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

BAC PT 428

uk 75

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
1,450
Reaction score
95
Have just been reading through the excellent Monograph online about the US Mauler missile at the Missile Site in the US. Apparently the UK gave up its own equivalent of Mauler, a system called BAC PT 428, and then had to adopt the simpler Rapier when Mauler was cancelled. As far as I can gather from piecing together sources PT 428 looked like the later Roland system, but with four instead of two tube launchers on a mobile vehicle with a fire control radar. Any old BAC hands know any more?

UK 75
 

CJGibson

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2011
Messages
1,221
Reaction score
126
PT.428 is covered in BSP4.

KB
 

Thorvic

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
601
Reaction score
10
Kelly Bushings said:
PT.428 is covered in BSP4.

KB
Any details on when its now scheduled to be published ?

Ralph

There is a small mention in either John Forbats Vickers Secret Missile projects or his TSR2 Navigation & Attack system.

Cheers

Geoff
 

uk 75

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
1,450
Reaction score
95
Geoff
Thanks for the steers. I saw the book you mention and it has come interesting missile stuff. TB@s book should be worth the wait.
Ralph
 

JFC Fuller

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
3,220
Reaction score
99
Just finished BSP4, truly a great book and would recomend it to anybody. However it does leave me with a wuestion on the subject of this thread. What was the intended range of the PT428 and of the boosted version offered to the navy?
 

PMN1

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2006
Messages
679
Reaction score
20
Would the system have had anti missile capability?
 

PMN1

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2006
Messages
679
Reaction score
20
Anyone have an estimate on how much space and weight the radars and computers that PT428 would have taken up compared to the radars and computers for the Sea Wolf systems on the first Type 22 Frigates?
 

RP1

I see the truth in it.
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
441
Reaction score
1
Website
rp-one.net
Anyone have an estimate on how much space and weight the radars and computers that PT428 would have taken up compared to the radars and computers for the Sea Wolf systems on the first Type 22 Frigates?

Since PT428 wasn't mounted on multiple trucks, "less". Full-on GWS-25 occupies a lot of space, but I suspect PT428 would not have the computers for fully-automatic engagements (not many "pop-up" anti-ship missiles on land).


RP1
 

PMN1

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2006
Messages
679
Reaction score
20
RP1 said:
Anyone have an estimate on how much space and weight the radars and computers that PT428 would have taken up compared to the radars and computers for the Sea Wolf systems on the first Type 22 Frigates?

but I suspect PT428 would not have the computers for fully-automatic engagements (not many "pop-up" anti-ship missiles on land).


RP1
Sneaky devils those Soviets...tunnelling in....

I was wondering if there was the chance of a joint service missile....I don't think the timing is right but.....
 

zen

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
1,076
Reaction score
94
Considering one of the criticisms of PT.428 was in computing capacity, met BTW by the time of cancellation, I'd say handling 'pop up' threats out to something like 20nm or less was very much part of the system.
 

zen

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
1,076
Reaction score
94
PMN1 said:
Anyone have an estimate on how much space and weight the radars and computers that PT428 would have taken up compared to the radars and computers for the Sea Wolf systems on the first Type 22 Frigates?
If it fits on the back of a Bedford RL truck, then it's no more than 3 tons.
 
Top