Post-war 2-inch rockets?

[Maury Markowitz]

I have come across several mentions of a "Microcell rocket", for instance:

English Electric/BAC Lightning Mks 1-6

The English Electric Lightning was the only British built fighter capable of Mach 2 to enter RAF service. Although frustrated by British officialdom the Lightning did serve with the RSAF and Kuwait. The only flying examples are now at Thunder City in South Africa.

books.google.ca

Googling around a bit it seems "Microcell" refers to the launcher, or more specifically, the company that produced them:

Glass Fibre Rocket LauncherGlass Fibre Rocket Launcher: Details of the Polyester Resin Units Produced by Microcell Ltd. | Emerald Insight

1

www.emerald.com

I assume the 2-inch rocket in question is not the 2-UP! Does anyone have further information on the rocket? It appears it was used as late as Falklands, although I'm not sure it was actually fired or simply part of the inventory.

 

[TomS]

I have come across several mentions of a "Microcell rocket", for instance:

English Electric/BAC Lightning Mks 1-6

The English Electric Lightning was the only British built fighter capable of Mach 2 to enter RAF service. Although frustrated by British officialdom the Lightning did serve with the RSAF and Kuwait. The only flying examples are now at Thunder City in South Africa.

books.google.ca

Googling around a bit it seems "Microcell" refers to the launcher, or more specifically, the company that produced them:

Glass Fibre Rocket LauncherGlass Fibre Rocket Launcher: Details of the Polyester Resin Units Produced by Microcell Ltd. | Emerald Insight

1

www.emerald.com

I assume the 2-inch rocket in question is not the 2-UP! Does anyone have further information on the rocket? It appears it was used as late as Falklands, although I'm not sure it was actually fired or simply part of the inventory.

It was definitely used in the Falklands. RAF Harriers had it in place of their usual SNEB 68mm, which were not cleared for flight deck EMI interference issues. Some pics here:

https://imgur.com/3RRLot6

View: https://imgur.com/3RRLot6

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

Came in 7 and 36 round pods. There were also rocket trays for various marks of Lightning and deployable packs for the Sea Vixen FAW1.

 

[SeaslugMk2]

The RN always preferred the 2"...I didn't know it was for EMI reasons. They were used in the 60s to ignite the oil spill from the Torrey Canyon when bombs failed to do the job. As an aside, the 2" and 3" refer to the diameter of the extruded cordite and not the rocket bodies. 2" was felt to be the smallest that was useful, and 3" was the largest that could be made at the time.

SRJ.

 

[Petrus]

As an aside, the 2" and 3" refer to the diameter of the extruded cordite and not the rocket bodies.

So what was the actual diameter of the '2-inch' rocket?

Btw at http://waffen-der-welt.alices-world.de/flugzeugwaffen/rockets/ you may find info on the rocket (whose calibre is allegedly 50.8 mm):

Flugzeugbewaffnung der Welt Raketen​

Großbritannien​

Model 2.2 in No. I

​

Beschreibung:

1950 wurde eine leichte Rakete, hauptsächlich für den Luft-Luft Einsatz eingeführt. Die Rakete konnte aber auch gegen Bodenziele verwendet werden. Es wurde lediglich ein HE-Gefechtskopf mit 750g Sprengstoff zusammen mit einem Aufschlagzünder entwickelt. Der Raketentreibsatz war 911mm lang und hatte ein nach vorn eingeklapptes Leitwerk, das von einem Ring zusammengehalten wurde. Im allgemeinen sah die Rakete wie eine verkleinerte SNEB Rakete aus. Für die Rakete wurde ein aus dem Rumpf ausschwenkbares Magazin entwickelt, das in Flugzeuge eingebaut werden konnte. Dieses war in Größen von 12, 14 oder 24 Rohren erhältlich, je nach Größe des Flugzeuges. Eine Anwendung fand dieser Pod in einem auswechselbaren Unterrumpfbehältersystem mit jeweils 14 Rohren in zwei ausschwenkbaren Teilen für die BAC Lightning Abfangäger. Dazu wurde auch ein 37 Rohre fassendes Pod zur Aufhängung unter den Tragflächen entwickelt.

Technische Daten:​	​
Hersteller:​	​
Kaliber:​	50,8 mm​
Gewicht:​	4,50 kg​
Länge:​	1,20 m​
Reichweite:​	​
Gefechtsköpfe:​	HE-Frag​

Zuletzt bearbeitet: 5.3.2011

 

[SeaslugMk2]

As an aside, the 2" and 3" refer to the diameter of the extruded cordite and not the rocket bodies.

So what was the actual diameter of the '2-inch' rocket?

I don't know but as I understand it, the 2" rocket used a 4" shell as its warhead and the 3" used a 6" shell.

SRJ.

 

[TomS]

As an aside, the 2" and 3" refer to the diameter of the extruded cordite and not the rocket bodies.

So what was the actual diameter of the '2-inch' rocket?

I don't know but as I understand it, the 2" rocket used a 4" shell as its warhead and the 3" used a 6" shell.

SRJ.

I think you are confusing these postwar rockets with the wartime UP and RP rockets.

The postwar 2-inch rocket discussed here was a straight-wall design and was actually French (Matra).

 

[Petrus]

Here you've got a photo of the Sea Vixen carrying a twenty-four-tube rocket pod (without the nose cap).
The RAF used quite similar thirty-seven-tube rocket pod that were carried by Canberra's interdiction variants. The pod may be seen in the photo attached to https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/post-war-2-inch-rockets.34829/#post-405384

Piotr

 

[Maury Markowitz]

Ok this is excellent info. The main takeaway is that the rocket itself is from Matra(?) and Microcell did indeed refer only to the launcher itself.

However, I cannot find any reference to a 2" Matra design, only 37 and 100 experimental systems, and the more common 68mm SNEB. Perhaps it has some other name?

What few references I do find to a 2" design all point to the Royal Navy, so is this perhaps a UK-local design? The German reference above does not say and I can't read the print on the image.

The Thomas French ads above refer to both the 2 and 68mm versions as being based on a Matra design, but they may be referring to the pod itself, not the rockets.

 

[Grey Havoc]

I think Microcell manufactured the rocket under licence.

 

[iverson]

I've never heard that the 2-in RN rocket was licensed from or designed by MATRA. I have also never seen it associated with any manufacturer other than Microcell, which made the launchers. All accounts refer to them simply as RN 2-in.

All of the post-war folding-fin rockets (US 2.75-in/70-mm, Matra 68- and 37-mm, Soviet 57-mm) commonly said to share a common origin in captured, WW2 German designs. So I wonder whether the 2-in RN rocket didn't originate in-house, in a Royal Navy or other UK government lab, with production contracted out batch by batch to various British manufacturers. Much as was done with the USN China Lake Sidewinder. Just speculation, of course.

 

[TomS]

I've never heard that the 2-in RN rocket was licensed from or designed by MATRA. I have also never seen it associated with any manufacturer other than Microcell, which made the launchers. All accounts refer to them simply as RN 2-in.

All of the post-war folding-fin rockets (US 2.75-in/70-mm, Matra 68- and 37-mm, Soviet 57-mm) commonly said to share a common origin in captured, WW2 German designs. So I wonder whether the 2-in RN rocket didn't originate in-house, in a Royal Navy or other UK government lab, with production contracted out batch by batch to various British manufacturers. Much as was done with the USN China Lake Sidewinder. Just speculation, of course.

Christopher Chant, Modern Air Launched Weapons (1988) lists it as the Royal Ordnance 2-in rocket, and describes it as "a small-caliber yet powerful weapon derived from a French Matra original." I've seen that same basic description elsewhere as well. Jane's lists Matra as the designer for several 50mm rocket pods as well. That fits the ad above from Thomas French and Sons, which notes that their launchers were built to SA Engins Matra designs.

 

[Maury Markowitz]

Very interesting Tom. I'm surprised there is so little info on this design.

 

[yellowaster]

Originally developed for air-to-air use to OR1092 (Oct 49), superseded by OR1126 (Jun 54). Delayed due to problems with fuze. By 59 was specified for Lightning and Canberras (air-to-ground) but fuze still not meeting requirements. Trials in Lightning and Canberra in late 60. Fuze (No. 942) still dodgy. Entered service 61. Don't know how the fuze problem was resolved.

 

[Petrus]

Originally developed for air-to-air use to OR1092 (Oct 49), superseded by OR11926 (Jun 54). Delayed due to problems with fuze. By 59 was specified for Lightning and Canberras (air-to-ground) but fuze still not meeting requirements. Trials in Lightning and Canberra in late 60. Fuze (No. 942) still dodgy. Entered service 61. Don't know how the fuze problem was resolved.

So it seems the British 2" wasn't related to Matra rockets. Is this correct?

Piotr

 

[yellowaster]

Originally developed for air-to-air use to OR1092 (Oct 49), superseded by OR11926 (Jun 54). Delayed due to problems with fuze. By 59 was specified for Lightning and Canberras (air-to-ground) but fuze still not meeting requirements. Trials in Lightning and Canberra in late 60. Fuze (No. 942) still dodgy. Entered service 61. Don't know how the fuze problem was resolved.

So it seems the British 2" wasn't related to Matra rockets. Is this correct?

Piotr

Not explicitly stated either way in documents I've seen. However, the timescale, and the fact that £3.5M had been spent on the project by mid-55 suggests to me that it was probably a UK development.

 

[TomS]

Interesting info.

I'm starting to suspect that there is some confusion in sources (liek the Chris Chant book I cited). It could stem from the fact that Matra made pods for the 2-inch rocket. But they also made or at least offered pods for many other rockets (68mm SNEB, US 2.75-inch and 5-inch, etc.)

 

[Hood]

It sounds like the generic names 'Microcell' and 'Matra' used in publications were simply the names of the companies who supplied the launchers (fixed or pods), which perhaps isn't surprising given that Royal Ordnance No.1 would be a bit of a mouthful.

We can presume at this stage that Microcell was given the contract to develop the launchers, but the fact that the Matra series of pods could be used means the No.1 must have been fully compatible with the Matra series (i.e. in physical dimensions). So it was either developed from the Matra or had a lucky coincidence or there was some kind of early international standard for 2in rockets (which I somehow find to believe given the different measurement systems etc. in use in Britain and France at this time).

But... are we sure that the RN and RAF used the same 2in rocket? Yellowaster has helpfully supplied the OR numbers for the Air Ministry, but knowing the labyrinthine ways of the ministries, the Admiralty would have assigned its own AW requirement number. I can't imagine the MoS sanctioning two developments of a similar weapon at the same time, alternatively if the RN had brought off the shelf rockets from Matra, then I am sure the MoS and Treasury would have tried to kill OR11926 to save that £3.5+M.

 

[yellowaster]

Since folks appear interested in this topic, let me confuse the picture a bit more. I've turned up a few additional references to the 2in air-to-air rocket battery in 1950-51. At that time it was still air-to-air only, for use as a salvo weapon head-on against bomber formations. Development work was under way on rocket motor, fuze and 'projectors'. By 1951 it had progressed to experimental manufacture and ground and air trials. Firing trials took place at the RAE during 1951 using a Venom. There was also a 60mm spin-stabilised rocket, which appears to have been more advanced in development than the 2in rocket. RAE carried out early 'projector' firing trials using the 60mm rocket, and there was some suggestion it could have been used as an interim weapon in advance of the 2in rocket. A bit more on the OR as well. OR.1092 was apparently cancelled in Aug 53 as the massed bomber threat was replaced by single high-speed bomber. OR.1126 (11926 was typo) of Jun 54 re-instituted the air-to-air requirement as a backup for a an air-to-air guided weapon (because IR guided was no good in cloud). There seems to have been lots of doubt as to whether it was worth pursuing, which may account for some of the delay in development. Air-to-ground role added in 1955.

 

[TomS]

We can presume at this stage that Microcell was given the contract to develop the launchers, but the fact that the Matra series of pods could be used means the No.1 must have been fully compatible with the Matra series (i.e. in physical dimensions). So it was either developed from the Matra or had a lucky coincidence or there was some kind of early international standard for 2in rockets (which I somehow find to believe given the different measurement systems etc. in use in Britain and France at this time).

There's a third option, which I suspect is more likely: Matra developed their pods for compatibility with the British 2-inch/50mm rocket. I think this is most likely because we see that they also developed pods for a number of different international rocket designs. The attached 1963 ad shows S.A. Egins Matra advertising launchers for 37mm and 68mm SNEB rockets, US 2.75" and 5" rockets, Swiss Oerlikon 50mm rockets, Italian BPD 50mm rockets (which were usually called 51mm), and British 2-inch and 3-inch rockets. Basically, if someone made a rocket, Matra was willing to make a launcher to fit it.

(Parenthetically, I have never seen a reference to an Oerlikon 50mm rocket, but they did collaborate with BPD on the larger 81mm SNORA. If I had to guess, I'd suspect that they also worked together on a 50/51mm design that was mainly marketed by BPD).

 

[Thos9]

Was the postwar British 2 inch rocket the same weapon as the contemporary US 2" rocket? Is any information available about ballistic performance?

 

[Maury Markowitz]

Some updates:

Rakiety Bojowe states the 2-inch was a RN design developed beginning in 1950. I believe they simply adapted the German R4M concept with their existing 2-inch cordite mould from the original UP-2. Like the R4M, it was primarily intended to be a anti-bomber weapon, which is why its small size is appropriate (for ground-attack, you would want a lot more than 750 g of TNT!).

The one difference I see is in the fin mechanism, which is definitely different than the R4M. The image from the German source posted above shows a much smaller space than the forward-folded long fins of the R4M or the Mighty Mouse. It may be the diagram simply doesn't show the fins themselves, but I can't be sure.

 

[Maury Markowitz]

Originally developed for air-to-air use to OR1092 (Oct 49), superseded by OR1126 (Jun 54). Delayed due to problems with fuze. By 59 was specified for Lightning and Canberras (air-to-ground) but fuze still not meeting requirements. Trials in Lightning and Canberra in late 60. Fuze (No. 942) still dodgy. Entered service 61. Don't know how the fuze problem was resolved.

Yellow, what source is this from? I'd like to quote it.

The RN always preferred the 2"...I didn't know it was for EMI reasons. They were used in the 60s to ignite the oil spill from the Torrey Canyon when bombs failed to do the job. As an aside, the 2" and 3" refer to the diameter of the extruded cordite and not the rocket bodies. 2" was felt to be the smallest that was useful, and 3" was the largest that could be made at the time.

SRJ.

And sea, do you have a reference for this? This sort of tidbit is too good to leave out!

Here is what I have so far:

User:Maury Markowitz/sandbox - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

https://wiki.warthunder.com/RN has this picture:

 

[SeaslugMk2]

The RN always preferred the 2"...I didn't know it was for EMI reasons. They were used in the 60s to ignite the oil spill from the Torrey Canyon when bombs failed to do the job. As an aside, the 2" and 3" refer to the diameter of the extruded cordite and not the rocket bodies. 2" was felt to be the smallest that was useful, and 3" was the largest that could be made at the time.

SRJ.

And sea, do you have a reference for this? This sort of tidbit is too good to leave out!

Here is what I have so far:

User:Maury Markowitz/sandbox - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Nothing I can get to easily, most of my books are in a storage container as I'm between houses. I'll see what I can find for you.

SRJ.

 

[yellowaster]

Originally developed for air-to-air use to OR1092 (Oct 49), superseded by OR1126 (Jun 54). Delayed due to problems with fuze. By 59 was specified for Lightning and Canberras (air-to-ground) but fuze still not meeting requirements. Trials in Lightning and Canberra in late 60. Fuze (No. 942) still dodgy. Entered service 61. Don't know how the fuze problem was resolved.

Yellow, what source is this from? I'd like to quote it.

The RN always preferred the 2"...I didn't know it was for EMI reasons. They were used in the 60s to ignite the oil spill from the Torrey Canyon when bombs failed to do the job. As an aside, the 2" and 3" refer to the diameter of the extruded cordite and not the rocket bodies. 2" was felt to be the smallest that was useful, and 3" was the largest that could be made at the time.

SRJ.

And sea, do you have a reference for this? This sort of tidbit is too good to leave out!

Here is what I have so far:

User:Maury Markowitz/sandbox - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The text on the development of the two-inch rocket came from an NASR.1126 progress report I found at the the National Archives.

 

[Flame2512]

https://wiki.warthunder.com/RN has this picture:

View attachment 670159

As the person who originally made that image I will just add, for anyone finding this thread in the future, that it is an image of the 3D model used in the video game War Thunder. The scale bar is approximate, and based on the in game dimensions, so don't assume it is necessarily a 100% accurate depiction of the real thing.

I notice no one in this thread has posted any photographs of the actual rockets themselves. Here are a couple I found:

Image sources:
Photo of the rocket pod (by Jaimie Wilson licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0):

https://flic.kr/p/eidAjq

View: https://www.flickr.com/photos/47676646@N08/8727475204

Photo of them being loaded into a Canberra: https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205213974

The Flickr link has the option to download a much higher resolution version than the one I attached. I went with a low resolution version as I'm new here and having read the rules I'm unsure whether licensing the image under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 counts as permission to repost the full resolution image or not?

 

[yellowaster]

Found the enclosed in the British Defence Equipment Catalogue, Third Edition Oct 1970

 

[klem]

A little more reported in (COMAERO-Les Armements aéronautiques (Hors Missiles)par Jean Tugayé-Division Histoire de l'armement 2006.p18).-To make the most of the performance of the 68 mm rockets, the Service technique aéronautique had the Matra company (which has since become a department of MDBA-France, Matra-BAe-Dynamics) make two families of very innovative rocket launchers, beginning in 1954.
Multiple rocket launchers under wing, the Matra type 116, made up of a bundle of 19 tubes containing 19 68 mm rockets.
For training purposes, a smaller model with 7 rockets, the Matra type 122, which could not be dropped, was produced. A derivative model, the Matra type 150, metallic and which could not be jettisoned after firing, was then produced
Associated with the second generation of Brandt rockets, rocket launchers, derived from the Matra type 150, droppable only in distress, were widely exported in versions adapted to foreign aircraft: Hunter, F86, Buccaneer.

 

[Flame2512]

A little more reported in (COMAERO-Les Armements aéronautiques (Hors Missiles)par Jean Tugayé-Division Histoire de l'armement 2006.p18).-To make the most of the performance of the 68 mm rockets, the Service technique aéronautique had the Matra company (which has since become a department of MDBA-France, Matra-BAe-Dynamics) make two families of very innovative rocket launchers, beginning in 1954.
Multiple rocket launchers under wing, the Matra type 116, made up of a bundle of 19 tubes containing 19 68 mm rockets.
For training purposes, a smaller model with 7 rockets, the Matra type 122, which could not be dropped, was produced. A derivative model, the Matra type 150, metallic and which could not be jettisoned after firing, was then produced
Associated with the second generation of Brandt rockets, rocket launchers, derived from the Matra type 150, droppable only in distress, were widely exported in versions adapted to foreign aircraft: Hunter, F86, Buccaneer.

Those are some nice drawings, but I believe they are for 68 mm SNEBs rather than 2" RPs.

 

[Flame2512]

Here are the 2" RP launchers I know of, if anyone is interested:

Launcher No.1 - 37 tube launcher with frangible nose cone, made by Microcell Ltd.
Launcher No.3 - 24 tube launcher with frangible nose cone, made by Microcell Ltd.
Launcher No.4 - 24 tube retractable launcher for Lightning rocket pack, made by Microcell Ltd.
Launcher No.6 - 7 tube semi-circular rocket launcher (two can be combined to make a 14 tube circular launcher), made by Thomas French and Sons Ltd.
Launcher No.7 - 36 tube launcher, made by Thomas French and Sons Ltd.

Launcher No.1 is what you see fitted to Canberras in the first reply to this thread
Launcher No.3 is what is fitted to the Sea Vixen in this image
Launcher No.4 is the Lightning's retractable rocket pack
Launcher No.6 and launcher No.7 can be seen in this post (in this thread)

I have no idea what Launcher No.2 and launcher No.5 could be. I suspect Launcher No.2 might be the retractable rocket pack for the Sea Vixen, but I can't find any hard evidence for that.

 

[Flame2512]

Someone has kindly shared this document from a recent visit to the National Archives with me (they gave me permission to share it here). It's a comparison of the performance / effectiveness of the 2" RP and SNEB rockets. The whole document is interesting but I have also attached the main comparison tables (including the basic specifications for each rocket) separately for easy viewing.

Also does anyone have any idea what the 2" CAWP could be?

 

[Stovepipe]

A friend of mine fired them from Harriers and when I asked if they were the SNEB 68mm rocket, he said that "No. They were 2 inch". He was the pilot of the Harrier in the famous overhead shot of his aircraft firing them, taken by another Harrier's recce pod.

 

[hereward]

I used to work for Plastechnol Ltd which was formed by two former Directors of Microcell. We made the frangible nose cones from a syntactic foam which could be ingested by a jet engine without damage.
When the company decided to clean out its stores in the late 90's a quantity of these rockets were found in heavy cardboard storage tubes. Neither the tubes or the rockets were marked with Inert or Drill on them. The Army came and checked them and decided they were inert and took them away. I understand that some went to the IWM and some to the RAF museum.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Interesting! Thanks for sharing.