Hm. The higher target, the better sucsess rate? Maybe linked with the beam reflection from surface?
The issue of surface reflection was dealt with by deflecting the gathering beam upwards for low altitude targets. The problem was that to engage targets below half a degree elevation required a terminal dive (CASWTD -pronounced ‘custard’).
Dilandu
Close to horizontal rail position, I think. Technically it wouldn't be too hard to switch loading position 90 degrees. Still would require some serious launcher rework, probably, since the whole system is analogue-controlled.
You would I think have to develop a completely new launcher as opposed to modifying the sea dart launcher.
Not sure; probably modifying the existing launcher would be simpler. It's already could place its rails horizontally, so essentially the challenge is to persuade launcher analogue controls to view loading in this position as "normal".
They could even have stored them in the containers and adapted the launcher to use and discard the containers.
Very good point!
You are still going to need to install a new missile fire control system, which may involve ripping a lot of stuff out to get to a lot of other stuff that needs to be ripped out, installing a lamp set that can do SARH illumination etc.
IRRC most of Terrier-equipped ships, that operated late-generation Terrier missiles (i.e. were equipped with AN/SPG-55 radars), were designed to accomodate BT-3 and HT-3 from the beginning. A few of earlier ships - like Boston-class and Providence-class cruisers - were unable to use HT-3, since their early AN/SPQ-5 fire control radars lacked the CW illumination function that later AN/SPG-55 radars have (Boston-class IRRC were only able to use BW missiles due to their magazines weren't designed to accomodate slightly larger BT missiles).
Not exactly. There is little space in missile nose for any kind of radar:
Oh, jeez, talk about an ass-backwards missile arrangement!
If I recall correctly, the Seaslug was intentionally designed to be as short as possible, so in case of battle damage the crew could manually move & load missiles. So it was deemed practical to trade length for width, but not the opposite.
I think this is where the Beacon concept could shine. Since that would provide the 'beam' for the missile to fly until.
It depend on many parameters (frequency, antenna parameters, ect.), but IRRC the general conclusion was that radar beam-riding became inefficient as solo method of guidance beyond 40-50 km. The spread of the beam overcame the lethal radius of warhead, drastically decreasing the kill probability. Of course, it was only about conventional warheads.
I think it all comes down to the volume needed for the electronics and can it be packed into the existing avionics bay on the existing missile.
But the fuze takes up the entire nosecone of the Mk1/Mk2 missiles, there's no space for a SARH seeker there. Polyrod interferometry is critically dependent on the antennas all being exactly the same size, and that would extend to the coax cables carrying the signal back to the electronics being exactly the same length.
With polyrod interferometer antenna seeker it's likely doable. With dish antenna seeker - not so much.
Getting the antenna rods and coaxial the precise lengths is fairly trivial compared with completely redesigning the missile, building it and testing to prove everything.
Could be.
In general, the polyrod seekers are better for search (since they could seek target in any direction relative to missile), while dish seekers are better for tracking (since they could precisely hold antenna looking toward target, massively increasing gain and reducing sidelobes interference. So if missile diameter did not left space for a big enough dish antenna - pretty common problem for missiles with axial ramjet! - the polyrod seeker could be used to generally orient missile toward target, so dish seeker could obtain it and lock on it.
