Mk 13 vs Mk 26 missile launchers
Kartal161
the Mk 26? What are the main differences appart from one having a single
launcher and the other 2?
I heard that the Mk 13 is more reliable and has the same rate of fire as the Mk
26 even though it has the single rail.
Kartal
Andrew C. Toppan
> Why were some (older) US ships equipped with the Mk 13, while some others with
> the Mk 26?
Because one is a more capable launcher.
> What are the main differences appart from one having a single
> launcher and the other 2?
Mk26 can launch ASROC and SM-1/2MR; Mk13 cannot launch ASROC, only
SM-1/2MR and Harpoon.
Mk26 also has more magazine space than Mk13.
Also, the Mk26 is the only one of the bunch designed for the modern
generation of SM-1/2MR missiles; the older launchers were designed for
either Terrier (Mk10) or Tartar (Mk11/13).
> I heard that the Mk 13 is more reliable and has the same rate of fire as the
> Mk 26 even though it has the single rail.
No. You are confusing the Mk26 with the old Mk11 twin-rail launcher. The
Mk11 was replaced by the Mk13 because the Mk13 was more reliable and had a
similar rate of fire. The Mk26 is a completely different launcher.
--
Andrew Toppan --- acto...@gwi.net --- "I speak only for myself"
US Naval & Shipbuilding Museum/USS Salem Online - http://www.uss-salem.org/
Naval History, World Navies Today, Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more
TIMOTHY GUEGUEN
: Why were some (older) US ships equipped with the Mk 13, while some others with
: the Mk 26? What are the main differences appart from one having a single
: launcher and the other 2?
lighter than the Mk 26, making it usuable on smaller vessels.
tim gueguen 101867
Paul F Austin
> Kartal161 was seen to write:
> > Why were some (older) US ships equipped with the Mk 13, while some others with
> > the Mk 26?
>
> Because one is a more capable launcher.
>
> > What are the main differences appart from one having a single
> > launcher and the other 2?
>
> Mk26 can launch ASROC and SM-1/2MR; Mk13 cannot launch ASROC, only
> SM-1/2MR and Harpoon.
>
> Mk26 also has more magazine space than Mk13.
>
> Also, the Mk26 is the only one of the bunch designed for the modern
> generation of SM-1/2MR missiles; the older launchers were designed for
> either Terrier (Mk10) or Tartar (Mk11/13).
>
> > I heard that the Mk 13 is more reliable and has the same rate of fire as the
> > Mk 26 even though it has the single rail.
>
> No. You are confusing the Mk26 with the old Mk11 twin-rail launcher. The
> Mk11 was replaced by the Mk13 because the Mk13 was more reliable and had a
> similar rate of fire. The Mk26 is a completely different launcher.
>
The earlier Terrier/Talos launchers stowed missiles horizontally which meant
(practically) that the number of ready rounds was quite limited.
At the end of WWII, with the Kamikazi experience fresh in mind, planners for the
first generation of SAM ships wanted 200-300 rounds available to deal with
saturation attacks. The only ships that could stow Talos and Terrier fully assembled
in those numbers were the notional BBGs and CBGs based on the Kentucky and Alaska
respectively. When cruiser hulls were selected as the basic SAM ship platform, the
long SAMs couldn't be stowed vertically in firing order (not enough hull depth).
Instead horizontal storage was selected instead and the number of rounds stowed was
quite small. A Mk10 launcher could manage only about 40 ready rounds per launcher
and the rate of fire was pretty low.
Tartar was short enough to be stored vertically and the Mk11 and Mk13 launchers were
designed accordingly. The Mk13 has the same rate of fire as the earlier Mk11 which
is why it replaced the Mk11 on the late DDG-2s and was used in some CGNs and in the
FFG-7s.
Originally, Tartar didn't have enough kinematics to be fully effective as a fleet
air defense missile. When the motor development that came out of the Typhon project
was integrated into Tartar and Terrier (which became Standard MR and ER
respectively), the Standard MR had as good range as earlier Terriers so Standard MRs
in Tartar launchers became acceptable for fleet air defense.
Mk 10 launchers were limited to 30 or 40 rounds. To get more, you needed a great
deal of length to fit it into. The Mk11 and Mk 13 were designed as 40 round
launchers. The Mk13 capacity could be expanded but would be inefficient in volume
utilization because of the ring organization of the magazine.
NAVSEA developed the Mk26 to take advantage of a short fleet air defense missile and
increase magazine stowage. Mk26 has a very compact vertical magazine. It comes in
several sizes from Mod 0: 24 rounds, Mod 1: 44, Mod 2: 64 that increased the number
of stowed rounds and allowed the size of the magazine to go up in small increments
of ship length. It's also and importantly compatible with ASROC which the Mk13
isn't.
VLS has superceeded the Mk26 with about the same number of stowed rounds per foot of
length but much better rate of fire and reliability.
It wasn't until the Mk26 and VLS that something like the magazine capacity planned
in the forties to deal with saturation attacks became available.
--
"people of means-decent folk-should be given more votes
than drifters, whores, criminals, degenerates, atheists
and indecent folks-people without means."
Paul F Austin
pau...@digital.net
Joseph M Guthrie
solved the problems ( heard there were several severe ones), we could have
had a lot better fleet air defense much sooner. I heard that mainly,
Raytheon couldn;t make their beam-forming lens technology work(at that
time) for high powered transmitters in the microwave frequencies. They were
trying (I heard) to make electromagnetically-steerable guidance beams for
the Typhon system.
Paul F Austin <pau...@digital.net> wrote in article
<36589390...@digital.net>...
ly...@cdsnet.net
>Why were some (older) US ships equipped with the Mk 13, while some others with
>the Mk 26? What are the main differences appart from one having a single
>launcher and the other 2?
>
>I heard that the Mk 13 is more reliable and has the same rate of fire as the Mk
>26 even though it has the single rail.
>
>Kartal
I think you are mixing up the mk 11 and the mk 13
Kartal161
>: Why were some (older) US ships equipped with the Mk 13, while some others
>with
>: the Mk 26? What are the main differences appart from one having a single
>: launcher and the other 2?
>lighter than the Mk 26, making it usuable on smaller vessels.
>
>tim gueguen 101867
I was curious, would it not have been possible to have incorporated the Mk 26
in the design of the Perry frigates rather than the Mk 13? Or would it have
been simply to large and heavy for that size of ship.
Since the Perry's were originally intended for ASW. Having the Ascroc capable
Mk 26 would have been a bonus.
To retain Harpoon, canister launchers could have been installed on the
superstructure like the Taiwanese ships.
Kartal
Mike Potter
retired in 1993 from USN service. Mk 13 could not launch ASRoc.
Mk 26 as designed had 3 variants: Mods 0, 1, and 2. These had magazine
capacities of 24, 44, and 64 rounds, respectively. USS KIDD and VIRGINIA
classes mounted Mod 0 forward and Mod 1 aft; first 5 TICONDEROGAs mount
Mod 1 both forward and aft.
Kartal161 wrote:
> Why were some (older) US ships equipped with the Mk 13, while some others with
> the Mk 26? What are the main differences appart from one having a single
> launcher and the other 2?
>
Andrew C. Toppan
> in the design of the Perry frigates rather than the Mk 13?
The Mk26 was not ready for service when the PERRYs were designed,
and in any case it would have been overkill for "cheap" FFGs.
> Or would it have
> been simply to large and heavy for that size of ship.
That too.
> Since the Perry's were originally intended for ASW.
Not true. The PERRYs were originally meant as AAW ships - hence the FF*G*
designation, lack of onboard ASW weaponry beyond the standard torpedo
tubes, and minimal ASW sensors. The helo facility was originally planned
for a single light helo only; when ASW was given more emphasis this was
expanded to a double hangar. This change was made quite late in the game,
leading to the very boxy "split" hangar arrangement. Even with the dual
hangar there was only provision for light ASW helos; the flight deck
expansion and RAST addition needed for heavy ASW helos (SH-60) didn't
happen until well after the first ships had been built. The SQR-19 TACTAS
was also an after-the-fact addition.
unicorn
says...
>
>>Kartal161 (kart...@aol.com) wrote:
>>: Why were some (older) US ships equipped with the Mk 13, while some others
>>with
>>: the Mk 26? What are the main differences appart from one having a single
>>: launcher and the other 2?
>>lighter than the Mk 26, making it usuable on smaller vessels.
>>
>>tim gueguen 101867
>
>been simply to large and heavy for that size of ship.
>
>Mk 26 would have been a bonus.
>
>To retain Harpoon, canister launchers could have been installed on the
>superstructure like the Taiwanese ships.
>
at the Taiwanese ships I suspect that they are right at the very edge of
stability, especially with the additional 40mm turrets.
In addition the launcher on the FFG is located rather too close to the bow,
which is of a fairly fine line, to allow the fitting of the MK 26.
The ASROC was replaced by the capabilities of towed array sonar and the Seahawk
helicopter. The idea is that you get the sub on the tail and send the S-70B-2
out to drop on him, well outside the subs retaliation range.
The helo is really a vastly more useful weapon system, capable across the
entire gamut of maritime operations, and well worth the space and weight
investment in the FFGs to allow two to be carried.
Regards
Unicorn
Paul F Austin
unicorn wrote in message <5T962.23$Pk2...@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net>...
Mk26 Mod 0 (24 rounds) has about the same footprint and less topweight than
an ASROC box and was intended to replace one. The Mod 1 (44 rounds) appears
to have the same footprint as a Mk13. If you look at a California (CG36)
with two Mk13s and a Virginia (CG38) with Mk26 fore and aft in plan view,
the space for the SAM launchers is about the same. The displacement is the
same with the CG38s stowing 8 more rounds (but some were ASROCs). The
displacement stayed about the same because the ASROC box in the CG36s was
replaced by the Mk26-stowed ASROCs.
Since the Mk26 doesn't have much more top weight than a Mk13, I think it was
originally more a matter of timing and production readiness and now a "good
enough" argument. The FFGs are more guidance channel limited than rate of
fire limited.
Nick Bartzis
Mike Potter wrote:
> Mk 26 has launcher arm extensions to fire ASRoc, a ballistic weapon
> retired in 1993 from USN service. Mk 13 could not launch ASRoc.
>
> Mk 26 as designed had 3 variants: Mods 0, 1, and 2. These had magazine
> capacities of 24, 44, and 64 rounds, respectively. USS KIDD and VIRGINIA
> classes mounted Mod 0 forward and Mod 1 aft; first 5 TICONDEROGAs mount
> Mod 1 both forward and aft.
>
Mk 26 has 6 mods. Kidds have a mod 3 fwd and mod 4 aft Virginias have a mod 4 fwd
mod 3 aft due to the failed helo /hanger deck. mod 0+3 have 24 missles, mods 1+4+5
have 44, mod 2 had 64 and was designed to replace the aft 16" turret on the Iowa's.
I believe they were thinking about using 2 mod 2's but it greatly unbalanced the
weight distribution, only 1 mod 2 was built and its at the FMC factory. Mod 5 is for
Ticonderoga's.
Mk 26 has some advantages over VLS although not enough to justify the increased
maintenance. Specifically, low angle shots. If a inbound missile was detected close
in, the mk 26 would allow the launch on a near horizontal plane instead of the up,
over and down of a VLS launch allowing a quicker engagement within the threat
envelope.
Also, mk 26 fires 2 missiles nearly as fast as a mk13 fires 1. Although my
recollection is that the mk13 mod 4 nearly matches the mk 26 in rate of fire. some
adams class ddg's and some export W.W.II destroyers received a version of the mk13
called the mk 22 which had only a magazine of 16 ( i think) missiles and was designed
to fit into a 5" 38 or a 5" 54 deck mount.
Mk10 launchers while old and slowwwww really could reach out and touch someone with
their terrier missiles so ROF wasn't as important when first designed. What some
people fail to realize with this old system is that most of the bugs facing newer
systems are worked out already so reliability is higher even if ROF isn't. Mk10's
basic magazine setup is a 20 round horizontal Ready Service Ring (RSR) per launcher
arm. Diff mods have diff configurations of RSR's I think the Long Beach had a mag
with 80 missiles 4 RSR's, with 1 RSR placed below the other per arm i don't remember
what their full load out for all mags was however.
Also with all non VLS missile mags at least 1 position in the mag is kept empty in
order to move missiles between RSR's .
Additionally in mk26 there are 2 AAW test rounds and 1 asroc test round so a mag of
24 missles only has 20 war rounds. The Mk 26 is a neat piece of engineering although
it tends to be over engineered and not really crew friendly. The main problem with MK
26 is that the control electronics designed in the sixties was never upgraded. If VLS
hadn't done so well initially, the Mk 26 planned upgrade would have alleviated most
of the electronic difficulties.
Nick
Just remember: CGN means Crew Gets Nothing.
Per Nordenberg
Nick Bartzis skrev i meddelandet <365A6780...@law.csuohio.edu>...
>some adams class ddg's and some export W.W.II destroyers received a
version of the mk13
>called the mk 22 which had only a magazine of 16 ( i think) missiles and
was designed
>to fit into a 5" 38 or a 5" 54 deck mount.
>
According to World Naval Weapon Systems the Mk 22 launching system was only
fitted to US Brooke class and Sp Baleares class guided-missile frigates.
Rather similar to Mk 13 but with magazine capacity reduced to 16 missiles in
one fixed vertical storage ring, which in effect is the inner ring of a Mk
13 launcher magazine. ROF is 7 rds/min (about the same as the Mk 13).
Per Nordenberg
Brian Varine
> Mk10 launchers while old and slowwwww really could reach out and touch someone with
> their terrier missiles so ROF wasn't as important when first designed. What some
> people fail to realize with this old system is that most of the bugs facing newer
> systems are worked out already so reliability is higher even if ROF isn't. Mk10's
> basic magazine setup is a 20 round horizontal Ready Service Ring (RSR) per launcher
> arm. Diff mods have diff configurations of RSR's I think the Long Beach had a mag
> with 80 missiles 4 RSR's, with 1 RSR placed below the other per arm i don't remember
> what their full load out for all mags was however.
The Belknap's had a Mk-10 with 60 Rounds in 3 20 Round rings, one below
the other two. IIRC the Long Beach had *2* 60 Round launchers for a
grand total of 120. The Leahy's had 2 launchers with 40 rounds each (2
rings of 20). The ROF wasn't *that* slow and with a good crew, it was
pretty fast. The big problem I saw with it is that it required a lot of
personnel. You needed 4 people per bird to wing and fin the thing + a
safety observer. On my boat we had a team of 8 with another 2 guys
sitting at a console and a safety observer (I think thats right). In
addition we had a guy peering out at the launcher for safety (I'm sure
all launchers have this). We normally carried 80 missiles with 4 of them
test rounds. In war time we could dump the test rounds and then preload
the rails with ready to go missiles which could give us 84 total. With
the birds ready to go, we could have them on the launcher rail very
quick and after that, we had the upcoming birds already winged and
finned so as soon as the train came back, it was pretty much ready to go
with another pair. The rear launcher was faster due to the fact that it
didn't have the "Tilt-Rail". In the FWD mag the missile had to be
elevated to about 45 deg so it could go out of the house and onto the
rail. It was a seriously neat system to watch in action and it always
looked cool to see 4 birds on their way out to the rail. Unfortunately
it was a BIG system and required too many people to operate.
John Gardner
was in the Missile division on the Mississippi EAG-128 in 1952 thru
1954. Our division was supposed to supply the nucleus to crew these two
cruisers, but my enlistment was up 28 Oct 1954.
We didn't have any kind of automated magazine system. We had to man
handle each bird on a chain hoist hanging from a monorail over to the
horizontal hoist under each launcher arm. One of the first test we
performed was to fire a dummy bird with the booster pointed at the joint
between the two blast doors. It broke the pistons holding the doors
closed. They also always leaked in rough weather so this ended the
thinking of large horizontal doors.
The original Terriers had wings about the midpoint of the missile and
fins at the rear. My son took a busines trip to Sandia National Labs in
Albuquerque, NM and outside their museum there is a twin mount with two
missiles mounted. He brought me back a picture of it because it had a
plaque that said it was Terriers. The missiles don't have wings, just
fins at the rear. Was this a later Mod.?
We knew the Talos was coming along behind the Terrier but had not heard
of the Tarter I have seen mentioned in the newsgroup. Any pictures of
it on the net anywhere?
Regards, Van Gardner (Former
FT2).
Paul F Austin
John Gardner wrote in message <365B71...@worldnet.att.net>...
>Does anyone know what kind of system was on the Boston and Canberra.
Boston and Canberra were unique in Terrier installations in that the
magazines stored the missiles vertically. The magazines were so deep that
they extended down to the bottom platform deck (in the aft launcher). That
kind of installation gives large magazines (72 per launcher) but was
rejected for later SAM ships. The Mk-10 and its associated three or four
ring magazines were developed to minimize the depth of the installation.
That was important because the SAM cruiser conversions done to Cleveland CLs
put the magazines above the main deck (to reduce the cost of conversion)
>The original Terriers had wings about the midpoint of the missile and
>fins at the rear. My son took a busines trip to Sandia National Labs in
>Albuquerque, NM and outside their museum there is a twin mount with two
>missiles mounted. He brought me back a picture of it because it had a
>plaque that said it was Terriers. The missiles don't have wings, just
>fins at the rear. Was this a later Mod.?
The beam rider Terriers had a wing at mid-body. Like Sparrows, they
manuevered by diverting laterally rather than using tail surfaces to
increase angle of attack. When Terrier switched to SAR guidance, the design
changed to a tail-control airframe. The advantage of the wing-control
designs is that it puts the control surfaces at mid-body where there's lots
of room for actuators. Tail control missiles share the very aft end of the
airframe between actuators and nozzles. It takes significant power to move a
control surface and finding room for the motors can be tough.
>We knew the Talos was coming along behind the Terrier but had not heard
>of the Tarter I have seen mentioned in the newsgroup. Any pictures of
>it on the net anywhere?
Tartar started out as the main stage of a SAR Terrrier without the booster.
Originally it was very short legged and not considered suitable for defense
of a task group. It was originally installed in the Adams DDGs which were
mostly tasked with second-line AAW (escorts for ASW and replenishment
groups). It was also installed on the Albany and Chicago as a short-range
supplement to the Taloses at each end.
During the late fifties and early sixties improvements on the 3-T system
(Talos/Terrier/Tartar) were put on hold because they were expected to be
replaced by Typhon. Typhon was a tube-generation Aegis with a medium range
single stage missile (Tartar-sized) and a long range two stage missile
(Terrier-sized). The RADAR development for Typhon failed and the program was
killed but the advanced solid motors and some of the digital control
electronics developed under the program were used to improve Terrier and
Tartar. That was where Standard came from. With the new motors, Standard
SM-1(MR) had the range of first-generation Terriers and now MR ships could
be tasked with CV escort.
As others have mentioned in this thread, the Mk-13 launcher used for the MR
missiles was very compact compared to the Mk-10s used for ER missiles and
after the Belknaps, all missile ship designs used the Mk-13 or Mk-26 once it
became available.
rf...@ibm.net
John Gardner wrote:
> Does anyone know what kind of system was on the Boston and Canberra. I
> was in the Missile division on the Mississippi EAG-128 in 1952 thru
> 1954. Our division was supposed to supply the nucleus to crew these two
> cruisers, but my enlistment was up 28 Oct 1954.
> We didn't have any kind of automated magazine system. We had to man
> handle each bird on a chain hoist hanging from a monorail over to the
> horizontal hoist under each launcher arm. One of the first test we
> performed was to fire a dummy bird with the booster pointed at the joint
> between the two blast doors. It broke the pistons holding the doors
> closed. They also always leaked in rough weather so this ended the
> thinking of large horizontal doors.
> The original Terriers had wings about the midpoint of the missile and
> fins at the rear. My son took a busines trip to Sandia National Labs in
> Albuquerque, NM and outside their museum there is a twin mount with two
> missiles mounted. He brought me back a picture of it because it had a
> plaque that said it was Terriers. The missiles don't have wings, just
> fins at the rear. Was this a later Mod.?
> We knew the Talos was coming along behind the Terrier but had not heard
> of the Tarter I have seen mentioned in the newsgroup. Any pictures of
> it on the net anywhere?
Rcheung
>From: uni...@NOJUNKbridgenet.com.au (unicorn)
>Date: Mon, Nov 23, 1998 04:26 EST
>Message-id: <5T962.23$Pk2...@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net>
>
<snip>
>>
>The space and weight thresholds for the FFG7 ships are fairly tight. In
>looking
>at the Taiwanese ships I suspect that they are right at the very edge of
>stability, especially with the additional 40mm turrets.
Yep, there were some re-arrnagements internally to allow for the additional
top weight (of the 40mm mounts and, more importantly, the 8 X HF-2 missile
launchers on the superstructure.)
There were also some compromises made with the Band 1 SLQ-32 antennas location
on the cross trees.
>
>In addition the launcher on the FFG is located rather too close to the bow,
>which is of a fairly fine line, to allow the fitting of the MK 26.
>
This is all moot, the Mk-26 is old and difficult to maintain. VLS is the way
to go. If you want ESSM, stick a tactical length module in the VERTREP spot
for'd of the Mk-13.
The Mk-13 can be retained for launching SM-2's (upgrades to teh WCS are
available) and Harpoons, or it can be replaced by a 32 cell Mk-41 VLS.
If you want VL-ASROC, there is room next to the superstructure for'd of the
hangars for COCCOON type launchers.
>The ASROC was replaced by the capabilities of towed array sonar and the
>Seahawk
>helicopter. The idea is that you get the sub on the tail and send the
>S-70B-2
>out to drop on him, well outside the subs retaliation range.
>
>The helo is really a vastly more useful weapon system, capable across the
>entire gamut of maritime operations, and well worth the space and weight
>investment in the FFGs to allow two to be carried.
>
Agreed. The transom is a little crowded for a VDS fish and tail if you want to
upgrade to low frequency active towed arrays. The L3 expandable fish ~1kHz
seems to be the best bet right now.
Regards
R.