UK long/medium range SAM system

[zen]

Hypothetically if the UK had decided to develop a successor to Sea Dart and Bloodhound. What sort of system would it be?
Would they stick with ramjet propulsion?
Would it remain SARH guidance, or go for ARH?
What sort of performance would be required, beyond the obvious need to be of longer range than the likes of Sea Wolf or Rapier?


From the stated reasons Sea Dart II was dropped one might assume it needed to be ARH and maybe with additional TVM capabilities as well.
Clearly it needs to up the p.k. and ARH gives it the ability cope with expected saturation attacks by the USSR.
So also the guidance system on the ground or on ship needs to be able to cope, able to gain accurate data on the incoming multiple attackers and assign a intercepting missile to them in order of priority.
So this shows why MESAR was funded, and was deemed an essential component to such a system.


But what about range? Altitude? speed?
USSR was working on a number of aircraft that clearly were mach 3+ machines and would fly very high. But also fielded a range of low level aircraft of great capability.

 

[CJGibson]

Grauniad or improved Land Dart

Known kit, well tested and if it used the upgrades, off-the-rail maneuvering etc, improved ECM from GWS-31/Sea Dart Mk.2.

Chris

 

[zen]

To continue with Sea Dart as a missile, the 'system' and radars need changing and improving.


Type 909 TIR needs to go. Ideally replaced with a AESA.
Ideally the guidance system onboard the missile needs replacing, one could possibly take the ARH seeker from AMRAAM/Active Skyflash type missiles and place in the centerbody.


Question is, is this enough and if it is, the legacy missile body is open to question as the 'best' option available and it might be simpler to develop a new missile.

 

[zen]

More thoughts.

Considering the original range of Sea Dart, and the later increases, it's clear a both a smaller missile and potentially smaller TIR sets can be used for the original range.
What is driving the power needed? Sea Dart's use of interferometer aerials.
Logically then a smaller diameter dish can do better, and after a little reading that seems the case.

Furthermore I read rocket motors improved into the 70's.

Now if one looks at the threat, the use of large supersonic anti-ship missiles, and indeed large land attack missiles is growing through the 70's and 80's already.

Consequently one can imagine the need for larger warheads to not just cause a attacking missile to break up, but to deflect the debris from impacting the ship.

This would drive a larger weapon....at least larger than the then PD weapons.
Hence Aster for example.

 

[zen]

Going to resurrect this for a mo', as I think this is an interesting area to explore.

Sea Wolf is I think diameter of 11.8", this is rather larger than Sparrow or AMRAAM and consequently a seeker head of that diameter would provide longer ranges for detection by SARH or ARH. In fact it's larger than the diameter of the Aster 'dart'.

In ARH this would for something like 10km provide a potential to guide the weapon from the virtual get go.

But of course Sea Wolf is rather short and stubby. Being 6ft 2.8" long.
Sea Dart by contrast being 14ft and Aster-30 being 4.9m or 16.076ft.

So it would be quite plausible to say lengthen the basic missile fuselage to provide for longer range, but range and speed would have to increase I think to achieve said range. Consequently there might be issues with the materials at the higher temperatures experienced.

So a hypothetical Sea Wolf derived weapon, might be say 14ft to 16ft long and fly upto say mach 4.5 to mach 5.

Comparison with say ESSM, which is 12ft long and 10" diamter.