Vertical launch Sea Dart

P

PMN1

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
4 June 2006
Messages
1,474
Reaction score
1,756
Sea Dart is stored vertically on the Type 42's as it was on the Type 82 in rotating drums (presumably 11 Sea Dart per drum on the Type 42 if the figures on magazine capacity are correct).

Does anyone know why when they had the missle in the 'correct' orientation it was decided to throw that away and use a trainalble launcher?

What was there to stop the RN using the rotating drum as a VLS similar to the Soviet SA-N-9 with the rotating drum firing out of a single apeture rather than feeding them to the trainable launcher or even making the whole drum a VLS equivalent to the Mk41 or Sylver but in service far sooner than any of these.
 
I believe that the choice of launcher was more to do with the technology of the time. The missile technology of the time limited the missiles ability to "tip" and enter the guidance waves of the FC radar, in the same way as thrust vector control allows missile such as the later versions of SM2 and Sea Wolf. The American Mk11 & 13 launchers operate in the same way as GWS30. Also Russian/Soviet missiles of the same era as SD SAN 1 & 3 use the same method and the SAN 4 actually lowered the entire launcher into the magazine to reload.

It was therefore necessary to point the missile in the general direction of the target.

Also the design of the missiles magazine for Sea Dart would not allow the arrangement suggested. The actual magazine is two deck down, the area immediately below the launcher is an intermediate stage where the booster has its fins connected and the missile is warmed up. Remember that Sea Dart was a Valve/Vacuum Tube technology missile.

Also IIRC at least some if not all Russia/Soviet VLS missiles are "cold" launched. That is they are ejected from their launch tube under pressure and the missile motor only ignites when the missile has cleared the tube. This allowed for the revolver type launcher, rather than the fixed launchers as used in the west, which require exhuast arrangement for the missiles.
 
JohnR said:
The actual magazine is two deck down, the area immediately below the launcher is an intermediate stage where the booster has its fins connected and the missile is warmed up.
Click to expand...
I wasn't aware that Sea Dart was that kind of missile; I thought it was run up directly to the launcher as-is.
 
Last edited:
Was there any British expertise in solid-fuel TVC prior to Taildog/SRAAM? None comes to mind, it just wasn't a technology available when Sea Dart was in development.

The first projection of a VL British SAM that I can remember was Shield, derived from SRAAM.
 
Kiltonge said:
Was there any British expertise in solid-fuel TVC prior to Taildog/SRAAM? None comes to mind, it just wasn't a technology available when Sea Dart was in development.

The first projection of a VL British SAM that I can remember was Shield, derived from SRAAM.
Click to expand...

A technology demo vertical launch Sea Wolf was successfully fired in the early 1970’s (the first of these could even have been 69), but not proceed with until the mid 80’s. The early demo used a semi-fore type thrust deflector.

Summerfield’s built a TVC firing stand for Chow in the late 70’s and fired numerous TVC Extended Chow’s. Sea Dart mk2 wasn’t vertical launch, it was for stern blind spot coverage. Vertical launch Sea Dart was studied and its configuration was selected. When I was working with the team in the early mid eighties, I was told they wanted the launch cells at the ships stern which meant a new ship design.
 
JohnR said:
the missile is warmed up. Remember that Sea Dart was a Valve/Vacuum Tube technology missile.
Click to expand...

Despite what’s commonly written, Sea Darts Missile avionics we’re all solid state… no vac tubes. There were vac tubes in the Type 965 radar (the 50’s legacy) which were F1000 micro processor controlled (the early.70’s bit)

I think the statement that the GWS30 system ie radar/fire control/missile etc contained vac tubes has been misinterpreted as the Sea Dart itself contained vac tubes.
 
Last edited:
Kiltonge said:
Was there any British expertise in solid-fuel TVC prior to Taildog/SRAAM? None comes to mind, it just wasn't a technology available when Sea Dart was in development.

The first projection of a VL British SAM that I can remember was Shield, derived from SRAAM.
Click to expand...
Seaslug was originally to be vertically launched in 1948 discussions. But concerns over the need to get a system ASAP drove the launcher.
NIGS included possible VL.
PX430 which became Sea Wolf included VL options from the 60's.
 
Zoo Tycoon said:
Summerfield’s built a TVC firing stand for Chow in the late 70’s and fired numerous TVC Extended Chow’s. Sea Dart mk2 wasn’t vertical launch, it was for stern blind spot coverage. Vertical launch Sea Dart was studied and its configuration was selected. When I was working with the team in the early mid eighties, I was told they wanted the launch cells at the ships stern which meant a new ship design.
Click to expand...
This is rather intriguing.
Do you remember if the TVC Chow booster was longer than the original?
 
This is admittedly a tangent, but I remember as a kid seeing what appeared to be actual footage of British ship based SAMs being launched in the UFO episode Destruction - any pointers?
 
zen said:
Zoo Tycoon said:
Summerfield’s built a TVC firing stand for Chow in the late 70’s and fired numerous TVC Extended Chow’s. Sea Dart mk2 wasn’t vertical launch, it was for stern blind spot coverage.
Click to expand...
This is rather intriguing.
Do you remember if the TVC Chow booster was longer than the original?
Click to expand...

Turning a vehicle consumes energy, so slows it down, which is bad for bringing the Odin to life. Hence the solution is to pack a bit more energy into the booster. To be honest I never saw a real TVC Chow so couldn’t say how much bigger , joined the team about 3-4 years too late, but I did see a video clip of a static test.
 
Last edited:
Zoo Tycoon said:
Kiltonge said:
Was there any British expertise in solid-fuel TVC prior to Taildog/SRAAM? None comes to mind, it just wasn't a technology available when Sea Dart was in development.

The first projection of a VL British SAM that I can remember was Shield, derived from SRAAM.
Click to expand...

A technology demo vertical launch Sea Wolf was successfully fired in the early 1970’s (the first of these could even have been 69), but not proceed with until the mid 80’s. The early demo used a semi-fore type thrust deflector.

Summerfield’s built a TVC firing stand for Chow in the late 70’s and fired numerous TVC Extended Chow’s. Sea Dart mk2 wasn’t vertical launch, it was for stern blind spot coverage. Vertical launch Sea Dart was studied and its configuration was selected. When I was working with the team in the early mid eighties, I was told they wanted the launch cells at the ships stern which meant a new ship design.
Click to expand...
The former Loch class 'frigate' HMS Loch Fada was used as a trials ship by BAC for early Sea Wolf trials. From what little I have managed to read, this included V.L. trials, although it apparently wasn't pursued immediately. I read somewhere that the ship broke free of her moorings in bad weather and she was too damaged to continue being used.
REALLY LONG SHOT....Does anyone know of/have any pictures of Loch Fada being used for Sea Wolf trials?
 
zen said:
Kiltonge said:
Was there any British expertise in solid-fuel TVC prior to Taildog/SRAAM? None comes to mind, it just wasn't a technology available when Sea Dart was in development.

The first projection of a VL British SAM that I can remember was Shield, derived from SRAAM.
Click to expand...
Seaslug was originally to be vertically launched in 1948 discussions. But concerns over the need to get a system ASAP drove the launcher.
NIGS included possible VL.
PX430 which became Sea Wolf included VL options from the 60's.
Click to expand...

IIRC, there is a picture of the VL arrangement or a description in one of Friedman's books.
 
martinbayer said:
TomS said:
martinbayer said:
This is admittedly a tangent, but I remember as a kid seeing what appeared to be actual footage of British ship based SAMs being launched in the UFO episode Destruction - any pointers?
Click to expand...

Wiki says there is stock footage of HMS Hampshire launching Sea Slug.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_(UFO)
Click to expand...
Thanks, TomS :D!

Martin
Click to expand...
A little after 3:20 here, and 41:00 has most of the Sea Slug action in the episode.
 
PMN1 said:
zen said:
Kiltonge said:
Was there any British expertise in solid-fuel TVC prior to Taildog/SRAAM? None comes to mind, it just wasn't a technology available when Sea Dart was in development.

The first projection of a VL British SAM that I can remember was Shield, derived from SRAAM.
Click to expand...
Seaslug was originally to be vertically launched in 1948 discussions. But concerns over the need to get a system ASAP drove the launcher.
NIGS included possible VL.
PX430 which became Sea Wolf included VL options from the 60's.
Click to expand...

IIRC, there is a picture of the VL arrangement or a description in one of Friedman's books.
Click to expand...
Got to wander if the wrap around booster arrangement would help with VL?
 
PMN1 said:
PMN1 said:
zen said:
Kiltonge said:
Was there any British expertise in solid-fuel TVC prior to Taildog/SRAAM? None comes to mind, it just wasn't a technology available when Sea Dart was in development.

The first projection of a VL British SAM that I can remember was Shield, derived from SRAAM.
Click to expand...
Seaslug was originally to be vertically launched in 1948 discussions. But concerns over the need to get a system ASAP drove the launcher.
NIGS included possible VL.
PX430 which became Sea Wolf included VL options from the 60's.
Click to expand...

IIRC, there is a picture of the VL arrangement or a description in one of Friedman's books.
Click to expand...
Got to wander if the wrap around booster arrangement would help with VL?
Click to expand...
Might work if the missile motor was the vectoring system. Leaving boosters as just raw thrust providers. Could even allow the missile to compensate for booster issues.
 
PMN1 said:
zen said:
Kiltonge said:
Was there any British expertise in solid-fuel TVC prior to Taildog/SRAAM? None comes to mind, it just wasn't a technology available when Sea Dart was in development.

The first projection of a VL British SAM that I can remember was Shield, derived from SRAAM.
Click to expand...
Seaslug was originally to be vertically launched in 1948 discussions. But concerns over the need to get a system ASAP drove the launcher.
NIGS included possible VL.
PX430 which became Sea Wolf included VL options from the 60's.
Click to expand...

IIRC, there is a picture of the VL arrangement or a description in one of Friedman's books.
Click to expand...
I recall seeing a photo of a VL launched Sea Wolf some time before the missile entered service. As I recall,. it had a long booster attached. Don't recall what the launch vessel was - possibly a barge?
 
Tony Williams said:
PMN1 said:
zen said:
Kiltonge said:
Was there any British expertise in solid-fuel TVC prior to Taildog/SRAAM? None comes to mind, it just wasn't a technology available when Sea Dart was in development.

The first projection of a VL British SAM that I can remember was Shield, derived from SRAAM.
Click to expand...
Seaslug was originally to be vertically launched in 1948 discussions. But concerns over the need to get a system ASAP drove the launcher.
NIGS included possible VL.
PX430 which became Sea Wolf included VL options from the 60's.
Click to expand...

IIRC, there is a picture of the VL arrangement or a description in one of Friedman's books.
Click to expand...
I recall seeing a photo of a VL launched Sea Wolf some time before the missile entered service. As I recall,. it had a long booster attached. Don't recall what the launch vessel was - possibly a barge?
Click to expand...

From Shipbucket but it does tie in with what i've read elsewhere

http://www.shipbucket.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4219
She was built for Wijsmuller Bros Marine UK as the Semi Submersible Heavy Lift Barge "Ocean Servant 1" in 1976 and was Comandeered by the MOD in 1984 to test the Sea Wolf VLS GWS 26 system to be fitted to the Type 23 Frigates. Following completion of the trials she was mothballed from 1987 to 2003 in Brixham harbour, Devon, UK whilst the MOD decided what to do with her. There was several suggestions to despose of the vessel following completion of the Sea Wolf trials and it's eventual deployment on the Type 23 and aborted deployment on the Fort Victoria Class.

In 2003 she was again brought into use by the MOD for testing the then joint Franco/italian/United Kingdom PAAMS (Principle Anti Air Missile System) missile system (later to be called "Sea Viper" when the UK pulled out of the Horizon Frigate Programme and concentrated on it's own Type 45 Destroyer Design). she was fitted with the Samson radar and a 4 chamber VLS for the PAAMS (Aster15 and Aster30) Missiles. she carried out a number of successfull and some not so successfull launches at the French missile test ranges before the Sea Viper trials were concluded by the French and Royal Navy's aboard there respective ship's (HMS Daring and Dauntless for the RN).

In 2010 talk was suggesting a repreive as a air defense barge to be parked at the mouth of the River Thames as part of London's hightened security for the 2012 olympics but this was droped and HMS Ocean and a Type 45 Destroyer were made available instead. there was also plans to use Longbow as a test platform for the new CAMM (Common Anti Air Modular Missile) soon to be deployed by the Royal Navy (Type 23 and Future Type 26), RAF (Replacement for ASRAAM) and the ARMY (replacement for Rapier). but this was dropped as testing aboard a Type 23 was deemed Cheaper.

In 2012 she was sold for scrap to a Turkish Breakers, ending an eventfull 36 year career.

Bit more info

https://assets.publishing.service.g...808/20140926-Former_Trials_Barge_Longbowl.pdf
In 1984, the barge was purchased from Weijsmuller by the MoD and converted to a trials facility for use in the Vertical Launch
Seawolf missile project and was renamed Dynamic Servant.

The barge was renamed Trials Barge Longbow in 1985 once the conversion had been completed.

Following the Seawolf trials, Longbow was then moored at Brixham from 1989 under MOD care and maintenance programme until early 2002.

It was moved in August 03 to Fleet Support Ltd (FSL), Portsmouth for conversion, for Principal AntiAir Missile Systems tracking & firing trials.
 
Zoo Tycoon said:
Kiltonge said:
Was there any British expertise in solid-fuel TVC prior to Taildog/SRAAM? None comes to mind, it just wasn't a technology available when Sea Dart was in development.

The first projection of a VL British SAM that I can remember was Shield, derived from SRAAM.
Click to expand...

A technology demo vertical launch Sea Wolf was successfully fired in the early 1970’s (the first of these could even have been 69), but not proceed with until the mid 80’s. The early demo used a semi-fore type thrust deflector.

Summerfield’s built a TVC firing stand for Chow in the late 70’s and fired numerous TVC Extended Chow’s. Sea Dart mk2 wasn’t vertical launch, it was for stern blind spot coverage. Vertical launch Sea Dart was studied and its configuration was selected. When I was working with the team in the early mid eighties, I was told they wanted the launch cells at the ships stern which meant a new ship design.
Click to expand...

Another successful British TVC missile from the late sixties was Swingfire which could turn almost 90deg immediately after launch. Note 7.50 mins
View: https://youtu.be/Z0V23qLUN6I
 
I can see two major reasons Sea Dart couldn't be vertically launched. One is technical, the other tactical.

The first is, using a VLS system requires you have a means to vent the exhaust during the launch. That takes quite a bit of engineering, which equals lots of money, something the RN doesn't have to toss around. In addition, there is the issue of maintenance on the missile itself. VLS usually means the missile is prepackaged and not maintained at sea. This too could be a big issue with missiles of that era.

The second reason VLS likely would be undesirable is it limits the minimum altitude and range you can engage a target. Ramjets are limited in their ability to turn sharply due to the potential disruption of airflow into the intake of the engine. With VLS the minimum altitude increases substantially over using a conventional launch system of that era with arms. Given the radar and fire controls of the era, a non-vertical launch would allow gathering the missile sooner and getting it aimed at the target quicker.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
I can see two major reasons Sea Dart couldn't be vertically launched. One is technical, the other tactical.

The first is, using a VLS system requires you have a means to vent the exhaust during the launch. That takes quite a bit of engineering, which equals lots of money, something the RN doesn't have to toss around. In addition, there is the issue of maintenance on the missile itself. VLS usually means the missile is prepackaged and not maintained at sea. This too could be a big issue with missiles of that era.

The second reason VLS likely would be undesirable is it limits the minimum altitude and range you can engage a target. Ramjets are limited in their ability to turn sharply due to the potential disruption of airflow into the intake of the engine. With VLS the minimum altitude increases substantially over using a conventional launch system of that era with arms. Given the radar and fire controls of the era, a non-vertical launch would allow gathering the missile sooner and getting it aimed at the target quicker.
Click to expand...
The Sea Dart VLS was studied at least once during the optimistic times (the seventies) Although I never saw the study itself I remember VLS being discussed/described in my time with the team in the eighties. From this it seemed the favoured approach was to cold launch the complete missile and booster. Then kick into the right attitude as it passes zero g, and finally, light the booster. As posted before, to meet the safety case they wanted the lunch cells at the stern (if the booster didn’t light then better it falls in the ocean). This approach was specifically to address the above problems.
There’s VLS systems out there today that do just this.

Having seen a few other examples of early design studies I expect they evaluated many competing architectures.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
The second reason VLS likely would be undesirable is it limits the minimum altitude and range you can engage a target.
Click to expand...

Certainly true of a medium range SAM like Sea Dart, but likely not to be a huge concern.

But in general thats not true....Sea Ceptor/CAMM has a minimum engagement range of 200 metres...I can't think of any other SAM that is as close. RAM (RIM-116) for example in its trainable launcher has a minimum engagement range of 400-800 metres (depending on whom you talk to).
 
Sea Dart already had limited minimum range, during booster launch and acceleration.
Hence why they toyed with the booster having vectored thrust capability for the mkII.
To maneuver off the rail. Or as explored, to go VL.

Going VLS would just mean a continuation of a minimum range, but this didn't matter if you had Sea Wolf as well.....because that other missile would cover the close range threat.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Ramjets are limited in their ability to turn sharply due to the potential disruption of airflow into the intake of the engine.
Click to expand...
Ramjets are limited by their start-up speed. Sea Dart in its IRL form needed a rocket booster to start off (as did the US Talos). VLS Sea Dart is going to take off, flip over and start on its way under rocket power; the ramjet doesn't even enter into that part of the flight profile.
 
timmymagic said:
Certainly true of a medium range SAM like Sea Dart, but likely not to be a huge concern.

But in general thats not true....Sea Ceptor/CAMM has a minimum engagement range of 200 metres...I can't think of any other SAM that is as close. RAM (RIM-116) for example in its trainable launcher has a minimum engagement range of 400-800 metres (depending on whom you talk to).
Click to expand...
And that's the rub. When Sea Dart (earlier Sea Slug was the same way) was conceived, it was to be used against a bomber using stand-off missiles / weapons flying on a steady course at longer ranges. Talos was the same way. The threat shifted increasingly to attack aircraft flying at low altitude using sea skimming stand-off weapons.
In the Falklands, Sea Dart was a medium altitude threat. That forced Argentine planes down to the deck where they were vulnerable to other systems like AA guns and Sea Wolf.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
In the Falklands, Sea Dart was a medium altitude threat. That forced Argentine planes down to the deck where they were vulnerable to other systems like AA guns and Sea Wolf.
Click to expand...
That may have been the case for the Type 965 search radar equipped ships, which was most of the systems deployed, but not for those with the Type1022;- Only HMS Exeter and Invincible. Consider HMS Exeter:- On the 30th May A4-C Skyhawk C-301 was hit at a range of 10 miles at an altitude of 100-150ft. Very shortly after this A4-C Skyhawk C-310 was destroyed at a range of 7 miles whilst in an high g turn lining up for an attack on HMS Avenger, again at 100-150ft. Exeter then got a Type 909 locked onto a Exocet that crossed her aft beam arc but the contact was lost as it dipped out of the radar horizon.

The evidence proves Sea Dart had the kinetic’s for low level work against manoeuvring small targets, and also when the warhead was replaced with a frag cloud, tactical ballistic missile…. But not IRBM’s.
 
Last edited:
One would expect a vertical Sea Dart (Mk2?) to behave like a small Onyx/Brahmos.

As to container system, well, I had once a mental image of mechanical magazine, like on the video above, but where the last position encloses the missile instead of lifting it to the launcher, and then fires it. Although revolving or fixed containers would be, of course, more effective.
 
Martes said:
One would expect a vertical Sea Dart (Mk2?) to behave like a small Onyx/Brahmos.
Click to expand...
The Mk2 was rail launched, TVC on the booster, INS autopilot in the missile together with multiple targets engagement capabilities. The TVC booster was to widen the Type 42 engagement arc which on the mk1 was forward aspect only. The Mk2 was a fully specified and costed proposal with key risk reduction test performed when in was cancelled.

VLS Sea Dart was a future projects investigation and proposal.
 
martinbayer said:
This is admittedly a tangent, but I remember as a kid seeing what appeared to be actual footage of British ship based SAMs being launched in the UFO episode Destruction - any pointers?
Click to expand...
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb2KZvBfyfM


Carefully (?) spliced footage of a Tiger-class cruiser forward and a County back-end. (If you look closely at the back end shots, you can catch a glimpse of the cube-shaped 4.5" twin turret, though.)

I suspect a generation of British boys would have watched that episode knowing exactly what was going on and mocking it, while at the same time wishing that such a ship had actually existed. As a look at Seaslug handling, though, it's still pretty good footage.
 
Zoo Tycoon said:
The Mk2 was a fully specified and costed proposal with key risk reduction test performed when in was cancelled.

VLS Sea Dart was a future projects investigation and proposal.
Click to expand...
Of course, I only meant that if developed, it would have been based on Mk2, as opposed to Mk1.

zen said:
Seaslug was originally to be vertically launched in 1948 discussions.
Click to expand...
How did they envision it back then? It sounds awfully (retro)futuristic.
 
pathology_doc said:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb2KZvBfyfM


Carefully (?) spliced footage of a Tiger-class cruiser forward and a County back-end. (If you look closely at the back end shots, you can catch a glimpse of the cube-shaped 4.5" twin turret, though.)

I suspect a generation of British boys would have watched that episode knowing exactly what was going on and mocking it, while at the same time wishing that such a ship had actually existed. As a look at Seaslug handling, though, it's still pretty good footage.
Click to expand...
My takeaway was Sea Slug was easily jammed by UFO's... :D
 
T. A. Gardner said:
My takeaway was Sea Slug was easily jammed by UFO's...
Click to expand...
Well, assuming that UFO have more than cotemporary jamming capabilities (or good stealth), they could probably jam the Type 901 radar tracking beam - so it would be unable to continue the target lock, and missile would fail to reach the target.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom