PT 428 and Russian missiles

uk 75

uk 75

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
27 September 2006
Messages
5,744
Reaction score
5,625
Looking again at BSP4's excellent coverage of the PT428 missile
and similar British SAMs it struck me that the Russian Gecko wheeled
missile launcher system is the closest equivalent. Did someone in BAC
pass on info to the Russians? Until BSP4 there was no published picture
of the British system for us the taxpayer, yet the Russian Design Bureau
seems to have had a glimpse. On the other hand it could just be a similar
solution driven by a similar requirement.
UK 75
 
The timeline on the 9K33 Osa (SA-8 Gecko) program suggests not; more parallel programs than copies.
NII-3 GRAU developed the requirements document sometime in 1959-60 and the program officially started in October 1960 according to the official Russian history of army air defense development ( S. I. Petukhov & I. V. Shestov, Istoriya sozdaniya i razvitiya vooruzheniya i voennoy tekhnika PVO-SV Rossii: 1997). The reason it may seem that there is a big time gap between the two was that the Osa program turned into a big mess in its original version; the missile was shifted from KB-82 to Fakel and redesigned, and there was lots of program turmoil.
 
the missile was shifted from KB-82 to Fakel and redesigned, and there was lots of program turmoil.

Interesting to see that this doesn't just happen to Western missile projects. I remember being a big missile/airplane enthusiast before the end of the Cold War, and back then, soviet projects just seemed to pop up fully formed. Of course we never HEARD of the troubles and frustrations, but they had to have been there.
 
pathology_doc said:
I remember being a big missile/airplane enthusiast before the end of the Cold War, and back then, soviet projects just seemed to pop up fully formed.
Click to expand...

I've always wondered about the SA-N-7 on the Soveremennyy class, does look very Standard/Mk 13 launcher.
 
If there was a foreign inspiration for the 9K33, it came from the US GD XMIM-46A Mauler (slightly earlier timeline, same attempt at a one-vehicle SAM-system), not an obscure British paper project. BTW, the 9K33 had a naval derivative, 9K33M Osa-M, just like the Mauler was supposed to have (RIM-46A Sea Mauler).
 
en.m.wikipedia.org

9K33 Osa - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org

Fascinating account of how the Sovs perservered with a type of system which the US and UK gave up on.
Makes me wonder who was right? The Russians had to put in a lot of effort to get this into service.
 
Yeah, the Osa and then Kub (SA-6) got a lot of development problem.

It boils down to requirement however, the Soviets believe that the air will always be contested and there would be time where airforce just cannot provide the required protection, thus mobile SAM's born.
 
Thought I would resurrect this old thread now that UK and Russian SAMs are in action in Ukraine.
There is plenty about the US Mauler programme on this site and online whereas the only source for pictures and info on PT428 is British Secret Projects Volume 4.
Mauler had reached the hardware stage and I suppose this was why the UK decided to go with it in both the land and ship mounted versions.
UK Mauler like the later Rapier would have been mounted on US supplied tracked vehicles. The naval version presumably would have replaced Seacat instead of Seawolf.
Post in thread 'Help Required' https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/help-required.31716/post-370700
 
uk 75 said:
Mauler had reached the hardware stage and I suppose this was why the UK decided to go with it in both the land and ship mounted versions.
Click to expand...
Problem was, Mauler was next thing to unworkable. It would took years to merely make it "somehow work", and it was utterly impossible to predict when it would be operationally capable. Most likely it would require the whole program being restarted with downgraded requirement. And since the Chaparral would be here already - US army needed some mobile SAM - the futurr of downgraded Mauler would be very dubious.
 
The realistic alternative, IMHO, is Chaparral based not on WW2 mount & AIM-9 missile, but on Huges Falcon missile with automatic fire control using infrared search & track system (from F-106 interceptor) Such system was actually tested, but Army chose simpler AIM-9 based solution.
 
Dilandu said:
Chaparral based not on WW2 mount & AIM-9 missile, but on Huges Falcon missile
Click to expand...
The problem with this is that it would require a completely new version of Falcon, specifically one with a proximity fuze and a very different burn profile on the motor, perhaps even with changes to the electronics because it's starting out from stationary and the control responses will be different.
 
pathology_doc said:
The problem with this is that it would require a completely new version of Falcon, specifically one with a proximity fuze and a very different burn profile on the moto
Click to expand...
MIM-4H?

A ground launched AIM-4 would probably also require a launch booster to get a decent range.
 
uk 75 said:
Mauler had reached the hardware stage and I suppose this was why the UK decided to go with it in both the land and ship mounted versions.
Click to expand...
Not in the early 60’s it wasn't.
Mauler is based on SARH, which in a 5.5" diameter body is quite an ask for 1960's technology.

PT.428 was a Beam Rider, and thus was actually more achievable for the period.

UK put money into Mauler believing it put them in a good position. Likely for licensing build.
 
uk 75 said:
PT428 only drawings compared with Maulers actually being built and tested in early 60s?
en.m.wikipedia.org

File:MIM-46 Mauler launch.jpg - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...
PT.428 not funded in 'deal' with Army to fund Blue Water instead.
Critics noted BW would be unlikely to be used save in WWIII, but PT.428 would actually be useful in many small wars....

Mauler took what UK funding was available and private 'Mongoose' a.k.a Rapier continued....as did PX.430

So yes Mauler became hardware....sort of....and failed leaving US Army with a cludge and USN with a lashup.

UK ended up funding Sea Wolf and buying in Rapier.

So who got hardware in the end?
 
Last edited:
PT.428 seems to have been an earlier Rapier Blindfire, albeit using radar beam-riding rather than optical SACLOS. 9K33/SA-8 is very similar, although using radio command guidance. It doesn't seem beyond Britain's technical abilities to produce a similar system.
 
Neither Rapier nor Seawolf gave the UK the capabilities that Mauler would have done in the late 60s if (like the USSR) the USA had perservered.
A tracked SAM for BAOR instead of waiting till the 1980s and the Shah's Rapier lashup.
Combined radar and missile launchers replacing Seacat on every platform.
I prefer the Soviet systems to the UK ones.
 
uk 75 said:
Neither Rapier nor Seawolf gave the UK the capabilities that Mauler would have done in the late 60s if (like the USSR) the USA had perservered.
Click to expand...

Even if the US had persevered, many of the Mauler trade-off studies towards the end of the program were not expected to enter service until the early 1970s, the earliest version that were expected to enter service in the 1960s (and only just, expected readiness dates was September 1969) was very brutally pared-down in capability, including the deletion of the acquisition radar, track evaluation computer, infrared acquisition, not much more better than a Chaparral (although with some limited bad weather and all-aspect capability). And all this was circa 1964-65, so Mauler would increasingly be competing with Vietnam for funds over the course of its development.
 
What likely worked about the system was the FMCW radar. UK efforts earlier proved it worked with separate aerials, but required FMICW to effectively combine transmit with recieve.
That said Search/Warning would be worse on land than at Sea, and clutter was never a trivial issue either environment. Doppler could at least pick out a fast mover, but Helicopters would be a problem.

Beam riding to command guidance is not beyond the state of the art back then.

Computer evaluation of tracks is ironically a much more demanding issue in an era of tight margins on memory.
 
NMaude said:
MIM-4H?

A ground launched AIM-4 would probably also require a launch booster to get a decent range.
Click to expand...
Probably MIM-4J if you want SARH homing, as AIM-4H (or rather XAIM-4H, as it never made production) was a proximity-fuzed outgrowth of the IR AIM-4D.
 
zen said:
What likely worked about the system was the FMCW radar. UK efforts earlier proved it worked with separate aerials, but required FMICW to effectively combine transmit with recieve.
That said Search/Warning would be worse on land than at Sea, and clutter was never a trivial issue either environment. Doppler could at least pick out a fast mover, but Helicopters would be a problem.
Click to expand...
Helicopter rotors produce plenty of Doppler.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom