Royal Navy and Trainable Launchers vs. Vertical Launchers

Reading about the Royal Navy and their reorganisation following World War 2 in the 60s and 70s and the designing of their ships and missiles one of the things that puzzles me is why did they seem so much in favour of trainable launchers instead of vertical launchers? From what I can gather whilst vertical launchers might have some things to work around initially they generally seem to offer more advantages in terms of ease of use and number of missiles carried, all benefits for building an alternate Royal Navy if you can also get vertical launched Exocets and Ikaras. So does any one of out naval aficionados happen to know what put them off so much? Even one of their main missiles, Sea Wolf, was originally tested as vertically launched but they went with trainable launchers instead. Thanks.
 
At a guess money, the RN first fired a VL version of Sea Wolf in 1969 but it was 20 years before it entered service on the Type 23's, I think there was a proposal for a Sea Dart VL but it was never built. I'm not sure if Ikara could have been launched vertically given the bulk of the thing, however the RN pissed away a load of money on developing a launcher that could point it precisely where it needed to be fired while the RAN used a much cheaper system that wasn't designed to such a high spec, the RN's requirement is all the more pointless as Ikara could be controlled in flight so precise aiming wasn't essential!
 
Well they've learned the lesson, the Type 45 destroyer has a VL system, it's only taken 30 years to incorporate the lessons of the Falklands War.
 
Well they've learned the lesson, the Type 45 destroyer has a VL system, it's only taken 30 years to incorporate the lessons of the Falklands War.

Well, not that long. Pre-Falklands, the Fleet Auxiliaries were to be fitted with VLS Sea Wolf to protect the floating asw barges the T23s were originally planned to become. The Type 23s have VLS and they were designed and the first were built during the 1980s.


Not sure why VLS wasn't introduced until the 1980s, but presumably it was until the late 1980s deemed more expensive and/or less safe or reliable than the standard trainable equivalent. Remember, too, that the actual systems took up a lot of space and weight - the early Sea Wolf systems took up and inordinate amount, hence why the Type 22s were so roomy and why the Leander conversions were modified to greatly. It was hardly the same as the bolt-on Sea Cat system it replaced.

Moreover, most ships could only direct 1-2 missiles at most until fairly recently, so no great benefit from VLS (i.e. to counter saturation attacks) except the avoidance of blind spots.
 

abc123

Banned
Could somebody explain to me why Type 22 frigates were so expensive- more expensive than Type 42 destroyers? Because Type 23 was much cheaper...
 
As Fellatio Nelson says prior to the 80's ships didn't have enough computer power to direct more than one or two missiles at a time. VLS takes up much more space and is much more expensive than trainable launchers and the ability to salvo is it's major advantage. There is an argument that the RN should have invested in computers which would in turn have made VLS worthwhile but VLS without 80's quality computing is just a waste of money and space.
 

sharlin

Banned
Most navys didn't do away with arm launchers for a fair long time, the USN has only recently decomissioned its last arm launcher Ticonderoga class cruiser whilst many Russian ships are equipped with arm launchers. Old missiles were big and complex things, the Sea slug missile was 6 meters long and before firing had to have its wings attached in its launcher, you'd not be able to mount that in a VLS launcher, it would just be too big.
 
Aren't most vertical-launch (standard series, sea wolf, aster) missiles solid fuel? By comparison, sea dart is liquid fueled, using ramjet power-perhaps the propellant is corrosive. Therefore, the missiles must be stored unladen and manually fueled before placing on the launch arm.
I'm in no way sure of this, but I thought it seemed a rational enough hypothesis.
 
There is also a big issue in that launchers allow you to keep missiles in a (relatively) safe magazine rather then just under the deck.

Also, the threat (until the 80's) wasnt a salvo of missiles as much one or two. As that changed, it was necessary to be able to fire a guided salvo to stop them.
 
One thing about VLS is that the missiles are treated as a round of ammo, with no need to maintainence. Prior to the mid 80s missiles were regularly checked and maintained during deployments.

What`s more the RN wasn`t dragging the VLS chain, the T42/T22 USN contemararies; the Spruance/Kidd/Ticos/OHPs all had launcher rails for their missiles.
 
Aren't most vertical-launch (standard series, sea wolf, aster) missiles solid fuel? By comparison, sea dart is liquid fueled, using ramjet power-perhaps the propellant is corrosive. Therefore, the missiles must be stored unladen and manually fueled before placing on the launch arm.
I'm in no way sure of this, but I thought it seemed a rational enough hypothesis.
Nope, liquid fuelled missiles stay fuelled for years on end. Manually fuelling missiles before launch would give an suicidally slow ROF against air threats.

There is also a big issue in that launchers allow you to keep missiles in a (relatively) safe magazine rather then just under the deck.

Also, the threat (until the 80's) wasnt a salvo of missiles as much one or two. As that changed, it was necessary to be able to fire a guided salvo to stop them.
Don't forget that a VLS can be cheaper than a moving launcher since there are no moving parts that regularly need maintenance or greasing. (only the lid moves, and just once at that) Also, less moving parts means less chances of mechanical failure.
 
One thing about VLS is that the missiles are treated as a round of ammo, with no need to maintainence. Prior to the mid 80s missiles were regularly checked and maintained during deployments.

What`s more the RN wasn`t dragging the VLS chain, the T42/T22 USN contemararies; the Spruance/Kidd/Ticos/OHPs all had launcher rails for their missiles.

Well, the RN approach was always that it was best treating missiles (short range ones) with the durability of other ordnance; Sea Wolf was meant to be left in its launcher for up to 12 months, and reloaded, and you'd expect it to fire first time.

So there was probably a decent reason for no VLS before the 1980s. Not that I know precisely what that was.
 
Would it have been a steerable booster? The early Sea Wolf, Standard MR and Sea Sparrow didn`t have a seperate booster whereas the VLS versions do. Perhaps the technology needed to make a rapid turn while in boost phase wasn`t mature enough until the mid 80s?
 
Could somebody explain to me why Type 22 frigates were so expensive- more expensive than Type 42 destroyers? Because Type 23 was much cheaper...

Because the Type 22's where much bigger than the Type 23's, in a classic case of design creep the Type 22's started out as an simple follow on's to the Type 12's. By the time Batch 3 was built they were multi-purpose ships with similar capabilities to destroyers and complete with Flag facilities!
 
The T22s were conceived in an era without effective CIWS, so Sea Wolf really was the dogs bollocks of Western anti-missile defence for a while, but needed a large vessel to accommodate it all.

Re. booster rockets. There may have been issues with launches damaging - or potentially damaging - the vertical launch system, which one wouldn't want to happen at sea, especially during wartime.
 

abc123

Banned
Because the Type 22's where much bigger than the Type 23's, in a classic case of design creep the Type 22's started out as an simple follow on's to the Type 12's. By the time Batch 3 was built they were multi-purpose ships with similar capabilities to destroyers and complete with Flag facilities!

But even Batch 1 that was not larger than Type 23 is much more expencive...
Type 22 Batch 3 that has about 10% larger displacement and 10% longer hull has about 50% larger price than first Type 23.
 
The Type 22 was the RN version of the Spruance, a large ocean going ASW destroyer, and the Americans screamed about the cost of the Spruance at the time too.

Have a look at the early Sea Wolf system, the radars and fire control systems it needed, and then double it and you`ll see why the Type 22 was so expensive. By the time the Type 23 came along the Sea Wolf was much more refined, simpler and cheaper, and I think the T23 only had one FC system to the T22s two FC systems.
 
But even Batch 1 that was not larger than Type 23 is much more expencive...
Type 22 Batch 3 that has about 10% larger displacement and 10% longer hull has about 50% larger price than first Type 23.

Hull size doesn't add much to overall construction cost, it's generally all the stuff you need to put inside it and on it, and the people to crew it.
 
Top