RN Sea Based Ballistic Missile

[zen]

In 1955 it was envisioned that the RN could achieve a Sea Based Ballistic Missile for launch from submarines, launching from North of Russia or in the Black Sea by 1965.

Superintendent of the Admiralty Gunnery Establishment assumed a 750nm (extendable to 1,000nm) range weapon would weight 90tons, be 90ft long of diameter 96 inches, required accuracy of 250-2,000yards.
RAE had abandoned plans for a 2,500nm range missile and was working on a 1,600nm single stage weapon. Using three transmitters 100nm apart for initial guidance.
DNO estimated 20 years to develop best possible weapon, and that a weapon based on existing technology would be available in 12 years for a 8 year life.

Had the UK been able to estimate a lightweight warhead available for 1963-64 in 1955, this might have swayed the decisions about such an effort. As it is just such a estimate by Dr Edward Teller in the US in 1956 that greatly assisted the process that led to Polaris.

Assuming such an estimate by the UK AWRE at that time, would shift focus towards a conceptual Ballistic Missile Submarine and draw efforts into this as a priority over carriers and bombers by the time of the Sandy's Defence Review.

This would perhaps have been based on the troublesome (but monumentally easier that LOx/Kerosene) HTP/Kerosene rocket motor and thus have been somewhat more 'soviet' in crudeness compared to Polaris. But of more valid relevance to the Deterrent than expenditure on new bombers or carriers.

 

[Archibald]

It is a shame the two horrible submarines (HMS Exploder and the other one) created such negative feelings among the RN, toward hydrogen peroxide.
As proven by Black Arrow and its siblings, H2O2 / kerosene is a pretty good combination for rockets and missiles. Both propellants while not hypergolics are liquid at room temperature, unlike Blue Streak / Atlas / Titan I LOX. This somewhat helps storing missiles and firing them quickly.

I wonder how Black Arrow compares, size-wise, to a Polaris. Imagine, HMS Trafalgar firing Black Arrows as SLBM !

Edit: Black Arrow was a little more wider, but smaller in height and barely heavier. Put a WE.177 on it...

 

[zen]

It is a shame the two horrible submarines (HMS Exploder and the other one) created such negative feelings among the RN, toward hydrogen peroxide.
As proven by Black Arrow and its siblings, H2O2 / kerosene is a pretty good combination for rockets and missiles. Both propellants while not hypergolics are liquid at room temperature, unlike Blue Streak / Atlas / Titan I LOX. This somewhat helps storing missiles and firing them quickly.

I wonder how Black Arrow compares, size-wise, to a Polaris. Imagine, HMS Trafalgar firing Black Arrows as SLBM !

Edit: Black Arrow was a little more wider, but smaller in height and barely heavier. Put a WE.177 on it...

The irony is the HTP torpedo work was sold off to the Swedes who made a very successful system out of it.
Certainly the theory ought to allow a short fat missile able to fit into a large submarine. If anything liquid fuels make this easier in terms of missile design. Solid motors on the other hand impose constraints that dictate a longer missile irrespective of the efficiency or inefficiency of solid verses liquid fuels.
But it's that warhead that's crucial, big heavy warheads impose the demand for big missiles.

 

[Archibald]

The irony is the HTP torpedo work was sold off to the Swedes who made a very successful system out of

what, Kockums AIP systems ? that would be a major irony indeed !

 

[Archibald]

Hmmm Black Arrow at 2 m wide is a tad larger than Polaris / Chevaline (1.37 m) but a little narrower than Poseidon (2.11 m). How about that... it would fit in the tubes of the 2nd generation of British SLBM launched in the 90's !

Compared to Polaris, Black Arrow is orbital (hence Mach 27) when Polaris is merely Mach 16. Second and third stages and orbital performance are not necessary for SLBM.
Hmmm... "British Black Arrow deterrent" comes to mind.
Black Arrow ICBMs, in silos
Black Arrow Skybolized, one carried by Vulcans
Black Arrow SLBM from submarines.

The irony being, the Black Arrow engines were derived from Blue Steel cruise missiles... and available from 1958 onwards. Shame they picked Convair & Atlas license to get Blue Streak, and all this for naught.

Now that would be something... "the peroxide submarine". AIP peroxide propulsion, peroxide torpedoes, and peroxide Black Arrow SLBMs.

If only H2O2 wasn't such a corrosive / explosive bastard stuff...

 

[Dilandu]

But it's that warhead that's crucial, big heavy warheads impose the demand for big missiles.

Well, in 1955 it was kinda hard to predict the miniaturization of thermonuclear warheads - considering that the only bomb UK have at this time was the spherical-implosion fission Blue Danube, and all deployed fusion bombs (in US) were extremely heavy.

 

[zen]

But it's that warhead that's crucial, big heavy warheads impose the demand for big missiles.

Well, in 1955 it was kinda hard to predict the miniaturization of thermonuclear warheads - considering that the only bomb UK have at this time was the spherical-implosion fission Blue Danube, and all deployed fusion bombs (in US) were extremely heavy.

But as I said the US was predicting lighter warheads in '56.

 

[Dilandu]

But as I said the US was predicting lighter warheads in '56.

Yes, but at this point it was still a theory - and UK wasn't exactly sure how long it would for them to get to lighter warhead.

 

[zen]

But as I said the US was predicting lighter warheads in '56.

Yes, but at this point it was still a theory - and UK wasn't exactly sure how long it would for them to get to lighter warhead.

Yes but it was clearly worth it to try, as every lb of weight in the warhead translated to substantial reductions in the rocket to throw that warhead.

 

[Dilandu]

Yes but it was clearly worth it to try, as every lb of weight in the warhead translated to substantial reductions in the rocket to throw that warhead.

Yes - if you have money and resources you could afford to lose, if the attempt would not succeed. And Britain actually do not have much. Not to mention, that it was Royal Navy who advocated that nuclear exchange would be indecisive, would not by itself determine the victor, and there would be a prolonged post-nuclear phase - "broken backed warfare" doctrine.

 

[Zoo Tycoon]

I worked with a retired RAF officer who worked in the Scampton “Piggery” a.k.a one of two Blue Steel servicing bay in the UK. He told me that HTP was much more frightening to handle than Red Snow. Although in theory a Pig could be filled with HTP indefinitely, in reality they were rarely HTP filled for more than 20 days at a time, even for rounds in the ready issue store. The combination of HTP and bucket of instant sunshine was too much to be trusted. Although HTP filled pigs where flown, never in squadron service, where these flown in combination with Red Snow active components. Generally after just one flight with an HTP filled pig, it was removed, drained and inspected....... Unless it was a global ranger trip to Wommera.
There was a big, deep pool of water at Scampton, if the HTP within the round exceeded a small temperature difference with its surroundings, the Vulcan would be positioned over the pool and Pig would be plopped in, at which point the HTP would slowly drain out to dilute. Not sure if it was ever used but the infrastructure was put in place.

 

[zen]

However this is diverting away from the central premis of the thread, which is pursuing SLBMs for the RN from the late 50's onwards.
Had the effort been applied some solution to the rocket would be forthcoming as others achieved just that.
Arguably this was a better application of scarce resources than V-Bombers or TSR.2 or carriers and one much more effective to argue for with D.Sandys.

 

[CNH]

The major problem was the incredibly poor performance of UK solid fuel motors.

 

[zen]

The major problem was the incredibly poor performance of UK solid fuel motors.

Indeed, perhaps one of the areas in need of more effort

 

[Dilandu]

However this is diverting away from the central premis of the thread, which is pursuing SLBMs for the RN from the late 50's onwards.
Had the effort been applied some solution to the rocket would be forthcoming as others achieved just that.
Arguably this was a better application of scarce resources than V-Bombers or TSR.2 or carriers and one much more effective to argue for with D.Sandys.

The best practical application for 1950s would be ship-launched cruise missile. In late 1950s - upgraded with American ATRAN low-altitude navigation system, to penetrate air defenses.

 

[CNH]

Indeed, perhaps one of the areas in need of more effort

British solid propellants struggled to meet an SI of 200: Polaris etc had an SI of around 245.

 

[uk 75]

Not quite the same as your thread but perhaps a closer possibility.
Lord Mountbatten developed close ties with the US Navy and argued early on for Polaris. Even when Skybolt was chosen to replace Blue Streak it was planned to move to Polaris afterwards.
Noone expected Polaris to be such a success. If Mountbatten had been more forceful Polaris could have been in service on George Washington leases by 1965. With no need for Skybolt and Vulcan B2 the RAF could have come clean and renamed TSR2 the Vindicator and toted it as a Valiant replacement.

 

[norseman]

Hmmm Black Arrow at 2 m wide is a tad larger than Polaris / Chevaline (1.37 m) but a little narrower than Poseidon (2.11 m). How about that... it would fit in the tubes of the 2nd generation of British SLBM launched in the 90's !

Compared to Polaris, Black Arrow is orbital (hence Mach 27) when Polaris is merely Mach 16. Second and third stages and orbital performance are not necessary for SLBM.
Hmmm... "British Black Arrow deterrent" comes to mind.
Black Arrow ICBMs, in silos
Black Arrow Skybolized, one carried by Vulcans
Black Arrow SLBM from submarines.

The irony being, the Black Arrow engines were derived from Blue Steel cruise missiles... and available from 1958 onwards. Shame they picked Convair & Atlas license to get Blue Streak, and all this for naught.

Now that would be something... "the peroxide submarine". AIP peroxide propulsion, peroxide torpedoes, and peroxide Black Arrow SLBMs.

If only H2O2 wasn't such a corrosive / explosive bastard stuff...

You could have had one under each wing of the Vulcan B.3 with the revised 30,000lb+ Olympus engines. The B.3 was rated to an 80,000lb weapon load which is enough for two Black Arrows.

 

[zen]

Not quite the same as your thread but perhaps a closer possibility.
Lord Mountbatten developed close ties with the US Navy and argued early on for Polaris. Even when Skybolt was chosen to replace Blue Streak it was planned to move to Polaris afterwards.
Noone expected Polaris to be such a success. If Mountbatten had been more forceful Polaris could have been in service on George Washington leases by 1965. With no need for Skybolt and Vulcan B2 the RAF could have come clean and renamed TSR2 the Vindicator and toted it as a Valiant replacement.

Actually doesn't this merge together?

Focus on next gen lightweight nukes post Granit series tests....call them Jet zeries tests, expectation of under 2,000lb all up weight for device of less than 24" diameter. Variations for tactical laydown, mine and RV warhead.
This projected for '66-'68 from 1956 perspective.
Feeds into Defence Review delayed due to Suez. D.Sandys encourages this as solution.
Missile firms struggle with solid fuel still proposing HTP/Kerosene motor. Tests confirm but raise practical issues as per Blue Steel effort.
Solid effort behind, but possible improvement by '60 (as per Chow for Sea Dart).

Mountbatten pushes Polaris as solution to rocket, RN will carry in exchange for carrier rundown from '67.... "SSBN is the new Battleship".
Post Suez thawing, options Skybolt or Polaris. Ministers choose Polaris and proceed on nuclear reactor for submarines. As Skybolt only short term solution.
F4K never happens all CVs gone by mid 70s (extensionby Wilson but Sea Vixen dictates), RAF may get F4M still.

 

[Zoo Tycoon]

British solid propellants struggled to meet an SI of 200: Polaris etc had an SI of around 245.

Chris
I’m intrigued as to where this has come from.
Somewhat surprised as;-
1 - Aluminium/AP based composite are quite easy to get over 200;- The trick was finding this recipe, the U.K. was building these the early 60’s and squeezing the last bit of performance is just a case of playing with it in an intelligent manner...... great fun. Accepting a twenty percent shortfall?
2 - At the time the US didn’t hold back on licenses for military technology e.g. Blue Streak balloon tanks, RZ2, Marquad/Boeing Ramjet and Solar reheat.

 

[RanulfC]

If only H2O2 wasn't such a corrosive / explosive bastard stuff...

Well it's actually not after all It's how you use it and how you store it that tends to be an issue and I'm still surprised it took till the mid-70s for someone to stumble on the fact that if you air-condition it in storage (40f/5c) it never decomposes at all and is perfectly stable. If the Brits had stumbled onto that fact alone in the late 40s early 50 history would likely have gone a bit differently...

British solid propellants struggled to meet an SI of 200: Polaris etc had an SI of around 245.

Chris
I’m intrigued as to where this has come from.
Somewhat surprised as;-
1 - Aluminium/AP based composite are quite easy to get over 200;- The trick was finding this recipe, the U.K. was building these the early 60’s and squeezing the last bit of performance is just a case of playing with it in an intelligent manner...... great fun. Accepting a twenty percent shortfall?
2 - At the time the US didn’t hold back on licenses for military technology e.g. Blue Streak balloon tanks, RZ2, Marquad/Boeing Ramjet and Solar reheat.

Part of the issue with aluminum in solid propellant was the "fact" that everyone knew that while a little aluminum showed interesting results it was "well known" that more aluminum was worse... Till someone tried it despite the 'common knowledge' and found out more was actually better! It floors me that to this day a lot of the real advancement is so poorly documented that even the names of who did what are not available.

Randy

 

[CNH]

British solid propellants struggled to meet an SI of 200: Polaris etc had an SI of around 245.

My name is not Chris, but here you go.

The largest solid propellant motor produced by the UK was the Stonechat, which powered several of the vehicles used in the testing of the Chevaline programme.

The specific impulse of the Stonechat, developed in the 1970s, was 200.

The specific impulse of the rocket motors for Polaris, Minute Man, and Skybolt was 245.

This makes for a really rather poor performance compared with the US equivalent.

 

[Zoo Tycoon]

Apologies CHN for the name thing.

The largest motor produced in the U.K. was not the Stonechat but a one off, technology demonstrator at 1.5m diameter (Ref Summerfield The History of a Rocket Research Establishment by H Nicholson page 91 ). Nothing more seems to be in the public domain about this but I remember it being mentioned in the early 80’s with the impression it was undertaken maybe 10 years of so prior.

The same source (page119 ) gives the ISP of the Saluki motor used in the 1960-62 Blue Water as 205s. It doesn’t give ISP’s for motors designed after this date. From my own faded memory at least Chow and Waxwing had higher ISP’s but I won’t give any figures without a source.

Yes indeed Stonechat flew on Chevaline test vehicles but that wasn’t it’s intended purpose;- Chevaline used up some surplus hardware. Again faded memory but it was a motor designed to a price for the RAE Hyperion demonstrator project (Cancelled) so may not be very indicative of what the industry could do;- not too much money to play with it to achieve an optimal points. Do you know the propellant type?

edit;- wasn’t Stonechat propellant type switched for the Chevaline‘s Test Vehicle (mk1 to mk2)? If so it may be considered a bit of a bodge.

 

[zen]

So to continue.
Domestic effort is possible.
Blue Water rather shows this and with more funding earlier ISP over 200s is not just potentially possible but very achievable.
This opens up two feature options....
1. Variable nozzle technology as per Blue Water and actually tested both at scale and full size for Blue Water.
2. Higher ISP might even do away with complex changeable nozzle for Blue Water, making this system benefit from SLBM effort.

Consequently one might see revised Sea Slug with such rocket options. Doing away with the boosters.....

SLBM effort would suck up RN administrative capacity to potential detriment of Cruiser or Carrier efforts.

Argument with RAF and Army on Deterrent happens earlier. RN will win this fight but Army mobile tactical rocket might survive. RAF will have to focus on reconesense and Tactical Air earlier.
3. Higher ISP motors feed into other areas, such as AAMs, SAMs, ASMs, and AShMs.

 

[CNH]

The largest motor produced in the U.K. was not the Stonechat but a one off, technology demonstrator at 1.5m diameter (Ref Summerfield The History of a Rocket Research Establishment by H Nicholson page 91 ). Nothing more seems to be in the public domain about this but I remember it being mentioned in the early 80’s with the impression it was undertaken maybe 10 years of so prior.

Mark Perman, who worked at RPE all his career, did mention what he called a '54 inch' motor being tested.

 

[Archibald]

54 inch is 1.37 m so pretty close...

 

[zen]

54 inches sounds familiar......?

 

[Zoo Tycoon]

My memory from the early eighties, as young engineer, fresh to the business, I found myself at an audience with the seniors lunch thing, when the question was raised about the UK selection of Trident. One of the Senior Chevaline guys said we could have offered a U.K. indigenous system, after all we had done the really difficult bit, ie stage 3 upwards, we had statically fired a first stage class motor as a technology demonstrator, and our French cousins had shown with the M1-51 series, it was entirely possible without breaking the bank. However politics had strangled any such proposal at birth.

He’d let slip about the large motor test, but nothing more was ever mentioned until I found the ref in the above book.

To undertake that test there must have been an ambition at some point for a U.K. offering even if only to protect against a US refusal to cooperate.

 

[Zoo Tycoon]

Another point concerning ISP.
Double Base propellants are naturally fast burning so give there highest ISP (235s) when burnt fast. This is just what’s required for ramjet booster or short range dart type (High acceleration then glide) missiles. Adding suppression to DB propellant to slow it’s burn, reduces its ISP.

Composite propellant(*) on the other hand will not burn above a certain rate but provide excellent ISP at this rate. This is what’s required for a sustained boost phase but not good for really rapid acceleration.

Now with a few exceptions, the U.K. only had a need for fast burn motors so invested in the multi tens of ton production capacity for DB accordingly. While knocking up a one off composite demonstrator under lab controls is one thing, investing in really high quality serial production capacity is really expensive. So with the limited Stonechat numbers it made no sense to invest, and generally no requirement emerged for big composite motors, hence no capability. It’s not that it’s technically difficult to do high ISP, it’s just expensive infrastructure that’s going to spend most of it’s post program life unused.

* more recently composite propellant has been made to burn faster by the addition of powdered explosives such as RDX or PENT. This is pretty tricky for serial production and represent the next generation of propellants.

 

[zen]

However if we're funding this effort from the 1950s, it would be assumed that substantial production would be the outcome and facilities to produce this built by the 60's.
One might assume at least IRBM and TBM production.

 

[Zoo Tycoon]

The French did it for M1/M2/M20/M4/M45/M51 and then used it for Ariane boosters. I think they provide either the AP or the fuel for Vega as well. “Build it and they’ll come”was not understood in the U.K. defence sector.

Pitching Blue Steel at liquid didn’t help as it would have been so much better as a solid, but there again nobody knew what the warhead was going to look like when they were making the key decision.

 

[Archibald]

Italy, too, has done a huge amount of work on solid-fuel rocket motors - starting with ALFA indigenous SLBM plus Scout (out of an oil rig near Kenya coastline !) in the 60's. Even today they are major players in the solid-fuel booster area in Europe. Vega is the offspring of Italian / French solid-fuel lobby: kind of Europe very own "Utah ATK" lobby.

France explored both ways - Veronique / Diamant-Valois / Viking on one side, and solid-fuel missiles on the other. There were proposals for 100% solid-fuel Diamants in the 60's - Diamant as flown was a mix of the two; a pressure-fed Viking ancestor (Vexin / Valois) with two solid-fuel stages ontop, borrowed indeed from the M1 / M20 SLBMs. Also land-based IRBMs, the S-3 buried in the Plateau d'Albion silos.

There could have been many, many collaborations over rocket boosters involving both sides of the channel
- Veronique and Black Knight sounding rockets
- Blue Streak without Europa
- Black Arrow & Diamant (including upper stages for the above)
- solid-fuel IRBM and SLBM (in silos or submarines)

France got solid-fuel IRBMs in underground silos, but at the smallest possible size and minimal cost; le plateau d'Albion did not survived long after the end of Cold War. Neither did the Mirage IV-P nor the tactical free-fall nukes. All were gone by 2000, leaving only the SLBMs and a handful of ASMPs (Mirage 2000N and Super Etendard, now replaced by Rafales - still on carriers and land-based).

 

[CNH]

Did we have the formula for the Polaris propellant?

If not, would the Americans have been prepared to licence it?

 

[Zoo Tycoon]

I’m not so sure the formulation alone was the problem. Chow, developed in the mid to late 60’s used a partly composite propellant, so the basic chemistry was know. Chow needed tens of Kg of AP Composite per unit whereas Polaris/Minuteman needed tens of tons.

There were other elements as well such as GRP wound cases. Waxwing again late 60’s had a GRP wound case but was tiny compared to Polaris.

 

[zen]

I’m not so sure the formulation alone was the problem. Chow, developed in the mid to late 60’s used a partly composite propellant, so the basic chemistry was know. Chow needed tens of Kg per unit whereas Polaris needed tens of tons.

There were other elements as well such as GRP wound cases. Waxwing again late 60’s had a GRP wound case but was tiny compared to Polaris.

But proves we could do it small, so it's a question of scaling issues. Or to out it another way, money.

 

[Zoo Tycoon]

As per the remark by Roy Dommett, Head of UK Missile development at the RAE ( see my link in interesting websites) the French viewed infrastructure as “investments in the future” while the U.K. in the 60’s/beyond, such thing were viewed as “present day economic burden”.

It all comes down to leadership and money.

 

[zen]

So hypothetically the SLBM might be a 54" to 60" diameter missile of 21ft length, much like the later ALFA in Italy.

Work on a Submarine able to handle such missile compartments would outweigh the carrier effort save for Trade Protection.

It's possible by the late 50's this solid fuel effort yielding results that the plan could encompass the land based IRBM as well. Overtaking liquid efforts.

In the process Red Rose to Blue Water becomes a beneficiary of this effort.
All of which piles a lot of demand on domestic warhead production.

But taking over from RAF aircraft by 1965 the weight of costs would force the '66 decision earlier.

I still think such propellant has a place in Sea Slug, and the mkIII could be funded instead of the NIGS spiral.

 

[Siberia]

The major problem was the incredibly poor performance of UK solid fuel motors.

The frustrating thing is that it was an area of research which would have benefited, and one would hope be backed by, all three Services – air-to-air missiles for the RAF, surface-to-air missiles for the Royal Navy, surface-to-surface/anti-tank guided missiles for the Army etc. Of course then you get into the debate of domestic development versus foreign license.

Missile firms struggle with solid fuel...

How much of that was the Missile firms' fault? I don't know enough to say but I would have expected that firms like ICI or the government Establishments would have been responsible for research and development of solid fuels.

 

[zen]

The major problem was the incredibly poor performance of UK solid fuel motors.

The frustrating thing is that it was an area of research which would have benefited, and one would hope be backed by, all three Services – air-to-air missiles for the RAF, surface-to-air missiles for the Royal Navy, surface-to-surface/anti-tank guided missiles for the Army etc. Of course then you get into the debate of domestic development versus foreign license.

Missile firms struggle with solid fuel...

How much of that was the Missile firms' fault? I don't know enough to say but I would have expected that firms like ICI or the government Establishments would have been responsible for research and development of solid fuels.

Based on Zootycoon's statements here I'm rather retracting that, and think domestic effort would prevail and feed not just IRBM but TBM and potentially other missiles. Cheaper than supersonic bombers, and more relevant than TSR.2 and CVA-01.

 

[CNH]

According to Roy Dommett, the Polaris missiles eventually needed refurbishing, replacing the existing fuel. The US Navy had long since abandoned Polaris, and so Lockheed rehired retired engineers to work on the job - and charged us a fortune,