Active radar seeker on RIM-8 "Talos"

[Dilandu]

Basically the idea: could the RIM-8 "Talos" surface-to-air missile be equipped with AN/DPN-53 active radar seeker derivative (from CIM-10 Bomarc)?

RIM-8 "Talos" missile system provide USN with long-range SAM capabilities not surpassed (in therms of range) until 2010s, but it have several crucial drawbacks. One of the most important was the limited numbers of targets, that could be engaged simultaneously. For each intercept, two radars were required: relatively compact AN/SPW-2 to guide the missile near the target, and enormous AN/SPG-49 to illuminate the target. The fire control system was bulky (especially the AN/SPG-49), and could not deal with saturation attacks.

An attempt to solve this problem with "Typhon" combat system - capable to engage multiple targets simultaneously on long ranges - was unsuccessful due to extremely complicated nature of the radar used and missile control. But maybe the simpler (at least intermediate) solution were possible? If "Talos" was equipped with active radar seeker, and thus made capable of autonomous homing on target, the problem could be simplified greatly: basically, you would need to get missile close enough to target, so the missile could then home on by itself. No need to illuminate targets on extreme ranges for missile to home on reflected signal.

The active radar seeker suitable for that already existed: the AN/DPN-53 doppler system, used on USAF CIM-10 Bomarc pilotless interceptor. Since the USN have plans to use this seeker on AAM-N-10 "Eagle" air-to-air missile (developed in 1958-1960) it seems at least theoretically possible to fit the AN/DPN-53 on "Talos". The maximum diameter of AAM-N-10 was supposed to be about 14 inches; the innerbody of "Talos" was at least 22 inches in diameter.

Such upgrade would allow "Talos" to be fired without a need for terminal guidance - greatly improving the ability to engage multiple targets simultaneously. Of course, the midcourse guidance would still be a limiting factor, but it could be potentially improved, too (A SCANFAR based command guidance seems a good possibility).

So, could it be done in late 1950s - early 1960s?

 

[sferrin]

Space was already spoken for:

 

[Dilandu]

Space was already spoken for:

Yes, but earlier version of "Talos" have their warhead (conventional one) at the sides of diffuser:

 

[sferrin]

That's tiny considering all the gear in addition to the scanner.

 

[Dilandu]

That's tiny considering all the gear in addition to the scanner.

Hm. If I understood correctly, the radar seeker itself is much more compact than the whole electronic section of "Bomarc". Let's not forget, Navy planned to put the derivative of the same radar into 3-meter long AA missile (and still have space for solid fuel sustainer & warhead).

Also must point out, that when "Talos" missiles were rebuild into "Vandal" targets, they were elongated by about 4 ft without much problems.

 

[sferrin]

That's tiny considering all the gear in addition to the scanner.

Hm. If I understood correctly, the radar seeker itself is much more compact than the whole electronic section of "Bomarc". Let's not forget, Navy planned to put the derivative of the same radar into 3-meter long AA missile (and still have space for solid fuel sustainer & warhead).

Also must point out, that when "Talos" missiles were rebuild into "Vandal" targets, they were elongated by about 4 ft without much problems.

"Derivative". Also you didn't mention, "stretch however much to stuff it in there". Which begs the question, why even bother asking if it were possible?

 

[Dilandu]

"Derivative". Also you didn't mention, "stretch however much to stuff it in there". Which begs the question, why even bother asking if it were possible?

...Because I'm not completely sure that it is possible & cost-effective. Seriously, why any discussion existed? Exactly to discuss.

 

[sferrin]

"Derivative". Also you didn't mention, "stretch however much to stuff it in there". Which begs the question, why even bother asking if it were possible?

...Because I'm not completely sure that it is possible & cost-effective. Seriously, why any discussion existed? Exactly to discuss.

Well then your best bet would be to forget BOMARC and just stick Eagle's seeker in Talos. (But by the time you did that it would have been replaced by Typhon so. . .)

 

[Dilandu]

Well then your best bet would be to forget BOMARC and just stick Eagle's seeker in Talos. (But by the time you did that it would have been replaced by Typhon so. . .)

Basically what I said above:

Since the USN have plans to use this seeker on AAM-N-10 "Eagle" air-to-air missile (developed in 1958-1960) it seems at least theoretically possible to fit the AN/DPN-53 on "Talos".

Okay, must admit that I accidentally omitted the word "derivative".

 

[pathology_doc]

Also must point out, that when "Talos" missiles were rebuild into "Vandal" targets, they were elongated by about 4 ft without much problems.

However, by that time they're not required to have a warhead, and the demands on their performance have changed. Can anyone tell me how Vandal was loaded? Did they just run them directly from Talos magazines without modification? Or, given the Vandal's status as a development target for a weapon system, were they loaded manually onto the rail in some fashion before the ship left port?

I suspect it's not as easy as just sticking Talos and Vandal next to each other in the same magazine. Compare and contrast the mixed storage of Terrier and ASROC on the magazine rings of US guided missile cruisers. I recall reading from Friedman very recently that it wasn't a one-for-one substitution; space considerations precluded putting two ASROCs next to each other.

Yes, but earlier version of "Talos" have their warhead (conventional one) at the sides of diffuser:

Not big enough to hold all the electronic gear. Part of the reason for those four antennae around the nose of the ramjet inlet is that they are the radar receiver, acting on the interferometer principle. If you see a Talos without them, it's either a dummy/practice round or a nuke... which per USN doctrine was under positive guidance (beam riding) all the way to the target, to ensure it didn't lock onto the right one. Even if you could put a transmitter dish into the centre-body, it's too small to fit the actual microwave generator in there behind it, and you can't just run microwaves through a long cable. For sure you could possibly fit a modern, 21st century active homing head in there... but that's an anachronism.

Talos died because most of its launch platforms were worn out or too small (or both) to absorb extra refits, building more was too expensive, and the few that were still good for service were not enough to justify the cost of the next logical step. You have to remember that apart from the USS Long Beach, every ship that carried Talos was World War 2 vintage (Baltimore and Cleveland classes), and sometimes a veteran thereof.


I have to admit, I once thought as you did. The more I learned, the more I realised how impossible what you're suggesting actually is. The only other thing they might have tried was adapting the Phoenix homing head to Standard (the missiles are of about the same size), but even then I think there are going to be problems with reconciling the SARH phase to what the missile's homing head has hitherto expected - US missile cruiser radars and fire control systems are not AWG-9, and don't have the same ability to 'talk' to the missiles.

Whether you could work out some sort of austere Sea Phoenix, with the guidance head stuffed into a Tartar/Standard MR missile in a Mk13 launcher and a containerized AWG-9 on a 3-axis stabilised pedestal, is quite another matter, but that's its own development program.

 

[sferrin]

Land-launch:

(2:07)

 

[pathology_doc]

Land-launch:

Yeah, this ain't your "Let's stuff it in a standard launcher alongside the usual RIM-8" sort of thing.