Most successful naval SAM?

[pathology_doc]

I remember they had a map of Bordeaux showing range of weapons it carried : I felt it was a little morbid.

The ads for HMS Belfast have a similar map.

 

[Archibald]

For twenty years I learned the hard way how to survive Bordeaux motorway and its psychopathic drivers. Sometimes I regret not having taken some Colbert weaponry before they send the ship to the breakers. A 127 mm gun would be mightily useful at times...

 

[pathology_doc]

For twenty years I learned the hard way how to survive Bordeaux motorway and its psychopathic drivers. Sometimes I regret not having taken some Colbert weaponry before they send the ship to the breakers. A 127 mm gun would be mightily useful at times...

A very pacifistic friend of mine (alas on a forum that no longer exists) said the traffic in her area was becoming so bad she wanted a roof-mounted rocket launcher.

 

[Archibald]

My point exactly ! Sometimes I wish I could throw DBZ balls of ki at the idiots and assassins.

 

[publiusr]

My point exactly ! Sometimes I wish I could throw DBZ balls of ki at the idiots and assassins.

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xbxoOQcPTzY

 

[Scott Kenny]

That too plus a number of SM-3 Block IAs and Block-IIs were also fired to intercept Iranian MRBM RVs.

I don't think I want to include SM3s as "Naval SAMs". They have zero in-atmosphere capability.

 

[pathology_doc]

I don't think I want to include SM3s as "Naval SAMs". They have zero in-atmosphere capability.

They're fired from the surface and they hit flying targets. It's easier and less diplomatically tricky to call them SAMs than ABMs.

 

[NMaude]

They're fired from the surface and they hit flying targets. It's easier and less diplomatically tricky to call them SAMs than ABMs.

And of course the SM-3 is just a modified SM-2 SAM.

 

[Scott Kenny]

And of course the SM-3 is just a modified SM-2 SAM.

Not really...

 

[NMaude]

Not really...

The SM-3 Block-IA is basically a modified SM-2 Block-IV with its' warhead, proximity-fuse and GCU replaced by the Mk-136 TSRM, autopilot and EKV (Encapsulated in a 13.5" diameter fairing with a Von Kaman profile).

 

[Scott Kenny]

The SM-3 Block-IA is basically a modified SM-2 Block-IV with its' warhead, proximity-fuse and GCU replaced by the Mk-136 TSRM, autopilot and EKV (Encapsulated in a 13.5" diameter fairing with a Von Kaman profile).

Except for having a whole third stage rocket motor and IIRC dropping the Mk104 rocket entirely...

 

[SeaslugMk2]

The ads for HMS Belfast have a similar map.

Do they explain why the for’ard 6” guns are not pointing directly ahead?


SRJ

 

[NMaude]

Except for having a whole third stage rocket motor

That is what the Mk-136 TSRM is.

IIRC dropping the Mk104 rocket entirely...

I assume you're referring to the 21" diameter second-stage rocket-motor for the SM-3 Block-II (And SM-6 Block-II)? What is its' new Mk-designation (I haven't been able to find out myself)?

 

[Scott Kenny]

I assume you're referring to the 21" diameter second-stage rocket-motor for the SM-3 Block-II (And SM-6 Block-II)? What is its' new Mk-designation (I haven't been able to find out myself)?

I mean staging, dropping a bunch of weight out off the back of the stack. So that only the Mk136 and EKV is flying.

 

[pathology_doc]

Do they explain why the for’ard 6” guns are not pointing directly ahead?


SRJ

My recollection after nearly 30 years is that they are aimed at a particular landmark, but I couldn't remember off the top of my head what it was.

Google gives the following: https://londonist.com/2015/02/why-do-the-guns-of-hms-belfast-point-at-a-motorway-service-station

 

[SeaslugMk2]

There are some motorway service stations that would be improved by a salvo or two of 6” shells.

SRJ

 

[Scott Kenny]

There are some motorway service stations that would be improved by a salvo or two of 6” shells.

SRJ

Many more in the US. And some I'd like to give a 16" shell or three.

 

[uk 75]

The Talos equipped Sixth Fleet cruiser Little Rock had a surface to surface role against Soviet warships with SSM. I think there is an account somewhere of both sides lighting up their radars in the Med.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The Talos equipped Sixth Fleet cruiser Little Rock had a surface to surface role against Soviet warships with SSM. I think there is an account somewhere of both sides lighting up their radars in the Med.

And Talos makes a terrifying AShM. ~3400lbs at Mach 3 is about 175% the mass of a 16" HE shell impacting at twice the velocity. With a conventional bursting charge that is around 150% the weight of the 16" shell.

I don't think even a Kirov would remain combat capable after one hit from that.

And if the nukes are in play, well, 2-5kt detonating on or inside your ship is going to ruin anyone's day.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

And Talos makes a terrifying AShM. ~3400lbs at Mach 3 is about 175% the mass of a 16" HE shell impacting at twice the velocity. With a conventional bursting charge that is around 150% the weight of the 16" shell.

I don't think even a Kirov would remain combat capable after one hit from that.

And if the nukes are in play, well, 2-5kt detonating on or inside your ship is going to ruin anyone's day.

This is what a Talos without a live warhead does to a WW 2 era destroyer escort:

The hit nearly tore the ship in half. And considering it hit the engine room, it would have had to destroy the boilers and engine along with the hull structure.

 

[NMaude]

This is what a Talos without a live warhead does to a WW 2 era destroyer escort:

The hit nearly tore the ship in half. And considering it hit the engine room, it would have had to destroy the boilers and engine along with the hull structure.

It's a pity that an anti-ship variant of the Talks was never implemented because that's Brahmos AShM level of damage.

 

[Dilandu]

It's a pity that an anti-ship variant of the Talks was never implemented because that's Brahmos AShM level of damage.

It would require some kind of over-the-horizon guidance system, which is not easy to implement on Talos-like missile.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

It would require some kind of over-the-horizon guidance system, which is not easy to implement on Talos-like missile.

Even in the 1980's you might be able to get a mid-course guidance system using aircraft to work with it. You fire the missile ballistically and rely on an aerial platform to perform terminal guidance, painting the target with a radar.

 

[Dilandu]

Even in the 1980's you might be able to get a mid-course guidance system using aircraft to work with it. You fire the missile ballistically and rely on an aerial platform to perform terminal guidance, painting the target with a radar.

With all respect, but while this solution is workable, it's not practical by any means. First of all, it required targeting aircraft with powerful enough radar to illuminate target for missile seeker (and interferometer seeker aren't exactly very sencitive). Secondly, it required targeting aircraft being above horizon for the target for prolonged periond of time - which, by 1980s, mostly means "knocked down by scrambled Yak's". Thirdly, what's the point of having heavy, long-range supersonic missile, if you still need it to be guided by relatively high-performance aircraft? Why not launch smaller missile from aircraft itself?

 

[NMaude]

Why not launch smaller missile from aircraft itself?

Maybe an AGM-8 Talos?

 

[Firefinder]

Of c ourse that is with stock guiding systems.

The Harm Talos used in Nam had the full range of the standard Talos. And semi modern vessels, of 1950 vintage, had more powerful transmitters to lock on too.

So it will be a game of cat and mouse try to fire the missile at the same time of the target radar is on in their queing schedule.. With the mods for the Harm talos being done on the ship by the crew. Those were standard talos the crew modified using onboard parts using HOW TO directions from the company while out at sea.

 

[NMaude]

The Harm Talos used in Nam had the full range of the standard Talos.

The RGM-8H Talos ARM in the few times it was used against NVA targets was a very destructive missile that IIRC completely destroyed an SA-2 Guideline battery's Fan Song radar and associated command van/truck (No doubt close-casket for the SA-2, rest in pieces).

 

[Scott Kenny]

Maybe an AGM-8 Tacos?

Unlikely, Talos was a 3400lb load for just the missile. The booster was another 4400lbs, 7800lbs total stack weight.

IF you could get the ramjet to start subsonic you could get away with not using the booster. Otherwise, you'd be looking at single carriage either in an A-3 (and you'd have to rig it to drop before igniting the booster) or under an A-4. Or maybe C-130s, Talos has a 110" wingspan, so fills a 78" square box!

Talos ARM is probably the answer for ship launched Talos AShM. Plus, with it diving down from 80,000ft the ARM could probably stretch the 130nm official range a little further.

 

[NMaude]

Unlikely, Talos was a 3400lb load for just the missile. The booster was another 4400lbs, 7800lbs total stack weight.

Oh, I know how massive the Talos was but for an air-launched A much smaller SRB could've been used to launch it also have folding control wings too. IMO there's one aircraft that could've carried the Talos and that's the B-52.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

With all respect, but while this solution is workable, it's not practical by any means. First of all, it required targeting aircraft with powerful enough radar to illuminate target for missile seeker (and interferometer seeker aren't exactly very sencitive). Secondly, it required targeting aircraft being above horizon for the target for prolonged periond of time - which, by 1980s, mostly means "knocked down by scrambled Yak's". Thirdly, what's the point of having heavy, long-range supersonic missile, if you still need it to be guided by relatively high-performance aircraft? Why not launch smaller missile from aircraft itself?

It's a poor alternative, but it could work. Interferometers are quite sensitive too. They work similar to a monopulse radar receiver and should perform better than a conical scan radar would. The issue with mid-course guidance is trying to coordinate everything between the launch platform, the guidance aircraft, etc. Too many cooks to coin a term.

 

[Dilandu]

Interferometers are quite sensitive too. They work similar to a monopulse radar receiver and should perform better than a conical scan radar would.

The problem with interferometer array is that its not actually very sencitive. Since it lacks the reflector, it could not focus the incoming radar echo on antenna. So it required a very powerful echo from target, to be able to detect anything.

That's why such solution was rather unpopular, and used only when the other types of seeker could not be fit at all. Even by the late 1940s, it was considered pretty much obsolete idea.

Maybe an AGM-8 Tacos?

It may actually be a relatively good idea, but it would require a BIG launcher plane. A-3 Skywarrior could dealt with it; doubt that any other plane in USN arsenal. And, the guidance system needed to be reworked to work with whatever radar A-3 could be equipped with.

P.S. I actually toyed with this idea myself Maybe I would write a AH artile about it.

 

[NMaude]

And, the guidance system needed to be reworked to work with whatever radar A-3 could be equipped with.

I don't think the A-3's radar would've needed to be modified for a potential AGM-8H Talos unless you were adding a beam-rider illuminator midcourse guidance. As for keeping the length of such a proposed Talos ARM down instead of a tandem booster two boosters mounted on the left and right side of the missile.

P.S. I actually toyed with this idea myself Maybe I would write a AH artile about it.

Go for it.

 

[Dilandu]

Go for it.

By the way, did anyone know where to download a SketchUp compatible A-3 Skywarrior model? Unfortunately I'm only in good relation with SketchUp.

 

[Dilandu]

I don't think the A-3's radar would've needed to be modified for a potential AGM-8H Talos unless you were adding a beam-rider illuminator midcourse guidance. As for keeping the length of such a proposed Talos ARM down instead of a tandem booster two boosters mounted on the left and right side of the missile.

My idea was to use a single aircraft radar for both midcourse beam-riding and terminal illumination. Since the target is relatively slow-moving ship, and not an aircraft, it would not require a lead (we would be perfectly fine with missile using suboptimal "chase" trajectory, since the target can't avoid it anyway). The early versions of Talos, AFAIK, used pulse illumination, so it would likely not require major guidance rebuild. Merely to install a switch system from midcourse to terminal guidance.

The air launch would also allow to use much smaller booster - or even no booster at all, if we drop the missile nose-down from altitude. The velocity of aircraft, combined with gravity, would likely be enough to fire the ramjet. Same with booster fins; no need for them to be large. We would probably need a secondary radar antenna (wide-angle) to gather the missile into narrow guidance beam, though.

If missile is nuclear-only, we could likely use just the beam-rider guidance to steer it withing range of enemy ship. The conventional version must be guided, and likely armed with heavier semi-AP warhead with differenf fuze settings. The weight is less an issue, since the missile is launched from high altitude and power-glide down; so the fuel supply coud be reduced also.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

The problem with interferometer array is that its not actually very sencitive. Since it lacks the reflector, it could not focus the incoming radar echo on antenna. So it required a very powerful echo from target, to be able to detect anything.

That's why such solution was rather unpopular, and used only when the other types of seeker could not be fit at all. Even by the late 1940s, it was considered pretty much obsolete idea.


It may actually be a relatively good idea, but it would require a BIG launcher plane. A-3 Skywarrior could dealt with it; doubt that any other plane in USN arsenal. And, the guidance system needed to be reworked to work with whatever radar A-3 could be equipped with.

P.S. I actually toyed with this idea myself Maybe I would write a AH artile about it.

You clearly don't know how an interferometer works. Each antenna picks up a signal return separately both in time and strength. The sensitivity of the receiver is what matters. The signals are processed similarly to a Wheatstone bridge. The problem with is separation of the antenna. The greater the distance--within reason--the antenna are apart the greater the accuracy. Thus, in a Talos where you have 24" diameter, it will work where on smaller missiles it won't without some convoluted antenna system.

The big issue is receiver sensitivity. In the 50's to the 70's what was obtainable is a fraction of what is now possible.

 

[Dilandu]

You clearly don't know how an interferometer works. Each antenna picks up a signal return separately both in time and strength. The sensitivity of the receiver is what matters.

My point is, that without reflector to concentrate the incoming energy on the antenna, it would still require a very powerful radar echo - i.e. very powerful beam - to detect anything.