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

To: Non-Sequitur
True enough. All I was pointing out was that the VLS that launch Tomahawks is physically also able hold SM-2s. There have suggestions to test sub launched SM-2s that would be guided by a nearby Aegis, in much the same way a single F-111F could lase targets for several aircraft carrying Paveway PGMs but had no target designators of their own.

Why do that? I don't know, but maybe so that the search radar and the missile come from different directions. Harpoons have been test fired from canisters, and that allows the sub to at least vacate the immediate area prior to launch, and also to allow launch from depth.

The idea is just about as wacky as the 747's 'zoom climb,' but there were many witnesses that saw a flare or other light rise up from the surface of the water.

If not a missile, then what? The offical explaination is that TWA 800 lost it's nose after the CWT exploded, continued to fly at 500+ mph with no center wing box, climbed 3,200 feet in altitude, all without the wings instantly snapping off.

So in the end I suppose that a sub launched SAM is about as implausible. I find it improbable but not impossible that some sort of accident occured and was covered up by the Clintoon administration. However, the CIA 'zoom climb' I do find absolutely impossible, and that leaves trying to explain what so many witnesses saw.

UFOs, most likely.

236 posted on 11/27/2007 12:24:41 PM PST by Yo-Yo (USAF, TAC, 12th AF, 366 TFW, 366 MG, 366 CRS, Mtn Home AFB, 1978-81)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies ]


To: Yo-Yo
All I was pointing out was that the VLS that launch Tomahawks is physically also able hold SM-2s.

Well no, it isn't. The latest Standard missiles are about 6 feet longer than the Tomahawks are. My understanding is that the VLS tubes on the submarines are only about 20 feet long. Extended range SM-2s come in at a bit over 26 feet.

There have suggestions to test sub launched SM-2s that would be guided by a nearby Aegis, in much the same way a single F-111F could lase targets for several aircraft carrying Paveway PGMs but had no target designators of their own.

With all due respect there have been suggestions that the moon is made of green cheese, too. That doesn't make it credible. In all my years of commissioned service, including considerable time at the Pentagon while in the reserves, I'd never heard of the suggestion. Why would you have a sub launch a missile to be guided by a nearby Aegis? Why wouldn't the Aegis launch the missiles themselves? Having the sub do it compromises the safety and security of the sub itself. Every bubblehead in the place would have laughed themselves sick at the suggestion.

The idea is just about as wacky as the 747's 'zoom climb,' but there were many witnesses that saw a flare or other light rise up from the surface of the water.

Having served on Standard-equipped ships and having participated in missile shoots during the day or night, I can tell you that a Standard missile doesn't look like a flare. There is nothing else like it. There is a tremendous flash on launch that would have lit up the sky for miles, the missile itself trails a plume of smoke and fire from the moment it launches till the moment it hits, and they are unbelievably loud. None of the descriptions I've seen sounds anything like a Standard.

So in the end I suppose that a sub launched SAM is about as implausible. I find it improbable but not impossible that some sort of accident occured and was covered up by the Clintoon administration.

Well let's be honest here. In the end what you are suggesting is that not only was the Navy criminally stupid enough to test a missile in the busiest air corridor in the world, they were sinister enough to cover up the mass murder they committed. By my way of thinking that is the least credible, most implausible, absolutely impossible scenario of them all.

239 posted on 11/27/2007 12:50:56 PM PST by Non-Sequitur (Save Fredericksburg. Support CVBT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies ]

To: Yo-Yo

“True enough. All I was pointing out was that the VLS that launch Tomahawks is physically also able hold SM-2s. There have suggestions to test sub launched SM-2s that would be guided by a nearby Aegis, in much the same way a single F-111F could lase targets for several aircraft carrying Paveway PGMs but had no target designators of their own.”

There has never been a test of a submarine launching a SM-2 because there is no need for that capability.

“Why do that? I don’t know, but maybe so that the search radar and the missile come from different directions.”

That is already done with the other surface combatants so there is no need for submarines to have the capability to fire SAM’s.

“Harpoons have been test fired from canisters,”

All surface launched Harpoons are launched from canisters. Submarine launched Harpoons are fired through the boat’s torpedo tubes and have a booster on it to help during the launch sequence.
Air launched Harpoons are hung from missile rails in their flight configuration.

“and that allows the sub to at least vacate the immediate area prior to launch, and also to allow launch from depth.”

There is no “delay launch”, and like launching all other missiles they are launched from shallow depth because if launched from a deeper depth it would require more compressed air to launch the weapon thus taking away compressed air that would be needed to launch additional weapons.


249 posted on 11/28/2007 4:19:03 PM PST by 2CAVTrooper (A vote for ron paul in the primary IS a vote for hillary clinton in the general election)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | 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