Shipbucket

How hard would it be to modify ESSM to operate out of a Mk 13/22 launcher? I realize the missile is a good bit smaller than SM-1, which should be a good thing, and probably lacks the fittings for the arm to grab it, though I'd imagine those are an easy add-on. I was just thinking about how it was like a mini-Standard, and when it first came out, there should have been a good number of vessels still using those GMLS, as there are to this day.

_________________
We can't stop here--this is Bat country!

If it's close enough to cast a shadow, I think the flying house wins initiative.

Bronies are like the Forsworn. Everyone agrees that they are a problem but nobody wants to expend the energy rooting them out.

"That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way."

You'd need some sort of adaptor rail and a way to eject it from the launcher since ESSMs data ports aren't designed to be plugged in and out by a machine.
I wonder if you could squeeze two into the same cell.

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.

I think it could work, somewhat like the ASROC rail on the Mk 10 launcher. the question though, is why, as an ship with Mk 13 launcher can launch an SM-2 MR without much more then software updates and maybe some small updates to launcher and guidance systems.

the magazine itself seems to have no problem with an smaller missile, but it might have problems with the adapter (or better said, you'd need to eject the adapter before reload, but this might be done at launch)

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin

I wasn't aware that SM-2 was that easy to adapt to the older launchers. Makes me wonder why it wasn't done more. I thought it was a major headache or at least expense for RAN, and nobody has since bothered. Technically, the Turks might be able to use it from their GENESIS upgraded Perry class.

_________________
We can't stop here--this is Bat country!

If it's close enough to cast a shadow, I think the flying house wins initiative.

Bronies are like the Forsworn. Everyone agrees that they are a problem but nobody wants to expend the energy rooting them out.

"That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way."

As I understand it that had more to do with lack of spares for the launcher.

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.

why not an cheap adapter that just fall of after launch. a adapter that are just mounted on the missiles when stored, but fall of at launch.

I suppose the best way to have solved the issue on those remaining vessels with them, mostly OHPs and their assorted clones, would be to replace the Mk 13 with a Mk 29 launcher, which will handle ESSM.

_________________
We can't stop here--this is Bat country!

If it's close enough to cast a shadow, I think the flying house wins initiative.

Bronies are like the Forsworn. Everyone agrees that they are a problem but nobody wants to expend the energy rooting them out.

"That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way."

even more issue solving, is what the turks and the australians have done and add the Mk 41 self defence length module next to it. the cost of that is not that much more then that of the Mk 29 and you get to keep the Mk 13, which would otherwise have become wasted space.

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin

I was recalling some old posts where it was pointed out that a girder of some sort prevented cutting away the deck in favor of a full scale VLS, but yes, as demonstrated, there's room for a small SDF version presumably to either side of it. The RAN and Turkish upgrades are expensive and extensive ones, however. For users on more of a budget, I figured the MK 29 would be the cheap and easy solution. Even 8x ESSM would offer more capability than RAM.

Incidentally, does anyone know if the Spanish Santa Maria Class will be receiving SM-2? SM-1 is pretty much at the end of its usefulness, after all, and the Spanish ships were sort of improved versions of the OHPs.

_________________
We can't stop here--this is Bat country!

If it's close enough to cast a shadow, I think the flying house wins initiative.

Bronies are like the Forsworn. Everyone agrees that they are a problem but nobody wants to expend the energy rooting them out.

"That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way."

One question about ESSM I have regards AMRAAM. I know a surface launched version of the latter exists, NASAMS and SLAMRAAM, and that Standard SM-6 basically uses the guidance system from AIM-120, but has there been any real attempt to navalize the weapon itself, maybe combining it with ESSM? I know there is supposedly an advanced version of ESSM in the works, a Block II, for sometime in the 2020s, so mightn't that be it?

_________________
We can't stop here--this is Bat country!

If it's close enough to cast a shadow, I think the flying house wins initiative.

Bronies are like the Forsworn. Everyone agrees that they are a problem but nobody wants to expend the energy rooting them out.

"That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way."