Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnews!cbnews!military From: 002@pnet16.cts.com (J.W.Cupp Lcdr/Usn) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: Arm Launchers (was: Missile Pods ...) Message-ID: <1991Jun29.013516.977@cbnews.cb.att.com> Date: 29 Jun 91 01:35:16 GMT Sender: military@cbnews.cb.att.com (william.a.thacker) Organization: People-Net [pnet16], NCTAMS EASTPAC Lines: 31 Approved: military@att.att.com 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.