60s Point Defence Missiles: Mauler and the UK PT 428

uk 75

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
27 September 2006
Reaction score
The US Mauler system for point defence was also intended for the British forces, both in its land and sea versions. It is interesting to speculate what the system would have looked like in UK service.

Even more fascinating is the BAC PT428 missile system, similar to Mauler, but cancelled in its favour in 1962. No details have been released of the system, but it is referred to in a number of sources as being a missile similar to Rapier with its Radar systems mounted on a tracked vehicle with its launcher in the same manner as Mauler.

Anyone know any more?
I still haven't been able to find anything on the PT428 mate! :(
A picture.....drawing would be nice!! :eek:

I don't have the book myself, but I understand there is a system drawing in British Secret Project #4.
A small amount of data on the system, if not the missile: PT428 was designed as a low-altitude GW system primarily for the defence of the Army against low-altitude aircraft and tactical ballistic missile attack. Apparently would have had some capability against ASGW as well. Guidance was going to be command beam-riding. The complete system: surveillance radar, tracking & command radar, missiles and launcher were intended to fit into a "pod" transportable by a 3ton truck.
We can infer more.....

I used to think the twin dishes were for seperate Target Tracking and Missile Guidance.
Reading about Mauler I suspect they were doing the same sort of thing, which was bang on period for technology, using FMCW and seperate transmit and receive dishes.
AS this work had continued upto '57 as Orange Cocktail and single dish FMCW AI efforts upto '59.

This would also explain the size of the dishes at what seems 36" if the targets were down to 0.1m squared and would build on the AI effort.

Thus high fidelity target data would be generated quickly and missile guidance a relatively easy thing to incorporate.
In fact it would permit missile tracking to the target, allowing command guidance.
Hence the demanding computer requirements used as criticism of PT.428.
But ironically this is both achievable by the time of cancellation and offloads the requirements in missile guidance electronics.

Similarly I'm now think the two variants, one boosted and one without is a simpler way to handle the different target velocities and altitudes.

Similar threads

Top Bottom