Q-band Tartar for the RN

zen

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
916
Reaction score
5
Very well since others won't for one reason or another and for completeness sake.....

Q-band Tartar.
And lets be clear that's what the RN want, what is one of the critical elements of their view of the self defence SANM in the era. Getting Q-band (Ka-band and Ku-band) avoids the issues of clutter over water, since the frequency is absorbed by water, obviating the issues of confusing reflections for detection, tracking and illumination for SARH purposes.
It means you can envsion intercepting a missile coming at you, Q-band gives you the definition to see it and see it against the sea.
G-band (as the USN used) doesn't.

This starts with Popsy A, goes to Red Hawk aka Popsy B, moved on to Meteor aka Mopsy in the hopes the US would fund it (since they were funding Meteor). When they dropped Meteor, in comes Tartar, aka single stage Terrier.
Orange Nell is the RN trying to carry on with what they see as the solution, and planning for the worst in the light of the length of time it's taking to get Sea Slug into service. Cosidering that Sea Wolf is the spiritual and institutional successor to Orange Nell (and in turn Mopsy and Popsy), one might say they were right.

Why? Why not just buy Tartar, or better yet license it with their own seeker/TIR system?
Because Dollars are tightly controlled and the RN has at best a limited allocation for things it wants from the US, so Tartar goes and with it it seems hopes of getting a licensed UK version with Q-band.
Because what dollars are available are being spent in nuclear systems, reactors for example for Dreadnought.
Because 'officially' the RN thinks Tartar is "too complex and expensive".
US likely (I'm guessing here but it's a fair speculation) doesn't want the RN fielding a better system than them and likely thinks it's a waste of their efforts.

So let us conjour for some 'yet to be clarified reason' the RN gets more dollars or trades something else away for Q-band Tartar, or somehow persuades the US to help them out here.

The Tribals are the first ships in which Tartar is examined and it's possible the last of these might actually get such a system.
Leanders might gain this at least in limited number.

Logically one would presume then the County's would get Terrier, having some continuity and logistical cross support possible between Terrier and Tartar ships.
 

Volkodav

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 28, 2014
Messages
112
Reaction score
0
Thanks for that, great summary.

Whether or not the RN adopted Tartar would actually come down to need, for instance Australia's attraction to Tartar was it compactness, suitability to be retro fitted to existing platforms (two Battle and three Daring class destroyers and possibly even Hobart the sole remaining Modified Leander) and its secondary anti surface capability that had become critical due to the concern (panic) over Indonesia's Severdlov (and rumoured sister) as well as their fleet of anti shipping optimised Badgers. Say for instance something happened to convince them that war was likely in the next couple of years the RN may have been able to do a Tartar conversion of some of their Battle and Daring class destroyers, perhaps even using MDAP supplied systems. Once in service it would have made sense to procure further Tartar systems as well as to licence produce an improved version for new builds or further conversions.

Another thought is the RAN wanted a cut down, steam powered, Tartar armed County, the UK stated that they lacked the capacity to design, let alone build the required ships, and pushed either the RN version or the Escort Cruiser instead of the bespoke design. Interestingly one of the commercial yards (I can't recall which of the top of my head) indicated they could both design and build the ships the RAN desired, so assuming this program was approved the ships would be built in the UK giving the RN access to the design and its capabilities. Further more the RAN could have proceeded with the proposed Daring and/or Battle class DDG conversions and in doing so have provided the RN with a template to follow.
 

zen

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
916
Reaction score
5
CVA-01 studies included Tartar if I recall correctly. So it is also possible they'd carry on with the Cruiser (carrier) studies as they would with Next Generation Destroyers.

Assuming a Q-band Tartar. The next possible steps are:-

Applying NIGS and SIGS technology to an alternative missile that fits the launcher. In essence I-band TIR.

Reducing the size of the successor missile to fit more in the same launcher. Possibly down to Sparrow size or less?

Stretching the size and weight limits for the launcher to cope with CF.299 potentially opening up this launcher to other large and heavy weapons excluded from the standard USN launchers of Tartar

Improvements to the Q-band TIR set and computer to extend range and number of targets intercept-able.
That last opening up for a potential new more potent missile for local area defence aka System C or more likely one of the ruled out earlier options. Which could be ruled in in this scenario.
 

Volkodav

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 28, 2014
Messages
112
Reaction score
0
I wonder how the volume and weight required by a system such as you describe would compare to a system such as Seawolf, radars, consoles, racks, cabinets as well as the actual launcher/magazine? For example the USN Brooke Class DEG is comparable in size to many RN frigates, larger than some smaller than others, suggesting that a UK Tartar system, that could subsequently be upgraded to Standard, should be possible to fit on any of the RNs GT powered frigates of the 70s or 80s, possibly in addition to Seacat / Seawolf. An idea that comes to mind is the strengthened Type 21 for the RAN mentioned in Browns Rebuilding the Royal Navy that was to incorporate US systems, Sea Sparrow would be the obvious choice but would Tartar and a Mk-22 be possible?
 

zen

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
916
Reaction score
5
Should we not consider the Tartar County and a 'Bristol' successor instead first?

Or perhaps the Type 12 with mk22 launcher?

That said could we not have seen a real 'common hull frigate' developed? Q-band Tartar is a medium to SHORAD system really.

However its plausible that if coupled with purchase of a AShM use-able from the mk16 or mk22 launcher that this could be applied to a notional Type 21. But at what cost?

One option is a 'lightweight' version of the Q-band system, closer possibly to the 'lightweight' Sea Wolf system (about 5tons). I suspect with the mk22 launcher.
Under such conditions a 'new' missile based on Sparrow would further reduce weight and be marketed as the replacement for older Q-band Tartar and Sea Cat systems.
 

Hood

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
1,207
Reaction score
78
From memory it always seemed the size and bulk of Tartar were as much hindrances to actually fitting it to RN ships as much as the Dollar situation.
I do like the idea of a Q-band version though and a potential larger Sea Wolf-esque replacement for the 1970/80s is an intriguing idea.
 

zen

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
916
Reaction score
5
Assuming the RN had opted for Q-band Tartar (Quartar perhaps?...) then the studies for the Tripartite efforts in the 60's would be very different.

I mean it's possible that Tartar was one of the original five options for a local area SAM system, one of the three ruled out as 'too big and heavy'.

But in a world where such a system is already in evidence.......well such a missile could certainly deliver the area defence the French want, and elements of the radar system could bring in the Dutch.........
 

Volkodav

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 28, 2014
Messages
112
Reaction score
0
The way I look at it Sea Dart is more a Terrier / Standard ER alternative and would still be the way to go for Bristol, the Escort Cruisers and perhaps a smaller number of larger Type 42 (maybe an earlier Type 43 double ender with the original Sea Dart System instead of the cancelled Mk2). This would be acceptable if Tartar / Standard had been deployed on other platforms, say maybe part of the baseline outfit of the Broad Beam Leanders, the Type 21 and the Type 22.

What I find very interesting with the Mk-13/22 is the developmental work on making it compatible with Sea Sparrow and even RAM, the RAM set up being a canister with two missiles. Looking at the volume in the magazine it would possibly be able to carry an ESSM quad pack or ExLS in place of a single Standard or Harpoon as a late 90s upgrade. Already fitted for Harpoon the only thing missing would be an anti submarine weapon as ASROC (being an unguided rocket) needed guide rails that would have required a major redesign. Getting a bit off topic but I wonder if the Super Ikara guidance package could have been fitted to a weapon configured for the Mk-13/22.

What would be interesting is seeing the system used as an upgrade on ship considered for guided missile conversion but ruled out due to the difficulty of fitting Sea Slug and their age once Sea Dart became available. The Tigers and Belfast come to mind, as do the Battles and Darings, even a Standard upgrade to the Counties with the launcher being fitted in B position instead of Exocet, Sea Slug being supressed and a large helideck and hanger being fitted. Such a move would have actually fit quite well with the direction the RN was heading with the retirement of the carriers and concentration on ASW in support of NATO as large numbers of air defence ships were seen as critical to protecting the ASW operations from Soviet long range naval aviation.
 

RLBH

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
191
Reaction score
10
Volkodav said:
What I find very interesting with the Mk-13/22 is the developmental work on making it compatible with Sea Sparrow and even RAM, the RAM set up being a canister with two missiles. Looking at the volume in the magazine it would possibly be able to carry an ESSM quad pack or ExLS in place of a single Standard or Harpoon as a late 90s upgrade. Already fitted for Harpoon the only thing missing would be an anti submarine weapon as ASROC (being an unguided rocket) needed guide rails that would have required a major redesign. Getting a bit off topic but I wonder if the Super Ikara guidance package could have been fitted to a weapon configured for the Mk-13/22.
Interestingly, there's probably no technical showstoppers to a version of Mk 13/22 to carry Sea Dart. It's got a fatter body but broadly similar envelope, so it would be a matter of reconfiguring the storage cells. You'd probably break compatibility with Standard and Harpoon, but that might be acceptable.
 

zen

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
916
Reaction score
5
I think we've covered this before but fatter and slightly longer storage cells open up a number of other possibilities.

Use of Sea Flash (Sparrow) type weapons is an option.

But would the Counties have Sea Slug under this scenario, or just Terrier?
 

Volkodav

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 28, 2014
Messages
112
Reaction score
0
Looking at building a Dragon 1/700 Amazon which they look to have over scaled the hull to about 1/600 i.e. its the same size as my old Airfix 1/600 Amazon which works out to about 136m length and a corresponding increase in beam. Now what to do with this Broad Beam Amazon and its 19 meters in extra length ;) I think I have found my Alt universe Tartar ship, in fact it scales close enough in size to a Tromp that I could probably justify Sea Wolf or NATO Sea Sparrow forward.

Now Australia wanted a larger, faster, more durable Type 21 / Amazon with US sensors and weapons, could Dragon inadvertently provided me with the basics to build this? Now assuming Australia really pushed for this ship is it conceivable that the UK with someone wanting to pay for its development could have adopted the design as their equivalent to the OHP/FFG-07?
 

pathology_doc

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
789
Reaction score
0
Question - how do Tartar and Terrier performance compare to Sea Slug and Sea Dart?

Sea Slug seems like on the same order of performance as the original BW-0 Terrier (Boston, Canberra), but where does Sea Dart fit in on the level of competence? Tartar-D? SM-1? SM-2? In planform it is like a little baby Talos, but in kinematic performance, it seems (by some claims) to be more at the level of SM-1ER.

So what would the Brits have been gaining had they gone with a 3T missile?
 

Volkodav

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 28, 2014
Messages
112
Reaction score
0
pathology_doc said:
Question - how do Tartar and Terrier performance compare to Sea Slug and Sea Dart?

Sea Slug seems like on the same order of performance as the original BW-0 Terrier (Boston, Canberra), but where does Sea Dart fit in on the level of competence? Tartar-D? SM-1? SM-2? In planform it is like a little baby Talos, but in kinematic performance, it seems (by some claims) to be more at the level of SM-1ER.

So what would the Brits have been gaining had they gone with a 3T missile?
Sea Slug and Terrier were comparable but Sea Slug appears to have had much greater platform impact. Sea Dart is in the same performance class as SM-1ER, or perhaps somewhere between SM-2MR and SM-2ER in terms of range but faster, it was also more compact than the Terrier derived systems, though larger than the classic Tartar derived Mk-13/22 and smaller magazine Mk-26 versions.

Where Tartar, then Standard MR, comes into its own is through the 60s and into the mid 70s for ships lacking the space for Terrier or Sea Slug. For instance the RN had only Counties with Sea Slug, plus notional cruisers, cruiser and carrier conversions, while the US and French were able to convert gun destroyers into DDGs. For example, had the UK adopted Tartar as a point defence missile as originally planned (and what the missile was developed for in the first place), any of the in service Battle or Daring class destroyers could have been converted to DDGs using the system. Tartar was also seen as a one for one replacement for the Mk6 3" twin and as such could have not only replaced one or more 3" mounts on the Tigers (or the notional missile cruisers) but could also have replaced 4.5" twins on other platforms such as carriers, or even new build Leanders, as well as being compact enough for ships such as the Tribal and Amazon Class Frigates. The greatest thing about Tartar is any ship fitted with it could subsequently be upgraded with SM-1MR and even SM-2MR, if it was the Mk-11, 13 or 22 then it could also be adapted to fire Harpoon and even NATO Sea Sparrow.

Had the UK adopted Tartar they could have had more missile ships capable of local air defence earlier, complementing their Sea Slug ships, that would have remained competitive as Sea Dart entered service replacing Sea Slug. SM-1MR would have remained a capable complement to Sea Dart and could potentially have been an upgrade option for the Counties, using refurbished systems from the Battles and Darings once Sea Slug was retired (even permitting the early retirement of that system). Sea Slug, then Sea Dart would have filled the high end air defence role, but Tartar/Standard MR would have been an excellent intermediate complement between them and Sea Cat.
 

zen

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
916
Reaction score
5
No.
Q-band Tartar needs to be seen as the answer to Popsy, Mopsy, Orange Nell, naval PT.428, Sea Mauler and Sea Wolf.

It solves that issue earlier and possess the potential to gain some increase in range but mostly capability (such as local area defence) against the likes of crossing targets.

That the system might ultimately outclass Sea Slug mkI's range of 15nm is not to presume it ends up being a 60nm+ range weapon.
What it does do is drive compatible launchers for Standard and Sea Dart.
Greatly simple fying the implementation of such systems on new and old warships.
 

pathology_doc

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
789
Reaction score
0
Volkodav said:
Had the UK adopted Tartar ...
I suspect the price of the UK adopting Tartar is that Sea Dart would have gone down the drain. Possibly the Brits would have given Tartar the same seeker-improvement makeover as they gave Sparrow when they turned it into Sky Flash, and one or more of the Lion/Tiger/Blake class ships might have become DDG/CG instead of helicopter cruisers, but I don't see the Royal Navy (especially in an era of budgetary constraints) running with two parallel SAM systems of very similar natures.

It's interesting to picture a broad-beam Leander with a Mk11 or Mk13 launcher forward in place of the 4.5 inch gun (provided there's room for it, if not then perhaps Mk22 will fit); at least Tartar/Standard offers the retention of an anti-ship capability, and with the later arrival of Harpoon in British service the possibility exists for obsolete Leanders to fill or bias-load their magazines with SSMs and use them against Soviet surface groups, perhaps keeping a Standard SAM on one rail of a Mk11 in the event that urgent defence is needed against a pop-up threat.
 

Volkodav

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 28, 2014
Messages
112
Reaction score
0
zen said:
No.
Q-band Tartar needs to be seen as the answer to Popsy, Mopsy, Orange Nell, naval PT.428, Sea Mauler and Sea Wolf.

It solves that issue earlier and possess the potential to gain some increase in range but mostly capability (such as local area defence) against the likes of crossing targets.

That the system might ultimately outclass Sea Slug mkI's range of 15nm is not to presume it ends up being a 60nm+ range weapon.
What it does do is drive compatible launchers for Standard and Sea Dart.
Greatly simple fying the implementation of such systems on new and old warships.
I was referring to how Tartar then Standard MR evolved, not how they were initially envisaged. Tartar grew out of a RN requirement for a point defence missile and the Q Band evolution you proposed also fits this brief. This is the missile the French and US used to convert gun destroyers into DDGs and, that the Italians and Japanese used to build their own new build DDGs, it is also the missile the RN (and RAN) desired for Battle and Daring DDG conversions, as well as retro fit to the proposed missile cruisers to supplement their Sea Slugs, as well as being considered for FFG variants of the Tribals and Leanders, plus some of the Escort Cruiser concepts.

Though deployed as a point defence system initially the improvements in technology would have seen the basic missile eventually outstrip the performance of either Sea Slug I or II as well as Terrier. This would mean that the existing systems acquired, likely manufactured under licence, would have been viable for decades, initially fitted as a PDMS, they would have evolved into local and then area air defence systems. There would still have been a need for Sea Dart as although Standard MRs performance improved, it was still inferior to Sea Dart through the 70s and 80s, into the 90s, but the increased performance would have made the ships fitted with it viable for years longer than in actuality.

For instance had Tartar been fitted to the Counties as a PDMS, perhaps in B position, then when Sea Slug was retired the ships could have been upgraded to Standard and the helicopter facilities expanded. Systems fitted to the Darings and Battles could have been refurbished and used on the Type 21 and 22 frigates. Another what if I quite like is had the missile cruisers been built and then the waist 3" twins replaced with Tartar (likely Mk-13 if this was a mid to late 60s upgrade) then they would have made quite exceptional CGHs once Sea Slug was decommissioned and removed.
 

Hood

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
1,207
Reaction score
78
Tartar would easily fit on a Daring. An October 1956 idea was to fit Tartar in X position and two Mk 74 directors replacing the torpedo tubes with a new 35ft lattice mast around the after funnel.
Yet by 1960 when the RAN asked the DNC to look into a Tartar Daring and County the design studies showed no worthwhile missile battery would fit on Daring and it really needed a 4,000 ton hull for a viable ship. The County went up to 5,200-5,800 tons but was rather overloaded (Tartar with 2-channels of fire, 2x 4.5in Mk.6 (one might be replaced by Ikara), two Sea Cat, 2-3x Wessex and steam powerplant).
A new missile Daring came out at 3,900 tons with 26.5kts speed (1 or 2 4.5in Mk.6, Tartar with 42x missiles, two quadruple Sea Cat, Ikara and space to land a Wessex, Y.100 frigate powerplant).
Another Daring-derived design had Tartar and Ikara forward with one 4.5in Mk.6 mount aft.
The next had Tartar, Ikara (14 missiles) and an 80ft landing deck for 2-3x Wessex on 5,300 tons which then ballooned further to 6,300 tons!
County based designs, simply replacing Sea Slug with Tartar aft and steam powerplant came out at 5,783-6,431 tons.
Tartar's electrical power was 350kW compared to 370kW for Sea Slug so generator savings could be made in the County.

In the end the DNC abandoned work as it was eating into RN design capacity and the RAN wasn't happy and the Charles F. Adams was much lighter. I think probably the RAN's insistence on steam powerplants (which were heavier than US sets in general) and fitting Wessex were the driving factors in inflating hull size and weight.

In 1958 when the Leander Class design was underway it was decided not to waste money on modifying Type 12 for Tartar given the small margins for future upgrade later (tonnage wise). It was found Tartar and is required SPG-51 and SPS-26 or SPS-39 would require a 370ft hull of 3,060 tons with a maximum speed of 27.25kts or 27.5kts on 3,000 tons by reducing the bunkerage (range fell to 4,200nm). The radiation hazard from the radars meant enclosed guns were needed and Tartar was expensive. Fitting Tartar and Wessex was again too much for the hull without reducing range or speed.
With Tartar ruled out by 1960 the planned Daring modernisations stuck with 4.5in guns and added Sea Cat, Wasp and a Type 199 VDS.

SIGS was meant to be capable of replacing a 4.5in mount and it was assumed a smaller 26x missile system would replace a 4.5in like-for-like but when India asked for a SIGS Leander variant it was found it wouldn't fit. The CF.299 Frigate designs that led to Type 82 had their origins in designs that used Leander's machinery set but were larger and heavier, 3,500 tons deep.

I think it may have made sense to refit the Darings with Tartar, their proposed refits were cancelled because their £3.5 million cost equalled a new-build Leander and the refit offered nothing a Leander couldn't do except for an extra 4.5in mount and extra speed. A Tartar might have tipped the balance in favour, but of course the refit costs might have been even higher and of course it still doesn't solve the problem that the hulls were approaching 20 years and had little effective time left to make the refit value for money.
Refitting the Counties makes less sense, purely due to the investment already sunk into Sea Slug and its greater range, but perhaps the latter four ships could have been redesigned to optimise the hull design around the more compact US missile system, but that would have cost more and used up design resources and delayed delivery.
It might have made sense to go ahead and create a larger Type 12 with Tartar (an alternative Leander) but the result might have been more expensive and larger and possibly shorter-ranged and we probably would have lost the Ikara and Exocet conversions later on (unless Wasp was sacrificed for Ikara aft). However its Type 82 successor with Tartar/Terrier might have been available sooner and been a slightly smaller vessel and quite successful. SIGS though probably would have been killed off but that would free R&D resources for other GW projects.
 

zen

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
916
Reaction score
5
Q-band Tartar technology would certainly be an option for upgrading Sea Slug to deliver SARH into a missile that fits into the extent Sea Slug launcher.
The main problem would be range due to issues with Q-band radar ...

Though perhaps a move to ARH is an option. Feeding technology associated with NIGS.
This would then feed back to the Q-band Tartar system delivering System C performance in the late 60's.

This could feed back in turn to a Hypothetical 'Stage III' Thunderbird replacement as envisaged in the late 50's early 60's.
 

pathology_doc

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
789
Reaction score
0
ARH might have been a possibility if Red Dean had gone into service or at least progressed to firing trials. Given enough kills, there might have been impetus to develop active homing in a lighter, more compact and reliable package. I doubt there would have been much chance of fitting it into a Red Top-sized package in the sixties or early 70s, but any of the surface-to-air weapons with a solid nose would have been quite suited. I can't say how well it would have been squeezable into Sea Dart; a Tartar-shaped missile would have been more suitable.
 

zen

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
916
Reaction score
5
So it's possibly pertinent to raise something about NIGS here, that relates to SIGS....the 14" diameter, which the seeker system orginally aimed at NIGS and apparently carried over to SIGS. Based on the use of both ariels and a central dish (shades of a Soviet AAM), which was claimed to be equal to a 20" diameter dish in performance.

14" diameter being that of Sea Slug.....

However the issue of Red Dean as a SAM is frankly a more obvious choice for the RN....if the weapon had progressed that is.
 

pathology_doc

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
789
Reaction score
0
The trouble I see with a SAM version of Red Dean is that all my reading indicates it was a lock-on-before-launch weapon, with about a 10,000 yard range. So you are looking very strictly at a point defence weapon, and I cannot see anyone agreeing to assign Sea Cat duties to a Tartar-sized missile.

The only way I can see to make it useful is to have command guidance (perhaps with a Sea Cat-like module) out to near target proximity, with the missile breaking the command lock as soon as its seeker picks up the target.

The other complication is the motor. Red Dean AAM was designed for launch from a high-subsonic or supersonic platform flying at many thousands of feet; the required burn profile is likely to be radically different when launching from a platform which is so much slower than both missile and target as to essentially be stationary. Boosters are almost certainly required, which adds immensely to the program cost and complexity.
 

Kadija_Man

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
1,892
Reaction score
14
pathology_doc said:
The trouble I see with a SAM version of Red Dean is that all my reading indicates it was a lock-on-before-launch weapon, with about a 10,000 yard range. So you are looking very strictly at a point defence weapon, and I cannot see anyone agreeing to assign Sea Cat duties to a Tartar-sized missile.

The only way I can see to make it useful is to have command guidance (perhaps with a Sea Cat-like module) out to near target proximity, with the missile breaking the command lock as soon as its seeker picks up the target.

The other complication is the motor. Red Dean AAM was designed for launch from a high-subsonic or supersonic platform flying at many thousands of feet; the required burn profile is likely to be radically different when launching from a platform which is so much slower than both missile and target as to essentially be stationary. Boosters are almost certainly required, which adds immensely to the program cost and complexity.
A booster would take care of most of your problems. The guidance system is a bit more difficult but would be fixable with sufficient time and resources behind it. It's worst problem when air launched in it's early, prototype form was that at about 15,000 ft the ground return would overwhelm the target return and the missile would not seek on the intended target. A change to Q-Band might have fixed that but it would have required a complete reworking of the guidance system. I wonder if pointing upwards, towards the sky would overcome the problem with the ground returns? Assuming there is only the target to see, you wouldn't see the ground at all.
 

r3mu511

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jun 18, 2016
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
zen said:
... Q-band (Ka-band and Ku-band) avoids the issues of clutter over water, since the frequency is absorbed by water, obviating the issues of confusing reflections...
there appears to be some confusion here between: (1) the atmospheric attenuation of EM radiation due to oxygen and water vapor in the atmosphere, with it's marked attenuation increase in the higher frequency ranges, (2) the large attenuation of EM energy when propagating in sea water, due to the decrease in skin depth with increasing frequency leading to greater EM losses, and (3) sea surface clutter backscatter and it's relationship to the incident frequency...

the first one applies when the EM wave is propagating in the atmosphere, where higher frequencies such as K-band will experience greater attenuation losses due to the water vapor in the atmosphere... the second applies when the EM wave is propagating in sea water where the skin depth of K-band and higher frequencies is very small leading to a large loss in signal strength as it propagates through the sea water... but neither of these two determine the reflection losses as applied to the case of sea surface backscattering (ie. sea clutter) at the interface between the atmosphere and the sea surface...

in this third case, it is the reflection coefficient of sea water which determines the portion of the incident EM energy which is scattered, and in conjunction with the surface contour determines the clutter echo received...

what empirical studies/models show is that the backscatter normalized cross section of the illuminated sea surface patch is larger for higher frequencies (hence greater clutter return), for reference, this can be seen in the empirical model derived in "An Improved Empirical Model for Radar Sea Clutter Reflectivity", Hansen/Mital, Naval Reseach Lab, 2012, where a log (base-10) relationship to frequency was found for the sea surface clutter... this model was based on experimental data collected for various incident frequencies (including K-band), polarizations, grazing angles, and sea states, as presented in ch.7 "Sea and Land Backscatter" from "Radar Design Principles", Nathanson/Reilly/Cohen, 1991...
 

pathology_doc

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
789
Reaction score
0
Kadija_Man said:
A booster would take care of most of your problems. The guidance system is a bit more difficult but would be fixable with sufficient time and resources behind it.
All well and good, assuming politics don't get in the way, but then there are the inter-service rivalries. Add on top of that the costs of redesigning the structure to deal with sea conditions (saltwater corrosion etc). Booster addition is going to be difficult, because the British tended to go for wrap-arounds (which means at least two) and that brings the requirement to get separation right. If you put a useful second-stage tandem booster on it, you get a missile that probably isn't much smaller than Terrier anyway.

The ground interference problem is interesting. Red Dean should arguably have been continued as a research programme in order to sort that issue out, even if it never went into full service, with a parallel programme to transistorise follow-on models and get at least the guidance-system weight and eventually the size down.

Red Hebe, of course, was never going to be small - probably because the ultimate driver of the size was the desire to fit a tactical nuclear warhead in it. Nuclear Falcon was a small nuke, but that presumes willingness of the Americans to supply the British with the warhead.
 

zen

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
916
Reaction score
5
For a SAM I'd imagine replacing the rocket with something more suited to the mission. Opting for a higher acceleration at the cost of endurance.

The use of Q-band is highly suited to precision in built up areas. There where civilian maritime radars for use in harbours and rivers based on this concept by the late 60's.

UK had worked a lot on this type and at least two working seeker designs were produced for Red Dean.
The RN felt that Q-band was the best option for their studies into a self defence SAMs for ships.
Hence
Popsy A
Popsy B using Red Hawk as the upper stage.
Mopsy using the US Meteor AAM with a UK Q-band seeker.
And then Orange Nell also using a Q-band seeker.
They would be very familiar with the issues that this band has.
 

r3mu511

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jun 18, 2016
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
re. higher frequencies and precision:

yes, the shorter wavelength of higher frequencies would, for a given antenna aperture size, give a narrower beamwidth (ie. being proportional to wavelength divided by aperture diameter) which would thus give better angular resolution, hence the advantages for resolving finer/more precise details...

thus it's a tradeoff in accepting a possibly larger surface clutter return in exchange for the better precision afforded by the higher frequency...

a narrower beamwidth also gives the possibility for better inter-clutter visibility: ie. one might receive more clutter return from the higher frequency if the EM energy falls upon a clutter cell, but the smaller surface patch could allow one to irradiate a cell containing a target which lies between clutter patches...
 

zen

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
916
Reaction score
5
pathology_doc said:
The trouble I see with a SAM version of Red Dean is that all my reading indicates it was a lock-on-before-launch weapon, with about a 10,000 yard range. So you are looking very strictly at a point defence weapon, and I cannot see anyone agreeing to assign Sea Cat duties to a Tartar-sized missile.

The only way I can see to make it useful is to have command guidance (perhaps with a Sea Cat-like module) out to near target proximity, with the missile breaking the command lock as soon as its seeker picks up the target.

The other complication is the motor. Red Dean AAM was designed for launch from a high-subsonic or supersonic platform flying at many thousands of feet; the required burn profile is likely to be radically different when launching from a platform which is so much slower than both missile and target as to essentially be stationary. Boosters are almost certainly required, which adds immensely to the program cost and complexity.
Red Dean as a SAM is supposed to be a Point Defence system, and which SAM of the era launches before lock on? Beam guided ones if memory serves, like Terrier, until it's able to gain SARH lock on.

Sea Cat is not Popsy B or Mopsy, or Orange Nell, and its that territory a Red Dean-based SAM is aiming for.
 

r3mu511

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jun 18, 2016
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
zen said:
Beam guided ones if memory serves, like Terrier, until it's able to gain SARH lock on.
you probably mean the non-nuclear Talos, as this was the USN missile which was beam guided for midcourse and semi-active for terminal (while nuclear Talos was only beam-guided)... Terrier was only beam guided in it's early form (BW/BT versions) and then switched to only semi-active in it's latter forms (HT versions), USN didn't have a beam-rider-midcourse+sarh-terminal combo version for Terrier (ref: data from designation-systems.net)...
 

zen

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
916
Reaction score
5
r3mu511 said:
zen said:
Beam guided ones if memory serves, like Terrier, until it's able to gain SARH lock on.
you probably mean the non-nuclear Talos, as this was the USN missile which was beam guided for midcourse and semi-active for terminal (while nuclear Talos was only beam-guided)... Terrier was only beam guided in it's early form (BW/BT versions) and then switched to only semi-active in it's latter forms (HT versions), USN didn't have a beam-rider-midcourse+sarh-terminal combo version for Terrier (ref: data from designation-systems.net)...
Yes
 

uk 75

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
1,255
Reaction score
12
I always fancied the following off the shelf
orders for Cruisers and Destroyers:
3 Veneto class cruisers with Terrier
8 Perth class destroyers with Tartar and IKARA
12 improved Leanders with Canadian style Sea
Kings hangars and beartrap.
 

Volkodav

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 28, 2014
Messages
112
Reaction score
0
Hood said:
Tartar would easily fit on a Daring. An October 1956 idea was to fit Tartar in X position and two Mk 74 directors replacing the torpedo tubes with a new 35ft lattice mast around the after funnel.
Yet by 1960 when the RAN asked the DNC to look into a Tartar Daring and County the design studies showed no worthwhile missile battery would fit on Daring and it really needed a 4,000 ton hull for a viable ship. The County went up to 5,200-5,800 tons but was rather overloaded (Tartar with 2-channels of fire, 2x 4.5in Mk.6 (one might be replaced by Ikara), two Sea Cat, 2-3x Wessex and steam powerplant).
A new missile Daring came out at 3,900 tons with 26.5kts speed (1 or 2 4.5in Mk.6, Tartar with 42x missiles, two quadruple Sea Cat, Ikara and space to land a Wessex, Y.100 frigate powerplant).
Another Daring-derived design had Tartar and Ikara forward with one 4.5in Mk.6 mount aft.
The next had Tartar, Ikara (14 missiles) and an 80ft landing deck for 2-3x Wessex on 5,300 tons which then ballooned further to 6,300 tons!
County based designs, simply replacing Sea Slug with Tartar aft and steam powerplant came out at 5,783-6,431 tons.
Tartar's electrical power was 350kW compared to 370kW for Sea Slug so generator savings could be made in the County.

In the end the DNC abandoned work as it was eating into RN design capacity and the RAN wasn't happy and the Charles F. Adams was much lighter. I think probably the RAN's insistence on steam powerplants (which were heavier than US sets in general) and fitting Wessex were the driving factors in inflating hull size and weight.

In 1958 when the Leander Class design was underway it was decided not to waste money on modifying Type 12 for Tartar given the small margins for future upgrade later (tonnage wise). It was found Tartar and is required SPG-51 and SPS-26 or SPS-39 would require a 370ft hull of 3,060 tons with a maximum speed of 27.25kts or 27.5kts on 3,000 tons by reducing the bunkerage (range fell to 4,200nm). The radiation hazard from the radars meant enclosed guns were needed and Tartar was expensive. Fitting Tartar and Wessex was again too much for the hull without reducing range or speed.
With Tartar ruled out by 1960 the planned Daring modernisations stuck with 4.5in guns and added Sea Cat, Wasp and a Type 199 VDS.

SIGS was meant to be capable of replacing a 4.5in mount and it was assumed a smaller 26x missile system would replace a 4.5in like-for-like but when India asked for a SIGS Leander variant it was found it wouldn't fit. The CF.299 Frigate designs that led to Type 82 had their origins in designs that used Leander's machinery set but were larger and heavier, 3,500 tons deep.

I think it may have made sense to refit the Darings with Tartar, their proposed refits were cancelled because their £3.5 million cost equalled a new-build Leander and the refit offered nothing a Leander couldn't do except for an extra 4.5in mount and extra speed. A Tartar might have tipped the balance in favour, but of course the refit costs might have been even higher and of course it still doesn't solve the problem that the hulls were approaching 20 years and had little effective time left to make the refit value for money.
Refitting the Counties makes less sense, purely due to the investment already sunk into Sea Slug and its greater range, but perhaps the latter four ships could have been redesigned to optimise the hull design around the more compact US missile system, but that would have cost more and used up design resources and delayed delivery.
It might have made sense to go ahead and create a larger Type 12 with Tartar (an alternative Leander) but the result might have been more expensive and larger and possibly shorter-ranged and we probably would have lost the Ikara and Exocet conversions later on (unless Wasp was sacrificed for Ikara aft). However its Type 82 successor with Tartar/Terrier might have been available sooner and been a slightly smaller vessel and quite successful. SIGS though probably would have been killed off but that would free R&D resources for other GW projects.
I must have been asleep for the last twelve months as I have only just read this post, outstanding thank you.

In hindsight the Australian Darings would have been ideal for a tartar upgrade as they were much younger than their RN sisters, even if it was limited to a Mk22 replacing either B or X turret and the directors distributed fore and aft. Ikara replacing Limbo would have been a no brainer.
 

Volkodav

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 28, 2014
Messages
112
Reaction score
0
uk 75 said:
I always fancied the following off the shelf
orders for Cruisers and Destroyers:
3 Veneto class cruisers with Terrier
8 Perth class destroyers with Tartar and IKARA
12 improved Leanders with Canadian style Sea
Kings hangars and beartrap.
My off the cuff RAN would have been
3 x Escort Cruisers (through deck Tartar variant)
8 x DDG Super Darings with Mk22 in B and X positions (four directors, two forward and two aft) and Mk6 4.5" in A and Y, Ikara in the stern as per the River Class DEs.
10-12 x Type 12 Rivers (as per original program) progressively replaced by new build improved (Australian) Type 21 Sloops with:
Baseline - Oto Melara 76mm, NATO Sea Sparrow (MK29 Launcher), Harpoon or Exocet, Lynx
Enhanced - Mk45 5", Mk22 Standard and Harpoon, larger hanger with two Lynx or one Seaking.

Fantasy mod off :-X
 
Top