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

[Ex-Dragoon]

http://defensetech.org/2010/06/10/vls-underway-replenishment-when-will-the-navy-get-serious/

VLS Underway Replenishment: When will the Navy get serious?

by Craig Hooper
Defense Tech Naval Warfare Analyst
In a high-threat environment, the Navy’s AEGIS vessels have a problem. They cannot be re-armed. AEGIS cruisers have 122 vertical launch system (VLS) cells, while the destroyers have 96. Each magazine is “multi-use,” composed of specialized land attack and self-defense weapons, so a desired missile may not be available in sufficient numbers. Complicating matters, AEGIS vessels sometimes sail with a partially-filled magazines, and missile reliability rates aren’t often anywhere near 100%.
CSBA expert Jan Van Tol, in his recent AirSea Battle monograph (.pdf), is the latest to highlight this vulnerability, and pointedly suggests that, given the way high-end warfare is likely to be waged, “the Navy should continue its efforts to develop and field the capability to rearm surface ship VLS cells at sea.”
But…what efforts? VLS underway replenishment (UNREP) has been a long-standing—and long-ignored– vulnerability. Take this editorial snippet from a Fall 1988 issue of the long-unheralded UNREP Journal:
“In wartime the enemy decides when and where we expend defensive ammo, so an ammo UNREP may be needed any time, even when the seas are rough or the decks are icy. While we may be able to rearm our aircraft carriers under these conditions, our ability to handle missiles in dollies or in VLS canisters on cruisers, destroyers, and frigates is extremely poor.
The magnitude of the missile handling problem has been minimized over the past 25 years because of a lack of a missile war and the infrequent missile UNREPs to cruisers, destroyers and frigates. We do transfer stores in peacetime that have to be deck handled, but our peacetime UNREP policy is “safety first”, so we can wait for seas to abate and the ice to melt. As a result, a serious ammo UNREP problem has not had much visibility.
The U.S. Navy had an answer in the 1960’s to transferring and striking down missiles in heavy weather or even with icy decks. It was called FAST for Fast Automatic Shuttle Transfer. FAST demonstrated a transfer/strikedown rate of 24 TARTAR missiles per hour at night in sea state six conditions (compared to four VLS missiles per hour now in daytime and calm seas). While we can still transfer missiles between ships at a high rate, deck handling, and strikedown are the limiting factors. Deck handling was solved by FAST because missiles were automatically moved from the UNREP station to the magazine strikedown without sailors having to push-pull dollies or hand trucks. However, the complexities of the automated FAST handling equipment created an unacceptable maintenance burden on both the UNREP and combatant ships because FAST required the services of shipboard technicians that were either not available or were needed to maintain the ship’s missile launchers. As a result, FAST wouldn’t work when needed nor perform as planned. FAST had to be simplified in the 1970’s to our current STREAM system.
What should be done today about rearming missiles? The right missile handling system must be superior to what we have today, but not nearly so complicated as FAST. The right system must be highly reliable so as to withstand long periods of disuse and still work when needed. The right system must be simple in design so that no extensive specialized training is required for the crew. The right system must be able to safely handle missiles in heavy weather and on icy decks.…
…There are some who say that UNREP of missiles is too hard and, therefore, the requirement should be eliminated; however, the recent missile firing experience by U.S. ships in the Persian Gulf should alert us to the future.…When the going gets tough a great amount of ammo will be expended in a short time. The next urgent requirement is to quickly reload those empty magazines and be ready for whatever follows. Underway replenishment is the only answer for the fleet commander and we need to do it better.”
This passage was written almost a year BEFORE the USS Arleigh Burke (DDG 51) was even launched. So, it’s safe to say that AEGIS vessels have not been designed with missile UNREP in mind—and, yet, they’ve done just fine.
But today, given the anticipated growth in demand for VLS cells, is it time to start considering the need for rapid VLS UNREP? Is there a way to design VLS cells (and VLS-dependent ships) to facilitate fast underway replenishment of depleted missile batteries?
With the restart of the DDG-51 program, this is something the Navy community must discuss. Now that America has gone a couple generations without incorporating ease of missile UNREP in warship design, has the Navy simply overlooked the possibility of designing missile ships so they can quickly be replenished?


Read more: http://defensetech.org/2010/06/10/vls-underway-replenishment-when-will-the-navy-get-serious/#ixzz0qeWl9gmO
Defense.org

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

 

[KrazyHamburglar]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I gallantly concede the point.

 

[FSTO]

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]

FSTO, see my reply to KH above. Idem.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Kirkhill]

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.

Acceptability on the part of senior military leaders is one of the major roadblocks, officials said at the National Defense Industrial Association ground robotics conference in Miami.

“How do we make these systems real systems?” asked Grace Bochenek, director of the Army Tank and Automotive, Research and Development Center. “It’s one of the stumbling blocks we are having as a community.”

More than two and a half years ago, TARDEC showcased its convoy active safety technology, or CAST, which allows soldiers in convoys to travel in trucks hands-free. Roadside bombs targeting supply vehicles have taken scores of American lives. What if drivers could be freed up to watch the road sides for potential ambushes? Or if only one driver was present in a convoy of a half dozen trucks?

“We need to be able to get our drivers off the roads with autonomous capabilities,” said Brig. Gen. Lee Miller, director of the capabilities development directorate at the Marine Corps combat development command.

Bochenek said the CAST technology is now mature enough to be fielded. As is the case with every new system, however, it’s a matter of having official requirements documents in place as well as the funding.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

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

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