Shipbucket

The "Gyatt" was a attempt to solve the missile problems by refitting the old destroyers. Wasn't work well, so the "Charles F. Adams" were constructed instead.

_________________
Serve the Nation! Be striped!

Correct. And I don't think comparing the Bloodhound and Terrier Missiles is wise. The only thing they had in common was similar length. The Terrier had a small, uniform diameter with removeable fins specifically designed to be fit within the limited confines of a ship. The Bloodhound doesn't have any of those features. The Terrier also had solely solid propellant, whereas the Bloodhound used liquid fueled ramjets with solid-fueled boosters. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but liquid propellants present an additional hazard if they leak, and they make maintenance and storage more difficult.

I guess the Bloodhound does look cool, but historically, adapting early land-based SAMs for naval use has had limited success.

I knew it, of course. But the "Sea Slug", that may be the only alternative in 1960-th for the british-focused nation... isn't much better, They use liquid-fuel, have a range only about 27-32 km (the "Bllodhound" Mk-I have a range more than 30 km!).

_________________
Serve the Nation! Be striped!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Slug_%28missile%29
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WMBR_Sea_Slug.htm
http://www.skomer.u-net.com/projects/seaslug.htm
http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/rn/destroyers/county/

Please read.First three links are about the Sea Slug missile and last about County Class DDG.

The main drawback of the Sea Slug was that the Type 901 radar could guide only one missile against one target,despite the launcher could fire two missiles.

_________________
Serve the Nation! Be striped!

Ummmm...so?

You seem to be under the impression of what a certain someone on his website calls the "all missiles are the same, all targets are the same" fallacy.

Anyway, to cut the story, all missiles are not the same. There are various technical reasons why the Counties and Gyatt and etc. did what they do.

Only that we COULD place the significant heavy missile in 1960-th destroyer hull. Nothing more.

_________________
Serve the Nation! Be striped!

You don't seem to understand how much space you're asking for. You can't fit something you don't have the space for.

Instead of realizing this you seem to be trying to defend the design from an indefensible position.

Please explane: what the principal difference between the liquid-fuel ramget-powered "Talos" and liquid-fuel ramget-powered "Bloodhound"?
I can't realize because i can't understand the whole problem, that you mean as obvious.

We have a "Bristol Bloodhound", lenght 8,42 m, wingspan 2,83 m (can't we made them folded?)

And we have a "Talos", lenght 11,6 m, wingspan 2,8 m.

And also we have a "Terrier", lenght 8,25 m, wingspan 1,2 m.

Is the problem so catastrofical really?

_________________
Serve the Nation! Be striped!

We are all wasting our time with this person. I took the trouble to post a reasonably argued critique, and he can't be bothered to respond. Anyway, in beginners now, where it belongs, or, maybe Nationstates