Sea Wolf and Sea Dart: Unbuilt Derivatives and Cancelled Applications

more attachments.
LWSD = Lightweight Sea Dart
 

Attachments

  • BAE Containerised SW.pdf
    410.7 KB · Views: 205
  • BAE LWSD.pdf
    1.3 MB · Views: 232
  • Seawolf VM40 Brochure.pdf
    1.2 MB · Views: 193
  • The Seawolf Story.pdf
    2.3 MB · Views: 211
Thanks for uploading those Hobbes!

For the bigger files, I seem to recall the forum has a section for them. Can any mods help?
 
here are the last two. I ran them through an OCR engine and reduced the file size to make uploading easier, can't fix the quality of the scans though.
 

Attachments

  • JDR Seawolf and Beyond.pdf
    1.2 MB · Views: 207
  • IDR GWS25 Article.pdf
    1,023 KB · Views: 182
starviking said:
For the bigger files, I seem to recall the forum has a section for them. Can any mods help?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Out of a matter of interest, what is the "Wolverine" system that has been mentioned?
 
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
 
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
Click to expand...

Thanks. Never heard of it before. I will look a little harder.
 
JFC Fuller said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
So that's what Watchdog was!

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

Chris
 
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.
Click to expand...

Pictures at the link.
 
JFC Fuller said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...
 
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......
 
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
 
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.
 
Fascinating Zootycon, I'd always wondered at what point the Odin lit up.

Chris
 
Zootycoon said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
CNH said:
This?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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:
Hang on....when was that 17" dual thrust solid rocket fired for the Blue Water missile program?
 
CNH said:
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.
Click to expand...

Self-publishing is a wonderful thing, as are e-books. Of course, in this case you will probably be running into copyright issues.

I've seen books advertised which are no more than print-on-demand extracts from Wikipedia. Evidently people will pay to have that sort of thing as dead trees in their hands if it's got a cover and an ISBN.

PM me for my address. I'd be interested in such a document.
 
CNH said:
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.
Click to expand...
I'd certainly appreciate a copy. If you want to, the file could be hosted on the forum server.
 
very interested indeed id love to read the report, i do think a book on the subject would be worthwhile, id certainty purchase it
 
For the GW ship designs (as well as for the NIGS ones) I could too use info on the S.R.B.R. , R.F. and Bristol 1 3/4 (at least their description of would they look like and dimensions)
 
Count me in, it’s a fascinating subject where not too much has been published.

Particularly interested in the development of Sea Dart and Chevaline. I’ve picked up quite a few anecdotal stories from guys that worked on these and it would be great to join up the dots.
 
It is a subject which is hardly covered. Your Skybolt book is already in my library and its predecessor. I qould certainly buy more missile books from you. Its years since the British Secret Projects tome on missiles.
 
Apologies.

I was referring to the Liquid Martel pdf.

The missile book is still very much in draft status.
 
RP1 said:
Lightweight Sea Dart cannister. From a paper by Captain R Villar to the 1980 High Speed surface Craft conference.
Click to expand...

Looks shorter than regular Sea Dart. Was that a real change or just for the purposes of illustrating the interesting bits of the canister in a smaller space?
 
The article is pretty lighgt on details. It's odd - the cannister is drawn reasonably detailed but the missile is a very approximate shape.
 
Trying to disguise a new variant that ultimately didn't see the light of day?
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom