What happens if a cold launched missile fails to ignite?

[JCR]

Just curious, with all that S-300 discussion.
A S-300 or S-400 is launched cold, so what happens if one of those relatively huge missiles fails to ignite?
I know naval VLSs are canted somewhat in russian ships, but the TELs of S-300 land versions seem vertical.
Are they brought automatically on a less than vertical course or what are the safety measures to prevent this huge chunk of missile from falling back on the TEL?
Even if it doesn't blow up it will surely take out the other missiles.

[Mastermind]

just curious, with all that s-300 discussion.
A s-300 or s-400 is launched cold, so what happens if one of those relatively huge missiles fails to ignite?
I know naval vlss are canted somewhat in russian ships, but the tels of s-300 land versions seem vertical.
Are they brought automatically on a less than vertical course or what are the safety measures to prevent this huge chunk of missile from falling back on the tel?
Even if it doesn't blow up it will surely take out the other missiles.

ka--fking-boom!

[103]

It must be safe enough as the rocket uses solid fuel. The warhead should have some safety mechanisms too.

[JCR]

Yes, but there must be some sort of safety mechanism. Even if the fuel and warhead stays safe, the missile impacting on the launcher will destroy it or at least render it inoperable.

[James]

If it fails to ignite wouldn't it just sit there and do nothing?

[artjomh]

If it fails to ignite wouldn't it just sit there and do nothing?

Not exactly.

A cold launch system has a separate ejection explosive charge that propels a missile out of the canister and orients it toward the target before the actual missile propellant kicks in.

To answer JCR, I would venture this guess. Russians pioneered the cold launch systems and they rarely used vertical launchers aboard their ships. Vertical systems like Tor-M1 and Kinzhal are actually not precisely vertical, but at still slightly slanted, so a missile falls into the sea or on the ground in case the primary fails to start.

[JCR]

Yes, but S-300 and 400 seem perfectly vertical, and they have much larger missiles than Tor. Not to mention that Tor has an armoured vehicle.

[BlackhawkCY]

I would assume they would be designed so that the actual warhead would become active after a certain distance????

[Pandy]

I would assume they would be designed so that the actual warhead would become active after a certain distance????

I was thinking the same thing, a lot like torpedoes or something along those lines,

[JCR]

The warhead wouldn't be the problem (as I stated in 2 posts allready).
The large S-300 missiles weigh 1,5 tons. A 1,5 ton missile coming down from 10 meters is bound to do some damage even if it doesn't explode.
So maybe they're automatically angled away so they impact safely a few meters away from the launcher vehicle.

[Dinges]

The warhead wouldn't be the problem (as I stated in 2 posts allready).
The large S-300 missiles weigh 1,5 tons. A 1,5 ton missile coming down from 10 meters is bound to do some damage even if it doesn't explode.
So maybe they're automatically angled away so they impact safely a few meters away from the launcher vehicle.

At the height they ignite it would not make a difference. It is coming down straight.

That is where R&D comes in. Test upon test upon test , to prove a concept for reliability. If it is not going to launch everytime , why would anybody deploy it or buy for that matter.

But let us take justin. Just in case it does drop out of the sky. The TEL carries a disposable casing , so no worry there. The TEL is a military vehicle , and accordingly has to adhere to milspec , so damage is provided for.

And if you are so inept that you can not even ignite "Rocket Fuel" , the missile should remove you from the mortal coil , Darwinian style.p-)

[cavsalute]

I was thinking the same thing, a lot like torpedoes or something along those lines,


From the missile and rocket systems I have worked with the warhead is not armed until after the missile leaves the rail/launcher or whatever it's launched from. The warhead is usually armed after it has traveled for a certain period of time, distance or revolutions of the projectile or whatever from the launcher. I don't see the Russians arming a warhead close to the launch vehicle just for safety reasons. I'm not familiar with Russian munitions but I would assume they approach this from a similar perspective as anyone else.

[panzerkardinal]

The closest real life analogy would the the 1980 Titan 2 accident in Damascus Arkansas.

The Titan 2 missile was sitting in a 16 foot underground silo.

A maintenance worker dropped a socket wrench which pierced the thin aluminum side of the missiles fuel tank.

Fuel vapor leaked out and eventually ignited.

The 9 megaton warhead shot out like a mortar round and landed 600 feet from the silo.

No nuclear detonation occurred.

Nor was the containment vessel even breached.

That's why no one uses liquid fueled missiles anymore, they're just too dangerous.

[JCR]

The closest real life analogy would the the 1980 Titan 2 accident in Damascus Arkansas.

The Titan 2 missile was sitting in a 16 foot underground silo.

A maintenance worker dropped a socket wrench which pierced the thin aluminum side of the missiles fuel tank.

Fuel vapor leaked out and eventually ignited.

The 9 megaton warhead shot out like a mortar round and landed 600 feet from the silo.

No nuclear detonation occurred.

Nor was the containment vessel even breached.

That's why no one uses liquid fueled missiles anymore, they're just too dangerous.

One word: ooops

Did the worker survive?

[Hyde]

The warhead wouldn't be the problem (as I stated in 2 posts allready).
The large S-300 missiles weigh 1,5 tons. A 1,5 ton missile coming down from 10 meters is bound to do some damage even if it doesn't explode.
So maybe they're automatically angled away so they impact safely a few meters away from the launcher vehicle.

If I am thinking right, then they have smaller engines which point it in the right direction and steer it during the flight, so when it goes up vertically, these small ones kick in and point it in another direction, from the momentum created during the upwards movement, they should travel a bit and come down some distance away from the launching vehicle.

Or maybe, and I think this is very certain, they are made so they simply can't fail. That when the propellent booster ignites, it automatically triggers a 0,5sek delay on the main motors ignition, so that once the booster goes of, the other one goes off no matter what.

[JCR]

If militaries in all the world learned one thing:
There is no such thing as a weapon that can't fail.
And since the russians are very pragmatic and usually design their weapons to be fool proof, I guess they made provisions for such a case.

[Dinges]

If I am thinking right, then they have smaller engines which point it in the right direction and steer it during the flight, so when it goes up vertically, these small ones kick in and point it in another direction, from the momentum created during the upwards movement, they should travel a bit and come down some distance away from the launching vehicle.


The S-300 missile is controlled in flight by TVC and and control fins. And powered by a single rocket motor , so I suspect you are thinking of auxilliary rocket motors as found on some artillery rockets giving rotational stability.

So if the rocket motor does not ignite the TVC can not steer the missile. And at the relative low speed before ignition I believe the control fins would have limited capacity to steer the missile away ( which it would not do in any case ).

This is the point of ignition and shows the low altitude where ignition must take place , because it is already decelerating:

http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/901/s300sa10grumble.jpg