 Virtualscratchbuilder   | 03 May 2017 5:10 a.m. PST |
Just wondering if anyone off the top of their head knows the ROF of a Tico or Burke Aegis VLS system? Essentially, elapsed time between launches assuming a multiple threat real-combat launch? |
| Wretched Peasant Scum | 03 May 2017 6:32 a.m. PST |
So, how is the weather today in North Korea, my friend? |
| nukesnipe | 03 May 2017 7:23 a.m. PST |
I used to know that answer, but truthfully, I'm not sure that it's not classified. Faster than a Mk 26 where we had to wait a second or two between launches and had a cycle time of 9 seconds to run fresh birds up the rail. Of course, with VLS, you don't have to worry about cycle time. Just sayin'. Regards, Scott Chisholm |
| emckinney | 03 May 2017 9:15 a.m. PST |
Well, you do have to wait a little between launches to avoid flying through hot rocket exhaust … |
| Lion in the Stars | 03 May 2017 11:45 a.m. PST |
You can watch multiple-launches on youtube. Probably ~2 seconds between launches and there's a launcher at each end of the ship. Ticos have two big launchers, Burkes have one big and one small. The thing to remember is that the VLS holds ALL the missiles. Standards, VL-ASROC, Tomahawks, ESSMs, and whatever else they're stuffing in there these days. Based on 3 ships firing 59 Tomahawks into that Syrian Airbase, I'd assume that there are about 20 Tomahawks per ship. I'd further assume about a dozen VL-ASROCs and 8 cells worth of ESSM quad-packs (4x ESSM per cell). So take whatever the total capacity of the ship is listed as, and subtract about 40 missiles. There's a guess at your available Standard load. |
| nukesnipe | 03 May 2017 12:43 p.m. PST |
Don't forget that 3 cells of each array are taken up by the handling crane. |
| dragon6 | 03 May 2017 1:17 p.m. PST |
The crane hasn't been carried for a long time |
| Virtualscratchbuilder | 03 May 2017 1:51 p.m. PST |
Well, you do have to wait a little between launches to avoid flying through hot rocket exhaust … That is kind of what I was wondering. I know that firing salvos with close-bunched guns like those on the treaty cruisers caused ballistic interference between the shells so I was wondering if the same problem existed with close bunched missiles. |
| Mako11 | 03 May 2017 6:22 p.m. PST |
I think that's the same reason they only launched 1 cruise missile per minute, per ship, when they attacked Syria. Didn't realize they had the capability to loiter while that was going on, and then all fly off at once to attack the target, with a little separation for that as well. |
| nukesnipe | 04 May 2017 5:41 a.m. PST |
Dragon6 – thanks. Dating myself a bit… |
| Lion in the Stars | 04 May 2017 6:29 a.m. PST |
@Mako: yeah, those new Block IV Tomahawks (B/UGM-109E) are pretty crazy like that. Inflight-retargetable, datalink back to the launcher for the "last sight" before impact or armed surveillance "drone", dual-mode blast-frag/bunker buster warhead, antiship seeker head, maybe an antiradar seeker, maybe added thermobaric effects… link |
| nvdoyle | 04 May 2017 7:07 a.m. PST |
@Lion – that's pretty sweet, didn't know that they were so capable. (Still think we need faster ones, but that's another discussion.) |
| nvdoyle | 04 May 2017 8:30 a.m. PST |
TERCOM was based on, and was a significant improvement on, "Fingerprint," a technology developed in 1964 for the SLAM Well, there's a nightmare call-back… |
