Could a Type 12 or other frigate have carried a worthwhile SAM?

uk 75

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
3,548
Reaction score
2,419
Rather than overload the already incredibly fascinating NIGS ship thread,
I thought it might also be useful to look at the question of whether the
UK could, or should, have built a SAM carrying frigate similar in size
and exportablility to the Type 12 Leander.

As a total layman the idea of a Tartar single arm launcher and its
related magazine being mounted on a Leander hull, either in place
of the gun or the ASW helo/limbo, seems eminently sensible. In
fact if you lose both the gun and the helo, there ought to be
room for Tartar at both ends. Obviously I have neglected the
question of power supply and radars and other basic stuff.

CF299 (Seadart) was intended to give the RN a Tartar style missile
with better capabilities and the same space requirements. If this
brief had been kept to?
 

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
2,635
Reaction score
1,334
Certainly they where thinking about this and did studies of such a ship with a single arm SeaDart Launcher....is that SeaDAWS100 in name BTW?

Mark you I doubt you can have the Type 988 on such, so its going to be more limited in comparison, but then Bristol was'nt completed with it either, or indeed the Type 42.

If the launcher was fast enough in cycling, then it would offset its single missile arm in terms of launching a pair against seperate targets.
 

Hood

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
2,521
Reaction score
2,820
The Fleet Requirements Committee in late 1958 began discussing a new frigate, as early as 1956 they had asked about installing Tartar in a Type 12 hull. There was a year-long gap to redesign the Type 12 before work began but the resulting modified Type 12 had not even addressed Tartar at all during the design phase.

The Committee rejected this design as not worthwhile and work began on a fresh design in 1959 able to land a Wessex and the ability to fit ASROC if required. Five designs A-E were then drawn up to compare, only two had Sea Cat and three had an undefined Small Ship Guided Weapon (presumably Tartar) although the DTSD (Director Tactical and Staff Division) disagreed and wanted Sea Cat added too due to its light weight and inclusion on the Counties.
Tartar had replaced the 4.5in Mk 6 and required SPG-51 and either SPS-26 or 39. This needed a 370ft long hull which would make 27.25kts, 27.5kts could be made by reducing oil to reduce the displacement to 3,000 tons but range fell to 4,200nm. The head of Frigate design pointed out Tartar was the only suitable missile but that the radiation from the radars meant the 4.5in had to be enclosed and that Tartar was expensive and to reduce cost one director would have to be omitted or the number of missiles cut. He thought only a 4,000ton ship could do the job, the 3,000 ton design would only have 167 tons for armaments. A 3,000 ton frigate could only be either an AA or ASW type but not both. Note these were to have Wessex, ASROC and Tartar.

In the end the Admiralty rejected Tartar on cost, dollar useage when they wanted to buy Dreadnought's reactor and because Tartar was complex. The Committee also said Tartar would be obsolete within 10 years. The frigate went back to being a modified Type 12 to save money and effort and this became Leander with two Sea Cats.

CF.299 was meant to fit onto a 3,000 ton frigate, but the intial Design 53 draft (which became Type 82) was to be 3,500 tons and none (except one) of the actual sketch designs came under 3,500 tons. Most were nearer 4,000tons and the need for 30kts pushed it further and further towards the 7,000 mark.

So I doubt whether a decent SAM could be fitted onto Leander or Type 12 unless it was a basic type with lighter radars, probably the same Type 965 suite fitted to Leander.
Saying that I've always thought that the supersonic Sea Cat 2 might have been a useful stop-gap weapon until Sea Dart with a better response time.
 

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
2,635
Reaction score
1,334
And where does PT.428 fit into this if at all?

I'm not sure they'd actualy want to reuse the 965 on a new ship.
 

Hood

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
2,521
Reaction score
2,820
PT.428 doesn't fit into this at all.
Boosted PT.428 was a NIGS contender but rejected as unsuitable.

The supersonic Sea Cat 2 dates from 1962 and Confessor studies to GD.302 only began in 1962 so at this stage there was no other suitable candidate, except maybe Sea Mauler which featured on the Canadian DDG project of 1960 but no British ships. I guess buying Sea Mauler had shades of the Tartar arguements over cost and it was felt by some British engineers that the whole Mauler programme was a "spoiler" to wreck PT.248!

Type 965 was used on Bristol and the early Type 42s in the absence of anything better so a single or twin-array Type 965M is very likely (as was fitted to Leander anyway).
 

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
2,635
Reaction score
1,334
Now if they where thinking of Sea Mauler, its certainly arguable they'd look at a navalised PT.428, as an alternative.

Type 19 studies included among them some AAW focused ships with Type 992Q, for a first rate.
For a Medium rate they expected some replacement to Typ 965. But thats in 1966.

However I've heard good things about Type 992 and it was thought useful for backing up the 1952 carriers twin Type 984 radars.
 

Abraham Gubler

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,555
Reaction score
306
uk 75 said:
As a total layman the idea of a Tartar single arm launcher and its
related magazine being mounted on a Leander hull,

The Tartar/Standard Mk 13 GMLS (ie single arm launcher) was designed for a US Navy requirement for a missile launcher that could replace a 5" L38 twin gun mount. So presumably it could replace that of a 4.5" L45 Mk 6. Sticking one on the aft of a Type 12 would be a lot more difficult because of the lack of depth in the hull (that's where the propellor shafts are). The Australian River class (near Type 12s) had Ikara missile launchers and magazines aft but these systems where arranged horizontally and only needed one deck.
 

JFC Fuller

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
2,433
Reaction score
1,097
I think the short answer is yes, the long answer is that it would not be worth it.

You might be able to shoehorn in the missile system but could you get a viable combat data system? a sufficient number of directors to give 360 degree engagement capability and multi target engagement capability? sufficiently capable radars that could take full advantage of the missile? And what effect would it have on the vessels other roles?

Remember that the Type 12 / Leander series never had all the ASW stuff that the UK wanted let alone air defence.
 

Abraham Gubler

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,555
Reaction score
306
sealordlawrence said:
I think the short answer is yes, the long answer is that it would not be worth it.

Yeah, a good contemporary example would be the US Navy's Garcia and Brooke class frigates. The Brooke being an ASW frigate with similar armament to the Leander class and the Brooke an AAW variant with a Tartar system. But the Garcia class was a good 50 feet longer than the Leander class. Length is a key design issue for fitting in additional weapon systems. Even then the Brooke’s AAW armament was limited to only one channel of fire and 16 Tartar missiles.
 

Hood

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
2,521
Reaction score
2,820
PT.428 was cancelled in December 1961, this was precisely when the Leander design was being settled so time-wise it might have been considered but since the Boosted PT.428 was rejected on range and guidance system I doubt the smaller PT.428 would have been acceptable either. Saying that is was experience of PT.428 that fed into the BAC PX.430 proposal that led directly to Sea Wolf. Interestingly the Sinner VLS concept of launching Sea Wolf (Confessor) was as early as 1968. I wonder what might the Type 22 have looked like had the VLS been used from the start?

Of course the ealier Orange Nell, cancelled in 1957, begun in 1953 was to tackle a Green Cheese-type weapon from 5.7miles away down to 1.1 miles with an ideal interception distance of 1.7miles. The missile was to be capable of Mach 1.2 and aimed via an S-band volume-scanning TIR with an X or Q-band CW illuminator with lock-on either prior or after launch. The warhead was to be a 100lb blast/frag or continous rod type and the twin launcher was designed to replace a 5in turret (oddly the RN had none of these) and the magazine would hold 40 missiles in two concentric rings. Dobuts about capabiity of a warhead to destroy a missile meant the RN perfered Sea Slug to attack the aircraft before it launched the missile. Even so Orange Nell might have been superior to the Sea Cat (designed to replace the 40mm gun) and in size the Sea Cat is only slightly smaller despite Orange Nell's four booster rockets like Sea Slug.
Still it seems, with the 5in turret replace, very similar to Tartar.
 

JFC Fuller

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
2,433
Reaction score
1,097
I believe that Orange Nell was actually intended to replace the twin 4.5 inch rather than a 5 inch as to my knowledge the RN had no twin 5 inch even proposed let alone ordered / constructed. Did Orange Nell ever reach the prototype stage? It strikes me as a system that had it reached the stage of entering service it would have been significantly larger than the original intention and early designs.
 

starviking

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2006
Messages
1,215
Reaction score
377
sealordlawrence said:
I believe that Orange Nell was actually intended to replace the twin 4.5 inch rather than a 5 inch as to my knowledge the RN had no twin 5 inch even proposed let alone ordered / constructed. Did Orange Nell ever reach the prototype stage? It strikes me as a system that had it reached the stage of entering service it would have been significantly larger than the original intention and early designs.

Now the only 5-inchers that feature in RN postwar proposals are those from the Cruiser/Destroyer project of the 50s - but it seems odd to me that a GW project would be designed around a design not even committed to production.

As an aside, I think the 5 inch gun is referred to in BSP4 - so maybe there's an error there on the part of the authors?
 

Hood

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
2,521
Reaction score
2,820
No, Orange Nell never reached the hardware stage.
It shows though that Tartar was never the only show in town and that before 1957 there were long-range and short-range projects.

What I've always found odd is no mention of Orange Nell in connection with a ship design, not even the County design background or Daring refits etc. You'd think Orange Nell would have been featured in some of the guided missile cruiser designs of the 1950s (GW96A for example) or on AD frigates as a stand-alone system.

The 4.5in twin is more likely, or perhaps the 5.25in at a long straw.
 

JFC Fuller

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
2,433
Reaction score
1,097
Hood,

I am away from home at the moment so I can not get access to my copy of British Destroyers and Frigates but there is definitely a reference to it in there and I am almost certain it is in the context of a ship design. I suspect that the reason for Orange Nell making so few appearances is to do with how little progress was made on it, much the same as NIGS and Type 985 as being discussed in the other thread. Furthermore, without removing the guns on the frigates (As this thread is highlighting) the only viable platforms were destroyers, of those only the Darings and possibly the Battles could be converted whilst the only other game in town was the County's and they were fully loaded as it was: if the guns on them were going to be sacrificed for anything it would be another director and / or the Type 984. Another factor involved in the demise of the Orange Nell might have been the termination of the Anti-Aircraft frigate which was probably the only vessel type likely to take Orange Nell as a main armament. One might imagine a Type 41 class with a version of CDS (as was actually planned at one stage) with Orange Nell launchers replacing the 4.5inch guns at either end.
 

JohnR

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
790
Reaction score
258
Tartar was proposed for fitting on the Tribal Class Frigates/Sloops, any idea as to where the launcher would have been place? Aft would seem to be logical in terms of layout, but the low freeboard and shaft run would seem to preclude this, therefore forward seems to be the surest bet.
 

Brickmuppet

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Nov 11, 2006
Messages
191
Reaction score
39
Website
brickmuppet.mee.nu
ISTR the Tartar fit on a Tribal variant was supposed to replace the limbo. I THINK I read that in Friedmans THE POSTWAR NAVAL REVOLUTION. If so, the magazine cylinder would most likely have protruded a good bit (like it did in the CF Adams class and the Albany). I also assume that the helicopter would have been deleted. (While that was a very useful bit of kit I don't think its value was fully appreciated during this timeframe.)
 

uk 75

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
3,548
Reaction score
2,419
This thread has again filled in so many of the gaps left in the
published sources, and increased my understanding. I had
forgotten about the US Brooke class, but was thinking perhaps more
of the Spanish missile versions of the Knox class.

The upshot is that Type 42 was as small as you could get a
worthwhile Seadart type ship and that was still probably too
small. I am fascinated however by the idea of Seacat 2, not least
because it was supposed to use the same launcher as Seacat 1.
Such a weapon would have been an incredibly useful fit on County,
Type 12 and Type 21 platforms (and carriers/LPDs). However, I
suppose it would have prevented the more effective Seawolf
system from being developed.

These contributions have also given me a greater awareness of
how much effort is put in behind the scenes by the RN to get the
right ships, something which critics (me included) often forget.

UK 75
 

JohnR

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
790
Reaction score
258
uk 75 said:
I am fascinated however by the idea of Seacat 2, not least
because it was supposed to use the same launcher as Seacat 1.
Such a weapon would have been an incredibly useful fit on County,
Type 12 and Type 21 platforms (and carriers/LPDs).
UK 75
Remember that part of the spec for Seawolf was that it should fit into Seacat magazines and that the original launcher was along the lines of the latter light weight SW launcher - i.e. a Seacat launcher with 4 box launchers. Therefore, theoretically the entire fleet could have been rearmed with SW, except for the problem of the weight of the supporting electronics.

Regards.
 

JFC Fuller

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
2,433
Reaction score
1,097
Friedman has a footnote regarding Orange Nell in British Destroyers and Frigates he describes a two stage wingless, solid fuelled Q band guided missile whose launching and storage aparatus were designed to fit in the space of a 4.5 inch twin gun mount. He references a paper that explicitly cites the Air Defence frigates [Type 41] as candidate vessels, which validates my earlier suggestion. He goes into considerable detail regarding proposed magazine configurations and development history. Interestingly the missile he describes is quite different to the one described in BSP4.
 
Last edited:

PMN1

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2006
Messages
885
Reaction score
415
Would a more successful Orange Nell development have meant no Sea Cat as we know it or would it still be developed to replace the 40mm guns.
 

JohnR

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
790
Reaction score
258
Wasn't there a proposal to develop a system based on an AAM (I think Fireflash), I've been looking through various books to try to find where I have seen it but I can't?
 

TinWing

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2006
Messages
893
Reaction score
108
Here is the actual page from the Norman Friedman work, "British Destroyers and Frigates:"

http://books.google.com/books?id=hF8H0D05Hm0C&pg=PA257&dq=Orange+Nell#v=onepage&q=Orange%20Nell&f=false

The early CF 299 design studies have appeared in a previous thread:

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=5525.msg44653

The bottom line here is that it was impossible to put even a single director, limited capability area defense SAM capability into a Type 12/Leander hull while maintaining reasonable performance. Looking at the far later Indian development of the basic Leander hull, I'd argue that it was possible to add a great deal of topweight, but it wasn't possible to maintain the performance expected of a first rate fleet escort. The United Stated could use the basic Forest Sherman hull as the basis of the Adams class DDGs because it was starting with a design that had twice the installed power of a Type 12/Leander. In the end, the Type 12/Leander was adequate in the intended ASW frigate role, but didn't have the growth margins for Tartar, CF 299/Sea Dart or any other possible SAM system of the era, while maintaining acceptable margins of sea keeping and speed to act as a general purpose fleet escort. You need look no further than the Brooke class to realize that such a compromise wasn't desirable, and the basic Garcia class hull was great deal longer than the Type 12/Leander, making it a marginally better starting point for an AAW escort. In the end, the RN wanted a general purpose escort, not a single purpose "destroyer escort" with limited capabilities and limited performance.
 

starviking

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2006
Messages
1,215
Reaction score
377
sealordlawrence said:
Friedman has a fascinating footnote regarding Orange Nell in British Destroyers and Frigates he describes a two stage wingless, solid fuelled Q band guided missile whose launching and storage aparatus were designed to fit in the space of a 5.5 inch twin gun mount. He references a paper that explicitly cites the Air Defence frigates [Type 41] as candidate vessels, which validates my earlier suggestion. He goes into considerable detail regarding proposed magazine configurations and development history. Interestingly the missile he describes is quite different to the one described in BSP4.

Shouldn't that be a 4.5 inch twin?
 

starviking

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2006
Messages
1,215
Reaction score
377
No need for an apology, you're doing sterling work - I just wish I had the time these days to add more to the discussion :'(
 

Hood

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
2,521
Reaction score
2,820
Yes the footnote on Orange Nell is interesting but Friedman is quoting the 1952 estimated chatacterisitics, BSP4 may be quoting later figures when some design work had been done. It seems like Orange Nell was to follow Sea Slug when money permitted but obviously that didn't happen.
The Type 41 frigate sounds interesting, with an 80-missile capability it would have been formidible as a screen for a carrier (like the hybrid discussed elsewhere) with NIGS aboard.

The 1963-64 series of escorts with all sorts of mixes of Sea Dart and Ikara are interesting.
DS 347 had Sea Mauler and 1x 4.5in and Limbo on 3,020tons standard, 28.5kts, 385ft long and 44ft beam
DS 336 had Sea Dart (20 missiles) plus the weapons above on 3,510tons standard, 28kts, 420ft long and 46ft beam
DS 345 had Sea Dart (38 missiles) plus the weapons above on 3,420tons standard, 28kts, 395ft long and 47ft beam
DS 301 was based on a Type 14 hull and had Sea Dart on 1,460tons, 285ft long, 38ft beam but only 18kts on 4,000shp (this was an asture type and there was a similar Ikara study too)

These are interesting comparisons to what I outlined earlier for 1958-61 when you consider what was sacrifced then for 30kts (or as close to) where as in 1964 the idea was either to split the AA and A/S role or combine them (Type 82). The latter won out. Type 82 had 38 Sea Darts and Ikara and rose to 7,000tons. Likewise these designs would have grown a little if they had been taken further.
 

Volkodav

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 28, 2014
Messages
408
Reaction score
489
Sorry for the topic necromancy but this is a very interesting subject that I have wondered about for some time. Logically if you look at the Batch I and II Type 42 destroyers, which used Sea Dart with its deep magazine and (I believe) greater volume requirements than Tartar, a hull not much larger than a Leander should be able to accommodate a full Tartar system plus helicopter, ASW torpedoes, medium calibre gun and even a couple of close in automatics.

The main issue as I see in fitting Tartar to a Type 12 hull form is very fine forward, insufficient depth over the shaft lines aft and a general lack of volume to easily fit a Mk-11, 13, 22 or any of the Sea Dart magazines, so the only real option would be a hull stretch either between the gun and the bridge or the funnel and the hanger, sufficient for the magazine and launcher. The extra length (beam would increase too) should also provide sufficient additional volume for the associated systems and extra crew, plus sufficient space on the superstructure to work in a pair of directors.

What I am curious about is why the RN never seriously examined a stretched hull for the Leander, perhaps even adding a Metrovick GT or two (maybe even two Tribal plants in place of the Type 12I steam plant), providing sufficient space to fit a Mk-13 or 22 forward of the hanger with a pair of directors between the launcher and the funnel(s), in a similar arrangement to the Audace or Tromp. If the beam is increased as well it may have been possible to increase the size of the hanger for a pair of Wasps, a single Wessex, or even a Sea King. I know the Type 82 is technically an enlarged Type 12 hull but something simpler would appear to have been a cheaper way to get more missiles into the fleet faster as well as being better for exports.

In reference to the issues with US currency being required to buy Tartar, considering the importance of the system to so many of the RNs designs of the late 50s into the 60s, would it not have been possible to have arranged licence production of a UK version? Considering the UK was developing a raft of medium and long range missiles, to me, it would actually have made sense to have just bought into Tartar / Standard while concentrating R&D efforts on very long range and point defence missiles.

A 125-135m long 3000-4000t GP Leander (possibly with COSAG), with Tartar, a helicopter and maybe ever RAN type Ikara outfit, could have made a very interesting alternative, not only for the RN but for the RAN as well.
 

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
2,635
Reaction score
1,334
Tartat with UK guidance was considered for by the RN, and felt to be more proof against jamming and more effective against low level attackers.
this being the use of the Q-band CW SARH system originally in development for Popsy later Mopsy (though it may also relate to AAM guidance systems of the time).

So your UK Tartar is Q-band Tartar and I suppose with funding, this would influence the emergence of Orange Nell, which at the time was felt to be a Mopsy for smaller ships of 1,500 to 2,500 tons.

Strictly speaking the Tribals were considered for Tartar, and they used effectively a half County machinery.

Part of the problem is the machinery of the time from the UK didn't deliver enough for the sort of speed desired in a general purpose ship, it limited the designers to either A/S of AA or limited GP (not with Tartar, but Sea Cat) only types.

So a 'lightweight' mini-Tartar system would have resolved some of this, and more powerful plant machinery would resolve the other side of the problem.

also to note the Admiralty felt nervous about the Tribal propulsion system and wanted a pause in construction so they could evaluate the ships.
I suspect they knew what that would actually do and hoped for something to come along that would give them Tartar or something like it in the meantime.
 

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
2,635
Reaction score
1,334
Just one more thought.....by cancellation in '56 Vickers Red Dean gets down to 400lb....... and we know Elliot Brothers did research on a Q-band seeker called 'Dingo'.

I do wonder why this weapon wasn't transferred to a SAM for the RN, as with only a minor reduction in length it could fit into two decks of height in vertical storage and by this end, was light weight in comparison to the development of Tartar.
The range is in the right realm for point defence, and the potential to expand that in later years is clearly there within the dimensions and weight of the missile.
 

uk 75

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
3,548
Reaction score
2,419
The missed opportunity seems to be to have been Seacat 2 rather than Tartar.

A refit of all the RN's Seacat missile launchers with this upgrade in the 70s would have
been a great improvement.
 

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
2,635
Reaction score
1,334
I think if we look into that, the answer is Sea Cat 2 is not a million miles away from a navalised Rapier.
Which is to say the Admiralty looked at Rapier and concluded it needed more warhead and a better fuze to the effect it was no longer do-able within Rapier's fuselage.

So yes, that is one way forward. But it's in the mid 60's as a decision and it guarantees the French will walk away, though I suppose the Dutch might view it as more affordable.

Good news is, such a system is applicable in place in Sea Cat 1 and logically applicable to smaller vessels (minehinters etc....). So would have wider application and potentially more export sales.

Whereas if we wanted to keep the French onboard and justify the weight/cost of Sea Wolf, then Option C which was higher performing and more future-proofed. Less exportable and not applicable as a Sea Cat replacement, it would however, have proved itself more useful in the Falklands and likely won wider Anglo-French efforts.
However I would love to know what the original three excluded options where on this, as it's possible these could've competed with Sea Sparrow.

Whereas Volkadav is asking about Tartar and that decision is really in the late 50's.
 

Abraham Gubler

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,555
Reaction score
306
uk 75 said:
The missed opportunity seems to be to have been Seacat 2 rather than Tartar.

A refit of all the RN's Seacat missile launchers with this upgrade in the 70s would have
been a great improvement.

Seacat 2 used the same launcher and FCS as whatever mod of Seacat (1) the ship had. Just a new missile and container. Also since it was proposed in the early 1960s it probably would have been available by the late 1960s. Tigercat 2 would have been a viable competitor with Rapier. Certainly easier to maintain for the lower end of the market.
 

Hood

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
2,521
Reaction score
2,820
My problem is how nebulous SeaCat 2 was. While designed to use the same launcher and fire-control, it seems to me unlikely that any supersonic development would be suitable for guidance from GWS-22, a glorified MRS-3. Was it capable of tracking a supersonic missile to a target? I feel had development been begun a new and lighter fire-control mount might have been developed. Was probably a missed opportunity though what it would have meant for Confessor/ Sea Wolf I'm not sure.
 

JohnR

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
790
Reaction score
258
How would the RTN-10X radar from GWS24 on the Type21's would have faired with Seacat2
 
Top