FWIW - the commercial GPS chip sets I've researched for product design use 32 bit ARM RISC processors which can provide > 65MIPS. This permits an update rate of 1/sec. My guess the chips in the SDB series are even more potent.

Are you sure its only 65MIPS off the 400MHz versions? I'd think they'd be much more capable than that. For the wattages, though, there isn't much to choose from for computational power like that. No x86 chip could possibly perform so well so little power.

No x86 based machines for the GPS I've seen. These are ARM RISC processors. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARM_architecture When I was with Digital Semi we licensed their architecture and made the StrongArm processor. Huge throughput using a AAA battery. Not sure what Intel did with that product line when they bought us out. It was a great chip in it's time.

**When I was with Digital Semi we licensed their architecture and made the StrongArm processor. Huge throughput using a AAA battery. Not sure what Intel did with that product line when they bought us out. It was a great chip in it's time** That is basically what I was alluding, too. You can use a watch battery for the relatively short life of a missile. That is why they intentionally date computer guidances on throwaway missiles like the Stinger by integrating batteries for the system into the guidance housing. Its effective in keeping a predictable shelf-life, and its definitely affordable.

Sorry, misread your earlier post. The one used in the GPS that are available commercially and at a decent price are >65MIPS. The newerer and betterer have over 200MIPS. So I think the sampling rate would be more like 4x/sec. That should be enough even for an artillery shell.

Apologies EW3 for a very late respose to your question, but have been a very busy guy for the last few weeks. As Carl S explained over on another thread a projectiles precision/consistency is expresed in funtions of Probable Error in Range and Deflection for any given range for both High Angle and Low Angle trajectories. Very briefly 98% of all rounds fired on a fixed elevation and azimuth should land wiithin 4 PE's of the mean point of impact. The CCF is marketed as being able to reduce the stated firing table value for PE fior any projectile to 1/3 of that stated. I dont have a firing table to hand right now, but going from memory an M107 HE projectile firing optimum low angle solution to a range of 18 km has a firing table value of approx 45 meters PE in range and 12 meters in Deflection. The addition of the CCF should reduce this to 15 meters and 4 meters respectively. Again i have pulled thes numbers from the recesses of my memory so they may not be accurate but I think it illustrates the point.

I served aboard USS Carronade IFS1 from Dec '65 to Aug '67. We crossed the Pacific and homeported in Yokosuka, Japan. I made five combat cruises to Vietnam from and spent most of my time in the 5" 38 cal. We rarely fired more than two or three of the rocket launchers at any one time and, real time, could fire around 40 rockets per minute from each launcher. The rockets were originally designed as a saturation bombardment weapon, but we were able to refine our accuracy to the point that we could fire within 50 meters of friendly troops. The long-range rockets had a range of 7 miles (we didn't use metrics very much back then) and a warhead that was roughly equal to a 3" high explosive shell. The mid-range rocket was 5 miles and equal to a 5" shell and the short-range rocket was 3 miles and equal to an 8" shell. We had storage for around 7,000 rockets onboard and frequently re-armed either in-country by barge, hi-lining from a supply ship or dockside at Subic Bay. Our mean draft was 9' forward and 10' aft and I have forgotten how many times we went aground while approaching for a fire shoot. With our variable pitch screws, this was never a problem as we could easily back off before the bottom suction could grab hold. Once the local commanders became aware of our capabilities we were called upon quite often for fire support. One forward observer has written that he would give us a target and before he had the time to find another target, we had already destroyed the previous target, all we needed were the coordinates of the target. I do not remember a lot about the specifics (read physics) of our ship and her weapons at this time, but I will try to answer any questions that I am able. I built a website at: http://community-2.webtv.net/HUSKY5/USSCARRONADEIFS1 that shows some photos and informational stories about my ship. I do have a question for Librarian. You mentioned seeing my ship in a 'comic book' and I am curious about where that might have been as I would like to find it if possible. As to the reason for the Carronade's status as the sole one of her class, she was built as an improvment over the LSMR's from WW2 and Korea. The LSMR's had their rocket magazines below the main deck and berthing below that. Carronade had the berthing below the main deck and the rocket magazines below that necessitating a longer hoist set-up. With our 'cruiser' type bow and improved engines, we had a speed of 16-17 knots over the LSMR's 12-13 knots. Our bow and shortened after section and firepower are what earned us the nickname of "bobtail cruiser". We were considered to have the firepower of six modern (1965-66) destroyers and while aboard Carronade was in Vietnam, she fired well over 100,000 rockets and I have no idea how many five inch and 40mm rounds. As was mentioned, she was built for use in Korea, but that conflict ended before she could be put in service over there. As a result, no further ships were built to her design. Carronade was recommissioned in October '65. As to the question of how effective she was, All I can say is that at a reunion that I attended for 'Brown Water Navy' MRFA, With 400-500 present, I had more than one man come up to me after seeing my Carronade cap and thank me for his being there that day, that the Carronade's fire support had saved his life. How much more effective than that we could be, I don't know. As far as I am aware of, there was only one 'friendy fire' incident resulting from a malfunctioning part on one of the launchers resulting in two casualities in April '68.

In the early 80's my best freind and I launched a "D" powered rocket with a stiff wind at our backs. I figured that I had aimed it properly... I was wrong.. Way wrong! lol The little rocket of course blew apart (go figure) and the nose cone came down a mile from where we launched it. He had a motor bike so getting the remmnants was not so much of a problem. I remarked that the "Shuttle" (1981) would do the same thing... Nothing like drinking, explosives, hand guns and model rockets...

gmgsn, thank you for your information. Very interesting Unfortunately, I can't really be all that precise about where I saw it. I read it only once about twenty-five years ago. Looking back, I am pretty sure that the comic was that it was a reprint of something published in the 1950s or possibly the early 1960s, possibly by EC comics but I am really not sure about that. The tone of comic was informational, i.e. showing why this new type of vessel was useful compared to more convential ships, rather than having a plot. I recall the feature repeated a line which went something like "Next time it will be different". What struck me at the time was how unusal the ship looked like. (Bearing in mind I was only about ten.) Until I recently came across a reference to it in an old copy of Jane's, I assumed that the feature was a look at what could be done rather than about an actual ship. I am sorry that I can't be of more help than that. Again, thank you for sharing your personal experience regarding the U.S.S. Carronade.