Read the forum code of contact
By: 11th November 2005 at 03:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-in a cold launch, the missile is ejected out of its container, usually by means of compressed gass iirc, before the rocket engine kicks in while the missile is in flight.
a hot launch is when the missile propels itself out of the container usings its own rocket engine.
the advanatge of using the cold launch method is mostly limited to naval applications. this is because with a cold launch, the warship does not need the complexted venting that a hot launch missile would require.
the downside appears to be a limit on the number of missiles that can be fitted into a given space. all russian and chinese cold launched naval missiles use a circular design cell, which takes up more space per missile compaired to the square cell based design of american hot launch missiles batteries.
other minor advantages for the cold launch missile might include:
- slightly longer range as the missile does not use as much internal fuel to get off the ground.
- better reaction time, re tor's missile nose pointing ability.
disadvanatges may include:
- limits to missile size on account of the pressure the missile container can withstand.
- missile may face problems when launching in very windy conditions.
as for which one is superior, well i dont think there is a clear cut answer, both have their own advanatges and disadvantages and its ultimately a decision based on the situations one is faced with.
By: 11th November 2005 at 03:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-the advanatge of using the cold launch method is mostly limited to naval applications. this is because with a cold launch, the warship does not need the complexted venting that a hot launch missile would require..
Using cold launch in a missile silo you can fit a bigger missile in the same silo and reload and reuse the silo fairly quickly in comparison to a hot launch. Also with mobile ballistic missiles you have less blast to deal with (although some hellacious recoil I'd imagine) On a surface warship I'd almost consider it a DISadvantage. What happens if you pop an S-300 into the air and it fails to ignite? That's several thousand pounds of propellant and warhead that is going to fall back on the deck.
the downside appears to be a limit on the number of missiles that can be fitted into a given space. all russian and chinese cold launched naval missiles use a circular design cell, which takes up more space per missile compaired to the square cell based design of american hot launch missiles batteries...
You also have to remember though that the SA-N-6 is quite a bit bigger than an SM-2. I doubt it would fit in a Mk41 VLS cell.
other minor advantages for the cold launch missile might include:
- slightly longer range as the missile does not use as much internal fuel to get off the ground.- better reaction time, re tor's missile nose pointing ability....
The slightly longer range is probably going to be insignificant. TOR is good if you could be getting hit from ANY direction but a VLS ESSM isn't exactly lacking in turning ability right out of the vertical cell either. I'm not sure why the Russian facination with cold launch but it sure does make for some cool video :)
disadvanatges may include:
- limits to missile size on account of the pressure the missile container can withstand.- missile may face problems when launching in very windy conditions.
as for which one is superior, well i dont think there is a clear cut answer, both have their own advanatges and disadvantages and its ultimately a decision based on the situations one is faced with.
It doesn't seem to be a problem for SS-18s and SA-12s. (how big of a missile you can launch that is). Cold launching is probably more expensive. An advantage I can think of from the Russian point of view is you get the missile blast up in the air and away from the troops. Most western systems operate from fixed sites so it's less of an issue.
By: 11th November 2005 at 03:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-the advanatge of using the cold launch method is mostly limited to naval applications. this is because with a cold launch, the warship does not need the complexted venting that a hot launch missile would require.
Pla wolf the advatages apply to land based/silo ballistic missiles as well ie peacekeeper and so on.
the downside appears to be a limit on the number of missiles that can be fitted into a given space. all russian and chinese cold launched naval missiles use a circular design cell, which takes up more space per missile compaired to the square cell based design of american hot launch missiles batteries.
Actually there are many cold launch russian missiles that are not based on rotrary drum system ie brahmos/onyks and klub. And ofcourse they had many others in devolopment.
By: 11th November 2005 at 05:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Regarding failures which would be worse... several thousand pounds of propellent and warhead detonating on top of a ships deck or inside it?
Why would a missile explode while sitting in the magazine? Ordinance doesn't typically go off for no apparent reason.
By: 11th November 2005 at 09:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-The main advantages in cold-launch the Russian way, was its weight. The Klinok is reladen by seven to eight men, the container can be carried to the launcher and is put on a rail that is put on top of the launcher. Then it's slid down in its position. Something I have seen very rarely with a hot launch mechanism. And of course the system can be unladen and weight even less. Then the only thing there is just the top strengthened hatch and the underdeck support. For hot launch canisters, they have a lot of weigth themselves, even when unladen.
Add to it that it's much cheaper to adjust a land-based system for naval applications this way as you don't entirely have to develop a new launcher, you just have the storage and launch cilinder which does the work. The ship's installation is kept to a minimum. (but that is not a real advantage typical for Cold Launch as not every navy uses derivates of land-based systems on ships.
You can also ask why they don't use the Tor system instead of klinok. Well the answer is the same, the Tor reloads come in packs of four and are a lot heavier, not possible to reload these manually.
Yet for other Navies that could be a possibility for the future though.
By: 11th November 2005 at 12:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-I have seen that reason mentioned many and many times over, but the fact is that it doesn't happen. The missiles/canisters/storage containers are all equiped with test-mechanisms, once laden, the missile's status can be checked inside the canister. If something fails during that test, it just isn't being launched.
By: 11th November 2005 at 13:00 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Why would a missile explode after being catapaulted into the air and landing back on the deck?
I think the point is that a hot launch requires the missiles rocket motor to burn in the launcher cell to generate the thrust for launch. In the early days particularly, solid rockets had a tendency to blow up due to less than adequate QC during manufacture. IIRC one of the major hypothese for the Soviet (Russian) use of cold launch systems rather than hot launch was the fact it took rather longer to get thier solid propellants to a sufficiently reliable stage.
Daniel
By: 11th November 2005 at 13:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Why would a missile explode after being catapaulted into the air and landing back on the deck?
Cracked propellent for one, although relatively rare. Equally rare would be some kind of arming malfunction.
Re: CL, more complicated equipment, higher MTBF. Failure of CL gear WILL disable complete sections of the magazine, depending on how the plumbing works. Hence the so-called disadvantage of HL's complicated vents is relative as compare to CL.
Another way to examine failure scenarios it (below)
Rocket ignition failure: Probability?
CL: Missile falls back to deck, live ordnance on deck is a big no no.
HL: Live missile in launcher, still a risk but lesser
Cracked propellent: (explodes) Probability?
CL: Missile clear deck and explodes
HL: Missile explodes in launcher
Cracked propellent: (fizz) Probability?
CL: Missile clears deck, falls on deck, fizzes and burns on deck
HL: Missiles burns in launcher
Warhead premature activation: Probability?
CL: Missile explodes on deck
HL: Missile explodes in launcher/magazine
On the whole, it is a matter of preference. There are pros and con, IMO
By: 11th November 2005 at 13:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-You know, on this topic, it reminded me of the old Cold War probability figures of successfully ICBM strikes. ie Failure to launch due to silo doors not opening, cold launch failure, lightning strikes on lift off, engine failure, guidance failures etc etc.
The probability figures were used to determine the min number of ICBMs :diablo: required for a effective deterrent.
By: 11th November 2005 at 13:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Why would a missile explode after being catapaulted into the air and landing back on the deck?
Because it was catepulted into the air and landed on the deck. Obviously.
By: 11th November 2005 at 16:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-On a surface warship I'd almost consider it a DISadvantage. What happens if you pop an S-300 into the air and it fails to ignite? That's several thousand pounds of propellant and warhead that is going to fall back on the deck.
not sure about the russian ships, but the chinese 052Cs have their missile tubes fitted at an angle, meaning that the missile is propelled away from the ship. so if the engine fails to kick in, the missile should just fall into the sea.
By: 11th November 2005 at 17:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-not sure about the russian ships, but the chinese 052Cs have their missile tubes fitted at an angle, meaning that the missile is propelled away from the ship. so if the engine fails to kick in, the missile should just fall into the sea.
i doubt that unless the ship is standing still even then its not possible unless the missile is ejected like 40 or 50 meters horizontally which is never the case.
By: 11th November 2005 at 18:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-i doubt that unless the ship is standing still even then its not possible unless the missile is ejected like 40 or 50 meters horizontally which is never the case.
how did you come up with 40 or 50m?
looking at this picture, the distance between the missile hatches and the side of the ship is only a handful of metres.
even if the cold launch doesnt have quite enough power to send the missile all the way over the side, the missile would at worst only strike a glancing blow on the side railing of the ship. might need a new paintjob, but its not likely to cause much damage.
By: 11th November 2005 at 19:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-While a there is a bit of time before it actually enters service, South Korea will be deploying cold-launch VLS on KDX-2 and KDX-3 ships alongside Mk41s for launching anti-sub missiles and cruise missiles. The advantage being listed is the slight increase in range due to the launch method and less possible wear and stress that comes from rocket exhaust among others.
The design, from what I could tell from the Mk41 arragement on Wang Gun and models of KDX-3, isn't circular, so that's not a problem. There are two ways to solve the rocket exhaust failure problem, which is angling the launchers outboards so the projectile would go overboard as it is launched. This is the most simple method, but not very space-efficient. Another is using control rocket motor to simple blow the missile overboard as it is being launched. From what I can tell, KM-SAM (land-based SAM system, also using cold-launch method) and the anti-sub missile uses this technique, suggesting that Korean VLS system is up-upright in their installation.
By: 13th November 2005 at 06:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Is that why you don't have to pull the pin on hand grenades for them to explode?
Are you saying you don't know the difference between a hand grenade and a three thousand pound missile?
Posts: 65
By: desijatt - 11th November 2005 at 01:47
What are the detailed differences and advantages/disadvantages also which one superior?