Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Tallguy
Maybe a small motor with a smaller impulse just to push it clear of the VLS cell? Would think that would be more reliable than a pneumatic push.


It seems a physical piston is involved, then airborne missile is deflected in the correct direction, and the main motor fires.
A good description on wiki -

“...both use a “soft vertical launch” system, whereby the missile is ejected from a tube by a piston. A short booster uses squib thrusters to point the missile at the target before the main motor fires. The lack of toxic fumes on launch makes launches safer for users, avoids corrosion of the launch platform and the lack of exhaust vents allows the launch cells to be much more compact....”

8 posted on 09/04/2017 12:38:11 PM PDT by az_gila
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]


To: az_gila

True, as much as 1/3 the volume of conventional boost-launch VLS is to intercept, direct and re-direct the exhaust gasses back vertically. So, a soft-boost is more efficient use of space.

Now, about the number of reloads carried..... Where are the ammo ships, and what is protecting them?


9 posted on 09/04/2017 1:24:42 PM PDT by Robert A Cook PE (I can only donate monthly, but socialists' ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: az_gila

Interesting. Thanks!


11 posted on 09/04/2017 7:00:37 PM PDT by Tallguy (Twitter short-circuits common sense. Please engage your brain before tweeting.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson