Updating Seaslug

[Dilandu]

To what extent was this the case for the Seaslug? If it was the case to what extent was a logical and efficient internal layout rearrangement possible with 60s electronics?

As I mentioned above, for Seaslug the length was a main limitation factor. Many of design choices, like placing all electronics around engine pipe, were caused by the requirement of making the missile as short as possible.

 

[Dilandu]

appalling internal layout of the Firestreak AAM,

Well, here is Soviet analogue of Firestreak - the K-5 missile, our very first AAM:

It was also a beam-rider, moving alondside the rotating beam of interceptor radar, locked on target. So many solutions were similar, like the placement of control section on the rear. The main difference was, that K-5 have integrated engine placed mid-body, with two angled nozzles at side (it reduced thrust a bit, but solved the problem of engine flame hampering the antenna).

Not exactly a very good weapon, but reliable. The improved versions (with up to 7 km range), including the ones where beam-riding guidance was replaced with IR seeker, stayed in service till 1970s.

 

[SeaslugMk2]

Seaslug’s electronics -the guidance receiver etc- are at the rear of the missile as it is a beam-rider, and the aerial has to be at the back. This arrangement allows the solid-fuel sustainer motor to be amidships which minimises any changes in the centre of gravity as the propellant burns.

As for Firestreak, its layout meant that all the nasty explosive things were at one end, and the delicate valves (vacuum tubes) were at the other.

SRJ