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

Chance Vought SSM-N-9/RGM-15 Regulus II

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,723
Reaction score
221
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
Chance Vought SSM-N-9/RGM-15 Regulus II land-attack cruise missile.

General Characteristics
Length: (w/o pitot tube) 17.52 m (57 ft 6 in); incl. pitot tube: 19.53 m (64 ft 1 in)
Diameter: 1.27 m (50 in)
Wingspan:6.12 m (20 ft 1 in)
Weight: (w/o booster) 10400 kg (23000 lb); booster: 3170 kg (7000 lb)
Speed: Mach 2+
Ceiling: 18000 m (59000 ft)
Range: 1850 km (1000 nm)
Propulsion: Cruise: General Electric J79-GE-3 turbojet; 69 kN (15600 lb)
Booster: Rocketdyne solid-fueled rocket; 600 kN (135000 lb)
Guidance: Inertial
Warhead: W-27 thermonuclear (2 MT)
 

Attachments

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,723
Reaction score
221
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
Proposed Regulus II launcher arrangement aboard Baltimore-class heavy cruisers used for Regulus I. Four missiles could be stored.

Figure 6-3 shows a second design presumably for use beginning with USS Long Beach (CLGN-160/CGN-9) placing five Regulus II missiles in a main deck hanger.

Source: Regulus: America's First Nuclear Submarine Missile by David K Stumpf, Turner Publishing Company, 1996.
 

Attachments

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,723
Reaction score
221
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
Orionblamblam said:
Nice though it may be, this is not really a "missile project." It's a "missile that actually got built."
I will need to defer to the judgment of a moderator on this one. Although the Regulus II missile was built, it was never deployed. We discuss other built, but canceled projects in other topics. 54 Regulus II test missiles were built before production was cancelled in 1958. After program cancellation, the remaining flight test missiles were used as KD2U-1 supersonic target drones by the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Air Force.
 

Antonio

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
3,371
Reaction score
50
I think too this info is highly valuable and, in fact is related to unbuilt projects
please look at USS Long Beach origins (Reply#3):

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,7604.0.html
 

Brickmuppet

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Nov 11, 2006
Messages
163
Reaction score
2
Website
brickmuppet.mee.nu
Regulus seems broadly comparable to the Soviet family of large cruise missiles that has led to the SSN-19. I assume that it probably would have been produced in a conventional version had it been pursued past the "pentomic" period. How big a warhead could it have carried?

Gunston mentions 4,000 pounds for Regulus ones nuclear warhead, Am I correct to assume R2 would have been bigger?

Was any thought given to a Regulus ship with more than a handful of missiles?
 

Speedy

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Nov 10, 2007
Messages
56
Reaction score
0
Brickmuppet said:
Regulus seems broadly comparable to the Soviet family of large cruise missiles that has led to the SSN-19. I assume that it probably would have been produced in a conventional version had it been pursued past the "pentomic" period. How big a warhead could it have carried?
W-27 nuclear warhead weight approx. 2800 lb (1270 kg). So the conventional one would be similar size.
I think the main problem in such missile would be a terminal guidance system. In conventional missile it must be far more accurate than in nuclear. In the end of 1950s-early 60s this could be difficult to design.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,340
Reaction score
433
Triton said:
Orionblamblam said:
Nice though it may be, this is not really a "missile project." It's a "missile that actually got built."
I will need to defer to the judgment of a moderator on this one. Although the Regulus II missile was built, it was never deployed. We discuss other built, but canceled projects in other topics. 54 Regulus II test missiles were built before production was cancelled in 1958. After program cancellation, the remaining flight test missiles were used as KD2U-1 supersonic target drones by the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Air Force.
Yep. Here's a page I stumbled upon ages ago looking for reference material on the Regulus 2 for modeling purposes

http://www.regulus-missile.com/RegulusII.html
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,340
Reaction score
433
Brickmuppet said:
Regulus seems broadly comparable to the Soviet family of large cruise missiles that has led to the SSN-19. I assume that it probably would have been produced in a conventional version had it been pursued past the "pentomic" period. How big a warhead could it have carried?

Gunston mentions 4,000 pounds for Regulus ones nuclear warhead, Am I correct to assume R2 would have been bigger?

Was any thought given to a Regulus ship with more than a handful of missiles?

Here is Regulus 2 to scale for reference:
 

Attachments

elmayerle

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2006
Messages
1,265
Reaction score
17
I wonder how difficult an air-launched Regulus II variant would b? Main problem I can see would structural changes for airborne carriage and wire harness rerouting for proper interface with the carrier airraft. *smile* On the other hand, I've had the idea for ages of a small dioramra of a DF-8A in colorful drone control markings with a KD2U-1 parked next to it, readly for their next mission.

If memory serves me correctly, wasn't the Regulus II also the first flying application of the J79 before they got it qualified for manned aircraft?
 

Tailspin Turtle

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
691
Reaction score
15
Website
www.tommythomason.com
elmayerle said:
If memory serves me correctly, wasn't the Regulus II also the first flying application of the J79 before they got it qualified for manned aircraft?
According to Dr. David Stumpf, the first seven Regulus IIs flew with Wright J65s since the J79 wasn't yet available. The first J79-powered missile apparently flew sometime in 1957, well after the XF4D that GE modified with the J79 flew in December 1955. (The J79-powered YF-104 flew in early 1956 and the F11F-1F a few months after that.)

I'm not sure that the XF4D was first flight of the J79, not counting flight test in a B-45 in mid-1955. It appears that it passed its 50-hour qual test in August 1955. Does anybody know?
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,340
Reaction score
433
elmayerle said:
I wonder how difficult an air-launched Regulus II variant would b? Main problem I can see would structural changes for airborne carriage and wire harness rerouting for proper interface with the carrier airraft.
'bout the only one that could carry it would be the B-52 and they had Hound Dog (eventually anyway- I'd have preferred Skybolt myself).
 

aim9xray

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
502
Reaction score
42
According to Dr. David Stumpf, the first seven Regulus IIs flew with Wright J65s since the J79 wasn't yet available. The first J79-powered missile apparently flew sometime in 1957, well after the XF4D that GE modified with the J79 flew in December 1955. (The J79-powered YF-104 flew in early 1956 and the F11F-1F a few months after that.)
I'm not sure that the XF4D was first flight of the J79, not counting flight test in a B-45 in mid-1955. It appears that it passed its 50-hour qual test in August 1955. Does anybody know?
Well, I think that the primary programs for the J79 were the B-58 and F-104. I think that it is reasonable to assume that the Air Force held superpriority on the engine at this time.

Milestones
** J79-1, -3 and -5 variants**
B-45C (test) 20 May 1955
50-Hour Test ?? August 1955
XF4D-1 (test) ?? December 1955
YF-104A 17 February 1956
F11F-1F 25 May 1956
150-Hour test ?? August 1956
B-58A 11 November 1956
** J79-2 variants **
XRSSM-N-9A 1 May 1958 (Earliest dated flight I have - GM-2010)
F4H-1 27 May 1958
A3J-1 31 August 1958
 

Steve Pace

Aviation History Writer
Joined
Jan 6, 2013
Messages
2,269
Reaction score
11
The Douglas XF4D-1 Skyray was not J79-powered. It was at first powered by a single Westinghouse J40 - then later by a single P&W J57 Turbowasp.
 

elmayerle

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2006
Messages
1,265
Reaction score
17
XB-70 Guy said:
The Douglas XF4D-1 Skyray was not J79-powered. It was at first powered by a single Westinghouse J40 - then later by a single P&W J57 Turbowasp.
But it did serve as a testbed for the J79. That's been well documented. That's also one reason the proposed production F5D-2 Skylancer would have had a J79 instead of a J57.
 

RLBH

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
219
Reaction score
23
Triton said:
Figure 6-3 shows a second design presumably for use beginning with USS Long Beach (CLGN-160/CGN-9) placing five Regulus II missiles in a main deck hanger.
To be honest, that seems unlikely. The quarterdeck (fantail for USAsians) of the CLGN-160 class wasn't arranged that way, which would have conflicted with the Talos installation. That might have been an early arrangement, but I'd suggest it's more likely to be a proposal for a more comprehensive rebuild of an existing CA.

Edit: If you look at the drawing, it actually indicates 'existing fantail hangar', a fitting that the CLGN-160 class certainly didn't have, so this must be a proposed modification of something or other.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,340
Reaction score
433
Thought it was suppose to be amidships on Long Beach then they decided on 8 Polaris tubes instead and ended up with a pitiful 8-cell Asroc launcher.
 

elmayerle

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2006
Messages
1,265
Reaction score
17
sferrin said:
elmayerle said:
I wonder how difficult an air-launched Regulus II variant would b? Main problem I can see would structural changes for airborne carriage and wire harness rerouting for proper interface with the carrier airraft.
'bout the only one that could carry it would be the B-52 and they had Hound Dog (eventually anyway- I'd have preferred Skybolt myself).
Perhaps a Patrol Bomber conversion of the B-52 for the USN? Or if you needed something with a longer reach than the Hound Dog and Skybolt or its successors wasn't yet available?
 

Michel Van

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,282
Reaction score
113
more Data on RGM-15 with color pic by Andreas Parsch
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-15.html
 

Tailspin Turtle

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
691
Reaction score
15
Website
www.tommythomason.com
elmayerle said:
XB-70 Guy said:
The Douglas XF4D-1 Skyray was not J79-powered. It was at first powered by a single Westinghouse J40 - then later by a single P&W J57 Turbowasp.
But it did serve as a testbed for the J79. That's been well documented. That's also one reason the proposed production F5D-2 Skylancer would have had a J79 instead of a J57.
I was a bit too cryptic. The two XF4Ds were powered by J40s. They were never re-engined with the J57. After the first production F4D flew with the J57, they weren't very useful to Douglas. General Electric needed a test bed for continuation of J79 development and qualification, so the two XF4Ds were transferred to them via the Air Force. 184586 was grounded as a source of spare parts and 184587 was modified for installation of the J79. It first flew on 8 December 1955. This is all from Nick Williams' excellent F4D monograph for Steve Ginter.

I'm not so sure that the F5D was to get the J79. There's no mention of that in Ginter's F5D monograph, an article by Ed Heinemann in the October 1982 issue of Air International, Heinemann's autobiography, George Spangenberg's oral history, or a 30 October 1957 background paper from the BuAer Chief to the Chief of Legislative Liaison on the F5D for response to a "Preparedness Investigating Subcommittee request for information on aircraft not delivered to the Fleet.". Do you have a document that states otherwise?
 

JohnR

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
353
Reaction score
3
Why did the USN go for a hangar and launcher arrangement rather than a launch tube as in the Soviet Navy, was this to allow for check out prior to launch?
Regards.
 

TinWing

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2006
Messages
888
Reaction score
10
JohnR said:
Why did the USN go for a hangar and launcher arrangement rather than a launch tube as in the Soviet Navy, was this to allow for check out prior to launch?
Regards.
Regulus II, like Matador/Mace, Hound Dog and so many other American missiles, was very close to a drone aircraft in concept, hence the hangar. It basically comes down to a long design progression that started with the reverse engineering of German V-1 "buzz bombs."
 

elmayerle

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2006
Messages
1,265
Reaction score
17
Tailspin Turtle said:
I'm not so sure that the F5D was to get the J79. There's no mention of that in Ginter's F5D monograph, an article by Ed Heinemann in the October 1982 issue of Air International, Heinemann's autobiography, George Spangenberg's oral history, or a 30 October 1957 background paper from the BuAer Chief to the Chief of Legislative Liaison on the F5D for response to a "Preparedness Investigating Subcommittee request for information on aircraft not delivered to the Fleet.". Do you have a document that states otherwise?
I could've sworn that the drawings of the F5D-2 in the back of the Ginter book on the subject depicted a J79-powered aircraft with an exhaust nozzle/airframe setup very similar to that of the F-104. On the other hand, I don't have that book to hand to check my memory. I'll bow to someone who does have the book readily available.
 

aim9xray

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
502
Reaction score
42
The drawings on pages 46 and 47 of the Naval Fighters book make reference to "proposed J79 slats" (greater span) and "proposed J79 tail" (cooling air intake at the base of the vertical stabilizer - similar in concept but much smaller than that of the Kfir). However, I can not find any body text reference to a J79-powered Skylancer variant.

Similar drawings (with no engine reference) appear in pages 196 and 197 of "Ed Heinemann Combat Aircraft Designer". There is no body text reference to the J79 here either.

Sorry for straying from the Regulus topic!
 

Mark Nankivil

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
1,548
Reaction score
188
Another Vought project I love! I scanned a bunch of Regulus II photos during my last visit in November so I'll get those cleaned up and post them in the not too distant future. In the meantime, here's a teaser...

Enjoy the Day! Mark
 

Attachments

Madurai

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Aug 17, 2009
Messages
97
Reaction score
0
Mr. Parsch's website had this to say:

Regal may be identical to a proposal from 1958 to launch modified SSM-N-9 Regulus II missiles from dorsal launchers on P6M Seamaster seaplanes.
I knew I'd seen it somewhere recently. I have difficulty imagining a P6M slinging more than one--and separation to clear the high T-tail would have been nerve-wracking.
 

elmayerle

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2006
Messages
1,265
Reaction score
17
Mark Nankivil said:
Another Vought project I love! I scanned a bunch of Regulus II photos during my last visit in November so I'll get those cleaned up and post them in the not too distant future. In the meantime, here's a teaser...
Very nice picture, indeed. I find it interesting that they used only one RATo unit right on the center line. I can see where this would greatly reduce the number of variables in getting the booster thrust line to pass through the cg of the vehicle. Definitely a smart move on Vought's part.
 

Mark Nankivil

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
1,548
Reaction score
188
A few Regulus II images for your viewing pleasure.

First off are the J-65 powered prototypes which have smaller intakes and a fairing on the fuselage near the main gear.

Enjoy the Day! Mark
 

Attachments

Steve Pace

Aviation History Writer
Joined
Jan 6, 2013
Messages
2,269
Reaction score
11
Love to see color without the inserts. Great stuff!
 

Mark Nankivil

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
1,548
Reaction score
188

airrocket

Dreams To Reality
Joined
Mar 3, 2008
Messages
291
Reaction score
2
Website
RetroFlight.com
So do the small forward canard help to provide pitch and or roll stability given the lack of rear tabs?
 

Mark Nankivil

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
1,548
Reaction score
188
I don't know Triton - had not looked at what sub that might be. I see you have a similar drawing too:

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=8225.0

Comparing the two drawings you can see some distinct differences between the deck layouts and missile storage.

The USS Halibut SSGN-587 (or that class of sub) is the most likely candidate as it was a Regulus I carrier and likely would have been converted to handle the Regulus II. A decent photo of the Halibut here:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1f/USS_Halibut_SSGN-587.jpg

Interesting to see the censor wiping out the periscope and aerials off the sail and i did not realize that it was nuclear powered.

I have some photos of the Regulus II on a sub but have yet to research what sub that was. The last photo posted does not appear to be the Halibut as the distance between the hump and the sail is shorter. I'll get the rest of the images I have scanned cleaned up and post them shortly.

HTH! Mark
 

Madurai

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Aug 17, 2009
Messages
97
Reaction score
0
Yes, that's the Permit SSGN. At least, Norman Friedman thinks so.
 

Skyraider3D

Aviation Artist
Joined
Sep 2, 2008
Messages
377
Reaction score
22
Website
www.aviationart.aero
Good stuff from the NTRS:

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19650073442_1965073442.pdf
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19650073469_1965073469.pdf
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19650073693_1965073693.pdf
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19650073715_1965073715.pdf
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19650073790_1965073790.pdf
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19930088343_1993088343.pdf
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19930088736_1993088736.pdf
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19930088882_1993088882.pdf
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20090025471_2009023874.pdf

Or type Regulus in the searc box of http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp
 

RanulfC

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
739
Reaction score
121
There are time, (more often than not actually :) ) I really think that the whole "inter-service" rivalry thing has seriously crippled the US's military in many ways. The fact that it STILL tends to get in the way of various programs speaks volumes on endurance of outmoded priorities.

The USAF really SHOULD have not only considered but adopted the Reg-II for an ALCM role! Thinking of the various possiblities for such an advanced weapons system coupled with even a LITTLE out-of-the-box thinking in the late '60s and through the '70s could have possibly saved a lot of later spent money and resources to develop similar but less capable assets today.

Randy
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,340
Reaction score
433
RanulfC said:
There are time, (more often than not actually :) ) I really think that the whole "inter-service" rivalry thing has seriously crippled the US's military in many ways. The fact that it STILL tends to get in the way of various programs speaks volumes on endurance of outmoded priorities.

The USAF really SHOULD have not only considered but adopted the Reg-II for an ALCM role! Thinking of the various possiblities for such an advanced weapons system coupled with even a LITTLE out-of-the-box thinking in the late '60s and through the '70s could have possibly saved a lot of later spent money and resources to develop similar but less capable assets today.

Randy
USAF had Hound Dog.
 
Top