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

Sea Wolf and Sea Dart: Unbuilt Derivatives and Cancelled Applications

robunos

You're Mad, You Are.....
Senior Member
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
1,807
Reaction score
78
Thanks for that, I'll add it to the list I'm compiling . . .

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,18814.msg181693.html#msg181693



cheers,
Robin.
 

Hobbes

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 9, 2008
Messages
721
Reaction score
68
TinWing said:
You can download an 18MB(!) .zip file from this link that contains 9 scanned .pdf brochures and articles from the early 1980s on the Sea Wolf and Sea Dart SAMs:
Does anyone have this file? The original links are dead.
 

starviking

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2006
Messages
972
Reaction score
40
Thanks for uploading those Hobbes!

For the bigger files, I seem to recall the forum has a section for them. Can any mods help?
 

Jemiba

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
8,077
Reaction score
414
starviking said:
For the bigger files, I seem to recall the forum has a section for them. Can any mods help?
Maybe I've missed something, but I don't know of such a method here.
For really big files I would recommend putting them on a filehoster and post
the link here.
 

overscan

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
11,729
Reaction score
1,471
I can upload files of any size to the server if they are sent to me.
 

Hood

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
1,469
Reaction score
427
I've come across mention of a missile development related programme in the minutes of the Defence Equipment Policy Committee whilst browsing for something else at Kew and wondered if anyone had any more details.
The programme was; Common Missile Technology for Future Missiles. The date is very early 1983 (the reference I saw was Feb 1983, so it may have begun sometime during 1982).
The aim seems to have been examination of common modules for application in; "Super Sea Wolf", Rapier FSD and ASRAAM. Note the quotation marks around Super Sea Wolf were on the original file. I wonder what modules were to be common and just what exactly the Sea Wolf (early work to GWS27?) and Rapier projects were.
 

Kadija_Man

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
1,993
Reaction score
62
Out of a matter of interest, what is the "Wolverine" system that has been mentioned?
 

CJGibson

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2011
Messages
1,259
Reaction score
224
Wolverine - BAe Dynamics Anti-Tactical Ballistic Missile system based on VL Seawolf using a guidance system called Missile Reference Command to Line Of Sight (MRCLOS) and fitted with a flechette warhead.

From Late 80s/early 90s (but may be post-Granby) I think. I've seen it mentioned in a copy of Janes.

Chris
 

Kadija_Man

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
1,993
Reaction score
62
CJGibson said:
Wolverine - BAe Dynamics Anti-Tactical Ballistic Missile system based on VL Seawolf using a guidance system called Missile Reference Command to Line Of Sight (MRCLOS) and fitted with a flechette warhead.

From Late 80s/early 90s (but may be post-Granby) I think. I've seen it mentioned in a copy of Janes.

Chris
Thanks. Never heard of it before. I will look a little harder.
 

RHVERNON

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Oct 8, 2016
Messages
3
Reaction score
9
Sometime in the early 1970s it seems to have been decided that the "low-level" threat mandated the reintroduction/sustainment of the Bloodhound force in the UK with deployments that look like they were intended to defend USAF and RAF force concentrations in East Anglia and to a lesser extent in Lincolnshire. By the late 1980s this threat perception was such that there was an active replacement effort (MSAM); which based on the proposed solutions looks a lot like GAST.1210 from twenty years earlier (1967-68).

There was an ulterior motive though; NATO would fund hardened aircraft shelter construction under it's Physical Protection Programme if certain requirements were met. The Bloodhounds brought back from Germany helped to meet those requirements.

Wolverine is a curious beast, I have only ever seen it mentioned in old magazines from the late 1980s. I originally assumed it had something to do with MSAM but I am starting to wonder if it was as much private venture as anything else as it was apparently submitted to a US Army Strategic Defense Command Invite-Test-Show programme. Either way Wolverine seems to come about twenty years after Landpax.
No ulterior motive at all. The reintroduction of Bloodhound Mk 2 missile defence of the southern UK in 1975 was totally driven by the

Physical Protection Programme and the NATO money pot it opened for airfield hardening. The deployment of Rapier was the preferred option at an operational level, but the RAF couldn't afford to buy the extra equipment or man the extra squadrons required to defend every base, So they proposed an area defence using equipment returned from Cyprus and stuff out of storage with installation of the equipment at West Ranyham, North Coates and Bawdsey as the first phase, with a forth site at Watton using former AD-10 Thunderbird Mk 2 Radars (which needed extensive modifications to use with Bloodhound 2). The equipment coming back from Germany was scheduled to go into Woodhall Spa, RAE Bedford and Stadishall. The prime reasons that they ended up at Barkston Heath, Wattisham and Wyton were due to terrain coverage issues, site closures and the fact that NATO told the USAF to provide their own SAM cover for the USAF strike and recce bases in East Anglia. In fact the deployment of 25 Squadron to RAF Germany was done for the very same reason, though it was always an interim solution until Rapier with Blindfire was available. Bloodhound Mk 2's original UK deployment was only for 2 UK bases, a Training and Trials unit at North Coates (25 Squadron) and a Composite squadron at West Raynham (41 Squadron) whose primary role was provision of deployable missile sections east of Suez and reinforcement personnel to NEAF and FEAF. At the height of the UK fixed site Bloodhound force in 1964-1969 where was never more than 5 fixed missile sections with a maximum of 32 launchers at 12 hours readiness during the whole period. There was a study done to see if Bloodhound could be replaced with something off the shelf or by a new system around 1979. This was due to the fact that Bloodhound Mk 2 was pretty much expected to be out of service by 1992 due to the obsolescence of the equipment. The UK were involved in NATO studies into the replacement of Hercules and Hawk in Europe. MoD PE was pushing for a EuroSAM option based on Sea Dart with a French radar and German input, however the French military were not interested and the Germans were against the concept on technical grounds. However the study did look at other options. Patriot was rejected on cost and lack of 360 coverage (plus not enough range to replace Bloodhound). 2 Land based versions of Sea Dart were considered. A BAe proposal called Watchdog using Sea Dart I and the lightweight launcher and Land Dart Mk 2 using the Sea Dart Mk 2 missile which was under development. The basic problem with Land Dart in both its forms is that without a completely new fire control system and radar it could not replace Bloodhound Mk 2 in all of its operational capabilities. The Bloodhound Mk 2 system was designed to be transportable. Bar the fact that it couldn't be carried or towed across a field by a three ton truck, it was as transportable as Thunderbird Mk 2was, as the Swedes and the mobile RAF sections proved in quite a few exercises. While in Germany, three of 25 Squadron's missile sections had their launchers fitted with outriggers and on blast mats and they were dual hatted for both NATO and UK national deployment requirements. Same for 48 Sqn with its Tigercat and 63 Squadron when it deployed to RAF Germany with Rapier (The UK national deployment for the later squadron was actually exercised in the case of the Falklands war in 1982). The RAF were not impressed with the ECCM capabilities of Sea Dart Mk 1 and though, the ECCM capabilities of the planned Mk 2 were acceptable, there was no way that the fire control system as designed for naval use could be used on a transportable land based system that could be moved by C-130. Type 909 radar didn't have independent search capability, the Bloodhound's Type 86 and Type 87 radar's did. Sea Dart's fire control system didn't work that well over land....Bloodhound's did.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

CJGibson

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2011
Messages
1,259
Reaction score
224
So that's what Watchdog was!

Wolverine gets a mention in an old Jane's Weapons System, I think.

Chris
 

JFC Fuller

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
3,248
Reaction score
247
Posted on another forum, an AShM version of Sea Dart: https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/warships1discussionboards/sea-skimming-sea-dart-t39442.html

In 1969 Hawker Siddley Dynamics (HSD) proposed an anti-ship sea-skimming variant in which the ramjet sustainer would have been fuelled with Shelldyne instead of kerosene. As Shelldyne was denser it would have given the missile a significantly greater range, approximately 37km (the same range as the missile in the conventional 'up and over' trajectory) as opposed to 24km. The missile would have used the same CW radio altimeter as proposed for Seaslug; this altimeter was fitted to the Phantoms built for the FAA. It was intended to fit a semi-armour-piercing warhead immediately behind the nosecone, and move the electronics back into the space normally used by the radio fuze.

The proposal included a diagram of a suggested stowage order so as not to detract from the ship's ability to provide air defence.
Pictures at the link.
 

JFC Fuller

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
3,248
Reaction score
247
Looked at a file about Landpax yesterday, very interesting but can't add too much to what is in BSP4 aside from diagrams of proposed system components that I have belatedly realised I failed to photograph. Basically the objective was a medium range SAM system for the Army and RAF to sit above ET316/DN181 (to be Rapier) and this was developed as a requirement in the late 1960s under GAST.1210 (the document I looked at is dated 1968).

I was only looking at a Landpax document rather than a the full requirements document but it appears that five solutions were considered; four PX430 variants and a land based version of Sea Dart. Of the PX430 versions the "Landpax 20" version was favoured simply because it got closest to the GAST.1210 requirements (though as far as I can tell was still short of them). The four different versions of the proposed Landpax missile seem to have varied almost entirely in the length of the VL booster (yes, Vertical Launch) they used- longer boosters giving greater range. It was also proposed to use a different booster burn sequence compared to regular PX430.

If anybody has a requirements number or some other hook for SAM.72 or XPX.430 I would love to go looking for that.
If anybody gets to the Coventry archives there are two interesting looking documents on RR studies for GAST.1210 liquid rocket motors:

PA1716/1/6/13
BS 645 - GAST 1210 Joint services surface to air weapon system. A preliminary feasibility design study of propulsion requirements: The preliminary proposals are made for two variants of a booster/sustainer packaged liquid propellant rocket engine to fulfil the requirements of GAST 1210 surface to air missile specification. Page 12: In 1600 firings over the temperature range -54 deg to +71degC, the LR 58 engine for Bullpup 'A' established a reliability rating better than 99.7%. There is naturally no relevant reliability figures for the engines proposed in this study. The Stentor and Gamma units have an excellent reliability record. For all Blue Steel R and D rounds fired, the Stentor engine has a reliability rating of 92.6%. This figure has naturally improved as the programme has progressed
PA1716/1/10/26
Some notes on the preliminary feasibility study of a joint services surface-to-air weapon system: In a study of future weapon system needs, there is seen to be a requirement for a joint services, point defence, surface-to-air tactical weapon system. It is envisaged for the protection of sensitive military targets covering a ground area of about 2 Km in diameter against a variety of airborne weapons. Provisional missile design data: (a) The weapon system comprising a battery of 24 missiles complete with their carrier, and the integrated control and tracking systems, should be air transportable and 10,000 lb max all-up weight, (b) The missile should be capable of being vertically launched from its carrier, (c) A range of 30 Km is required. Engine design considerations: The boost/sustainer rocket engine considered in this feasibility study is a packaged liquid bi-propellant unit and the selected propellants are the hypergolic combination of mixed hydrazine fuel 3 and chlorine trifluoride. The distinctive characteristics of these engines is that the tanks are filled and hermetically sealed at the factory during manufacture so that there is no danger of leakage
 

zen

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
1,184
Reaction score
158
Vertical Launch is an intriguing requirement.....favours full 360 degree coverage and use on ships.
It also means your silos don't give away your expected threat direction.

Liquid rocket motors could potentially do away with the booster stage......
 

uk 75

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
1,599
Reaction score
235
Although possible fittings of the single arm Seadaws 100 version of Seadart feature in 1960s escort designs like the RN AAfrigate and a version of the Vosper Mk 10 frigate, am I right in thinking it was only a paper design
 

Zootycoon

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
May 27, 2008
Messages
194
Reaction score
132
The challenge with Sea Dart for any launch was getting the ramjet going. On the basic Sea Dart its Chow booster burned for 2.2s with about 80% of the propellant (double base NG/NC) was expended in the first 0.7s. This first phase was to get thing off the rail, stabilise it and punch it through the sound barrier drag rise. The remaining propellant (Composite AP/Al) held the missile at about a steady 1.3Mach to allow ramjet light up.

The Sea Dart 2 was to have the Extended Chow booster with TVC, but didn’t remember it was vertical launch. Although it had been cancelled by the time I joined, I remember being told it had about a 0.5s extension to the second stage burn to permit a period of manoeuvred prior ramjet light up. The problem this created was an even larger minimum engagement range;- not good. Extended Chow was ground tested by ICI because I remember seeing a film of a ground test. I also remember comments about vertical launch but I don’t think it got very far as study.

As I’ve said on here before, nobody in the industry liked the load, point and shoot rail launcher;- way too much to go wrong but the Navy were keen. The Falklands experience validated the industry point of view.
 

CJGibson

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2011
Messages
1,259
Reaction score
224
Fascinating Zootycon, I'd always wondered at what point the Odin lit up.

Chris
 

Firefinder

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
8
Reaction score
3
The challenge with Sea Dart for any launch was getting the ramjet going. On the basic Sea Dart its Chow booster burned for 2.2s with about 80% of the propellant (double base NG/NC) was expended in the first 0.7s. This first phase was to get thing off the rail, stabilise it and punch it through the sound barrier drag rise. The remaining propellant (Composite AP/Al) held the missile at about a steady 1.3Mach to allow ramjet light up.

The Sea Dart 2 was to have the Extended Chow booster with TVC, but didn’t remember it was vertical launch. Although it had been cancelled by the time I joined, I remember being told it had about a 0.5s extension to the second stage burn to permit a period of manoeuvred prior ramjet light up. The problem this created was an even larger minimum engagement range;- not good. Extended Chow was ground tested by ICI because I remember seeing a film of a ground test. I also remember comments about vertical launch but I don’t think it got very far as study.

As I’ve said on here before, nobody in the industry liked the load, point and shoot rail launcher;- way too much to go wrong but the Navy were keen. The Falklands experience validated the industry point of view.
I assuming that the USN Talos and the aborted Typhon Missile has similar issues with their ramjets? Seems like it be obvious but you never read of them...

I also imagine that this RAN UP phase of the flight will cause the missile to have a lengthily mimnum, cannot hit targets, range. Have any idea of what that may be for the Dart or Talos?
 

zen

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
1,184
Reaction score
158
Minimum range was 4.1km (2.214nm) for Sea Dart.
This is why PT.428, Rapier and PX430 that became Sea Wolf are focused on shorter ranges.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,355
Reaction score
221
Talos had a significant minimum range, around 10,000 yards (~9 km), IIRC. But I think that was in large part due to fire control limitations, as it took time/distance to gather the missile onto the illuminator beam.

Typhon LR apparently about halved that, but I'm not sure how much was the booster and how much was fire control.
 

JFC Fuller

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
3,248
Reaction score
247
Thanks for this, looks like someone was looking at packaged liquid rocket motors for both surface to air and air to surface weapons. A particular interest of someone at Rolls Royce/Bristol or one of the research establishments? Or another manifestation of the weakness of UK solid rocket motor development?

I also can't help noticing you posted a diagram of Green Cheese in another thread, seems to be a theme around stand-off missiles at the moment, a follow-up to Skybolt in the works...? It would certainly be appreciated.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zen

CNH

CLEARANCE: Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2010
Messages
303
Reaction score
166
At the time, I think there was interest in what might be called "package propellants", and so Bristol Siddeley was given some money to look into the idea. Versus solids, there are arguments either way.

The Skybolt book began as a work on stand-off missiles, but Skybolt expanded to such an extent that squeezed everything else out.

I have quite a lot of material for a variety of British missiles which never made it for a variety of reasons – obsolescence, financial, or whatever. However, although it might be of great interest to those on this forum, it is hardly likely to be a great best seller.

I can supply a PDF of the full report to anyone who is interested, but it will be a large file, and so I will have to send it via something like Wetransfer, which means giving me an email address.
 
Last edited:

zen

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
1,184
Reaction score
158
Hang on....when was that 17" dual thrust solid rocket fired for the Blue Water missile program?
 
Top