Shipborne Surface to Air Missiles

[DarrenP2]

The Russians have a long history of making naval variants of their SAM's. Sparrow and now CAMM are in service on the nato side  And in the past there was SeaCat/Tigercat. But I do wonder what other Land systems could/should have been deployed on ships with their associated control systems and radars.

systems like Roland, ADATS, Rapier, Sea Wolf and Sea Dart. could they have been deployed on both land and sea?

[Weaver]

BAe spent years pushing a land-based version of Sea Dart called Guardian as a Bloodhound replacement and/or for air defence of the Falklands. Never got any orders though. It used a trainable four-round lancher and containerised radars.

Here's a model of the launcher in front of a full-size Sea Dart:

[Weaver]

There's a couple of other dual-use land/sea systems.

The French Crotale is widely used in land and sea versions, although there are many differences between the two and the missiles arn't interchangeable (I think).

Chaparral (ground-launched Sidewinder) was also available in a Sea Chaparral version. It didn't prove very popular, but Taiwan bought some.

This is Sea Chaparral:

[Weaver]

The RN didn't like Rapier because it was a 'hittile' with a small warhead and a contact-only fuse, and they didn't think it's lethality was good enough. There's a difference in what's at stake per-shot between defending a few troops and vehicles from jet and helos straffing and rocketing, and defending a multi-million pound ship from an incoming Soviet missile the size of a small jet fighter, which is why Seacat, whatever it's other failings, had a damned great warhead and a proximity fuse.

If you take a Rapier, make it ship, sea & sailor proof, give it a bigger warhead and a proximity fuse, then give it a fatter rocket motor to push the extra weight, then shorten the rocket motor to get it back within man handling limits, then enclose the launch rails to protect it from the salt spray, you've pretty much got yourself a Sea Wolf.

[Weaver]

Apparently Roland was studied for naval applications early in it's development, with Blohm & Voss going so far as to design MEKO-system ship modules for it in the 1970s. It would have used the standard 2-round launcher (but without on-mount radar) with two eight-round reloading drums below decks. Development ceased when the French and German navies turned their attention to a different, vertically launched missile proposal that came ot nothing.

In a whif context, it would make an interesting alternative to Sea Sparrow/Aspide for a MEKO export customer who couldn't acquire the latter due to the US blocking the technology transfer.

[NARSES2]

If you take a Rapier, make it ship, sea & sailor proof,

An oft neglected design requirement 

[rickshaw]

Seawolf was quite capable of hitting a 4.5in shell in flight.   Not a bad performance when it was using radar guidance.

[PR19_Kit]

Seawolf was quite capable of hitting a 4.5in shell in flight.   Not a bad performance when it was using radar guidance.

That sounds more than 'not bad', it sounds pretty darned awesome to me. 

[jcf]

Seawolf was quite capable of hitting a 4.5in shell in flight.   Not a bad performance when it was using radar guidance.

Under what conditions? Any number of guided missile systems of the last 60 years
have demonstrated marvelous performance on test, not so much in operational
conditions.

[Weaver]

Seawolf was quite capable of hitting a 4.5in shell in flight.   Not a bad performance when it was using radar guidance.

Under what conditions? Any number of guided missile systems of the last 60 years
have demonstrated marvelous performance on test, not so much in operational
conditions.

Exactly. This was a test shot, specifically set up to generate a headline. A shell on a high, arcing trajectory isn't going particularly fast at the top of it's arc, it's a nice clear radar target against the sky (remember, radars have been able to spot mortar rounds since the 1960s) and the missile ship knew exactly when it was coming and from which direction. There's a world of difference between this scenario and a launcher you didn't know existed firing an Exocet at you without warning from a radar-cluttered shoreline less than 10 miles away.

On a similar note, I found a story earlier about the Argentine Roland system on the Falklands 'shooting down' a falling 1000lb bomb on two occasions. Sounds impressive, but a bomb falling from high altitude isn't a fast or maneuvering target and 'hitting' it with a missile begs the question, "what happened to it after the hit?" I doubt the proximity-fused explosion of a missile warhead would detonate a British 1000lb bomb with it's forged casing, so all it probably did was make it miss by a bit more.

[rickshaw]

Seawolf was quite capable of hitting a 4.5in shell in flight.   Not a bad performance when it was using radar guidance.

Under what conditions? Any number of guided missile systems of the last 60 years
have demonstrated marvelous performance on test, not so much in operational
conditions.

Exactly. This was a test shot, specifically set up to generate a headline. A shell on a high, arcing trajectory isn't going particularly fast at the top of it's arc, it's a nice clear radar target against the sky (remember, radars have been able to spot mortar rounds since the 1960s) and the missile ship knew exactly when it was coming and from which direction. There's a world of difference between this scenario and a launcher you didn't know existed firing an Exocet at you without warning from a radar-cluttered shoreline less than 10 miles away.

Actually, it was on a low trajectory, passing the launcher at Woomera during tests in the 1970s.   It was fired by a naval gun, also at the test range.   It knew where it was coming from and where it was going but hitting (and I assume destroying or at least knocking it off course) was not achieved through pure luck.  It was, as far as I know, the first time a British SAM had achieved the feat, so again, not something which can be overlooked IMHO.  There is a picture of the 4.5in shell being intercepted at Woomera in Morton, Peter (1989). Fire across the desert: Woomera and the Anglo-Australian Joint Project 1946–1980. Canberra, ACT: AGPS Press.

[Weaver]

I didn't say that it was pure luck, Rickshaw, nor did I say that it was insignificant. What I said was that it was unrepresentative of the most difficult types of real-world engagement.

[DarrenP2]

they have been tracking shells since ww2 on radar the ships engaging bismark could track the shesl

[NARSES2]

they have been tracking shells since ww2 on radar the ships engaging bismark could track the shesl

Never knew that and not sure if I was serving aboard Hood I would have wanted to. Didn't realise WWII radar (especially that early) had the finesse.

[jcf]

Detecting and Tracking are not the same thing, yes, WWIII radars could detect
a large metallic mass like a 15 or 16 inch naval shell, but that doesn't mean they could
actually track it in any meaningful way, and it certainly wouldn't have enabled any defensive
measures.