"Aegis Ashore (AA) is equipped with Mk41 VLS that can fire Tomahawk missiles and therefore in violation of the INF treaty".

While true that Mk41 can fire Tomahawk, it doesn't mean that AA in Europe can fire Tomahawk.

This thread will try to explain what the Mk41 is - and isn't.
Caveat: All information in this thread is based on open sources.
Someone might have questions that exceed what can be found in open sources, and since I don't want to go to jail, I will not be answering those questions.
What most people don't realize is that launching a missile is done in cooperation between the Mk41 and the weapon system. In AA, the weapon system is Aegis, but in other navies it could also be another weapon system

Without the weapon system, it is impossible to launch a missile
The Mk41 is basically a steel framework, much like a scaffolding, and some electronics to manage the Mk41 and the launch sequence. Also it has a very advanced water system, that can flood the launcher to protect the ship in case of hangfires etc.
To make the round missiles fit into the square holes in the launcher, the missiles are kept in canisters, which also provide environmental protection, electrical interfaces etc.

In theory, any missile can be inserted into the Mk41 as long as a canister that fits can be made.
When a missile is launched, the cell door opens and the exhaust and flames are vented through an exhaust vent between the canisters.
As Mk41 module consists of 8 cells. Several modules can be combined into bigger launchers.

US Navy destroyers have 96 cells, cruisers have 132 and AA have 24.

Some of the MK41 electronics are installed in equipment rooms on the ship and not on the actual launchers.
The Danish Navy IVER HUITFELDT AAW Frigate class has 32 cells, midship.
They are currently being equipped with SM-2 Block IIIA missiles.
Also studies for a following purchase of SM-6 missiles are being performed.
One final comment on the fact that Mk41 is actually a steel scaffolding: When I first got to walk inside a Mk41 (there are walkways between the modules), it was one of the most underwhelming experiences on a warship, ever. Nothing but steel frames and some cabling 🤷‍♂️
The electronics in the Mk41 are:
- Launch Control Unit (LCU)
- Launch Sequencer (LSEQ)
- Motor Control Panel (MCP)
- Power Supplies.

The LSEQ provides the canister umbilical cables, that connect the missiles in the canisters to the Mk41.
The LSEQ also controls the MCP, which opens the cell latch door during the launch procedure.

The LCU is the interface to the weapon system and initializes the launch procedure through the LSEQ, once a launch order is received from the weapon system.
This illustration is the essential piece in this thread. It shows how the Mk41 is integrated with the weapon system and which component does what.

Notice, specifically how the weapon system makes all tactical decisions regarding launch and orders the Mk41 to launch the missiles.
This is why, I keep saying: The Mk41 absolutely cannot launch a missile without the weapon system.

Example: The Danish navy's frigates cannot launch Tomahawks, even though they have Mk41. This is simply because the weapon system doesn't support the Tomahawk missile.
This illustration shows the Aegis Weapon System and the Mk41 VLS.
As can be seen, there is a component named the TWCS (Tomahawk weapon control system) that's part of the architecture. If that component isn't there (and the WCS doesn't support Tomahawk) Tomahawk cannot be fired.
For each missile type that is put into the Mk41, there is dedicated hardware and software that must be integrated into the Weapon System so allow deployment of that missile - without it, the missile type cannot be launched.
To repeat (again): If the AA sites in Europe doesn't have the appropriate hardware and software in the weapon system, it doesn't matter that the Mk41 can launch a Tomahawk - that AA system is not capable of launching Tomahawks.
Obviously, short of visual inspections, there is no way to determine if the appropriate hardware and software is actually installed, but personally I doubt it, based on both open source information as well as other sources.
I'll leave it to other wonks to debate if the Mk41 in itself was in violation of the INF in AA, but I will offer this definition of a "launcher"
"4. The term "GLCM launcher" means a fixed launcher or a mobile land-based transporter-erector-launcher mechanism for launching a GLCM"
The above text is from the INF treaty:
2009-2017.state.gov/t/avc/trty/102…

In my view, the Mk41 doesn't qualify as a "launcher" in itself, simply because it isn't capable of launching a missile without the weapon control system.

In my view: Launcher = Mk41 + Weapon System.
Obviously, if the AA sites have the appropriate Tomahawk hardware and software installed as part of the weapon system, they were in violation of the INF treaty. If they don't have the components installed, I don't believe they were in violation as they can't launch Tomahawks.
I hope this thread was information about what the Mk41 Vertical Launch System is, how it works, is integrated with a weapon system - but certainly also, what it isn't and what is doesn't do.
And of course @PaperMissiles

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Simon Petersen

Simon Petersen Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @SimonHoejbjerg

18 Oct
For nyligt præsenterede Nordkorea et nyt interkontinentalt ballistisk missil (ICBM) under en militærparade.

Der er allerede sagt og skrevet meget om det nye missil, men jeg vil alligevel dele mine egne observationer.
Det første, og mest åbenlyse, er hvor meget større det nye ICBM er i forhold til det hidtil største nordkoreanske ICBM, Hwasong-15, som illustreret her.
Med et større missil, kan man groft sagt sige, at der er to muligheder:
1) Missilet kan bære den samme vægt som Hwasong-15 ud på en længere distance, eller
2) Missilet kan bære en højere vægt ud på den samme distance (eller kortere) som Hwasong-15.
Read 15 tweets
26 Aug
‼️ New thread of BMD & IAMD threads ‼️

Over the time I have written a number of different threads on various BMD and IAMD topics, that newer followers might not have seen.

So, as a service, this thread pulls them all together.

I will try to keep this thread up to date.
This thread explains the need for detailed and accurate planning in BMD.

It also explains the benefit of having forward based sensors that can provide early detection and cueing in support of rearward systems.

This is a personal favorite of mine, that explains:
1) What is Launch and Engage on Remote,
2) Why is it needed, and
3) What are the operational benefits, when it comes to defended area.

Read 14 tweets
29 Apr
Chefen for hæren, Generalmajor Lollesgaard har skrevet et indlæg om hærens fremtid, efter dette forlig.

Jeg bider mærke i denne sætning: "ved aktivering af brigaden (op til 180 dage) er det tanken, at ammunition, reservedele mv. skal indkøbes."

krigsvidenskab.dk/emne/haerens-u…
Det forekommer mig at være cirka samme tilgang som sundhedsvæsnet har haft til værnemidler: Vi behøver ikke så mange på lagrene, vi køber bare, når vi skal bruge dem.

Men når vi så skal bruge dem, er vi garanteret ikke de eneste, så der opstår problemer med at få dækket behovet.
Der er mange ting vi skal lære af coronakrisen, men en af dem er helt sikkert, at vi er nødt til at have realistiske lagre af kritiske forsyningsgenstande i hele beredskabet, inklusiv forsvaret. Vi kan ikke være sikre på, at der kan produceres nok, hurtigt nok, når behovet opstår
Read 4 tweets
27 Apr
The latest addition of @SeapowerMag has a really interesting article on the Danish navy's plan for Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD) using the SM-6 missile to counter advanced threats.
I contributed a bit to the article.
Since 2018 the Danish navy has worked to integrated SM-2 missiles into the IVER HUITFELDT class frigates. The frigates were commissioned in the early 2000s, but its not until now they get SM-2 missiles.
In parallel the navy will prepare for integration of SM-6 as well.
Capt. Claus Andersen, deputy chief of staff for capabilities at Navy Command Denmark describes some of the thoughts that are going into developing the technological roadmap for the frigates, which will allow them to pace the evolving threat.
Read 10 tweets
30 Dec 19
I often see and hear people talking about whether or not a certain interceptor can intercept a specific ballistic missile type, e.g. can an SM-3 intercept an ICBM.

And very often people make claims that the interceptor's burn out velocity is critical to that.

It's actually not.
There's no question that an interceptor's burn out velocity is important and determines many things, including primarily the interceptor's range and speed, i.e. how fast it can get to the maximum range.

But it's not critical to achieve a succesful kill against an RV.
To achieve a successful kill, the relative velocity between the RV and the KW must be over a minimum level - otherwise the required kinetic energy is not achieved.

In this thread, I describe that in detail - and touch upon the required system elements.

Read 12 tweets
20 Sep 19
This is a really good thread on how to defend against drones and missiles.

There are, however, a couple of comments I would like to make to emphasize some of the challenges but also highlight some more capabilities and systems we have.
First of all, there are significantly more systems, that can defend against cruise missiles, than @DuitsyWasHere includes in his thread. A couple of examples below, but that's probably not even a complete list since I am only including missile based interceptors.
@DuitsyWasHere Patriot has been discussed frequently and that system, obviously has capability to defend against cruise missiles. Now, @luke_j_obrien has written som excellent threads on the fact, that Patriot includes different interceptors, some of which are better than other.
Read 19 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!