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

Tartar/Standard: The RN's missed opportunity

uk 75

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
3,147
Reaction score
1,868
As the Tartar-derived Standard family continues to thrive
I am going to re-visit another Hobbyhorse of mine.
The Dutch took close look at CF299/Seadart and dropped it in favour of Tartar/Standard for its two Tromp class destroyers.
The Tromps with their Standard plus Sea Sparrow point defence and the later Witt class with Goalkeeper always struck me as what the T82 and T42 should have been.
When the time came to replace them the Dutch again chose a no-nonsense design.


If the RN had been allowed similar choices it could have had more capable ships sooner.
 

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
2,301
Reaction score
1,010
As the Tartar-derived Standard family continues to thrive
I am going to re-visit another Hobbyhorse of mine.
The Dutch took close look at CF299/Seadart and dropped it in favour of Tartar/Standard for its two Tromp class destroyers.
The Tromps with their Standard plus Sea Sparrow point defence and the later Witt class with Goalkeeper always struck me as what the T82 and T42 should have been.
When the time came to replace them the Dutch again chose a no-nonsense design.


If the RN had been allowed similar choices it could have had more capable ships sooner.
And what US products, paid for in precious dollars, are you willing to sacrifice for Tartar?
And why do you think the RN was wrong on wanting different guidance band than the US?
 

uk 75

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
3,147
Reaction score
1,868
Tartar/Standard was used by France, Germany, Italy and Japan with considerable success.
Only the UK felt the need to develop its own
missile with its cumbersome launcher and radars.
I suspect the UK could have got very favourable terms for adopting Tartar/Standard.
The savings in ease of fitting launchers and radars would have made designing and building our warships cheaper and faster.
A modern class of SAM equipped destroyers could have entered service in the 60s instead of the 70s.
 

NOMISYRRUC

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
69
Reaction score
101
It could be built under licence which would avoid spending Dollars.

Westland did well with its Sikorsky derived helicopters that were often fitted with DH Gnome engines which were it's version of the GE T-58.

The licencing agreement might include the right to sell it in certain territories like Westland's agreement did.

I quite like the idea of a County sized guided missile destroyer with all gas-turbine propulsion, a Mk 10 launcher fed by a 60-round magazine holding a mix of Terrier and ASCROCs with and 2 target indicator radars. It might be bigger than the real County and need a bigger crew, but it would be worth modernising in the 1970s.
 

uk 75

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
3,147
Reaction score
1,868
The large hangar magazine in the Countys could have been used for Terrier/ASROC. A larger County with double ended Terrier would have been a formidable ship.
 

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
2,301
Reaction score
1,010
Tartar was developed by the US under some urging of the UK RN.
Yet despite that, the USN focus for the missile wasn't the same as the RN.
Hence the divergence in guidance bands.
The UK preferred Q-band SARH for precise pickup of low level and small (missile-sized not launch aircraft-sized) targets. It also had some benefits in the face of jamming. As this was the focus , forsight of expected developments in Anti-ship missiles.
In this matter RN and USN had diverged from common experiences in WWII.
Including the development of SAMs.
Thus the US had a different view of how Popsy and later Mopsy would be used.

UK assessment of the likely missile to do the job, become Orange Nell.
Critical to the Divergence, is that ON weighs about half that of Tartar and is more compact. Sea Wolf is the institutional successor to this line of reasoning.
USN ended up with a big heavy missile and had to ultimately piggyback on Mauler. Which was cancelled and a Basic Point Defence Missile System was cobbled together using Sparrow.
 

Volkodav

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 28, 2014
Messages
341
Reaction score
322
My understanding is the UK saw the Tartar as a replacement for the Mk6 3/70 twin on the proposed missile cruises and potentially other platforms while Seacat and successor programs were replacements for the various multiple Bofors mounts.

A continuing theme seems to be that the RN had a better understanding of future needs/requirements but lacked the financial capacity to deliver in a timely fashion, while the US had grand plans that often collapsed under their own weight, before bodging something together and spending on fixing and improving it until they had viable.

The ideal would have been a joint USN / UK project for Tartar as a point defence, then area air defence missile with a point defence capability. UK involvement gives them a foot in the door and makes Tartar affordable with local production, but also give Tartar potentially better capability earlier. This means Tartar would be more likely to be retrofitted to some Battle and Daring Class destroyers, perhaps the Tigers as well as future frigates, while Sea Dart could proceed, maybe with an expanded envelope, as a Seaslug replacement for future destroyers.
 

Hood

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
2,167
Reaction score
1,873
There is probably nothing in what-if land to stop Britain producing Tartar under licence and developing its own Q-band SARH.
But there is no doubt that such a move would have probably wasted 2-3 additional years of R&D and trials and increased costs.

Britain had three R&D problems for GW:
The rocket - propulsion
The fire-control and seeker
The launching system and 'packaging'

Britain had little problem in designing and building rocket motors for boost and sustainers and indeed ramjets too.
Fire-control was a myriad of systems and types for AAMs, SAMs etc., certainly no shortage of ideas or prototypes, but a lack of rational effort and resources to build to mass scale and avoid duplication and R&D cash flowing like mad all over the place.
Packaging was a big problem until SIGS came along. Bloodhound and Thunderbird were big draggy beasts, Sea Slug was a mass of struttery and the launching system even more cumbersome than anything the Soviets built. Orange William was fine if you had a tank to lug it around. Dreams of getting stuff like Blue Envoy aboard a ship was bordering on insanity.

So Tartar would help with compactness, the missile itself was within British capabilities, the guidance could have been improved but really the money would mean seriously cutting back - means writing off all the R&D in Sea Slug since 1946 and no tinkering with Orange Nell (which was largely just paperwork anyway).
Probably means no SIGS until a decade or so later, but Tartar could have been upgraded, the RN might have just stuck with building SM-1s instead as a successor and from there SM-2, maybe even leading one day to Mrs Thatcher saying "Dear Mr Reagan, could you please chuck in AEGIS with your Trident D5 offer" and a Burke analogue as a Type 43 (British Atago-class anyone?).
 

NOMISYRRUC

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
69
Reaction score
101
There is probably nothing in what-if land to stop Britain producing Tartar under licence and developing its own Q-band SARH...
That sounds perfectly feasible to me.

There are some precedents. Westland's helicopters (which I have already mentioned), turning the Sparrow into Sky Flash and basing Blue Streak & the Rolls Royce RZ series of rocket engines on Atlas & the S-3D spring to mind.
But there is no doubt that such a move would have probably wasted 2-3 additional years of R&D and trials and increased costs.
That depends upon the point of departure. As far as I know Sea Dart was developed because the Treasury didn't have the Dollars to pay for Tatar. If the point of departure is that the Admiralty gets permission to have Hawker Siddeley build Tatar under licence instead of developing Sea Dart none of the time and money would be wasted and if the first ships are Tatar armed versions of Types 42 and 82 it's really Standard SM-1MR not Tatar.
 
Last edited:

NOMISYRRUC

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
69
Reaction score
101
My understanding is the UK saw the Tartar as a replacement for the Mk6 3/70 twin on the proposed missile cruises and potentially other platforms while Seacat and successor programs were replacements for the various multiple Bofors mounts.
If I remember from Friedman (as usual) Tatar was intended to take the same space as one twin 5" 38 calibre turret or one single 5" 54 turret and was considerably lighter. That's the equivalent of the British twin 3" Mk 6 and twin 4.5" Mk 6 turrets.
A continuing theme seems to be that the RN had a better understanding of future needs/requirements but lacked the financial capacity to deliver in a timely fashion, while the US had grand plans that often collapsed under their own weight, before bodging something together and spending on fixing and improving it until they had viable.
Again from Friedman the problem with the first generation of USN missiles was the unreliability of the vacuum tube electronics. When they were replaced with solid state components (transistors and early silicone chips) reliability vastly improved and so did performance.

I don't remember where I read it but I recall reading that the replacing the valves on the Scanfar radars on Enterprise and Long Beach reduced a considerable amount of top weight as well as making them more reliable.

As far as I know Seaslug, the Type 984 radar and the Comprehensive Display systems were just as unreliable and for the same reasons. The Ferranti Poseidon computers used by Eagle's ADA and the Batch II Counties ADAWS Mk 1 used transistors as far as I know and I think (but cannot prove) that Eagle's Type 984 was a Type 984M with transistors instead of valves. Can anyone confirm or deny that?
The ideal would have been a joint USN / UK project for Tartar as a point defence, then area air defence missile with a point defence capability. UK involvement gives them a foot in the door and makes Tartar affordable with local production, but also give Tartar potentially better capability earlier.
And while they're at it include Terrier/Standard ER.
This means Tartar would be more likely to be retrofitted to some Battle and Daring Class destroyers, perhaps the Tigers as well as future frigates, while Sea Dart could proceed, maybe with an expanded envelope, as a Seaslug replacement for future destroyers.
I do know from Friedman that the British DNC's Department did study Daring class destroyers refitted with Tatar for the RAN and a Tatar armed version of the County for the RAN before the Australians decided to buy Adams class DDGs built in the USA. It might have studied a Tatar armed Battle for the Australians as well.

However, I very much doubt that any British Battle or Daring class destroyers would receive it. That's because they'd realise that the cost wasn't worth the benefit. They'd learn from the USN that the cost of Tatar made new ships with the same armament are a better investment.
 

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
2,301
Reaction score
1,010
From another of my threads.
"
CF.299 is developed to NMBR.11 which specifies higher performance than Tartar. So Tartar 'as is' doesn't cut it, unless requirements are relaxed and once you do that why opt for a 15ft long, 13.5" diameter, 1,310lb missile, when you believe it can be done on a 9.75ft long 10" diameter, 540lb missile?
"
 

uk 75

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
3,147
Reaction score
1,868
From another of my threads.
"
CF.299 is developed to NMBR.11 which specifies higher performance than Tartar. So Tartar 'as is' doesn't cut it, unless requirements are relaxed and once you do that why opt for a 15ft long, 13.5" diameter, 1,310lb missile, when you believe it can be done on a 9.75ft long 10" diameter, 540lb missile?
"
The nub of this is whether a T42 with Seadart resulted in a more capable ship than a Perry or Witt class frigate of similar size. No way of knowing?
 

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
2,301
Reaction score
1,010
It's not the missile (Tartar or Sea Dart),
It's not the CMS,
It's the failure of not funding the ASWRE C-band 3D radar that lets the RN down.
It's that which results in piling funds to Decca to develop the 909 Desertcar. When had ASWRE got it's way, much simpler TIR sets would be all that's needed.

The lure of international projects, sharing costs led to adoption of the Dutch Broomstick. A horse trade (you buy Sea Dart and we will buy Broomstick) that they subsequently broke over the cost, not performance of Sea Dart.

At the time Sea Dart was the higher performance missile than Standard or Tartar.
 

Zoo Tycoon

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 27, 2008
Messages
524
Reaction score
688
Hind sight is a wonderful thing.

In the sixties, smaller rockets were a quick squirt followed by a long coast. The thing is it’s high lethality is only while the propulsion system is providing thrust thus enabling the missile to pull much more g than it’s prey. During coast lethality was worse still by use of proportional navigation whereby the missile must maintain a constant collision course....kinetic energy sapping. Hence a rocket powered missile’s no escape zone was during the short squirt phase followed by a rapidly diminishing kill probably while coasting in the missile engagement zone. At the time, the small rockets were pretty hopeless for area defence, as was the Tarter/Terrier. So what you do is use a ramjet, which largely switches the whole lethal zones around;- a long power phase hence a large no escape zone and then, if collision course guided, loads of drag from the intake means a short coast phase;- a smaller missile engagement zone. However overall this is a much better for area defence solution;- enter the Sea Dart. But one drawback for the first mile or two it’s useless because it’s only priority is getting the ramjet fired up.

So in the Seventies to Eighties the ability to share fire control data between systems and miniature auto pilots arrives at a spectacular rate. This permits both rockets and ramjets to fly optimised trajectories, ballistic lobs, diving upon the target during the terminal phase. But the small rocket still offers a relatively smaller defended area;- hence a lower aggregate kill probability.

What kills Sea Dart future is that this offers a very low cost performance improvement option, nearly doubled its range. Hence the real next system capability step, ie Sea Dart 2 gets cancelled in a favour of a quick’n’cheap improvement program, called ADIMP. This very modest development, while effective, saw the disbandment of the experienced and schooled Sea Dart technical team;- most were not required because their technical offering didn’t evolve. So now any further development following ADIMP (VLS. Phased array radar integration) lacks the broad experience hence is fundamentally expensive and risky, so was unappealing.

By contrast, the US Tarter/Terrior to Standard had a considerable performance improvement to address. The response was a big program which draws on better propellant, more of it, phased array radar, and vertical launch from multi silos. After that further improvements went in and it just got better and better.

Could this have been foreseen when the key project go ahead were made, not a chance.

Edit - to correct ADIMP
 
Last edited:

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
2,301
Reaction score
1,010
Therein lurks an irony. That the old beam rider allows a crude command guidance.
And command guidance, allows a system to loft a missile along a much more efficient flightpath. Diving onto the target.
All of which sits in NIGS territory.

It also puts a lot of the flightpath prediction onto shipboard computers.
Hence for local area defence the incoming attacker's flightpath can be predicted. Which puts the bulk of maneuvering for the interceptor into the squirt phase of flight.
Which is why PT.428 as a system had potential.

But...all of that depends on accurate sensors. Feeding into the system accurate target data.
 

uk 75

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
3,147
Reaction score
1,868
Seadart has the advantage over Standard MR that it has been used in anger in the Falklands and 1991 Gulf War. AEGIS Standard downed an Iranian airliner, thats all I can think of.
However, the USN has more chances to target drone shoot. Anyone know what the results have been?
 

NOMISYRRUC

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
69
Reaction score
101
What kills Sea Dart future is that this offers a very low cost performance improvement option, nearly doubled its range. Hence the real next system capability step, ie Sea Dart 2 gets cancelled in a favour of a quick’n’cheap improvement program, called ADAWs. This very modest development, while effective, saw the disbandment of the experienced and schooled Sea Dart technical team;- most were not required because their technical offering didn’t evolve. So now any further development following ADAWS (VLS. Phased array radar integration) lacks the broad experience hence is fundamentally expensive and risky, so was unappealing.
Is this ADAWS the same as Action Data Automated Weapons System (ADAWS) which was the British equivalent to the American NTDS, Dutch SEWACO and French SENIT systems?
 

NOMISYRRUC

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
69
Reaction score
101
It's not the missile (Tartar or Sea Dart),
It's not the CMS,
It's the failure of not funding the ASWRE C-band 3D radar that lets the RN down.
It's that which results in piling funds to Decca to develop the 909 Desertcar. When had ASWRE got it's way, much simpler TIR sets would be all that's needed.

The lure of international projects, sharing costs led to adoption of the Dutch Broomstick. A horse trade (you buy Sea Dart and we will buy Broomstick) that they subsequently broke over the cost, not performance of Sea Dart.

At the time Sea Dart was the higher performance missile than Standard or Tartar.
Would it help if the licencing agreement for Tatar included making the SPS-48 radar? Would that be better than the Type 965 and fill the gap until Type 1022 was ready?
 

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
2,301
Reaction score
1,010
It's not the missile (Tartar or Sea Dart),
It's not the CMS,
It's the failure of not funding the ASWRE C-band 3D radar that lets the RN down.
It's that which results in piling funds to Decca to develop the 909 Desertcar. When had ASWRE got it's way, much simpler TIR sets would be all that's needed.

The lure of international projects, sharing costs led to adoption of the Dutch Broomstick. A horse trade (you buy Sea Dart and we will buy Broomstick) that they subsequently broke over the cost, not performance of Sea Dart.

At the time Sea Dart was the higher performance missile than Standard or Tartar.
Would it help if the licencing agreement for Tatar included making the SPS-48 radar? Would that be better than the Type 965 and fill the gap until Type 1022 was ready?
Perhaps you should have a read

And this.
 
Top