Sea Dart

Guns, torpedoes, mines, bombs, missiles, ammunition, fire control, radars, and electronic warfare.
Francis Marliere
Member
Posts: 239
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 3:55 pm

Sea Dart

Postby Francis Marliere » Wed Mar 16, 2016 11:03 am

Gentlemen,

a friend of mine, who had first hand experience of SM1, told me that the launcher need a lot of electrical power. Before a ship can start the launcher, it must start first diesel generators. Starting these generators then the launcher takes about 2 minutes.

It is not possible to keep the launcher powered for a long time because it would wear out some components very quickly. For some reasons, it is not possible to keep the diesel generators working without starting the launcher as well.

Hence a ship that detects a target has to wait 2 minutes before opening fire. If the target is flying very low and is detected 15 or 20 nautic miles away, the ship won't be able to engage at all.

Having an interest on the 1982 Falkland War, I wonder if a system like Sea Dart (but also Sea Wolf, Sea Cat and Sea Slug) works the same way and has the same limitations.

Thank you for any help,

Francis Marliere

Steve Crandell
Senior Member
Posts: 630
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 7:05 pm

Re: Sea Dart

Postby Steve Crandell » Wed Mar 16, 2016 4:50 pm

I seriously doubt the Sea Wolf would have those restrictions since the launcher is quite a bit simpler.

I'm curious about your friend's statement and whether it includes all SM-1 launchers and ships; some of them Nuclear powered cruisers. I'm a bit skeptical about his implication that a cruiser with many thousands of watts of electrical generating capacity under normal circumstances would have to start a diesel generator in order to operate one of it's missile launchers.

What year and what type of ship and launcher was he discussing? The limitations you describe would seem to make the missile worthless against the most common attack profile it was designed to defend against.

Francis Marliere
Member
Posts: 239
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 3:55 pm

Re: Sea Dart

Postby Francis Marliere » Wed Mar 16, 2016 5:47 pm

Steeve,

I agree that the problem should not the same for a CGN which has plenty of power. The gentlemen I am talking about was a sailor on a French 'Escorteur d'Escadre' (built in the 50s).

Steve Crandell
Senior Member
Posts: 630
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 7:05 pm

Re: Sea Dart

Postby Steve Crandell » Thu Mar 17, 2016 1:16 am

Francis Marliere wrote:Steeve,

I agree that the problem should not the same for a CGN which has plenty of power. The gentlemen I am talking about was a sailor on a French 'Escorteur d'Escadre' (built in the 50s).


That makes sense. I went overboard in mentioning a CGN and I would expect any CG to have more than sufficient power.

It's kind of sad that they would install such a weapon on a ship which could not use it effectively, but those were the days of the infancy of SAMs. I don't know the relevant capabilities of USN ships, the smallest of which would be the Perry class Frigates. It might be relevant that they eventually had their SM1 systems deactivated.


Return to “Naval Weapons”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest