merriman wrote:
If I remember correctly (they trained us on all class launcher systems past, present and projected) from the GW on up, all had a mount tube with a launch tube within. OHIO was the exception. So, physically the ALLEN's could be upgraded to the larger missiles (C-3 and C-5) but were not because of the arcane pneumatic launcher system and ship-support limitations.
...
Physically the ALLEN's could be upgraded to the bigger diameter missiles, but were not for other reasons.
David
Hi David,
Your obviously educated reply leaves little room for argument! Thank you for providing us with your inside knowledge.
Nevertheless, I'm still left with a few questions:
1) If the launch tube compartment of the Ethan Allen class was essentially the same as on the later Lafayettes/Madisons and Franklins, where then did the length difference of the boats sit? This is not obvious, as the length is changed only easily within the cilindrical part of the hull. Or, alternatively, the hull length of the Allens was the same as the later boats, and then all the references are wrong? Do you maybe have some evidence clearing up this point?
2)
Quote:
(they trained us on all class launcher systems past, present and projected) from the GW on up,
You say GW (George Washington) on up: did the GW also have the bigger diameter tubes, that could in principle launch the larger C-3 and C-5 missiles? In that case, the MikroMir George Washington kit must be in error here too. And then my entire assumption of the Ethan Allen conversion falls flat on its back.
I really hope you can shed some more light on these two points, and it would be awesome if you could provide some evidence as well!
Thanks again for all your effort,
Maarten