Concept for triple missile launcher

[wbyrd]

this is the box type, Vertical launch system style "turret" in this case it is a triple mount.If attached to a turret with other weapons the turret for other weapons would be mounted in place of one of the missile launchers.

the "box" would be mounted on the exterior, and the lower portion below the tapered region would be inside the ship to house reload and fire control systems

The fact the system is external to the hull is due to the cat that while turrets take up no internal spaces each launcher holds one ton of missiles.. I imagine in some cases it could be placed between the internal spaces, and the outer hull like a micro-bay.

The pedestal, and loading tunnel could be used by technicians, or repair drones to access a damaged turret and reactivate it. Or carry out routine maintenance when the system isn't being used. All the time staying inside the ships outer shell, protected from micrometeors, and the environment of a jump bubble For situations when they need to do repairs, and routine work, while in jump.

On advanced warships the need to direct warhead seekers into the direction of a target have been largely removed on military, and advanced civilian models. This simplifies the mechanical systems needed by the turret and allows a missile to be launched "off bore" then following its preloaded information. Once in flight the missile can redirect it's flight plan. And then acquire the designated target and then home in on it's target using its internal flight control systems.

The system is designed to hold up to three independent canisters which maintain a constant navigation feed to the missiles warheads, and sequence each missile for launch as needed.A system of lifts and internal handlers can reload each canister as it ready load is expended.This system with the firecontrol, data links, and other systems housed in the base and pedestal is simply mounted on an appropriately reinforced platform on the ships hull, and is available to fire within a short span of time.

Inside the main body of the mount there is a series of clamps and data relay, and power connections, relay each containerized missile into the stack under a quick open hatch. As missiles are fired the individual shipping canister is mechanically ejected. When all missiles are fired fresh missile containers are fed into the launcher through a loading gate on the bottom of the launch canister.

When not loading the missiles the loading mechanism is sealed with heavy armored blast panels to prevent explosions from an accidental detonation from reaching the ships interior and causing a chain reaction detonation of stored ordnance. this system allows rapid reload, without exposing the ships internal spaces to damage if the launcher is detonated by accidents, or hostile fire.

 

[Redcap]

I was wondering when someone would produce a VLS-like system that didn't need to be installed in a 50- or 100-ton bay

Nice work

 

[wbyrd]

I was wondering when someone would produce a VLS-like system that didn't need to be installed in a 50- or 100-ton bay

Nice work

I had the idea a while back, but now that I can better illustrate my ideas .... I mean a picture answers a lot of questions after all.

I figured the outer casing would be the "Hardpoint" itself, and the weapons would go inside.

 

[Redcap]

Makes sense to me In the space where you'd normally have a triple missile turret, you could stick, for instance, a twelve-cell VLS missile pod for single, multiple (ripple), or mass (SHOOT EVERYTHING! TIME ON TARGET!") fire missions

 

[wbyrd]

Makes sense to me In the space where you'd normally have a triple missile turret, you could stick, for instance, a twelve-cell VLS missile pod for single, multiple (ripple), or mass (SHOOT EVERYTHING! TIME ON TARGET!") fire missions

I had some thoughts on how to do that.

Single fire no changes

Ripple fire: auto fire attack rules, all missiles at a single target, each missile defended against by point defense etc separately. Successful attacks deal damage individually.

good for lightly armored targets

Salvo fire: one attack roll, each missile subject to point defense individually. Each missile adds +1 to the damage of the salvo. All damage treated as a single attack.

in theory it could do more damage than a bay, but if one misses they all miss, and you just spent a metric butt-ton on a missed shot.Jamming, and ECM/decoys/chaff affect the entire salvo as a group as well...

good for dealing with heavily armored targets, or totally vaporizing a smaller vessel.

 

[Redcap]

True, but it all makes for good theatre in the game

 

[CliffBates]

I like the first design better.. this one is really more of a bay weapon than a turret system. Also it is rather ugly from the reloading--in that it looks like reloading need to be done outside not in. The idea of a retracting system to allow the reloading or changing of the individual missile pods/or whatever it was called.

 

[Redcap]

Oh, I dunno; the idea of a standard half-size cargo pod being used as a reload for a VLS has it's appeal... however, let's not forget a few things, in our enthusiasm to adopt the new...

LBB #2 "Starships" 1981, pp32, states:

Reloading: Each launcher (sand or missile) has an inherent capacity for three missiles or canisters. This means that a triple turret with three missile launchers has a total of 9 missiles in ready position.

When a launcher's missiles or canisters are exhausted, it may be reloaded by the turret's gunner in one turn. Reloading three launchers would take three turns. A gunner engaged in reloading is unable to fire other weaponry in the turret.

Now, remembering that a LOT of the turret is intended to allow the fitted weapons to come to bear (sandcasters, lasers, fusion weapons, etc, AND maintains a ready resupply for the missile and sand launchers), while a purely missile-based turret would NOT need to be brought to bear, it could launch 'vertically', and then allow the missile to self-guide to target thereafter. This lets us do away with the bulbous portion of the turret, and instead, make do with a set of retractable covers or doors instead, mounted flush on the hull.

So, if we assume that the VLS in the half-size cargo container is the entire internals of the turret, reloading would require the removal (machinery assisted) of the old container, and insertion of the replacement; I'm thinking that's overly optimistic, time-wise, but hey, it's an automatic system - and if we go down that route, then there has to be a LOT of redesigning of ships in retrofit, or just only allowing it for new builds with appropriate allowances in deckplans to suit.

It's not an easy fit or fix; it has to be thought through in design. However, there should be pluses as well as the above-mentioned minuses: How about streamlining? A purely missile turret employing such a VLS could have a streamlining bonus on top of any others - those bulbous turrets hinder streamlining, even if they're smooth, as they're projecting INTO the airflow and causing drag. An internally mounted VLS pod would be more aerodynamic, after all

Neat design ideas are one thing: Incorporating them into ships another

 

[mike wightman]

It is stated in the Missiles special supplement that in addition to the (nine) ready missiles a turret has space for storing 12 more missiles.

The standard turret has room to store an additional 12 missiles in it. Once these
missiles have been used, the turret must be restocked with missiles carried elsewhere
in the ship (usually in the cargo hold).

 

[Redcap]

D'OH. Read that the other day, and promptly forgot about it!

 

[wbyrd]

Okay working out a few details on how a system would be reloaded. Since I am at times a visual thinker I came up with this. Two types of ammo containers for various missile launchers.

Basically there would be a couple of varieties but it boils down to

The "Stick" or The "Brick"

Stick: a single missile loaded into a protective shipping container designed to hold the missile in place and allow it to be handeld by automated systems without damaging the weapon.

It's capped at both ends, the caps are ejected by simple mechanical system of the force of launch.

The shipping container would be manufactured with locking points so that it could not be accidentally loaded in the improperly position. the loading mechanisms clams would not properly engage with the shipping case.

Colored stripes warning placards, etc would be added to allow quick visual verification the canisters were stored in proper position

The stick would be loaded individually by a conveyor or lift using sliding clamps, or rails, inside the launcher to properly position it for firing. this allows it internal loading mechanisms to be fairly compact, and fit into a standard hardpoint base. ( part of the 1dt firecontrol tonnage.)


The Brick: a larger case containing 12 missiles stored in firing position. The brick is moved using robotic systems and manipulators. The brick has the same system of, caps, and locking points, as the stick but these tend to be a bit heavier to stand up to the extra weight of the missiles inside.

During loading of a brick,The launcher prepositions itself over the sliding loading hatch and is locked in place while the brick is loaded into the launcher. Or alternately, purpose build manipulators that are part of the external hardware maneuver the case on rails, or remote arms into the launcher.

Both sick and brick containers have connections for power, data, and diagnostic connections built into them and are connected to the missile by quick release, breakaway, connectors.

Botch canisters can be ejected, or recovered after firing although ejection of the canisters would be quicker and require less handling gear.in the case of the Stick type system the casing could be manufactured to act as a discarding sabot. It travels with the missile out of the launcher then splits apart falling away form the missile.( a simple mechanical system might be installed to insure the casing separates from the missile during flight.)


and yes I know the name stick and brick would probably lead to some colorful verbiage by crewmen...


The illustrations are not quite to scale, with the missiles actually being 70cm by 3 meters. since dimensions of missiles would change by type I went with he one illustrated as a rough guide. to show positioning rather than exact dimensions.

 

[Patron Zero]

Very nice presentation wbyrd !

My argument has always been for merchant ships, as well as other non-naval vessels, to have their missiles in VLS arrangement to free-up turrets for other armaments.

Your stick or brick 'packaging would seem to best suit that configuration on starships where tucking away a missile pack or two might be a nice ace in the hole when turrets are offline or simply absent.

 

[wbyrd]

I seemed to me that missiles would need to be shipped in containers to protect them, and those containers would be designed to be part of the load/launch system.

One issue, would be that transferring a missile from the interior of a ship, to hard vacuum, without some form of protection rapid transfer could cause serious issues with the systems. Either from changes in the materials due to the extreme temperatures. So I'd imagine the container also serves as a buffer against those drastic changes.

 

[kilemall]

Okay working out a few details on how a system would be reloaded. Since I am at times a visual thinker I came up with this. Two types of ammo containers for various missile launchers.

Basically there would be a couple of varieties but it boils down to

The "Stick" or The "Brick"

Stick: a single missile loaded into a protective shipping container designed to hold the missile in place and allow it to be handeld by automated systems without damaging the weapon.

It's capped at both ends, the caps are ejected by simple mechanical system of the force of launch.

The shipping container would be manufactured with locking points so that it could not be accidentally loaded in the improperly position. the loading mechanisms clams would not properly engage with the shipping case.

Colored stripes warning placards, etc would be added to allow quick visual verification the canisters were stored in proper position

The stick would be loaded individually by a conveyor or lift using sliding clamps, or rails, inside the launcher to properly position it for firing. this allows it internal loading mechanisms to be fairly compact, and fit into a standard hardpoint base. ( part of the 1dt firecontrol tonnage.)


The Brick: a larger case containing 12 missiles stored in firing position. The brick is moved using robotic systems and manipulators. The brick has the same system of, caps, and locking points, as the stick but these tend to be a bit heavier to stand up to the extra weight of the missiles inside.

During loading of a brick,The launcher prepositions itself over the sliding loading hatch and is locked in place while the brick is loaded into the launcher. Or alternately, purpose build manipulators that are part of the external hardware maneuver the case on rails, or remote arms into the launcher.

Both sick and brick containers have connections for power, data, and diagnostic connections built into them and are connected to the missile by quick release, breakaway, connectors.

Botch canisters can be ejected, or recovered after firing although ejection of the canisters would be quicker and require less handling gear.in the case of the Stick type system the casing could be manufactured to act as a discarding sabot. It travels with the missile out of the launcher then splits apart falling away form the missile.( a simple mechanical system might be installed to insure the casing separates from the missile during flight.)


and yes I know the name stick and brick would probably lead to some colorful verbiage by crewmen...


The illustrations are not quite to scale, with the missiles actually being 70cm by 3 meters. since dimensions of missiles would change by type I went with he one illustrated as a rough guide. to show positioning rather than exact dimensions.

This is basically my conception- tubes in the wall the missile container is loaded in, or bricks that are 'in the ceiling' as it retracts for reloading.

Took some doing before to figure out how mixed turret ergonomics work, but with fiber lasers my worries are over!

 

[wbyrd]

This is basically my conception- tubes in the wall the missile container is loaded in, or bricks that are 'in the ceiling' as it retracts for reloading.

Took some doing before to figure out how mixed turret ergonomics work, but with fiber lasers my worries are over!

It seems its an idea people are receptive too.

I had an idea that in a mixed mount the launcher base would be able to accept other weapons into the mount. You would replace one of the launcher boxes with something like this.

The lower part of the cylinder fits into the hardpoint. The upper portion..above the tapered section. Is the laser itself. The laser is instantiated in the pedestal section, and channeled up into the sphere where it is focused, and directed toward the the target.

the laser would be channeled up on side of the mounting ring assembly, and into the sphere while data cables and various devices to stabilize and rotate the sphere are mounted in the other support.


this version doesn't have an "gun barrels" but you ca add those for looks if you like.

 

[Patron Zero]

Having the beam generator in a 'hardened' location inside the hull makes a lot of sense, the reflector-director assembly in a retractable turret would serve as extra damage control.

Also a lot expensive to replace-repair the focusing array than the emitter itself.