Erm, not that simple. The Gyatt's Mk-8 GMLS was compatible only with early version of RIM-2 Terrier (not that later ones) and its FCS was only equipped for beam-riding guidance. It could not support semi-active homing missiles.
That and Gyatt only carried 14 missiles. Even if you assume this could somehow be doubled with Standard, it leaves the ship with a very small loadout of missiles for a single launcher. The same holds true for the FCS which likely would be very channel limited when fully updated. This means overall the ship has a low engagement rate and only a small number of missiles to engage with. This might be fine in a low threat environment, but it would be marginal anywhere else.
IRRC, the Gyatt fire control system was only minimally modified to support the missiles. Her Mark 25 gunfire control radar (on top of optical director) was re-wired so its conical scan rotating beam would transmit positional data for missile. Even this setup caused serious overload in her electric systems, so any kind of illumination radar was out of question.
That clearly could have been improved upon. Even the Mk 25 could be used for semi-active homing as this was done with the earlier Lark missile in early testing. The big problem is with only one channel of fire control, one target can be engaged at a time. If you are talking early Terrier that means you'd be lucky to engage two targets before they were on your ship and firing back.
Erm, no. The Mk-25 was a pulse radar; it could work only with pulse-based seekers. The Tartar-style semi-active seeker (which was fit on homing versions of Terrier) required continuous-wave illumination. Essentially a complete redesign of the whole radar to add CW illumination capability would be required.
I'm fully aware of that.
Well, it's possible - technically - but on practice, it would likely require complete removal of all old armament (including both bow 5-inch turrets) and very serious refurbushing of basically all systems. And it would be much simpler and efficient o install RIM-24 Tartar (any version) and/or SM-1MR.
I almost posted "how about Tartar" ? as the lightest of the 3-T bumblebees. Checking Wikipedia, a Gearing is very comparable in tonnage to a french T47 destroyer, four of them had a Tartar update in the 1960's.
Tartar presumably could be fit without much problems. The Mk-22 GMLS and associated Mk-74 FCS likely won't even require removal of more than one mount & torpedo tubes.
Mk 25 Mod 7 was used in testing and as a secondary guidance channel with both Terrier and Tartar.
Hm. I know that it was used for Terrier - IRRC, Boston carried them as main missile control radars - but never head about its use for Tartars. Could you elaborate, please?
For example, it was used on the Brooke class FFG's as a second channel of fire control. The SPG 53 that replaced Mk 25, is essentially the same radar with updated electronics and uses monopulse versus a nutated pulse signal. Both have spiral CW and conical scan modes.
Erm. Brooke-class did not have Mk-25 radar. It have a Mk-56 GFCS system, with Mk-35 radar.
But I know for a fact you can use it as a second channel to control missiles aboard that class of ship. I did enough work on them to learn that.
With all respect, but it contradict the physical capabilities of radar. Either there was some kind of special modification for Brooke-class ships (of which I can't find any data), or there is some mistake there.
The gun mount radar was secondary. It could be used in a pinch. You are correct for the normal fire control. The Brooke class was really a very limited ship in terms of combat power. They were also in iffy material condition a lot of the time.
I don't see how it could be possible. Without the CW illuminator, there would be no Doppler shift for seeker to filter the water surface & stuff.
Still don't understand, why they preferred fixed box launchers for Standard missiles, instead of installing another "matchbox" Mk-112 launcher on stern. The ASROC launch cells were compatible with Standard missiles; after all, they were used to fire anti-surface RGM-66 missiles on Knox-class frigates. Taiwanese Navy have access to ASROC Mk-116 launchers. So why don't just use them, instead of fixed boxes?
My guess is that it has to do with weight, volume, and stability issues. You're talking a Gearing hull that is very much an originally weight limited design. Modern ships are volume designs. That is, the Gearing hull is on the small side and was designed with a specific weight of equipment installed in it. That equipment was compact and heavy for the most part.
I did some back of the napkin a bit back and an Oto 76 or two, Mk.29 and ASROC more or less fit on weight vs the 5" mounts.
There's also the volume issue. Fire controls for these systems likely take up more space and require more power than the original systems did. That's a common issue on converting ships designed pre-electronics age (eg., during WW 2 or shortly afterwards) to modern weapons systems. Notice how they added more superstructure behind the bridge and the large deck house aft. You also have two much larger masts on the ship putting a lot more weight high up in it.
Why not a Mk 22 in the place of what original was the 5 inch "b" turret
Likely the limited arcs of fire due to the proximity to the bridge.
Mk22s stand a deck taller than the gun they drop into.
Didn't know that, thank you for clarification!
