Yuku free message boards

My Recent Posts · ( 6-Mar-2008

http://www.phpbbplanet.com/warshipprojects/viewtopic.php?p=24611&mforum=warshipprojects#24611

There is a post here regarding the Tiger class

In Friedman's Post War Naval Revolution he says that a single ended missile conversion of the Tiger was rejected in 1951. This was because of hull age, she would carry no more than 30 missiles and her hull was so cramped it would be difficult to provide space for the necessary radars

Does anyone have any other information on this, I'm assuming the missile in question is what became Sea Slug.

My Recent Posts · ( 6-Mar-2008

Warship annuals in the past few years have two articles with information about early designs for Sea Slug ships: "Daring to Devonshire" by George Moore and an article about HMS Girdle Ness, the Sea Slug test ship. VTE engine inside and guided missiles topside but she did her job.

As envisioned in 1951 the expected installation for Sea Slug required gigantic volume. Friedman's Post War Naval Revolution shows sketches to consider converting aircraft carriers to guided missile ships. IIRC to become a double-ended Sea Slug ship a Majestic-class carrier would lose all capability to operate CTOL aircraft. The envisioned Sea Slug magazine was termed a hanger even in designs not for aircraft carriers. The prototype launcher was designed as an unarmoured triple-mount turret as if for large-caliber guns. Girdle Ness sailors wielded crow bars to pry open jammed mechanisms.

Friedman in an article in The Oxford History of the RN described the Korean War as a disaster for the RN because the ensuing US-subsidized build-up of the fleet cost the RN the finances to develop new weapons. I gather that Sea Slug went to sea in the 1960s still basically as a 1943 prototype concept that pre-dated jet aircraft. Instead with more time to work on it, Sea Slug could perhaps have become a much more capable design. The launcher and loading mechanisms were improved relative to Girdle Ness.

My Recent Posts · ( 7-Mar-2008

I have long believed that if the Sea Slug missiles were redesigned to use Sea Dart Semi Active Radar Homing technology in place of the beam riding system of the mk1 and mk 2 (producing a theoretical mk3) then the counties could have remained viable frontline ships far beyond their 80s demise with the RN. Obviously this would include replacing the Counties' type 901 with a pair of type 909s but would otherwise avoid the need to rebuild the ships to any major extent to accept the new missile, which would physically be much the same as it's predecessors. This is the path the Americans took when the early models of Tartar, Terrier and Talos proved less than adequate, they improved the missiles themselves, moving in some cases from beam riding to SARHwithout having to rebuild the ships they were based on (for the second time in some cases). A hybrid SEA SLUG/SEA DART, slug airframe, dart homing and guidance systems) would have been the cheapest way to upgrade the Counties and saved 8 fine ships from premature obsolescence (the first to be paid off, HMS Hampshire only served for 13 years). Beyond that I would advocate building a proper helo hangar on the counties as the side opening one fitted aparently lead to some hair raising tales in rough weather from the aircraft handlers who had the misfortune to be tasked with getting the Wessex 3s from the hangar to the flightdeck!

My Recent Posts · ( 7-Mar-2008

Would the arrangement of SS boosters around the nose of the missile precluded SARH? I've often wondered why the booster where placed there, rather than at the rear as in Thunderbird and Bloodhound - I though it may have been because of the beam riding guidance. Any info

My Recent Posts · ( 7-Mar-2008

If your adding the Sea Dart SARH interferometer seeker then the Sea Dart booster would be available too I assume. I am not sure at all how changing booster arrangements would impact on the handling but if not too expensive to modify it would certainly be the way to go. Also I would guess that the 70s generation seeker needed to look directly at the target to lock on so if keeping the four booster arrangement due to cost then the modifications to the front end of the boosters to clear enough of a view might not be that great.

My Recent Posts · ( 8-Mar-2008

The wrap around boosters of the Sea Slug missiles wouldn't cause any problems for the SARH head as the boosters are jettisoned after only a few seconds of flight, certainly no more than ten seconds. Thus by the time the missile is ready to start 'hunting' the boosters are long gone and the Sea Slug looks much like any other missile.

My Recent Posts · ( 8-Mar-2008

Considering the missile, this is surely where the old habbit of using parts from other missiles has some logic to it. Red Hebe was to have a SARH seeker (though it was supposed to switch over to ARH in the terminal phase). Since the UK had such trouble producing a SARH seeker combining the funds for the development of a decent one would solve quite a few issues.

Clearly it seems there was not much moves to place the Bloodhound or Thunderbird seeker in SeaSlug.

My Recent Posts · ( 8-Mar-2008

Given Sea Slug's storage methods, how much work would have to be done to a completed Tiger hull to accomadate a Sea Slug magazine (I'm assuming the missile in question was what became Sea Slug).

My Recent Posts · ( 9-Mar-2008

The original seaslug was designed around a three hundred foot tunnel that had removeable blast doors. At one end of the tunnel was the horizontally stowed missiles then handling rooms then ready use magazine. I think the boosters were put on in the handling room. It was reckoned that this tunnel could take six seakings for a proposed helo conversion to give you an idea of how big it was.

On the Tigers it would be nigh on impossible fitting seaslug so that the launcher was in y turret position because of this tunnel. That said it was probably possible to fit seadart in the y turret trunk that went down several decks. You could have had two levels of seadart magazine. The Tigers were very capable ships as they were when first completed and would have been ideal for Falklands type scenarios with their superb AA and NGS support. The problem with Tigers was their crew size and one improvement would have been to utilise the suite of rooms for the admiral which was rarely used even when an admiral was on board. Additional messes could have been built in and this may have allowed a Wessex helo to be carried permamently instead of flying one on once a commission. The sonar on the tigers was deep down and gave very good results and this coupled with a Wessex helo would have given the tigers an A/S weapon of considerable range.

On the counties I agree they went too soon and it seems there was a seaslug three which the Chilean navy got and this coupled with a seadart seeker and modified 901 tracker would have given another twenty years of life for little expenditure. The last four counties used vertical stowage for seaslug and this gave them about another six missiles.

My Recent Posts · (10-Mar-2008

Obi Wan Russell wrote:
I have long believed that if the Sea Slug missiles were redesigned to use Sea Dart Semi Active Radar Homing technology in place of the beam riding system of the mk1 and mk 2 (producing a theoretical mk3) then the counties could have remained viable frontline ships far beyond their 80s demise with the RN.

LW Sea Dart would have been easier, and probably a lot cheaper while offering better performance.

My Recent Posts · (10-Mar-2008

Refitting the missiles themselves (or rather producing new 'mk 3' rounds) would mean the existing hardware aboard the counties could be retained (ie missile handling equipment and launcher) and only the guidance radars and computers would need changing. Externally the ships would look much the same. As for fitting Sea Slug to the Tigers, this would require stripping all the superstructure aft of the rear funnel probably to the full width of the ship in order to accomodate a battery of similar size to the counties' installation. It would probably mean a helo pad and hangar on top as in the Counties, but the larger size of the Tigers would allow a much larger hangar, possibly for up to four wessex situated immediately abaft the rear funnel, followed by a full width helo pad then Sea Slug Launcher on the quarterdeck.

Author	Comment
PMN1	Sea Slug on Tiger Class?	Lead	[-]
Posts: 3356 ( 6-Mar-2008 17:52:07) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	http://www.phpbbplanet.com/warshipprojects/viewtopic.php?p=24611&mforum=warshipprojects#24611 There is a post here regarding the Tiger class In Friedman's Post War Naval Revolution he says that a single ended missile conversion of the Tiger was rejected in 1951. This was because of hull age, she would carry no more than 30 missiles and her hull was so cramped it would be difficult to provide space for the necessary radars Does anyone have any other information on this, I'm assuming the missile in question is what became Sea Slug.
Ship Sketcher	Possible sources of information	#1	[-]
Posts: 50 ( 6-Mar-2008 23:06:55) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Warship annuals in the past few years have two articles with information about early designs for Sea Slug ships: "Daring to Devonshire" by George Moore and an article about HMS Girdle Ness, the Sea Slug test ship. VTE engine inside and guided missiles topside but she did her job. As envisioned in 1951 the expected installation for Sea Slug required gigantic volume. Friedman's Post War Naval Revolution shows sketches to consider converting aircraft carriers to guided missile ships. IIRC to become a double-ended Sea Slug ship a Majestic-class carrier would lose all capability to operate CTOL aircraft. The envisioned Sea Slug magazine was termed a hanger even in designs not for aircraft carriers. The prototype launcher was designed as an unarmoured triple-mount turret as if for large-caliber guns. Girdle Ness sailors wielded crow bars to pry open jammed mechanisms. Friedman in an article in The Oxford History of the RN described the Korean War as a disaster for the RN because the ensuing US-subsidized build-up of the fleet cost the RN the finances to develop new weapons. I gather that Sea Slug went to sea in the 1960s still basically as a 1943 prototype concept that pre-dated jet aircraft. Instead with more time to work on it, Sea Slug could perhaps have become a much more capable design. The launcher and loading mechanisms were improved relative to Girdle Ness.
Obi Wan Russell		#2	[-]
Posts: 138 ( 7-Mar-2008 12:08:32) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I have long believed that if the Sea Slug missiles were redesigned to use Sea Dart Semi Active Radar Homing technology in place of the beam riding system of the mk1 and mk 2 (producing a theoretical mk3) then the counties could have remained viable frontline ships far beyond their 80s demise with the RN. Obviously this would include replacing the Counties' type 901 with a pair of type 909s but would otherwise avoid the need to rebuild the ships to any major extent to accept the new missile, which would physically be much the same as it's predecessors. This is the path the Americans took when the early models of Tartar, Terrier and Talos proved less than adequate, they improved the missiles themselves, moving in some cases from beam riding to SARHwithout having to rebuild the ships they were based on (for the second time in some cases). A hybrid SEA SLUG/SEA DART, slug airframe, dart homing and guidance systems) would have been the cheapest way to upgrade the Counties and saved 8 fine ships from premature obsolescence (the first to be paid off, HMS Hampshire only served for 13 years). Beyond that I would advocate building a proper helo hangar on the counties as the side opening one fitted aparently lead to some hair raising tales in rough weather from the aircraft handlers who had the misfortune to be tasked with getting the Wessex 3s from the hangar to the flightdeck!
Practica		#3	[-]
Posts: 101 ( 7-Mar-2008 20:41:23) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Would the arrangement of SS boosters around the nose of the missile precluded SARH? I've often wondered why the booster where placed there, rather than at the rear as in Thunderbird and Bloodhound - I though it may have been because of the beam riding guidance. Any info
Graeme65		#4	[-]
Posts: 246 ( 7-Mar-2008 21:42:37) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	If your adding the Sea Dart SARH interferometer seeker then the Sea Dart booster would be available too I assume. I am not sure at all how changing booster arrangements would impact on the handling but if not too expensive to modify it would certainly be the way to go. Also I would guess that the 70s generation seeker needed to look directly at the target to lock on so if keeping the four booster arrangement due to cost then the modifications to the front end of the boosters to clear enough of a view might not be that great.
Obi Wan Russell		#5	[-]
Posts: 139 ( 8-Mar-2008 00:53:10) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	The wrap around boosters of the Sea Slug missiles wouldn't cause any problems for the SARH head as the boosters are jettisoned after only a few seconds of flight, certainly no more than ten seconds. Thus by the time the missile is ready to start 'hunting' the boosters are long gone and the Sea Slug looks much like any other missile. Last Edited By: Obi Wan Russell 8-Mar-2008 12:30:20. Edited 1 times.
Zen9		#6	[-]
Posts: 3380 ( 8-Mar-2008 11:39:32) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Considering the missile, this is surely where the old habbit of using parts from other missiles has some logic to it. Red Hebe was to have a SARH seeker (though it was supposed to switch over to ARH in the terminal phase). Since the UK had such trouble producing a SARH seeker combining the funds for the development of a decent one would solve quite a few issues. Clearly it seems there was not much moves to place the Bloodhound or Thunderbird seeker in SeaSlug.
PMN1		#7	[-]
Posts: 3358 ( 8-Mar-2008 19:48:53) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Given Sea Slug's storage methods, how much work would have to be done to a completed Tiger hull to accomadate a Sea Slug magazine (I'm assuming the missile in question was what became Sea Slug).
Peter Parkinson		#8	[-]
Posts: 1762 ( 9-Mar-2008 13:57:48) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	The original seaslug was designed around a three hundred foot tunnel that had removeable blast doors. At one end of the tunnel was the horizontally stowed missiles then handling rooms then ready use magazine. I think the boosters were put on in the handling room. It was reckoned that this tunnel could take six seakings for a proposed helo conversion to give you an idea of how big it was. On the Tigers it would be nigh on impossible fitting seaslug so that the launcher was in y turret position because of this tunnel. That said it was probably possible to fit seadart in the y turret trunk that went down several decks. You could have had two levels of seadart magazine. The Tigers were very capable ships as they were when first completed and would have been ideal for Falklands type scenarios with their superb AA and NGS support. The problem with Tigers was their crew size and one improvement would have been to utilise the suite of rooms for the admiral which was rarely used even when an admiral was on board. Additional messes could have been built in and this may have allowed a Wessex helo to be carried permamently instead of flying one on once a commission. The sonar on the tigers was deep down and gave very good results and this coupled with a Wessex helo would have given the tigers an A/S weapon of considerable range. On the counties I agree they went too soon and it seems there was a seaslug three which the Chilean navy got and this coupled with a seadart seeker and modified 901 tracker would have given another twenty years of life for little expenditure. The last four counties used vertical stowage for seaslug and this gave them about another six missiles.
Mark F		#9	[-]
Posts: 2376 (10-Mar-2008 15:37:12) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Obi Wan Russell wrote: I have long believed that if the Sea Slug missiles were redesigned to use Sea Dart Semi Active Radar Homing technology in place of the beam riding system of the mk1 and mk 2 (producing a theoretical mk3) then the counties could have remained viable frontline ships far beyond their 80s demise with the RN. LW Sea Dart would have been easier, and probably a lot cheaper while offering better performance.
Obi Wan Russell		#10	[-]
Posts: 140 (10-Mar-2008 15:56:54) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Refitting the missiles themselves (or rather producing new 'mk 3' rounds) would mean the existing hardware aboard the counties could be retained (ie missile handling equipment and launcher) and only the guidance radars and computers would need changing. Externally the ships would look much the same. As for fitting Sea Slug to the Tigers, this would require stripping all the superstructure aft of the rear funnel probably to the full width of the ship in order to accomodate a battery of similar size to the counties' installation. It would probably mean a helo pad and hangar on top as in the Counties, but the larger size of the Tigers would allow a much larger hangar, possibly for up to four wessex situated immediately abaft the rear funnel, followed by a full width helo pad then Sea Slug Launcher on the quarterdeck.

Yuku free message boards

Sea Slug on Tiger Class?

Sea Slug on Tiger Class?

Quick Reply