Seaslug with tandem booster

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Joined
15 July 2007
Messages
4,597
Reaction score
4,025
It's in the title.
What happens if the Admiralty decides in favour of tandem booster?
At the time, the answer is that tandem favours assembly of the missile from storage.

But how does this effect outcome of Cruiser and Destroyer design studies?

Design of launcher as well. Would we see a twin arm launcher?

Does it effect outcome of system design, perhaps a common design of system for both Cruisers and Destroyers?

Does this effect of development of mkII and possible MkIII?
Do we see Blue Slug result?

Does this make elements of NIGS more possible?
 
Last edited:
I read somewhere that the wrap around boosters actually took up less space and had the advantage of better accuracy and accelerations. Problems with Mk2 have not been really clarified.
US gave up on Standard ER for most ships in favour of MR just as we did with Seadart. But Standard evolved. Hard to see even a different config Seaslug evolving into a UK Standard MR, Seadart or an eqivalent should have been ready in 1968 not 1974
 
No I'll continue on this thanks.

Assuming a tandem design chosen and a fairly reasonable shift to a twin arm launcher, the system would be comparable with Terrier.
Albeit the Sea Slug would still be of slightly larger diameter at 14" or more. (I have different figures for some reason) Presumably with a larger diameter of booster.

This sort of Terrier style magazine system suggests it would be easier to add in a swappable conventional or nuclear warhead.

We can see the shift to polyrod as quite plausible for SARH guidance and with this the phasing out of the beam riders along with the large and expensive Type 901 Target Tracking and Missile Guidance Radar at a later date.
SARH would expand the potential range, and improvements in rocket fuel would further result in improvements.

The late 60's could thus see the shrinking electronics permit Command Guidance as well.

However had this decision been taken the alternative of navalising Green Flax a.k.a Thunderbird MkII is much stronger.
 
The question is of whether the UK can afford a ship large enough to take the system you propose, including the research and development costs AND TIME to put the new arrangement into service (and the same goes for navalising Thunderbird).

Standard MR grew out of Tartar because of that missile's requirement for zero-assembly loading direct from magazine to rail, and the remarkable improvements in performance it demonstrated, quickly outstripping the first-generation Terrier. The current single-stage (+/- VLS booster) Standard is Tartar-D's offspring, not Terrier's.

Sea Slug never had a single-stage equivalent to act as a basis for the development of a Tartar/Standard MR-type weapon. All that was new work, which became Sea Dart.

Terrier very quickly went from a winged, Sparrow-like missile to the Standard MR-like profile it finished with as Standard ER; it was a tail-control missile even in the pure beam-riding era. Sea Slug's aerodynamics remained first-generation throughout its service life. It always looked like an overgrown, sharp-nosed Red Top.
 
If nothing else, the Nike-Hercules option of bundling four Goslings together would presumably be feasible, without excessive diameter.
Just did the maths on this one out of curiosity. An in-line Seaslug would likely be about 30 ft 9 in long, and fit into a 27" cylinder. That's not far off Talos in size, if both missiles are stored without fins, albeit half the weight - and twice the weight of Terrier.

Developing a larger motor (let's call it Cygnet) would probably get equivalent performance out of a 21" diameter, with the same length. This is a convenient measurement, because then all sorts of fun things carried by submarines are now compatible with your ammunition handling system.

The key decision here is that you've got to accept storing the missiles without fins. That massively reduces the envelope that a tandem boost arrangement requires.
 
So in the NIGS missile diagram, we see a 23" diameter booster.
Arguably this ought to cut length somewhat and rather eases the option of any 21" diameter weapon being stacked on it....
 
The downside of the parallel boosters is that they have a ludicrous amount of drag.

A tandem booster would probably block any beam-riding or command guidance receivers.

The single biggest improvement to Seaslug would be to ask the Admirals demanding a way to manually load the missiles in the event of an electrical failure how exactly the missile will be guided if there's no electricity to run the radar.
 
A tandem booster would probably block any beam-riding or command guidance receivers.

Then how did the Talos and early Terriers manage to work?

After all, they were beam-riders with boosters on their butts (tandem).

OK, small hint #1 - the Talos booster only burned for 5 seconds - which was enough to accelerate the missile to M2.2 - then dropped off with the missile still in the guidance beam.

Small hint #2 - the Terrier booster also dropped off while the autopilot held it on a steady course within the guidance beam.
 
OK, small hint #1 - the Talos booster only burned for 5 seconds - which was enough to accelerate the missile to M2.2 - then dropped off with the missile still in the guidance beam.

Small hint #2 - the Terrier booster also dropped off while the autopilot held it on a steady course within the guidance beam.
Also if I recall correctly, ionization from rocket flame was eventually found not to be as major problem as it was initially assumed (because missile zig-zagged in the beam, situation when antenna was completely blocked by engine flame "shadow" was actually only a fraction of second long).
 
P.S. Also some points:

OK, small hint #1 - the Talos booster only burned for 5 seconds - which was enough to accelerate the missile to M2.2 - then dropped off with the missile still in the guidance beam.

Talos used separate radars for tarject tracking (AN/SPG-49) and missile mid-course guidance (AN/SPW-2), so gathering missile into beam after launch could be achieved easier.

Small hint #2 - the Terrier booster also dropped off while the autopilot held it on a steady course within the guidance beam.

Terrier AN/SPG-55 radar actually have secondary wide-beam antenna on its side to "gather" the missile after launch and guide it to main beam.
 
All of which are counterpoints to Scott Kenny's assertion that having a tandem (rear-mounted) booster would be detrimental to a beam-riding missile.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom