What's the weight of a mk 30 Sea Dart launcher?

Pellson · June 26, 2012, 05:19:57 AM

I'm aware that the model installed aboard the HMS Bristol was heavier than the later ones in Type 42:s and Invincibles, but how heavy are these later launchers? Anyone?

AS.12 · February 02, 2013, 09:39:13 AM

17 tons for the late model?

http://twitter.yfrog.com/obxs1jscj

Here's Southampton's launcher emplaced for matching:

http://www.sofplayers.co.uk/images/HMS%20Southampton/11.JPG

Launcher may rotate without warning!

rickshaw · February 02, 2013, 06:03:06 PM

Did they ever consider a vertical launch Sea Dart?

pyro-manic · February 02, 2013, 06:30:21 PM

I can't find anything about such a development in BSP4, but I'm sure it could have been done. "Sea Dart II" was supposed top have thrust-vectoring on the booster, so I don't see it as much of a stretch to have a VL-version. Sea Wolf made the same transition.

Pellson · February 03, 2013, 01:11:04 PM

Quote from: AS.12 on February 02, 2013, 09:39:13 AM
17 tons for the late model?

http://twitter.yfrog.com/obxs1jscj

Here's Southampton's launcher emplaced for matching:

http://www.sofplayers.co.uk/images/HMS%20Southampton/11.JPG

Launcher may rotate without warning!

Brilliant!! Thanks!
Having been able to source the weight of a Mk 6 twin mount to 44 706 kg, it seem as weight wouldn't be an issue if substituting a gun mount for a missile launcher. Rather space, then. I'm having a Battle-class destroyer in mind. Ah, well. It's the whifworld..

AS.12 · February 04, 2013, 12:50:55 AM

Quote from: rickshaw on February 02, 2013, 06:03:06 PM
Did they ever consider a vertical launch Sea Dart?

One problem with the Sea Dart is the long intake duct for the Odin ramjet and the design of the spike. Great for flat-out high-Mach performance but susceptible to intake choking at low speeds, particularly in crosswinds. In the standard inclined launch mode ( from rail and proposed box ) the tandem booster pushes the missile through the choked phase whilst ramjet ignition is commencing ( edit: with straight airflow down the duct ); once the airflow in the inlet stabilises ( airspeed > Mach 2 ) then the ramjet is operating normally and manoevring can commence.

The "tipping-point" for a VL Sea Dart from vertical launch to inclined flight could therefore have been a real problem: I think it may have required either a very high, straight boost to fire-up the ramjet, then pitch gradually so as not to stall the ramjet ( not good against low targets ) or a tw- phase boost ( pop, pitch, boost, start ramjet ). Neither trivial to retrofit.

By far the best upgrade done on the Sea Dart was the late-1980s solid-state electronics retrofit that doubled range, no change to kinematics but added an autopilot for the first time so could fly smarter interception courses out to 80 nm.

RLBH · February 07, 2013, 02:35:38 PM

Quote from: Pellson on February 03, 2013, 01:11:04 PM
Having been able to source the weight of a Mk 6 twin mount to 44 706 kg, it seem as weight wouldn't be an issue if substituting a gun mount for a missile launcher. Rather space, then. I'm having a Battle-class destroyer in mind. Ah, well. It's the whifworld..

That's easy, have someone beat some sense into the launcher design people so that they come up with something similar to the USN's Mark 11 or Mark 13 GMLS. That is what the RN wanted in the first place, after all.

Sauragnmon · February 18, 2013, 02:07:18 PM

I would offer a somewhat Russian style "Semi-vertical" launch, where the launch tube is set at an angle rather than directly vertical, like they use for the Granit SSM - it might ease the tipping point issue, though thrust vectored booster might also pull it off...

Pellson · February 20, 2013, 12:54:50 PM

Quote from: RLBH on February 07, 2013, 02:35:38 PM
That's easy, have someone beat some sense into the launcher design people so that they come up with something similar to the USN's Mark 11 or Mark 13 GMLS. That is what the RN wanted in the first place, after all.

Do you have a source for that? Not that I don't think you are correct, just that I'd like to know more about the ideas and possible design. The thought of attaching a Sea Dart missile to a single arm launcher has obviouly also crossed my mind.

pyro-manic · February 21, 2013, 06:48:19 AM

There were studies for a single-arm Sea Dart launcher, looked at during 1966. It was referred to as "Seadaws 100". DK Brown's "Rebuilding the Royal Navy" (a fascinating book) has some info on this. The single launcher was looked at as a cheap option to fit to small AA and/or ASW frigates, in the aftermath of the CVA-01 and Type 82 cancellation. I'm not convinced it was "what the RN wanted in the first place".

RLBH · February 25, 2013, 01:07:38 PM

Quote from: Pellson on February 20, 2013, 12:54:50 PM
Quote from: RLBH on February 07, 2013, 02:35:38 PM
That's easy, have someone beat some sense into the launcher design people so that they come up with something similar to the USN's Mark 11 or Mark 13 GMLS. That is what the RN wanted in the first place, after all.

Do you have a source for that? Not that I don't think you are correct, just that I'd like to know more about the ideas and possible design. The thought of attaching a Sea Dart missile to a single arm launcher has obviouly also crossed my mind.

Not so much the single-armed bandit, as the idea of a launcher with roughly the same ship impact as a medium-calibre gun. This shows up with the original Orange Nell studies, then again when the Small-Ship Guided Missile (oddly SIGS) was introduced. Friedman's British Destroyers and Frigates: The Second World War and After discusses the SIGS studies at some length, and it's made fairly obvious (I'm not sure if it's explicit) that the early design studies treated the launcher as being broadly interchangeable with a 4.5" Mark 6 gunhouse.