Earlier and different Western naval anti ship missiles

[uk 75]

The Soviet Navy evolved anti ship missiles for its warships sooner than the West because it was faced with NATO's large surface fleets and their aircraft carriers.
The spur to Western nations seems to have been the arrival of new Soviet large surface units in the 60s and the sinking of an Israeli destroyer by a Soviet supplied SSM in 1967.
It was initially the large number of Anti aircraft missiles which were also given an anti surface role. Even the humble Seacat was looked at in an anti fast patrol boat role.
By the 1970s three systems had rmerged which could be fitted easily in box or tube launchers. Otomat was Italy's solution but lost out to Exocet in the competition for the RN and West German navies. The US Harpoon arrived later and has become the West's main system.
In comparison with Soviet and later Russian and Chinese weapons Harpoon requires more hits to kill a target like a cruiser or aircraft carrier.
In the 60s the US Navy still relied on nuclear tipped Talos and Terrier SAGW to kill big ships.
Supersonic weapons were planned to replace Harpoon and co if the Cold War had continued.
The UK only had two weapons suitable to compete with Exocet. The CF299 Seadart was designed with a secondary anti ship capability. The unloved Martel airframe formed the basis for a sub launched USGW which the RN needed desperately for its nuclear hunter killer subs from the 60s on. They had to wait until 1982 to get Sub Harpoon instead. Yet Martel went on to be the basis of the impressive Sea Eagle ASM.
With a bit more focus and resources especially when it became clear new aircraft carriers were not affordable, the RN might have been equipped with Martel based systems instead of Exocet and Harpoon.
The RN's submarines might then have received a supersonic replacement in the 90s.

 

[Dilandu]

Well, besides USSR, only Sweden was actually interested much in anti-ship missiles at this time. The reason was, ironically, the same as for USSR: USSR planned to dealt with numerically superior NATO fleets, and Sweden planned to dealt with numerically superior Soviet fleet)

 

[Dilandu]

I suppose the main stimulus that may boost the Western development of anti-ship missiles in Cold War may be Soviet own carriers. If USSR developed carrier aviation by 1950s (there were a lot of plans for carriers in Soviet Navy since late 1920s), then the local superiority of NATO naval aviation over the sea could not be guaranteed. Not only air strikes against Soviet fleets would be much more problematic - but also NATO navies would probably be forced to relegate larger percentage of their carrier air wings toward interceptors. Which would diminish the strike potential of NATO carriers significantly.

In such scenario, it's perfectly possible that West would get much more interested in developing ship- and aircraft-launched anti-ship missiles as well. Both to provide strike forces with standoff weapon, and to make sure that surface ships could carry strike capabilities too.

 

[CJGibson]

The Admiralty were looking for a ship-launched anti-ship missile in the early 1950s. Napier Seahorse, AW Project 525 and Blue Slug date back to the first hints of the Sverdlov-class. Blue Slug/AW Project 512 was specifically aimed at the destruction of Sverdlov with the requirement issued in September 1953.

Chris

 

[uk 75]

I always see Blueslug as being similar to the add on surface role for the big US T missiles as it used a Seaslug launcher rather than a simpler launcher like the Swedish and Russian weapons developed in the 50s.

 

[zen]

The Soviet Navy evolved anti ship missiles for its warships sooner than the West because it was faced with NATO's large surface fleets and their aircraft carriers.
The spur to Western nations seems to have been the arrival of new Soviet large surface units in the 60s and the sinking of an Israeli destroyer by a Soviet supplied SSM in 1967.
It was initially the large number of Anti aircraft missiles which were also given an anti surface role. Even the humble Seacat was looked at in an anti fast patrol boat role.
By the 1970s three systems had rmerged which could be fitted easily in box or tube launchers. Otomat was Italy's solution but lost out to Exocet in the competition for the RN and West German navies. The US Harpoon arrived later and has become the West's main system.
In comparison with Soviet and later Russian and Chinese weapons Harpoon requires more hits to kill a target like a cruiser or aircraft carrier.
In the 60s the US Navy still relied on nuclear tipped Talos and Terrier SAGW to kill big ships.
Supersonic weapons were planned to replace Harpoon and co if the Cold War had continued.
The UK only had two weapons suitable to compete with Exocet. The CF299 Seadart was designed with a secondary anti ship capability. The unloved Martel airframe formed the basis for a sub launched USGW which the RN needed desperately for its nuclear hunter killer subs from the 60s on. They had to wait until 1982 to get Sub Harpoon instead. Yet Martel went on to be the basis of the impressive Sea Eagle ASM.
With a bit more focus and resources especially when it became clear new aircraft carriers were not affordable, the RN might have been equipped with Martel based systems instead of Exocet and Harpoon.
The RN's submarines might then have received a supersonic replacement in the 90s.

Certainly there could have been more.

Starting with Green Cheese, of which a surface launched option would have been interesting.
Fairey's Sea Skimmer was also a potent concept, Harpoon/Exocet a decade earlier.

Blue Slug offered an system compatible with the County Sea Slug missile system and launcher.

In the 60's there was speculative concept of a 24" diameter ramjet missile.

Fleetfoot never was achieved, only Otomat got close.

Seems a waste that submarines Martell work wasn't translated to Sea Eagle from the get go.

An Anti-ship Sea Dart variant was sketched out.

 

[Hood]

Well there was also the short-lived proposals for a cruise-missile submarine armed with Regulus before the Admiralty wisely decided to concentrate on the nuclear attack sub programme instead.

Turning Martel into Sea Eagle sooner does seem a lost opportunity but Exocet and Harpoon worked out ok. Of course Sea Skua was developed alongside the Lynx specifically to destroy FACs and small vessels - which was a smart move as it meant a smaller missile could be used to avoid overkill against a small fast craft and kept the parent ship further away to match the range of the FAC's missiles.

Was Green Cheese really a missile or a glorified powered free-fall bomb? Would take some rocket motor to get it off a ship and decent enough distance away.
I need to re-read Chris Gibson's works on Fairey Sea Skimmer - neat concept but did Fairey actually know enough to make it work?

Maybe a buy of Rb08s from Sweden would have been a wise move? Rb08s for Avons type swap deal?

 

[TomS]

The French supposedly considered an antiship missile compatible with the Malafon launcher (quite possibly the same airframe with a different front end). It seems like an obvious idea that was ultimately a dead end.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

For the US Navy, the antiship missile started with air launched ones. The first program to develop such a weapon was Gorgon in early WW 2. Through the 70's the US could get by with using their available SAM's in a secondary role as ASM's and for good reason. A large missile like Talos or Terrier would result in a mission kill--even if the target wasn't sunk--in a matter of just one to three hits.

Given that the USN was carrier-centric, using air-to-surface missiles as the primary ship killers makes sense.

 

[publiusr]

I am hoping that carrier-centric force projection model-heavy on logistics-gives way to space advocates. Anti-ship missiles can't reach Rods from God.

 

[Dilandu]

For the US Navy, the antiship missile started with air launched ones. The first program to develop such a weapon was Gorgon in early WW 2.

Well, to be exact, the first program was SWOD, started in 1941. Granted, it was unpowered glide bombs, but it was a first practical foray into standoff weapon. And it produced actual result, combat-proved ASM-N-2 Bat with active radar seeker in 1945. Despite lacking the engine, it was essentially the grandmother of all later ASM's.

 

[Dilandu]

I am hoping that carrier-centric force projection model-heavy on logistics-gives way to space advocates. Anti-ship missiles can't reach Rods from God.

Frankly, space-based weapons aren't exactly efficient against ships.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

For the US Navy, the antiship missile started with air launched ones. The first program to develop such a weapon was Gorgon in early WW 2.

Well, to be exact, the first program was SWOD, started in 1941. Granted, it was unpowered glide bombs, but it was a first practical foray into standoff weapon. And it produced actual result, combat-proved ASM-N-2 Bat with active radar seeker in 1945. Despite lacking the engine, it was essentially the grandmother of all later ASM's.

Those are glide and guided bombs. Gorgon was a program building guided missiles for various purposes.



The starboard wing has a Gorgon II series missile on this PB4Y. This would have used a seeker system similar to the Bat glide bomb but would be powered (variously) by a small turbojet, rocket motor, or pulse jet engine. That makes it a true ASM versus glide bomb or guided bomb like say Pelican or Bat.

 

[TomS]

I know Firebee was considered as an interim SSM before Harpoon. I wonder what night have happened if it had been adopted earlier as a more permanent weapon. Give it folding wings and solid-rocket boosters, a radar seeker and a warhead in place of the recovery systems (and maybe the belly fuel tank), launch it from a large canister like P-15, and you get something much more like a western version of a Soviet ASCM. Especially with the slightly later supersonic versions of Firebee. (which are ~29 feet/8.9m long and about just over 2200 lb/1000 kg)

 

[Dilandu]

Those are glide and guided bombs. Gorgon was a program building guided missiles for various purposes.

I knew; I wrote a whole article about them.

Ламповые солдаты свободы: семейство ракет "Gorgon"

Разработкой управляемых ракет “воздух-воздух” во время войны интересовались не только USAAF: проблема уничтожения тяжеловооруженных скоростных бомбардировщиков тревожила и моряков. Хотя поначалу тяжелые бомбардировщики не были значимой проблемой для флота (вероятность попадания бомбой с высоты в…

fonzeppelin.livejournal.com

Still, the Gorgon program essentially never get out of testing phase, and the only anti-ship version of it was post-war proposal to fit the ASM-N-2 "Bat" seeker on Gorgon IIC and Gorgon IV. The first was tested & even worked relatively fine, but Bat seeker was viewed as obsolete already.

So I still consider the Bat as the first "real" anti-ship missile. Despite lacking the engine, it have essentially all other elements of it. Standoff range, autonomous guidance with the ability to lock on specific target (of course, on Bat it was done manually... and wasn't very reliable, that's for sure...)

 

[Dilandu]

I know Firebee was considered as an interim SSM before Harpoon. I wonder what night have happened if it had been adopted earlier as a more permanent weapon, presumably with radar instead of the improvised TV seeker planned for the interim fit, with a warhead in place of the recovery systems. Give it folding wings and RATO boosters, launch it from a large canister like P-15, and you get something much more like a western version of a Soviet ASCM. Especially with the slightly later supersonic versions of Firebee.

Heh, have same thinking several years ago.