No Terrier, no Tartar, no Standard

Dilandu

Dilandu

I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Joined
30 May 2013
Messages
4,112
Reaction score
4,782
Website
fonzeppelin.livejournal.com
It is well-known, that RIM-2 "Terrier" surface-to-air missile - forebear of the whole "Standard" missile family - was a bit... accidental product. It was developed as byproduct of "Bumblebee" research program, that created long-range RIM-8 "Talos" missile. To better understand the problematic of controlled supersonic flight, Applied Physics Lab of the John Hopkins University developed several test vehicles; one of which was supersonic solid-fuel STV (Supersonic Test Vehicle) for beam-riding guidance system. It proven itself exceptionally well, and when it became apparent, that "Bumblebee" program is more complex than originally expected, Navy decided to develop a simpler missile on the base of STV. And so RIM-2 "Terrier" was born.

But what if it wasn't?

There were a lot of possible divergence points, that could kill the "Terrier" before it was even born. Engineers of Applied Physics Lab may decide that solid-fuel rocket is not powerful enough, and develop STV with liquid-fuel engine. STV itself might just be designed over-complicated and not reliable enough. Or, Navy high ranks could just have a bad day, and dismiss the whole idea of "interim" missile as impractical - only diverting resources from "Bumblebee" project.

So, let's imagine that "Terrier" was never born. How it would affect the history of US Navy SAM?

I suppose, in 1950s, in lieu of lack of alternatives, the USN would adopt SAM-N-8 "Zeus" fin-stabilized gun-launched guided shell as main air defense system. While it was obviously less capable than "proper" guided missile, it still have advantages in much higher fire rate & reliance on proven gun technologies. The long-range air defense would be solely covered by "Talos", which would be the ubiquitous SAM of USN by late 1950s. I suppose, that significantly large number of WW2-era gun cruisers would be refitted into "Talos" & "Zeus" carriers (presumably, with "Talos" SAM system on rear, and 1-2 autoloading 8-inch RF turrets on bow)

But what would become of it by 1959-1960?

* "Zeus" shell would clearly reach the limit of its development; no modernization would make it capable of competing with supersonic aircraft and anti-ship missiles.

* "Talos" would still have its rate-of-fire and complexity limitation, which would preclude it from being used as self-defense and short-range defense weapon.

* Neither of those systems would actually fit well on small (destroyer-size) ships - albeit it is possible that single-barrel 8-inch RF mount would be developed to provide destroyers with "Zeus" capability.

So, what would be next?
 
No Tartar / Standard ? the French Navy would be quite pissed-off, even today since the Cassard frigates recycled (and modernized) old Tartar borrowed from the former T-53 air defense frigates.
On the French side the MASURCA was just too huge and cumbersome for supporting hulls to be procured in decent numbers.
Maybe the French would borrow a British system instead - Sea Cat ? (Sea Slug was too much like MASURCA or Talos, for that matter).

More generally: would leave a big gapping hole in NATO ships missile defenses.
 
Concurrent however is the UK SAM efforts.
And with it the RN exerting influence on a desire to produce a simpler short range SAM system.
Leading to the US Meteor AAM being touted as the basis of such. Mopsy.

In OTL this merged guidance and a new dual thrust rocket possibly devised for Mopsy and repackaged into the Terrier second stage fusilage to become Tartar.

But....it would be ironic if the US licensed Sea Slug...
 
Dilandu said:
"Zeus" shell would clearly reach the limit of its development; no modernization would make it capable of competing with supersonic aircraft and anti-ship missiles.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily, especially given the crudeness and size of most early anti-ship missiles. And against more nimble targets like manned aircraft, possibilities like ramjet augmentation come to mind. Not to mention that in this timeline we more than likely would have seen an atomic variant of Zeus (probably based around a Mark 33/W33 or more likely a Mark 54/W54 warhead) in service by the late 1950s. Remember, the only reason why Zeus didn't go into service in our timeline was that the USN incorrectly thought that Talos would be available much sooner than it turned out to be (in part down to requirements creep, as well as the usual teething problems, in this case mostly with electronic/electromechanical systems) and in the late 1940s they had a budget crunch on due to rather ill-advised government post-war policies despite the Cold War having already gotten well under way. Otherwise both Zeus and Talos would have entered service, with Zeus helping to hold the fort until Talos was ready for introduction and then the two of them would have complimented each other quite nicely. Unfortunately in our timeline by the early 1950s the 'we don't need guns, we have missiles!' mindset had begun to seep in, in the United States Navy and elsewhere, which explains why Zeus wasn't revived when the grounds on which it had been cancelled on had proven to be false.

In addition, it would be interesting to see how miniaturisation would progress in a timeline where the introduction of SAMs and related technologies has been delayed. I suspect that by the year 1959, electronics and electromechanics would have still progressed to the point where you could build smaller anti-aircraft shells based on improved & evolved Zeus technology.
 
Last edited:
Grey Havoc said:
Not necessarily, especially given the crudeness and size of most early anti-ship missiles. And against more nimble targets like manned aircraft, possibilities like ramjet augmentation come to mind.
Click to expand...
Well, let's not forget, that supersonic K-10 anti-ship missile (Mach 2) was commissioned in 1961. I seriously doubt that "Zeus" - a beam-riding projectile - could reliably intercept it before it would cross the fire zone. "Zeus" max range was about 14 km; K-10 would cross it in less than 25 seconds. Assuming that 8-inch DP gun is based on Mark 16 RF, it could fire about 5 salvos - 15 shells at most - during this time. The actual number would probably be lower, because of the "blind zone" near the ship. And on greater distance :"Zeus" would suffer the increasing inaccuracy of the beam-riding method. Since its warhead is small, it would suffer much more than Terrier.
 
Archibald said:
No Tartar / Standard ? the French Navy would be quite pissed-off, even today since the Cassard frigates recycled (and modernized) old Tartar borrowed from the former T-53 air defense frigates.
On the French side the MASURCA was just too huge and cumbersome for supporting hulls to be procured in decent numbers.
Click to expand...

Well, the MASURCA is such scenario would actually be the closest analogue to "Terrier". So, it's actually possible that USN might get interested in French missiles instead)

Archibald said:
More generally: would leave a big gapping hole in NATO ships missile defenses.
Click to expand...

Exactly what I'm pondering about; what would NATO do to remedy it? There are several probable solution:

* Develop the solid-fuel medium-range missile out of "Talos". It is quite possible, that further development of "Talos" would led to solid-fueled ramjet SAM for long-range, and solid-fueled rocket SAM for short-range. Both would be quite big, obviously (since they would be "Talos" products), but they would fill the niche.

* "Navalize" some kind of land-based SAM. "Hawk", for example, potentially could be adopted for warships.

* Develop the completely new, compact short-range missile (like Mauler projects) to dealt with ship's self-defense.
 
Further to my point prior to Mopsy, there was Popsy and the USN was connected to both efforts. However they wanted a light SAM system, that would be commanded by a distant warship. Such that the defensive missiles could be distributed around the fleet but not the command and control of them. Which would be retained on a limited number of vessels.
 
zen said:
Further to my point prior to Mopsy, there was Popsy and the USN was connected to both efforts. However they wanted a light SAM system, that would be commanded by a distant warship. Such that the defensive missiles could be distributed around the fleet but not the command and control of them. Which would be retained on a limited number of vessels.
Click to expand...
Quite possible without Terrier & Tartar such concept might found its use. OTL, container-launched SAM's are rare on warships; I could recall only refitted Taiwanese destroyers, that have container launchers for SM-1MR missiles.
 
By the late 1950s the US Navy will probably be looking at the Typhon system as the future of ship-based air defense. IOTL this consisted of the rocket-powered Typhon MR and the ramjet-powered Typhon LR. IOTL Typhon MR never made it out of the design stage; Typhon LR at least made it to prototyping.

Of course, Typhon, being basically the AEGIS system in the 1950s, was completely beyond the technology of the time, and so will almost certainly be cancelled here as well. The difference is likely that this time Typhon MR gets the development priority instead of Typhon LR, what with Talos more credibly filling its niche than Zeus, and more interestingly is not constrained by having to fit in the Mark 13 launcher.

So it's not unlikely the US Navy salvages a rocket-powered medium-range SAM out of the wreckage of the Typhon program, something that can be fit to destroyer-size vessels - albeit very large destroyers. Add in development for Talos it never got IOTL and the US Navy would be in decent shape in the SAM department until it comes time for the AEGIS-analogue.

Pic related:

POIMIaG.jpg
 
CV12Hornet said:
By the late 1950s the US Navy will probably be looking at the Typhon system as the future of ship-based air defense. IOTL this consisted of the rocket-powered Typhon MR and the ramjet-powered Typhon LR. IOTL Typhon MR never made it out of the design stage; Typhon LR at least made it to prototyping.
Click to expand...
Quite probably they would try something like that in this scenario - a new long-range ramjet missile to replace Talos, and short-range solid-rocket missile to compliment the defenses.

CV12Hornet said:
Of course, Typhon, being basically the AEGIS system in the 1950s, was completely beyond the technology of the time, and so will almost certainly be cancelled here as well. The difference is likely that this time Typhon MR gets the development priority instead of Typhon LR, what with Talos more credibly filling its niche than Zeus, and more interestingly is not constrained by having to fit in the Mark 13 launcher.
Click to expand...
There is also another possibility - that while Typhon combat system would be cancelled, the missiles would be re-oriented to be used with simplified, limited-channel fire control system.
CV12Hornet said:
So it's not unlikely the US Navy salvages a rocket-powered medium-range SAM out of the wreckage of the Typhon program, something that can be fit to destroyer-size vessels - albeit very large destroyers. Add in development for Talos it never got IOTL and the US Navy would be in decent shape in the SAM department until it comes time for the AEGIS-analogue.
Click to expand...
Agreed, interesting scenario! In this case, there would most likely be very long-range Super-Talos missiles (I think, solid-fuel ramjets would be quite adequate for such role) and medium-to-short range solid-fuel missiles, using a lot of same components.

I agree, most likely there would be no DDG's in such scenario. All area defense would be concentrated on cruisers & destroyer leaders, while destroyers would be strictly anti-submarine and anti-surface units. Most likely, Sea Sparrow or Sea Chaparral analogue would be fielded to give some self-defense capability (or even British Sea Cat licensed by USN).
 
Another interesting point is export. In this scenario, USN did not have compact & affordable medium-range air defense system up until late 60s. Which means, that other missile developers would have much more favorable positions. British Sea Slug, for example, may be an export hit in 1960s. Australians would be forced to buy "County"-class ships instead of "Perth"-class. And Italy would, most likely, cooperate with France in developing the MASURCA missile, so it would be installed on Italian cruisers also.
 
Sea Dart strikes me as a more likely British export than Sea Slug. Sea Slug was not a great missile, and was also rather bulky, while Sea Dart was compact enough to act as a replacement for the nigh-ubiquitous Mark 13.

But don't underestimate the Typhon-MR as a candidate! The goal is still going to be to acquire a fairly compact missile for the job, and as big as the Typhon DDG above is, you could probably make it quite a bit smaller with only one missile launcher and gas turbine propulsion.
 
CV12Hornet said:
Sea Dart strikes me as a more likely British export than Sea Slug. Sea Slug was not a great missile, and was also rather bulky, while Sea Dart was compact enough to act as a replacement for the nigh-ubiquitous Mark 13.
Click to expand...
In OTL - yes, but in this scenario, Sea Slug is essentially the only more or less compact medium-range SAM available in early 1960s. Sea Dart would not be ready till 1970s. I suppose, though, in case of Italian interest & cooperation, MASURCA could be fielded in mid-1960s.

CV12Hornet said:
But don't underestimate the Typhon-MR as a candidate! The goal is still going to be to acquire a fairly compact missile for the job, and as big as the Typhon DDG above is, you could probably make it quite a bit smaller with only one missile launcher and gas turbine propulsion.
Click to expand...
Agreed, albeit this missile would clearly not be as compact as Terrier/Standard line. Since it would be based on Typhon-LR, and most likely use a lot of same components and the same booster, it would have diameter about 0,4 meter and wingspan about 1 meter. So it would be rather bulky weapon.

But you are right, it would be possible to fit it on leader-size ships.
 
Sea Slug is rather unfairly criticised and frankly it's much more compact than Terrier.
In actual live shots it performed well, surprisingly accurate and effective.

Assuming there is no Terrier, then it's even possible the USN will get involved and the extra funding ought to result in several consequences.
1. More Sea Slug armed ships, with consequences for cost per system.

2. A smaller Sea Slug as was desired and could be funded.
3. A mkIII utilising polyrod SARH, under USN influence this might avoid the spiral into NIGS.
4. Blue Slug Anti-ship Missile

Alternatively the examination of Green Flax for ships (navalised Thunderbird II) is jumped on by both RN and USN.
Equally a marinised HAWK option is possible.

Alternatively
Popsy B or Mopsy is funded, essentially a Tartar-like system. Or even Orange Nell. Arguably this could result in a weapon slightly smaller than Tartar and consequently less need for Sea Sparrow BPDMS to fill the void of Mauler's failure.
This actually has implications for Sea Cat.
 
zen said:
Assuming there is no Terrier, then it's even possible the USN will get involved and the extra funding ought to result in several consequences.
1. More Sea Slug armed ships, with consequences for cost per system.

2. A smaller Sea Slug as was desired and could be funded.
3. A mkIII utilising polyrod SARH, under USN influence this might avoid the spiral into NIGS.
4. Blue Slug Anti-ship Missile
Click to expand...
An interesting probability!

zen said:
Alternatively the examination of Green Flax for ships (navalised Thunderbird II) is jumped on by both RN and USN.
Click to expand...
Hm? There were such concept? Must admit, I never heard about it.

zen said:
Equally a marinised HAWK option is possible.
Click to expand...
Yep. It's compact and sturdy enough, to be adapted.

Thank you for the input!
 
 
Dilandu said:
Agreed, albeit this missile would clearly not be as compact as Terrier/Standard line. Since it would be based on Typhon-LR, and most likely use a lot of same components and the same booster, it would have diameter about 0,4 meter and wingspan about 1 meter. So it would be rather bulky weapon.

But you are right, it would be possible to fit it on leader-size ships.
Click to expand...
Would it be based on Typhon-LR, though? The OTL Typhon-MR was supposed to be based on the Tartar missile to fit in the Mark 13 launcher, and while it won't here I was envisioning a single-stage rocket-powered missile, not the two-stage missile you're proposing.
 
CV12Hornet said:
Would it be based on Typhon-LR, though? The OTL Typhon-MR was supposed to be based on the Tartar missile to fit in the Mark 13 launcher, and while it won't here I was envisioning a single-stage rocket-powered missile, not the two-stage missile you're proposing
Click to expand...
Without Terrier, would suitable dual-regime boost/sustain rocket be available? Using LR-Talos existing booster may be considered a simpler solution.
 
Err it's Tartar that has the dual thrust rocket. Terrier is a two stage system.
 
This is an interesting question.

Salvaging Typhon-MR seems the most logical outcome, although the system was cancelled before testing began and so might not of survived as a stand-alone system or would have required design. And of course Typhon-MR cannot fill the gap 1953-1963

I feel something suitable for destroyers would have been desired, in effect a 5in gun replacement.
The USN seems unlikely to collaborate with the US Army on SAMs and Hawk is probably not compact enough for shipboard use and its early complexity meant low serviceability. No contemporary AAM seems to offer a suitable basis, maybe an enlarged Sparrow with a second booster would come closest.

So in effect we are postulating a fresh sheet design circa 1954-55 to enter service around 1960-61, perhaps as an interim to Typhon-MR in the late 1960s.
But Typhon-MR was based on the Tartar airframe so its clear that whatever new MR SAM is designed will have knock-on effects to Typhon too.
The result seems almost certain to be solid-fuelled and with semi-active homing. Two-stage or single-stage is open for discussion.
Likewise it means a different and bespoke launcher arrangement too to suit the new MR SAM and Typhon-MR, do you try and accommodate Typhon-LR on the same launch rail? Is there scope to include ASROC in the magazine too (imagine a double-ended twin-launcher DDG with 40-80x missiles).
 
Hood said:
feel something suitable for destroyers would have been desired, in effect a 5in gun replacement.
The USN seems unlikely to collaborate with the US Army on SAMs and Hawk is probably not compact enough for shipboard use and its early complexity meant low serviceability. No contemporary AAM seems to offer a suitable basis, maybe an enlarged Sparrow with a second booster would come closest.
Click to expand...

Hm. What if USN used Arrow/Zeus guided shell, fitted on rocket booster, as self-defense weapon for 1950s destroyers? Of course, range would be small (no sustainer motor), but it would be capable of being salvo-fired from lightweight mounts.
 
Dilandu said:
zen said:
Err it's Tartar that has the dual thrust rocket. Terrier is a two stage system.
Click to expand...
Yes, but we are talking about no-Terrier and thus no Tartar scenario.
Click to expand...
Problem with that is Tartar was in response to the need by both USN and RN for a short range defence system.
Using the Terrier missile aerodynamic form was cheap and common with the Terrier.
But....
The original plan is most likey they stick with the Meteor missile but package the dual thrust motor in it.
So something Tartar like is certain to result.
Just not the common missile body with Terrier.

military.wikia.org

AAM-N-5 Meteor

The AAM-N-5 Meteor was an early American air-to-air missile, developed by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Bell Aircraft for the United States Navy. Designed for launch from carrier-based aircraft, the program proceeded to the flight testing stage before being cancelled. Development...
military.wikia.org military.wikia.org
 
Last edited:
Dilandu said:
CV12Hornet said:
Would it be based on Typhon-LR, though? The OTL Typhon-MR was supposed to be based on the Tartar missile to fit in the Mark 13 launcher, and while it won't here I was envisioning a single-stage rocket-powered missile, not the two-stage missile you're proposing
Click to expand...
Without Terrier, would suitable dual-regime boost/sustain rocket be available? Using LR-Talos existing booster may be considered a simpler solution.
Click to expand...
Hawk had such a rocket motor. I doubt they'll just use a straight M22 motor, but piggybacking off of what was developed for Hawk would seem a reasonable course of action for a naval single-stage missile.
 
CV12Hornet said:
Hawk had such a rocket motor. I doubt they'll just use a straight M22 motor, but piggybacking off of what was developed for Hawk would seem a reasonable course of action for a naval single-stage missile.
Click to expand...
Hm. Must admit, I forgot about the Hawk having such engine first!
 
Seadart always struck me as owing more to Talos than Terrier/Tartar. It looks like a reduced size Talos.
The US would have evolved a smaller version of Talos to go on their destroyers.
 

Attachments

  • 1627589328857.jpg
    1627589328857.jpg
    18.6 KB · Views: 19
  • 1627589363422.jpg
    1627589363422.jpg
    4.8 KB · Views: 19
If you eliminate Terrier and Tartar goes with it, I think what happens is that you get Sea Sparrow a lot sooner; possibly even a version with a small booster.

Tartar evolved very quickly to outperform the original winged, beam-riding Terrier. There is no reason why Sea Sparrow, under evolutionary pressure, could not evolve to cover Tartar's original requirement.

If what you're looking for is a missile the size of Tartar, for the space to fit a heavier or possibly nuclear warhead, perhaps a navalized HAWK or a navalized, surface-launched variant of AIM-47 are your go-to candidates.
 
Certainly the MkI Sparrow with beam riding guidance is available at the right time.
But so is Meteor (which led to Tartar) and Oriole.
Of the three, Sparrow mkI is the least attractive.
If the reason for no Terrier is lack of solid rocket success, then liquid powered Oriole makes most sense.
Though ironically such an issue favours Smaller Sea Slug.
 
zen said:
Certainly the MkI Sparrow with beam riding guidance is available at the right time.
Click to expand...
IIRC, SARH Sparrow wasn't that far behind. If they have to, with national defence at stake, they'll rip the SARH circuitry out of Falcon to get it in the nose of a navalized RIM-7.
 
zen said:
Certainly the MkI Sparrow with beam riding guidance is available at the right time.
But so is Meteor (which led to Tartar) and Oriole.
Of the three, Sparrow mkI is the least attractive.
If the reason for no Terrier is lack of solid rocket success, then liquid powered Oriole makes most sense.
Though ironically such an issue favours Smaller Sea Slug.
Click to expand...
Well, the USN was not exactly very pleased about liquid-fuel missiles on ships. So, maybe a smaller ramjet one? I was suggested above -

uk 75 said:
The US would have evolved a smaller version of Talos to go on their destroyers.
Click to expand...
- which may be quite logical direction.
 
Dilandu said:
pathology_doc said:
IIRC, SARH Sparrow wasn't that far behind. If they have to, with national defence at stake, they'll rip the SARH circuitry out of Falcon to get it in the nose of a navalized RIM-7.
Click to expand...
Not that Falcon was exactly a shining success, too...
Click to expand...
IIRC Radar Falcon was never fired in anger, at least not in US service, and IR Falcon that had been designed for use in a set-piece attack against poorly manoeuvrable heavy bombers was forced to deal with visual ROE, prolonged on-rack activation times that frequently exhausted its coolant, and lack of a proximity fuze (I read somewhere that AIM-4H, which was rebuilt with a laser prox fuze and optimized for the dogfight environment the USAF was actually experiencing, was cancelled because Robin Olds was so disgusted with AIM-4D that he never wanted to see another Falcon in Vietnam ever again).

Every Falcon kill was BY DEFINITION a direct-impact kill; at least some of the Sidewinder and Sparrow kills must have been proximity detonations which with a direct impact fuze only would have been misses.
 
pathology_doc said:
and lack of a proximity fuze
Click to expand...
If I recall correctly, lack of proximity fuze was caused by 1950s concerns about potential adversary (cue USSR) stealing the fuze design through its spies, and developing the jamming systems, that would made proximity fuzes useless (at least for a short time, which the adversary would need to launch a disabling nuclear attack).
 
Airborne fallout: no Standard to create the AGM-78 would make the AIM-47 derived AGM-76 the default Shrike supplement for the anti-radar mission.
 
SOC said:
Airborne fallout: no Standard to create the AGM-78 would make the AIM-47 derived AGM-76 the default Shrike supplement for the anti-radar mission.
Click to expand...
Interesting thought! Also I should point out, that with more ramjet missiles available, it could also means that more land-attack or long-range anti-air missiles may be deployed.
 
Dilandu said:
pathology_doc said:
and lack of a proximity fuze
Click to expand...
If I recall correctly, lack of proximity fuze was caused by 1950s concerns about potential adversary (cue USSR) stealing the fuze design through its spies, and developing the jamming systems, that would made proximity fuzes useless (at least for a short time, which the adversary would need to launch a disabling nuclear attack).
Click to expand...
And that was quite unfounded given how the Soviets copied the AIM-9!
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom