By: sferrin
- 13th November 2005 at 09:10Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
How many failed cold launches have you seen?
You are trying to tell us that a failure with a cold launch is dangerous, but a failure with a hot launch is perfectly safe...
Well let's see, if the motor fails to ignite on a hot launch the missile just sits there. If it fails on a cold launch it falls to the ground from however high it was cold launched. Do you need it in a pop-up book?
New
By: Anonymous
- 13th November 2005 at 09:38Permalink- Edited 16th October 2019 at 10:23
Well let's see, if the motor fails to ignite on a hot launch the missile just sits there.
So it just sits there... that is the end of the matter?
If it fails on a cold launch it falls to the ground from however high it was cold launched
And solid fuel rockets that fall to the ground always explode?
I've seen photos of SA-2s that have been hit by aerial bombs that only burned. What makes you think every type of weapon that might be cold launched would explode when it hits the ground? And if they do why bother putting impact fuses on them... surely when the missile hits an incoming target the combined closing speed of target and missile would also make the missile explode too wouldn't it?
By: wd1
- 13th November 2005 at 12:59Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
aww all the arguing is getting silly
IIRC cold launch systems require a gas generator on each missile, therefore more complicated missiles and higher per missile cost.
hot launch systems require complicated exhaust venting, therefore more complicated launchers and (usually) much more difficult reloading, but individual missiles can be cheaper.
USN/Mk41 probably chose the better option since they envisage very high missile volumes, and simpler missiles without gas generator would be more feasible. they also make up for the more complicated reloading (which involves very tight maneuvering with an underway replen ship and the Mk41 reloading crane, and can only be done in calm sea states) also with the very high missile volumes, 122 cells on a CG-47, 90-96 in DDG-51. in fact nowadays they only reload in port.
By: sferrin
- 13th November 2005 at 17:33Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So it just sits there... that is the end of the matter??
Depends on why it failed to leave the cell. IF the motor fires and it fails to leave the cell because it wasn't let go the the motor just sits in the cell until it burns out. The Mk41 is designed to take this into account. If the motor didn't ignite at all then you lock it down and call it good. It's unlikely in the extreme that the warhead will somehow arm itself and explode in the cell.
And solid fuel rockets that fall to the ground always explode?
I've seen photos of SA-2s that have been hit by aerial bombs that only burned. What makes you think every type of weapon that might be cold launched would explode when it hits the ground? And if they do why bother putting impact fuses on them... surely when the missile hits an incoming target the combined closing speed of target and missile would also make the missile explode too wouldn't it?
You really don't know much about things that go boom do you? They try to make them as insensitive as they can but they're explosives and rocket propellant for god's sake not a piece of wood. (Maybe you thought "wooden round" meant they were literally a piece of a tree?) Drop a missile onto a steel deck and most likely you are going to damage the casing and crack the propellant. And THEN you have a problem on your hands because if for whatever reason it DOES get ignited at that point you'd either have motor case failure (an explosion for all intents and purposes) or an out of control missile racing around the deck. When the case went maybe the motor would snuff out (some propellent doesn't burn well unless it's under pressure) or maybe it would strew 6000 degree fire all over the deck. Bottom line is cold-launching a missile over the deck is riskier than hot-launching out of a cell. Unless you STILL aren't understanding that dropping a missile onto a steel deck from a hundred feet or so is more stressful on the missile than having it just sit there in the cell doing nothing?
New
By: Anonymous
- 14th November 2005 at 05:14Permalink- Edited 16th October 2019 at 10:23
You really don't know much about things that go boom do you?
So everything that is cold launched is a three thousand pound bomb?
Depends on why it failed to leave the cell. IF the motor fires and it fails to leave the cell because it wasn't let go the the motor just sits in the cell until it burns out. The Mk41 is designed to take this into account. If the motor didn't ignite at all then you lock it down and call it good. It's unlikely in the extreme that the warhead will somehow arm itself and explode in the cell.
So the Mk41 has been designed to take potentially dangerous situations into account... but cold launched missiles will just catapault a non responding missile up into the air. No wonder those mericans are so smart... they think of everything.
Unless you STILL aren't understanding that dropping a missile onto a steel deck from a hundred feet or so is more stressful on the missile than having it just sit there in the cell doing nothing?
So a missile dropped onto the deck and burns... so what? I have only ever heard of one case of it happening to a Russian weapon, and that was a solid fuelled SLBM. It is the reason one of the Akula class was nicknamed red october. And it wasn't a problem with a cold launch system, it happened during loading.
By: sferrin
- 14th November 2005 at 13:47Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So everything that is cold launched is a three thousand pound bomb?.
Well last time I looked everything that is cold launched has a warhead and a rocket motor or engine. What do they shoot into the air in your world Garry, hippos and pinetrees?
So the Mk41 has been designed to take potentially dangerous situations into account... but cold launched missiles will just catapault a non responding missile up into the air. No wonder those mericans are so smart... they think of everything..
So tell us what happens to a non-responsive cold launched missile. Do they have a giant catcher's mitt out there that swings out of the deck to catch that dead missile on it's way down? Is that what you're telling us?
So a missile dropped onto the deck and burns... so what? .
That's about the most retarded statement I've seen out of you. And that's saying something.
I have only ever heard of one case of it happening to a Russian weapon, and that was a solid fuelled SLBM. It is the reason one of the Akula class was nicknamed red october. And it wasn't a problem with a cold launch system, it happened during loading.
And of course you're a world renowned authority on accidents with cold launched systems and have access to the data on every problem they've ever had with them huh?
By: KJlost
- 14th November 2005 at 17:02Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
As I've said, there are two ways to avoid missile falling back to the deck. One is angling the launchers outboard so that the missile falls to the sea after jumping 30~40m from the gas pressure. Second option is pitch control rockets on the missile itself that blows the missile to the side as soon as it is launched. While there might be issues involved with both these methods, there are ways to avoid what you're talking about from happening.
By: Curious
- 14th November 2005 at 17:23Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Incidentally, even if the missile is hot launched, will it not be slow burn till it is clear then full blast for acceleration? (something like when an ATGM is launched to protect the person manning the launcher?)
By: danrh
- 15th November 2005 at 10:44Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The problem with things that decide not to to work is that they can sometimes change thier mind. If you are unlucky enough to have your cold launched missile fall back to deck because something in the mechanism that fires the rocket failed, well it is always possible that the act of slamming back down onto the deck might just jolt whatever failed back into life. Excpet now that missile is not pointing skywards but rather at your bridge or possibly some other sensiive part of your vessel that doesn't usually agree with runaway missiles packed with fuel. At least if your hot launch missile decides to do things in its own time it is contained. Obviously though the designers of cold launched system have already though of this stuff and designed thier products in such a way as to make the whole "falling back to deck" scenario rather unlikely.
By: kilcoo316
- 15th November 2005 at 12:02Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Obviously though the designers of cold launched system have already though of this stuff and designed thier products in such a way as to make the whole "falling back to deck" scenario rather unlikely.
Daniel
At last, something sensible is posted.
Do some of you people really think the Russians/Chinese etc haven't thought of this already? :rolleyes:
Oh, wait, I bet RIGHT NOW, they are browsing the forum, reading this, and have started sh_tting themselves 'cos they've just realised all their missiles might blow up their own boats :diablo:
By: sferrin
- 15th November 2005 at 13:48Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Incidentally, even if the missile is hot launched, will it not be slow burn till it is clear then full blast for acceleration? (something like when an ATGM is launched to protect the person manning the launcher?)
You've neve actually seen a missile hot launch out of a cell have you?
By: SOC
- 15th November 2005 at 14:43Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Cold launch vs. hot launch? Typically a hot launch trashes the innards of the launch tube. Meaning: a hot-launch system is one shot only, forget reloading. Cold-launch methods were developed to enable the reuse of certain launch systems, such as SLBM launch tubes (and theoretically ICBM silos, but I don't think anyone would really be concerned with the prospect of reloading were we to start tossing them around).
By: kilcoo316
- 15th November 2005 at 15:06Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
IF you'd read here all that was ever said was that it was a POTENTIAL issue. And it is. Not too difficult of a concept.
And if you'd stop and think for a second before ranting against Russians, you'd pretty quickly realise they have almost certainly thought of this obvious 'potential' and addressed it.
Therefore it is an issue that has almost definitely been addressed.
By: sferrin
- 15th November 2005 at 15:08Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
And if you'd stop and think for a second before ranting against Russians, you'd pretty quickly realise they have almost certainly thought of this obvious 'potential' and addressed it.
Therefore it is an issue that has almost definitely been addressed.
By: sferrin
- 15th November 2005 at 15:10Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Cold launch vs. hot launch? Typically a hot launch trashes the innards of the launch tube. Meaning: a hot-launch system is one shot only, forget reloading. Cold-launch methods were developed to enable the reuse of certain launch systems, such as SLBM launch tubes (and theoretically ICBM silos, but I don't think anyone would really be concerned with the prospect of reloading were we to start tossing them around).
IT also enables you to fit a bigger missile in the same sized silo because you don't need the clearance. Apparently this was a driving factor with Russian ICBMs as SALT I or II didn't allow bigger silos or more silos or somesuch. Also note they were able to cram Peacekeepers into MMIII silos.
By: sferrin
- 16th November 2005 at 00:29Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It is obvious in the make-up of alot of your posts ;)
I don't have a problem at all with Russians. The only people I lose patience with are those who get so fogged with nationalism that it's all but impossible for them to be objective and that anything that doesn't fit their view of reality must be part of some grand conspiracy.
New
By: Anonymous
- 16th November 2005 at 06:47Permalink- Edited 16th October 2019 at 10:23
Well last time I looked everything that is cold launched has a warhead and a rocket motor or engine. What do they shoot into the air in your world Garry, hippos and pinetrees?
I haven't checked to verify it but I would estimate the weight of a Klintok missile to be well below 500lbs and certainly no where near 3,000 lbs. The missile would probably weigh about 50-80kgs considering its range.
So tell us what happens to a non-responsive cold launched missile. Do they have a giant catcher's mitt out there that swings out of the deck to catch that dead missile on it's way down? Is that what you're telling us?
A non responsive missile would not be launched in the first place.
And of course you're a world renowned authority on accidents with cold launched systems and have access to the data on every problem they've ever had with them huh?
I didn't say anything of a sort. You are the one claiming something can happen with no evidence that it ever has. You are the one claiming there are no measures in place to prevent this from happening. This suggests you must have a lot of indepth knowledge on the subject to make such claims.
Second option is pitch control rockets on the missile itself that blows the missile to the side as soon as it is launched. While there might be issues involved with both these methods, there are ways to avoid what you're talking about from happening.
Several cold launched weapons I have seen (including Klintok) have nose mounted vectoring rockets to point the nose of the missile in the direction of the target before the main engine fires.
Incidentally, even if the missile is hot launched, will it not be slow burn till it is clear then full blast for acceleration? (something like when an ATGM is launched to protect the person manning the launcher?)
ATGMs generally have a charge that blows the missile out of the launcher and clear of the operator before the missiles engine actually fires. Often that charge is part of the launcher and in a sense it is a bit like a cold launch (but uses hot gasses).
Excpet now that missile is not pointing skywards but rather at your bridge or possibly some other sensiive part of your vessel that doesn't usually agree with runaway missiles packed with fuel. At least if your hot launch missile decides to do things in its own time it is contained.
And suppose that a fault in the missile leads them to detonate rather than ignite their rocket engines... a detonation 5 m above your deck is safer than a detonation in a honeycomb of rocket fuel and warheads from tens, maybe hundreds of weapons.
By: pesho
- 16th November 2005 at 08:55Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Another disadvantage of the hot launch is that the missile MUST have booster.Modern missiles with complicated two mode motors,need just that to become even more complicated and heavy.As Garry pointed out:"Several cold launched weapons I have seen (including Klintok) have nose mounted vectoring rockets to point the nose of the missile in the direction of the target before the main engine fires."
Just like in this movie:http://tiberium.hit.bg/9K331_Tor-M1.wmv
This is big advantage!You don't need booster,don't waste the energy of the main motor to make a turn towards the target.And another thing come to my mind...with cold launch you can preserve your launching platform.Just look at S-300V
and see in this movie how the missile guidence system is safe from the motor blast.and just as in the Tor-1M movie the missile is already pointed against the target.Compare that to Patriot... http://tiberium.hit.bg/S-300V.wmv
Posts: 9,683
By: sferrin - 13th November 2005 at 09:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well let's see, if the motor fails to ignite on a hot launch the missile just sits there. If it fails on a cold launch it falls to the ground from however high it was cold launched. Do you need it in a pop-up book?
By: Anonymous - 13th November 2005 at 09:38 Permalink - Edited 16th October 2019 at 10:23
So it just sits there... that is the end of the matter?
And solid fuel rockets that fall to the ground always explode?
I've seen photos of SA-2s that have been hit by aerial bombs that only burned. What makes you think every type of weapon that might be cold launched would explode when it hits the ground? And if they do why bother putting impact fuses on them... surely when the missile hits an incoming target the combined closing speed of target and missile would also make the missile explode too wouldn't it?
Posts: 339
By: wd1 - 13th November 2005 at 12:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
aww all the arguing is getting silly
IIRC cold launch systems require a gas generator on each missile, therefore more complicated missiles and higher per missile cost.
hot launch systems require complicated exhaust venting, therefore more complicated launchers and (usually) much more difficult reloading, but individual missiles can be cheaper.
USN/Mk41 probably chose the better option since they envisage very high missile volumes, and simpler missiles without gas generator would be more feasible. they also make up for the more complicated reloading (which involves very tight maneuvering with an underway replen ship and the Mk41 reloading crane, and can only be done in calm sea states) also with the very high missile volumes, 122 cells on a CG-47, 90-96 in DDG-51. in fact nowadays they only reload in port.
Posts: 9,683
By: sferrin - 13th November 2005 at 17:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Depends on why it failed to leave the cell. IF the motor fires and it fails to leave the cell because it wasn't let go the the motor just sits in the cell until it burns out. The Mk41 is designed to take this into account. If the motor didn't ignite at all then you lock it down and call it good. It's unlikely in the extreme that the warhead will somehow arm itself and explode in the cell.
You really don't know much about things that go boom do you? They try to make them as insensitive as they can but they're explosives and rocket propellant for god's sake not a piece of wood. (Maybe you thought "wooden round" meant they were literally a piece of a tree?) Drop a missile onto a steel deck and most likely you are going to damage the casing and crack the propellant. And THEN you have a problem on your hands because if for whatever reason it DOES get ignited at that point you'd either have motor case failure (an explosion for all intents and purposes) or an out of control missile racing around the deck. When the case went maybe the motor would snuff out (some propellent doesn't burn well unless it's under pressure) or maybe it would strew 6000 degree fire all over the deck. Bottom line is cold-launching a missile over the deck is riskier than hot-launching out of a cell. Unless you STILL aren't understanding that dropping a missile onto a steel deck from a hundred feet or so is more stressful on the missile than having it just sit there in the cell doing nothing?
By: Anonymous - 14th November 2005 at 05:14 Permalink - Edited 16th October 2019 at 10:23
So everything that is cold launched is a three thousand pound bomb?
So the Mk41 has been designed to take potentially dangerous situations into account... but cold launched missiles will just catapault a non responding missile up into the air. No wonder those mericans are so smart... they think of everything.
So a missile dropped onto the deck and burns... so what? I have only ever heard of one case of it happening to a Russian weapon, and that was a solid fuelled SLBM. It is the reason one of the Akula class was nicknamed red october. And it wasn't a problem with a cold launch system, it happened during loading.
Posts: 9,683
By: sferrin - 14th November 2005 at 13:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well last time I looked everything that is cold launched has a warhead and a rocket motor or engine. What do they shoot into the air in your world Garry, hippos and pinetrees?
So tell us what happens to a non-responsive cold launched missile. Do they have a giant catcher's mitt out there that swings out of the deck to catch that dead missile on it's way down? Is that what you're telling us?
That's about the most retarded statement I've seen out of you. And that's saying something.
And of course you're a world renowned authority on accidents with cold launched systems and have access to the data on every problem they've ever had with them huh?
Posts: 168
By: KJlost - 14th November 2005 at 17:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
As I've said, there are two ways to avoid missile falling back to the deck. One is angling the launchers outboard so that the missile falls to the sea after jumping 30~40m from the gas pressure. Second option is pitch control rockets on the missile itself that blows the missile to the side as soon as it is launched. While there might be issues involved with both these methods, there are ways to avoid what you're talking about from happening.
Posts: 343
By: Curious - 14th November 2005 at 17:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Incidentally, even if the missile is hot launched, will it not be slow burn till it is clear then full blast for acceleration? (something like when an ATGM is launched to protect the person manning the launcher?)
Posts: 661
By: danrh - 15th November 2005 at 10:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The problem with things that decide not to to work is that they can sometimes change thier mind. If you are unlucky enough to have your cold launched missile fall back to deck because something in the mechanism that fires the rocket failed, well it is always possible that the act of slamming back down onto the deck might just jolt whatever failed back into life. Excpet now that missile is not pointing skywards but rather at your bridge or possibly some other sensiive part of your vessel that doesn't usually agree with runaway missiles packed with fuel. At least if your hot launch missile decides to do things in its own time it is contained. Obviously though the designers of cold launched system have already though of this stuff and designed thier products in such a way as to make the whole "falling back to deck" scenario rather unlikely.
Daniel
Posts: 904
By: kilcoo316 - 15th November 2005 at 12:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
At last, something sensible is posted.
Do some of you people really think the Russians/Chinese etc haven't thought of this already? :rolleyes:
Oh, wait, I bet RIGHT NOW, they are browsing the forum, reading this, and have started sh_tting themselves 'cos they've just realised all their missiles might blow up their own boats :diablo:
Posts: 9,683
By: sferrin - 15th November 2005 at 13:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
IF you'd read here all that was ever said was that it was a POTENTIAL issue. And it is. Not too difficult of a concept.
Posts: 9,683
By: sferrin - 15th November 2005 at 13:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You've neve actually seen a missile hot launch out of a cell have you?
Posts: 12,009
By: SOC - 15th November 2005 at 14:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Cold launch vs. hot launch? Typically a hot launch trashes the innards of the launch tube. Meaning: a hot-launch system is one shot only, forget reloading. Cold-launch methods were developed to enable the reuse of certain launch systems, such as SLBM launch tubes (and theoretically ICBM silos, but I don't think anyone would really be concerned with the prospect of reloading were we to start tossing them around).
Posts: 904
By: kilcoo316 - 15th November 2005 at 15:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
And if you'd stop and think for a second before ranting against Russians, you'd pretty quickly realise they have almost certainly thought of this obvious 'potential' and addressed it.
Therefore it is an issue that has almost definitely been addressed.
Posts: 9,683
By: sferrin - 15th November 2005 at 15:08 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Where did I ever rant against Russians?
Posts: 9,683
By: sferrin - 15th November 2005 at 15:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
IT also enables you to fit a bigger missile in the same sized silo because you don't need the clearance. Apparently this was a driving factor with Russian ICBMs as SALT I or II didn't allow bigger silos or more silos or somesuch. Also note they were able to cram Peacekeepers into MMIII silos.
Posts: 904
By: kilcoo316 - 15th November 2005 at 15:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It is obvious in the make-up of alot of your posts ;)
Posts: 9,683
By: sferrin - 16th November 2005 at 00:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I don't have a problem at all with Russians. The only people I lose patience with are those who get so fogged with nationalism that it's all but impossible for them to be objective and that anything that doesn't fit their view of reality must be part of some grand conspiracy.
By: Anonymous - 16th November 2005 at 06:47 Permalink - Edited 16th October 2019 at 10:23
I haven't checked to verify it but I would estimate the weight of a Klintok missile to be well below 500lbs and certainly no where near 3,000 lbs. The missile would probably weigh about 50-80kgs considering its range.
A non responsive missile would not be launched in the first place.
I didn't say anything of a sort. You are the one claiming something can happen with no evidence that it ever has. You are the one claiming there are no measures in place to prevent this from happening. This suggests you must have a lot of indepth knowledge on the subject to make such claims.
Several cold launched weapons I have seen (including Klintok) have nose mounted vectoring rockets to point the nose of the missile in the direction of the target before the main engine fires.
ATGMs generally have a charge that blows the missile out of the launcher and clear of the operator before the missiles engine actually fires. Often that charge is part of the launcher and in a sense it is a bit like a cold launch (but uses hot gasses).
And suppose that a fault in the missile leads them to detonate rather than ignite their rocket engines... a detonation 5 m above your deck is safer than a detonation in a honeycomb of rocket fuel and warheads from tens, maybe hundreds of weapons.
Posts: 577
By: pesho - 16th November 2005 at 08:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Another disadvantage of the hot launch is that the missile MUST have booster.Modern missiles with complicated two mode motors,need just that to become even more complicated and heavy.As Garry pointed out:"Several cold launched weapons I have seen (including Klintok) have nose mounted vectoring rockets to point the nose of the missile in the direction of the target before the main engine fires."
Just like in this movie:http://tiberium.hit.bg/9K331_Tor-M1.wmv
This is big advantage!You don't need booster,don't waste the energy of the main motor to make a turn towards the target.And another thing come to my mind...with cold launch you can preserve your launching platform.Just look at S-300V
and see in this movie how the missile guidence system is safe from the motor blast.and just as in the Tor-1M movie the missile is already pointed against the target.Compare that to Patriot...
http://tiberium.hit.bg/S-300V.wmv