Could a Type 12 or other frigate have carried a worthwhile SAM?

[Archibald]

Give them MANPADS and sailors trained to fire them. Job done.

Blowpipe (missile) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Hood]

Jaguar and Lincoln were reactivated as specialist ramming ships in the Third Cod Wars though.

They seem to have served most of their time in the Far East, probably due to their superior range.
The T41s at least would have made decent OPVs before that term was a thing. They probably should have been more heavily used in the Cod Wars, getting Type 12s and Leanders smashed up was not really a wise move.

I'm wary of saying a steam T41/61 or a more better ships would have enabled them to live longer - by the 1970s manpower is going to dictate what is laid up or not more than what speed a ship can reach.

There seems to be a common theme in the Daring upgrades/mods, Super Darings, County mods for RAN, Type 12/Leander SAM mods etc. in that adding missiles seems to have expanded displacement massively and led to serious bloat eating up the margins and leading to inferior performance. Either the DNC was too pessimistic or somehow the USN had more generous weight allowances or British systems were just too heavy and clunky and space intensive.

 

[Scott Kenny]

There seems to be a common theme in the Daring upgrades/mods, Super Darings, County mods for RAN, Type 12/Leander SAM mods etc. in that adding missiles seems to have expanded displacement massively and led to serious bloat eating up the margins and leading to inferior performance. Either the DNC was too pessimistic or somehow the USN had more generous weight allowances or British systems were just too heavy and clunky and space intensive.

Based on the absurdly over-engineered RN Ikara launcher, my vote is too heavy and clunky and space intensive.

For example: Seaslug is a 30km range weapon, as is RIM24B Tartar and RIM2 Terrier. Sea Slug is a 2000+kg weapon, while Tartar is 540kg. RIM2 Terrier is 1400kg, and as soon as the RIM24B Tartar came out Terriers were dead. Then Tartar missiles got replaced with Standards in the late 1960s, where an SM1 has a 74km range...


Then we have the contribution from Purpletrouble:

My problem with all the “if only lightweight sea wolf launchers had been developed as planned” AHs that are promulgated is that aiui the problem with Sea Wolf wasnt the launchers - the sextuple things arent a significant issue in themselves (and likely to be lighter than the oft suggested 2x twin or trip or quad in their place) - but the directors and the below deck volume required for the computers.

Having served on T23s the tracker rooms are huge (some of the biggest spaces in the ship iirc) and dont encompass it all (and thats a developed SW). Post Sea Ceptor the freed up space has been a godsend given the other systems and general crampdness.

So for me the barrier to wider Sea Wolf adoption is not the launchers but the directors and computers - of which lighter/more efficient dont seem to ever be on the cards, and if they could have been, would have been evident in VLSW and T23.

And that's with Sea Wolf, a 1970s design.

 

[zen]

Terrier is comparable, bar that it started out with a 10nm range compared to Seaslug MkI's 15nm.
It is much longer and the magazine system is substantial.

Seaslug MkII had 30nm.

The magazine system was intended for the Cruiser and limited funds meant there wasn't anything available for a Destroyer system.

There was at least one Escort study with Seaslug that was fairly light as a vessel. But it packed only 12 missiles if I reccal correctly.

The best argument for a SAM on a revised Type 12 would have been Orange Nell. Which was intended to be lighter than Tartar.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Terrier is comparable, bar that it started out with a 10nm range compared to Seaslug MkI's 15nm.
It is much longer and the magazine system is substantial.

Right, that's why as soon as Tartar B models were available they effectively replaced Terrier in all new construction for small ships. Much smaller missile and less space needed under the deck (which IIRC usually got translated to "stick more missiles into that volume!" for existing ships). Terriers were officially replaced with RIM67 Standard ERs, which gave the ships a Talos range missile in a much smaller package.

Seaslug MkII had 30nm.

And by the time Seaslug Mk2 was deployed the US was using RIM-66 Standards, with a 40nmi range and 1/3 the weight.

The best argument for a SAM on a revised Type 12 would have been Orange Nell. Which was intended to be lighter than Tartar.

Orange Nell certainly sounds like an equivalent to the US Mk11 launcher for Tartar (fitting in the 5.25" turret volume, twin arms, 40 missile magazine), and that would have been far better for small ships. The problem was that it was canceled on the grounds that the missile was too short ranged to stop an armor-piercing warhead that was already in a terminal dive.

Given that from 1958 to 1968 US solid fueled SAMs all using the same outer mold line went from 16km range to 30km to 33km to 74km, the RN really had a lack of vision.

 

[Purpletrouble]

Right, that's why as soon as Tartar B models were available they effectively replaced Terrier in all new construction for small ships. Much smaller missile and less space needed under the deck (which IIRC usually got translated to "stick more missiles into that volume!" for existing ships). Terriers were officially replaced with RIM67 Standard ERs, which gave the ships a Talos range missile in a much smaller package.



And by the time Seaslug Mk2 was deployed the US was using RIM-66 Standards, with a 40nmi range and 1/3 the weight.



Orange Nell certainly sounds like an equivalent to the US Mk11 launcher for Tartar (fitting in the 5.25" turret volume, twin arms, 40 missile magazine), and that would have been far better for small ships. The problem was that it was canceled on the grounds that the missile was too short ranged to stop an armor-piercing warhead that was already in a terminal dive.

Given that from 1958 to 1968 US solid fueled SAMs all using the same outer mold line went from 16km range to 30km to 33km to 74km, the RN really had a lack of vision.

I don’t think anyone will argue that the UK was ahead here, or even keeping pace. Every read of any good book covering this period highlights repeated references to the UK’s electronic’s industry being unable to produce at higher rates the stuff it was making let alone making something else.

The US (could) put a level of resources an order of magnitude greater into all this than the UK. Noting for at least the first half of that period it’s missiles basically didnt work at all. Making nominal stats irrelevent.

Vision doesnt seem to be lacking in the RN, witness all the different programs and ideas. The weakness was inability to develop and deliver these visions.

Arguably the RN’s vision for fully integrated, digital combat management systems as the solution to the air threat, was well ahead of the US, and early realisations of that vision were indeed also ahead. But the order of magnitude difference in resources between the two inevitably led to the situation we see.

 

[zen]

Right, that's why as soon as Tartar B models were available they effectively replaced Terrier in all new construction for small ships. Much smaller missile and less space needed under the deck (which IIRC usually got translated to "stick more missiles into that volume!" for existing ships).

Certainly we can see why the USN makes it's choices. But these be not what the RN wanted. Hence Orange Nell and ultimately Sea Wolf.

Orange Nell certainly sounds like an equivalent to the US Mk11 launcher for Tartar (fitting in the 5.25" turret volume, twin arms, 40 missile magazine), and that would have been far better for small ships. The problem was that it was canceled on the grounds that the missile was too short ranged to stop an armor-piercing warhead that was already in a terminal dive.

It would seem overly pessimistic and frankly the benefits of a 500lb SAM of this sort rather outweighs the immediate concerns.
They should have stuck with the effort and worked towards a more capable iteration later.

A 32 missile system say fitting in place of a twin 4.5 turret would be of substantial value.

 

[Scott Kenny]

It would seem overly pessimistic and frankly the benefits of a 500lb SAM of this sort rather outweighs the immediate concerns.
They should have stuck with the effort and worked towards a more capable iteration later.

A 32 missile system say fitting in place of a twin 4.5 turret would be of substantial value.

Agreed.

I also question how long antiship missiles would have warheads broadly similar to 16" high explosive shells, when no ship designed post WW2 has even the armor of a Cruiser (~6"/15cm belt)

 

[zen]

Exactly how many Soviet Anti-ship Missiles had such warheads?

 

[Purpletrouble]

Certainly we can see why the USN makes it's choices. But these be not what the RN wanted. Hence Orange Nell and ultimately Sea Wolf.

It would seem overly pessimistic and frankly the benefits of a 500lb SAM of this sort rather outweighs the immediate concerns.
They should have stuck with the effort and worked towards a more capable iteration later.

A 32 missile system say fitting in place of a twin 4.5 turret would be of substantial value.

The reality is we probably didn’t have the resources to develop it. The “missile hits us anyway” smacks of that not being the real reason. Maybe its just me being cynical and having seen far too many “put that as the reason even though we know it isnt really”, (which is a huge flaw in relying on paper records long after the events as they are often deliberately misleading). Throw in that even now things get a reason for something publicised that isnt true but the real reason is kept quiet for a good reason (higher classification, revealing sources, threat info or how thinga work or dont).

My own AH has TartarK (as in K for Kingdom). An anglicised version that gives us something we can refit in a Daring for example, thus not entirely dollars of buying it or the burden of developing it. Seen as an interim before Sea Dart becomes available.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Exactly how many Soviet Anti-ship Missiles had such warheads?

Basically all of them.

AS-1: 600kg HE, subsonic
AS-2: 1000kg HE or 350kt nuke, Mach 1.32
AS-3: 300kt-3Mt nuke, Mach 2
AS-4: 1000kg HE or 350kt-1Mt nuke, Mach 4.6
AS-5: 1Mt nuke, Mach 1.2

Though I suspect it was more the nuclear warheads that needed more standoff than 5nmi...

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Agreed.

I also question how long antiship missiles would have warheads broadly similar to 16" high explosive shells, when no ship designed post WW2 has even the armor of a Cruiser (~6"/15cm belt)

They don't need them. Even a SAM used as an ASM can be devastating to a well armored ship. You don't have to penetrate the armor in most cases--very probably all cases--to 'mission kill' a ship. The USN trio of "T" SAM's will absolutely wreck something like a WW 2 battleship or heavy cruiser, even if they don't penetrate any of the armor.

For example, Talos would slam into such a target with about triple the kinetic energy of a 16" shell. That's because it would be moving at about Mach 2 on impact and weighs more than the shell does. All that energy converts to a lot of damage to unarmored areas of the ship. Add in the warhead, even an expanding rod one, and then toss in the unspent fuel creating a large fire, and you get a single hit that likely takes down radars, fire controls, communications, and other such systems rendering the battleship unable to accurately fire its weapons even if those are still online.

That's a Talos practice missile without a warhead hitting an ex-WW 2 DE. It nearly tore the ship in half. Imagine it hitting above the armor on an Iowa class or a Sverdlov cruiser.

That's what a tiny sea sparrow missile does to a destroyer. In this case a Turkish DD (ex-Gearing class) accidently hit by one fired by the Saratoga.

The Soviets went big for dedicated anti-ship missiles, but you really don't need them when you have SAM's that can do the job equally well.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

I don’t think anyone will argue that the UK was ahead here, or even keeping pace. Every read of any good book covering this period highlights repeated references to the UK’s electronic’s industry being unable to produce at higher rates the stuff it was making let alone making something else.

The US (could) put a level of resources an order of magnitude greater into all this than the UK. Noting for at least the first half of that period it’s missiles basically didnt work at all. Making nominal stats irrelevent.

Vision doesnt seem to be lacking in the RN, witness all the different programs and ideas. The weakness was inability to develop and deliver these visions.

Arguably the RN’s vision for fully integrated, digital combat management systems as the solution to the air threat, was well ahead of the US, and early realisations of that vision were indeed also ahead. But the order of magnitude difference in resources between the two inevitably led to the situation we see.

A big reason the RN didn't go with US SAM's for their ships was they wanted to keep in-house ability to develop such weapons available. They were willing to forego what were, at the time, better US missile systems for ones that were developed and deployed within the UK by UK manufacturers.

The US from the mid 50's on, had some serious advantages in developing SAM's overall. They had invented and engineered far better solid fuels and fuel geometry that allowed these to be adopted for general use and made it possible to make compact booster stages for their missiles. They had a big edge in electronics and analog computer design and the industry to make them in quantity at a reasonable cost. They also had cubic dollars to toss at the problem, and SAM's were the top missile priority though at least the late 60's.

The RN had the same basic ideas the US did on what was needed to defend their ships, but they had a fraction of the budget the US did to do it on. Sea Slug would work well enough against the sort of 1950's - 1960's bomber or attack aircraft with unguided conventional munitions trying to attack a ship or fleet. Against maneuvering aircraft or ones with stand-off munitions, it was extremely marginal.

Seacat was something akin to the WW 2 7" UP projectors. That is, better than nothing, just barely. Sea Dart and Sea Wolf were / are viable systems for threats from the 70's on, even if not the greatest systems they were more than enough most of the time. They certainly were in the Falklands.

 

[Scott Kenny]

A big reason the RN didn't go with US SAM's for their ships was they wanted to keep in-house ability to develop such weapons available. They were willing to forego what were, at the time, better US missile systems for ones that were developed and deployed within the UK by UK manufacturers.

Which is usually a good idea, as long as the UK systems aren't complete crap. There are times when someone has such a lead on your own industries that your best bet as a country is to license production, make modifications a bit later on, and finally use all that experience to design your own stuff. I think at the very least the UK needed to license some US solid rocket motors!

Seaslug was a third heavier than Terrier but only had a 30km range instead of Terrier's 32km. By the time Seaslug Mk2 was in service in 1971, the USN had deployed Standard Missiles, the 700kg SM1MR had a range of 74km and the Terrier sized 1350kg SM1ER had a range of at least 120km!

The only advantage I'm seeing to Seaslug is that it's shorter than Terrier or SM1ER. Instead of a booster stack, the Seaslug boosters are on the sides so a complete Seaslug is only ~6m/20ft long. Vertical storage would take 2 decks, not 3.

Sea Wolf had absolutely huge computer space requirements on the ship due to ACLOS guidance, and Sea Wolf is equivalent to RIM-116 RAM! 180lb missile, 10km range.

Sea Dart was a good missile but too big for a 2300ton ship with all the other stuff needed. Sea Dart needed a good 3d radar, and then the Frigate needs lots of ASW gear.
(Ikara had a grossly overcomplicated high-precision trainable launcher. For a command-guided missile, not a ballistic missile. It also got a very high-powered command guided transmitter that needed extra cooling, but that can stay. Helps burn through jamming and other interference!)

This is HMS Penelope, as the Leander class was originally designed. Twin 4.5" forward, Limbo ASW mortar aft.

(photo from wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leander-class_frigate )

There's just no extra space on that hull. If you want big SAMs, they're going to have to replace the Limbo mortar, because Ikara has to go forward replacing the gun.

US ships with gun + ASROC + SAMs were 40ft longer and 300-500 tons heavier.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

With Sea Slug, the boosters were, at least early on, using the same double base cordite fuel that the 1939 3" UP rockets were using. This is at a time when the US had gone to Thiokol polysulphide rubber-based fuels with, roughly, twice the impulse for the same weight of material. Alleganey Ballistics Lab had worked out the interior configuration of solid fuels for rockets to make them burn at their most efficient and consistent as well. One of the biggest benefits of this for US missiles was they were now using a single booster in line with the missile meaning that there was no asymmetric thrust that came from using multiple boosters with the corresponding loss of efficiency in flight as the missile corrected its line of flight increasing drag and loss of thrust.

That's why you see US boosters get way more thrust, go to a single engine, and put it in line with the missile. The British waited a generation of missile designs to adopt the same sort of thing.

 

[Hood]

There's just no extra space on that hull. If you want big SAMs, they're going to have to replace the Limbo mortar, because Ikara has to go forward replacing the gun.

This is a point that I have made before - that the Type 12/Leander layout just has no room without sacrificing something else. Any SSM fit or ASW/SAM fit involving deck penetration means sacrificing the 4.5in mount and therefore any gun armament. Sea Wolf with the original sextuple deck launcher at least did not require deck penetration and therefore was suitable for the Excocet ships (fitting three quad Sea Cats just doesn't cut it, you could fit ten Sea Cat launcher and it would still be sub-par by the 70s).
Another alternative would be to replace the Sea Cat aft with a fairly light non-penetrating SAM system like Sea Sparrow.

Even if you could fit a Terrier to a Type 12 or 12M hull, without any guns over 20mm you've got a limited general purpose frigate with Terrier - Limbo - Wasp - possible lightweight torps (fixed Bidder was proposed) - couple of Oerlikons.

I suppose you could say the Type 81 is the purpose design general purpose design, but its got shielded 4.5in like a WW2 vessel and a weird cramped Wasp hangar/platform thingy. For me Type 81 is even more limited than the 41/61/12 series.

 

[Purpletrouble]

This is a point that I have made before - that the Type 12/Leander layout just has no room without sacrificing something else. Any SSM fit or ASW/SAM fit involving deck penetration means sacrificing the 4.5in mount and therefore any gun armament. Sea Wolf with the original sextuple deck launcher at least did not require deck penetration and therefore was suitable for the Excocet ships (fitting three quad Sea Cats just doesn't cut it, you could fit ten Sea Cat launcher and it would still be sub-par by the 70s).
Another alternative would be to replace the Sea Cat aft with a fairly light non-penetrating SAM system like Sea Sparrow.

I always wondered how they reloaded the Leander B3’s Sea Wolf. Its a fair trek from the superstructure to the launcher, uphill and past the SSMs. Good luck in weather (having had green windows on a T23!). The T22 is notable by having superstructure access close by and aiui lifts to the mags plus being a deck above the forecastle.

Given the 4.5 was obseolete and manpower heavy losing it is less of an issue, as the Dutch did a compact 76 retains perfectly satisfactory GP capability for less weight and crucially, less people. Not sure how the Mk8 4.5” compares in those respects, probably insufificent benefit to make it worth it.

Even if you could fit a Terrier to a Type 12 or 12M hull, without any guns over 20mm you've got a limited general purpose frigate with Terrier - Limbo - Wasp - possible lightweight torps (fixed Bidder was proposed) - couple of Oerlikons.

This is why I wish we’d gone for fleet escorts rather than the convoy type, Daring and above sized hulls can take these missiles and retain a GP capability as US ships showed. The obsession with size really harmed us and I dont think it acheived anything in terms of controlling cost for numbers, if anything it made it worse especially when considering whole-life costs.

I suppose you could say the Type 81 is the purpose design general purpose design, but its got shielded 4.5in like a WW2 vessel and a weird cramped Wasp hangar/platform thingy. For me Type 81 is even more limited than the 41/61/12 series.

T81 was a seen as a major failure iirc, expensive with the gun/helo fails you identify. Henfe why it was replaced in build with Leander when originally many more planned. A pity in some respects as it was a more advanced propulsion (COSAG) and could have led to CODOG or all GT earlier. The Leander steam plant was a backwards step, especially given how long we continued building them.

T81 was classed as a sloop, very colonial gun boat (hence double ended guns at expense proper helo facilities - although that confept was still in its infancy anyway) and in no way a fleet frigate.

 

[Hood]

I always wondered how they reloaded the Leander B3’s Sea Wolf. Its a fair trek from the superstructure to the launcher, uphill and past the SSMs.

Good point. Same problem for those Batch 3s that got Sea Cat instead.
It's a shame the VM.40 lightweight mount wasn't ready for these conversions as it had a hull magazine and automatic reloading.

. A pity in some respects as it was a more advanced propulsion (COSAG) and could have led to CODOG or all GT earlier.

A COSAG Leander would have been interesting, though the need for two funnels and extra downtakes would mean a redesign of the superstructure and quite possibly a longer hull too. Again, no bad thing.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

Given the 4.5 was obseolete and manpower heavy losing it is less of an issue, as the Dutch did a compact 76 retains perfectly satisfactory GP capability for less weight and crucially, less people. Not sure how the Mk8 4.5” compares in those respects, probably insufificent benefit to make it worth it.

At least initially the Dutch Leanders used the same 4.5 inch of the British ships. The 76mm gun was added in the 1970s mid-life refit.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Which is usually a good idea, as long as the UK systems aren't complete crap. There are times when someone has such a lead on your own industries that your best bet as a country is to license production, make modifications a bit later on, and finally use all that experience to design your own stuff. I think at the very least the UK needed to license some US solid rocket motors!

Seaslug was a third heavier than Terrier but only had a 30km range instead of Terrier's 32km. By the time Seaslug Mk2 was in service in 1971, the USN had deployed Standard Missiles, the 700kg SM1MR had a range of 74km and the Terrier sized 1350kg SM1ER had a range of at least 120km!

The problem the RN / British had was first and foremost, that they were working on a shoestring of a budget. Add to that a pretty hidebound bureaucracy that often hamstrung engineers with just short of insane design requirements.

With Seaslug, development really began back in 1944 with the LOPGAP missile program. That set the trajectory for what became Seaslug, and in turn, largely locked the design of the system down early on.

Yes, the British did need to use / license US rocket motor fuels and designs to get more out of their own missiles. In the RAF's case with Bloodhound, they did just that with the ramjets used. Bristol went to Marquardt in the US, the leading ramjet manufacturer for the USAF. When they found that wasn't a good match for them, they turned to Boeing who were developing the GAPA missile for the Air Force and got what they needed, a shortcut to a reliable, working, high thrust ramjet.

The RN did have some idea what the US Navy was doing with Bumblebee and missiles. They could--and British engineers in general--have adopted the better US solid fuels like GALCIT 53 or 61 and Thiokol polysulphides. These, unlike double-base cordite were castable and using the configurations ABL came up with made them easily double to triple the efficiency of cordite fuels. I'd assume the reason they stuck with cordite-based fuels was simply one of availability and cheapness. I would suspect there'd be a lot of it lying about left over from WW 2 so it got used not because it was better, but because it was affordable.

The one system I can't understand why the RN bothered to adopt is Seacat. That system is so marginal as to be useless. It's like trying to turn the Soviet Sagger ATGM into a SAM when it is barely capable of taking on a moving tank. Plopping an old 40mm Bofors gun, that oddly it was supposed to replace, in its place would be an improvement.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

Weren't the later versions of Seacat SACLOS and ACLOS?

 

[JFC Fuller]

Picking up a few random bits from the recent discussion:

Vanguard to Trident and The Post War Naval Revolution were both researched and published in the mid-1980s when a fraction of the material available today had been released and what was available was much harder to navigate. They are both fine books but the material available today allows for a much more detailed story to be told, and some different conclusions to be reached. For one, the radical review really doesn't seem to have been that radical, especially compared to 1957. Convoy escort remained a role into the 1980s.

The Type 12/41/61 combination was designed to provide convoy escort within range of the bulk of Soviet Naval Aviation types, notably the Western Approaches, North Sea and Western Mediterranean. This wasn't a concept dreamed up by the Royal Navy in isolation, it was integral to NATO planning assumptions that in the early 1950s were incredibly pessimistic - some scenarios included the Soviets rapidly overrunning North West Europe and using air bases in Norway to launch attacks against shipping on a scale beyond anything the Germans had ever managed.

In that context the three types were to work together to provide anti-aircraft and anti-submarine defence for the convoy. In the case of the former role this included both controlling the air battle (Type 61) and engaging air targets directly (Type 41) and these roles required different equipment. The Type 61s ultimately got the Type 965 AKE 2 (Warning and Air Interception Radar) as used on the County class and Battle class conversions. This was a significantly larger and more capable set than the Type 965 AKE 1 (Small Ship Air Warning radar) that was installed on the Leanders. With that, the Type 61s also had multiple intercept positions in their AIOs and a larger number of ship-to-air radio channels for controlling fighters, this all required a lot of volume in the ship. The intention was to improve this concept in later versions by adding CDS/DPT, 3"/70s and ultimately a guided weapon (POPSY/MOPSY was studied).

FADES (and Air Direction Frigates for that matter) are not all equal. The dedicated Type 984 FADES Friedman describes stop being considered in about 1950, they were only ever an interim concept, surviving documents don't say interim for what but I believe it had been decided to install that capability in carriers and cruisers (as this is where the Type 984/CDS/DPT combination starts showing up). The Type 984 sets would be at the centre of the formation, carrier group or convoy, and provide long-range high altitude warning and direction capability, the Type 61s and 62s (and later the Battle class conversions) would be further out to provide a combination of warning and air direction overlapping with the Type 984 coverage and filling in below it. Pickets, which is really all the Leanders and Type 81s could do, would be further out still and only give basic warning, the really difficult threat was at low altitude, this required a large number of pickets working with AEW aircraft to provide warning.

A truly multipurpose ship would have required something much larger than a Leander. Just to illustrate, such a ship designed in the mid-1950s (lets say instead of the Type 81) would have required Type 965 AKE-2, an 8 track (or ideally more) CDS fit and multiple ship-to-air VHF channels. All of this on top of the Leander ASW outfit, thats much more volume and electrical power. If 30 knots is required much more propulsive power would be necessary too, very roughly it feels like 4,500-5,000tons. To answer the original question, if POPSY/MOPSY or Orange Nell had been developed it would have replaced (space wise) the 4.5" Mk.VI, but having a gun and such a missile system would have driven a further increase in size.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Weren't the later versions of Seacat SACLOS and ACLOS?

The GWS 20 was MCLOS and useless. The system was based on the Malkara ATGM and used a Mk 20 gun director that was purely visual.

Subsequent models (21, 22, 24) used or were supplemented by radar and / or television guidance.

Even then, Seacat being subsonic (~ 500 mph) and having a short range (~ 5,000 yds 3,000 ft max alt) made it almost useless on those characteristics against high subsonic and anything supersonic as targets.

For all intents, you have the RN adopting a SAM in the early 1970's that is equivalent in performance to stuff that was being tried in the late 1940's and didn't work then.

It's really like putting some 7" UP projectors on a ship in the 1970's or 80's.

 

[zen]

In the story of the RN's quest for a complimentary SAM to Seaslug (begun in the post '45 era) they hit on the solution of using Red Hawk with more boost.
Popsy was born.
Essentially aiming at dealing with the sort of Anti-ship Missiles they feared the Soviets were developing from Germany technology.

But lack of funds and in the quest for interoperability drew the RN to look at the US Meteor AAM developed as a SAM....besides Red Hawk got bogged down.
Again with the UK Q-band seeker technology, increasingly refined and understood, which struck UK industry and military as much more ideal for the task.
Mopsy was born.
But as the RN lacked the funds they lobbied the USN to fund it.
USN however was more interested in a system where commanding ships guided missiles fired from the merchantmen fitted with such missile batteries.
This was dropped as not easily achievable with the technology of the times.
Thus the US shifted over to a dual thrust motor based on the Terrier second stage aerodynamics.
Tartar was born
But to the RN's frustration the USN had focused on another anti-aircraft missile rather than their preference for an anti-missile-missile.
Priced in dollars and not quite what they wanted thevRB studied it but could never justify buying it.

So off the Admiralty went and constructed requirements for such a system and industry gave their input.
Orange Nell was developed as a concept. Smaller and lighter than Tartar.
But no funds were possible.

Until NMBR.11 offered the opportunity to develop a 'NATO common SAM' which was called in the UK SIGS.

But then as Seaslug MkIII was spiraling off into NIGS Bristol had proposed a integrated ramjet missile. A sort of mini-Talos.
This in much revised form became CF.299 Sea Dart.

Seaslug could in theory take cable along the fusilage sides and connect polyrod interferometer aerials with a revised avionics package (located at the rear). Said avionics opened up Command Guidance and so guided from the ship using sophisticated PESA radars great range was possible.

NIGS died in the throws of theory and cost escalations and the realisation very few such ships could be afforded or crewed and upgrading existing County ships would be prohibitively expensive. The RN needed numbers.

Squeezing more out of SIGS became the objective. Even at the cost of minimum range limitations. Inevitable with a ramjet.

Meanwhile the short range lightweight SAM effort had a new hope.....First PT.428 as a sophisticated Beam Rider and then the US Sea Mauler.
Mauler being a SARH SAM in a 5.5" diameter body....
But Mauler went nowhere despite the US and UK piling funds in and two offshoots of the PT.428 concept were developed, one low end SACLOS which became Rapier and another more advanced ACLOS system....PX.430 Sea Wolf.

Meanwhile the USN cobbled together something called Sea Sparrow Basic Point Defence Missile System (BPDMS), which included manual guidance using a modified searchlight mount.
Whole another effort was Sea Dragon, essentially Chaparral for ships.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Squeezing more out of SIGS became the objective. Even at the cost of minimum range limitations. Inevitable with a ramjet.

Not that you have to have much of a minimum range. Talos, all 8000lbs of it, broke Mach 1 before it left the launch rail. IIRC the booster only burned for a few seconds, and then the ramjet was running less than 10sec after launch.

This does add up to about a 5km minimum range, but still.

 

[Purpletrouble]

Not that you have to have much of a minimum range. Talos, all 8000lbs of it, broke Mach 1 before it left the launch rail. IIRC the booster only burned for a few seconds, and then the ramjet was running less than 10sec after launch.

This does add up to about a 5km minimum range, but still.

Isn’t that pretty much however your entire horizon against incoming low level?

Mach 1 before leaving? Is that evidenced anywhere as it seems dubious from a missile-launcher interaction if nothing else.

Sea Dart’s min range doesnt seem to have been an issue in the Falklands. More launching the damn thing at all / seeing the incoming.

I’ve always wondered if Sea Dart could be a MR/LR weapon with a larger booster on a LR variant to take it much further out. Assuming detection/guidance was upto it. As a cruiser weapon vs destroyer MR. Not sure it’d be worth it given the ramjet would have to be delayed kicking in and that is more efficient aiui than a rocket.

 

[Tzoli]

But then as Seaslug MkIII was spiraling off into NIGS Bristol had proposed a integrated ramjet missile. A sort of mini-Talos.
This in much revised form became CF.299 Sea Dart.

Seaslug could in theory take cable along the fusilage sides and connect polyrod interferometer aerials with a revised avionics package (located at the rear). Said avionics opened up Command Guidance and so guided from the ship using sophisticated PESA radars great range was possible.

NIGS died in the throws of theory and cost escalations and the realisation very few such ships could be afforded or crewed and upgrading existing County ships would be prohibitively expensive. The RN needed numbers.

NIGS not died that easily, drawings were created for the misssile as well as a vertically loaded twin launcher and a mini SPS-32/33 Radar was proposed! And a partial hull lines of a County sized ship for it!

 

[Scott Kenny]

Isn’t that pretty much however your entire horizon against incoming low level?

That's why it's a long range missile and you use other missiles like Terrier/Tartar for short range engagements. Or even Sea Sparrows.

You'd have plenty of warning of incoming due to Hawkeyes, plus most of the missiles of the time were high altitude threats.

Mach 1 before leaving? Is that evidenced anywhere as it seems dubious from a missile-launcher interaction if nothing else.

Was from a site I found long ago (3 computers ago!) about what must have been USS Little Rock. Long discussion about Talos versus land targets in Libya there, though IIRC the comment about the missile breaking mach while still on the rails was in the "So there we were, all watching a launch when the missile suddenly did a 180 and all 10 of us somehow made it inside the hull in 6 seconds" part.

I’ve always wondered if Sea Dart could be a MR/LR weapon with a larger booster on a LR variant to take it much further out. Assuming detection/guidance was upto it. As a cruiser weapon vs destroyer MR. Not sure it’d be worth it given the ramjet would have to be delayed kicking in and that is more efficient aiui than a rocket.

Sure, Sea Dart looks like a baby Talos (has basically the same guidance), so a longer booster may help. It'd take an installation 3 decks tall in the ship. And the Sea Dart mod.2 did get an 80nmi range out of the deal, so after 1991 it really was a decent range weapon, on par with SM2MRs.

I think you could make a Sea Dart LR out of the mod.2 version, since the Mod.2 was already using a ballistic flight path for range. Add a booster that's more like the size of a US Mk72 booster (found under SM2ERs)...

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Sure, Sea Dart looks like a baby Talos (has basically the same guidance), so a longer booster may help. It'd take an installation 3 decks tall in the ship. And the Sea Dart mod.2 did get an 80nmi range out of the deal, so after 1991 it really was a decent range weapon, on par with SM2MRs.

I think you could make a Sea Dart LR out of the mod.2 version, since the Mod.2 was already using a ballistic flight path for range. Add a booster that's more like the size of a US Mk72 booster (found under SM2ERs)...

Probably the thing that killed off ramjet SAM's more than anything else is they are G limited by their engine. You can only turn one so tight before you get an intake stall with air flow and the engine quits. That happens somewhere around 4 to 6G at most. A solid fuel rocket motor used on a missile has essentially no G limit on turns, so the missile is only limited by how much force the airframe will take.

Since targets from the 1950's and 60's have changed from larger bombers and aircraft that aren't maneuvering a lot delivering conventional munitions or guided ones that require the plane's crew to control it to impact to ones with fire and forget munitions and the plane itself maneuvering, ramjets just don't cut it anymore.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Probably the thing that killed off ramjet SAM's more than anything else is they are G limited by their engine. You can only turn one so tight before you get an intake stall with air flow and the engine quits. That happens somewhere around 4 to 6G at most. A solid fuel rocket motor used on a missile has essentially no G limit on turns, so the missile is only limited by how much force the airframe will take.

Since targets from the 1950's and 60's have changed from larger bombers and aircraft that aren't maneuvering a lot delivering conventional munitions or guided ones that require the plane's crew to control it to impact to ones with fire and forget munitions and the plane itself maneuvering, ramjets just don't cut it anymore.

So how does Meteor work so well?

 

[T. A. Gardner]

So how does Meteor work so well?

Because it isn't a ramjet per se. It is a ducted, air-augmented rocket. The ram air supplements the rocket thrust so unlike a true ramjet, you wouldn't lose ignition if airflow were disrupted momentarily.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Because it isn't a ramjet per se. It is a ducted, air-augmented rocket. The ram air supplements the rocket thrust so unlike a true ramjet, you wouldn't lose ignition if airflow were disrupted momentarily.

That's not my understanding of it, but we're wandering off topic so I'll let it go.

 

[Purpletrouble]

That's why it's a long range missile and you use other missiles like Terrier/Tartar for short range engagements. Or even Sea Sparrows.

I dont think any of those actually worked though. Especially the early BPDMS.

You'd have plenty of warning of incoming due to Hawkeyes, plus most of the missiles of the time were high altitude threats.

Nice in theory! But all these missiles were in service when it was low level. I think most ships attacked by missiles have actually been out of any aew cover.

The later “get well” program for the US missiles (and wholesale switch to SM1) rather belies that these had much combat before so all the numbers and suggestions of the UK adopting any T series are moot tbh. Frankly until the late 60s the only decent/working defence against incoming jet aircraft let alone missiles was defensive fighters. Until Aegis/SM2 and later improved Sea Dart I dont think missiles pulled their weight at all. It’s good we didnt go hot against the Soviets as I suspect the winner would simply be whoever fired first as everyones defenses would have failed (as no doubt many of the launched weapons too as the best chance of survival) - their defensive systems on ships still dont seem to work!

Perhaps passive defence was about the best thing going, something very little of which is in public.

 

[Kanga]

I dont think any of those actually worked though. Especially the early BPDMS.

Nice in theory! But all these missiles were in service when it was low level. I think most ships attacked by missiles have actually been out of any aew cover.

The later “get well” program for the US missiles (and wholesale switch to SM1) rather belies that these had much combat before so all the numbers and suggestions of the UK adopting any T series are moot tbh. Frankly until the late 60s the only decent/working defence against incoming jet aircraft let alone missiles was defensive fighters. Until Aegis/SM2 and later improved Sea Dart I dont think missiles pulled their weight at all. It’s good we didnt go hot against the Soviets as I suspect the winner would simply be whoever fired first as everyones defenses would have failed (as no doubt many of the launched weapons too as the best chance of survival) - their defensive systems on ships still dont seem to work!

Perhaps passive defence was about the best thing going, something very little of which is in public.

I think that's still the case, isn't it? I think the RAN thought so, which is why they were slow to adopt Phalanx but spent time and money to develop the Nulka decoy. With active defence with guns or missiles, the advantage is with the attacker, as you are trying to hit a small, manoeuvring tarket from a platform that's rocking, rolling and heaving. With passive defence (ECM) the advantage is with the defender, since no missile however big can match the electric and computing power available to the ship.
If the plane is compelled to overfly the ship because it's standoff weapons can't be trusted, it's much more vulnerable.