The SteelNavy.Com Message Board: Additional information

Upon some additional looking, it looks like the VIRGINIA Payload Tube is a tube into which you can place a Multiple All-Up Round (among other things) inside the tube. Also, it appears as tough the 6 missile limit for this tube would be going away when installed in the payload module; the 7th, centerline missile would be available.

While I still haven't found comprehensive dimensions, I did find each VPT is 82" in diameter. Not sure if that is internal, external, etc, and I still don't know the MAC dimensions, but if my understanding above is correct I am putting more pieces together.

Previous Message

Ralph, I wondered if a wholly new VLS would be used.

The only question I had was around how efficiently new VLS would be carrying legacy missiles. For example, ESSM quad-packs fit neatly into current Mk 41 canisters, and current missiles like RIM-161 and RIM-174 are evolving into 21" weapons to maximize their performance while still fitting into a 21" cell. I wonder if you'd end up with less capacity because a 35-ish inch canister might hold fewer legacy missiles in the same volume than a current Mk 41 or Mk 57 does.

I have scale 3d models that I either downloaded or created of current USN missiles, so I can play with creating cannisters for them and see how they can be arranged in a VIRGINA Payload Tube, using the Block III MACs as a general guide. I can the compare how much volume is used vs Mk 41 and Mk 57 and see if their is any loss in capacity. I'll also be curious how deep the VPT/VPM is, and how much deeper that might require the hull to be.

Lots to think about and play around with, which is the whole purpose of this endeavor for me. Thanks for providing more things to consider.

Previous Message

First of the Block III Virginia SSNs. Has an illustration of the new bow VLS tube system, of which the VPM will be a further development:

http://navsource.org/archives/08/08784.htm

My personal view is that this is also the likely future of surface VLS for the new "DDG Next," though I could be wrong. With this kind of system, all old weapons can still be fired, as well as newer ones. No need, then for two types of launchers.

Again, FWIW

Previous Message

If you aren't already aware of this, the new hypersonics are currently planned to deploy first from Virginia class SSNs, specifically from the ones carrying the new Virginia Payload Module (VPM.) This is an "insert"/stretch of four VLS tubes, slightly enlarged versions of the kind currently found in the bows of the Block III version, into the center section of the sub, creating the Block V version.

So, my suggestion, if you are trying to find some "particulars" on what a new hypersonics launcher might look like, is to read up on the details of the Virginia SSN Block III bow VLS, as well as the VPM. From what I have seen, it is essentially a very large diameter tube into which smaller diameter "insert" tubes can then be placed. System can currently hold seven Tomahawks in one tube. The chances are good that--if the VPM does end up firing hypersonics--the Navy will not go to great lengths to design an all new system to fire them from surface ships. It will either modify, or just incorporate as-is, the VPM.

An article to get you started:

https://news.usni.org/2020/02/18/navy-confirms-global-strike-hypersonic-weapon-will-first-deploy-on-virginia-attack-subs

FWIW

Previous Message

Hi James,

You said in your post:

I have toyed with the idea of a 3D printed jumboization (as the Navy used to call hull stretches) of a CGXN model. Maybe doing a full depth hull aft to the transom and a missile farm amidships, some standard VLS cells plus some larger cells along the sides of the deckhouses for the bigger, newer hypersonic we are developing.

This is very close to the model I am toying with. It looks like the USN is looking for its next surface combatant to larger than a BURKE and smaller than ZUMWALT (so about 12,000 tons), with more and bigger VLS. My design sketches are based around a Mk57 25" VLS canister in a Mk 41 layout to satisfy the "bigger" part of of more and bigger VLS, with a 12,000 ton design allowing for 128 cells instead of the 96 on a BURKE, which satisfies the "more" part. And, like your thoughts, larger VLS cells for a C-HGB would be somewhere around the deckhouse. The current design for that weapon has a 34" diameter, so they'd need a different launcher.

It is nice to see someone else out there has some of the same thoughts I do. And if you ever do a 3d model, I'd love to see it.

All the best,
Chris

Previous Message

I seem to remember reading that there was the potential for a stretch back when the class was being first built as the length to beam was suboptimal hydrodynamically. (7.6:1, not 9-10:1), which the JMSDF & ROKN have done (up to 544', but still leaving room to grow). Being that the design has a long center section with the same frame layout design, joining two hulls could be doable.

627' would be a significant stretch (118', not the 4' done so far by USN) and would be the logical starting point for the CGX/FSC/whatever-they-call-it-next program. (This follows the Zumwalt, the Nuclear Aegis, the Typhoon, and any number of other cancelled programs.)

I have toyed with the idea of a 3D printed jumboization (as the Navy used to call hull stretches) of a CGXN model. Maybe doing a full depth hull aft to the transom and a missile farm amidships, some standard VLS cells plus some larger cells along the sides of the deckhouses for the bigger, newer hypersonic we are developing.

Previous Message

I'm looking to scratch build a guided missile destroyer which is based upon a BURKE-class or BURKE-class derivative hull. Because model will be based upon a 600'/183m hull, I need some drawings I can modify rather than a physical hull.

Does anyone know where I can get some drawings of a BURKE-class DDG or a BURKE-class derivative (KONGO, ATAGO, MAYA, SEJONG THE GREAT)?

Thanks!