Shipbucket

I believe a "Sea BOMARC" would be designated RIM-10C. R is the launch platform designator for ships.

I know this is an intellectual exercise, but what threat is conversion to counter? The BOMARC was developed to counter sub-sonic bombers, a threat that could be countered by the fleets fighters and RIM-8 Talos.

A BOMARC-equipped ship would be situated to cover the Continental U.S. rather than protecting individual fleets. So a conversion of the two Alaska-class ships wouldn't be too out of place, considering.

I think it would. Given how few rounds could be carried, and how large a raid we expected to have to counter, it doesn't make very much sense at all.

While this is an interesting concept, and lots of fun to think about the poor crewmen tasked with handling these missiles onto the launcher(s), I don't think it is very practical. Unless you can get it to within 400 miles of a bomber base and keep it safe from subs and tac air. Of course keeping them on station is going to be a problem, with only three hulls scheduling maintenance and patrols will require a high operational tempo.

Have you thought about looking into the several proposals to convert this class into ballistic missile ships?

Well... I prefer to use horizontal reload, when missiles were delivered to launchers with the help of rail system. The launcher reloads in horizontal position, then rise vertically (as the original "Bomarc"). Yes, it need more time... but it will be easier than any other system for those big missiles!


Thanks! I really forgot about this!
Hmm... According to any sources, on the fly tests "Bomarc" were able to intercept the K2DU-1 "Reguls-II" drone, on the speed of Mach 2.

So, it can intercept Tu-16, Tu-22 and Tu-22M before they launch their weapons. And - due to nuclear warheads on the "Bomarc" - bombers can't fly to target in close formation.

_________________
Serve the Nation! Be striped!

O yeah, i heard about this conversion (but more about "Iova"-class). As i could remember, this plans were started cause of uncertainty about the possibility of a solid fuel ballistic missile for submarine.

But i really like cruise missiles, like "Snark" and "Navaho"!

_________________
Serve the Nation! Be striped!

It's not so much a question of whether or not the missile can intercept targets so much as whether the targets are available in the first place. I'm not even sure if the M-50 was publicly unveiled yet, or if the B-58 was considered a serious exercise yet. The Soviets never had an operational supersonic strategic bomber (i.e., one that would be penetrating NORAD) until the Tu-160. Even if BOMARC was operational during a time when the Tu-22/M were operational, those were really tactical aircraft (despite their size) that were as large and high-performance as they were because they were intended to carry very large, very high-performance missiles that were designed to have enough KE and a large enough warhead to penetrate a defensive screen and sink a very large, very seaworthy target (an aircraft carrier) in basically one shot, even with a conventional warhead. Their supersonic speed was also designed to penetrate CVBG defensive screens, but they still had to slow down to subsonic speeds in order to launch their missiles. The USN was aware of this and so concentrated future missile development to bag the bombers during this most vulnerable launch phase as well as to intercept missiles after successful launch - hence Standard and AEGIS. Meanwhile Talos was considered adequate for the task - which was the task it was specifically designed for in the first place, anyway (Talos is also a very high-performance missile that was considered adequate for an anti-ship role itself just from the KE it produced and was itself comparable to some of the early Soviet supersonic anti-ship missiles - what made it obsolete was that it wasn't a very maneuverable missile, so it had trouble engaging smaller, but not necessarily faster targets, like missiles; related, its associated tracking and guidance equipment was becoming increasingly primitive in comparison to newer systems, and the price to pay for its high performance and firepower was that it was a very bulky missile that required complex loading facilities both port-side and permanently shipped on-board as fixtures themselves, and required very large, bulky launchers, directors and magazines to the point where the largest nuclear-powered cruiser the USN ever commissioned carried a grand total of one). Either way, Talos makes BOMARC redundant for the fleet defense role, even with its improved performance.

That's why such a ship would make more sense for continental defense, but like Erik said, a hull that size wouldn't be able to field many and loading/launching would still be awkward. At best, it would provide some mobility to defend against areas that NORAD isn't optimally situated to defend against, like our southern border or an allied nation - and it's not entirely unuseful in such a role, either.

For the money that would go into this conversion, you could build a lot more land-based BOMARC sites, or if you are really desperate, put them on "Texas Tower" installations off-shore. The land-based sites would have more missiles and be better integrated into the DEW line early warning radar systems.

The real U.S. Navy would test a system like this out before committing to a major conversion. Does Shipbucket have a file with a Currituck class seaplane tender that could be used as a base for an AU Norton Sound with a Sea BOMARC on the fantail?

I think this is a very imaginative and fun drawing. Better than all those other Alaska kit bashes out there. It’s cool that you incorporated the SAGE, or ‘SeaSAGE’, into this ultimate 1950s radar picket ship! The DASH is also a good touch and just the sort of crazy thing to try and operate from the long bow.

I wouldn’t take to heart too many of the criticisms. It seems a standard thing for some people to see pixels and mistake them for mass and cry out “top weight” around here. Also they seem ignorant of the huge weight of a SAGE system. The dual computer itself weighed in at 550 tons and then there is all the cooling (for 110,000 vacuum tubes) and displays and so on.

Very cool drawing.

of course we know that. not the exact numbers, but we know it is heavyweight. but the main problem here would be the structural integrety of the hull with the heavy weight fore and aft, that gives problems here. these systems might fit on the ship, but not in this arrangement.

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin