3 ms·
It's an artifact of the technology they use. US launchers are hot launch: the motor ignites in the cell, and then leaps out under its own power. This has some
by chipsa 6y ago
It's an artifact of the technology they use. US launchers are hot launch: the motor ignites in the cell, and then leaps out under its own power. This has some disadvantages with having hot exhaust inside the ship.
Soviet launchers used a cold launcher. They pushed the missile out first, then ignited the motor after it was out of the cell. This is good for reducing exhaust impingement. But you can end up with a live missile not actually going up if the motor igniter fails. Angling the launcher ensures your live missile lands in the water, instead of on deck.
I've seen video of this, but having no luck searching for it.
- WJW 6y agoFun fact, due to the same design choices US-designed missiles are vulnerable to a failure mode called a "hang fire" (see for example https://www.navaltoday.com/2018/06/25/sm-2-missile-fails-to-launch-after-booster-burns-out-inside-german-air-defense-frigate-vls/ https://www.navaltoday.com/2018/06/25/sm-2-missile-fails-to-... ) where the rocket engine has ignited but the missile is stuck inside the ship for some reason. The VLS designers had to massively overengineer the bottom part of the VLS "plenum" (the bottom part) to be able to withstand the largest missile that will fit inside a VLS to fully burn out inside it without melting through the bottom and endangering the structural integrity of the ship it is in.
- aaaxyz 6y agoYou'd have more luck searching for videos of FGM-148 launches. It's smaller and ground-based but works similarly.