RN Nuclear NIGS ship

JFC Fuller said:
Specifically, a single reactor capable of delivering 60,000 SHP and two 7,500 SHP G6 gas turbines to provide emergency power, rapid start-up and boost from 10% power to 100% power.
Click to expand...
I suspect it didn't hurt that a 60,000 shp reactor is also a convenient size for an aircraft carrier plant. Whether anyone wrote that down at the time is another matter....
 
I've acquired the ADM 220/2179 (Sub title: PROPOSALS FOR A LONG RANGE (UP TO 100 n.m.) G.M. SYSTEM OF HIGH CAPACITY) document and currently typing it into a word so you guys could read it. Sadly it has not a single mention of NIGS or SIGS though it describes basically the requirements and desires which resulted in the start of developing the NIGS and SIGS. It maybe be of interest to some of you but looks like it is not useful to me at all. No data on the missile, the launchers or the ship proposals to carry it. Only a vague mention that the first system should be tested on a light fleet carrier.
The document dated 1955 and based on Friedman's description it should had contained the important NIGS warship proposals...

Does the missile project names Red Shoes and Red Duster rings a bell for anybody?
 
Last edited:
Yeah I've noticed...
And reading the description for the launchers:

11. LAUNCHERS

It is strongly recommended that fixed zero length launchers should be used in view of the extra weight, complexity and power requirements of the trainable ones. This subject to the provisos outlined in the section on low altitude attack.

It is recommended that the ship should be able to launch at a rate of up to about 10 per minute and that this be obtained by using about 6 launchers, each supplied from a warehouse type stowage.

In order to meet possible changes in future missile dimensions, it is desirable that as far as possible the greatest flexibility should be used in the design of missile stowage and handling equipment.
Click to expand...

This basically describes the GW 70-81 design series. Which had various (2-4-5-6-10 single) Stage 1 3/4 missile launchers.
 
ADM 220/2179 immediately predates the RN adopting Blue Envoy as its next generation long range SAM. Blue Envoy was adopted instead to meet the same basic requirement. NIGS came about because of the cancellation of Blue Envoy. I’m skeptical that the RN would have ultimately used Blue Envoy had it not have been cancelled, it was atrociously designed from the perspective of ship fitting.
 
Hood said:
A very interesting discovery.

I have always suspected that Type 985 was separate from the the NSR proposed for NIGS and I think this proves it.

Whatever system GW59 was designed around in 1955 could be considered as the first step on the path to NIGS. It has several similar features;
Multiple single-arm launchers - the Admiralty/ Ministry of Aviation Working Party in 1959 felt that single-arm launchers the right solution and they even discussed having separate high-angle and low-angle launchers, presumably to save power requirements for rapid elevation etc. How this would work in practice I'm not sure without a highly complicated magazine arrangement.

Sea Slug - GW59 only has 28 missiles (3.5 per launcher!) but the missiles seem to be Sea Slug as no other name is provided only non-Sea Slug missiles seemed to be named.

Type 985 - is a search and tracking radar, presumably one radar, sounds very similar in concept to NSR but must have been more than a speculative project in June 1955 as it was assigned a Type number. Two things stand out, the equipment weight for the ship is only 740 tons, some 300 tons lighter than the other GW designs around it and it needs a Type 992 target indication radar. So whatever the Type 985 is, its not a totally standalone system and its not very big. Maybe the Type 985 really is just a digital 984 with guidance added in?

Tonnage - interestingly GW59 is 10,500 tons and yet NIGS was meant to fit on a 6,000 ton hull, this indicates either more miniaturisation of the radar and missile for NIGS or wishful thinking in 1959! But at 540ft long, GW59 is almost County sized.

The other GW ships are interesting too;
GW61 to GW 63 have the mysterious 8 launchers for 32 "R.F." missiles, 1x Trackwell radar. What is interesting is that both ships are far larger than GW59 at 15,000-16,000 tons and 610-640ft long (County was 520ft). No other radar is specified at all, not even a basic Type 974 for navigation. I find this somewhat odd as all the other designs have other radar sensors listed.
Whatever Trackwell is it must be powerful, note that Type 985 on GW985 may be a search/track radar but still needs a Type 992Q for targeting info. Trackwell seems to be able to operate without it. If this is a track/scan radar then it predates the AN/SPG-59 by at least 3 years so cutting edge indeed. At 1,090 tons equipment weight for all 3 GW designs, it seems Trackwell is a large and heavy piece of kit contributing to the weight.

GW70 to GW78 all have the Bristol 1 3/4. Nearly all have 6x T.I.A., 7 of the ships have a dedicated telemetry link, 6 of the ships have a Beacon and oddly GW 72 and GW73 only have the beacon and no T.I.A.! Regardless of the gun armament options, all of these are big and heavy ships of cruiser size.

My money is on the R.F. and Trackwell being a proto-NIGS system, it looks a capable and heavy system and close to the things the 1959 working party were talking about. Whatever 985 is, it doesn't seem quite in the same league. NIGS seems to have followed the Bristol 1 3/4 system and added illuminators too.

My questions are:
Why was Type 985 not used on any other GW ship or with the R.F. missile system and was it really just linked to Sea Slug?
What is the R.F. missile?
What is Trackwell?
What is the T.I.A tracker?
Why where the Navy looking at essentially 3 different systems at the same time (Sea Slug with 985, R.F with Trackwell, Bristol Blue Envoy with 984 & TIAs)

To answer Tzoli's question;
NIGS = New Naval Guided Weapons System
Click to expand...

Regarding Beacon I've found mentioning this word in the archives and the year is close to the GW series time frame:

Intermittent beam riding: a single beacon system using a surveillance radar beam​

Intermittent beam riding: a single beacon system using a surveillance radar beam | The National Archives

The official archive of the UK government. Our vision is to lead and transform information management, guarantee the survival of today's information for tomorrow and bring history to life for everyone.
discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Another one which might or might not related:

RADAR and RADIO COUNTERMEASURES (Code B, 61): Ultra Search and Rescue Beacon (SARAH)​

RADAR and RADIO COUNTERMEASURES (Code B, 61): Ultra Search and Rescue Beacon (SARAH):... | The National Archives

The official archive of the UK government. Our vision is to lead and transform information management, guarantee the survival of today's information for tomorrow and bring history to life for everyone.
discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Sadly no mention of Trackwell or Track Well or TIA
 
Necromancy because of pondering.

For the bulk of a missile's flight, it doesn't really need a constant guidance from the ship. Especially once we introduce autopilot of some sort.
Which is true for both Beam Riding and SARH.
So in theory, the missile could just recieve updates at regular intervals.
It's only on closure with the target that either such updates need to increasingly become continuous, or that the missile switches to self guidance.

Beacon seems an attempt at just this, and this explains why it's sometimes included with Type 985 and TIA, and sometimes with just Type 985 or even older sets like Type 984 or the 982/983 (which became in updates 986/987) combination.
 
I wonder when NIGS really did die?

I've come across an intriguing reference in a memo from the Admiralty regarding the P.1154 in which it raises the possibility of developing NIGS instead of developing the P.1154 as one of a range of options (including more Sea Dart frigates).

Then there is the February 1963 study Air Defence of a Carrier Task Group in Limited War in the 1970s.
It has two interesting CF.299 proposals:
a) CF.299 Mk.2 with midcourse guidance and a larger body to increase range to 100,000yds against a Mach 2 bomber at 60,000ft.
b) CF.299 'Maximum' stretch with 75-mile range.

The other is LRGW (Long Range Guided Weapon): 1735925170194.png

1735925239257.png

Sounds very NIGS-like to me. Six double-ender destroyers would have been an expensive fleet and sounds a like like a British Tico...
Sadly no information on a proposed radar other than to say:
1735925622380.png
 
Brilliant discovery Hood!

Thank you for sharing.

Edited in thoughts...

Is the larger diameter working on Bristol's work on such 21" and 24" diameter ramjets?

Alternatively a longer body might help explain the deep magazine. After all in a rework such could allow another 8ft of length.

50nm is 100,000yards.
75nm is Bloodhound range.
150nm is definitely NIGS territory.
 
Last edited:
1635yankee said:
RE: CONAS.

I can see a couple of different ways to do CONAS. How was the RN planning to do this?

IIRC, the Soviets used reactors with oil-fired superheaters. The other ways I could think of would be separate boilers using the same turbines and separate boilers and turbines. A sort of hybrid between the last two would be to use an extra high pressure, supplied high pressure steam from fossil-fired boilers, exhausting into the HPT for the reactor.

I suspect, though, CONAG would be easier.
Click to expand...
If you mean the Kirovs, they weren't really CONAS unless I misread, posted about it in that thread. The conventional steam plant was only 115t/h

 
zen said:
Is the larger diameter working on Bristol's work on such 21" and 24" diameter ramjets?

Alternatively a longer body might help explain the deep magazine. After all in a rework such could allow another 8ft of length.
Click to expand...
It doesn't say, only confirming that both Sea Dart developments would still be compatible with a 'frigate installation' which probably means no magazine change.
These are speculative projections of future development but probably had some basis in reality based off what BAC thought was possible.
1735984791782.png

It looks like the LRGW and longer-ranged Sea Darts were seen as either/or developments.
1735985047001.png
 
Theoretically a new missile could be designed to fit into the extent Seaslug magazine and launcher system. Dimensionally 20ft to 22ft of length and diameter would depend on the amount of fin area and span needed.
Wraparound boosts being one option, or trading length for a single booster in tandem.

Alternatively a scaled up lengthwise Sea Dart magazine and launcher (the latter lookimg a lot like the picture of the NIGS launcher).

In context this might align with an Anti-ship missile of similar dimensions. Friedman references a 24" diameter missile study used in RN documents.

As I've suggested previously, one could package the missile guidance system and warhead into a slimmer 'dart' and 'throw' this by larger 'guided' booster, relying on command guidance or mid course updates before terminal SARH or even ARH.
No use for close range shots, but appropriate for long range interceptions....like the 150nm option, which is straight up NIGS to Blue Envoy territory.

JCF Fuller found references to a 9.5" seeker that could indicate a dart of just 10" to 14" diameter. Such a seeker would better perform at such ranges of illumination than the polyrod interferometer system. Ideal for a dart, or indeed for a SARH seeker on Red Top (multiple use options seem a big thing for he UK to maximise investment costs)

Whereas Friedman references a 7" dish and 14" spaced polyrod interferometer combination that I suspect implies the integrated ramjet missile like Sea Dart.
 
zen said:
JCF Fuller found references to a 9.5" seeker that could indicate a dart of just 10" to 14" diameter. Such a seeker would better perform at such ranges of illumination than the polyrod interferometer system. Ideal for a dart, or indeed for a SARH seeker on Red Top (multiple use options seem a big thing for he UK to maximise investment costs)
Click to expand...
Wouldn't that also fit into the inlet spike nose of Seaslug?

Forgot seaslug was rocket, not a ramjet.
 
Last edited:
Scott Kenny said:
Wouldn't that also fit into the inlet spike of Seaslug?
Click to expand...
Errr you either mean Sea Dart's inlet....
Or you mean the rather cramped space in the nose of Seaslug.

I suspect the latter is the origin, much as I suspect Seaslug mkIII was the origin of NIGS.
 
Hood said:
I wonder when NIGS really did die?
Click to expand...
As of 1959 NIGS was the system intended for DLGs 7-10, to be laid down starting in 1966/67. As of mid 1961 DLGs 7-10 had been deferred to the early 1970s, I have yet to pin down the exact years they were to be laid down but based on expenditure charts I would guess 1972/73. The NIGS terminology is not used once the ships are deferred and the proposed system is generically called Long Range Guided Weapon (LRGW) or Long Range S.A.G.W. suggesting something different but ill-defined. They probably dropped out of the programme sometime between 1963 and 1966 but I still need to confirm that. Bristol was later referred to as DLG09 (Antrim and Norfolk being DLG07 and DLG08).
 
Wouldn't the Jones Report give us more clues?
 
Hood said:
Then there is the February 1963 study Air Defence of a Carrier Task Group in Limited War in the 1970s.
Click to expand...

This paper has the original reference DOR/D/184/62 right? What file did you find it in?

There were a series of studies through the early 1960s, of which this was one, that looked at Air Defence. The Directorate of Operational Research (DOR) had started using the Ferranti Pegasus computer to model air defence engagements, amongst other things. They fed into a wide ranging Chiefs of staff study looking at "Strategy after 1970" and an "Enquiry in to Naval Carrier Task Forces" chaired by Zuckerman that both started late in 1962.

The LRGW is probably this concept, its notably different from NIGS, approximately 7ft 4" longer, 7.5" greater span, 5" greater diameter and 2,150lbs heavier. It uses active radar homing versus semi-active in NIGS. Only the warhead is the same. The AEW provided mid-course guidance for low-level intercept was because the missile was being proposed as a potential solution were the Navy forced to abandon carriers, the hypothesis being that jamming could force attacking aircraft to within 150nm prior to launching their missiles where they could be engaged by this sort of weapon.
 

Attachments

  • LRSAGW 1962-3.png
    LRSAGW 1962-3.png
    711.4 KB · Views: 22
Last edited:
JFC Fuller said:
This paper has the original reference DOR/D/184/62 right? What file did you find it in?
Click to expand...
I found a copy in ADM 1/29154 Joint RN/RAF Fighter/Strike aircraft as replacement for SEA VIXEN.
I can't see a reference on the document from the photos I took. But I think it's Admiralty R&D Board Paper RDB/P(63)65, judging by an addendum document.
The report is a follow-on document to the DOR's note of 1st Feb entitled Air Defence of a Carrier Task Group in Limited War in the 1970s.
A copy of this does not appear in the file, but the introduction of this report states that most of the background material and discussion of the earlier paper is repeated in this document - so that's one silver lining! All told it runs to 15 pages including the data inputs used and the addendum.

The genesis of these documents seems to be a paper entitled Air Defence in the 1970s, signed by the DND, DNAD, DOR, DSD and DGD on 12 November 1962.
This document does have a section on "Long Range G.W." which outlines its usefulness in destroying attackers before they can release their ASMs, although it notes (like your source above) that use of active ECM might force the bombers to release their missiles closer in.
It is very sketchy about what the potential missile might be, it mentions a development of the C.F.299 system as a possibility to gain a 40-50 mile range weapon for frigates. This was seen as the most affordable option, but it asked that a cost/effectiveness study should be carried out.

JFC Fuller said:
The LRGW is probably this concept,
Click to expand...
I agree given the details given.
The R&D Board Paper doesn't specifically mention AEW mid-course updating, but it does talk about using AEW data for LRGW launching, allowing the incoming targets to be hit soon after they come within the radar horizon, or with a fully active homing wouldn't need illumination from the ship at all.
The strong implication is that AEW is needed to support the LRGW to enable it to hit far out and to avoid attackers slipping in under the destroyer's search radar lobes.
 
.
Long Range Guided Weapon.
Engagement of 2 targets simultaneously.
Possibly needed AEW to assist guidance out to target?
Twin arm launcher and magazine system of 40 missiles.

Range 150nm against a low level target.
Warhead 150lb
Weight 5,500lb

Length 34ft
Diameter 1.7ft or 20.4"
Wingspan 7ft
Speed Mach 3.5

Additional:
BS.1001 was 13" diameter ramjet for NIGS.

BS.1002 integrated ramjet for long range high speed missiles and manned aircraft flying to Mach 4.5 at 90,000ft.

BS.1003 ramjet for Sea Dart and a.k.a Odin.

BS.1004 was a 20" diameter ramjet aimed at SAM designated RP.21

BS.1005 for X-12 missile was a 21.5" diameter ramjet. This led to R.1 and R.2 reusable ramjet engine designs.

If ramjet was 20" and missile 20.4" what was the inlet diameter?
 
Last edited:
Hood said:
I found a copy in ADM 1/29154 Joint RN/RAF Fighter/Strike aircraft as replacement for SEA VIXEN.
Click to expand...

And its been on my hard drive for 5 years. A fun file, VCNS proposing an approach to Thornycroft to convince him to let the Navy drop the P.1154 and pursue the Vickers Type 583 (thus confirming support for the 583 went right to the top of the Navy, not being confined to Naval Air Division) just as Thornycroft was considering merging the Navy and RAF P.1154s into a single aircraft and a statement that the Type 584 was the best technical solution to NBMR.3 but was rejected because it would take longer to deliver.

On the CF.299 Mk.2 proposals, it should be noted that the stretched 75nm range version would have required different handling gear. Diagrams of the CF.299 magazine at this time show a sub 14ft missile stowed in a magazine space that is 16ft 8" high, notably the longitudanal rail supports elevate the missile significantly above the magazine floor suggesting there was space available to adapt the system for a longer missile with some redesign.
 
Last edited:
JFC Fuller said:
And its been on my hard drive for 5 years. A fun file, VCNS proposing an approach to Thornycroft to convince him to let the Navy drop the P.1154 and pursue the Vickers Type 583 (thus confirming support for the 583 went right to the top of the Navy, not being confined to Naval Air Division) just as Thornycroft was considering merging the Navy and RAF P.1154s into a single aircraft and a statement that the Type 584 was the best technical solution to NBMR.3 but was rejected to because it would take longer to deliver.
Click to expand...
This rather confirms what is logical from the period and really does make Type 584/585 a comprehensive solution.

If support went to the upper reaches of Admiralty, it might suggest the claim "only a 50,000lb VG aircraft will do" was a gambit to prepare the way for Type 583 or 585 as a compromise?
Attempting to game ministers?

On the CF.299 Mk.2 proposals, it should be noted that the stretched 75nm range version would have required different handling gear. Diagrams of the CF.299 magazine at this time show a sub 14ft missile stowed in a magazine space that is 16ft 8" high, notably the longitudanal rail supports elevate the missile significantly above the magazine floor suggesting there was space available to adapt the system for a longer missile with some redesign.
Click to expand...
I noticed this on some diagrams, the amount of height above the deck that the magazine 'floor' sat.
Was this a means to make the magazine system separate from any specific deck arrangement?
A universal system that could just be inserted into the ship?

Was retrofit of Sea Dart to existing ships envisioned perhaps?
 
The long range missile in US service was Talos. Until its cancellation the Typhon system was the planned US long range missile.
The missile in the British drawings reminds me of Typhon.
The planned US DLGN carrying a mix of medium and long range Typhons could have been copied by the RN with a ship carrying SIGS and NIGS based on a Seadart like missile.
Four to Six such ships instead of the eight T82 planned originally would be well within the RN budget especially if they were to replace carriers in the 70s using the new missile for SAM, SSM and even shore bombardment roles.
 
uk 75 said:
especially if they were to replace carriers in the 70s using the new missile for SAM, SSM and even shore bombardment roles.
Click to expand...
There was that hypothetical Anti-ship Missile concept of the times being based on a 24" diameter ramjet.....
And notably Blue Water surface-to-surface tactical ballistic missile was 24".

One might just see the outlines of a ship so equipped with LRGW, AShM and TBM.

But if course what enables all that is some means to target things over the horizon.....
 
Zen was questioning the Seadart missile height, versus the available deckhead space. I'm working from memory, but there was a significant amount of 'rafting' and shock protection below the rails, and there was also an exhaust 'plenum' duct to direct the efflux beneath the raft, for additional safety in the event of a 'light up' by a stowed i.e. restrained, missile. This is the missing 2 ft 8 inches.
 
XRNWEO said:
Zen was questioning the Seadart missile height, versus the available deckhead space. I'm working from memory, but there was a significant amount of 'rafting' and shock protection below the rails, and there was also an exhaust 'plenum' duct to direct the efflux beneath the raft, for additional safety in the event of a 'light up' by a stowed i.e. restrained, missile. This is the missing 2 ft 8 inches.
Click to expand...
This does make a lot of sense.
After all some of the Ikara magazine weight increases was definitely due to shock and fire protections.
So I wouldn't be surprised.
 
JFC Fuller said:
A fun file,
Click to expand...
I agree, it is an interesting file. If only Thornycroft hadn't been so adamant on having one design (shades of McNamara and TFX) or if the RAF had seen that supersonic V/STOL was a blind alley for 1960s technology, they might have gotten their way. I doubt that anyone in the Admiralty looked on the P.1154 favourably.

Scaling up Sea Dart into LRGW territory would seem to result in something like Talos and the plan to fit it on new destroyers supposes that the magazines would be larger. It would make obvious sense to us to use the same launcher and magazine, but the RN seemed incapable of not designing bespoke launchers and magazines for every class of ship it had! It doesn't sound like they had gone to industry at this point, so using CF.299 technology may have been the wish, but how that would have played out in practice is of course an unknown. At the very least it would probably be a BAC Weapons Division Vs Hawker Siddeley Dynamics contest.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom