Talos, the SPG-56 and the SPG-61

[isayyo2]

Looking at Friedman, he repeats the statement that the Mk 13 could not contain the "slightly larger" Typhon MR (p167). But I believe that is a mistake -- Typhon MR is dimensionally the same as Tartar (and possibly even a few inches shorter than Tartar TRIP).

Is he saying "could not contain" due to size restrictions or to a different missile shape needing different handling gear, or does he really mean "incompatible due to inability to access for nuclear warhead loading"?

I believe the latter since the Mk13 did not have the necessary security features, hence a “Mk14” for Super Tartar/Typhon MR.

 

[TomS]

Looking at Friedman, he repeats the statement that the Mk 13 could not contain the "slightly larger" Typhon MR (p167). But I believe that is a mistake -- Typhon MR is dimensionally the same as Tartar (and possibly even a few inches shorter than Tartar TRIP).

Is he saying "could not contain" due to size restrictions or to a different missile shape needing different handling gear, or does he really mean "incompatible due to inability to access for nuclear warhead loading"?

The words "slightly larger" are directly from Friedman (hence the quotation marks). So at that point in time I think he believed Typhon MR was physically larger than Tartar. But that turns out to be incorrect.

 

[Petrus]

The MIM-8A Talos Land System missile version is an interesting study in the internal politics of the US military. The USAF originally started the project to develop a land based Talos system with RCA being the contractor. The RCA system used two monopulse C band radars for target illumination and four additional C-band radars for missile guidance. A twin arm launcher based on the US Navy's version was adopted. The system could track and control four missiles and targets at a time.
RCA then built a prototype launch facility at White Sands NM.

View attachment 658624

The target illuminator radars can be seen on the ends of the control building, while the two guidance radars are in the center. The circular pit is the launching position while the odd shaped building is the magazine and assembly room for the missiles. The magazine held just six missiles. The whole project took just 18 months to get to this point primarily because Talos was already tested and in service.

Then came a fight with the Army who was developing Nike Hercules. They didn't want the Air Force to be in the SAM business. Towards the end of 1956 Congress decided that the Army would control SAM programs with a range of less than 100 miles.

So, the Talos Land System was handed over to them. The Talos system had already entered testing. Nike Hercules was still on the drawing board. Regardless of the success of testing on the Talos system, the US Army adopted a 'not invented here' attitude towards the project and dropped most aspects of it in favor of Nike Hercules. The illumination radars remained in service as the FPS-16 for example.

Compared to Nike Hercules, the Talos system could handle 4 targets per launcher and the proposed full site would have two launchers while a Nike Hercules battery with four launchers could handle just one target at a time. The Talos system could also handle low altitude targets better using a trainable and horizonal launch system versus the Nike Hercules vertical launch. Hercules on the other hand had slightly more capacity for very high altitude targets and low end ballistic missiles by virtue of being rocket propelled versus a ramjet.

In the end, land based Talos was a victim of interservice rivalries.

As for the Land Based Talos here is a link to my post in another thread https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...s-possible-icbm-interceptor.13362/post-299989, which you'll hopefully find interesting.

Piotr

 

[isayyo2]

Since the USN had a dedicated ARM variant of the Talos (RIM-8H) which was used a few times to great effect in the Vietnam war it would've interesting if an airborne version, call it the AGM-8H, was developed and launched from the B-52 mounted on modified Hound Dog pylons.

Now that's sky-high thinking! I wonder if an EA-3 could be modified to carry one? Replace the bomb bay with sensors and fuel, build in an AGM-8 sized recess where bay doors once were and then go to town over Hanoi?

 

[NMaude]

Since the USN had a dedicated ARM variant of the Talos (RIM-8H) which was used a few times to great effect in the Vietnam war it would've interesting if an airborne version, call it the AGM-8H, was developed and launched from the B-52 mounted on modified Hound Dog pylons.

Now that's sky-high thinking! I wonder if an EA-3 could be modified to carry one? Replace the bomb bay with sensors and fuel, build in an AGM-8 sized recess where bay doors once were and then go to town over Hanoi?

I'm not sure that would be possible given just how big a Talos was, an EA-3B was likely too small to carry one.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Since the USN had a dedicated ARM variant of the Talos (RIM-8H) which was used a few times to great effect in the Vietnam war it would've interesting if an airborne version, call it the AGM-8H, was developed and launched from the B-52 mounted on modified Hound Dog pylons.

Now that's sky-high thinking! I wonder if an EA-3 could be modified to carry one? Replace the bomb bay with sensors and fuel, build in an AGM-8 sized recess where bay doors once were and then go to town over Hanoi?

I would think it would be a B-66 but EA-3 too likely could carry two Talos if fitted with pylons to do so. Both planes have a 15,000 lbs. payload and a Talos weights 7,800 lbs. with the booster. Assuming either no need for the booster or a smaller one due to the plane's own speed, carrying two should be possible, at least theoretically.

 

[NMaude]

Assuming either no need for the booster or a smaller one due to the plane's own speed

They still would need a booster as an EA-3B would be flying at high subsonic speeds when launching it, IIRC the Talos needs to reach ~M1.5 for the ramjet to successfully start.

 

[Dilandu]

Now that's sky-high thinking! I wonder if an EA-3 could be modified to carry one? Replace the bomb bay with sensors and fuel, build in an AGM-8 sized recess where bay doors once were and then go to town over Hanoi?

It would require some sort of mid-course guidance installed on missile. Or plane equipped with guiding radar, so missile could be guided near target.

 

[Dilandu]

I would think it would be a B-66 but EA-3 too likely could carry two Talos if fitted with pylons to do so. Both planes have a 15,000 lbs. payload and a Talos weights 7,800 lbs. with the booster. Assuming either no need for the booster or a smaller one due to the plane's own speed, carrying two should be possible, at least theoretically.

Must admit that I speculated about modernized "Talos" as standoff anti-ship missile for A-3) It would require adaptation of electronic to work with plane radar, of course, but I think that against big reflective naval targets we could use the same radar to midcourse guidance (beam-riding) and terminal guidance (switch on semi-active)

 

[NMaude]

The best aircraft to launch a Talos would be the B-52.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Talos information from McDonnell.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/ebooks/McDonnell Model Numbers List.pdf

MODEL NO.	SERIES LETTER	CUSTOMER	TYPE DESIGNATION	DESCRIPTION	DATE NO. ASSIGNED	JOB NUMBER
85	(BENDIX JS-2001B)	NAVY	MISSILE (TALOS)	SURFACE-TO-AIR MISSILE, IMPROVED VERSION OF RTV-N-6A4, ADDITION OF WARHEAD AND FUSE, NEW COMBUSTOR, X BAND INTELLIGENCE (NOW X SAM-N-6) MODEL T [RAMJET] M1=1.76 SC A1 = 205	3 - 51 (EST.)	09 18
85	A (BENDIX JS -2001B)	NAVY	MISSILE (TALOS 6A)	SURFACE-TO-AIR MISSILE SAME AS MODEL 85 EXCEPT C-BAND INTELLIGENCE (NOW X SAM-N-6A) MODEL T [RAMJET] M1=1.76 SC A1 = 205	9 - 51 (EST.)	09 18
85	B (BPD 4524)	NAVY	MISSILE (TALOS 6B)	SURFACE-TO-AIR MISSILE , SIMILAR TO MODEL 85A WITH MODIFICATIONS TO THE DIFFUSER INLET, INNER BODY, FUZE, WARHEAD, WING ACTUATORS, COMBUSTOR AND BOOSTER; AND WITH A STIFFENED BODY. C-BAND INTELLIGENCE. (NOW X SAM-N-6B) MODEL J -2 [RAMJET] F1 = 2.2 SC A1 = 235	11 - 52 (EST.)	31 34 40
85	B (BPD 4524)	NAVY	MISSILE (TALOS 6C)	SURFACE-TO-AIR MISSILE, SAME AS MODEL 85B WITH ELIMINATION OF PREVIOUSLY ALLOWED SPECIFICATION DEVIATION TO IMPROVE TACTICAL SUITABILITY. C-BAND INTELLIGENCE, (NOW X SAM-N-6B) MODEL J-2 [RAMJET] M1 = 2.2 SC A1 = 235	11 - 52 (EST.)	NONE
85	D (BPD 4271)	NAVY	MISSILE (TALOS 6BW)	SURFACE-TO-AIR MISSILE, SAME AS MODEL 85B AFT OF STATION 105 WITH MINOR REFINEMENTS FORWARD OF STATION 105 AS COMPARED TO MODELS 85W AND 85SW. REFINEMENTS INCLUDE: INNER BODY REDESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE A NEW DESIGN OF INNER-BODY CENTER SECTION, , ELIMINATION OF S & A BRACKETRY, AND NEW S & A PLUG. C-BAND INTELLIGENCE (NOW SAM- N-6BW) MODEL J-2 [RAMJET] F1 = 2.2 SC A1 = 225	9-7-56	31 34 40
85	E (BPD 4271)	NAVY	MISSILE (TALOS 6BW)	SURFACE-TO-AIR MISSILE, SAME AS MODEL 85B WITH REFINEMENTS FORWARD OF STATION 105 THAT INCLUDE REDESIGNED INNER BODY TO ACCOMMODATE A NEW DESIGN OF INNER BODY. C-BAND INTELLIGENCE (NOW X SAM-N-6BW) MODEL J-2 [RAMJET] M1 = 2.2 SC A1 = 225	9-7-56	31 34 40
85	F (BPD 4271)	NAVY	MISSILE (TALOS L)	SURFACE-TO-AIR MISSILE , L PROTOTYPE, REVISED DIFFUSER INLET, REPACKAGED FLUSH AND FORWARD ANTENNAS, LONGER FUEL TANK AND TAIL PIPE. INCREASED SPAN OF MISSILE FINS , ALTITUDE - BIASED, MACH NUMBER SPEED CONTROL, C-BAND INTELLIGENCE, (NOW X SAM -N-6B1) MODEL J-2L [RAMJET] M1 = 2.73 SC A1 = 330	9-7-56	34 43
85	G (BPD 4402)	NAVY	MISSILE (TALOS LW)	SURFACE-TO-AIR MISSILE , LW PROTOTYPE, REVISED DIFFUSER INLET, LONGER FUEL TANK AND TAILPIPE. INCREASED SPAN OF MISSILE FINS. ALTITUDE - BIASED, MACH NUMBER SPEED CONTROL, NEW INNER BODY FORWARD SECTION. DOUBLE CONE INLET FOR LAST TWO SETS OF MCDONNELL PARTS IN ADDITION TO SINGLE CONE INLET PARTS. C-BAND INTELLIGENCE (NOW X SAM-N-6BW1) MODEL J-2L [RAMJET] M1 = 2.73 SC A1 = 330	9-7-56	34 43
85	H (BPD 4549 4599 4177A 4254 4813)	NAVY	MISSILE (TALOS 6B)	SURFACE-TO-AIR MISSILE, IN-LINE CONFIGURATION OF MODEL 85B, PROVISION FOR WING CONTROL DURING BOOST, STOWAGE STRONG POINT AT B.S. 105, WAVEGUIDE INSTALLATION, C-BAND INTELLIGENCE (NOW X SAM -N-6B) MODEL J-2 [RAMJET] M1 = 2 .2 SC A1 = 225	9-7-56	49 85 97
85	J (BPD 4550 4600 4271 4280 4813 4814 )	NAVY	MISSILE {TALOS 6BW)	SURFACE-TO-AIR MISSILE , IN-LINE CONFIGURATION OF MODEL 85D, PROVISION FOR WING CONTROL DURING BOOST, STOWAGE STRONG POINT AT B.S. 105 , WAVEGUIDE INSTALLATION, C-BAND INTELLIGENCE (NOW X SAM-N-6BW) MODEL J-2 [RAMJET] M1 = 2 .2 SC A1 = 225	9-7-56	49 85 97
85	K (BPD 4402)	NAVY	MISSILE (TALOS 6BW1)	SURFACE-TO-AIR MISSILE , DOUBLE CONE INLET VERSION OF MDDEL 85G, C-BAND INTELLIGENCE, (NOW X SAM-N-6BW1) MODEL J-2L [RAMJET] M1 = 2 .73 DC A1 = 360	9-7-56	25 43
85	L (BENDIX 4401 4663)	NAVY	MISSILE (TALOS 6B1)	SURFACE-TO-AIR MISSILE, IN-LINE CONFIGURATION OF MDDEL 85F , STOWAGE STRONG POINT AT B .S . 105 , MODULAR ELECTRONIC PACKAGING, MODIFIED SINGLE CONE INLET, WING CONTROL DURING BOOST, C-BAND INTELLIGENCE, (NOW X SAM-N-6B1) MODEL J-2L [RAMJET] M1 =3.1 SC A1 = 330	9-7-56	97
85	M (BPD 4402 4663 4401)	NAVY	MISSILE (TALOS 6BW1)	SURFACE-TO-AIR MISSILE, IN-LINE CONFIGURATION OF MODEL 85G , STOWAGE STRONG POINT AT B .S . 105 , MODULAR ELECTRONIC PACKAGING, C-BAND INTELLIGENCE, (NCW X SAM-N-6BW1) MODEL J-2L [RAMJET] M1= 2 .73 SC A1 = 360	9-7-56	97
85	N (BPD 4401 4663)	NAVY	MISSILE (TALOS 6B1 - UNITIZED)	SURFACE-TO-AIR MISSILE, SAME AS MDDEL 85L EXCEPT FOR MOUNTING PROVISIONS AFT OF B .S . 105 FOR UNITIZED PACKAGING. (NOW X SAM-N-6B1) MODEL J-2L [RAMJET] M1 = 3.1 SC A1 = 330	9-7-56	97 11 15
85	P (BPD 4402 4663 4401)	NAVY	MISSILE (TALOS 6BW1 - UNITIZED)	SURFACE-TO-AIR MISSILE, SAME AS MODEL 85M EXCEPT FOR MOUNTING PROVISIONS AFT OF B .S . 105 FOR UNITIZED PACKAGING. (NOW X SAM-N-6BW) MODEL J - 2L [RAMJET] M1 = 2 .73 SC A1 = 360	9-7-56	97 11 15
85	Q (BPD 4401 4867 )	NAVY	MISSILE (TALOS 6B1 - UNITIZED)	SURFACE-TO-AIR MISSILE, SAME AS MODEL 85N EXCEPT FOR PROVISIONS FOR DOUBLE CONE INLET (PREPRODUCTION PROTOTYPE) (NOW X SAM -N-6B1) MODEL J - 2L M1 = 2 .73 SC A1 = 360	9-7-56	43 97
85	R (BPD 4852 4854)	NAVY	MISSILE (TALOS 6B1)	SURFACE-TO-AIR MISSILE , HIGH PRODUCTION TALOS, SPUN DIFFUSERS CASTINGS USED. C-BAND INTELLIGENCE, (NOW X SAM -N-6B1) MODEL J-2L [RAMJET] M1 = 2.73 DC	9-7-56	(MED) NOT YET ASSIGNED
85	S (BENDIX JS-2001B)	NAVY	MISSILE (TALOS 6A)	SURFACE-TO-AIR MISSILE, SAME AS MODEL 85A EXCEPT FOR CONTRACT ARRANGEMENT AND REVISED BOOSTER FIN . C-BAND INTELLIGENCE. (NOW X SAM-N-6A) MODEL T [RAMJET] M1 = 1.76 SC A1 = 205	8-53 (EST.)	(MED) 01-33 09 33
85	SW (APL PLT-265 AS MOD. BY BPD 4217)	NAVY	MISSILE (TALOS 6AW)	SURFACE-TO-AIR MISSILE, SAME AS MODEL 85W EXCEPT FOR QUICKLY REMOVABLE INNER BODY FORWARD CONE AND ELIMINATION OF ANGLE-OF-ATTACK PROBE. C-BAND INTELLIGENCE, (NOW X SAM-N-6AW) MODEL T [RAMJET] M1 = 2 .2 SC A1 = 225	8-53 (EST.)	(MED) 01-33 33
85	T (BPD 4661 4854)	NAVY	MISSILE (TALOS 6BW)	SURFACE-TO-AIR MISSILE. HIGH PRODUCTION TALOS, HYDRO-SPUN COWL, SPUN INNER BODY NOSE AND AFT CONE. C-BAND INTELLIGENCE. (NOW X SAM-N-6BW) MODEL J-2L [RAMJET] M1 = 2 .73 DC A1 = 360	9-7-56	(MED) NOT YET ASSIGNED
85	U (BPD 4870)	NAVY	MISSILE (TALOS 6BWLA - UNITIZED)	SURFACE-TO-AIR MISSILE. HOMING VERSION OF MODEL 8 5J (6BW), UNITIZED AFT SECTION, MODULAR EIECTRONIC PACKAGING, PROVISIONS FOR STAPFUS, PROVISION FOR CONTACT FUSE, C-BAND INTELLIGENCE. MODEL J-2L [RAMJET] M1 = 2.73 DC A1 = 360	9-7-56	(MED) 25 397
85	V	NAVY	MISSILE (LONG RANGE TYPHON MISSILE)	SURFACE-TO-AIR MISSILE . COMPLETELY NEW VERSION OF TALOS AIRFRAME. MODULAR ELECTRONIC PACKAGING. NOT YET DETERMINED. (PROBLEM STATEMENT MCDONNELL-1-V, MCDONNELL-1-W, MCDONNELL-1-X, MCDONNELL-1-Y (MCDONNELL REPORT 7513)	9-7-56	(MED) 25 303
85	W	NAVY	MISSILE	SURFACE-TO-AIR MISSILE . SAME AS MODELS 85 AND 85A EXCEPT WITH NEW FORWARD BODY CONTAINING FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT ELECTRONIC AND WARHEAD INSTALLATION. REVISED BOOSTER, C-BAND INTELLIGENCE, (NOW X SAM-N-6AW) MODEL T [RAMJET] M1 = 2 .2 SC A1 = 225	1-29-52	(MED) 01-26 325
85	X	NAVY	TEST MISSILE	LAUNCHER TEST VEHICLE, VERSION OF MODEL 85W, SAME AS MODEL 85W EXCEPT WITH 233-A2 BOOSTER AND 76.6 INCH BOOSTER FINS. INTELLIGENCE OMITTED. NONE (PROBLEM STATEMENT MCDONNELL-1-C)	2-17-56	(MED) 325
85	Y (BPD 4401 4402)	NAVY	MISSILE (TALOS 6BW1 - UNITIZED)	SURFACE-TO-AIR MISSILE. PROTOTYPE VERSION OF MODEL 85T. UNITIZED AFT SECTION. STEEL HYDROSPUN DIFFUSER. MODULAR ELECTRONIC PACKAGING . BEAM RIDING GUIDANCE ONLY - NO HOMING. MODEL J-2L [RAMJET]	12-17-56	(MED) 325
85	Z (BPD 4867)	NAVY	MISSILE (TALOS 6B1 UNITIZED)	SURFACE-TO-AIR MISSILE. SIMILAR TO MODEL 85N, IN-LINE CONFIGURATION. MODULAR ELECTRONIC PACKAGING, MOUNTING PROVISIONS AFT OF B .S. 105 FOR UNITIZED PACKAGING. HOGGED-OUT PARTS UTILIZED IN FORWARD SECTION. STOWAGE STRONG POINT AT B.S. 105. PROVISION FOR WING CONTROL DURING BOOST. MOUNTING PROVISION FOR STAPFUS. C-BAND INTELLIGENCE (NOW X SAM -N-6B1) MODEL J - 2L [RAMJET] M1 = 2 .73 SC A1 = 360	3-5-57	(MED) 397
85	AA	NAVY	MISSILE (TALOS 6C1)	SURFACE-TO-AIR MISSILE. SINGLE STAGE, LONG RANGE, C.W.I. GUIDANCE, WEIGHT REDUCTION ACCOMPLISHED BY USE OF MAGNESIUM AND A REDUCTION IN GAUGE THICKNESS. MODEL J-2LB RAMJET (LIQUID PROPELLANT)	7-21-58	(MED) 397 612 613 805

 

[Pioneer]

View attachment 658664

View attachment 658665

I had no idea MIM-8 Talos was so bloody big!

Thanks T.A. Gardner

Regards
Pioneer

 

[isayyo2]

SPG-56 mentioned briefly in Friedman's U.S. Cruisers book: "The SPG-56 was described as essential to take full advantage of the Talos system 100nm range"

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

An interesting read from the USS Albany association, nothing really new stated but SPG-61 was planned for the late 60s digital Talos upgrades: https://ussalbany.org/wp-content/up...ument-by-James-Conti-July-1994.compressed.pdf

As far as I can make out the modernisations undertaken included all of those stated changes except for the SPG-61. Albany received Digital Talos during a 20 month modernisation that started in 1967 and it included the Sperry Univac Mk 152 computer as part of the Mk 11 WDS. She also received an SPS-48 and installation of NTDS, Chicago had an early version of NTDS installed during her initial conversion and received digital Talos later whilst Columbus was never modernised with either.

Can someone upload these two documents to this thread, the original site blocks users from the UK.

 

[Scott Kenny]

RIM-8A Talos (Ship Based SAM)(Beam-Riding) (1953/59)
RIM-8B Nuclear Talos (Nuclear Version of RIM-8A) (1954?)
RIM-8C Talos (Improved Range) (1956/60)
RIM-8D Nuclear Talos (Nuclear Version of RIM-8C) (1957?)
RIM-8E Unified Talos (Exchangable Warhead and CW Seeker) (1962)
RIM-8F Talos (RIM-8C Version with CW Seeker)(1963?)
RIM-8G Talos (Improved Guidance) (1966)
RIM-8H Talos-ARM (Anti-Radiation Version) (1965)
RIM-8I Talos (Designation not Used?)
RIM-8J Talos (Improved SARH Guidance) (1968)
MIM-8A Talos-L (Land Based SAM)(Proposed Land Based RIM-8A) (1955)

I is not supposed to be used (along with O) due to potential confusion with 1 (and O/0).

It's why almost every long running program goes from H to J, and from N to P.

 

[BlackBat242]

I had no idea MIM-8 Talos was so bloody big!

Thanks T.A. Gardner

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Tzoli]

Apparently the Talos was considered for Vertical launch:

Defense Technical Information Center

apps.dtic.mil

 

[Tzoli]

Also do anybody know how would the SPG-51E the SPG-56 and SPG-61 guidance radars looked like?

 

[Scott Kenny]

Apparently the Talos was considered for Vertical launch:

Defense Technical Information Center

apps.dtic.mil

That would have been impressive...

The same source I found that story of a hypothetical/planned Talos attack on a Libyan airbase, said that Talos was supersonic before it left the launch rail. So a VL-Talos would have been supersonic before the booster cleared the launch cell.

 

[NMaude]

That would have been impressive...

Definitely and I'd love to read the report but a downloadable PDF of it doesn't seem to exist.

 

[Tzoli]

Knowing how large the Talos were, a single cell would be as large as a 2x2 cell Mk 41 VLS?

 

[NMaude]

Knowing how large the Talos were, a single cell would be as large as a 2x2 cell Mk 41 VLS?

Even with folding fins the launch-cell would be massive.

Now on another note I'd like to know how the Tacos-VL proposal would pitch over before booster burnout?

 

[TomS]

I wonder if that VL Talos was associated with the land-based application up thread. Fixed vertical silos was certainly more in keeping with USAF thinking at the time than Navy.

 

[NMaude]

I wonder if that VL Talos was associated with the land-based application up thread. Fixed vertical silos was certainly more in keeping with USAF thinking at the time than Navy.

I hadn't thought of that and that's a good point, the Nike Zeus ABM interceptor comes to mind.

 

[Brickmuppet]

Even with folding fins the launch-cell would be massive.

Now on another note I'd like to know how the Tacos-VL proposal would pitch over before booster burnout?

While I think vertically launched tacos are a fascinating idea, I have doubts about their practicality. They'd risk getting cheese everywhere.

 

[TomS]

While I think vertically launched tacos are a fascinating idea, I have doubts about their practicality. They'd risk getting cheese everywhere.

Vertical launch burritos are a better idea. Sealed AURs (All-Up-wRaps).

 

[drwells42]

Knowing how large the Talos were, a single cell would be as large as a 2x2 cell Mk 41 VLS?

My brother did some calculations on the cell sizes needed for a VL Talos some years back. His guesstimate was that a Talos (folding fin) would need a 36 inch cell, which would be around 72 inches by 52 inches overall. This compares to the Mk 41, 25 inch cell, 50 inches by 36 inches overall. From a deck area perspective, a 6 x 5 Talos array (30 cells) would fit in the same space as a 61 cell Mk 41.

This does not account for the Talos' huge height, though.

It also does not account for cheese spillage, or Taco sauce for rocket fuel.

 

[Yellow Palace]

I wonder if that VL Talos was associated with the land-based application up thread. Fixed vertical silos was certainly more in keeping with USAF thinking at the time than Navy.

Without the full report, I can't help but wonder if there was actually a plan to deploy VL Talos at all. The general concept of launching large missiles vertically from tubes would have needed some testing, and Talos may just have been a convenient large missile, available in reasonable quantities, to experiment on.

 

[NMaude]

If the Talos-VL had been put into service then the launch booster would've had to have had some sort of TVC to steer the stack not only to get it pitching over in the direction of the target but away from the vertical so that the spent booster wouldn't land on the launch vessel.

 

[Dilandu]

Knowing how large the Talos were, a single cell would be as large as a 2x2 cell Mk 41 VLS?

Well, if we replace large booster fins with some kind of active vent controls...

 

[Dilandu]

My brother did some calculations on the cell sizes needed for a VL Talos some years back. His guesstimate was that a Talos (folding fin) would need a 36 inch cell, which would be around 72 inches by 52 inches overall. This compares to the Mk 41, 25 inch cell, 50 inches by 36 inches overall. From a deck area perspective, a 6 x 5 Talos array (30 cells) would fit in the same space as a 61 cell Mk 41.

Actually I think the idea behind VL Talos was not to launch it from individual cells, but from reloadable tubes, with vertical storage magazines. I.e. the missile stored vertically, standing on booster, moved from magazine into vertical launch tube (presumably through side hatch in tube) and fired.

If the Talos-VL had been put into service then the launch booster would've had to have had some sort of TVC to steer the stack not only to get it pitching over in the direction of the target but away from the vertical so that the spent booster wouldn't land on the launch vessel.

Or you could use slightly inclined tube, so the missile would have small launch angle from the beginning.

 

[Tzoli]

Regarding the Talos, what was the Soviet counter, or equivalent as a long range Beam-Rider missile?

 

[NMaude]

Regarding the Talos, what was the Soviet counter, or equivalent as a long range Beam-Rider missile?

The Talos only used beam-riding for midcourse guidance, it used SARH for terminal homing.

 

[Dilandu]

Regarding the Talos, what was the Soviet counter, or equivalent as a long range Beam-Rider missile?

Well:

* Speaking of counter - it was X-22 missile, with 300+ km standoff range and Mach 3+ speed on 25 km altitude.

* Speaking of equivalent... I think that the only one Soviet naval SAM with comparable range was planned to be (development wasn't finished) the "UR-VS" system:


UR-VS means "Universalnaya Raketa - Verticalny Start" (rus. Universal Missile - Vertical Launch). It was supposed to serve as both anti-air and anti-surface missile with up to 200 km (less against aerial targets). Missiles were planned to be ramjet-powered, with vertical launch from individual launch containers. Project was developed in 1963-1966, but eventually cancelled on early stages.

as a long range Beam-Rider missile?

USSR did not use beam-riding concept much. Our missile developers generally stuck with command guidance first, semi-active homing later.

 

[NMaude]

I don't if this is the right thread to post this video in (Please let me know if there is a more appropriate thread please) but it concerns the three Ts - Terrier, Tartar and Tales:

In this video, Shane weaves his way through Operation Bumblebee and the three T's: Talos, Terrier, and Tartar. Their beginnings, some specs on the missiles, and the ships that carried them.