Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Murotsu

Which ship has more anti-ship firepower?

56 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

530
[JFSOC]
[JFSOC]
Members
1,678 posts
5,133 battles

Before I make an answer to my own question, I'd like to see other's opinions.

Which of these two ships has more anti-ship capability?

USS New Jersey circa 1965

viet_06.jpg

or 

USS Chicago CG 11 circa 1965?

USS_Chicago_%28CG-11%29_underway_in_the_Coral_Sea%2C_in_October_1979.jpg

The former has 9 x 16" guns,  and 20 5"/38

The later has 2 twin Talos missile launchers, two twin Tartar missile launchers and 2 x 5"/38 guns.

This isn't about survivability, but rather which ship is a better ship killer in 1965.  So, what say you? :cap_hmm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12,893
[WOLF3]
Members
31,043 posts
26,068 battles

I wasn't familiar with Chicago's equipment and had to look it up real quick.

 

New Jersey obviously has the superior Anti-Ship firepower.

Chicago CG-11 became an Anti-Aircraft Cruiser with ASW capability.  The Talos and Tartar missile systems were for AA duty, as far as I could tell.  Her ASROCs are for ASW work.  She has torpedoes but they don't reach out far like guns do.  Outside all those weapons, Chicago's only surface-to-surface weapons are her two 127mm/38 guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,564
[REVY]
Members
8,422 posts
6,118 battles
1 hour ago, Murotsu said:

Before I make an answer to my own question, I'd like to see other's opinions.

Which of these two ships has more anti-ship capability?

USS New Jersey circa 1965

viet_06.jpg

or 

USS Chicago CG 11 circa 1965?

USS_Chicago_%28CG-11%29_underway_in_the_Coral_Sea%2C_in_October_1979.jpg

The former has 9 x 16" guns,  and 20 5"/38

The later has 2 twin Talos missile launchers, two twin Tartar missile launchers and 2 x 5"/38 guns.

This isn't about survivability, but rather which ship is a better ship killer in 1965.  So, what say you? :cap_hmm:

I guess it would be cheating to have the USS New Jersey to be armed with all 50 produced 16" Mk 23 Katie nuclear shells but the anti-ship capabilities would be off the charts.  The New Jersey would have enough firepower to sink all the fleets in the world with that.

Edited by Sventex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,634
[PVE]
Members
8,507 posts
24,689 battles
32 minutes ago, Sventex said:

I guess it would be cheating to have the USS New Jersey to be armed with all 50 produced 16" Mk 23 Katie nuclear shells but the anti-ship capabilities would be off the charts.  The New Jersey would have enough firepower to sink all the fleets in the world with that.

The Prince Eugen survived both hydrogen bombs at Bikini Still & was still floating..had to be sunk afterwards because of the radiation levels but it survived 2 bombs (which were magnitudes stronger than the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombs.

Not sure of the durability of today's ships in comparison (as they are built to never get hit & launch from many miles away so structured don't need to be as strong) though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
530
[JFSOC]
[JFSOC]
Members
1,678 posts
5,133 battles

Actually, the Chicago blows the New Jersey away in anti-ship capability--quite literally.

The Chicago's two Talos launchers and system have 144 missiles between them.  Even if we give the New Jersey nuclear shells, the nuclear warheads already and normally carried by Chicago for use with the Talos missile gives her more nuclear firepower.

Outside that, Talos has an anti-ship capacity with conventionally armed missiles.  Each missile weighs at impact about 4,800 lbs.  That's more than double the weight of a 16" HC shell and about half again as heavy as a 16" AP round.  The Talos carries 225 lbs. of RDX explosive in a fragmentation or expanding rod warhead.  The 16" Mk 13 HC round has 154 lbs. of Composition D.  That means that the Talos on detonation has an advantage of a far more violent explosive (about 50% more than Comp D) and carries roughly half again as much meaning the force of the explosion will be far greater with a Talos impact.

Then you have to consider that the Talos missile will hit the target at about Mach 2.5 to Mach 3, or at longer ranges double or more the velocity of a 16" shell.  On top of that, any residual fuel aboard for the ramjet will ignite in secondary fires aboard the target.  The Talos will also hit the target at a near vertical (70 degrees plus) impact angle negating the value of any vertical armor like a belt.

While Talos obviously has no real penetration like an armor piercing round would, it doesn't really matter.  You have a missile who's weight, speed, and warhead are such that it's really more dangerous than a German Fritz X bomb.  Worse, it's going to impact the target more than 80% of the time regardless of range.

On range, the Talos is limited to the SPG 49 radar being able to paint the target.  That means it could engage out to say about 45,000 yards with a probability of hitting close to 90% of the time.  The PDP-8 surface fire control computer does the heavy lifting to ensure each missile impacts the target.  That's a standard part of the Talos fire control system.

That makes a single 4 missile salvo versus an opposing ship almost a 100% certain mission kill on the first salvo.

Closer in, out to say 12 miles the Tartar missile can be fired as an anti-ship weapon with equally deadly effects.

Now you know why the USN really didn't bother with developing dedicated anti-ship missiles to any great degree...  Their SAM's in a secondary roll as anti-ship missiles were more than sufficient to do in the opposition.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,564
[REVY]
Members
8,422 posts
6,118 battles
10 minutes ago, IfYouSeeKhaos said:

The Prince Eugen survived both hydrogen bombs at Bikini Still & was still floating..had to be sunk afterwards because of the radiation levels but it survived 2 bombs (which were magnitudes stronger than the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombs.

Not sure of the durability of today's ships in comparison (as they are built to never get hit & launch from many miles away so structured don't need to be as strong) though.

I don't think you know what a hydrogen bomb is.  Not only are they vastly more powerful they an atomic bomb, they were invented 6 years after the Prinz Eugen was sunk.  On top of that, the Crossroad bombers were detonated a month apart, while the USS New Jersey could deliver 9 atomic shells per salvo.  If enough Katie shells were manufactured, the New Jersey could theoretically deliver 1,080 atomic explosions per hour at a rate of 18 per minute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12,893
[WOLF3]
Members
31,043 posts
26,068 battles
24 minutes ago, Murotsu said:

Actually, the Chicago blows the New Jersey away in anti-ship capability--quite literally.

The Chicago's two Talos launchers and system have 144 missiles between them.  Even if we give the New Jersey nuclear shells, the nuclear warheads already and normally carried by Chicago for use with the Talos missile gives her more nuclear firepower.

Outside that, Talos has an anti-ship capacity with conventionally armed missiles.  Each missile weighs at impact about 4,800 lbs.  That's more than double the weight of a 16" HC shell and about half again as heavy as a 16" AP round.  The Talos carries 225 lbs. of RDX explosive in a fragmentation or expanding rod warhead.  The 16" Mk 13 HC round has 154 lbs. of Composition D.  That means that the Talos on detonation has an advantage of a far more violent explosive (about 50% more than Comp D) and carries roughly half again as much meaning the force of the explosion will be far greater with a Talos impact.

Then you have to consider that the Talos missile will hit the target at about Mach 2.5 to Mach 3, or at longer ranges double or more the velocity of a 16" shell.  On top of that, any residual fuel aboard for the ramjet will ignite in secondary fires aboard the target.  The Talos will also hit the target at a near vertical (70 degrees plus) impact angle negating the value of any vertical armor like a belt.

While Talos obviously has no real penetration like an armor piercing round would, it doesn't really matter.  You have a missile who's weight, speed, and warhead are such that it's really more dangerous than a German Fritz X bomb.  Worse, it's going to impact the target more than 80% of the time regardless of range.

On range, the Talos is limited to the SPG 49 radar being able to paint the target.  That means it could engage out to say about 45,000 yards with a probability of hitting close to 90% of the time.  The PDP-8 surface fire control computer does the heavy lifting to ensure each missile impacts the target.  That's a standard part of the Talos fire control system.

That makes a single 4 missile salvo versus an opposing ship almost a 100% certain mission kill on the first salvo.

Closer in, out to say 12 miles the Tartar missile can be fired as an anti-ship weapon with equally deadly effects.

Now you know why the USN really didn't bother with developing dedicated anti-ship missiles to any great degree...  Their SAM's in a secondary roll as anti-ship missiles were more than sufficient to do in the opposition.

Where are you getting that Talos is surface-to-surface capable?  Everything I've read is surface-to-air.  Either at Wikipedia or even NAVWEAPS, they're only shown as an AA system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
530
[JFSOC]
[JFSOC]
Members
1,678 posts
5,133 battles
1 hour ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

Where are you getting that Talos is surface-to-surface capable?  Everything I've read is surface-to-air.  Either at Wikipedia or even NAVWEAPS, they're only shown as an AA system.

That's because they are wrong.

https://www.okieboat.com/Talos firing operations.html

https://www.okieboat.com/Talos operations.html

Talos, Terrier, and Tartar all had--as does the SM series of missiles-- a surface-to-surface capability that largely negates the need for a dedicated ASM.

With Talos, the PDP-8 computer that is part of the overall fire control system is used to target surface targets.  The Talos and Terrier could be used against shore targets too with less effectiveness as they would have a harder time distinguishing the individual target to be hit.

Against ships, they are nothing short of devastating.

 

Edited by Murotsu
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,634
[PVE]
Members
8,507 posts
24,689 battles
2 hours ago, Sventex said:

I don't think you know what a hydrogen bomb is.  Not only are they vastly more powerful they an atomic bomb, they were invented 6 years after the Prinz Eugen was sunk.  On top of that, the Crossroad bombers were detonated a month apart, while the USS New Jersey could deliver 9 atomic shells per salvo.  If enough Katie shells were manufactured, the New Jersey could theoretically deliver 1,080 atomic explosions per hour at a rate of 18 per minute.

Got the vastly more powerful w/the "magnitudes stronger" I do believe...but surely missed the boat on the hydrogen bombs aplarently.

Weren't they the Bikini Atoll (why does SC want to change atoll to still?) bombs & wasn't the Nagato & Prince at Bikini?

Obviously not or you wouldn't need to correct me...which part have I got wrong?

Was the hydrogen bombs or the Prince/Nagato at Bikini? And where was the other 1 at?

Nevermind...looked it up myself...they were both still in the Marshall Islands which is what confused me...but the hydrogen was at a different Atoll. My bad.

Edited by IfYouSeeKhaos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
530
[JFSOC]
[JFSOC]
Members
1,678 posts
5,133 battles

Although this is getting off the subject of the thread, the first two atom bomb tests at Bikini Atoll were atomic bombs.  Alpha was a low air burst, Baker was an underwater detonation.  Both were on the scale of about 20 kilotons.

Later,  the hydrogen-- aka fusion-- bomb was tested there.  Castle Bravo of about 6 megatons (300 + times larger than the Alpha and Bravo tests against WW 2 ships) carved out a giant crater in the atoll.  It's across the atoll from where the earlier tests took place.  The circle is the crater created by the blast eliminating the small island there along with the above surface reefs and beaches.  That's about 3 miles in diameter.

map.jpg

This was WAY bigger than the initial A-bomb tests.  The explosion / fireball was visible at Kwajalein atoll about 250 miles away.  Radiation and fallout in measurable amounts was detected as far away as Europe afterwards.  A Japanese fishing boat about 100 miles from the detonation had the crew exposed to such high levels of radiation that most died within months.  The EMP from the detonation knocked out most of the electrical grid in Hawaii. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5_9Gi7w19Y

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12,893
[WOLF3]
Members
31,043 posts
26,068 battles
15 hours ago, Murotsu said:

That's because they are wrong.

https://www.okieboat.com/Talos firing operations.html

https://www.okieboat.com/Talos operations.html

Talos, Terrier, and Tartar all had--as does the SM series of missiles-- a surface-to-surface capability that largely negates the need for a dedicated ASM.

With Talos, the PDP-8 computer that is part of the overall fire control system is used to target surface targets.  The Talos and Terrier could be used against shore targets too with less effectiveness as they would have a harder time distinguishing the individual target to be hit.

Against ships, they are nothing short of devastating.

 

Alright, that changes everything.  Obviously there were changes because the USN were ditching Gun Cruisers through the 50s and 60s.  Lots of conversions of Baltimore and Cleveland-class Cruisers going from gun to missiles.  Even the Soviet Navy wholeheartedly adopted missiles for anti-ship use at about the same time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
530
[JFSOC]
[JFSOC]
Members
1,678 posts
5,133 battles

Here's what happens when a Talos SAM hits a destroyer escort as a target:

2eff47a6bc2f7f25168efd064ad053d3.jpgtn_Talos%20surface%20target%201%201024.jpg

Talos%20surface%20target%202%201024.jpg

That is as serious as any ASM in terms of damage.  It makes an Exocet look like a joke by comparison.

 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,942
[SYN]
Members
9,038 posts
16,354 battles
22 minutes ago, Murotsu said:

That is as serious as any ASM in terms of damage.  It makes an Exocet look like a joke by comparison. 

 

 

A SinkEx exercise using the (smaller) Sea Dart and Exocet showed the same thing, IIRC the amidships hole was Sea Dart while an Exocet blew up the hangar.

brave_3.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
530
[JFSOC]
[JFSOC]
Members
1,678 posts
5,133 battles

Yes, Talos is probably the exception here being a very large SAM.  But, even Mofton's example shows that any SAM is more than capable of doing serious damage to a ship.

This is the Turkish destroyer Muavenet that was accidently hit by a Sea Sparrow missile fired from USS Saratoga during an exercise.  That's a pretty small SAM in all...

muave1.jpg

As for Soviet / Russian / Chinese ASM's, the reason they are so large much of the time is they are an attempt to increase the stand-off range beyond that of defending SAMs and other AA systems.  This is because those navies don't have carriers (yes, the Chinese are slowly getting some marginally capable ones in service etc.) and cannot rely on aircraft other than long-range land-based ones to perform offensive missions at sea.  Thus the need for over-the-horizon ASM's...  Which I might point out have not been proven effective as all combat anti-ship missile attacks have been performed at no more than 30 to 40 miles out at most.

Edited by Murotsu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,564
[REVY]
Members
8,422 posts
6,118 battles

So from what I can tell, the USS New Jersey and a main battery shell capacity of 1,210.  If the katies were mass produced, your looking at a Iowa class battleship being capable of producing a monstrous amount of firepower.  At a rate of 18 atomic explosions per minute, the New Jersey could keep firing for over 67 minutes.  Granted, New Jersey's ammo capacity would only mean she could only deal half the megatons a Tsar Bomba was capable of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
359 posts

Strictly speaking, this was New Jersey (and all the other Iowas) "circa 1965"

So the Chicago wins, easily.   Now, if you make it 1968, when New Jersey was active, different story.

 

Mothballs.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12,893
[WOLF3]
Members
31,043 posts
26,068 battles
On 6/8/2020 at 7:14 AM, JuiceEFruit said:

Strictly speaking, this was New Jersey (and all the other Iowas) "circa 1965"

So the Chicago wins, easily.   Now, if you make it 1968, when New Jersey was active, different story.

 

Mothballs.jpg

The Battleship still loses out in ship killing power even when put back into service in 1968 as you say.  The missile is powerful, much longer ranged, and most of all, more precise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
318
[BIER]
Members
463 posts
7,417 battles

Here's the problem with the Talos/Terrier systems:  they were TERRIBLE when it came to be used as SSM, because you had to have radar lock on the target.  Not just aiming, but they had ZERO terminal guidance. They were beam-riders, entirely dependent on the launching system keeping a guidance radar locked on the target.

Which, for a ship to ship engagement, is extremely difficult given the era.  Remember that search radars and guidance radars are completely different beasts.

It also means that the TALOS was limited to line-of-sight. For aerial targets, that's great, and you can get 200 miles with the ER version. For surface targets, that's 26 miles or so, max. 

The demos of TALOS against ships were optimal test shots, in perfect conditions. Ones which demonstrate virtually nothing about the ability of the missile to actually hit anything under even good operational conditions.  The change from pulse wave seeker to continuous wave seeker allowed the TALOS to have SOME possibility as a SSM (whereas the PWS had no capability whatsoever, and couldn't even engage aircraft under 20m), but ground clutter and the inability of 50s and 60s radar to filter it effectively means that the ability of a TALOS in SSM mode to actually hit a target is dubious. 

Also note that the TALOS warhead was primarily fragmentation, and did not contain a large explosive charge. Most of the warhead weight was taken up in continuous rods for a very large lethal-to-aircraft fragmentation cloud.  Such a warhead would be reasonably effective against ships as well, but they would be even less effective than the AntiShip warhead of the Harpoon, a warhead that nominally weighed maybe a quarter of the TALOS one. The picture of the Exocet damage are of a dedicated anti-ship weapon with a dedicated anti-ship warhead, which is FAR more effective than the anti-aircraft warhead the TALOS had. 

The Sea Dart test in the picture is of a 3rd Generation one, with far, far better guidance and a more compact, powerful warhead than the TALOS (which is a 1st generation missile). Sea Dart actually packed quite a bit of explosive for a small missile, as it was expected to be able to get far closer to the target than the TALOS.  The TALOS's warhead really was of the "throw enough crap at the wall and see what sticks" variety - it depended heavily on a huge shrapnel cloud, which is why most of the warhead weight is dedicated to fragmentation-causing parts, not explosives.

 

There's very little evidence to support the supposition that TALOS would have made any sort of an effective SSM in an actual engagement. Certainly not anywhere near the effectiveness of 80s-era SSMs, and, frankly, not even close to the SM-3.   This is true for a large array of the 1st generation electronic weapons of the 1950s and 1960s, where the "claimed" performance and usability far exceeded what they could practically have been used for. 

Edited by LAnybody
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
530
[JFSOC]
[JFSOC]
Members
1,678 posts
5,133 battles
2 hours ago, LAnybody said:

Here's the problem with the Talos/Terrier systems:  they were TERRIBLE when it came to be used as SSM, because you had to have radar lock on the target.  Not just aiming, but they had ZERO terminal guidance. They were beam-riders, entirely dependent on the launching system keeping a guidance radar locked on the target.

Which, for a ship to ship engagement, is extremely difficult given the era.  Remember that search radars and guidance radars are completely different beasts.

It also means that the TALOS was limited to line-of-sight. For aerial targets, that's great, and you can get 200 miles with the ER version. For surface targets, that's 26 miles or so, max. 

The demos of TALOS against ships were optimal test shots, in perfect conditions. Ones which demonstrate virtually nothing about the ability of the missile to actually hit anything under even good operational conditions.  The change from pulse wave seeker to continuous wave seeker allowed the TALOS to have SOME possibility as a SSM (whereas the PWS had no capability whatsoever, and couldn't even engage aircraft under 20m), but ground clutter and the inability of 50s and 60s radar to filter it effectively means that the ability of a TALOS in SSM mode to actually hit a target is dubious. 

Also note that the TALOS warhead was primarily fragmentation, and did not contain a large explosive charge. Most of the warhead weight was taken up in continuous rods for a very large lethal-to-aircraft fragmentation cloud.  Such a warhead would be reasonably effective against ships as well, but they would be even less effective than the AntiShip warhead of the Harpoon, a warhead that nominally weighed maybe a quarter of the TALOS one. The picture of the Exocet damage are of a dedicated anti-ship weapon with a dedicated anti-ship warhead, which is FAR more effective than the anti-aircraft warhead the TALOS had. 

The Sea Dart test in the picture is of a 3rd Generation one, with far, far better guidance and a more compact, powerful warhead than the TALOS (which is a 1st generation missile). Sea Dart actually packed quite a bit of explosive for a small missile, as it was expected to be able to get far closer to the target than the TALOS.  The TALOS's warhead really was of the "throw enough crap at the wall and see what sticks" variety - it depended heavily on a huge shrapnel cloud, which is why most of the warhead weight is dedicated to fragmentation-causing parts, not explosives.

 

There's very little evidence to support the supposition that TALOS would have made any sort of an effective SSM in an actual engagement. Certainly not anywhere near the effectiveness of 80s-era SSMs, and, frankly, not even close to the SM-3.   This is true for a large array of the 1st generation electronic weapons of the 1950s and 1960s, where the "claimed" performance and usability far exceeded what they could practically have been used for. 

Actually, the above is completely wrong.

Talos used a system of guidance to the target similar to Nike.  The missile was fired on a ballistic trajectory guided by an SPW-2 radar.  Yes, for this part of the engagement, Talos was beam riding, but it didn't matter as it was not flying at the target directly but on a ballistic course that was energy efficient.  The ballistic trajectory had the missile coming down on the target from above.  As the target was approached, an SPG-49 target tracking radar illuminated the target and the Talos using the four interferometer antenna on the nose of the missile and what amounted to a variant of semi-active homing closed with the target.  The missile's internal guidance had only to maintain a steady bearing and decreasing range to effectively intercept.  As the radar signal was monopulse, it was virtually impossible to jam the signal so EW was ineffective in avoiding the missile.  Terminal homing occurred in roughly the last 10 seconds of flight.

The "seeker" on a Talos is the interferometer system.  It doesn't have an active signal component.  It homes on the signal generated by the SPG-49.  Since the SPG-49 had only to light the target up, against a surface target clutter, etc., is irrelevant as these are issues for return that an operator would have to sort out.  Here, the radar is simply painting the target for the missile.  The SPW-2 is guiding it to a terminal engagement on a ballistic trajectory.

As for range, against an aerial target the range was depending on model somewhere between 70 and 110 miles maximum.  Against surface targets it was out to about 45,000 yards.  The same ballistic trajectory was followed against a surface target with the missile dropping on the target at around a 70 degree angle.  So far as it goes, a surface target is no different than an aircraft except for speed and altitude.  If you can hit the plane, you can hit the ship.  

As I noted, the Talos carries a 226 lbs. RDX warhead and is either expanding rod (most models) or blast fragmentation.  It has a terminal velocity of about Mach 2.5 against a surface target and weighs about 1.5 tons on impact.  This gives it something around double the impact energy of a 16" battleship shell with far more explosive.

Sea Dart is a much smaller missile.  It weighs about 1,200 lbs. on impact-- roughly half what Talos weighs.  It has just  24 lbs. of explosive in the warhead and is blast fragmentation.  But, even with that, the weight of the missile combined with an impact speed over Mach 2 makes it deadly to surface ships.  The combination is far greater than all but the largest gun's shells would be in terms of impact energy.  Sea Dart uses much the same homing system as Talos too.  You can see the interferometer antennas on the nose.

In Vietnam, Talos engaged N. Vietnamese jets on at least a few occasions ending in shootdowns each time.  A Talos was also fired as an ARM in that war hitting a N. Vietnamese SAM site radar at 74 miles.  I gave some links to sites that detail all of this and more above.

https://www.okieboat.com/Talos%20history.html

https://www.okieboat.com/Talos%20antiradiation%20shot.html

https://www.usslittlerock.org/armament/little_rock_talos_missile.html

http://astronautix.com/t/talos.html

 

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
11,274 posts
7 hours ago, LAnybody said:

Here's the problem with the Talos/Terrier systems:  they were TERRIBLE when it came to be used as SSM, because you had to have radar lock on the target.  Not just aiming, but they had ZERO terminal guidance. They were beam-riders, entirely dependent on the launching system keeping a guidance radar locked on the target.

Which, for a ship to ship engagement, is extremely difficult given the era.  Remember that search radars and guidance radars are completely different beasts.

It also means that the TALOS was limited to line-of-sight. For aerial targets, that's great, and you can get 200 miles with the ER version. For surface targets, that's 26 miles or so, max. 

The demos of TALOS against ships were optimal test shots, in perfect conditions. Ones which demonstrate virtually nothing about the ability of the missile to actually hit anything under even good operational conditions.  The change from pulse wave seeker to continuous wave seeker allowed the TALOS to have SOME possibility as a SSM (whereas the PWS had no capability whatsoever, and couldn't even engage aircraft under 20m), but ground clutter and the inability of 50s and 60s radar to filter it effectively means that the ability of a TALOS in SSM mode to actually hit a target is dubious. 

Also note that the TALOS warhead was primarily fragmentation, and did not contain a large explosive charge. Most of the warhead weight was taken up in continuous rods for a very large lethal-to-aircraft fragmentation cloud.  Such a warhead would be reasonably effective against ships as well, but they would be even less effective than the AntiShip warhead of the Harpoon, a warhead that nominally weighed maybe a quarter of the TALOS one. The picture of the Exocet damage are of a dedicated anti-ship weapon with a dedicated anti-ship warhead, which is FAR more effective than the anti-aircraft warhead the TALOS had. 

The Sea Dart test in the picture is of a 3rd Generation one, with far, far better guidance and a more compact, powerful warhead than the TALOS (which is a 1st generation missile). Sea Dart actually packed quite a bit of explosive for a small missile, as it was expected to be able to get far closer to the target than the TALOS.  The TALOS's warhead really was of the "throw enough crap at the wall and see what sticks" variety - it depended heavily on a huge shrapnel cloud, which is why most of the warhead weight is dedicated to fragmentation-causing parts, not explosives.

 

There's very little evidence to support the supposition that TALOS would have made any sort of an effective SSM in an actual engagement. Certainly not anywhere near the effectiveness of 80s-era SSMs, and, frankly, not even close to the SM-3.   This is true for a large array of the 1st generation electronic weapons of the 1950s and 1960s, where the "claimed" performance and usability far exceeded what they could practically have been used for. 

 

Radar line of sight or radar engagement horizon, is a function between the height of the targeting radar vs. the height of the target.  So its not fixed to 26 miles or 45,000 yards like the other post said. It depends on the height of the target.  If your targeting radar is set on top of a superstructure, you're going to get much better range compared to the radar being set low on the deck.  So if your target is a ship with a tall metal superstructure, you're going to get much better range vs. a sleek low profile boat or ship with angled superstructure.  It would be much easier for the USS Chicago to target the USS New Jersey at range, compared to a PT boat where the targeting range would be much closer.  

 

As for Talos, they were used to simulate Soviet supersonic antiship missiles as trial targetsro to test the AEGIS system.   And some of them managed to get through.  Unfortunately the supply of missiles ran out before they can keep test the AEGIS system, which prompted development for a dedicated supersonic target drone, eventually the Coyote.

 

You are correct about the warheads.  Antiship missile warheads are shaped differently than those on SAMs and even cruise missiles.  Inside the antiship missile, the warhead is shaped like a slug or projectile, inside a missile body to facilitate penetration.  Latest missiles use shaped charges to deal with bulkheads.  

 

Talos

IvzkmNT.jpg

 

 

 

TLAM vs. TASM

5p3dys4.jpg

 

 

Moskit

XFKj55U.png

Edited by Eisennagel
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
11,274 posts
4 hours ago, Murotsu said:

Actually, the above is completely wrong.

Talos used a system of guidance to the target similar to Nike.  The missile was fired on a ballistic trajectory guided by an SPW-2 radar.  Yes, for this part of the engagement, Talos was beam riding, but it didn't matter as it was not flying at the target directly but on a ballistic course that was energy efficient.  The ballistic trajectory had the missile coming down on the target from above.  As the target was approached, an SPG-49 target tracking radar illuminated the target and the Talos using the four interferometer antenna on the nose of the missile and what amounted to a variant of semi-active homing closed with the target.  The missile's internal guidance had only to maintain a steady bearing and decreasing range to effectively intercept.  As the radar signal was monopulse, it was virtually impossible to jam the signal so EW was ineffective in avoiding the missile.  Terminal homing occurred in roughly the last 10 seconds of flight.

The "seeker" on a Talos is the interferometer system.  It doesn't have an active signal component.  It homes on the signal generated by the SPG-49.  Since the SPG-49 had only to light the target up, against a surface target clutter, etc., is irrelevant as these are issues for return that an operator would have to sort out.  Here, the radar is simply painting the target for the missile.  The SPW-2 is guiding it to a terminal engagement on a ballistic trajectory.

As for range, against an aerial target the range was depending on model somewhere between 70 and 110 miles maximum.  Against surface targets it was out to about 45,000 yards.  The same ballistic trajectory was followed against a surface target with the missile dropping on the target at around a 70 degree angle.  So far as it goes, a surface target is no different than an aircraft except for speed and altitude.  If you can hit the plane, you can hit the ship.  

As I noted, the Talos carries a 226 lbs. RDX warhead and is either expanding rod (most models) or blast fragmentation.  It has a terminal velocity of about Mach 2.5 against a surface target and weighs about 1.5 tons on impact.  This gives it something around double the impact energy of a 16" battleship shell with far more explosive.

Sea Dart is a much smaller missile.  It weighs about 1,200 lbs. on impact-- roughly half what Talos weighs.  It has just  24 lbs. of explosive in the warhead and is blast fragmentation.  But, even with that, the weight of the missile combined with an impact speed over Mach 2 makes it deadly to surface ships.  The combination is far greater than all but the largest gun's shells would be in terms of impact energy.  Sea Dart uses much the same homing system as Talos too.  You can see the interferometer antennas on the nose.

In Vietnam, Talos engaged N. Vietnamese jets on at least a few occasions ending in shootdowns each time.  A Talos was also fired as an ARM in that war hitting a N. Vietnamese SAM site radar at 74 miles.  I gave some links to sites that detail all of this and more above.

https://www.okieboat.com/Talos history.html

https://www.okieboat.com/Talos antiradiation shot.html

https://www.usslittlerock.org/armament/little_rock_talos_missile.html

http://astronautix.com/t/talos.html

 

 

 

Antenna has four receivers because it is monopulse.  Monopulse tracking is common with all missiles, as early conical scan methods are prone to angular spoofing.   Likewise, the radar lighting up the target has to have four radiating feeds.

 

PPOxCHr.jpg

 

4vwU6Bg.jpg

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
318
[BIER]
Members
463 posts
7,417 battles

Surface clutter for 50s and 60s era radars is a HUGE problem, and so bad that it wasn't reliably sorted out until the 80s when microprocessors were commonplace. It's not something that your operator can just "sort out".  Worse, there's no operator on the TALOS to do the "sorting" - it's getting a whole mess of crappy reflections back from stuff, and can't tell what is what, because it has no intelligence to do so. Hitting a surface target with TALOS in anything other than perfect conditions is a fantasy, given the technology of the time.  There's not a single test that demonstrates otherwise - we don't even have SinkEx examples. The sole demonstration is test-range quality conditions, something that, like I said before, is completely fictional as far as operational capability goes.

"Painting" a surface target is incredibly difficult, whereas an aircraft at altitude is incredibly easy.  The horizon difference is not significantly more for the heights of target/launching vessel we're talking about.  My original statement of 26 miles is actually incorrect.  If the radar is on top of a 100 foot mast, and looking for a 100 foot target, horizon is less than 18 miles away.  If both are only 50 feet tall, that distance isn't even 9 miles.

http://www.ringbell.co.uk/info/hdist.htm

The ballistic flight path is useful for AA work, and again, irrelevant for AS work.  TALOS would have required an aerial radar spotter/designator for BVH use, and that simply didn't exist at the time, let alone a targeting radar that had "look down" capability.  You couldn't fire a TALOS at BVH surface targets without a radar director to "beam ride" on to get it in the general area.  Worse, the target radar on the TALOS couldn't do target search in anything more than a very narrow cone, so it's not like you could lob one out and let it find a target itself. 

Also, monopulse radars are actually quite easy to jam - or, more properly, give false readings to.  That would seriously confuse the TALOS's interferometer, as it can't tell which of the signals its supposed to lock to. Remember there's ZERO communication with the missile after launch, it has to "figure it out" on its own, and the technology level of the time really, really doesn't allow for that. It simply looks for the strongest return, and goes that way.  Which, due to both the surface clutter returns and any basic angular jamming (let alone things like chaff), most likely means the TALOS steers itself right into the ocean.

https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9292/8/7/806/pdf   (yes, this is a modern advanced technique discussed, but the basic principles and a functional ECM system was well in place in the 50s, let alone the 60s, that allowed for effective use against monopulse seekers)

Hitting an airplane (well, where "hit" is defined as being within about 100 feet, due to the frag blast area) is actually a FAR simpler concept, since it's easy to keep the launcher-based radar director on the target, and there's ZERO out there to confuse the return signal to the TALOS when it goes to self-targeting.

Given the size of a TALOS, I have no doubt that it would cause significant damage to a ship IF it hit - in fact, it's about the same that a supersonic kamikaze aircraft could do.  But even there, remember that the missile (as all AS missiles) has poor penetration capability. Against unarmored targets, this is pretty irrelevant, as the momentum is sufficient to push the weight through ordinary steel construction.  But against anything that has even moderate amounts of armor (and, at the time, WW2-era CAs were still extremely commonplace), all that energy can't penetrate well at all - it effectively squashes itself on the armor, because it has very little structure strength in the missile. Difference between getting hit by a rock and a nerf arrow, even if the nerf arrow had 10x the speed of the rock. 

The problem is that the guidance system used for the TALOS simply has no functional capability to figure out how to hit a moving surface target in anything but optimal, staged environments.  

The example of hitting a (stationary) SAM site using the ARM version of TALOS is completely irrelevant, as engaging a surface ship is a completely different target set, and the ship is not literally broadcasting a signal that says "hey, I'm here! Hit me!". I know about the TALOS used for the Aegis tests, and again, this was a test range setup, AND the TALOSes were just fired to get into the general area, NOT to hit a specific target.  

Edited by LAnybody
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
530
[JFSOC]
[JFSOC]
Members
1,678 posts
5,133 battles

The above is once again nearly completely wrong.

First, the visible horizon is shorter than the radar horizon.  You should have used a radar horizon calculator.

https://www.translatorscafe.com/unit-converter/en-US/calculator/radar-horizon/

At 100 meters for target and radar, the effective paint range is 22.26 NM or 44,520 yards.  That makes a 45,000 yard maximum range reasonable.  Worse, at that range a radar guided SAM be it Talos, Terrier, or Tartar (the early US SAM's) the Pk is about 80%.  That is, one missile = one hit most of the time.  Several missiles = target kill on the first salvo.

As for the rest, this ignores entirely the links I posted where Talos missiles did smash targets in Sinkex exercises more than once, shot down planes in combat, and hit radar installations inland up to about 75 miles as ARM's.

The argument that monopulse radar is "easy to jam" relies on a theoretical paper rather than actual jammers in service.  As with Exocet, and other ASM's we know in several cases, the target had good EW equipment aboard and yet they were hit by the missile.  I doubt it can be shown that EW is highly effective versus any ASM, even a SAM used as one, from historical engagements.

The "surface clutter" argument is largely just wrong and a canard given historical results from exercises and actual use in combat.

As for effectiveness.  I demonstrated that too.  In the case of Talos, you have a roughly 3,000 lbs. missile travelling at Mach 2.5 or greater that impacts the target nearly vertically.  It has 226 lbs. of RDX explosive and the entire warhead (expanding rod) weighs 465 lbs.  That's more than double a 16" shell from an Iowa class in explosive,  and nearly double the kinetic energy delivered on the target.   It doesn't really matter if the missile probably won't penetrate thick armor.  The amount of energy and explosive, along with unspent fuel, will cause such widespread destruction to the unarmored parts of the ship that it causes, effectively, a mission kill.  That is, the ship is rendered mission ineffective or nearly so.  Having it detonate on a proximity fuze would obliterate the target ship's radar and other fire control, communications, and optical systems topside rendering it combat ineffective.

You can clearly see that from the previous photo of a sea sparrow hit on a Turkish Gearing class destroyer's bridge.  That's a much smaller missile with a far smaller warhead.

Even if you reduce the hit probability and probability of a "kill" to 15%, it's still double that of a 9 gun 16" battleship for a single missile.  Given ability to place 4 missiles on a target, that's a 60% probability of a kill in the first salvo and over 100% in two salvos.  Again, the missile wins overwhelmingly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
12,615 posts
14,320 battles
On 5/31/2020 at 5:43 PM, Sventex said:

I guess it would be cheating to have the USS New Jersey to be armed with all 50 produced 16" Mk 23 Katie nuclear shells but the anti-ship capabilities would be off the charts.  The New Jersey would have enough firepower to sink all the fleets in the world with that.

Keep this info quiet before Wargaming gets ideas to use for their next level overpowered premium Russian ships. :Smile_veryhappy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×