Super Ikara

It still seems to carry a torpedo recessed in its fuselage, but it is launched by
a missile boat, so probably not for ASW ? ???
 
"An patrol boat for anti-sub is not really that rare."

But a patrol boat (which seem to have no heli) with an ASW sensor
range of at least 100 km probably is .
 
Jemiba said:
"An patrol boat for anti-sub is not really that rare."

But a patrol boat (which seem to have no heli) with an ASW sensor
range of at least 100 km probably is .
Click to expand...

Cued by someone else perhaps, but I remember reading once about a similar weapon (believe it was French, though it could have been this same proposal) which used such an engine and was theoretically capable of such ranges (though TOF would nix that I imagine), but the intended purpose was for a loiter capability above the submarine.
 
That's about at the second convergence zone. Apart from the already suggested external cuing, VDS can, in theory at least, be accommodated on a corvette type vessel. IIRC the RSN corvettes, which would normally be classed as FAC, carry such equipment.

RP1
 
The use of a patrol boat in the picture would be to remind potential customers that Super Ikara is container launched and would not require the large magazine, missile assembly bay, trainable launcher and beam riding radar that the 1959 circa Ikara did. If it can fit on a PB then you can stick those container/launchers within the growth space of the FFG7 (etc).
 
Jemiba said:
"An patrol boat for anti-sub is not really that rare."

But a patrol boat (which seem to have no heli) with an ASW sensor
range of at least 100 km probably is .
Click to expand...

Harpoon also have ranger well over 100km but those missile boat which carry them do not have the sensor to reach out to that range. So even with useful range of upto ,say, 20km, ASW boat with Ikara would still be quite useful.
 
Small subhunters, like the swedish ones, are mainly meant for shallow littoral
waters, I think, where long-range acoustic detection of subs is quite difficult and
most engagements would be made on close range, in an environment, that even
can be difficult for torpedoes, so that unguided weapons may be a better choice.
But that's academic, I think, I agree with Abrahams view, the drawing probably
shouldn't be taken litteraly.
 
You know, with a turbojet, something like the Ikara might be able to be turned into a primitive UCAV that can be programmed to fly back for reuse.
 
Well no. If it were that easy then every missile could be a ucav. The type of engine isn't crucial but the type of fuel for rapid turnaround. Though you could just pull a 'recovered' Ikara's rocket motor out and replace it with a fresh one.

But since the Ikara lacks undercarriage, the ability to lower its speed for safe landing and a guidance system able to return it to the launcher - its is a beam rider and RF beams don't turn around 180 degrees - I don't think its going to happen.
 
Well the beamrider aspect ought not be a dealbreaker - it'd functionally just be an ARM at that point, but homing on a known frequency. Easier than making it ride the beam in the first place, I expect.
 
Abraham Gubler said:
Well no. If it were that easy then every missile could be a ucav. The type of engine isn't crucial but the type of fuel for rapid turnaround. Though you could just pull a 'recovered' Ikara's rocket motor out and replace it with a fresh one.

But since the Ikara lacks undercarriage, the ability to lower its speed for safe landing and a guidance system able to return it to the launcher - its is a beam rider and RF beams don't turn around 180 degrees - I don't think its going to happen.
Click to expand...

Maybe for back then, but with some new microprocessors and a turbine engine, I imagine it could probably be programmed to fly towards a suspected submarine's location, drop its torpedo, then fly back and either do a soft water landing or a net-capture landing, like how they recovered UAVs on the Iowas in the 80s.
 
Just call me Ray said:
Maybe for back then, but with some new microprocessors and a turbine engine, I imagine it could probably be programmed to fly towards a suspected submarine's location, drop its torpedo, then fly back and either do a soft water landing or a net-capture landing, like how they recovered UAVs on the Iowas in the 80s.
Click to expand...

This would seem to be be added complexity for very small gain. The missile isn't that big and probably not terribly expensive in comparison to the torpedo.
OTOH it might be usable as an RPV in other roles such as recon, life-raft dropping or such (4 hellfires mabey?). However, if any ordinance is carried then recovery with a net or Brodie rig is going to be dangerous to say the least.
 
Ikara was an interesting weapon system. It had several advantages over its competitors but the prime one was that unlike Malafon and ASROC, it was designed to drop its torpedo in the vicinity of a submarine contact and then continue flying on to crash much later. Malafon and ASROC both ejected their torpedos forwards and crashed into the sea at the same time, alerting the submarine by making a much larger double splash.

Ikara also interestingly had a target drone version - the Turana - which was a modified Ikara without a torpedo which was used for training with SAM missiles.

turana.jpg
 
What was the reason for the cancellation of Super Ikara?

As I recall from the time, one of the major concerns re Ikara was the handelling systems and Super Ikara resolved this by being container/box launched.

I've also recently seen a reference to a proposed anti surface ship variant of Ikara, does anyone have any details.

Regards.
 
Hmmm....

I don't know if I already mentioned this in my previous post, but something akin to an Ikara, perhaps an outright Ikara clone, could provide a useful basis for a modern, recoverable and cheap attack UAV.
 
Out of interest, could an Ikara or Super Ikara be modified for launch from a VLS cell of Mk41 dimensions or designed from scratch to be launched form the VLS cell?
 
Another nugget:

From "War Machine", V10, #119, 1985, a "Modified Ikara" was proposed by "the Australians" (what, all of them?) and "the Italians", using the body of an Otomat SSM, with folding wings and fired from a box launcher, to carry Swedish Type 42, Italian A244/s, AS290 and British Stingray torpedoes.

RP1
 
Nothing to do with Ikara : MILAS OTOMAT MK2 derived ASW missile, an MBDA product now operational with the Italian Navy with the franco-italian MU-90 torpedo.
http://www.mbda-systems.com/mbda/site/ref/scripts/EN_Milas_170.html
 
JohnR said:
There was definitely a proposal to box launch Ikara and I seem to recall it being compatible with Otomat, although I found the following reference which suggests it would have been compatible with Sea Eagle:

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1983/1983%20-%200235.html

Also found this interesting little bit:

http://australianscreen.com.au/titles/ikara-weapon-thrower/clip1/
Click to expand...
Maybe there was a proposal to box-launch Ikara. But the Otomat MK2-derived ASW missile, MILAS is in no way a "modified Ikara" and has nothing to do with it. Having a compatible container-launcher that can be stacked with the ones for an other missile is one thing; being a derivative of the said missile is another.
 
Stargazer

I agree regarding a compatible launcher, given the dimensions of the Ikara 147cm high against Otomat 46 cm diameter, I could see a box launcher replacing an ssm on a 1 for 2 basis.

I ventured into my loft and dug out my 1989 edition of Friedmans Naval Weapons systems, he list a boxed launched variant of Ikara called Basset using the original missile with light weight electronics.

Under Super Ikara he list the missile development jointly with Australia and Oto Melara in 1982 again boxed launched and using the Otomats guidance system . Italy withdrew in 1986 to join with the French to develop MILAS. The project continued with BAe and a prototype flew in Sept 86.

The statistics of the missile were as follows: 3.42m long 1.52m span and weight 600kg, have a TRI 60 with a range of 60+ nm at .75 mach, giving the missile an extended loiter ability combined with an ability to be controled by a search helicopter.
 
So, the ASW missile "using the body of an Otomat SSM, with folding wings and fired from a box launcher", in other words MILAS, is NOT a "modified Ikara", even if Super Ikara was to use a component of the Otomat Mk2 system in its italian version (one would suspect the TESEO system which is an helo-to-missile command-link).
 
Speaking of Ikara variants, a drawing of an air-launched version (probably mid-60's) has just shown up over in the Westland Projects thread: http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,324.msg142055.html#msg142055

EDIT: Due to the Westland Projects thread having been broken up, the drawing can now be found here.


By the way, while I was trying to see if I could find anything on this version, I came across this interesting comparison over at Wikipedia:

ASROC-Ikara-LAMPS-MPA.GIF
IMAGE CREDIT: Brian Burnell/ Wikimedia Commons​
 
Interesting diagram. However it claims Ikara carried a nuclear depth bomb. It never did. I suspect you're looking at something from the late 1960s - when the RAN still had nuclear fantasies.
 
The magisterial Nuclear Illusion, Nuclear Reality,R.Moore, Palgrave,2010,P.221: Ikara was "redesigned to allow a nuclear (WE177A(NDB) operation...Ultimately the requirement...was dropped in the later 1960s."
 
There seems to be a strong agreement among published sources that nuclear Ikara was never built or tested, much less fielded.

A footnote in Norman Friedman's British Destroyers and Frigates says the requirement for nuclear Ikara was dropped in October 1966, when the Admiralty selected the M4-Minus version of Ikara for development (the decision was reported in DEFE 24/239, a Future Fleet Working Party: Admiralty Board Sub-Committee report dated 1967). The M4-Minus version was built to carry the Mk 44 and the planned British torpedo NAST 7511 (later Stingray).

http://books.google.com/books?id=hF8H0D05Hm0C&lpg=PA259&ots=TcKo1gQh_d&dq=Ikara%20nuclear&pg=PA259#v=onepage&q=Ikara%20nuclear&f=false
 
I have often been curious about the nuclear Ikara proposal, the missile carried the 12.75 inch Mk44 or 46 whilst the WE.177A that was apparently to have been the weapon carried by nuclear Ikara was supposedly 16.5 inches- 3.75 inches greater diameter. I appreciate that to some extent that is only a marginal difference but it would surely have required some changes to the missile itself even if only to the lower body and weapon carrying system.
 
Was any consideration given to using Ikara as an anti-ship missile, with a warhead replacing the torpedo?
 
Per Friedman (same footnote I linked above), Australia proposed an antiship version as Project Womba (Australian Naval Staff Target 11/70) to enter service in the late 1970s.* They also had interest in exploring antiship capabilities of the Mk 46 torpedo payload. This would take some modification, as Mk 46 normally has a ceiling limiter to keep it from chasing surface noise.


* You can argue how closely related Womba and Ikara were, aside from a common launcher. Womba was a derivative of the Turana target drone, which was itself derived from Ikara, so there are a lot of steps in between.
 
Hi,

Hansard has a reference to a "Stretched Ikara" being cancelled in 1976 after an expenditure of just £0.3 million, does anyone have any idea what this is? It seems to predate the 1980s proposals. I have found another reference that says that this improvement programme (1976) would have "considerably extended the range of the missile". I wonder how this would have been achieved?

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/written_answers/1978/feb/22/aircraft-and-weapons-systems

Note; names given for projects in Hansard can be misleading, for instance the link below that references the "Stretched Ikara" mentions RS80 as being a medium gun when it was actually an MLRS.
 
alertken said:
The magisterial Nuclear Illusion, Nuclear Reality,R.Moore, Palgrave,2010,P.221: Ikara was "redesigned to allow a nuclear (WE177A(NDB) operation...Ultimately the requirement...was dropped in the later 1960s."
Click to expand...

I believe that's incorrect. What was actually cancelled was the nuclear capability for a planned follow-on version (see below). Ikara was intended from the outset have a nuclear depth charge option in RN (and, originally, RAN) service. Nuclear capable RN Ikara systems were already well in development and testing by the latter 1960s.


TomS said:
There seems to be a strong agreement among published sources that nuclear Ikara was never built or tested, much less fielded.

A footnote in Norman Friedman's British Destroyers and Frigates says the requirement for nuclear Ikara was dropped in October 1966, when the Admiralty selected the M4-Minus version of Ikara for development (the decision was reported in DEFE 24/239, a Future Fleet Working Party: Admiralty Board Sub-Committee report dated 1967). The M4-Minus version was built to carry the Mk 44 and the planned British torpedo NAST 7511 (later Stingray).

http://books.google.com/books?id=hF8H0D05Hm0C&lpg=PA259&ots=TcKo1gQh_d&dq=Ikara%20nuclear&pg=PA259#v=onepage&q=Ikara%20nuclear&f=false
Click to expand...

There seems to be quite a lot of confusion between the cancellation of the nuclear option for the M4-Minus version and the nuclear option for the Ikara's that were about to enter service with the Royal Navy. The M4-Minus was itself later cancelled around 1968 I think, probably because the original NAST 7511 (an ancestor of, rather than Stingray itself) had entered 'developmental hell'.

As to why the nuclear capability for that version was cancelled, I can only speculate. Given that it occurred during the first Wilson government, the fact that Wilson didn't like tactical nuclear weapons might be a reason in itself. Another possibility is that there were plans afoot to replace it with some sort of unconventional non-nuclear depth charge, say an infrasonic device for example (there was a fair bit of research in that field during the 1960's). Then again, they may have thought that NAST 7511 would eliminate the need for nuclear and/or depth charge options all together.
 
(My competence in matters maritime is zero...my interest is the Ikara weapon) Dredging into Moore (my recommended baseline for all UK nuclear discussions here), and noting a post in Key Fora's Munitions, Ikara thread -that 8xT.12I took the Ikara systems ordered for cancelled Bristols 2-4...try this sequence of events:
- CVA-01 funded 7/63 (CDS Mountbatten expected later to add CVA-02/03); its (their) defence was to be T.82/Ikara+Limbo, plus Sea King HAS.1 on the carrier (60 SKs were ordered, 27/6/66: CVA-01 was sunk by then, but Ark/Eagle/Victorious were not) .
- Ikara "could take only a 100 in long payload" (P.219);
- UK Cabinet approved development of (to be WE177A, summer,1962) as RAF laydown bomb, and:
- 11/62: "Naval Staff requires a warhead capsule (for WE177A, with variable yield from 0.5kt...) the majority of naval tactical targets and submarines can be effectively attacked with weapons (in the yield range 0.5-10kt)" P.218.
- WE177A "dimensions were finally settled in July,1963...112in long by 16.5in diameter...for delivery as (an NDB) from both helicopters and (AS GW) "(RN) stated a requirement for 63 weapons (NDB + Buccaneer laydown bomb)" P.220
- Feb.1963 Treasury approval for WE177B"given higher priority" (deployed, 9/66; WE177A(NDB) had to wait to 1973);
- "if (an NDB) were the payload then Ikara would need to be launched on a much more precise bearing than if a homing torpedo were carried (by Ikara; Ultimately..&tc by later 1960s) RN had rejected SUBROC partly because there was no option to use a conventional warhead" P.221.
So, at this point Ikara is in design as a heavy, space-consuming spigot to lob 10nm extra range on RN/RAN heavy, HE, torpedoes.


May I surmise: nuclear Ikara's demise: nothing to do with traitor/agent of influence Wilson; all to do with (to be Spearfish, to be Stingray), to be Lynx HAS.2 (funded 22/2/67), with payload+range on smaller ships' sterns, delivering WE177A(NDB) far from friends and with great precision. Lynx+Exocet was refitted into 12 T.12I; 8 T.12I from 12/1/73 took Wasp+Ikara.
 
Additional "Stretched Ikara" commentary, from a Defence and External Affairs sub-committee of the Commons Expenditure Committee Q&A session with Assistant Under-Secretary (Naval Staff) Mr D. C. Humphreys:

Q. We are told that the Super Ikara, if I may call it that, is now being dropped. Could we know what the special operational significance of [this] in view of the growing emphasis being placed on the Soviet Submarine threat?

A. We call this stretched Ikara, because the point of it was to carry the new lightweight torpedo over a rather longer range. I should emphasise that this project is in a very early stage. What we shall lose out of not having this particular weapon system is that we shall not have the combination of long range and quick reaction. We shall still be able to carry the lightweight torpedo out to a longer range by using the lynx helicopter.
Click to expand...

From: http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1977/1977%20-%200869.html
 
J Jordan, Warship 2015,Conway,June 2015, P.Marland, Post War Weapons in RN,P.158: schematic of T12I Ikara magazine. All RN rounds were M-4/Mk.46 torpedo.Nuclear payload envisaged by RN at outset,1963 (Friedman, Br. Ds&Fs, chops it, 20/10/66)
 
Stop stop stop.
some sort of unconventional non-nuclear depth charge, say an [/size][color=rgb(224, 18, 18) !important]infrasonic[/color] device for example (there was a fair bit of research in that field during the 1960's)
Click to expand...


Something for another topic?


RP1
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom