Ikara ASW Weapon System

[lancer]

Anyone know if the RN ever considered ASROC or SUBROC? They did use the Ikara if I'm not mistaken.

Yeah, the RN did use the Ikara system. They converted a load of Leander class firgates by rdemoving the 4.5" twin mount at the front and replacing it with the Ikara launch system. 

[Geoff_B]

Yeah, the RN did use the Ikara system. They converted a load of Leander class firgates by rdemoving the 4.5" twin mount at the front and replacing it with the Ikara launch system.

Also built into the Type 82 Bristol design along with Limbo and Sea Dart, the idea being the destroyer would provide AA & ASW screening for the carriers. Ikara was bulky weapon system as it required assembly prior to launching, where the live Torpedo would be mated to the airframe and the various wing assemblies added before going onto the trainable launcher. Not sure if it could be fitted with a Nuclear depth charge or Torpedo however.

Cheers

Geoff

[Davey B]

Just to go off on a tangent, how did the RAN go on fitting Ikara to their River-class frigates, which were just modified Leanders, without scrubbing the guns?

Hmm, improved, folding-wing Ikara for the 1980s?

[GTX]

What about an air-dropped/launched Ikara?  Maybe as a standoff weapon for a P-3 or Nimrod?

[sideshowbob9]

^ Actually it's not that heavy, so you could see it on strike aircraft, like.... oh I dunno, the Buccaneer?  

[GTX]

Damn that was quick!

[lenny100]

the problem with the uk ikra was it was a hydralic system not electrical like the aus setup, so it was a lot larger and never worked half the time, due to constant leaks on the system, somethinthat most ryal navy weapons systems had problems with untill the type 23 came into use in the early 1990s

[sideshowbob9]

Oh I did it a while back but thought it was appropriate to the conversation.

[Weaver]

the problem with the uk ikra was it was a hydralic system not electrical like the aus setup, so it was a lot larger and never worked half the time, due to constant leaks on the system, somethinthat most ryal navy weapons systems had problems with untill the type 23 came into use in the early 1990s

It was also damned noisy: submariners reckoned they knew when an Ikara Leander had a solution on them because they could hear the hydraulic pumps spin up from miles away....


To answer the six year old question from Davey B:

RAN Ikara had no nuclear option, so it's handling requirements were different. It was stored horizontally in an unmanned hanger-style magazine on the same level as the handing room, as ready-assembled bodies with no access to them, and supplied to it by an overhead monrail system. Wings were fitted in the handling room, then the round was slid backwards onto the launcher. The handling room was alongside the Limbo mortar (opposite the Limbo loading room) and the launcher was behind it, in a cut-out in the right side of the hull, with firing arcs to starboard only.

RN Ikara was originally intended to have the option of a torpedo or nuclear depth bomb payload, though I think I'm right in saying that the nukes were never actually made available for it. This meant that the magazine had to be deep in the ship, with manned access to swap torpedoes and nukes and arm the latter. The rounds were stored vertically on stands which were manhandled to a lift that brought them up to the handling room where they were lowered to the horizontal before having their wings fitted. The requirement for "positive control" of nuclear-armed  was probably also behind the switch from an electric to a hydraulic launcher, since the former only had fixed azimuth "stops" at 45 deg intervals, while the latter could be pointed as accurately as a gun. Since, however, the weapon was essentially a radio controlled plane, this requirement for accurate launcher pointing was ridiculous.

[rickshaw]

the problem with the uk ikra was it was a hydralic system not electrical like the aus setup, so it was a lot larger and never worked half the time, due to constant leaks on the system, somethinthat most ryal navy weapons systems had problems with untill the type 23 came into use in the early 1990s

It was also damned noisy: submariners reckoned they knew when an Ikara Leander had a solution on them because they could hear the hydraulic pumps spin up from miles away....


To answer the six year old question from Davey B:

RAN Ikara had no nuclear option, so it's handling requirements were different. It was stored horizontally in an unmanned hanger-style magazine on the same level as the handing room, as ready-assembled bodies with no access to them, and supplied to it by an overhead monrail system. Wings were fitted in the handling room, then the round was slid backwards onto the launcher. The handling room was alongside the Limbo mortar (opposite the Limbo loading room) and the launcher was behind it, in a cut-out in the right side of the hull, with firing arcs to starboard only.

Only on the two, later RIVER class DEs.  The DDGs - CHARLES F. ADAMS class had two launchers, one each side behind the bridge on the superstructure.  They had a common magazine and handling room, between the launchers.

[Weaver]

Perfectly true, but it was the Rivers he was asking about.

[PR19_Kit]

the problem with the uk ikra was it was a hydralic system not electrical like the aus setup, so it was a lot larger and never worked half the time, due to constant leaks on the system, somethinthat most ryal navy weapons systems had problems with untill the type 23 came into use in the early 1990s

That'll teach them for not using qualified and experienced hydraulic engineers on that job, same as they did with the Mk 8 4.5" gun turret. They 'imported' an engineer from British Rail for that..............me!