Red Top missile Performance & All-Aspect Capability

[GUNDAM123dx]

All from Lightning F.53 Pilots Notes & DEFE 69/489.

First, performance in Lightning F.53 Pilots Notes:

Maximum overload: 12G lateral acceleration / 7.5G without wings (20G when engine burning according to another source but not authoritative: http://www.loneflyer.com/2020/05/08/hawker-siddeley-red-top/) and rate of roll 30°/sec

Motor Burn time: 2.5 sec (basically 3 sec, you can search the thread about Linnet rocket engine in this forum - there is a document about it)

Max flight time: 30 sec

Seeker FOV: 5° / After launch warning: 1°

Seeker gimbal limit pre-launch: 30° unslaved; 30° slaved by AI23S (export version of AI23B), seeker "looking axis" parallel to A1 scanner axis

Seeker gimbal limit (post-launch): should be above 30°

Warhead explosive mass: 40lbs/18.14kg ( and there's also continous rod)

Proximity fuse range: 40ft/12m

( Here also mentioned "an all-round attack capability")

 

[GUNDAM123dx]

And, performance in DEFE 69/489 (including its All-Aspect Capability):

Speed: Mach 3.4
Look-angle: 60°
Sun non-effective angle: 5°

All-Aspect Capability here:

 

[GUNDAM123dx]

Full Sources of DEFE 69/489

First 10 pages

 

[GUNDAM123dx]

Another 10 pages (p.11 to p.20)

 

[GUNDAM123dx]

Another 10 pages (p.21 to p.30)

 

[GUNDAM123dx]

Another 10 pages (p.31 to p.40)

 

[GUNDAM123dx]

Last 2 pages (p.41 & p.42)

 

[GUNDAM123dx]

And other information from: Aviation Classics 5 English Electric Lightning

 

[GianVito]

Great info ! I wrote my article on the Red Top many years ago, without bothering to record the sources (which I'm going to look for again, especially about the 20g during the burn time). With this new data, difficult to find, I can update it. Thanks so much !

 

[GUNDAM123dx]

Great info ! I wrote my article on the Red Top many years ago, without bothering to record the sources (which I'm going to look for again, especially about the 20g during the burn time). With this new data, difficult to find, I can update it. Thanks so much !

Is there any sources about the 20g during the burn time when you wrote the article? I have nothing about this.

 

[GianVito]

The real problem is that, after many years, some web-sources disappeared... I will search for it in my archive, I'm also always interested in real data.

 

[Shirazz]

Has anyone found any more information on the G limits? I remember finding a 20G burning source somewhere but cannot remember what and where.

 

[Tonyjw]

DHP Publication 5073, Red Top, September 1958 brochure data:-

Wings sized to give 8g at M=2.0 at 60,000ft (19,812m) without exceeding an incidence limit of 20°.

Guidance system limits maximum loading in each wing plane (i.e, pitch and yaw) to 12g for firings from sea level to 25,000ft and 8g for firings above 25,000ft.

Seeker maximum look angle 30° when slaved to AI radar before launch, 60° after launch.

Warhead weighs 65lb (29.48kg), continuous rod type (maximum hoop radius 30ft (9.14m).

The firing zones in this brochure are for early missiles with the Magpie II motor.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Missed this topic. Very nice!

 

[JohnR]

I've never really understood why the semi active radar version of the Firestreak/Red Top wasn't developed, and what its likely performance would have been.

I've always wondered if there were any proposals for a SAM version of the missile.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Blue Dolphin/Blue Jay Mk.V

A variant of Blue Jay Mk.IV codenamed
Blue Dolphin or Blue Jay Mk.V was proposed
in 1958 using semi-active Continuous Wave
radar homing. It was later renamed ‘Radar
Red Top’, or ‘CW Red Top’, and was intended
to give a capability similar to that of the early
Sparrow III. It had a longer 12ft 4in body,
identical to that of the normal Red Top aft of
the nose-mounted guidance system but with
a longer, more aerodynamic ogival section
nosecone. Blue Dolphin was originally destined
for use by the Sea Vixen, but possibly
due to the problems encountered in trying to
make the Red Hebe’s Continuous Wave
seeker work, the decision was made (before
too much money was spent on the project) to
cancel this version whilst it was still a paper
exercise. In 1965, consideration was given to
adopting the Matra seeker from the R.530
AAM to Red Top, but this did not proceed
beyond the drawing board and Radar Red
Top remained stillborn.

From my P.1121 book. We wanted CW guidance because it was more jamming resistant. AI Mk 23 radar on the Lightning simply couldn't fit a CW transmitter physically in the space available (on the MiG-23's Sapfir-23, the CW illumination transmitter weighes 110kg). The Sea Vixen with its AI Mk 18 was physically able to house a CW transmitter, but there was little willpower to invest too heavily in this subsonic fighter when it would be replaced soon. The entire issue was put off to a future radar and missile combination for the Sea Vixen replacement, which was then cancelled. By 1965, there was the idea of buying the Matra seeker 'off the shelf'. At a guess, this probably foundered due to money being needed for related radar modifications, or possibly it was just a bad idea - R.530 doesn't have a stellar record. In the end we bought Phantoms which came with Sparrow.

 

[Ronny]

I wonder how this compared to Mirage and magic combo

 

[GUNDAM123dx]

I wonder how this compared to Mirage and magic combo

Basically Magic I got a lateral acceleration of 30g.

 

[Maury Markowitz]

I've never really understood why the semi active radar version of the Firestreak/Red Top wasn't developed, and what its likely performance would have been.

I've always wondered if there were any proposals for a SAM version of the missile.

MM handled the radar version nicely, so I'll comment on the SAM side.

Firestreak had a VERY odd layout due to its tube electronics. This caused the motor to be rather small, and exited the fuselage through a long tube running past the warhead and controls. Red Top greatly simplified this, but still had a relatively small volume for the motor. Newer fuels would have helped, Firestreak at least was cordite I'm not sure about Red Top.

And that was about that for SAM use. The motor simply didn't have the deltaV needed for launch from the ground, it was designed either to coast downward against low-altitude targets or fly directly from and to medium-to-high altitude ones. Its range, when fired from a vehicle on the ground, would have absolutely abysmal.

Compare with something like Rapier. It had little internal electronics and a tiny warhead, and filled the fuselage with fuel. It's basically all motor. Does anyone know what propellant it used? Given the date it was developed, likely something with Isp ~250, probably double that of the Firestreak.

 

[uk 75]

I have an old Matchbox Toy Lightning which used Sidewinders instead of Red Tops (saved a new mould). Would it have been worth doing this with the real thing compared with Red Top/Firestreak.

 

[Zoo Tycoon]

Compare with something like Rapier. It had little internal electronics and a tiny warhead, and filled the fuselage with fuel. It's basically all motor. Does anyone know what propellant it used? Given the date it was developed, likely something with Isp ~250, probably double that of the Firestreak.

Rapier’s Troy motor;- The Summerfield book has a cross section but doesn’t identify the charge types. However it shows a case bonded, dual concentric charges nested within the same chamber. For similar configurations, the inner booster charge is a fast burning double base (Nitro Glis/Nitro Cel) and the outer charge is a slower burning composite (AP/Al/PU). Motor Wt 32kg, Charge wtt 16.7Kg, boost burn time 2s, Sustainer burn time 55s, Boost thrust 12kn, Sustainer thrust 3Kn.

Linnet was an extruded colloidal charge which is a double base with a small percentage of plasticiser to facilitate extrusion. A typical plasticiser would have been linseed oil or wax. The plasticiser reduces the ISP but Linnet still had an ISP of 214 with a 2 second burn time, 29kN thrust and 35 Kg charge.

Ref RPE tech note 220 The Development of the Linnet Solid Propellant Rocket Motor by Morris and Mathews

 

[JohnR]

I may be imaging it, but I am sure I read somewhere the Saudi Lightnings carried Sidewinder, but I've not been able to confirm it on line.

 

[kaiserd]

I would recommend Chris Gibson’s Battle Flight book as this has content specifically on this topic (and a lot more as well).

 

[BLACK_MAMBA]

I have an old Matchbox Toy Lightning which used Sidewinders instead of Red Tops (saved a new mould). Would it have been worth doing this with the real thing compared with Red Top/Firestreak.

I think there has been some research on the topic but never actually flown.
I think if Lightning was actually allowed to be developed somewhat a quad Sidewinder mount instead of just two Red Top/Firestreak must have been on the cards.

 

[Tzoli]

I have an old Matchbox Toy Lightning which used Sidewinders instead of Red Tops (saved a new mould). Would it have been worth doing this with the real thing compared with Red Top/Firestreak.

I think there has been some research on the topic but never actually flown.
I think if Lightning was actually allowed to be developed somewhat a quad Sidewinder mount instead of just two Red Top/Firestreak must have been on the cards.

Like this?

1:72 EE/BAC Lightning F.6S, aircraft '237/G' (ex RAF XR773) of 139 Squadron, Republic of Singapore Air Force/RSAF; Tengah Air Base, 1976 (Whif/Matchbox kit) - a photo on Flickriver

Flickriver - view images as a 'river of photos' and more...

www.flickriver.com

 

[uk 75]

I would recommend Chris Gibson’s Battle Flight book as this has content specifically on this topic (and a lot more as well).

Unfortunately my copy is in the middle of a pile of books as I try to sort out my chaotic paper mountain during Lockdown. But yes, you are right.

 

[RP1]

I recall mention of a quad Sidewinder study in, I think it must have been an old Air Forces Monthly. The commentary was simple; "The Lightning doesn't have the endurance to fire four missiles!"

 

[JFC Fuller]

Kev Darling, in his book English Electric / BAC Lightning Mks 1-6, states that the proposed AIM-9 carriage configuration for Lightning variants up to and including the Mk.3 was four on the fuselage rails whilst the Mk.6 could have an additional four on the overawing launch rails (I assume dual rail launchers on the existing pylon).

Further proposed late service Lightning modifications are discussed here.

 

[JohnR]

Kev Darling, in his book English Electric / BAC Lightning Mks 1-6, states that the proposed AIM-9 carriage configuration for Lightning variants up to and including the Mk.3 was four on the fuselage rails whilst the Mk.6 could have an additional four on the overawing launch rails (I assume dual rail launchers on the existing pylon).

Further proposed late service Lightning modifications are discussed here.

It seems to be a British thing to put missiles and drop tanks on over wing mountings; the d.t. on Lightnings and the Sidewinders (or Magics) on the Jaguars during the first Gulf War. What are the pro's and con's of over wing mounting.

 

[Zoo Tycoon]

A heat seeker needs line of sight to the target. A upper wing surface or tip mounting is good as gives the widest possible uninterrupted field of view. The Lightening and F8 missile locations were noticeably poor in this respect.

An underwing missile that flys of the rail introduces a high velocity low pressure efflux on the wing lower surface. This momentarily kills the wing lift such that the aircraft will experience an uncommanded roll. This can limit the low level engagement altitude ( Ref Hostile Skies by David Morgan)

The missile rocket efflux is highly acidic/erosive and as such best kept away from aircraft structure. Efflux is also nasty for engine, as it can cause compressor stall (surge).

An F8 + pilot was lost due to a Sidewinder hang fire ( motor ignited but didn’t release) whereby the torching rocket flame against the fuselage set fire to the aircraft.

A Lightening was almost lost when a Red Top broke up just after launch and bits were ingested into an engine.

Generally the downside of an upper wing surface mounting is the drag penalty is worse than a lower surface. All the wings magic in lift production happens on the upper surface, best to let it do it’s thing.

 

[Rickshaw]

Upper wing surface mounting allows the missile to have an uninterrupted view of a target during a turn.

A Lightning as a joke had it's picture taken carrying Sidewinders, rather than Red Tops. However the drag was considered too great with Sidewinders for it to be a viable armament on the Lighting. The drag from Red Top was such that a new fin was required to keep the aircraft pointing in a straight line in the F6 version.

 

[JohnR]

How were the over wing fuel tanks detached from the Lightning, did the plane have to 'tip up' in some way, of were they intended as ferry tanks and removed on the ground?

 

[Rickshaw]

How were the over wing fuel tanks detached from the Lightning, did the plane have to 'tip up' in some way, of were they intended as ferry tanks and removed on the ground?

They were intended to be ferry tanks that could be jettisoned if necessary. They first experimented with fins but found they weren't necessary and so they were adopted without them.

 

[Maury Markowitz]

Seeker gimbal limit pre-launch: 30° unslaved; 30° slaved by AI23S (export version of AI23B), seeker "looking axis" parallel to A1 scanner axis

Just noticed this bit. I suspect this means "to either side of the boresight". Many sources give 60 degrees, but the two are equivalent depending on what they're measuring.

7.5G without wings

Really? I'm not sure why this is even measured, but that seems high for a cylinder.

 

[NMaude]

And that was about that for SAM use. The motor simply didn't have the deltaV needed for launch from the ground, it was designed either to coast downward against low-altitude targets or fly directly from and to medium-to-high altitude ones. Its range, when fired from a vehicle on the ground, would have absolutely abysmal.

A ground launched version of Red Top would have needed a launch booster.

 

[Hood]

A listing of Blue Jay variants and derivatives, including info from Tony Wilson's English Electric Lightning Genesis & Projects.

Blue Jay Mk.1 – stern-chase IR-guided, entered service as Firestreak.

Blue Jay Mk.2 – improved version with PbTe IR sensor with hemispherical nose, intended for DH.110, Hunter and Javelin for 1958. Some test firings but became test vehicle for Mk.4.

Blue Jay Mk.2A – proposal of Mk.2 with de-rated motor to reduce max speed.

Blue Jay Mk.3 – as Mk.2 with larger wings for launch at M1.7 at 60,000ft, intended for P.1B and SR53 for 1959. In August 1956 was proposed in two versions; semi-active radar guided (for RN) and IR-guided. Cancelled in 1957 to free development effort for Mk.4.

Blue Jay Mk.4 (Blue Vesta) – PbTe IR-seeker with look angle limited to 60° and larger wings of Mk.3 for launch at M2.0 at 60,000ft for 1961. In September 1956 was proposed in two versions; X-band CW homing with original Mk.1 wings for Sea Vixen and IR-guided with larger wings for 15,000-65,000ft altitude clearance for P.1B and P.177.

Blue Jay Mk.5 (Blue Dolphin) – re-designation of low-altitude CW-homer Mk.4 in July 1957, cancelled later that year.

Red Top – further development of Mk.4 from 1958 with an InSb IR sensor, entered service.

Red Top Mk.2 – May 1960 proposal to replace the solid fuel Linnet motor with a liquid fuel to improve shelf life and handling and improve thrust, proposed as a retrofit for existing missiles.

Red Top Mk.2 Plus – Mk.2 with an enlarged mid-section with a larger boost motor to improve speed to engage high-speed targets.

Radar Red Top – further development of Mk.5 during 1960-61 with a GEC CW seeker, effective at altitudes below 45,000ft and intended mostly for Sea Vixen.

Radar Red Top – 1964 proposal to fit the Matra 530 guidance head

 

[FFX]

A listing of Blue Jay variants and derivatives, including info from Tony Wilson's English Electric Lightning Genesis & Projects.

Blue Jay Mk.1 – stern-chase IR-guided, entered service as Firestreak.

Blue Jay Mk.2 – improved version with PbTe IR sensor with hemispherical nose, intended for DH.110, Hunter and Javelin for 1958. Some test firings but became test vehicle for Mk.4.

Blue Jay Mk.2A – proposal of Mk.2 with de-rated motor to reduce max speed.

Blue Jay Mk.3 – as Mk.2 with larger wings for launch at M1.7 at 60,000ft, intended for P.1B and SR53 for 1959. In August 1956 was proposed in two versions; semi-active radar guided (for RN) and IR-guided. Cancelled in 1957 to free development effort for Mk.4.

Blue Jay Mk.4 (Blue Vesta) – PbTe IR-seeker with look angle limited to 60° and larger wings of Mk.3 for launch at M2.0 at 60,000ft for 1961. In September 1956 was proposed in two versions; X-band CW homing with original Mk.1 wings for Sea Vixen and IR-guided with larger wings for 15,000-65,000ft altitude clearance for P.1B and P.177.

Blue Jay Mk.5 (Blue Dolphin) – re-designation of low-altitude CW-homer Mk.4 in July 1957, cancelled later that year.

Red Top – further development of Mk.4 from 1958 with an InSb IR sensor, entered service.

Red Top Mk.2 – May 1960 proposal to replace the solid fuel Linnet motor with a liquid fuel to improve shelf life and handling and improve thrust, proposed as a retrofit for existing missiles.

Red Top Mk.2 Plus – Mk.2 with an enlarged mid-section with a larger boost motor to improve speed to engage high-speed targets.

Radar Red Top – further development of Mk.5 during 1960-61 with a GEC CW seeker, effective at altitudes below 45,000ft and intended mostly for Sea Vixen.

Radar Red Top – 1964 proposal to fit the Matra 530 guidance head

I'm sorry to bother you, but I'm looking for information about the matra r.530 missile, where should I look?

 

[Hood]

I'm sorry to bother you, but I'm looking for information about the matra r.530 missile, where should I look?

I would think the original source for the Radar Red Top with a Matra 530 seeker is in documentation held by the North West Heritage Group at Warton, of whom the author Tony Wilson is a member.

 

[zen]

Blue Jay Mk.3 – as Mk.2 with larger wings for launch at M1.7 at 60,000ft, intended for P.1B and SR53 for 1959. In August 1956 was proposed in two versions; semi-active radar guided (for RN) and IR-guided. Cancelled in 1957 to free development effort for Mk.4.

My bold part of this text seems a crucial issue and raises questions of why.
Was DH overloaded with AAM work, or were the staff needed for other things?
Or was there a bottleneck in the testing regime?
Or facilties?
Or just lack of funds?

Timing seems concurrent with the '57 review.
Could this just be a simplification as Lightning was the only future aircraft for this at the time?

 

[Hood]

My bold part of this text seems a crucial issue and raises questions of why.
Was DH overloaded with AAM work, or were the staff needed for other things?

I would say yes they were overloaded and it sounds like originally the Mk.4 was intended as a Mk.3 with a modified PbTe IR-seeker, so presumably they went for the more better seeker.

To be honest this seems like a bewildering array of variants and sub-variants that mushroomed in such a short space of time for just three aircraft. DH Props seem to have done what Avro did with Blue Steel - went nutty with the possibilities and doodled out every cool and improved version they could think of without really getting to grips with the production models. Thankfully at least Red Top emerged from all this.