• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Anti-Submarine derivative of RIM-24 Tartar SAM?

Pioneer

Seek out and close with the enemy
Senior Member
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
1,669
Reaction score
40
G’day gents
I’ve just finished reading the following:

In Friedman's "Network-Centric Warfare" there is an interesting footnote at p. 311 which talks about those neverweres.

Eight ships, somewhat smaller than contemporary Brooke class U.S. DEGs (398 x 46 vs 415 x 43 ft, 3,300 tons), were included in the projected 1963 program.
Into this smaller hull would have been squeezed much more than in a DEG: one twin 5-inch/38 mount (Signaal N26 fire control system), one Mk.22 missile launcher (16 Tartars with two Mk.74 directors), two Sea Mauler short-range launchers (72 missiles), two triple Mk.32 torpedo tubes, and a single Limbo mortar (60 projectiles).
There would also be a U.S.-type light helicopter (the primary ASW standoff weapon).
Complement was given as 236, compared to 246 for the nonautomated U.S. DEG with a comparable missile battery.
Estimated cost was $34.25 million.
The Canadians adopted the Tartar missile in hopes that the U.S. Navy would develop the projected ASW version of the missile (then unfunded), to carry either a homing torpedo or a depth bomb.
Where the U.S. Navy relied on a massive bow-mounted low frequency sonar (SQS-26), the Canadians held to medium-frequency sets but included a variable-depth sonar aft, which would have made processing at least as complex.
An unusual feature was a requirement to support two hundred troops for up to 15 days.
The design emphasized human engineering, automation (she could steam with her machinery spaces unmanned), and centralized command/control.
Much of the equipment had not yet been developed.
(Source: https://forum.worldofwarships.eu/topic/4250-canadian-navy-never-were-designs/)

By my own admission, I can’t say I’ve ever heard of a anti-submarine derivative program of the RIM-24 Tartar missile.
Can anyone shed some further light on this program please?

Thank you in advance

Regards
Pioneer
 

starviking

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2006
Messages
953
Reaction score
20
I'll copy my reply, with edits, from the Canadian Patrol Frigate thread.

"I wonder if it's a mistake? Could the Canadians have been wanting ASROC integrated with their Tartar launcher? It was integrated with some Tartar launchers.

Personally, I'd think there'd be way too much design change to turn the Tartar missile into a short-range ASW weapon-delivery system to make it worthwhile."
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,277
Reaction score
154
I'm not sure it would have been too difficult, at least in the nuclear version. The W-44 depth bomb isn't dramatically heavier than the conventional Tartar warhead, and losing the SARH seeker electronics would easily have covered the difference. A purely ballistic Tartar could have been a more elegant alternative to ASROC.

The downside is that ASROC had quite the head start and could carry a torpedo, which would be a lot harder to fit into Tartar. So it's not surprising that ASW Tartar would have been a non-starter.

Edit: This is just speculation. I haven't seen anything outside the one Friedman footnote suggesting that an ASW Tartar was actually considered. And a great deal of the known discussion about RCN escorts suggests it wasn't seriously considered.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,314
Reaction score
426
starviking said:
I'll copy my reply, with edits, from the Canadian Patrol Frigate thread.

"I wonder if it's a mistake? Could the Canadians have been wanting ASROC integrated with their Tartar launcher? It was integrated with some Tartar launchers.
Which ones? I'd heard of Tarter/SM-1 being integrated into the ASROC "pepperbox" (on the Knoxs as I recall) but not the other way round. ???

edit: Heh, never mind.


There's also Harpoon.
 

Attachments

Top