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

Help Required

Tzoli

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
688
Reaction score
145
Hello Guys!
Some of you might know me through my drawings of warships ( I draw mostly WW2 or WW1 but occasionally Cold war ones as well) and I wish to ask for your help!

I could use information about what kind of guidance radars are required for these missile systems:

RIM-2 Terrier
RIM-8 Talos
RGM-15 Regulus II
RIM-24 Tartar
UGM/RGM-27 Polaris I (RGM I assume for the surface ship launched version envisioned for a few projects)
RIM-50 Typhon MR and LR


If possible in chronological order as I know multiple radars were used during the lifetime of a missile system.
Drawings especially top-down ones would be the best both for Radars and for the launcher systems for these various missiles if anybody have them.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,264
Reaction score
148
Regulus II and Polaris had no associated guidance radars. Both used inertial guidance.

Typhon LR (RIM-50) and MR (RIM-55) had no separate guidance radar. The primary SPG-59 did both tracking and fire control. Typhon was unusual for the day in that it was track-via-missile. The SPG-59 would send a signal toward the target, then the missile seeker would receive the reflected energy, do some processing, and send the data back to the ship via datalink. The ship would then calculate the trajectory errors (miss distance) and pass back steering commands to the missile.
 

Tzoli

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
688
Reaction score
145
In case of the RIM-8 Talos, does anybody have photos or data on how does the reloading... erm... arm? crane? apparatus? works?
On a drawing of USS Albany it looks like this: (I assume)
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,264
Reaction score
148
For anything Talos related, your best resource is the Okieboat (USS Oklahoma City) website.

For UNREP and missile stowage, two pages in particular:


Those cranes in your drawings look like the automated FAST cranes, which were never very good and were removed fairly early from most ships. After that, there would have been a conventional kingpost there instead, probably. I found pics of Albany from 1975 that show what looks like a STREAM rig instead of the FAST crane. For STREAM see here:

 

Boxman

CLEARANCE: Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
283
Reaction score
21
Here is a film on the handling (and on-board assembly) of the Talos missile, posted by YouTube user Old Movies Reborn.
YouTube - Talos Missile Handling Cruiser Installation (1960) Defense Atomic Support Agency Training Film
 

Tzoli

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
688
Reaction score
145
I see! Thanks! At first I thought reloads (For the Iowa and Kentucky conversions) would be handled at a port via a standard crane. This reloading FAST system would take up much precious space on the design taken over by the numerous radars:
Maybe I will only use two, both sides around the 3rd and 4th radar to reload both the lower and upper Talos storages. Or just simply use a plain smaller crane to do the job
 

Tzoli

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
688
Reaction score
145
In case of the USN missiles were there any proposals for different armed launchers?
For example both the RUR-5 ASROCK and RIM-7 Sea Sparrow boxy launchers look like they are designed to be modular for example I've seen some long beach preliminaries with 12 rather 8 unit launchers so wouldn't be ideas to make larger or smaller launchers of this type? Say a minimal 4 or even 2 unit ASROCK for small surface combatants like corvettes and patrol craft? Same for Sea Sparrow, say a 4 unit small box launcher?
(I know the ASROCK isn't technically a missile but still)
As for the other missiles I know the Talos and Terrier only came with a twin arm launcher, the Typhon, Tartar and Standard with both single and twin arm launchers.
Isn't the USN thought of something of an austere single arm Talos and Tartar or the other way around a heavy Triple and quad arm Talos, Terrier but especially Tartar and Standard launchers?
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,264
Reaction score
148
Lots to discuss here:

1) ASROC -- the launcher was not designed to be modular. Early iterations had 12 launch tubes in a mount the size of a 5-inch/38 turret, but the rocket got larger and the number of ready rounds went down to 8. There was no point planning to put ASROC on smaller combatants because it needed to be paired with a rather large 10,000-yard sonar (SQS-23) to be effective.

2) Sea Sparrow -- the earliest Basic Point Defense Missile System launcher was a really crude system thrown together after the collapse of Mauler, basically a 3-inch/50 mount wiht ASROC launcher boxes bolted on because both were available quickly. The later Mk 29 was a more considered design but I've never heard of a smaller capacity version. (The Italians did do a 4-shot Aspide launcher for small combatants, but it wasn't mechanically related to Mk29 and I don't know of any US interest). I suspect, but don't now, that eight missiles was considered the minimum for a sustained engagement (4 targets engaged with two missiles each).

3) Typhon/Terrier/Tartar/Standard -- breaking this down into two classes, the long-range missiles (Terrier/Typhon LR, Standard ER) and the medium-range (Tartar, Typhon MR, Standard MR).

Long-range -- There was no real value in an "austere" single-arm launcher because the rest of the ship fit was quite large expensive anyway (USS Gyatt notwithstanding). Conversely, there was no pressing need for more than two rails, because the overall system ROF was already effectively limited by the number of available channels of fire (fire control radars). Adding more rails wouldn't help without more radars and the radars were very bulky.

Medium-range -- there was an attempt at a twin-arm launcher, but it wasn't reliable. The single-arm Mk 13/14/22 family were very fast cycling, which achieved high ROF without the weight of multiple rails. The Mk26 twin-arm was a fast-cycling launcher was well, and made sense due to the advances in fire control that meant you didn't have to limit engagements as much by the number of available radars.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,264
Reaction score
148
Sea Mauler was briefly tested about USS Norton Sound around 1963. I've seen only one photo, in Norman Friedman's US Naval Weapons, and it looks to be basically identical to the Army launcher. One of the attractions of Mauler was that it was entirely self-contained, with both acquisition and fire control radars on the mount, so it could be basically bolted onto the ship, connected to power, and fired up.
 

Forest Green

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jun 11, 2019
Messages
426
Reaction score
116
AN/SPG-49 Fire Control Radar for Talos. These were the ships it was equipped on:

It was rail-launched and fed from a 52 round magazine below deck, plus the 2 starting on the rails. The new missiles would be slid into place from the magazine below deck.

The search and tracking radars seem unspecific, the only common one between the two classes being the AN/SPS-48 3D air search radar.

AN/SPG-51 Fire Control Radar for Tartar.
AN/SPG-55 Fire Control Radar for Terrier.

Terrier and Tartar were loaded in the same way. Terrier would either have 40, 60, 72 or 80 round magazines depending on the ship.

Looking at it, the Tartar airframe is virtually identical to the RIM-66 (SM-2).
 
Last edited:

XHW-1

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Aug 5, 2019
Messages
3
Reaction score
2
Don't know if this could still be relevant or useful,but still some pieces of advice.

For a complete understanding of missile launching systems back in that era I strongly recommend GMM3&2 and GMM1&C,they are the official documents from USN to explain how they works.


Chapter 5 in 3&2 and Chapter 3 in 1&C should probably cover everything you need.

For electronics usually the first missile conversion proposals envisaged a combination of SPS-2 and SPS-3 plus some other early models for air search with no specific high precision tracking radars.(For early Alaska class and Iowa class studies this should be the case).
However in later actual practice with Bostons Galvestons and Albanys etc. it was realized that a huge clumsy SPS-2 would be most unreliable and therefore landed. That left a combination of SPS-6/26/39/43(2D air search) and SPS-8/30(Height finder,target tracking) to supply the missile systems with enough data so their guidance radars could start working easier,such combination continued to be standard for converted gun cruisers throughout 60s and 70s actual service(Well Chicago had her SPS-39 replaced by a much more capable SPS-48).For later DLGs thats another story,using SPS-29 and 48 combined.

PS. I really like your works on DA and Pixiv,keep up the good work!
 
Top