Installing land-based SAM on warship

[Dilandu]

Introductory: a small navy in late 1960s - early 1970s have a pair of ex-British "Dido"-class cruisers. Those ships are obsolete, and the navy wanted to have a missile-armed warships. But since they are pretty much ostracized by all major powers and sanctioned by UN (essentially the South African situation - they are not good guys, but bad guys fearing others to come for their heads), they could neither buy new warships, nor proper shipborne missiles.

So they are forced to work with whatever they have, and they decided to try & reconstruct their old cruisers - obsolete, but still in reasonably good material condition due to mid-1960s repairs - into missile cruisers, by installing the available land-based SAM's. Specific condition: they wanted area-defense missiles, not merely self-defense.

Two possible scenarios:

* They have land-based "English Electric Thunderbird" Mk-I SAM systems - brought from Britain in 1960s - with Ferranti Type 83 fire control radar. The installation would require removal of both rear turrets (to accomodate missile storage hangar) and bow C turret (to accomodate relatively bulky Ferranti Type 83 radar). The fire control computer would needed to be integrated with ship's own search & track radar (IRRC Thunderbird did not have manual input mode for fire control system). The missiles are fired from a pair improvized stabilized launchers on the stern, reloading through rail trolleys from hangar;

* They managed to obtain a MIM-23 HAWK systems (unofficially, through Israel), and jury-rigged it on cruisers. Only rear two turrets are removed; the system used slightly modified M192 launcher (on stabilized mount), a HPIR fire control radar (installed in place of rear fire control director) and AFCC console (installed in ship CIC, manual data input from ship's search radar);

Which concept looks more viable?

 

[zen]

RN did study Thunderbird for naval use. I think a single launcher.

Could be 'back channels' passes this over.
UK is less likely to get upset over such than the US.

But there is Swiss-Italian Contravenes series of missiles. Ultimately Micron system.

 

[Dilandu]

But there is Swiss-Italian Contravenes series of missiles. Ultimately Micron system.

Thought about them, yes; but they are relatively short-range beam-riders, not exactly useful for 1970s timeframe.

RN did study Thunderbird for naval use. I think a single launcher.

Did they plan to use it with different boosters? The original Thunderbird boosters have very big fins (albeit I suppose making foldable fins - or even detachable ones, with manual finning before sending missile to laucnher - won't be a very big problem)

 

[zen]

Oddly the only naval Thunderbird study is the cruisers and yet despite a 'single booster Seaslug' option also being studied. No single booster Thunderbird.....which is odd!

Manual fin attachment for Thunderbird, much like Terrier.

Scope there perhaps For a domestic single booster?

Oh on Micron.....it had distinct separation of 'gathering' and Beaming radars. So potential for future Beam guidance away from target tracking.
Swiss weren't fools.

 

[Dilandu]

Theoretically, by merely replacing fixed fins on boosters with detachable one (or foldable), we could reduce the overall size of Thunderbird missile to its wingspan - 1.63 meters. Still a lot, but considering that wings are missile's rudders, it's not advisable to try making them foldable or something.

A simplest missile storage facility would be a deck hangar with two rows of missiles at sides of central alley (along which transport trolleys would move). Each Thunderbird Mk-I missile took about 7 meters of length, so 3-missile row would took circa 21 meters, and 4-missile row - circa 28 meters. So in simplest configuration, the jury-rigged missile hangar would be about 21-28 meters long, with 6-8 missiles in storage.

This numbers are obviously not satisfactory - the ammo storage is too small - so let's double it, and use two missile hangars side-by-side. Now we would have 12-16 missiles in the same length facility. Since we also need a finning & checkup room in front of hangar (of course we could fin the missiles already on launcher... but it would not be a good idea in heavy seas!) I think the final system would have two 30-meters long hangars, each containing six missiles in two parallel rows, alongside transport alley.

 

[zen]

All the fins and control surfaces were detachable and were only attached for loading onto the launcher.
So arguably, like Terrier, a team awaits in the preparation room to attach them and otherwise the missiles and boosters be stored pre-assembled.
Deep storage would separate boosters from missile body and store separately.

 

[Dilandu]

All the fins and control surfaces were detachable and were only attached for loading onto the launcher.

Hm! I didn't know that! How fast it was to install the fins & wings?

a team awaits in the preparation room to attach them and otherwise the missiles and boosters be stored pre-assembled.
Deep storage would separate boosters from missile body and store separately.

My only concern is, that Thunderbird might not be designed with fast assembly in mind, so the fins & wings installation could took several minutes.