Help Required

Tzoli

Tzoli

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
1 February 2011
Messages
2,802
Reaction score
3,167
Hello Guys!
Some of you might know me through my drawings of warships ( I draw mostly WW2 or WW1 but occasionally Cold war ones as well) and I wish to ask for your help!

I could use information about what kind of guidance radars are required for these missile systems:

RIM-2 Terrier
RIM-8 Talos
RGM-15 Regulus II
RIM-24 Tartar
UGM/RGM-27 Polaris I (RGM I assume for the surface ship launched version envisioned for a few projects)
RIM-50 Typhon MR and LR

If possible in chronological order as I know multiple radars were used during the lifetime of a missile system.
Drawings especially top-down ones would be the best both for Radars and for the launcher systems for these various missiles if anybody have them.
 
Regulus II and Polaris had no associated guidance radars. Both used inertial guidance.

Typhon LR (RIM-50) and MR (RIM-55) had no separate guidance radar. The primary SPG-59 did both tracking and fire control. Typhon was unusual for the day in that it was track-via-missile. The SPG-59 would send a signal toward the target, then the missile seeker would receive the reflected energy, do some processing, and send the data back to the ship via datalink. The ship would then calculate the trajectory errors (miss distance) and pass back steering commands to the missile.
 
In case of the RIM-8 Talos, does anybody have photos or data on how does the reloading... erm... arm? crane? apparatus? works?
On a drawing of USS Albany it looks like this: (I assume)
https://imgur.com/f9cgcXq
 
For anything Talos related, your best resource is the Okieboat (USS Oklahoma City) website.

For UNREP and missile stowage, two pages in particular:


Those cranes in your drawings look like the automated FAST cranes, which were never very good and were removed fairly early from most ships. After that, there would have been a conventional kingpost there instead, probably. I found pics of Albany from 1975 that show what looks like a STREAM rig instead of the FAST crane. For STREAM see here:

Underway replenishment (UNREP)

www.globalsecurity.org www.globalsecurity.org
 
Here is a film on the handling (and on-board assembly) of the Talos missile, posted by YouTube user Old Movies Reborn.
YouTube - Talos Missile Handling Cruiser Installation (1960) Defense Atomic Support Agency Training Film
[FILM DELETED BY YOUTUBE]
EDIT (25-Nov-2019): Due to the above referenced film being removed by YouTube, here is another posting of the same film posted by YouTube user talkingsticktv:
 
Last edited:
I see! Thanks! At first I thought reloads (For the Iowa and Kentucky conversions) would be handled at a port via a standard crane. This reloading FAST system would take up much precious space on the design taken over by the numerous radars:

Iowa and Alaska Class Conversion Projects

From a scan by McConrads http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,813.msg12661.html#msg12661
www.secretprojects.co.uk www.secretprojects.co.uk
Maybe I will only use two, both sides around the 3rd and 4th radar to reload both the lower and upper Talos storages. Or just simply use a plain smaller crane to do the job
 
In case of the USN missiles were there any proposals for different armed launchers?
For example both the RUR-5 ASROCK and RIM-7 Sea Sparrow boxy launchers look like they are designed to be modular for example I've seen some long beach preliminaries with 12 rather 8 unit launchers so wouldn't be ideas to make larger or smaller launchers of this type? Say a minimal 4 or even 2 unit ASROCK for small surface combatants like corvettes and patrol craft? Same for Sea Sparrow, say a 4 unit small box launcher?
(I know the ASROCK isn't technically a missile but still)
As for the other missiles I know the Talos and Terrier only came with a twin arm launcher, the Typhon, Tartar and Standard with both single and twin arm launchers.
Isn't the USN thought of something of an austere single arm Talos and Tartar or the other way around a heavy Triple and quad arm Talos, Terrier but especially Tartar and Standard launchers?
 
Lots to discuss here:

1) ASROC -- the launcher was not designed to be modular. Early iterations had 12 launch tubes in a mount the size of a 5-inch/38 turret, but the rocket got larger and the number of ready rounds went down to 8. There was no point planning to put ASROC on smaller combatants because it needed to be paired with a rather large 10,000-yard sonar (SQS-23) to be effective.

2) Sea Sparrow -- the earliest Basic Point Defense Missile System launcher was a really crude system thrown together after the collapse of Mauler, basically a 3-inch/50 mount wiht ASROC launcher boxes bolted on because both were available quickly. The later Mk 29 was a more considered design but I've never heard of a smaller capacity version. (The Italians did do a 4-shot Aspide launcher for small combatants, but it wasn't mechanically related to Mk29 and I don't know of any US interest). I suspect, but don't now, that eight missiles was considered the minimum for a sustained engagement (4 targets engaged with two missiles each).

3) Typhon/Terrier/Tartar/Standard -- breaking this down into two classes, the long-range missiles (Terrier/Typhon LR, Standard ER) and the medium-range (Tartar, Typhon MR, Standard MR).

Long-range -- There was no real value in an "austere" single-arm launcher because the rest of the ship fit was quite large expensive anyway (USS Gyatt notwithstanding). Conversely, there was no pressing need for more than two rails, because the overall system ROF was already effectively limited by the number of available channels of fire (fire control radars). Adding more rails wouldn't help without more radars and the radars were very bulky.

Medium-range -- there was an attempt at a twin-arm launcher, but it wasn't reliable. The single-arm Mk 13/14/22 family were very fast cycling, which achieved high ROF without the weight of multiple rails. The Mk26 twin-arm was a fast-cycling launcher was well, and made sense due to the advances in fire control that meant you didn't have to limit engagements as much by the number of available radars.
 
Sea Mauler was briefly tested about USS Norton Sound around 1963. I've seen only one photo, in Norman Friedman's US Naval Weapons, and it looks to be basically identical to the Army launcher. One of the attractions of Mauler was that it was entirely self-contained, with both acquisition and fire control radars on the mount, so it could be basically bolted onto the ship, connected to power, and fired up.
 
AN/SPG-49 Fire Control Radar for Talos. These were the ships it was equipped on:
en.wikipedia.org

USS Long Beach (CGN-9) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org

Albany-class cruiser - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

It was rail-launched and fed from a 52 round magazine below deck, plus the 2 starting on the rails. The new missiles would be slid into place from the magazine below deck.

The search and tracking radars seem unspecific, the only common one between the two classes being the AN/SPS-48 3D air search radar.

AN/SPG-51 Fire Control Radar for Tartar.
AN/SPG-55 Fire Control Radar for Terrier.

Terrier and Tartar were loaded in the same way. Terrier would either have 40, 60, 72 or 80 round magazines depending on the ship.

Looking at it, the Tartar airframe is virtually identical to the RIM-66 (SM-2).
 
Last edited:
Don't know if this could still be relevant or useful,but still some pieces of advice.

For a complete understanding of missile launching systems back in that era I strongly recommend GMM3&2 and GMM1&C,they are the official documents from USN to explain how they works.


Chapter 5 in 3&2 and Chapter 3 in 1&C should probably cover everything you need.

For electronics usually the first missile conversion proposals envisaged a combination of SPS-2 and SPS-3 plus some other early models for air search with no specific high precision tracking radars.(For early Alaska class and Iowa class studies this should be the case).
However in later actual practice with Bostons Galvestons and Albanys etc. it was realized that a huge clumsy SPS-2 would be most unreliable and therefore landed. That left a combination of SPS-6/26/39/43(2D air search) and SPS-8/30(Height finder,target tracking) to supply the missile systems with enough data so their guidance radars could start working easier,such combination continued to be standard for converted gun cruisers throughout 60s and 70s actual service(Well Chicago had her SPS-39 replaced by a much more capable SPS-48).For later DLGs thats another story,using SPS-29 and 48 combined.

PS. I really like your works on DA and Pixiv,keep up the good work!
 
Regarding the MIM/RIM-46 Mauler / Sea Mauler. Is there any drawing of the missile and the launcher? (Top side etc view) I've only found a small number of photos of the system but no drawing so far!
 
Last edited:
Thanks! Based on this I can at least draw the launcher
 
On a ship you wouldn't keep the Search and Aquisition radar, that would be done by ships radars on a mast.
Only the TIR sets would remain.
 
Which are the TIR ones? The small round ones on the sides?
 
Tzoli said:
Which are the TIR ones? The small round ones on the sides?
Click to expand...
Yes, I seem to recall reading they ended up different sizes. As they are together part of the FMCW set. This would work because they kept transmit and recieving dishes separate.
The larger being the receiver, the smaller the transmitter, as the transmitter didn't need the larger area to recieve only a small area to focus the beam outward.
 
zen said:
Tzoli said:
Which are the TIR ones? The small round ones on the sides?
Click to expand...
Yes, I seem to recall reading they ended up different sizes. As they are together part of the FMCW set. This would work because they kept transmit and recieving dishes separate.
The larger being the receiver, the smaller the transmitter, as the transmitter didn't need the larger area to recieve only a small area to focus the beam outward.
Click to expand...

Correct.

I'm not sure Sea Mauler would have shifted the search radar elsewhere. In US Naval Weapons, Friedman notes that one of the attractions of the system was that it was self-contained. They may have kept the on-mount search radar so that the whole unit could be simply bolted onto ships (like amphibs of the era) that had limited combat direction systems.
 
TomS said:
zen said:
Tzoli said:
Which are the TIR ones? The small round ones on the sides?
Click to expand...
Yes, I seem to recall reading they ended up different sizes. As they are together part of the FMCW set. This would work because they kept transmit and recieving dishes separate.
The larger being the receiver, the smaller the transmitter, as the transmitter didn't need the larger area to recieve only a small area to focus the beam outward.
Click to expand...

Correct.

I'm not sure Sea Mauler would have shifted the search radar elsewhere. In US Naval Weapons, Friedman notes that one of the attractions of the system was that it was self-contained. They may have kept the on-mount search radar so that the whole unit could be simply bolted onto ships (like amphibs of the era) that had limited combat direction systems.
Click to expand...
I don't think so as it could be mounted up higher for greater detection range, but that might not be possible with set used.....in fact it's not clear that the set would operate so well over water.
Whilst a number of alternative sets were navalised and could suffice.

Plus it's all weight and eats into topweightweight margins.
 
Does modern surface ships frigate size and up had issues with topweight? Modern systems are volume specific rather weight as in WW2 and I don't recall issues with topweight in modern vessels, though I could be wrong as it ain't my area of expertise!

And now I see on the attached diagram that the side dishes are the Target Illumination Radars but at my workplace due to proxy some site does not load images
 
Tzoli said:
Does modern surface ships frigate size and up had issues with topweight? Modern systems are volume specific rather weight as in WW2 and I don't recall issues with topweight in modern vessels, though I could be wrong as it ain't my area of expertise!

And now I see on the attached diagram that the side dishes are the Target Illumination Radars but at my workplace due to proxy some site does not load images
Click to expand...
Short answer yes topweight is an issue. Hence why Type 23 has lost high fidelity 911 sets for EW softkill.
Yes Ceptor can do without high fidelity target data, but it improves the missile's chances of success.
 
zen said:
Tzoli said:
Does modern surface ships frigate size and up had issues with topweight? Modern systems are volume specific rather weight as in WW2 and I don't recall issues with topweight in modern vessels, though I could be wrong as it ain't my area of expertise!

And now I see on the attached diagram that the side dishes are the Target Illumination Radars but at my workplace due to proxy some site does not load images
Click to expand...
Short answer yes topweight is an issue. Hence why Type 23 has lost high fidelity 911 sets for EW softkill.
Yes Ceptor can do without high fidelity target data, but it improves the missile's chances of success.
Click to expand...

What about the Soviet and USN ships? As for RN money is always an issue they had to go for smaller ships I presume
 
Tzoli said:
zen said:
Tzoli said:
Does modern surface ships frigate size and up had issues with topweight? Modern systems are volume specific rather weight as in WW2 and I don't recall issues with topweight in modern vessels, though I could be wrong as it ain't my area of expertise!

And now I see on the attached diagram that the side dishes are the Target Illumination Radars but at my workplace due to proxy some site does not load images
Click to expand...
Short answer yes topweight is an issue. Hence why Type 23 has lost high fidelity 911 sets for EW softkill.
Yes Ceptor can do without high fidelity target data, but it improves the missile's chances of success.
Click to expand...

What about the Soviet and USN ships? As for RN money is always an issue they had to go for smaller ships I presume
Click to expand...
Certainly an issue on the smaller Frigates and I understand on the larger Ticonderoga class.

A complete system is most likely to be installed in place of Sea Sparrow BPDMS (Basic Point Defense Missile System), on Carriers and Various parts of the 'phib fleet large enough.
But on Spruance and Memory? Perry? I doubt it.
 
zen said:
Certainly an issue on the smaller Frigates and I understand on the larger Ticonderoga class.

A complete system is most likely to be installed in place of Sea Sparrow BPDMS (Basic Point Defense Missile System), on Carriers and Various parts of the 'phib fleet large enough.
But on Spruance and Memory? Perry? I doubt it.
Click to expand...

I'm trying to guess what Memory is an autocorrect for. ;)

The Army Mauler fire unit toward the end of development was around 10,500 pounds. (From a PDF on this site) The Mark 29 Sea Sparrow launcher is around 15,000 pounds (loaded) and Phalanx is around 12,500 pounds. So even with navalization (stabilization, etc.) Mauler ought to go anywhere Sea Sparrow or CIWS goes.
 
Exactly, and if anything it's the other way around. As it was Sea Mauler that was planned for and Sea Sparrow was the scribbled together solution when Mauler got cancelled.

However I notice that Sea Sparrow doesn't tend to keep the search and acquisition set like landbased Mauler.....
 
Yes Sea Sparrow has a separate "Bug Eye" illuminator set, usually a pair.
 
zen said:
Exactly, and if anything it's the other way around. As it was Sea Mauler that was planned for and Sea Sparrow was the scribbled together solution when Mauler got cancelled.

However I notice that Sea Sparrow doesn't tend to keep the search and acquisition set like landbased Mauler.....
Click to expand...

I just realized that "complete set" here referred to other radars, not Mauler. Oops.
 
Were there any major difference visually between the SPQ-5 early director of the Terrier and the SPG-49 director of the Talos missiles?
 
Tzoli said:
Were there any major difference visually between the SPQ-5 early director of the Terrier and the SPG-49 director of the Talos missiles?
Click to expand...

A bit:

1603205739946.png

SPQ-5 have octagonal "plate" fit into roughly square frame.

1603205900664.png
AN/SPG-49 have round plate, fit into octagonal tapered frame.
 
Tzoli and Dilandu excellent images. I wish I could produce CGI images to your standards. The last time I tried it looked like a three year old using crayons. Could I ask what software you use.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom