I read that the Mk. IV version of the Bloodhound SAM was to be a mobile version. Anyone got any further details?
Indeed - see following:Bloodhound IV was to be based on Swedish experience with making Bloodhound II mobile. In RAF service, Bloodhound was described as 'transportable' rather than 'mobile'.
Chris
I don't know about the SA-4, but compared to Talos it was about as effective in terms of hitting a target, but only had about two-thirds the range at most (about 50 nm v. 75 nm). This was almost entirely due to the differences in guidance systems between the two.Any idea how Bloodhound performed compared to SA-4 Ganef and Talos?
Whilst on the subject of comparing Bloodhound and 2K11, and although a little off topic, I just stumbled across the following in terms of the 2K11:I don't know about the SA-4, but compared to Talos it was about as effective in terms of hitting a target, but only had about two-thirds the range at most (about 50 nm v. 75 nm). This was almost entirely due to the differences in guidance systems between the two.Any idea how Bloodhound performed compared to SA-4 Ganef and Talos?
Talos flies a ballistic trajectory to reach the target. This makes its flight as energy efficient as possible. Bloodhound flies a direct path riding the guidance beam (yes, it's semi-active homing, but in approach that makes it effectively a beam rider) which is less efficient.
The terminal guidance was different and this is what really limits the Bloodhound's range.
At the time (the 60's to 70's roughly) radar and sensor technology limited semi-active homing to around 50 nm at most simply due to the beam spreading as it went further from the transmitting station. Talos used a very complex and expensive lensed radar system along with the missile using an interferometer detection system that allowed good accuracy at very long ranges.
In terms of mission, I'd say Bloodhound is closer to BOMARC than Talos. Again, the USAF came up with an alternative for extremely long range intercepts with BOMARC. In that missile system ground tracking radar and flight control to the target area were handled by SAGE, again an incredibly expensive system that could fly the missile in autopilot to the target area. The missile was then fitted with its own active radar search and homing system that allowed it to find and intercept the target once close to it.
My off hand thoughts on the SA-4 is that it's less effective than the Western systems listed above, and that's based on the performance of Soviet era SAM's in actual use in combat.
Have you looked at them?Whilst on the subject of comparing Bloodhound and 2K11, and although a little off topic, I just stumbled across the following in terms of the 2K11:I don't know about the SA-4, but compared to Talos it was about as effective in terms of hitting a target, but only had about two-thirds the range at most (about 50 nm v. 75 nm). This was almost entirely due to the differences in guidance systems between the two.Any idea how Bloodhound performed compared to SA-4 Ganef and Talos?
Talos flies a ballistic trajectory to reach the target. This makes its flight as energy efficient as possible. Bloodhound flies a direct path riding the guidance beam (yes, it's semi-active homing, but in approach that makes it effectively a beam rider) which is less efficient.
The terminal guidance was different and this is what really limits the Bloodhound's range.
At the time (the 60's to 70's roughly) radar and sensor technology limited semi-active homing to around 50 nm at most simply due to the beam spreading as it went further from the transmitting station. Talos used a very complex and expensive lensed radar system along with the missile using an interferometer detection system that allowed good accuracy at very long ranges.
In terms of mission, I'd say Bloodhound is closer to BOMARC than Talos. Again, the USAF came up with an alternative for extremely long range intercepts with BOMARC. In that missile system ground tracking radar and flight control to the target area were handled by SAGE, again an incredibly expensive system that could fly the missile in autopilot to the target area. The missile was then fitted with its own active radar search and homing system that allowed it to find and intercept the target once close to it.
My off hand thoughts on the SA-4 is that it's less effective than the Western systems listed above, and that's based on the performance of Soviet era SAM's in actual use in combat.
"Its NATO reporting name is SA-4 Ganef, after the Yiddish word גנבֿ meaning "thief"; the name was used because the system was a copy of the Bristol Bloodhound."
(Source: (Reference: "rocket and missile system | weapons system | Britannica" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2K11_Krug)
Now granted, this is from Wikipedia, but is there any grounds for this claim that 2K11 was a copy of the Bloodhound, or was it one of those Cold War claims?
Regards
Pioneer
Only cursorily. The SA-4 was developed after 1955 where my research on SAM's ends. I am doing what might be called the Gen 0 and 1 systems. That is the early predecessors that never went into service and the first generation of SAM's that did. Beyond that, the picture gets a lot more complicated and good information is not always available for reasons of secrecy on the part of the nations developing them. For example, a lot of stuff on Nike Hercules is still classified.Have you looked at them?Whilst on the subject of comparing Bloodhound and 2K11, and although a little off topic, I just stumbled across the following in terms of the 2K11:I don't know about the SA-4, but compared to Talos it was about as effective in terms of hitting a target, but only had about two-thirds the range at most (about 50 nm v. 75 nm). This was almost entirely due to the differences in guidance systems between the two.Any idea how Bloodhound performed compared to SA-4 Ganef and Talos?
Talos flies a ballistic trajectory to reach the target. This makes its flight as energy efficient as possible. Bloodhound flies a direct path riding the guidance beam (yes, it's semi-active homing, but in approach that makes it effectively a beam rider) which is less efficient.
The terminal guidance was different and this is what really limits the Bloodhound's range.
At the time (the 60's to 70's roughly) radar and sensor technology limited semi-active homing to around 50 nm at most simply due to the beam spreading as it went further from the transmitting station. Talos used a very complex and expensive lensed radar system along with the missile using an interferometer detection system that allowed good accuracy at very long ranges.
In terms of mission, I'd say Bloodhound is closer to BOMARC than Talos. Again, the USAF came up with an alternative for extremely long range intercepts with BOMARC. In that missile system ground tracking radar and flight control to the target area were handled by SAGE, again an incredibly expensive system that could fly the missile in autopilot to the target area. The missile was then fitted with its own active radar search and homing system that allowed it to find and intercept the target once close to it.
My off hand thoughts on the SA-4 is that it's less effective than the Western systems listed above, and that's based on the performance of Soviet era SAM's in actual use in combat.
"Its NATO reporting name is SA-4 Ganef, after the Yiddish word גנבֿ meaning "thief"; the name was used because the system was a copy of the Bristol Bloodhound."
(Source: (Reference: "rocket and missile system | weapons system | Britannica" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2K11_Krug)
Now granted, this is from Wikipedia, but is there any grounds for this claim that 2K11 was a copy of the Bloodhound, or was it one of those Cold War claims?
Regards
Pioneer
Thanks for your speedy reply!Only cursorily. The SA-4 was developed after 1955 where my research on SAM's ends. I am doing what might be called the Gen 0 and 1 systems. That is the early predecessors that never went into service and the first generation of SAM's that did. Beyond that, the picture gets a lot more complicated and good information is not always available for reasons of secrecy on the part of the nations developing them. For example, a lot of stuff on Nike Hercules is still classified.Have you looked at them?Whilst on the subject of comparing Bloodhound and 2K11, and although a little off topic, I just stumbled across the following in terms of the 2K11:I don't know about the SA-4, but compared to Talos it was about as effective in terms of hitting a target, but only had about two-thirds the range at most (about 50 nm v. 75 nm). This was almost entirely due to the differences in guidance systems between the two.Any idea how Bloodhound performed compared to SA-4 Ganef and Talos?
Talos flies a ballistic trajectory to reach the target. This makes its flight as energy efficient as possible. Bloodhound flies a direct path riding the guidance beam (yes, it's semi-active homing, but in approach that makes it effectively a beam rider) which is less efficient.
The terminal guidance was different and this is what really limits the Bloodhound's range.
At the time (the 60's to 70's roughly) radar and sensor technology limited semi-active homing to around 50 nm at most simply due to the beam spreading as it went further from the transmitting station. Talos used a very complex and expensive lensed radar system along with the missile using an interferometer detection system that allowed good accuracy at very long ranges.
In terms of mission, I'd say Bloodhound is closer to BOMARC than Talos. Again, the USAF came up with an alternative for extremely long range intercepts with BOMARC. In that missile system ground tracking radar and flight control to the target area were handled by SAGE, again an incredibly expensive system that could fly the missile in autopilot to the target area. The missile was then fitted with its own active radar search and homing system that allowed it to find and intercept the target once close to it.
My off hand thoughts on the SA-4 is that it's less effective than the Western systems listed above, and that's based on the performance of Soviet era SAM's in actual use in combat.
"Its NATO reporting name is SA-4 Ganef, after the Yiddish word גנבֿ meaning "thief"; the name was used because the system was a copy of the Bristol Bloodhound."
(Source: (Reference: "rocket and missile system | weapons system | Britannica" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2K11_Krug)
Now granted, this is from Wikipedia, but is there any grounds for this claim that 2K11 was a copy of the Bloodhound, or was it one of those Cold War claims?
Regards
Pioneer
Yes I have my dear sferrin, and by that, I assume you mean the four strap-on rocket boosters?Have you looked at them?Whilst on the subject of comparing Bloodhound and 2K11, and although a little off topic, I just stumbled across the following in terms of the 2K11:I don't know about the SA-4, but compared to Talos it was about as effective in terms of hitting a target, but only had about two-thirds the range at most (about 50 nm v. 75 nm). This was almost entirely due to the differences in guidance systems between the two.Any idea how Bloodhound performed compared to SA-4 Ganef and Talos?
Talos flies a ballistic trajectory to reach the target. This makes its flight as energy efficient as possible. Bloodhound flies a direct path riding the guidance beam (yes, it's semi-active homing, but in approach that makes it effectively a beam rider) which is less efficient.
The terminal guidance was different and this is what really limits the Bloodhound's range.
At the time (the 60's to 70's roughly) radar and sensor technology limited semi-active homing to around 50 nm at most simply due to the beam spreading as it went further from the transmitting station. Talos used a very complex and expensive lensed radar system along with the missile using an interferometer detection system that allowed good accuracy at very long ranges.
In terms of mission, I'd say Bloodhound is closer to BOMARC than Talos. Again, the USAF came up with an alternative for extremely long range intercepts with BOMARC. In that missile system ground tracking radar and flight control to the target area were handled by SAGE, again an incredibly expensive system that could fly the missile in autopilot to the target area. The missile was then fitted with its own active radar search and homing system that allowed it to find and intercept the target once close to it.
My off hand thoughts on the SA-4 is that it's less effective than the Western systems listed above, and that's based on the performance of Soviet era SAM's in actual use in combat.
"Its NATO reporting name is SA-4 Ganef, after the Yiddish word גנבֿ meaning "thief"; the name was used because the system was a copy of the Bristol Bloodhound."
(Source: (Reference: "rocket and missile system | weapons system | Britannica" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2K11_Krug)
Now granted, this is from Wikipedia, but is there any grounds for this claim that 2K11 was a copy of the Bloodhound, or was it one of those Cold War claims?
Regards
Pioneer
USSR worked on ramjet-powered surface-to-air missiles - initially for S-75 Dvina system - since mid-1950s. Western examples weren't exactly the inspiration: more a confirmation, that the idea of ramjet SAM worth further development. And must point out, that "Krug" (Ganef) with its integral ramjet, have very little in common with Bloodhound. It was based on experimental ramjet missile developed for S-75 in 1958:the Soviets had nicked the idea for a long range ramjet missile.
For example, a lot of stuff on Nike Hercules is still classified.
I don't - see my comment in another thread about declassification not happening by default. It only gets declassified when someone wants it done, and the resources to make it happen are available.For example, a lot of stuff on Nike Hercules is still classified.
I find that surprising given the MIM-14's age and that it has been out of service for decades.
Thanks Dilandu, can't say I've ever seen this design beforeUSSR worked on ramjet-powered surface-to-air missiles - initially for S-75 Dvina system - since mid-1950s. Western examples weren't exactly the inspiration: more a confirmation, that the idea of ramjet SAM worth further development. And must point out, that "Krug" (Ganef) with its integral ramjet, have very little in common with Bloodhound. It was based on experimental ramjet missile developed for S-75 in 1958:the Soviets had nicked the idea for a long range ramjet missile.
View attachment 682080
They were nuclear-equipped; presumably, the classified data is about parts relatedvto nuclear warheads.I find that surprising given the MIM-14's age and that it has been out of service for decades.
They were nuclear-equipped; presumably, the classified data is about parts relatedvto nuclear warheads.I find that surprising given the MIM-14's age and that it has been out of service for decades.
At least 2550 warheads of W-31 type were specifically produced to Nike-Hercules. So about 10% of all Nike-Hercules (total producion circa 25000 units) were nuclear. Not exactly a small fraction.While you are correct about the nuclear-warheads those particular missiles only made up a small fraction of the MIM-14s.
Yet still numbered over 2,500.They were nuclear-equipped; presumably, the classified data is about parts relatedvto nuclear warheads.I find that surprising given the MIM-14's age and that it has been out of service for decades.
While you are correct about the nuclear-warheads those particular missiles only made up a small fraction of the MIM-14s.
The only thing they have in common is the four-booster configuration, which was not uncommon in those days.Only cursorily. The SA-4 was developed after 1955 where my research on SAM's ends. I am doing what might be called the Gen 0 and 1 systems. That is the early predecessors that never went into service and the first generation of SAM's that did. Beyond that, the picture gets a lot more complicated and good information is not always available for reasons of secrecy on the part of the nations developing them. For example, a lot of stuff on Nike Hercules is still classified.Have you looked at them?Whilst on the subject of comparing Bloodhound and 2K11, and although a little off topic, I just stumbled across the following in terms of the 2K11:I don't know about the SA-4, but compared to Talos it was about as effective in terms of hitting a target, but only had about two-thirds the range at most (about 50 nm v. 75 nm). This was almost entirely due to the differences in guidance systems between the two.Any idea how Bloodhound performed compared to SA-4 Ganef and Talos?
Talos flies a ballistic trajectory to reach the target. This makes its flight as energy efficient as possible. Bloodhound flies a direct path riding the guidance beam (yes, it's semi-active homing, but in approach that makes it effectively a beam rider) which is less efficient.
The terminal guidance was different and this is what really limits the Bloodhound's range.
At the time (the 60's to 70's roughly) radar and sensor technology limited semi-active homing to around 50 nm at most simply due to the beam spreading as it went further from the transmitting station. Talos used a very complex and expensive lensed radar system along with the missile using an interferometer detection system that allowed good accuracy at very long ranges.
In terms of mission, I'd say Bloodhound is closer to BOMARC than Talos. Again, the USAF came up with an alternative for extremely long range intercepts with BOMARC. In that missile system ground tracking radar and flight control to the target area were handled by SAGE, again an incredibly expensive system that could fly the missile in autopilot to the target area. The missile was then fitted with its own active radar search and homing system that allowed it to find and intercept the target once close to it.
My off hand thoughts on the SA-4 is that it's less effective than the Western systems listed above, and that's based on the performance of Soviet era SAM's in actual use in combat.
"Its NATO reporting name is SA-4 Ganef, after the Yiddish word גנבֿ meaning "thief"; the name was used because the system was a copy of the Bristol Bloodhound."
(Source: (Reference: "rocket and missile system | weapons system | Britannica" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2K11_Krug)
Now granted, this is from Wikipedia, but is there any grounds for this claim that 2K11 was a copy of the Bloodhound, or was it one of those Cold War claims?
Regards
Pioneer
It mostly has to do with its ABM and nuclear capabilities.For example, a lot of stuff on Nike Hercules is still classified.
I find that surprising given the MIM-14's age and that it has been out of service for decades.
That and its ABM capability.They were nuclear-equipped; presumably, the classified data is about parts relatedvto nuclear warheads.I find that surprising given the MIM-14's age and that it has been out of service for decades.
Bloodhound was not a Beam Rider!!! Talos was, with SARH terminal Homing in later models. Bloodhound 1 was Pulse SARH with Lock on before launch and full prop nav from booster separation and wing unlock. The longest range successful firing at Woomera was an impact range of 24 NM (the longest range unsuccessful shot was 28NM, but the missile suffered an infight malfunction). The Bloodhound 1 did fly up to the target's altitude and then level off. Due to the filtering done on the guidance to minimize wing movement (to reduce drag), it would then dip back down until the guidance system realised the missile was off target (in pitch) and the missile would pitch back up to make the intercept.I don't know about the SA-4, but compared to Talos it was about as effective in terms of hitting a target, but only had about two-thirds the range at most (about 50 nm v. 75 nm). This was almost entirely due to the differences in guidance systems between the two.Any idea how Bloodhound performed compared to SA-4 Ganef and Talos?
Talos flies a ballistic trajectory to reach the target. This makes its flight as energy efficient as possible. Bloodhound flies a direct path riding the guidance beam (yes, it's semi-active homing, but in approach that makes it effectively a beam rider) which is less efficient.
The terminal guidance was different and this is what really limits the Bloodhound's range.
At the time (the 60's to 70's roughly) radar and sensor technology limited semi-active homing to around 50 nm at most simply due to the beam spreading as it went further from the transmitting station. Talos used a very complex and expensive lensed radar system along with the missile using an interferometer detection system that allowed good accuracy at very long ranges.
In terms of mission, I'd say Bloodhound is closer to BOMARC than Talos. Again, the USAF came up with an alternative for extremely long range intercepts with BOMARC. In that missile system ground tracking radar and flight control to the target area were handled by SAGE, again an incredibly expensive system that could fly the missile in autopilot to the target area. The missile was then fitted with its own active radar search and homing system that allowed it to find and intercept the target once close to it.
My off hand thoughts on the SA-4 is that it's less effective than the Western systems listed above, and that's based on the performance of Soviet era SAM's in actual use in combat.
Talos was, with SARH terminal Homing in later models.
So a wave-shaping circuit with the transformer performing the multiplication.The analogue circuitry for the Mk 1 was a resistor and diode network and transformer.
No pitch down? Also were the control-fin servos bang-bang or proportional?Missile only did three manoeuvres, Roll Right. Roll Left and Pitch Up.
No pitch down? Also were the control-fin servos bang-bang or proportional?Missile only did three manoeuvres, Roll Right. Roll Left and Pitch Up.
Do you have any links to the technical details if they're online or any technical documentation?
Maybe pitch down is just Roll Right or Left 180 degrees then Pitch Up?So a wave-shaping circuit with the transformer performing the multiplication.The analogue circuitry for the Mk 1 was a resistor and diode network and transformer.
No pitch down? Also were the control-fin servos bang-bang or proportional?Missile only did three manoeuvres, Roll Right. Roll Left and Pitch Up.
Do you have any links to the technical details if they're online or any technical documentation?
They share some similarities and lots of differences. The guidance systems are different, as are the missile flight controls. The Krug uses the more common cruciform wings working in pairs as opposed to Bloodhound's twist-steer pair of wings.Whilst on the subject of comparing Bloodhound and 2K11, and although a little off topic, I just stumbled across the following in terms of the 2K11:I don't know about the SA-4, but compared to Talos it was about as effective in terms of hitting a target, but only had about two-thirds the range at most (about 50 nm v. 75 nm). This was almost entirely due to the differences in guidance systems between the two.Any idea how Bloodhound performed compared to SA-4 Ganef and Talos?
Talos flies a ballistic trajectory to reach the target. This makes its flight as energy efficient as possible. Bloodhound flies a direct path riding the guidance beam (yes, it's semi-active homing, but in approach that makes it effectively a beam rider) which is less efficient.
The terminal guidance was different and this is what really limits the Bloodhound's range.
At the time (the 60's to 70's roughly) radar and sensor technology limited semi-active homing to around 50 nm at most simply due to the beam spreading as it went further from the transmitting station. Talos used a very complex and expensive lensed radar system along with the missile using an interferometer detection system that allowed good accuracy at very long ranges.
In terms of mission, I'd say Bloodhound is closer to BOMARC than Talos. Again, the USAF came up with an alternative for extremely long range intercepts with BOMARC. In that missile system ground tracking radar and flight control to the target area were handled by SAGE, again an incredibly expensive system that could fly the missile in autopilot to the target area. The missile was then fitted with its own active radar search and homing system that allowed it to find and intercept the target once close to it.
My off hand thoughts on the SA-4 is that it's less effective than the Western systems listed above, and that's based on the performance of Soviet era SAM's in actual use in combat.
"Its NATO reporting name is SA-4 Ganef, after the Yiddish word גנבֿ meaning "thief"; the name was used because the system was a copy of the Bristol Bloodhound."
(Source: (Reference: "rocket and missile system | weapons system | Britannica" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2K11_Krug)
Now granted, this is from Wikipedia, but is there any grounds for this claim that 2K11 was a copy of the Bloodhound, or was it one of those Cold War claims?
Regards
Pioneer
the most important was changing the burner ignition system
Initially it was a flare that burned for X number of seconds and that limited the range. This was changed to a gas burner that didn't go out until the missile reached its target meaning that range wasn't limited to engine run time. I assume the flare arrangement was copied from Boeing's GAPA and that missile was limited to about 35 NM of flight. The Brits wanted longer range so they ditched Boeing's solution for one of their own.the most important was changing the burner ignition system
Weren't the Bloodhound's ramjets pyrotechnically initiated?
It's not so much "Mickey Mouse" as it is an odd choice originally used on Brakemine and kept afterwards. The amidships twist-steer was simpler than using a cruciform layout, but it had some serious limitations. Being roughly amidships on the missile it limited the maneuverability compared, in particular, to tail steered cruciform missiles.Personally I find the whole twist-and-steer arrangement to be a bit Mickey Mouse.