Bendix/McDonnell/General Dynamics Typhon SAM

[JFC Fuller]

Source: AREAS OF POTENTIAL APPLICATION OF MICROELECTRONICS TO THE TYPHON MISSILE by O. M. Martin. From the Proceedings of the Conference on Navy Laboratory Microelectronics Programme, June 1961, via Google Books.

Note in particular the description of the homing system including the uplink and downlink.

 

[JFC Fuller]

Typhoon MR Ordnance Components, Source is Naval Weapons Bulletin No. 6-62 (U) of 31st December 1962.

 

[SCAT-15F]

Source, TACTICAL MISSILE STRUCTURES AND MATERIALS TECHNOLOGY by WILLIAM C. CAYWOOD, ROBERT M. RIVELLO, and LOUIS B. WECKESSER.

The next major missile airframe development at APL was the Mach 4 Long Range Typhon (Typhon LR) in 1958-1960 (Fig. 2). The airframe was fabri- cated from superalloys of nickel and cobalt, using lightweight honeycomb and corrugation-stiffened panel construction. As with Talos, the Typhon's ex- ternal airframe in the region of the combustor was protected from the hot combustion-chamber gases by means of an air-cooled shroud liner system that by- passed a portion of the relatively cool internal duct air. Also, flame-sprayed zirconium dioxide coatings maintained the combustion-chamber components within acceptable temperature limits. The structural capability of the missile at speeds up to Mach 4.2 and at altitudes of 55,000 to 100,000 feet was demonstrated in successful flight tests at White Sands Proving Ground in 1960-62. Studies conducted for NASA in 1963 indicated that the structure would be capable of operating at Mach 4.5 at high altitudes.

The drawing you have is the production version- it would have had only standard missile type fins instead of the full length chord versions on the test articles. I knew a guy who worked for Bendix and he gave me some documents about 30 years ago- not sure where they are but they confirm the SM2 fin design, a mach 4.25 speed limit, 100,000 ft intercept ceiling and 200 nmi range. Only difference is the "chines" or raceways terminate at the nose. With current radar and seekers this would be formidable even today. Mach 5 with the same ramjet propulsion configuration should be doable.

 

[Tzoli]

I wonder... what would be the launcher for the RIM-50 Typhon LR missile?
- The Mark 7/12 which was used for the RIM-8 Talos
- The Mark 9/10 which was used for the RIM-2 Terrier
- The Mark 26 which is used by the RIM-66 Standard MR
or an entire new launcher system?

 

[Yellow Palace]

It was to be a version of the Mark 10.

 

[Tzoli]

From Norman Friedman it is not always clear but the Typhon armed warships would had single MR launchers and twin LR ones?

 

[Scott Kenny]

I wonder... what would be the launcher for the RIM-50 Typhon LR missile?
- The Mark 7/12 which was used for the RIM-8 Talos
- The Mark 9/10 which was used for the RIM-2 Terrier
- The Mark 26 which is used by the RIM-66 Standard MR
or an entire new launcher system?

LR may or may not need a fast reload, but MR absolutely needs a fast reload.

 

[TomS]

From Norman Friedman it is not always clear but the Typhon armed warships would had single MR launchers and twin LR ones?

That's correct. The Typhon LR launcher was a slightly modified Mk 10 to handle the enlarged booster.

LR may or may not need a fast reload, but MR absolutely needs a fast reload.

Typhon LR was like Terrier in that it would have needed manual finning of the booster. The track-via-missile guidance would have supported a faster ROF than Terrier but not super-fast. Typhon MR of course used a modified Mk 13 launcher, one of the fastest-cycling mechanical missile launchers ever.

 

[Tzoli]

That's correct. The Typhon LR launcher was a slightly modified Mk 10 to handle the enlarged booster.



Typhon LR was like Terrier in that it would have needed manual finning of the booster. The track-via-missile guidance would have supported a faster ROF than Terrier but not super-fast. Typhon MR of course used a modified Mk 13 launcher, one of the fastest-cycling mechanical missile launchers ever.

So twins for the LR I presume. I wonder if the Mark 10 would receive only a new mod number or an entire new designation say Mark 15?

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

Source

 

[xena]

What is this?

 

[TomS]

What is this?

That's the SPG-59 radar for Typhon.

 

[sferrin]

That's the SPG-59 radar for Typhon.

Certainly strange compared to what we're used to seeing in a radar (dishes or flat panels).

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

An artist's rendering of the TYPHON radar dome similar to the one on Norton Sound in 1964. The radar proper consisted of the conical top with five spherical Luneberg arrays, one at the top for transmitting and four around the sides for receiving. "Inside the many microwave connections of waveguides, feedhorns, switches, and other components give the appearance of 'microwave spaghetti.'"

 

[xena]

So this construction had five antennas only? And all the room inside the turret are the electronics to feed this five antennas?

 

[TomS]

So this construction had five antennas only? And all the room inside the turret are the electronics to feed this five antennas?

Yep, basically. You can also see a lot of the signal processing computer banks below decks outside of the deckhouse.

 

[MihoshiK]

So this construction had five antennas only? And all the room inside the turret are the electronics to feed this five antennas?

Depending on the size either four or five antennas, yes.

And power hungry enough that nuclear was pretty much a requirement, and even then they were planning on only switching it on when a conventional very large long range radar gave warning.

 

[xena]

It would be interesting to know how this construction worked. Was this something like a PESA radar?

 

[DWG]

An artist's rendering of the TYPHON radar dome similar to the one on Norton Sound in 1964. The radar proper consisted of the conical top with five spherical Luneberg arrays, one at the top for transmitting and four around the sides for receiving.

I've already made the point in the other thread where the image appeared, but it's worth noting that the original description is wrong and the image clearly shows three receive antennae/Luneberg lenses, not four. The one on the left is in line with the forward projecting aerial mount, which is clearly on the fore-aft axis of the ship, and that means we should see two more antennae for a four antennae system, at the 180 and 270 degree positions, but there's no Luneberg lens at 180* and the visible one is pretty clearly at 240 degrees, not 270. Not certain whether its a transcription error at Shipscribe, or if it's also true in the brochure in the NNHC files they state as the original source.

* There is a small conventional antenna. Helicopter approach control?

 

[TomS]

It would be interesting to know how this construction worked. Was this something like a PESA radar?

It's a little bit of a hybrid. Unlike a PESA, there was more than one or two amplifiers per array, but unlike AESA, the amps were not part of the actual emitter array. But more PESA than AESA for sure. There are a couple of posts early in this thread that describes the operating mechanism in more detail.

 

[Tzoli]

The only "full set" to my knowledge was the experimental laboratory SPG-59 one which might be even a smaller version than the small ship 3.400 element one:

 

[TomS]

The only "full set" to my knowledhe was the experimental laboratory SPG-59 one which might be even a smaller version than the small ship 3.400 element one:

Gussow's article describes this installation. It had only two receive antennas (the third that should be on the back of the structure is missing) and 100 elements, with 10 kW of peak power. It was very sub-scale.

 

[TomS]

* There is a small conventional antenna. Helicopter approach control?

I wonder if it might be for missile fire control, since this may not have been fully implemented in the experimental installation. The restricted arcs could be accepted since engagements for testing would be carefully contrived anyway.

 

[Tzoli]

Hmm interesting!
Re-chechking the older posts, thisdocument shows 4 variants:

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/u-s-navy-typhon-warships.690/#post-74397

2-4-6-8 dish ones. Probably early iterations of what became the 4 and 5 dish systems though I do not know how many dishes would had the 7.000 element one had if the 3.400 was the 4 dish and the 10.000 one the 5 dish one. On the other hand do we ever seen drawings of the large 10.000 element version?

 

[TomS]

Hmm interesting!
Re-chechking the older posts, thisdocument shows 4 variants:

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/u-s-navy-typhon-warships.690/#post-74397

2-4-6-8 dish ones. Probably early iterations of what became the 4 and 5 dish systems though I do not know how many dishes would had the 7.000 element one had if the 3.400 was the 4 dish and the 10.000 one the 5 dish one. On the other hand do we ever seen drawings of the large 10.000 element version?

Keep in mind that this 1959 document predates the start of Typhon as an integrated weapon system and the conception of SPG-59. Typhon as it was developed did away with the need for illuminator dishes, since it sent missile steering updates via the main radar.

 

[DWG]

I wonder if it might be for missile fire control, since this may not have been fully implemented in the experimental installation. The restricted arcs could be accepted since engagements for testing would be carefully contrived anyway.

Interesting thought, the Norton Sound did have her launcher aft, though I'd think the antenna position on the dome would be obscured by the gantries and masts aft of the SPG-59.

 

[JFC Fuller]

Hmm interesting!
Re-chechking the older posts, thisdocument shows 4 variants:

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/u-s-navy-typhon-warships.690/#post-74397

2-4-6-8 dish ones. Probably early iterations of what became the 4 and 5 dish systems though I do not know how many dishes would had the 7.000 element one had if the 3.400 was the 4 dish and the 10.000 one the 5 dish one. On the other hand do we ever seen drawings of the large 10.000 element version?

I think you are misinterpreting that document. It is outlining two separate systems, one as an alternative to the other and both intended only for fire control, not for search:

1. The "phased array" system, this is a precursor to AN/SPG-59 but at this stage it was only for fire control.
2. The "advanced dish radar", this is not described in detail but it could have been similar to the later AN/SPG-62, it is proposed as an alternative to the phased array system