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

Sea-based Anti-Ballastic Missile Intercept System (SABMIS)

Sea Skimmer

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jul 13, 2008
Messages
394
Reaction score
11
It is very likely that both nuclear and dirt burning versions of this concept were studied at the same time, just as nuclear power and diesels were studied for land based hardened ABM sites.
This ship most likely would not have Mk95 radars as designed though, the launchers are the big boxes for BPDMS and it would surely have had the Mk 115 manned illuminators. I believe those are the objects found on the small bridge wing like protrusions seen in that artists concept of the ship.
Mk 95 came with NATO Sea Sparrow which only entered service in the later half of the 1970s. That is well after SABMIS would have needed to be in the water to compete with the SAFEGUARD ABM system, intended to counter a moderate scale attack from China. That was opposed to the full scale SENTINEL system which was to counter a full scale Soviet attack but using the same components.
I'm not sure if any ships ever got Mk 95 without also replacing the BPDMS box launchers with the NATO Sea Sparrow box. The smaller NATO launcher was much easier to reload and less weight.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,175
Reaction score
101
Tzoli:

Sorry, I hadn't noticed the space in the superstructure on that drawing. I suppose a hangar is possible in that case. It does look like there's a sizable bow sonar, which would help justify an helicopter (or a DASH drone hangar, possibly).
 

Tzoli

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
629
Reaction score
70
Sea Skimmer said:
It is very likely that both nuclear and dirt burning versions of this concept were studied at the same time, just as nuclear power and diesels were studied for land based hardened ABM sites.
This ship most likely would not have Mk95 radars as designed though, the launchers are the big boxes for BPDMS and it would surely have had the Mk 115 manned illuminators. I believe those are the objects found on the small bridge wing like protrusions seen in that artists concept of the ship.
Mk 95 came with NATO Sea Sparrow which only entered service in the later half of the 1970s. That is well after SABMIS would have needed to be in the water to compete with the SAFEGUARD ABM system, intended to counter a moderate scale attack from China. That was opposed to the full scale SENTINEL system which was to counter a full scale Soviet attack but using the same components.
I'm not sure if any ships ever got Mk 95 without also replacing the BPDMS box launchers with the NATO Sea Sparrow box. The smaller NATO launcher was much easier to reload and less weight.
That is indeed likely that both Nuclear and regular powered versions considered, but Diesel engines do not require such large funnels, so it would be either Nuclear or Steam or COSAG/COGAS.
As for the date of these ships service. I would say the earliest is the late 70's as the missiles intended to be used by these were ready in 1975, the LIM-49A Spartan so for a naval variant say LIM-49B I would give a few years of research. So the Illuminator Radars were quite logical.
 

Tzoli

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
629
Reaction score
70
Even if the proposed missile was the LIM-49 Nike Zeus (weird that both missiles have the same designation! ) the ships would be ready I think as early as the mid 70's and such by the time the Spartan got developed, which could result in a cooperation between the design teams resulting in a ship which could launch Nike Zeus or the new Spartan missiles.
 

Tzoli

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
629
Reaction score
70
In my opinion this is how the ship would look like in the 80's-90's after a modernization:

 

RLBH

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
195
Reaction score
14
No way you'd shoehorn those 5" guns in - the magazine and gunbay would take up huge amounts of space, add a lot of topweight, be structurally challenging, and add almost nothing to the ballistic missile defence mission.
 

Tzoli

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
629
Reaction score
70
RLBH said:
No way you'd shoehorn those 5" guns in - the magazine and gunbay would take up huge amounts of space, add a lot of topweight, be structurally challenging, and add almost nothing to the ballistic missile defence mission.
You have right in only two thing:
No added balistic defence and the guns take up place.
Everything other your are wrong.
This is a big ship with around 20-30 kilotons of displacement so around the size of the WW2 Alaskas or Des Moineses, those 3 guns on the first deck absolutely does not make issues with topweight. It isn't challanging too as the Long Beach too recieved guns two sides in the middle of the ship near the ASROC launcher. as only the Soviet Kirovs carry armour it is not matters where you put the magazines for the guns. And they would provide anti air and anti surface defence for the ship, if the escorts would be overwhelmed!
 

donnage99

"Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Joined
Jun 17, 2008
Messages
954
Reaction score
4
Sorry for my ignorance but how does this ship better than Flight III Burke class with AESA and SM-3? Doesn't the point of building such a large craft with such a large radar become obsolete after the introduction of AESA which would achieve space tracking with a much smaller radar? And how does the proposed missiles for the SABMIS better than the SM-3? Longer range?


I'm not knowledgable with naval systems so sorry for my ignorance. Thank you.
 

RLBH

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
195
Reaction score
14
Tzoli said:
This is a big ship with around 20-30 kilotons of displacement so around the size of the WW2 Alaskas or Des Moineses, those 3 guns on the first deck absolutely does not make issues with topweight. It isn't challanging too as the Long Beach too recieved guns two sides in the middle of the ship near the ASROC launcher. as only the Soviet Kirovs carry armour it is not matters where you put the magazines for the guns. And they would provide anti air and anti surface defence for the ship, if the escorts would be overwhelmed!
It was feasible on the Long Beach because the space and weight for the Polaris installation was available; on the other ships, the guns were designed in from Day One. This ship has four very large phased arrays, very high up, so it's likely she would be topweight-critical - if she's nuclear powered, there's no ability to shift fluids to maintain the CG, so would be even more sensitive to additions and alterations. The magazines inherently have to be close to the gun, and with your proposed arrangement they'd have to be above the machinery too. With the guns at 01 Deck, the gunbay would be at 1 Deck level, and the magazines at 2 Deck - the ammunition and magazine armour (this is not exclusive to the Kirovs at all) would be a very significant weight addition high up in the ship.

It's true that they'd provide air and surface defence in the event of the escort being overcome, but the Sea Sparrow and CIWS fit would be more useful against the air threat. These ships would be operating in blue water, so FACs can pretty much be discounted as a threat, leaving the surface threat (in this era) as anti-ship missiles launched from outside gun range. The 5"/54 doesn't add any useful capability, and does so at very considerable cost.

Donnage - this ship was proposed in the 1970s to carry very large strategic ABMs, similar to the LIM-49 Spartan; she's a generation or two earlier technologically than the Aegis/SM-3 combination and trying to accomplish a mission an order of magnitude more difficult.
 

donnage99

"Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Joined
Jun 17, 2008
Messages
954
Reaction score
4
what's the difference between the missions of this ship vs that of flight III Burke?
 

Sea Skimmer

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jul 13, 2008
Messages
394
Reaction score
11
SM-3 has functionally zero capability against ICBMs and no capability what so ever for a boost phase intercept. AESA really doesn't change much about the power aperture of a radar which defines its gross ability to do long range volume search. It does improve multitasking and certain detail tasks such as discrimination through superior beam control. DDG-51 Flight III will not be capable of a full range of BMD missions, it is an option chosen for affordability not capability. The desired system for full capability was a set of 30ft diameter radars on a CG(X) hull in the range of 25,000 tons and using the KEI interceptor. All of that was cancelled because it looked like the ships would cost nearly as much as CVNs. Its not that different though from the size of SABMIS.


As for this notional SABMIS upgrade retrofitting a 5in mark 45 to an existing ship involves piercing several decks and is highly unrealistic, as well as pointless. Mk45 is not a useful anti aircraft weapon, this is after all the reason for the weight and ROF reduction from Mark 42, and its far inferior to a rack of harpoon missiles for any reasonable anti ship mission, Sea Sparrow can destroy very surface targets already. See the Turkish destroyer two of them gutted. Heck if your going to pierce decks give the ship Mark 13 missile launchers or something real for AAW. Also I see no 5 inch control, SPG-60 would be most likely in that era, and I tend to think the rules of this forum indicate that speculative drawings should not be in threads on actual projects anyway.
 

donnage99

"Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Joined
Jun 17, 2008
Messages
954
Reaction score
4
yeah if I recall correctly, the CG(X) were to be divided into 2 classes in the program's early days - a slightly larger version of the ddg(x) for air defense against aircraft and cruise missiles and a behemoth close to SABMIS for BMD
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
8,969
Reaction score
172
A possibly related project:

Boxman said:
Yet another interesting image recently posted by the San Diego Air & Space Museum (SDASM) at their Flickr site. It is a General Dynamics - Convair Division presentation slide entitled "SATSLAM System."

It features what appears to be an ICBM launched in one direction apparently being detected by a satellite, which is communicating with a ground station at the "target", which in turn is communicating with a ballistic missile sub that has apparently launched an ABM toward the ICBM. The caption accompanying the slide states, "Title:GD/Astronautics Charts Details: SatSlam System - Slide for Presentation Date: 11/21/1967."

Googled "SATSLAM" like crazy. Only hit I got was Googling "SATSLAM" and "submarine" which led to five "hits" - all on Russian-language glossary pages(for lack of a better description). (https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=%22SatSLAM%22+%22submarine%22)

There "Satellite-Tracked Submarine Launched Antmissile" comes up for the acronym.

Again, perhaps my Googling-skills are weak, but I did find it interesting that the only legitimate hits I got for the acronym were on a handful of Russian-language web-pages. In fact, if there's one site I thought where the system and/or it's acronym would be found, would be here! :D

Anyway, here's the image:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sdasmarchives/29014019213/
hark40 said:
There were a few interesting ideas of different deployments of ABM systems at that time (inter-service rivalry). 1967 fits in with SABMIS (http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,8305.0.html) which according AWST (July 17,1967) was to a initially be a surface based system with eventual submarine launched interceptors. A Polaris based ASAT system was also being pursued as well even earlier (AWST Sep 28, 1964).

The USAF also had proposals to use Minuteman missiles as an ABM system as well (AWST March 31, 1969), even to the point of having C-5s on airborne alert as an ABM system.

However, this is a topic for other threads. The slide is an interesting find.
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
8,969
Reaction score
172
Apparently SABMIS was revived in the 1980s, though I don't have any real details unfortunately.
 
Top