Register here

Author Topic: Sea Slug  (Read 883 times)

Offline zen

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 847
Sea Slug
« on: January 09, 2019, 11:35:16 am »
On quick check it seems we don't have a thread on Sea Slug and it's development.

Often people mention a inline boosted option instead of the wrap around boosters.
Yet I seem to recall that there were worries over rocket gases causing problems with the beam rider guidance.

Would be nice to know if there's anything more on this weapon. Beyond BSP series that is....

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11073
Re: Sea Slug
« Reply #1 on: January 09, 2019, 11:38:14 am »
I'm fairly certain I've seen the in-line Sea Slug around here somewhere.  ???
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline zen

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 847
Re: Sea Slug
« Reply #2 on: January 09, 2019, 03:42:49 pm »
I'm fairly certain I've seen the in-line Sea Slug around here somewhere.  ???

I've only seem NIGS.

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8032
  • The path not taken.
Re: Sea Slug
« Reply #3 on: January 10, 2019, 01:56:56 am »
I'm fairly certain I've seen the in-line Sea Slug around here somewhere.  ???

I have the strange feeling I've seen it as well.
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline zen

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 847
Re: Sea Slug
« Reply #4 on: January 10, 2019, 04:51:53 am »
I am given to understand that there is a drawing available in the library at HMS Collingwood. If I can get access and the time Portsmouth is not too far away or expensive for me.
But what worries me is that it's likely to be NIGS
In a way on pondering this cleaned up version of Sea Slug, it's quite clear how easy it would be within the limitations of the missile's body to fit a SARH seeker and how it could all quickly spital out of control into bleeding edge technology of NIGS.

Which is a shame as a more limited and evolutionary development of Sea Slug would have reaped rewards for further incremental improvements.

Anyway Sea Slug seems to go back to LOP/GAP during WWII and Long Shot?
We have here somewhere a hardened SAM system for land called Thunderbird but it depicts a missile looking exactly like Sea Slug.

At what point did work on a linear booster stop?

Offline CJGibson

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1123
  • GSATH is coming
Re: Sea Slug
« Reply #5 on: January 10, 2019, 05:22:30 am »
I think there was a proposal to put a tandem boost on Sea Slug when the County-class destroyers were sold to Chile, but that's a vague recollection.

Chris

Offline Dilandu

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 45
  • I really should change my personal text
    • fonzeppelin.livejournal.com
Re: Sea Slug
« Reply #6 on: January 10, 2019, 09:45:47 am »


Often people mention a inline boosted option instead of the wrap around boosters.


This is mainly length vs diameter trade. Britain considered length more important than diameter, but since plans to install "Sea Slug" on retrofitted missile cruisers & frigates were scrapped, and "County" were build specifically around "Sea Slug" system we could not establish, were they right or wrong. If the plans for "Sea Slug"-carrying escorts came into fruition in late 1950s, then, probably, the compact size of "Sea Slug" would become great advantage.

Also, the all-forward booster arrangement allowed to use relatively small fins during launch, and (theoretically) made missile more reliable. Since all four boosters were aligned such that their thrust was concentrated in single point, one booster failure would not led to failed launch - the other three would manage without destabilizing the whole missile.

Offline uk 75

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1225
Re: Sea Slug
« Reply #7 on: January 10, 2019, 11:01:39 am »
I am glad that there is now a specific Seaslug thread.

Apart from the US Navy only the Royal Navy deployed a first generation SAM of domestic manufacture on 4 destroyers.
The only other comparable system was France with its Masurca, deployed initially on similar destroyers (Suffren and Duquesne) and then on a converted cruiser (Colbert).
Masurca was also planned for the helicopter training ship Jean D'Arc, which resembled  the planned RN Escort Cruiser.

The US Navy's comparable system was Terrier (Later Standard), which deployed initially on the Coontz class destroyers. These ships are the closest analogue to the County DLGs in RN service.

Terrier was fitted to Italian Escort Cruisers (2 Doria Class and 1 Vittorio) and a converted wartime cruiser (Garibaldi)  as well as a Dutch missile cruiser (Zeven Provinzien).

Eventually, Seaslug was fitted to 8 Countys (though its Seaslug 2 version seems never to have been formally accepted into service).

The proposed Escort Cruiser design for the RN was soon re-designed to take CF299 (Seadart) and DLGs 9 and 10 of the County Class were cancelled.

Refitting CF299 to the Countys was a non-starter because of the vertical storage arrangement coupled with the high manopower costs of the Countys.  In an ideal world CF299 would have come into service in the late 60s and the Countys would have given way to 4 Escort Cruisers and 8 Type 82s with CF299, plus a number of simpler CF299 single arm launcher ships.

On the whole, the RN did better than the RN as Seaslug was more capable and reliable than Terrier and Seadart was more capable than early Standards.  AEGIS and developed Standard altered the picture

Offline zen

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 847
Re: Sea Slug
« Reply #8 on: January 10, 2019, 03:08:04 pm »

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11073
Re: Sea Slug
« Reply #9 on: January 10, 2019, 03:12:04 pm »
I am glad that there is now a specific Seaslug thread.

Apart from the US Navy only the Royal Navy deployed a first generation SAM of domestic manufacture on 4 destroyers.
The only other comparable system was France with its Masurca, deployed initially on similar destroyers (Suffren and Duquesne) and then on a converted cruiser (Colbert).
Masurca was also planned for the helicopter training ship Jean D'Arc, which resembled  the planned RN Escort Cruiser.

The US Navy's comparable system was Terrier (Later Standard), which deployed initially on the Coontz class destroyers.

Don't forget the earlier Terrier conversions.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Zootycoon

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 90
Re: Sea Slug
« Reply #10 on: January 10, 2019, 03:13:01 pm »
Tandem Booster Sea Slug - From memory, at the time (or shortly after) the Counties were sold to Chile the boosters, a product of BAJ, who no longer existed, where found to be suffering from corrosion between the case and the charge. A proposal was made to replace the four boosters with a single Sea Dart Chow booster which was in production at ICI Summerfield. I canít remember if it was a standard Chow or a development there of. I donít know if this progressed beyond a proposal to hardware, suspect not, but would like the know for sure.

The Sea Darts Chow had at least in part, a composite propellant which contained aluminium. This caused problems for salvo launches because the efflux cloud (think chaff) from the first launch produced radio interference problems which adversely affected the second..... itís not easy to make these things work.

Offline Dilandu

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 45
  • I really should change my personal text
    • fonzeppelin.livejournal.com
Re: Sea Slug
« Reply #11 on: January 11, 2019, 10:32:10 am »
I canít remember if it was a standard Chow or a development there of. I donít know if this progressed beyond a proposal to hardware, suspect not, but would like the know for sure.


I'm not sure it's even possible. Even without boosters, "Sea Slug" is almost two time heavier than "Sea Dart" (898 kg vs 544 kg). A single "Chow" booster with 35000 lb thrust wouldn't be able to do the job of four 27800 lb "Goslig".

Not to mention, that it would create the enormous problems with missile stability during boosting, since the center of gravity would be completely out of place. And the tail-booster configuration would require large fins for boosting phase - and such fins simply wouldn't fit in launcher. Let's not forget, the "Sea Slug" used internal placement of missiles inside the launcher frame.

Offline Zootycoon

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 90
Re: Sea Slug
« Reply #12 on: January 11, 2019, 01:56:35 pm »
Youíre;-
 1 quoting the missile weight included the booster/s;- from memory a Sea Dart without the booster was less than 200kg. Iíve no idea what the weight of the Sea Slug without boosters but if you assume a similar mass fraction it would be about 300-350Kg;-
2 Quoting booster peak thrust;- in both types this only occurs briefly, the Gosling (not convinced they were Gosling;- that was Booldhound/Thunderbird and was much longer but same principle ) were cigarette burning double base charges which suffer a big thrust drop as the combustion volume opens up. The Chow was far more sophisticated;- both double based and composite charges in the chamber arranged to give an I initial kick then a period sustained thrust. Although I donít have the figures, I suspect the Chow would have a higher Isp.

Anyway 35000lbf (15 Tons) peak thrust with it burning for 2.2 sec would get 350Kg flying (@24 g), its initial weight would be in the region of 600-650 Kg which add a little, no blunt faced draggy boosters,  but maybe it wouldnít make the same range as the original.

Yes, it would need the additional tail fins, at least, integrating this into the missile, the launcher, the guidance/control system requires a fair bit of modification and all this would need extensive trials, very expensive work to boot;- all thatís true what ever the tandem booster looks like.

I quite distinctly remember the Chile Sea Slug Chow proposal mentioned once during a presentation but it was never mentioned again. Given the size of the project had it gone live, Iím sure I would have picked something up but you could never quite tell.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2019, 12:38:12 am by Zootycoon »

Offline Zootycoon

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 90
Re: Sea Slug
« Reply #13 on: January 11, 2019, 11:39:10 pm »
When comparing a tandem booster to the wrap around you must consider net thrust (booster thrust minus its drag) not absolute. In the tandem arrangement the booster represents only a tiny fraction of the center body drag so close to 100% of its thrust accelerated the mass mass against its drag. The wrap around boosters have flat noses to ensure they spread correctly at separation. This means the booster itself generates a lot of drag. Hence most of the booster thrust is simply pushing against its own drag.

The Sea Slug booster arrangement is an incredible inefficient way to launch anything
« Last Edit: January 16, 2019, 04:10:31 am by Zootycoon »

Offline Zootycoon

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 90
Re: Sea Slug
« Reply #14 on: January 11, 2019, 11:44:09 pm »
Again posted in error;- a small modification is resulting as a new post
« Last Edit: January 11, 2019, 11:47:58 pm by Zootycoon »