tek@pram.CS.UCLA.EDU (Ted Kim (Random Dude)) (06/27/91)
From: tek@pram.CS.UCLA.EDU (Ted Kim (Random Dude)) >From: Allan Bourdius <ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu> >The missiles are stored in the magazine rings ready to fire (fins >attached, etc.) This statement is true for most of the single and twin-arm launchers in the USN (including Mk11, Mk13 and Mk26). >From: deichman@cod.nosc.mil (Shane D. Deichman) >From my recollection of a tour abord LONG BEACH (CGN-9) late last year, the >walls of the loading bay were covered with "snap-on" fins for the SM2s. When >they ran two missiles up from the magazine (which looked just a giant revolver >cylinder) and ran them out the rails onto the launcher, they went sans fins >(because they didn't have the crew there to give us the "full demo."). I believe you are describing the Mk10 launcher firing SM-2ER. (The ER version of the SM-2 is basically the MR version with a booster added for longer range.) Other missiles fired by the Mk10 do not require manual fining. On the other hand, I don't think any other launcher can handle the SM-2ER. The problem with the SM-2ER is the booster requires big fins, which makes it tough to store them in the missile storage ring. >My main point, though, was that the Mk. 41 VLS is a much more capable system >... It should be noted that Mk41 VLS cannot handle the SM-2ER. With fins and booster it's too wide and too long. The Navy's fix to this problem is to stick a shorter booster on the MR which makes use of thrust vectoring in order to avoid big fins. The result is called the SM-2MR Mod 4, which I think is still in development at this point. But because the booster is smaller, the MR Mod 4 doesn't quiet have the range of the ER. -ted -- Ted Kim Internet: tek@penzance.cs.ucla.edu UCLA Computer Science Department UUCP: ...!{uunet|ucbvax}!cs.ucla.edu!tek 3804C Boelter Hall Phone: (213)206-8696 Los Angeles, CA 90024 FAX: (213)825-2273
002@pnet16.cts.com (J.W.Cupp Lcdr/Usn) (06/29/91)
From: 002@pnet16.cts.com (J.W.Cupp Lcdr/Usn) tek@pram.CS.UCLA.EDU (Ted Kim (Random Dude) writes: >It should be noted that Mk41 VLS cannot handle the SM-2ER. With fins Okay, but if you're going to note that, you should also note the range comparisons between the SM-1 and SM-2. In earlier missiles, a significant amount of fuel was consumed in manuevering the missile rather than getting it down range. As technology has advanced, developments in guidance have resulted in wasting less fuel in early manuevering and using almost all of the fuel for range extension. The key differences between the SM-2 and SM-1 series revolve around guidance principles. Thus, even early SM-2 (MR)'s approximate the range of the SM-1 (ER)'s. The MK-10 Guided Missile Launching System is not being installed on any new ships under construction, and the ships carrying it are already starting to be decommissioned. I don't know this for a fact, but I can easily envision the Extended Range missile systems passing fully into obsolescence. On a related point, at the present state of the art, the range of the missiles has grown nearly to the point that it isn't missile fuel limiting the range anymore. Soon it will be the range of the guidance system which limits maximum intercept range. J. W. Cupp UUCP: humu!nctams1!pnet16!002 Naval Telecommunications Center ARPA: humu!nctams!pnet16!002@nosc.mil P.O. Box 55 INET: 002@pnet16.cts.com Pearl Harbor, Hawaii 96860 The above is merely my opinion, and not to be construed as anything else.