Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!uwm.edu!linac!att!cbnews!cbnews!military From: 002@pnet16.cts.com (J.W.Cupp Lcdr/Usn) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: Missile pods on Soviet warships Message-ID: <1991Jun27.015710.2794@cbnews.cb.att.com> Date: 27 Jun 91 01:57:10 GMT Sender: military@cbnews.cb.att.com (william.a.thacker) Organization: People-Net [pnet16], NCTAMS EASTPAC Lines: 49 Approved: military@att.att.com From: 002@pnet16.cts.com (J.W.Cupp Lcdr/Usn) deichman@cod.nosc.mil (Shane D. Deichman) writes: >My main point, though, was that the Mk. 41 VLS is a much more capable system >in the sense that it doesn't have nearly as many moving parts (i.e., as many >possible "problem" areas). With the VLS, all you need to do is open the >hatch and launch the weapon -- if a non-VLS equipped vessel were to sustain >a hit in the vicinity of it's twin-arm launcher, you'd have a much more serious Allow me to point out that ANY vessel sustaining a hit near its missile launcher (or any where else onboard explosives are stored) is going to have a lot of problems, only one of which relates to launchers being out of action! Again, I fully agree that VLS is a quantum improvement, but I'm not sure that battle damage hardness is one of its better points. Let me return to the earlier discussion about firing intervals and see if I can close the book on that one. The "TERRIER" missile system (succeeding by the Standard-Extended Range) needed 'fitting out' of fins, etc as it passed through the magazine towards the rail. A practiced crew could get pretty good, but there was still some delay. The "TARTAR" missile system (succeeded by the Standard-Medium Range) needed no human involvement. Fins deployed automatically once on the rail. Both Standard ER and MR are still in use today. Many, many time when I used to give tours on the guided missile frigate visitors would comment on the one, single arm missile launcher. Invariably they would wonder whether the launcher could sustain a firing rate such as would be needed in battle. I think anyone who asks that is probably thinkin g of 5" guns in movies that go into a sustained firing mode during the heat of battle. What these people overlook is guidance. _Guided_ missiles have to be _guided_ by something. In most scenarios the refire rate (or reiliability, for that matter) of a single- or dual-arm launcher is not the tough part. The radar guidance systems, which are always at least installed in twos, are the limiting factor. VLS is wonderful, but the AEGIS fire control system is the beauty of the whole idea. Without AEGIS you couldn't make much use of the VLS capabilities even if it was installed. (Btw, most SPRUANCE class destroyers won't have VLS...they weren't guided missile ships in the first place.) 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.