Talos, the SPG-56 and the SPG-61

[Scott Kenny]

I might be able to acquire the VL-Talos proposal report in the future (4-6 weeks) I've linked above.

Good luck, and good hunting!

 

[isayyo2]

Can someone upload these two documents to this thread, the original site blocks users from the UK.

Apologies on keeping you waiting!

 

[Tzoli]

I've acquired the report and soon will upload it, in the mean time some eye-candy:

 

[Tzoli]

Here it is:

 

[Dilandu]

I've acquired the report and soon will upload it, in the mean time some eye-candy:

Awwwww! Thank you!!!

 

[Dilandu]

A Talos question. Am I correct that Talos could not be fitted in drum-type magazines, because liquid fuel engine (with its complex tubes and valves) would not react well if missile were stored upside-down?

 

[T. A. Gardner]

A Talos question. Am I correct that Talos could not be fitted in drum-type magazines, because liquid fuel engine (with its complex tubes and valves) would not react well if missile were stored upside-down?

Talos was not stored assembled. The diameter of the missile with wings installed increased substantially and would take up too much magazine space. The missiles were stored wingless and those had to be manually assembled onto the missile before launch. The other pre-launch requirement--in an age of tube technology--was a check of the electronics to make sure everything was working as tubes tended to have lower reliability. The fuel was in a bladder around the body of the missile so that isn't a problem.

 

[Dilandu]

Talos was not stored assembled. The diameter of the missile with wings installed increased substantially and would take up too much magazine space. The missiles were stored wingless and those had to be manually assembled onto the missile before launch. The other pre-launch requirement--in an age of tube technology--was a check of the electronics to make sure everything was working as tubes tended to have lower reliability. The fuel was in a bladder around the body of the missile so that isn't a problem.

But Terrier also needed to be finned manually - and it could be put in drum-type magazines. What exactly prevented Talos from being stored in such? Or drum-type magazines just weren't considered because Talos was assumed to be replaced with Typhon (which was drum-stored) soon?

 

[NMaude]

What exactly prevented Talos from being stored in such?

Probably due to the size of a Talos missile, they were HUGE.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

But Terrier also needed to be finned manually - and it could be put in drum-type magazines. What exactly prevented Talos from being stored in such? Or drum-type magazines just weren't considered because Talos was assumed to be replaced with Typhon (which was drum-stored) soon?

Most likely is Talos was simply in too limited service (8? ships total) and Terrier improved in range and ceiling capacity to a point where it was competitive with Talos that nobody thought there was a reason that warranted such a development.

In terms of size, Talos was about twice the diameter of a Terrier and a little longer. It's also about 2.5 times heavier. That would make a vertical hoist system far larger than what was needed to raise a Terrier onto its launcher.

 

[Dilandu]

Most likely is Talos was simply in too limited service (8? ships total) and Terrier improved in range and ceiling capacity to a point where it was competitive with Talos that nobody thought there was a reason that warranted such a development.

Hm, it's perfectly logical. Thanks for clarification!

 

[Scott Kenny]

I kinda wish the US had kept Talos around as supersonic AShMs, but what can you do with so few launchers and so much prep work to make them ready for flight?

 

[T. A. Gardner]

I kinda wish the US had kept Talos around as supersonic AShMs, but what can you do with so few launchers and so much prep work to make them ready for flight?

Not to mention you'd really need to either replace or seriously (eg., expensive) upgrade the fire control system that was all tube based and mechanical making it a heavy, bulky, maintenance nightmare. That's putting a lot of money into a system few ships could use without massive changes to their structure for a limited function. Terrier or Tartar could work as interim anti-ship missiles and hit pretty hard in that role.

 

[TomS]

I kinda wish the US had kept Talos around as supersonic AShMs, but what can you do with so few launchers and so much prep work to make them ready for flight?

They got used as supersonic AShM surrogates for testing/training (as MQM-8 Vandal). Notably, as a sea-skimming target, Vandal only had a range of 40 miles or so. That's uncomfortably close for an operational AShM.

 

[jstar]

Probably due to the size of a Talos missile, they were HUGE.

Saw my first 'in person' Talos a few weeks ago in South Bend. Indiana. Had no idea they were that big.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

As an interesting aside, both the Army and Navy put considerable thought into where the boosters for these missiles would come down. With Talos there was a pre-launch calculation done by part of the fire control system to ensure the booster wouldn't hit another ship in the formation where ships were operating together.

The US Army conducted a prolonged study and even testing of frangible, self-destructing, booster units for use with Nike missiles because many of the launching sites were near or even in urban areas. They didn't want something like a half ton to ton of booster rocket coming down on homes or businesses they were meant to protect.

I'm not sure if the Russians ever considered that or not, but I could see them not bothering with it...

 

[Yellow Palace]

A Talos question. Am I correct that Talos could not be fitted in drum-type magazines, because liquid fuel engine (with its complex tubes and valves) would not react well if missile were stored upside-down?

If this was an issue - and I've no idea whether it was - then it would be theoretically possible to design a magazine that counter-rotated the missile in the magazine. Complex, but possible. Designing the fuel system to tolerate being inverted might be simpler.

As it was, the Talos magazine system did allow for 'rotation' of missiles within the magazine - theoretically, there was space for 28 missiles each side, but only 26 of those spaces were utilised. This gave enough room to access a specific missile if it were needed.

 

[Dilandu]

a magazine that counter-rotated the missile in the magazine

The simplest way would be to hung the missile on the joint that would allow it to rotate in proper position under its own weight - and then just lock it in such position. "Ferris wheel" magazine, heh)

As it was, the Talos magazine system did allow for 'rotation' of missiles within the magazine - theoretically, there was space for 28 missiles each side, but only 26 of those spaces were utilised. This gave enough room to access a specific missile if it were needed.

True. Albeit in compairson with rotating drums the whole Talos conveyor magazine system looked quite complicated.

 

[Yellow Palace]

The simplest way would be to hung the missile on the joint that would allow it to rotate in proper position under its own weight - and then just lock it in such position. "Ferris wheel" magazine, heh)

The weapons engineers are screaming 'Positive control! Positive control!' at this suggestion.

True. Albeit in compairson with rotating drums the whole Talos conveyor magazine system looked quite complicated.

I'm not sure it's all that bad, to be honest. A bit more faff if you want to get at a specific missile, but just a Z/Y traverser in place of a rotating drum. The benefit is that there's less wasted space - in the space of a 20-round Terrier drum magazine, you'd be able to fit something like 39 rounds with a Talos-type magazine.

 

[Hanse]

Talos was not stored assembled. The diameter of the missile with wings installed increased substantially and would take up too much magazine space. The missiles were stored wingless and those had to be manually assembled onto the missile before launch. The other pre-launch requirement--in an age of tube technology--was a check of the electronics to make sure everything was working as tubes tended to have lower reliability. The fuel was in a bladder around the body of the missile so that isn't a problem.

 

[TomS]

The weapons engineers are screaming 'Positive control! Positive control!' at this suggestion.

I'm not sure it's all that bad, to be honest. A bit more faff if you want to get at a specific missile, but just a Z/Y traverser in place of a rotating drum. The benefit is that there's less wasted space - in the space of a 20-round Terrier drum magazine, you'd be able to fit something like 39 rounds with a Talos-type magazine.

And there's no obvious advantage to a rotary launcher here. Unlike Terrier, the Talos had no real alternate payloads. For Terrier, the rotary launcher allowed immediate access to ASROC and the nuclear versions of Terrier. Talos had no ASROC equivalent and a nuclear warhead would be mated to a standard Talos missile during the checkout process.

 

[Mark Nankivil]

Saw my first 'in person' Talos a few weeks ago in South Bend. Indiana. Had no idea they were that big.

Where is this at in South Bend? Need to add that to my "to visit" list....

Thanks! Mark

 

[jstar]

Where is this at in South Bend? Need to add that to my "to visit" list....

Thanks! Mark

'Military Honor Park', 4300 Terminal Drive, South Bend. It's at the airport. Outdoor exhibit has the Talos, a Standard, a couple 5" mounts , M60A3, M42 and maybe some other stuff. Small indoor museum only open weekends- https://military-park.edan.io/

 

[Dilandu]

And there's no obvious advantage to a rotary launcher here. Unlike Terrier, the Talos had no real alternate payloads. For Terrier, the rotary launcher allowed immediate access to ASROC and the nuclear versions of Terrier. Talos had no ASROC equivalent and a nuclear warhead would be mated to a standard Talos missile during the checkout process.

Wouldn't rotary launcher be mechanically simpler and faster to work? After all, you merely rotate the drum.

 

[NMaude]

Wouldn't rotary launcher be mechanically simpler and faster to work? After all, you merely rotate the drum.

Maybe but keep in mind that the cruisers used for carrying the Talos were WWII era designs that had to be extensively rebuilt to become missile-cruisers, a rotary style magazine may've required too much rebuilding of the hull.

 

[Dilandu]

Maybe but keep in mind that the cruisers used for carrying the Talos were WWII era designs that had to be extensively rebuilt to become missile-cruisers, a rotary style magazine may've required too much rebuilding of the hull.

Point. If I recall correctly, the WW2 era cruisers rebuild for Terrier (Boston-class, Providence-class and Italian Garibaldi) were also equipped with non-drum-type magazines. Boston-class and Garibaldi used vertical conveyor-type magazines. And Providence-class used horizontal cell & loader type magazines - missiles were stored in horizontal cells, a loader tram moved to the cell, dragged missile out and moved it to central overhead rail.



Albeit the main reason for such arrangement seems to be the magazine commonality with Talos - so in case of either one SAM being a failure, the magazines could be quickly rebuild to accomodate the other.

 

[NMaude]

I sent this question to Phillip Ray (Owner/creator of the Okie Boat website):

In a thread* on the Secret Projects Forum there has been some discussion about whether or not a rotary magazine would've been better than the magazine design used in the missile-cruisers that carried the RIM-8 so I wonder if you have an answer to that please.

And he gave this very detailed reply:

Hi, it's good to hear from you.

You ask an interesting question, but I think the answer is not simple. Here are few questions it brings up.

1. TALOS was not a store and forget missile. Each missile had to be tested every other month, and each had to have a battery replaced every month. This involved a lot of handling, removing the missile from the storage tray, de-mating it from the booster and carrying the missile to the test cell. Then reversing this process.

A fairly simple mechanism was required to lift the missile straight up out of the stowage tray. How would you get the missiles out of a rotary magazine? In a circular magazine only the top position would allow a clear vertical lift.

2. Would a circular magazine be taller than the tray type magazine? What would be the minimum diameter of a circular magazine that stowed eight missiles? Would it be taller than the two-layer tray that was used?

In the tray system the crane that moved the missiles only had raise a missile high enough to clear the lower tray so the mechanism did not rise above the entire magazine. The entire mass was lower down so it contributed less to the instability of the ship.

But in a circular magazine the lifting mechanism would have to fit over the magazine high enough to move the missile over the neighboring missile outboard from the center. In addition to the handling crane to move the missiles the mechanism to place a missile "on the rail" so it could be moved to the launcher would also have to be over the center top position of the magazine. All of this would raise the ship's center of gravity, contributing to instability.

And how would you fit the handling crane mechanism in the same space as the launching mechanism and rail?

This isn't just idle speculation. The original Cleveland class design were top heavy and unstable. The design was changed to widen the beam something like six feet (10%) at the waterline. But even with this the ships still rolled excessively. When the CLG conversions were made the ships were even less stable. Topside weight was always a problem. The missile system was a massive structure above the main deck. The Oklahoma City underwent a 15 month yard period where every bit of topside weight that could be done without was removed. Even then it still needed 1200 tons of extra ballast.

So anything that required the missile handling system and missile house to be taller would have a very bad effect on the ship's stability. You can speculate about the merit of this and that, but in the end the ship has to float upright. Otherwise it will be another Vasa.

3. An alternative to a simple "revolver-like" cylindrical magazine would the something more like a Ferris wheel, with each missile stowed in a tray that itself rotated as the magazine circled. But this would cause the magazine to be larger diameter, raising the ship's center of gravity.

Either the trays would have to be positioned in a circle with the diameter large enough to allow a missile to be lifted directly from the tray, or the mechanism would have to have a means of extending a tray outward from the normal position to allow access to the missile. Instead of two simple fixed rails like the existing tray system, you would need eight rail systems (one for each tray) and some mechanism to extend each tray.

I can see a way to do all of this, but the magazine would considerably larger diameter than the two-level trays, and that would decrease the stability of the ship. And it would be much more complex than the simple tray system that was used.

4. Would a circular magazine be more reliable that the simple tray system? Remember that the fanciest weapon system is of no value if it won't work when you need it - unless you are considering it's value as an underwater reef!

TALOS was 1950s technology. Almost none of the technology in modern weapons system existed when TALOS was being developed, It had no precursors. They used the fairly simple existing and proven technology of the times. The missile house systems worked almost all of the time - it was very reliable. However the SPG-49 missile tracking radars were bleeding edge technology, and failed frequently. They were down for an average 50% of the time.

Would a rotary mechanism operate with fewer malfunctions and maintenance issues? Again, a weapons system that doesn't work really isn't a weapons system.

5. One other consideration - all of the magazine equipment had to operate in a magazine with nearly 200,000 pounds of high explosives (booster propellant and warhead explosives). The booster fuel decomposed and produced diethyl ether, which is extremely explosive when mixed with oxygen (air). So almost all of the equipment was either hydraulic or pneumatic to reduce the number of possible spark sources. The spaces were continually vented with fresh air from outside, but there was always the danger of an ether explosion.

Would a more complex rotary magazine have fewer possible ignition sources?

****

These are a few things for you and your friends to think about.



Phil Hays

www.okieboat.com