No Terrier, no Tartar, no Standard

Looking back at the original post, I think the only way you get the Terrier program to die without Talos also dying is if the buyer decides that (a) duplication of effort is inappropriate and (b) Tartar isn't necessary either. The developmental side of the STV program has to work, HAS to, or Talos doesn't eventuate.

In that case, the most likely solution for the near-range missile if the demand is subsequently perceived is a surface-launched version of Sparrow once it's evolved to SARH - in other words, BPDMS comes in early, although it's possible that the Navy might go for a miniaturized version of the Mk11.
 
Dilandu said:
The developmental side has to work, true, but making a combat-capable missile out of STV hasn't.
Click to expand...
One could argue that if you can't make STV combat-capable, you can't make Talos work either.

And by "can't", I mean "incapable of doing so", because the rocket-powered, beam-riding-only weapon which weighs only a third as much is actually the easier thing to do (especially in terms of putting it on a ship).

Deciding you'd rather not is a different kettle of fish. And yes, if STV hadn't worked as well as it did, there's no way they would have persisted with turning it into a weapon.

BY CONTRAST:
The British put warheads on quite a few of their test vehicles, or guided them to direct impacts in the course of testing, but decided they'd rather not (turn them into weapons) because they took the view that these were strictly test vehicles, flown in support of a specific weapon program. One wonders what would have happened to the British missile program if different decisions had been made.
 
pathology_doc said:
And by "can't", I mean "incapable of doing so", because the rocket-powered, beam-riding-only weapon which weighs only a third as much is actually the easier thing to do (especially in terms of putting it on a ship).
Click to expand...
Not quite. For STV to be sucsessfull as test vehicle, it require the control system to work good. For STV to be sucsessfull as weapon, it require much more than that - it must also be reliable, compact, easy to serivce, ect.
 
Dilandu said:
The developmental side has to work, true, but making a combat-capable missile out of STV hasn't.
Click to expand...
The only thing I could see failing on the STV is range. But that's a near impossibility as it was capable right from the start of 10 NM + which is what made it attractive. Talos was the long-range missile that had gone from 10 NM at the onset of Bumblebee to 50 + NM by the time it went into service.

STV was all about the control systems needed for a SAM. It wasn't just maneuvering but also finding a stable flight system that prevented unwanted roll and issues from things like uneven thrust that might cause the missile to veer off course.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
It wasn't just maneuvering but also finding a stable flight system that prevented unwanted roll and issues from things like uneven thrust that might cause the missile to veer off course.
Click to expand...
Not to mention other problems, as this USS Mississippi video demonstrates:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UeQM3WWhdjs
beginning at 1:40

Note the experimental loading system on this ship, with the weapons coming up through the floor. Never used again.
 
pathology_doc said:
Not to mention other problems, as this USS Mississippi video demonstrates:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UeQM3WWhdjs
beginning at 1:40

Note the experimental loading system on this ship, with the weapons coming up through the floor. Never used again.
Click to expand...
The missiles in the video are the early BW-1 type with the control surfaces mid-body (Beam-riding, Wing control). This was changed early in production to the BT (Beam-riding, Tail control) type with tail control developed in testing at the OAL Dangerfield TX site. The other thing is, the video has it wrong on the cause of erratic separation. This wasn't caused by control surface flutter, but was found to be due to the propelling charge was fitted loose (snug, but loose), in the missile. On launch, the charge could move and would often slam forward then aft as the missile took off and then separated. This caused it to pitch violently. The solution was to fix the motor charge in place where it couldn't move during the boost phase.
 
pathology_doc said:
These ones are 1954 vintage. Sure they're not BW-0?

Thanks for the notes on the erratic separation.
Click to expand...
1's. The lot 0 missiles were all expended in testing at Inyokern. The BW-1's were the first series equipped with the operational guidance system and tested for jitter that could occur with ship's roll. The BT-3 series was in parallel testing at the time.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
1's. The lot 0 missiles were all expended in testing at Inyokern. The BW-1's were the first series equipped with the operational guidance system and tested for jitter that could occur with ship's roll. The BT-3 series was in parallel testing at the time.
Click to expand...
:cool:

At this stage I can only ask "What are your sources, and how can I get a hold of them?"
 
The true smart missile would be the soon to be developed AIM-XX Yorkshire Terrier missile. Our Yorkie has a built-in ESP sensor, knows exactly to the minute, three-times a day when a snack is required. Kind of like Firefox, you must think like a Yorkie in order to translate.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom