Register here

Author Topic: Q-band Tartar for the RN  (Read 4553 times)

Offline Volkodav

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 104
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Q-band Tartar for the RN
« Reply #15 on: April 12, 2017, 10:59:48 am »
No.
Q-band Tartar needs to be seen as the answer to Popsy, Mopsy, Orange Nell, naval PT.428, Sea Mauler and Sea Wolf.

It solves that issue earlier and possess the potential to gain some increase in range but mostly capability  (such as local  area defence) against the likes of crossing targets.

That the system might ultimately outclass Sea Slug mkI's range of 15nm is not to presume it ends up being a 60nm+ range weapon.
What it does do is drive compatible launchers for Standard and Sea Dart.
Greatly simple fying the implementation of such systems on new and old warships.

I was referring to how Tartar then Standard MR evolved, not how they were initially envisaged.  Tartar grew out of a RN requirement for a point defence missile and the Q Band evolution you proposed also fits this brief.  This is the missile the French and US used to convert gun destroyers into DDGs and, that the Italians and Japanese used to build their own new build DDGs, it is also the missile the RN (and RAN) desired for Battle and Daring DDG conversions, as well as retro fit to the proposed missile cruisers to supplement their Sea Slugs, as well as being considered for FFG variants of the Tribals and Leanders, plus some of the Escort Cruiser concepts.

Though deployed as a point defence system initially the improvements in technology would have seen the basic missile eventually outstrip the performance of either Sea Slug I or II as well as Terrier.  This would mean that the existing systems acquired, likely manufactured under licence, would have been viable for decades, initially fitted as a PDMS, they would have evolved into local and then area air defence systems.  There would still have been a need for Sea Dart as although Standard MRs performance improved, it was still inferior to Sea Dart through the 70s and 80s, into the 90s, but the increased performance would have made the ships fitted with it viable for years longer than in actuality.

For instance had Tartar been fitted to the Counties as a PDMS, perhaps in B position, then when Sea Slug was retired the ships could have been upgraded to Standard and the helicopter facilities expanded.  Systems fitted to the Darings and Battles could have been refurbished and used on the Type 21 and 22 frigates.  Another what if I quite like is had the missile cruisers been built and then the waist 3" twins replaced with Tartar (likely Mk-13 if this was a mid to late 60s upgrade) then they would have made quite exceptional CGHs once Sea Slug was decommissioned and removed.

Offline Hood

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 732
Re: Q-band Tartar for the RN
« Reply #16 on: April 13, 2017, 03:42:56 am »
Tartar would easily fit on a Daring. An October 1956 idea was to fit Tartar in X position and two Mk 74 directors replacing the torpedo tubes with a new 35ft lattice mast around the after funnel.
Yet by 1960 when the RAN asked the DNC to look into a Tartar Daring and County the design studies showed no worthwhile missile battery would fit on Daring and it really needed a 4,000 ton hull for a viable ship. The County went up to 5,200-5,800 tons but was rather overloaded (Tartar with 2-channels of fire, 2x 4.5in Mk.6 (one might be replaced by Ikara), two Sea Cat, 2-3x Wessex and steam powerplant).
A new missile Daring came out at 3,900 tons with 26.5kts speed (1 or 2 4.5in Mk.6, Tartar with 42x missiles, two quadruple Sea Cat, Ikara and space to land a Wessex, Y.100 frigate powerplant).
Another Daring-derived design had Tartar and Ikara forward with one 4.5in Mk.6 mount aft.
The next had Tartar, Ikara (14 missiles) and an 80ft landing deck for 2-3x Wessex on 5,300 tons which then ballooned further to 6,300 tons!
County based designs, simply replacing Sea Slug with Tartar aft and steam powerplant came out at 5,783-6,431 tons.
Tartar's electrical power was 350kW compared to 370kW for Sea Slug so generator savings could be made in the County.

In the end the DNC abandoned work as it was eating into RN design capacity and the RAN wasn't happy and the Charles F. Adams was much lighter. I think probably the RAN's insistence on steam powerplants (which were heavier than US sets in general) and fitting Wessex were the driving factors in inflating hull size and weight.

In 1958 when the Leander Class design was underway it was decided not to waste money on modifying Type 12 for Tartar given the small margins for future upgrade later (tonnage wise). It was found Tartar and is required SPG-51 and SPS-26 or SPS-39 would require a 370ft hull of 3,060 tons with a maximum speed of 27.25kts or 27.5kts on 3,000 tons by reducing the bunkerage (range fell to 4,200nm). The radiation hazard from the radars meant enclosed guns were needed and Tartar was expensive. Fitting Tartar and Wessex was again too much for the hull without reducing range or speed.
With Tartar ruled out by 1960 the planned Daring modernisations stuck with 4.5in guns and added Sea Cat, Wasp and a Type 199 VDS.

SIGS was meant to be capable of replacing a 4.5in mount and it was assumed a smaller 26x missile system would replace a 4.5in like-for-like but when India asked for a SIGS Leander variant it was found it wouldn't fit. The CF.299 Frigate designs that led to Type 82 had their origins in designs that used Leander's machinery set but were larger and heavier, 3,500 tons deep.

I think it may have made sense to refit the Darings with Tartar, their proposed refits were cancelled because their 3.5 million cost equalled a new-build Leander and the refit offered nothing a Leander couldn't do except for an extra 4.5in mount and extra speed. A Tartar might have tipped the balance in favour, but of course the refit costs might have been even higher and of course it still doesn't solve the problem that the hulls were approaching 20 years and had little effective time left to make the refit value for money.
Refitting the Counties makes less sense, purely due to the investment already sunk into Sea Slug and its greater range, but perhaps the latter four ships could have been redesigned to optimise the hull design around the more compact US missile system, but that would have cost more and used up design resources and delayed delivery.
It might have made sense to go ahead and create a larger Type 12 with Tartar (an alternative Leander) but the result might have been more expensive and larger and possibly shorter-ranged and we probably would have lost the Ikara and Exocet conversions later on (unless Wasp was sacrificed for Ikara aft). However its Type 82 successor with Tartar/Terrier might have been available sooner and been a slightly smaller vessel and quite successful. SIGS though probably would have been killed off but that would free R&D resources for other GW projects.

Offline zen

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 749
Re: Q-band Tartar for the RN
« Reply #17 on: April 13, 2017, 07:09:31 am »
Q-band Tartar technology would certainly be an option for upgrading Sea Slug to deliver SARH into a missile that fits into the extent Sea Slug launcher.
The main problem would be range due to issues with Q-band radar ...

Though perhaps a move to ARH is an option. Feeding technology associated with NIGS.
This would then feed back to the Q-band Tartar system delivering System C performance in the late 60's.

This could feed back in turn to a Hypothetical 'Stage III' Thunderbird replacement as envisaged in the late 50's early 60's.

Offline pathology_doc

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 789
Re: Q-band Tartar for the RN
« Reply #18 on: April 13, 2017, 01:24:14 pm »
ARH might have been a possibility if Red Dean had gone into service or at least progressed to firing trials. Given enough kills, there might have been impetus to develop active homing in a lighter, more compact and reliable package. I doubt there would have been much chance of fitting it into a Red Top-sized package in the sixties or early 70s, but any of the surface-to-air weapons with a solid nose would have been quite suited. I can't say how well it would have been squeezable into Sea Dart; a Tartar-shaped missile would have been more suitable.

Offline zen

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 749
Re: Q-band Tartar for the RN
« Reply #19 on: April 14, 2017, 11:58:05 am »
So it's possibly pertinent to raise something about NIGS here, that relates to SIGS....the 14" diameter, which the seeker system orginally aimed at NIGS and apparently carried over to SIGS. Based on the use of both ariels and a central dish (shades of a Soviet AAM), which was claimed to be equal to a 20" diameter dish in performance.

14" diameter being that of Sea Slug.....

However the issue of Red Dean as a SAM is frankly a more obvious choice for the RN....if the weapon had progressed that is.

Offline pathology_doc

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 789
Re: Q-band Tartar for the RN
« Reply #20 on: April 14, 2017, 01:03:22 pm »
The trouble I see with a SAM version of Red Dean is that all my reading indicates it was a lock-on-before-launch weapon, with about a 10,000 yard range. So you are looking very strictly at a point defence weapon, and I cannot see anyone agreeing to assign Sea Cat duties to a Tartar-sized missile.

The only way I can see to make it useful is to have command guidance (perhaps with a Sea Cat-like module) out to near target proximity, with the missile breaking the command lock as soon as its seeker picks up the target.

The other complication is the motor. Red Dean AAM was designed for launch from a high-subsonic or supersonic platform flying at many thousands of feet; the required burn profile is likely to be radically different when launching from a platform which is so much slower than both missile and target as to essentially be stationary. Boosters are almost certainly required, which adds immensely to the program cost and complexity.

Offline Kadija_Man

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1650
Re: Q-band Tartar for the RN
« Reply #21 on: April 14, 2017, 08:21:19 pm »
The trouble I see with a SAM version of Red Dean is that all my reading indicates it was a lock-on-before-launch weapon, with about a 10,000 yard range. So you are looking very strictly at a point defence weapon, and I cannot see anyone agreeing to assign Sea Cat duties to a Tartar-sized missile.

The only way I can see to make it useful is to have command guidance (perhaps with a Sea Cat-like module) out to near target proximity, with the missile breaking the command lock as soon as its seeker picks up the target.

The other complication is the motor. Red Dean AAM was designed for launch from a high-subsonic or supersonic platform flying at many thousands of feet; the required burn profile is likely to be radically different when launching from a platform which is so much slower than both missile and target as to essentially be stationary. Boosters are almost certainly required, which adds immensely to the program cost and complexity.

A booster would take care of most of your problems.   The guidance system is a bit more difficult but would be fixable with sufficient time and resources behind it.  It's worst problem when air launched in it's early, prototype form was that at about 15,000 ft the ground return would overwhelm the target return and the missile would not seek on the intended target.    A change to Q-Band might have fixed that but it would have required a complete reworking of the guidance system.  I wonder if pointing upwards, towards the sky would overcome the problem with the ground returns?   Assuming there is only the target to see, you wouldn't see the ground at all.

Offline r3mu511

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 26
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Q-band Tartar for the RN
« Reply #22 on: April 15, 2017, 03:25:34 am »
... Q-band (Ka-band and Ku-band) avoids the issues of clutter over water, since the frequency is absorbed by water, obviating the issues of confusing reflections...

there appears to be some confusion here between: (1) the atmospheric attenuation of EM radiation due to oxygen and water vapor in the atmosphere, with it's marked attenuation increase in the higher frequency ranges, (2) the large attenuation of EM energy when propagating in sea water, due to the decrease in skin depth with increasing frequency leading to greater EM losses, and (3) sea surface clutter backscatter and it's relationship to the incident frequency...

the first one applies when the EM wave is propagating in the atmosphere, where higher frequencies such as K-band will experience greater attenuation losses due to the water vapor in the atmosphere... the second applies when the EM wave is propagating in sea water where the skin depth of K-band and higher frequencies is very small leading to a large loss in signal strength as it propagates through the sea water... but neither of these two determine the reflection losses as applied to the case of sea surface backscattering (ie. sea clutter) at the interface between the atmosphere and the sea surface...

in this third case, it is the reflection coefficient of sea water which determines the portion of the incident EM energy which is scattered, and in conjunction with the surface contour determines the clutter echo received...

what empirical studies/models show is that the backscatter normalized cross section of the illuminated sea surface patch is larger for higher frequencies (hence greater clutter return), for reference, this can be seen in the empirical model derived in "An Improved Empirical Model for Radar Sea Clutter Reflectivity", Hansen/Mital, Naval Reseach Lab, 2012, where a log (base-10) relationship to frequency was found for the sea surface clutter... this model was based on experimental data collected for various incident frequencies (including K-band), polarizations, grazing angles, and sea states, as presented in ch.7 "Sea and Land Backscatter" from "Radar Design Principles", Nathanson/Reilly/Cohen, 1991...

Offline pathology_doc

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 789
Re: Q-band Tartar for the RN
« Reply #23 on: April 15, 2017, 04:22:28 am »
A booster would take care of most of your problems.   The guidance system is a bit more difficult but would be fixable with sufficient time and resources behind it.

All well and good, assuming politics don't get in the way, but then there are the inter-service rivalries. Add on top of that the costs of redesigning the structure to deal with sea conditions (saltwater corrosion etc). Booster addition is going to be difficult, because the British tended to go for wrap-arounds (which means at least two) and that brings the requirement to get separation right. If you put a useful second-stage tandem booster on it, you get a missile that probably isn't much smaller than Terrier anyway.

The ground interference problem is interesting. Red Dean should arguably have been continued as a research programme in order to sort that issue out, even if it never went into full service, with a parallel programme to transistorise follow-on models and get at least the guidance-system weight and eventually the size down.

Red Hebe, of course, was never going to be small - probably because the ultimate driver of the size was the desire to fit a tactical nuclear warhead in it. Nuclear Falcon was a small nuke, but that presumes willingness of the Americans to supply the British with the warhead.

Offline zen

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 749
Re: Q-band Tartar for the RN
« Reply #24 on: April 15, 2017, 06:19:16 am »
For a SAM I'd imagine replacing the rocket with something more suited to the mission. Opting for a higher acceleration at the cost of endurance.

The use of Q-band is highly suited to precision in built up areas. There where civilian maritime radars for use in harbours and rivers based on this concept by the late 60's.

UK had worked a lot on this type and at least two working seeker designs were produced for Red Dean.
The RN felt that Q-band was the best option for their studies into a self defence SAMs for ships.
Hence
Popsy A
Popsy B using Red Hawk as the upper stage.
Mopsy using the US Meteor AAM with a UK Q-band seeker.
And then Orange Nell also using a Q-band seeker.
They would be very familiar with the issues that this band has.

Offline r3mu511

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 26
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Q-band Tartar for the RN
« Reply #25 on: April 15, 2017, 08:02:06 am »
re. higher frequencies and precision:

yes, the shorter wavelength of higher frequencies would, for a given antenna aperture size, give a narrower beamwidth (ie. being proportional to wavelength divided by aperture diameter) which would thus give better angular resolution, hence the advantages for resolving finer/more precise details...

thus it's a tradeoff in accepting a possibly larger surface clutter return in exchange for the better precision afforded by the higher frequency...

a narrower beamwidth also gives the possibility for better inter-clutter visibility: ie. one might receive more clutter return from the higher frequency if the EM energy falls upon a clutter cell, but the smaller surface patch could allow one to irradiate a cell containing a target which lies between clutter patches...

Offline zen

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 749
Re: Q-band Tartar for the RN
« Reply #26 on: April 17, 2017, 12:35:06 pm »
The trouble I see with a SAM version of Red Dean is that all my reading indicates it was a lock-on-before-launch weapon, with about a 10,000 yard range. So you are looking very strictly at a point defence weapon, and I cannot see anyone agreeing to assign Sea Cat duties to a Tartar-sized missile.

The only way I can see to make it useful is to have command guidance (perhaps with a Sea Cat-like module) out to near target proximity, with the missile breaking the command lock as soon as its seeker picks up the target.

The other complication is the motor. Red Dean AAM was designed for launch from a high-subsonic or supersonic platform flying at many thousands of feet; the required burn profile is likely to be radically different when launching from a platform which is so much slower than both missile and target as to essentially be stationary. Boosters are almost certainly required, which adds immensely to the program cost and complexity.

Red Dean as a SAM is supposed to be a Point Defence system, and which SAM of the era launches before lock on? Beam guided ones if memory serves, like Terrier, until it's able to gain SARH lock on.

Sea Cat is not Popsy B or Mopsy, or Orange Nell, and its that territory a Red Dean-based SAM is aiming for.

Offline r3mu511

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 26
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Q-band Tartar for the RN
« Reply #27 on: April 17, 2017, 10:07:10 pm »
Beam guided ones if memory serves, like Terrier, until it's able to gain SARH lock on.

you probably mean the non-nuclear Talos, as this was the USN missile which was beam guided for midcourse and semi-active for terminal (while nuclear Talos was only beam-guided)... Terrier was only beam guided in it's early form (BW/BT versions) and then switched to only semi-active in it's latter forms (HT versions), USN didn't have a beam-rider-midcourse+sarh-terminal combo version for Terrier (ref: data from designation-systems.net)...

Offline zen

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 749
Re: Q-band Tartar for the RN
« Reply #28 on: April 20, 2017, 07:13:10 am »
Beam guided ones if memory serves, like Terrier, until it's able to gain SARH lock on.

you probably mean the non-nuclear Talos, as this was the USN missile which was beam guided for midcourse and semi-active for terminal (while nuclear Talos was only beam-guided)... Terrier was only beam guided in it's early form (BW/BT versions) and then switched to only semi-active in it's latter forms (HT versions), USN didn't have a beam-rider-midcourse+sarh-terminal combo version for Terrier (ref: data from designation-systems.net)...

Yes

Offline uk 75

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1136
Re: Q-band Tartar for the RN
« Reply #29 on: September 11, 2017, 04:22:00 am »
I always fancied the following off the shelf
orders for Cruisers and Destroyers:
3 Veneto class cruisers with Terrier
8 Perth class destroyers with Tartar and IKARA
12 improved Leanders with Canadian style Sea
Kings hangars and beartrap.