Bendix « Talos Land System » as possible ICBM interceptor
- Thread starter sferrin
- Start date
)
S
sublight
Guest
I've seen that before, it was at White Sands....
S
sublight
Guest
One of the many missile projects my dad worked on.
- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 17,871
- Reaction score
- 10,919
Talos Land System
Talos was considered by the Army and Air Force for land defense of targets and the nuclear warhead version was considered as a possible ICBM interceptor.4 In 1955 a "roundhouse" installation was built by the Air Force at White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico, to test the missile as a point defense system for Strategic Air Command air bases. It functioned as a completely automatic system from target designation to intercept and was the most advanced antiaircraft system in existence.
Meanwhile, the Army and Air Force were squabbling over which service should be operating ground based air defense systems. In 1956 the Senate Armed Services Committee ended the bickering by awarding the Army responsibility for land based missiles with a range up to 200 miles. The completed and ready to run Talos Land System was turned over to the Army for evaluation. The Army was developing its own Nike Hercules anti aircraft missile system and had little interest in Talos, even though Talos was operational and Hercules was not. The Army decided to cancel the Talos Land System and disassembled the facility at White Sands."
http://www.okieboat.com/Talos.html
If you like the Talos, this is by far the best source of information I've ever seen. It covers a lot of detail of the ramjet, warhead, operations, performance, history, etc.
pathology_doc
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 6 June 2008
- Messages
- 1,559
- Reaction score
- 1,409
Fascinating! I'd imagine that a fully operational land-based system, being entirely free of volume constraints, could accommodate a much greater number of missiles in fully assembled format (possibly even all of them) and more guidance-illuminator sets for a much higher rate of engagement.
Have to admit, though, I'm not sure I like the thought of a nuke-on-nuke engagement using an air-breathing missile as the interceptor vehicle. Was Talos's altitude capability really good enough to lift a powerful enough nuclear warhead high enough to avoid collateral damage? Over the sea it doesn't really matter so much; over sensitive targets, some of which may be civilian, though, it's another story. Possibly the relief from shipboard constraint would have allowed a much bigger rocket booster to be fitted to the ABM version for a better head start, but ultimately it's still an air breather...
Have to admit, though, I'm not sure I like the thought of a nuke-on-nuke engagement using an air-breathing missile as the interceptor vehicle. Was Talos's altitude capability really good enough to lift a powerful enough nuclear warhead high enough to avoid collateral damage? Over the sea it doesn't really matter so much; over sensitive targets, some of which may be civilian, though, it's another story. Possibly the relief from shipboard constraint would have allowed a much bigger rocket booster to be fitted to the ABM version for a better head start, but ultimately it's still an air breather...
- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 17,871
- Reaction score
- 10,919
pathology_doc said:
Don't know if you read all the articles at the link but they mention 100,000ft altitude capability. (That's about Sprint altitude. Granted one is going horizontal while the other is passing through 100,000ft headed up.)
pathology_doc
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 6 June 2008
- Messages
- 1,559
- Reaction score
- 1,409
And your last sentence basically illuminates my concerns. Talos is built for a flight OUT to a target at high straightline speed on a relatively horizontal flightpath, followed by a brief period of engagement. Some of that last stretch is going to be in coast phase, but the thing is already doing M3.2 or thereabouts at engine burnout and has some energy to spare in thin air. A flight up is another matter - is there going to be enough retained energy for manoeuvre to final engagement if the missile is coasting the last few thousand feet, with practically all the lift needed to be provided by thrust?
Methinks you'd need (as I suggested) a more powerful booster for the first phase, altering the ramjet and tweaking the fuel flow for a later start and a final phase in more rarefied air, possibly changes to the fins which changes the aerodynamic responses and the manoeuvre transfer functions, which requires changes to the electronics, etc. etc. By the time you've finished, is it really still a Talos and would the redesign effort not be better off getting put into a new missile?
I'll give you this: as a stopgap or last resort, it's almost certainly better than nothing.
Methinks you'd need (as I suggested) a more powerful booster for the first phase, altering the ramjet and tweaking the fuel flow for a later start and a final phase in more rarefied air, possibly changes to the fins which changes the aerodynamic responses and the manoeuvre transfer functions, which requires changes to the electronics, etc. etc. By the time you've finished, is it really still a Talos and would the redesign effort not be better off getting put into a new missile?
I'll give you this: as a stopgap or last resort, it's almost certainly better than nothing.
- Joined
- 28 November 2006
- Messages
- 703
- Reaction score
- 692
The ground-based Talos system was being referred to as the Talos Defense Unit. It was built at White Sands Proving Ground. Here you have a photo of the TDU with the control center (319 feet long, 80 feet wide, 30 feet high) in the foreground. On its roof there are two target-tracking and illuminating radars and two guidance beam transmitters, which meant that the system could have engaged two targets simultaneously. Behind the radar building the missile firing complex may be seen. It containded a launcher with storage (for six missiles) and reloading facilities.
Besides you've got here a photo of a missile on the launcher inside the firing complex.
Below you may also find scans of two pages from The Wisconsin engineer Volume 62, Number 5 (February 1958), with a short article on the Talos Defense Unit as well as a chapter on this subject from John Hopkins APL Technical Digest Vol. 3, No. 2, 1982.
Piotr
Besides you've got here a photo of a missile on the launcher inside the firing complex.
Below you may also find scans of two pages from The Wisconsin engineer Volume 62, Number 5 (February 1958), with a short article on the Talos Defense Unit as well as a chapter on this subject from John Hopkins APL Technical Digest Vol. 3, No. 2, 1982.
Piotr
Attachments
pathology_doc
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 6 June 2008
- Messages
- 1,559
- Reaction score
- 1,409
Wow, that's a long time between thread posts.
Then again, I've been away for quite a time. Thanks for that info.
Then again, I've been away for quite a time. Thanks for that info.
- Joined
- 28 November 2006
- Messages
- 703
- Reaction score
- 692
- Joined
- 9 October 2009
- Messages
- 21,131
- Reaction score
- 12,217
Some info on the planned deployment of Land Talos along with NIKE in Western Europe:
usarmygermany.com
USAREUR Units & Kasernes, 1945 - 1989
Dilandu
I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
The system would be at best semi-mobile, or more likely "transportable". And it would basically be an analogue of already-existing Nike-Hercules (which was already in service and running when Talos was still under testing).
- Joined
- 5 May 2007
- Messages
- 1,254
- Reaction score
- 2,311
Entirely fixed base, AFAIK.
I assume the USAF must have seen some advantage to Talos over Nike-Hercules, but I can't think what it was. Beyond being operated by men in blue suits, that is.
Dilandu
I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Well, I'm not sure; the components were designed for being ship-based, so they are at least theoretically transportable. As much as "Nike", I suppose; "Nike" were considered "mobile", because they could be moved from one prepared position to another in just a few weeks.
Well, the fire control capabilities, I suppose. "Nike-Hercules" was strictly "one-one" weapon, i.e. just one target could be tracked and engaged with just one missile simultaneously (if the missile failed fo do the job, the second could be launched, but not two at once). Those limited capabilities could not be remedied without basically building a second "Nike" battery.
"Talos", on the other hand, was designed as capable of engaging two targets with any number of missiles each. While warships were limited by the launchers reloading time, there were no reason why land-based "Talos" can't have all its missiles on individual launchers, fully primed and ready to launch (there were no need to save space on land, so no need for pre-launch fin installation; missiles could be just stored finned). And theoretically, it was possible to increase the number of fire control channels by just adding more radars.
So in terms of fire control, land-based "Talos" was clearly superior; it could engage two targets simultaneously, each with basically any number of missiles.
The disadvantage was, that "Talos" missile was much more complex than "Nike-Hercules" missile. "Talos" dual guidance reuired much more complex - and costly! - electronic, than "Nike-Hercules" command guidance. Also "Talos" warhead were smaller, and it was not capable of carrying massive 30-kt "skyburner" warhead like "Nike-Hercules" could.
Dilandu
I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
To summarise advantages and disadvantages:
Nike-Hercules:
+ was already available by late 1950s;
+ was able to use existing "Ajax" sites with reasonable scale of refit;
+ was cheaper per shot;
+ could carry much heavier warheads;
- could engage just single target with single missile;
- accuracy decreased with distance;
- have priblems with low-altitude interceptions;
Land-based Talos:
+ have far more capable fire control (could engage two targets with any number of missiles each);
+ did not suffer from decreasing accuracy with distance;
+ was able to engage low-altitude targets (at least in theory);
+ potentially have more capacity for improvement;
- was much costlier and required more maintenance per missile;
- could not carry heavy nuclear warheads;
- required entirely new missile bases to be build;
- in late 1950s was still in testing, and may not be ready for service for some time
Nike-Hercules:
+ was already available by late 1950s;
+ was able to use existing "Ajax" sites with reasonable scale of refit;
+ was cheaper per shot;
+ could carry much heavier warheads;
- could engage just single target with single missile;
- accuracy decreased with distance;
- have priblems with low-altitude interceptions;
Land-based Talos:
+ have far more capable fire control (could engage two targets with any number of missiles each);
+ did not suffer from decreasing accuracy with distance;
+ was able to engage low-altitude targets (at least in theory);
+ potentially have more capacity for improvement;
- was much costlier and required more maintenance per missile;
- could not carry heavy nuclear warheads;
- required entirely new missile bases to be build;
- in late 1950s was still in testing, and may not be ready for service for some time
Dilandu
I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
P.S. Just noticed one interesting detail about land "Talos" all missiles on photos lack bow antennas of semi-active homing guidance. It looks like USAF wanted to operate only nuclear-tipped missiles (which does not require semi-active guidance, being purely beam-riders) and therefore opted for much simpler system than naval ones.
It's logical, by the way. The "Nike-Hercules" missiles on American territory were also nuclear-tipped only, with conventional warheads being used only for training shots. So it make sence for USAF to want only nuclear "Talos".
It's logical, by the way. The "Nike-Hercules" missiles on American territory were also nuclear-tipped only, with conventional warheads being used only for training shots. So it make sence for USAF to want only nuclear "Talos".
Similar threads
-
Talos, the SPG-56 and the SPG-61
- Started by M. A. Rozon
- Replies: 106
-
-
-
-
Sea based ASATs, Nixon through Reagan- Started by Pyrrhic victory
- Replies: 2