deal before hand, just telling him to give me what he thinks it’s worth. Of coarse it’s worth more when he can’t afford it but once he has it in hand and makes it home with it he’s gonna try to sell it to me $400 an ounce now like he does everyone walking thru the door. Like bruh, you wouldn’t even have that for two weeks if it wasn’t for me. Obama waited till after the second of three large donations to ask for rights for it. Lol. Also just the other day we donated 1 billion to them with the very next story one of their defense contractors getting a $500 million dollar contract for some shit, it happens so often I don’t even pay attention anymore.
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
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.
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
@@deansmits006the Russian warships have deck mounted ASMs which are much bigger and more flammable, so this comparison does have its limitations though.
I love how the LCS finally has a bastardised modular mission module system, which is literally putting boxes of missiles on the flight deck and rigging wiring onto it.
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.
The problem with Moskva was its radar and communications didn’t work at the same time. Also I believe out of all those missles only one set of them was functional. We got ahold of the maintenance report and all these issues were listed plain as day and yet it was still signed off on and put back out to sea!! The pride and flagship of the Black Sea my ass!! 🤣😂
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.
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.
Agree, wonder what is the length of quad packed Patriot MSE. Can it fit in the shorter tactical Mk 41 as i know it will be quad packed in the strike length version.
My investigation now tells me the Patriot MSE cannot be Quad packed so i'm not sure, as it might be dual packed? Patriot MSE is 11inch diameter whilst the Mk41 is 21inch dia. A lengthened ESSM-ER would be a certain advantage.
@@Leon1Austmaybe it could be dual packed if it had folding fins, that’s what they looked at with the PAC-3 but Lockheed wants commanality between army and navy so any missle rolling off the line can go to either branch. Imo they don’t want to build a new line or modify existing one to put a new fin section on it. It’s about what’s convenient for them not the customer. That missle is not cheap like everyone says so without dual pack I see no purpose. If they want commonality then build all with folding fin and sale those to the army as I see no reason they wouldn’t work in the Patriot but army wouldn’t want that because like with most things defense they will charge an arm and a leg for the foldable fins instead of just cost. Not like Navy wouldn’t pay for development and they wouldn’t already be making a fortune off the missle itself, they’d have to charge double what it cost them to add it and army won’t go for that. They will miss out because they want the customer to bend to their needs/wants and not the other way around.
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.
Quad packed? They can’t even double pack them due to the producer not wanting to produce a Navy specie variant with folding fins which is all it would need!! They said it would take to long to develop then go into production and then produce a large number of them when if they didn’t change anything you would have uniformity between the two branches and any produced for the army could go to the Navy if need be. I call bs and that their lazy and don’t want to invest in another line or modify the line they use to produce both variants. If I was Navy the double packing of the Pac-3 would be a make or break deal because it’s just as expensive if not more than some of the Standard Missle Variants!! They aren’t going to produce missles for the army then give them to the navy I’d say because their fulfilling contracts and if not then they just need to make extra of both. Or if they want uniformity then make the folding fin variant and sale it to the army because I doubt there’s a reason the Patriot couldn’t use it or if not wouldn’t be hard to modify it to where it could. Would cost them a little more to produce but if they want uniformity to produce extra missles then sale them to either branch then that’s up to them, if not then they are just fulfilling contracts and that goes back to them not wanting to set up a new line or modify the existing line (which would prolly be easier) to produce both variants!! I wouldn’t want the Pac-3 if it can only be single packed in a VLS and there’s room to double pack them with folding fins so only bs excuses why the producer doesn’t want to.
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.
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.
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.
Pac-3 is many things but affordable is NOT one of them. I believe they cost as much as some of the standard missles. Maybe not the SM6 or some of the new variants of the sm2 or 3 but it’s not far off!! Definitely not cheap. The good thing is with foldable fins u can dual pack them but Lockheed (I think that’s who makes them) doesn’t want to do that, they was commonality with the Army’s missle so they don’t have to invest in a new line, modify the exist one to build either, and so they can sell army production to navy if needed and Vice versa!! The 2 per cell is only reason I’d want them, less than essm but much better performance but if they are to lazy to produce them or change anything I wouldn’t go for it. If they want commanality then make only folding fins and sell those to army also. They couldn’t cost to much more and I see no reason why the Patriot couldn’t function with that one small change. They just don’t want to invest in the infrastructure or hire the extra ppl and they want to be able to build extra missles and sell them to either branch. Not like most of the time they aren’t fulfilling actve contracts so I don’t see them redesignating from one branch to the other as both would have an urgency for them I’d think. Army moreso as it uses it in the patriot. They could do specific runs tho and just change the fins, like do 3k for Army and 1k for Navy and then make more as u sell those. In time of war everyone’s gonna need everything so commanality is bs excuse I think. Eithe modify existing line with a different fin piece or build a smaller production line for those. They are thinking about what’s best and easiest for them not the customer. Yes commonality is good but not if it cancels out the biggest upside to it which is double stacking in one cell.
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.
@@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
The easiest and probably cheapest way to increase a fleets fire power is to acquire STUFT ( ships taken up from trade ). A small container ship would be ideal. Put the missiles inside containers that are the same size as shipping containers. Bolt them to the deck, connect to a power source. Connect missiles to warships via Data Link. Place STUFT in the centre of CSG, and you've got yourself an off the shelf, cheap, disposable Arsenal ship. The fleet draws upon this ships missiles first in the event of an attack, and once all missiles are expended, it can return to port for a reload. 1 Fleet can double its firepower without spending money on additional expensive warships. 2 Missile manufacturers get to sell more weapons. 3 Navy and taxpayers get more bangs for their bucks. Everyone wins... except the enemy . Tankers are double hulled, so if these were used instead of container ships and the interior compartmentalised they'd be virtually impossible to sink.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
I love how they talk. We can bring expanded modularized versatile underway replenishable VLS systems to multiple fleet players, expanding lethality, versatility, and multi-domain firepower to any asset down to fleet tugboats!
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
@@christopherchartier3017the Spy-6 and Spy-7 are contemporaries, just from different makers!! Spy-6 is from the maker of Spy-1 I believe (Raytheon) and a contemporary of that radar system while the Spy-7 is from a different producer(Lockheed Martin) and what was chosen to update the ballistic missile defense radar or Long Range Descriminatory Radar!! I know a few new naval designs from a couple countries chose the Spy-7 I just can’t remember who it was, maybe Canada, Spain, and maybe Japan. I know Japan purchased 2 radars for Aegis ashore which they cancelled and will use on two anti air destroyer now instead so I figure those will be Spy-7 because that’s what we chose for Hawaii and the LRDR but nfs. Lockheed says it’s Spy-7 is the backbone of Aegis and most advanced radar but if that’s the case Nfs why our Navy chose Spy-6. Lockheed does make Aegis management system so I guess they would know how to optimize it even if it was equipped with a different radar for years. Also says adopted on 24 platforms so far across four countries. I know both radars are compatible with Aegis so Nfs about either being the backbone. I think most others have chosen Spy-6 because that’s what the US Navy chose. Most countries seem to be just placing them on their anti air frigates or destroyers meaning just a few ships except for Canada which is building 15 multi purpose frigates instead and will prolly outfit all them with one.
Memo: on lockheeds website it says 3/4 countries are Spain with their F110 multi purpose ASW focused frigate which 5 are on order with an option for 2 more. It will be v2 as it’s first country outside of US to purchase it and will use SCOMBA CMS which is supposedly Navantiaw own version of Aegis CMS (Nfs if they are calling it aegis because of the radar like a lot of countries are doing like Taiwan or if it’s based of Lockheeds Aegis CMS and they have to pay a royalty to Lockheed for it, I’d lean towards later because Spain is entered as one of the countries that uses Aegis and that Canada will be so the CMS-330 developed by Lockheed Canada must be another form of Aegis as well), Canada was second customer for its 15 River class destroyers(really a frigate) which will be v3 and oddly enough use Lockheed Martin Canadas Combat Management System or CMS-330, and Japan which will be v4 for its future air defense destroyers which I believe is only 2 so Nfs who the fourth country is or where the other 20 platforms they claim come from but that’s it so far. Spy-7v1 was developed for the (LRDR) Long Range Descriminatory Radar so maybe it’s counting our ballistic missle stations and US as fourth country but I dunno, didn’t think we had that many radar stations. Believe we closed a lot down as radars have improved. Anyways spy-7 is a gallium nitride based (doesn’t say what that means or where) solid state AESA radar where the solid state blocks can be added or removed to scale up or down the radar to size. The Spy-7 is an AESA radar designed as a scalable radar, with each sensor array assembled from RMA or Radar Modular Assemblies, self contained radar modules. The transmit-recieve modules use Gallium Nitride semiconductor technology allowing for a higher power density than the previous Gallium arsenide radar modules. It requires twice the power over the Spy-1D but proves 35 times the radar power or 30 times the erformamce. Both are capable of BMD!! On paper they look damn similar so tbh I’m nfs the difference.
As a retired Aegis FC, this episode is EPIC.
Major salute to you for making it to retirement as an FCA...one of the most over-worked rates in the fleet. Thanks for your service.
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"!
@@Jon.A.Scholtdon’t temp the military, they will spend billions finding out how to optimize the lid for dual sex comfort and compatibility!! It would take someone in Congress to explain to them a toilet is already co-Ed but then the military will retort it’s not modular or optimized for both sexes tho!! Wonder if male/female blouse and pants are the same cut/pattern? 🤔 shit we better not tempt them, there’s another billion just for them to cancel the program at 80% complete. Or they’ll donate the billion to Israel, have their contractors build it but us have no rights to it and have to pay for licensing agreements to use it with zero access to a source code!! Just like Obama did with the Iron Dome. That’s like giving the weed man money to reup and not working out the deal before hand, just telling him to give me what he thinks it’s worth. Of coarse it’s worth more when he can’t afford it but once he has it in hand and makes it home with it he’s gonna try to sell it to me $400 an ounce now like he does everyone walking thru the door. Like bruh, you wouldn’t even have that for two weeks if it wasn’t for me. Obama waited till after the second of three large donations to ask for rights for it. Lol. Also just the other day we donated 1 billion to them with the very next story one of their defense contractors getting a $500 million dollar contract for some shit, it happens so often I don’t even pay attention anymore.
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
*box canted at an incline 👆🤓
I really like the installation of these launchers on a LUSV.
Work well with the FFG-62 as well.
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
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
@@deansmits006the Russian warships have deck mounted ASMs which are much bigger and more flammable, so this comparison does have its limitations though.
I love how the LCS finally has a bastardised modular mission module system, which is literally putting boxes of missiles on the flight deck and rigging wiring onto it.
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.
The problem with Moskva was its radar and communications didn’t work at the same time. Also I believe out of all those missles only one set of them was functional. We got ahold of the maintenance report and all these issues were listed plain as day and yet it was still signed off on and put back out to sea!! The pride and flagship of the Black Sea my ass!! 🤣😂
@@Legion-xq8eo Russia's military seems to have a lot of maintenance problems. But that's not my main point.
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.
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.
Agree, wonder what is the length of quad packed Patriot MSE.
Can it fit in the shorter tactical Mk 41 as i know it will be quad packed in the strike length version.
My investigation now tells me the Patriot MSE cannot be Quad packed so i'm not sure, as it might be dual packed?
Patriot MSE is 11inch diameter whilst the Mk41 is 21inch dia.
A lengthened ESSM-ER would be a certain advantage.
@@Leon1Austmaybe it could be dual packed if it had folding fins, that’s what they looked at with the PAC-3 but Lockheed wants commanality between army and navy so any missle rolling off the line can go to either branch. Imo they don’t want to build a new line or modify existing one to put a new fin section on it. It’s about what’s convenient for them not the customer. That missle is not cheap like everyone says so without dual pack I see no purpose. If they want commonality then build all with folding fin and sale those to the army as I see no reason they wouldn’t work in the Patriot but army wouldn’t want that because like with most things defense they will charge an arm and a leg for the foldable fins instead of just cost. Not like Navy wouldn’t pay for development and they wouldn’t already be making a fortune off the missle itself, they’d have to charge double what it cost them to add it and army won’t go for that. They will miss out because they want the customer to bend to their needs/wants and not the other way around.
We need these on the HMCS Arctic Patrol ships. They are tragically underarmed.
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.
Quad packed? They can’t even double pack them due to the producer not wanting to produce a Navy specie variant with folding fins which is all it would need!! They said it would take to long to develop then go into production and then produce a large number of them when if they didn’t change anything you would have uniformity between the two branches and any produced for the army could go to the Navy if need be. I call bs and that their lazy and don’t want to invest in another line or modify the line they use to produce both variants. If I was Navy the double packing of the Pac-3 would be a make or break deal because it’s just as expensive if not more than some of the Standard Missle Variants!! They aren’t going to produce missles for the army then give them to the navy I’d say because their fulfilling contracts and if not then they just need to make extra of both. Or if they want uniformity then make the folding fin variant and sale it to the army because I doubt there’s a reason the Patriot couldn’t use it or if not wouldn’t be hard to modify it to where it could. Would cost them a little more to produce but if they want uniformity to produce extra missles then sale them to either branch then that’s up to them, if not then they are just fulfilling contracts and that goes back to them not wanting to set up a new line or modify the existing line (which would prolly be easier) to produce both variants!! I wouldn’t want the Pac-3 if it can only be single packed in a VLS and there’s room to double pack them with folding fins so only bs excuses why the producer doesn’t want to.
Nice. Very nice. Hopefully the Navy will install these launchers on our ship really soon.
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.
You're Awesome 💯
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.
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.
Pac-3 is many things but affordable is NOT one of them. I believe they cost as much as some of the standard missles. Maybe not the SM6 or some of the new variants of the sm2 or 3 but it’s not far off!! Definitely not cheap. The good thing is with foldable fins u can dual pack them but Lockheed (I think that’s who makes them) doesn’t want to do that, they was commonality with the Army’s missle so they don’t have to invest in a new line, modify the exist one to build either, and so they can sell army production to navy if needed and Vice versa!! The 2 per cell is only reason I’d want them, less than essm but much better performance but if they are to lazy to produce them or change anything I wouldn’t go for it. If they want commanality then make only folding fins and sell those to army also. They couldn’t cost to much more and I see no reason why the Patriot couldn’t function with that one small change. They just don’t want to invest in the infrastructure or hire the extra ppl and they want to be able to build extra missles and sell them to either branch. Not like most of the time they aren’t fulfilling actve contracts so I don’t see them redesignating from one branch to the other as both would have an urgency for them I’d think. Army moreso as it uses it in the patriot. They could do specific runs tho and just change the fins, like do 3k for Army and 1k for Navy and then make more as u sell those. In time of war everyone’s gonna need everything so commanality is bs excuse I think. Eithe modify existing line with a different fin piece or build a smaller production line for those. They are thinking about what’s best and easiest for them not the customer. Yes commonality is good but not if it cancels out the biggest upside to it which is double stacking in one cell.
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…
I see the revolving door system is still in full flight!!!
What do you want the man to do? Just retire and starve?
The easiest and probably cheapest way to increase a fleets fire power is to acquire STUFT ( ships taken up from trade ). A small container ship would be ideal. Put the missiles inside containers that are the same size as shipping containers. Bolt them to the deck, connect to a power source. Connect missiles to warships via Data Link. Place STUFT in the centre of CSG, and you've got yourself an off the shelf, cheap, disposable Arsenal ship. The fleet draws upon this ships missiles first in the event of an attack, and once all missiles are expended, it can return to port for a reload.
1 Fleet can double its firepower without spending money on additional expensive warships.
2 Missile manufacturers get to sell more weapons.
3 Navy and taxpayers get more bangs for their bucks.
Everyone wins... except the enemy .
Tankers are double hulled, so if these were used instead of container ships and the interior compartmentalised they'd be virtually impossible to sink.
Well done
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.
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.
Will lockheed martin mount/install the Pac-3 container next to HIMARS on San Antonio helo 's deck?
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.
Does the LCS have the air search and FCR radar to utilize the full range Patriot Pac 3 ? or does it need to be networked.
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
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
Wouldnt this make the vessel top heavy?
Interesting
Alright, time for SNA!
Very interesting…..
Lots of topside space and weight for just 8 cells. Better than nothing I guess if it frees up 8 VLS cells for TLAM/SM weapons.
I now see why we have forever Wars
Who let Lockheed into a Naval conference? After what they did with the LCS they should be forever banned from anything Naval related!
So will these new solutions actually make an LCS ship useable in, say, the Red Sea to shoot down drones and missiles?
Expeditionary sea base ship ready for MK 70 missiles launcher mod 1.
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?
Basic protection from the elements. Saltwater spray and air is hell on metals
i wonder if that can be added to Modern Warships game
14:22 don't give me ideas😂😂
my intrusive thoughts
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
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
I'm wary of retired servicemen who keep wearing their rank.
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.
🇺🇸🇬🇧👍
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.