Register here

Author Topic: Sea Slug  (Read 890 times)

Offline Dilandu

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 45
  • I really should change my personal text
    • fonzeppelin.livejournal.com
Re: Sea Slug
« Reply #15 on: January 12, 2019, 12:33:25 am »
You’re;-
 1 quoting the missile weight included the booster/s;- from memory a Sea Dart without the booster was less than 200kg. I’ve 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;-


Er... The TOTAL weight of Sea Slug with boosters is about two tons. Each Gosling booster weighted about 300 kg.

from memory a Sea Dart without the booster was less than 200kg.

but if you assume a similar mass fraction it would be about 300-350Kg;-

You would not assume, because Sea Dart is powered by air-breathing ramjet, and Sea Slug is powered by solid rocket sustainer motor. The Sea Slug is much heavier, because it transported all its fuel, propellant and oxidizer on itself, while Sea Dar took a large portion of propellant and all oxidizer from air.
Quote
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 don’t have the figures, I suspect the Chow would have a higher Isp.

They were Gosling; there were no other available before Retriever appeared.
Quote
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 but maybe it wouldn’t make the same range as the original.

Again: you need to move about 850 kg of Sea Slug weight & accelerate to supersonic speed, because otherwise the missile control system would fail.

Quote
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 that’s true what ever the tandem booster looks like.

Basically, it would be cheaper to just build a new missile.

Must admit, that I toyed with the idea of improving Sea Slug for some of my alternate history project, but the best I could suggest was to install infrared terminal guidance by employing Red Top seeker & homing on target from the dive. And it would require fairly extensive rebuild of the missile.

Offline TsrJoe

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 299
Re: Sea Slug
« Reply #16 on: January 12, 2019, 06:58:28 am »
Midland Air museum, Coventry, November 2017
...'excuse me mister, is that plane for real'...!!!

IPMS (UK) 'Project Cancelled' SIG. co,co-ordinator
IPMS (UK) 'TSR-2', 'Cold War' & 'What-if' SIG. Member

Offline Zootycoon

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 90
Re: Sea Slug
« Reply #17 on: January 12, 2019, 01:50:14 pm »
The mystery of how Chile supported it Sea Slug is revealed;-  The book “Summerfield The history of a rocket research establishment” by Hugh Nicholson tells us on page 36

“Counties, two of which had the Seaslug system installed. As they required the system to remain in service for a considerable period the Chileans requested information on residual motor life and also possible refurbishing techniques. Summerfield had prefected a technique whereby the propellant could be removed from the casing by a combination of machining and high pressure water jet. The casings was then refurbished and new propellant case bonded. This technology was made available to Chile and assistance was given in setting up the necessary facilities for doing this work in there country”

As I suspected, the Tandem booster SeaSlug was probably a design proposal which was stillborn due to high  cost and superseded by establishing an effective refurbishment capability.

Page 35 includes a detailed description of the development of the SeaSlug’s RETRIEVER Boosters. The problem encountered inservice was after a few years a variation in burn rate developed which and lead to uneven booster separation.

Offline Dilandu

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 45
  • I really should change my personal text
    • fonzeppelin.livejournal.com
Re: Sea Slug
« Reply #18 on: January 16, 2019, 01:28:49 am »
Recalled some interesting data about Seaslug unusual design. Apparently, Navy preferred short, horizontal-stowed rocket, because officers were concerned about the possibility of reloading system faliures in combat - either because of recieved damage, or mechanical malfunction.

The compact, stubby Seaslug could at least theoretically be manhandled, put on trolley and loaded into launcher by hands. This was one of the reason, why RN decided against Terrier missile - its lenght and (initial) vertical storage made nearly impossible any manual handling at all.