RN Nuclear NIGS ship

[JFC Fuller]

NIGS was a theoretical paper exercise, I have yet to seen any evidence that any real hardware work was done, the working party was basically just taking mildly informed stabs in the dark as to what they should try and develop. Trying to find certainty in it is pointless.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I've been through the file again and its obvious things were in a state of flux during this time.
My previous post only touched on the early meetings. I've consolidated everything here.

Thanks for the summary, its much appreciated.

 

[phil gollin]

.


Ah ..... 20 sq ft versus 20 ft square - a considerable difference.


.

 

[Hood]

As JFC Fuller says, NIGS was a collection of ideas, cutting edge but with little firm decisions on missile, radar or ship.

These progress meeting reports indicate whatever research project the NIGS radar was, it was not NSR or FSR because both are mentioned as possible alternatives, FSR may be a slightly later design (1960) than NSR (1959). The "fan-beam" system seems to be another project. Looking through the TNA files I can across another interesting radar project, a within-pulse electronic scanning radar using a fixed circular array. A frequency planar array C-band prototype was made in 1968. I'm sure there are many other projects.

Coincidently, just got hold of Warship 2014 and flicked through the CVA-01 article. It seems the initial 1963 sketch design had an unnamed smaller surveillance radar than Type 988. I wonder if this radar was FSR or related off-shoot? More conjecture but there does seem to be many loose ends in this area.

 

[starviking]

Thanks for all the sterling work JFC!

 

[CNH]

Not NIGS but SIGS (Bristol 1962):

 

[uk 75]

I have been following the contributions to this thread with great interest and have a couple of questions related to UK US contacts:

How far did the RN draw on the USN's development of TALOS for its NIGS exercise?

How much access did the RN have to the USN's TYPHON programme which seems to be contemporary and has elements of NIGS and SIGS?

TALOS had both an anti-air and an anti-ship capability and was a the pre-eminent US system until STANDARD could replace it in the late 70s.

 

[zen]

Now I can't speak for reading source material, but my impression of NIGS is that this is partly a case of parallel evolution and partly the result of sharing ideas and technology (though perhaps we should be talking of theory more than hard systems).

UK theory didn't lag behind the US on computers or radar, but the practical was certainly starting to lag by the late 50's early 60's. Even though the UK had produced hardware/software like Type 984/CDS and fielded it ahead of US efforts at such automation.

This is the period post-Suez and pre-Nassau, so I'm a little hazy on how much was being shared. But raw science was accessible between the two to a greater degree than with any other two states of their kind.

TYPHON was compared and contrasted with NIGS, we've seen that, though quite how accurate the UK evaluation of US systems was and how much access to TYPHON, is another question.

TALOS was considered in place of Sea Slug, the studies are there, but again how much real knowledge did the RN have?

But once again this sort of comparison hits the problems of comparing domestically produced systems purchased in domestic currency with imported systems purchased in foreign currency.

When I dug into solid state emitters for AESA online, I came to one piece by a US university outlining it's history in this field and one of the things that struck me was the evolution of components. Early emitters seem based on garnet crystals and seem limited to S-band or L-band, it's as they develop the components that they can reach up to C-band and then x-band. The latter only into the 1970's.

So let me get this right.....

NIGS radar is larger than NSR

NSR is a scaled down NIGS radar

Feb '59 4 Fixed Array System detection ranges of 125nm for 1sqm, scanning 60-70 degrees. Uses 20sqft arrays

Nov '59 SSSR is a scaled down 4 Fixed Array System with inferior performance and no 50+nm range in ECM enviroments

Dec '59 choice between NSR or 4 Fixed Array System

Feb '60 the ASWE outlines fixed array frequency scan radar with integral guidance facilities. Is this 4 Fixed Array System? And if so, which one? Also is this FSR?

June '60 NIGS uses 4 Illuminators of 5kW power each. Is this the guidance output for FSR?

(date not stated) FSR or less ambitious 'Fan Beam' system. 1MW possible in a 6,000ton hull, US 2.5MW not achievable in such a hull.

Question....if NIGS is using a dish rather than four antenna and mini-dish, this suggests continuing with separate ramjet from the missile body or a rocket based propulsion unit.
Conflicting claims over the use of SIGS type guidance to just dish type guidance.....but this is also a factor of the band in which the illuminators work.

 

[zen]

Really should be one 'system', though it would be interesting to know how the phased array radars are integrated together.

Now we know that command guidance for Bloodhound was by a S-band datalink.....and we know S-band is the obvious band for this system....so hypothetically they could do communication to the missile as well as search and track functions.
Whether they could realise this in hardware is questionable, but the theory and software is within reach.

Pulling the illumination function out and keeping it separate would greatly simplify the system....assuming the business of putting the illuminator on the correct target.

 

[zen]

More thoughts.....

Was there any connection in the radar work to the AI sets?
Granted we're talking somewhat different operating regimes and computer requirements but.......

Oct '57 funding is approved for the FMCW system and by end of '58 a ground based set was being used to observe aircraft. This funding was for a search only set of 50nm range....sound familer?

....speaking of which.....what about the bistatic system as well? This from slightly earlier.

Both if coupled with the right computer could produce some of the performance desired.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

Unfortunately the attachments containing the diagrams magazine layouts, the missile launcher, competing solid-fuel and ramjet missile designs and the table comparing the costs of the NIGS missile destroyer with a Typhon armed design have disappeared.

 

[Hood]

I have them saved, so I can dig them out and re-attach them.

 

[zen]

Further thoughts. ...
Having read about Mauler's use of FMICW with seperate Dishes, it seems quite plausible this option could have been explored.

Much as it's increasingly clear that the mechanically moved transmitter part of Type 984 could have been replaced by an electrically scanned array.

 

[Pirate Pete]

I have them saved, so I can dig them out and re-attach them.

That would be excellent if you are able to re-post the 'missing' images.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

Did a bit of digging around in the images saved to my Google account.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

Did a bit of digging around in the images saved to my Google account.

Something else from Brian Burnell's Nuclear Weapons History site.

 

[uk 75]

Thanks for re-posting these drawings. How would it have compared in size and radars with the US Talos and Typhon systems?

 

[JFC Fuller]

Ah ..... 20 sq ft versus 20 ft square - a considerable difference.

4.5 years later I notice this, I intend to check the file myself but this would make a lot of sense. Although this would make the arrays massive as opposed to tiny, for context:

AN/SPY-1A arrays are 12ft x 12ft
AN/SPS-32 arrays were 20ft high x 40ft wide
AN/SPS-33 arrays were 25ft high x 20ft wide

So basically they are close to the AN/SPS-33 component of SCANFAR, so half an Enterprise/Long Beach fit. I feel confident in saying that if we really are talking about 4 fixed 20ft x 20ft arrays, not to mention the size of the missiles and launchers in the above diagrams, there is no way this ever would have been an 8,000 ton ship. That estimate was probably out by 50-100%.

Also, in the 1959 long term construction programme it was stated that DLGs 7-10, to be built starting in 1965/66, were to take the Naval Improved Guided Missile System, aka NIGS. The completion dates align with the document shown in post #212 showing the need for Owen warheads for NIGS, which of course also fit with the special missile magazine configurations seen in the diagrams.

 

[Hood]

Ah ..... 20 sq ft versus 20 ft square - a considerable difference.

4.5 years later I notice this, I intend to check the file myself but this would make a lot of sense. Although this would make the arrays massive as opposed to tiny, for context:

AN/SPY-1A arrays are 12ft x 12ft
AN/SPS-32 arrays were 20ft high x 40ft wide
AN/SPS-33 arrays were 25ft high x 20ft wide

So basically they are close to the AN/SPS-33 component of SCANFAR, so half an Enterprise/Long Beach fit. I feel confident in saying that if we really are talking about 4 fixed 20ft x 20ft arrays, not to mention the size of the missiles and launchers in the above diagrams, there is no way this ever would have been an 8,000 ton ship. That estimate was probably out by 50-100%.

Also, in the 1959 long term construction programme it was stated that DLGs 7-10, to be built starting in 1965/66, were to take the Naval Improved Guided Missile System, aka NIGS. The completion dates align with the document shown in post #212 showing the need for Owen warheads for NIGS, which of course also fit with the special missile magazine configurations seen in the diagrams.

As I stated in a post a few up from Phil's, I had double checked the file and it definitely says 20 feet square. So the array would be about 4ft 6in x 4ft 6in. I must admit that this seems too low. For example the Type 984 had a diameter of 14ft or 14ft 6in depending on the sources which gives an area of 154ft sq or 165sq ft.
Even the entire system of four fixed arrays would only be 80ft sq area (which would only be equivalent to a single antenna of 9ft x 9ft).

Of course it could be poor grammar and the author might of misunderstood when compiling the minutes, but a system of 1,600ft sq seems rather massive by any standards. So we are stuck with a mysterious figure that looks very low or very high!

 

[Tzoli]

Why? As the SCANFAR of Long Beach and Enterprise had a total area of
4x20x40 + 4x25x20 = 3200+2000=5200ft^2.

Though I've not yet read through all the comments to me this ship seems like the RN idea for a British Long Beach with the associated smaller size the RN wished to achieve?

 

[JFC Fuller]

As I stated in a post a few up from Phil's, I had double checked the file and it definitely says 20 feet square. So the array would be about 4ft 6in x 4ft 6in. I must admit that this seems too low. For example the Type 984 had a diameter of 14ft or 14ft 6in depending on the sources which gives an area of 154ft sq or 165sq ft.
Even the entire system of four fixed arrays would only be 80ft sq area (which would only be equivalent to a single antenna of 9ft x 9ft).

Of course it could be poor grammar and the author might of misunderstood when compiling the minutes, but a system of 1,600ft sq seems rather massive by any standards. So we are stuck with a mysterious figure that looks very low or very high!

20 ft square would mean each side is 20ft and thus the arrays would have an area of 400 square ft. That's massive but not in the context of SCANFAR and certainly more reasonable, given the desired performance, than my earlier assumption which would have resulted in truly tiny arrays.

The other interesting piece is around the homing method, by using either a solid rocket motor for the second stage or external ramjets the nose is kept clear for a large, upto 14 inch, homing dish. That explains the low power 5kw illuminators, I still think they are too low powered (AN/SPG-62s are reported at 10kw), but the logic broadly holds. You quoted this from the file previously but it makes me wonder about the solid fuel version of SIGS, presumably it would have had a similar homing configuration to NIGS rather than the interferometer configuration ultimately used by Sea Dart.

 

[CNH]

Why was Long Beach a one-off?

 

[Antonio]

Why was Long Beach a one-off?

It was conceived as an experimental unit testing many new technology: propulsion, radar and all missile weapons

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

Why was Long Beach a one-off?

In October 1957 there was an SCB request for a new Missile Cruiser for FY60 incorporating the missile battery of an Albany in a Long Beach hull. The battery would only fit if either the Regulus or Tartar battery was deleted. To accommodate the full battery the hull would have to be lengthened to 720ft and Displacement increased to 16,700 tons. The new ship was not built due to the increasing cost of both converted and new-build missile ships, and the further added cost of the Polaris program

 

[CNH]

One of the interesting features of Long Beach was that it was nuclear propelled.

Why wasn't that option taken up more widely?

 

[TomS]

One of the interesting features of Long Beach was that it was nuclear propelled.

Why wasn't that option taken up more widely?

Nuke power turned out to be expensive to build and especially to man, since you needed at least as many operators as a conventional steam plant and they needed extensive technical training well beyond what a normal boiler tech might get.

 

[uk 75]

The US Navy intended to replace Talos, Terrier and Tartar with the Typhon missile family. Long Beach was the last 3Ts cruiser ordered.
The success of the smaller Bainbridge class encouraged the USN to order a similar ship with Typhon. When Typhon is cancelled the USN orders the California nuclear destroyer leaders, later cruisers with Tartar launchers.
Friedman I think mentions the UK looking at Bainbridge as a possible platform for NIGs
But as we know the UK turns instead to enlarged frigates with CF299 SIGS Seadart.

 

[zen]

If it was 200sqft then it would be about 14ft by 14ft if just a little over.
And 200sqft would in S-band deliver a greater detection range than the 984.....

If a 984 has limit around 180nm on 165sqft then getting 210nm on 200sqft seems reasonable for S-band.

Technologically speaking S-band or L-band are the limits of what iss possible within their perspective.
And L-band would drive a much bigger array for any descrimination.

C-Band SCANFAR was PESA and if it's a PESA system there's no reason for the UK to pursue C-band unlike with Typhon. As there isn't the drive to everything with the array.

C-band dictates SCANFAR's size.

So considering the expertise in S-band it's logical to assume 985 was in this range.

Ergo 20sqft is a typo and it's 200sqft.

This also suggests the start of 985 musing is direct replacement of 984. Hence 14ft by 14ft-ish size.

If the 985 equivalent of 984 individual target tracking is 125nm when the earlier set had 75nm......what does that imply for the size of array? Or fact the limit of detection range for the 985?

It also has implications for NIGS.....

As in the 150nm range being an absolute figure, while real engagement ranges would be much less....less in fact than the 985's 125nm.

Assuming the same ratio 125nm delivers a figure of 300nm, close to land based radars and limited to a band above 25,000ft to 40-60,000ft or so.

This also raises questions about the reduced capability set of 50nm range.
Closer to SIGS needs and indicative of a limit of 120nm.....likely needing an array of 75% of the area of full scale system. Or about 150sqft or less.

 

[Grey Havoc]

One of the interesting features of Long Beach was that it was nuclear propelled.

Why wasn't that option taken up more widely?

Nuke power turned out to be expensive to build and especially to man, since you needed at least as many operators as a conventional steam plant and they needed extensive technical training well beyond what a normal boiler tech might get.

Why was Long Beach a one-off?

It was conceived as an experimental unit testing many new technology: propulsion, radar and all missile weapons

Actually, plans for at least six more Long Beach-class cruisers, as well as an intended follow on class, were among the things that had to be sacrificed in other to fund (what was then) huge cost overruns on the Polaris program.

 

[Hood]

Having read my notes again to make triple sure, I think we can agree its 20ft sqaure (20 x 20 = 400 sq ft).
As we've said, it places it smaller than the SPS-32 and SPS-33 but certainly approaching it in capability.

For completeness I am pasting my notes from AVIA 65/949 here:

Minutes of 1st Meeting of Admiralty/ Ministry of Aviation Working Party, 27/2/59
Four 20ft square arrays of very high power. 125nm range on a 1m sq target at 60-70° angle of sight.

Minutes of 4th Meeting of Joint Admiralty/ Ministry of Aviation Working Party
6,000 ton ship, 40-50x missiles. Loading blast doors probably to withstand 100 tons loading. No high rate of fire from two launchers aft, restricted to 45° either side of beam, could use VLS but requires a much bigger ship.
Single-barrel horizontal loaded launcher best on weight, 20 sec firing interval. Four illuminators, three a minimum requirement.
Question on separate LA & HA launchers.
No ship study yet but roughly 8,000 tons and 30 feet longer than County, if no guns fitted 6-7,000 tons with two launchers.

Minutes of 6th Meeting of Admiralty/ Ministry of Aviation Working Party, 16/11/59
Destroyer, 6,000 tons (possibly as small as 3,000 tons), no guns.
ASWE Small Ship Surveillance Radar – scaled down NIGS four aerial fixed arrays, less performance, no full use of 50+ mile NIGS radar, especially in ECM conditions.

Minutes of 7th Meeting of Admiralty/ Ministry of Aviation Working Party, 14/12/59
Four arrays on a 6,000 ton hull. NSR [New Surveillance Radar] is scaled down NIGS four-array radar.

Minutes of 8th Meeting of Admiralty/ Ministry of Aviation Working Party, 22/2/60
ASWE – radar seems to be a fixed aerial frequency scan radar with integrated guidance facilities.

N.I.G. 108 – Statement on June 1960 Visit to USA
SPG-59 (small version) has 3,400 radiating elements, 296kW mean power but used for illumination too which means power is greater than 96kW. Total power required 2.5MW. UK system has 5kW mean power with four dishes.

Joint Admiralty/ Ministry of Aviation Working Party Report September 1960
Range now 150 miles, weight 3,500lbs; cost of development now reduced to £60mil from £90mil.

Minutes of 12th Meeting of Admiralty/ Ministry of Aviation Working Party
ASWE – 600-800kW power required for radar installation, should ask for 1MW. Scaled down US Advance Weapon System requires 2.5MW and would need complete hull redesign which is not possible in the timescale.

NIG Systems: homing head can deal with smaller targets than US Scaled System which uses DIRCOL system, and NIGS requires less powerful illuminators.
Pencil-beam homing RANTEC aerial in Tartar flown, could replace dish antenna.
Radar not yet selected, F.S.R. or less ambitious “fan-beam” type.

 

[zen]

Hmmm....if it's 20ft by 20ft this is close to the AN/SPS-33's 20 by 25.....

I'll need to reexamine what I can find on SCANFAR.

Correction SCANFAR is S-band, C-band was SPG-59.

400sqft is quite some area for 125nm for 1sqm target, suggesting a 10sqm bomber at 250nm-ish.

 

[JFC Fuller]

NIGS radar and guidance details from the available archive material:

Surveillance radar: To be a Frequency Scanning Radar (FSR), later renamed the New Surveillance Radar (NSR). Work had begun on FSR technology at ASRE in 1955 and there are at least two reports at Kew relating to the aerial development. Each of the four 20 feet square fixed arrays would be mounted at 90 degree intervals in azimuth and would be inclined backwards by 25 degrees from the vertical. Each array would weigh ten tons. Total average transmitter power was to be 80 kw, though the possibility of increasing this to 160 kw was being investigated, split between two transmitters. It was suggested that 40 kw would be available at each end of the ship and 40 kw could be provided to each quadrant if required. Each transmitter would weigh about 5 tons. This leads me to believe the configuration in mind was similar to the pre-DDG51 Aegis configurations with separate fore and aft transmitter/array arrangements. The radar would have operated in 2,300-2550 Mhz which is S-band.

Illuminators: 4 x CW [Continuous Wave], each dish 6ft in diameter and mechanically trained and elevated. They would be mounted close together and switching would be used to move power between them so whilst the standard power would be 5 kw this could be increased to 20 kw by taking power from the other illuminators. My interpretation of the report is that these were to be X-band.

Missile homing: The missiles were to use mid-course command guidance with semi-active terminal homing via a nine inch dish mounted in the nose. The nuclear armed version of the missile would use command guidance only. Missile tracking was to be provided by the NSR.

 

[zen]

Just faintly in the forward launcher diagram is the outline of what could be 25 degrees inclined surface for a array and above which looks like the bridge. Shades of the Ticonderogas only decades earlier.

Some of this really does sound like a sort of proto-Aegis....

 

[Hood]

And what's more the Small Ship Surveillance Radar seems to have been a scaled down version of the NSR for the 6,000-3,000 ton bracket.
Conceptually its not hard to imagine a Tico-Burke relationship for the 1970s, the big 8,000 ton NIGS cruiser and a 5-6,000 ton SIGS destroyer, and NSR on CVA-01 and SSSR on the helicopter cruisers. Expensive and pie-in-sky fantasy but its not impossible to imagine such a networked fleet using scaled systems.

 

[zen]

I

And what's more the Small Ship Surveillance Radar seems to have been a scaled down version of the NSR for the 6,000-3,000 ton bracket.
Conceptually its not hard to imagine a Tico-Burke relationship for the 1970s, the big 8,000 ton NIGS cruiser and a 5-6,000 ton SIGS destroyer, and NSR on CVA-01 and SSSR on the helicopter cruisers. Expensive and pie-in-sky fantasy but its not impossible to imagine such a networked fleet using scaled systems.

I think perseverance on AESA would have reaped rewards later on, and that FMICW was something of a dead end.

I also think that while it was blisteringly expensive and advanced for the time the ADAWS with five computers would exert pressure on software and hardware that would result in further rewards later on.

Probably more relevant than funding Concord for example.

Interesting to read of the NIGS missile using a 9" diameter seeker......

 

[uk 75]

We know how impressive Talos could be at downing jets at extreme range. It also had a useful surface to surface capability according to one source.
But it was a deadend and by 1980 had gone to be replaced by Standard. Seadart compared favourably at first with early Standards. But Standard continued to evolve.
Would the taxpayer have been better served if CF299 and Aster had gone the way of NIGs. Or could we have done more with Seadart?

 

[Grey Havoc]

Well, with regards as to Sea Dart, there was the proposed anti-ship sea-skimming variant.

 

[zen]

We know how impressive Talos could be at downing jets at extreme range. It also had a useful surface to surface capability according to one source.
But it was a deadend and by 1980 had gone to be replaced by Standard. Seadart compared favourably at first with early Standards. But Standard continued to evolve.
Would the taxpayer have been better served if CF299 and Aster had gone the way of NIGs. Or could we have done more with Seadart?

An enormous amount could have been done with the Sea Dart magazine and launcher.
As could the missile or some new weapon constrained within it's dimensional limits.

 

[zen]

Just an aside.....

Airborne SLAR which was then studied for AEW had a practical limit of 60-70 degrees. The only full circle system needed 6 arrays......
So this might have impacted NSR. As getting to 90 degrees is necessary.

 

[JFC Fuller]

Ship fitting studies from the NIGS report:

Studies were undertaken to install the complete WA.726 system into the Hampshire [County] class hull, using the same length and machinery. The board had taken the decision to omit the gun armament and pursue a double ended missile ship. The report emphasises that the missile handling and radar equipment would significantly increase the power [electrical] requirements. Additionally, displacement increased which had a negative impact on speed but endurance loss had been avoided by increasing oil stowage. In addition to the loss of gun armament, increased displacement and reduced speed there was a belief that the increased power [electricity] requirement would result in an increase in complement that would drive up ship size. That increased power requirement is described as being more than double that of the Hampshire class and there was a suggestion that a separate power distribution system for the radar, 400 cycles per second [hz?], might be a good idea. In addition there would be a need for increased ventilation and cooling to deal with the waste heat. There were,"widespread internal changes" to the ship. My interpretation of the report is that those doing the ship installation part of the studies were strongly hinting that using the County class hull was not going to be a viable solution.

With reference to the diagrams above, looking at the internal profile diagram of a Batch II County in Friedman's British Destroyers and Frigates I am convinced that they actually show the NIGS magazines and missile handling equipment arranged in a County class hull, not just a generic ship layout. Therefore I think we have the entire lower part, upper deck down, of the proposed County class installation. It is worth noting that such is the size of the missile the launchers are vertically located on the same deck as B turret and the helicopter deck on the original County class. I also remain convinced that the diagram shows a helicopter hangar and landing pad directly behind the aft magazine. If we think about the need for the radar to be sited as high as possible this would have been an ungainly looking ship if the arrays were to be as large as we believe.