What happened to Seacat 2?

uk 75

uk 75

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
27 September 2006
Messages
6,074
Reaction score
6,188
In an old edition (about 1962-3) of the excellent annual Flight International missiles guide published in those days with drawings and photos I found a missile called Seacat 2, which looked similar to Roland, Rapier etc and was supposed to be a simple mount on the existing Seacat/Tigercat launcher, but with supersonic capability. As this seems a much simpler and cleaner solution that the massive Seawolf launcher and at least an improvement on the old Seacat, does anyone out there know why it never got anywhere? I have searched all the usual reference books without success.
UK 75
 
I suspect that it was actually an early version of Sea Wolf (PX430 at that time). It was intended to be a much lighter system than that which resulted. IIRC the Sea Wolf programme started before Sea Cat was in service, as it was allready recognised that the earlier missile was ineffective against supersonic threats.

RP1
 
Having looked through Friedmans BD&F, the originator of Seawolf, NSR 6522, which is pretty much what you describe, is first mentoned with reference to a meeting in 1964 and the then raising of the Staff Target for the Seacat replacement. The ST followed feasibilty studies, however, so it is not unreasonable for these to have been the subject of press releases.

Certainly NSR 6522/PX430/GD 302(T)/Confessor/Sinner/Seawolf was supposed to be a one-for-one refit. The FCR is usually shown as fitting in a dome about as big as the SCOTT domes!

RP1
 
Seacat 2 was completely unrelated to what eventually became Seawolf.

Bill Gunstons book on Missiles states that Shorts displayed a model of Seacat 2 in 1961, however the spec for Seawolf was not drawn up until 1964.
 
Well, there you go. Thanks for that. Which book, BTW? Sounds interesting.

RP1
 
Has anyone ever seen any proposed figures for Seacat II
 
From Flight, 1st June 1961:
Short Seacat 2 This private-venture development of Seacat Mk 1
has hitherto been a well-kept secret, and even now all the company are
prepared to do is display an accurate model without comment. One of
the models appears to be about life-size, the length and span being some
78in and 20in respectively (corresponding figures for Seacat 1 are 58in
and 26in). The most obvious difference between the two Seacats is that
Mk 2 is designed for a much higher performance, with supersonic speed
and obviously greater range. It is logical, in view of this, for the
aerodynamic configuration to be completely changed (see illustration),
the second-generation weapon having a circular-section body carrying
four fixed wings of acute taper and low aspect ratio, and four rear
control fins. Again the propulsion appears to be a two-stage solid
internal motor. Shorts are allowed to state that a lot of Seacat 1
equipment is embodied in the new weapon system, and probably most of
the changes are confined to the missile itself. Doubtless a Tigercat 2
could also be produced, and models show new Tigercat 1 launchers.
Another model illustrates a ship installation of Seacat 1 matched with
an entirely new radar from NV Hollandse Signaalapparaten.
Click to expand...
 
Considering what Seacat Mk.2 looked like, perhaps it became Sea Wolf?
 
No, Seacat 2 predates the work on Confessor/PX.430 by several years, though I suppose it could be argued that it was an influencing concept.

I have always been surprised that the Admiralty showed no interest in Seacat 2, especially given the early date of its conception, shortly before Seacat was being widely deployed on ships as they came in for refit or new-build ships finished completion. I suspect at the time Seacat was available and thought adequate as a 40mm Bofors replacement as a close-in self-defence missile despite its subsonic speed and visual-guidance. This is odd given that as early as 1956 work on projects like Orange Nell had shown that only supersonic missiles with radar guidance had any chance of success of shooting down missiles, but the emphasis switched to tackling the bomber before it released its stand-off missile.
By the time Seacat 2 might have been ready for production (mid-60s), the Navy had reverted back to the supersonic 'goalkeeper' missile that became Confessor/PX.430 that they hoped would enter service in the early 1970s to replace Seacat, but they seem prepared to wait for the ideal system they wanted. Doubtless had their been strong official interest, Shorts would soon have been knocking on the Ministry of Aviation's door demanding R&D money.

As we know now, Seawolf was a surprisingly bulkier system than Seacat and could not be fitted as a direct replacement and Seacat soldiered on far past its prime. In hindsight, if the Seacat 2 really had been able to use the same launcher and most of the similar equipment (I suspect some magazine changes would have been required), then it would have been a great upgrade not only for the Royal Navy but for export users too. Perhaps even a competitor to Sea Sparrow.
 
I would say another major factor was that the Royal Navy were (with strong Treasury 'encouragement') expecting to shortly be able to procure Sea Mauler. Unfortunately the British had no idea just how badly dear old McNamara had fouled up the entire Mauler program. There weren't any British and Canadian officers seconded to the project as observers at that point in time, they only came onboard in 1963, ironically after the BAC PT.428 had been cancelled by Great Britain in favour of the supposedly well advanced Mauler program. In fact the official U.S. Army history of the Mauler program hints that both Britain and Canada were effectively conned into propping up it's budget in the latter part of it's development both directly & indirectly.
 
Grey Havoc said:
In fact the official U.S. Army history of the Mauler program hints that both Britain and Canada were effectively conned into propping up it's budget in the latter part of it's development both directly & indirectly.
Click to expand...

I'm shocked!! Well not really

Can I ask the source please?

Regards
Pioneer
 
When the Seacat Mark I and II was developed weren't there ides for alternative launcher configurations for say magazine storage and "arm" type launchers? Instead of the quad (and according to one source single launcher for patrol craft) launchers and manual reloading but full automated reloading like the other navies missile launchers?
 
Last edited:
Wouldn't a new launcher undermine a key selling point of backwards compatibility?
Other more capable systems did have new launchers, from Popsy to Orange Nell, to PT.428 to Sea Wolf.
 
JohnR said:
Seacat 2 was completely unrelated to what eventually became Seawolf.

Bill Gunstons book on Missiles states that Shorts displayed a model of Seacat 2 in 1961, however the spec for Seawolf was not drawn up until 1964.
Click to expand...
Is this the same Bill Gunston book on missiles that credited Red Dean with a 40 mile range?
 
Tzoli said:
When the Seacat Mark I and II was developed weren't there ides for alternative launcher configurations for say magazine storage and "arm" type launchers? Instead of the quad (and according to one source single launcher for patrol craft) launchers and manual reloading but full automated reloading like the other navies missile launchers?
Click to expand...

When Seacat was developed, most other Western point-defense missiles didn't have automatic reloading either. Sea Mauler didn't, nor did most versions of Sea Sparrow (the Canadian one excepted). Albatross had a semi-automatic option and a truly automatic reloader wasn't offered until the 1980s. Naval Roland did have a reloader; Crotale Naval did not. And that's about all I can think of.

The logic is probably that point defense missiles would only get one or two shots at any given inbound anyway, and there would likely be a pause between attacking salvoes when the launcher could be reloaded.

The Soviets clearly disagreed, and SA-N-4 was meant to relaod quite quickly. But the ship impact was much higher, more like a Mk22 with major below-deck space required than something like Seacat, which could literally be bolted down on a platform or a hangar roof.
 
Petrus said:
7 years ago I posted that link but apparently I didn't download a PDF from it before it became impossible.
Maybe someone else here did so?

If so, I would be grateful for sending the PDF to me. Please let me know via PM.

Thank you in advance
Piotr
Click to expand...
Kiltonge posted a jpg, here is a PDF:
 

Attachments

  • 1961 - 0733 Seacat 2.PDF
    403.7 KB · Views: 66
Pioneer said:
I'm shocked!! Well not really

Can I ask the source please?

Regards
Pioneer
Click to expand...
Excerpted from an official U.S. Army Historical Monograph on the Mauler program, from 1968 (pages 66 & 69 [Organisational diagrams on the two pages in between]):
(U) The task of staffing the expanded organization with competent management and engineering talent fell to COL Norman T. Dennis who joined the office as MAULER Project Manager on 20 September 1962.²¹ By 31 December, his staff had grown from a skeleton crew of 6 to a total of 66 (8 officers, 58 civilians), against an initial TD authorization of 77 (6 officers, 71 civilians).²² During 1963, when the MAULER program suffered its greatest setback, AMC Headquarters increased the TD authorization to 132, and at the end of that year the assigned strength stood at 108.²³ The project office staff also included 10 British and 3 Canadian officers who were participating in the management, development, and evaluation of the MAULER weapon system under a pact with the United Kingdom. These foreign representatives joined the MAULER project staff at MICOM in 1963, following a decision by the United Kingdom to abandon development of its own forward area air defense system known as the PT-428.²⁴

(U) COL Bernard R. Luczak, who succeeded Colonel Dennis as Project Manager on 12 February 1964,²⁵ steered the program through the final agonizing reappraisals and ultimate termination. In mid 1964 the project office had a peak assigned strength of 123, including 110 U. S. Army personnel and 13 British-Canadian officers. The latter personnel were not chargeable against the office's TD authorization, which had been reduced by 15 spaces, from 132 to 117.²⁶
Click to expand...
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom