# VLS Underway Replenishment: When will the Navy get serious? from defensetech.org



## Ex-Dragoon (12 Jun 2010)

> http://defensetech.org/2010/06/10/vls-underway-replenishment-when-will-the-navy-get-serious/
> 
> VLS Underway Replenishment: When will the Navy get serious?
> 
> ...



An interesting article that shows a long ignored vulnerability for most Western Navies.


----------



## KrazyHamburglar (14 Jun 2010)

The IRO class has only 29 of those cells and chances are that the IRO class will be going the way of the dodo before an efficient reflenishment method
 can be created, and again, we would need a decent replenishment vessel to do it. I dout JSS was designed to do that kind of jobs, if we
ever get them...


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (16 Jun 2010)

This looks more like the Civilian-military-industrial complex looking for the next research project.

If I recall, the old Virginia class in the US carried 26 SAM's internally. The more recent replacements, Ticonderoga carry 88 and the Arleigh Burke carry 74, that use the Vertical cells can carry a much greater number. In a defence in depth concept, the issue is will they use them all? The tico's were developed to assist in the defence of carriers during the cold war. Without replacement missiles, but as the third line of defence, after land based interceptors at Reykjavik and the carriers own aircrafts, a pair of them was considered sufficient to intercept and dispose of leakers from multiple "badger regimental attacks" before needing re-supply. 

It is important to remember that these missiles are to shoot aircrafts - not other missiles. At an average of three missiles per aircraft, a task group of one Tico and two Arleigh Burke could shoot down approx. 80 aircrafts before running out. How many countries have that many aircrafts to throw at the americans? And that would be without aircraft carrier support.

So what are the chances of theses ships running out of missiles? Not very likely in my opinion. Someone is looking for a research grant.

As for us, unless I am mistaken, the replacement plans for the IRO calls for a SCSC that carries at least one 61 cells VLS system, so we too are doubling the capacity of our Area A.D.D.s.

In all my readings and time in the navy, I have only heard/read of a single case of warships running out of ammunition that could not be resupplied at sea: During the Falklands war, the British fleet started running out of - of all things - anti-submarine ammunition. Even with the intense air war, they did not run out of AA ammo. But they were so  afraid of Argentina's three submarines that any possub or even underwater anomaly was "classified by detonation".


----------



## FSTO (16 Jun 2010)

UNREP of a VLS? Are they nuts? I cannot imagine the monstrosity of a rig that would be able to handle pitch and roll while inserting a a 3 deck tube into a shute. Cannot be done.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (16 Jun 2010)

My grandmother, may she rest in peace, was five years old when the Wright brothers first flew. She passed away the year after humans landed on the moon.

Never say that something technological can't be done.


----------



## KrazyHamburglar (16 Jun 2010)

Of course it can be done, but the trouble exceeds the benefits with the current technology... more or less like the moon landing when you think about it...
 its hard enough as it is when the ship is tied alongside at CFAD


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (16 Jun 2010)

I gallantly concede the point.


----------



## FSTO (16 Jun 2010)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> My grandmother, may she rest in peace, was five years old when the Wright brothers first flew. She passed away the year after humans landed on the moon.
> 
> Never say that something technological can't be done.



Of course it can be done. I just cannot invision it being done quickly without the AOR and Destroyer being in a vunrable position for hours on end.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (16 Jun 2010)

FSTO, see my reply to KH above. Idem.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (16 Jun 2010)

[quotet is important to remember that these missiles are to shoot aircrafts - not other missiles. At an average of three missiles per aircraft, a task group of one Tico and two Arleigh Burke could shoot down approx. 80 aircrafts before running out. How many countries have that many aircrafts to throw at the americans? And that would be without aircraft carrier support.[/quote]

While it would be nice to shoot down the aircraft carrying the missiles before they launch we know this is not always the case, so we train to engage the missiles as well.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (17 Jun 2010)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> While it would be nice to shoot down the aircraft carrying the missiles before they launch we know this is not always the case, so we train to engage the missiles as well.



Of course, And I would train to engage them with slingshots if I thought it might work  . But you know as well as I do that the onboard missiles we are talking about here are SM's either II or even III anti-balistics and they are not as efficient as, say ESSM, RAMs or Aster 15's would be against incoming missiles.

In any event, it does not change the basic point: the ship's type carrying these missiles they want to resupply at sea are either destroyers or cruisers. In any war or heightened tension situation where they could be "swamped" by a large attack force, I just can't think of any nation, and definitely not the US, that would sail them solo. They would deploy as a TF or TG made of many of them. We then get back to the original point: considering the size of  the worst expected threat we can contrive from other military powers - even in the predictable future, what are the chances that a ship would run out of missiles?

IMO the risks are extremely low, if not nil, and so I just can't see not being able to carry out an UNREP of VLS as a great area of vulnerability. Sorry.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (17 Jun 2010)

Small supplementary on my last for you Ex-D:

Your original post calls it a "vulnerability for most western navies". Considering not a single navy does this, which navy do you think its not a vulnerability for?

Just curious who you had in mind.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (17 Jun 2010)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Small supplementary on my last for you Ex-D:
> 
> Your original post calls it a "vulnerability for most western navies". Considering not a single navy does this, which navy do you think its not a vulnerability for?
> 
> Just curious who you had in mind.



Well some nations don't even have VLS so its not really an issue for them.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (17 Jun 2010)

> IMO the risks are extremely low, if not nil, and so I just can't see not being able to carry out an UNREP of VLS as a great area of vulnerability. Sorry.



Sorry OGBD will have to disagree with you. Considering we tend to volley fire (just to make sure) and _if_ we were ever to go against the PLAAF or even North Korea I think our tubes and those of our allies would be emptied sooner then you think. 16 point defence missiles on our Hal class and our 29 SM2s on our Iro class does not equal a lot of engagements.


----------



## FSTO (17 Jun 2010)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Sorry OGBD will have to disagree with you. Considering we tend to volley fire (just to make sure) and _if_ we were ever to go against the PLAAF or even North Korea I think our tubes and those of our allies would be emptied sooner then you think. 16 point defence missiles on our Hal class and our 29 SM2s on our Iro class does not equal a lot of engagements.


I have no doubt that we would empty our mags pretty quickly in a high intensity engagement but I cannot see a rig that would be able to insert a missile into its cell while two ships are underway.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (17 Jun 2010)

I would have thought not having VLS makes you more, not less vulnerable.

As for NK or China, I did not know they were poised to attack us. Come on, obviously this would not occur with just Canadian Frigs and destroyers. It would involve in the minimum our friends to the south with whom we would be sailing in company and they would not go near these guys without at least two, but more likely four aircraft carriers providing AAW far from the TF. 

We have to be realistic in our scenarios. Otherwise, on a single ship basis, even a carrier is at very high risk from a single diesel boat, a risk that would then rate as greater than not being able to UNREP your VLS.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (17 Jun 2010)

FSTO said:
			
		

> I have no doubt that we would empty our mags pretty quickly in a high intensity engagement but I cannot see a rig that would be able to insert a missile into its cell while two ships are underway.



Sadly nor can I.


----------



## KrazyHamburglar (17 Jun 2010)

More or less like cleaning your ears with a Q-tip in a roller coaster ;D


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Jun 2010)

You have the technology -  Semi-submersible VLS pods fitted to maintain station on a mobile force, or just to hold position.


Arsenal Ship
NLOS Missile
USVs

And from National Defence Magazine



> The life-saving qualities of ground robots have been touted since explosive ordnance disposal teams began widely using them at the outset of the Iraq invasion in 2003. But since then, other applications for the potentially life-saving technology have not reached Iraq or Afghanistan.
> 
> Their predicted influx into the battlefield has stalled. That’s not to say that research into myriad applications hasn’t continued. But so far, the experiments have not made the transition to the current fights.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (17 Jun 2010)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> You have the technology -  Semi-submersible VLS pods fitted to maintain station on a mobile force, or just to hold position.
> 
> 
> Arsenal Ship
> ...



I am obviously missing the replenishment portion for VLS here....


----------



## KrazyHamburglar (17 Jun 2010)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> I am obviously missing the replenishment portion for VLS here....



That makes two of us...
The Arsenal ship is kind of cool though


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (17 Jun 2010)

KrazyHamburglar said:
			
		

> That makes two of us...
> The Arsenal ship is kind of cool though



Agreed...imagine one of those going to CFAD to ammo though? It would take over a week!


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Jun 2010)

Sorry .... should have been more explicit.  Comes from trying to post at lunch time.

This is an alternative to UNREPs.  Take VLS Mk41 with multiple cells.  Surround with cigar shaped tank with stabilizers and engine.  Pump spaces full of Diesel #2.  Attach robot to play follow-the-leader with nearest available FFH.  Use FFH to supply radar and C4I and launch signals.  Keep on-board VLS for close defense of FFH.

Two delivery systems for the Robolaunchers

 - a mini version launchable from a RoRo sized mothership (possible stability issues due to small size of platform 
OR
- the larger long range self-propelled unit similar in size to those shown as arsenal ships.

These are basically motorized barges designed with the same type of PLC based system that allows Robo LAVs to follow each other.  I believe that the algorithm for sea duty would be simpler than for off road convoys  - especially if they stick to blue water deployments.


----------



## aesop081 (17 Jun 2010)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Otherwise, on a single ship basis, even a carrier is at very high risk from a single diesel boat, a risk that would then rate as greater than not being able to UNREP your VLS.



Even within a full CBG, a CVN is at high risk from a single diesel boat.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (18 Jun 2010)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Even within a full CBG, a CVN is at high risk from a single diesel boat.



Well, they are big juicy targets . But I think you get the point: We mitigate the risk because it would not occur to anyone to let a carrier go in action without its Battle Group. I only suggested the same for the provision of realistic scenarios: A group made up of only a few Canadian IRO and FFH's would not take on the PLAAF on their own.



			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> This is an alternative to UNREPs.



An interesting concept that you propose, for sure. But its not really an alternative to UNREP, which in theory could keep ships at sea and fighting forever (lest they need refit). Your just proposing the next level of "lets build a bigger ship and put more missiles on her". You carry more ammunition, but you can still run out - and then what?

Don't get me wrong: I love the idea of taking a few hundred more missiles with me for the ride. I wonder if it an be done technically as easily as you suggest from the LAV example. I can see the self propelled barge you propose bouncing around in sea state 5 and having a hard time keeping up with a frigate doing a speed run (can your slave LAV's keep up with mother when off-roading at full speed?). And who would maintain and keep the engines of the barge running at sea or do any required maintenance on the launching systems?  

Seems to me a better alternative, but for war only, would be to take a small container ship, modify the superstructure so it can be sealed from fumes and stick 20 to 25 "61 cells VLS". Its a cheaper way of doing an arsenal ship so long as the "mother" destroyer/frigate is fully equipped to control those extra bullets. 

But you could still run out in theory. So it gets back again to evaluating the air threat you face, calculating the expected rate of ammo use to face it and defeat it, add a fudge factor and derive the number of "bullets" you need to carryout the mission. Then you assign a sufficiently large number of ships to the mission that carry that load. This is up to the maths wiz in operational research.


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Jun 2010)

OGBD:

Your points are well taken,  especially the one about keeping up on a speed run (well, also the one about the ease with which it might be done - NLOS hasn't exactly been a signal success and the robo-LAVs aren't in service yet).

However I don't fully accept that this is just about building another bigger ship so that it takes longer to run out of shots, although that is true for every fire based system (need to stick a bayonet on the prow, just in case  ;D).  Part of the exercise for the NLOS system was to make it possible to launch the missiles in a box from more points along the supply chain,  ultimately launching them directly from pre-positioned caches, meaning you didn't have to drive a gun crew up to the cache and start loading and shooting.

I believe the navy has at  least part of the puzzle in hand with the CEC (the Co-Operative Engagement Capability), which the Army lacks.

I really like your Budget Arsenal Ship though.  Instead of a RoRo start from a Container platform (there are half a dozen 30 knot units currently mothballed due to lack of trade)


----------

