Typhon: A Summary (Long)
Tom Schoene
together. I hope people find it interesting. (Corrections welcome; if I
ever get a web page set up, I expect this will be there)
*********************************************************
The Typhon Weapon System
By the late 1950s, it was becoming apparent that the Navy's first generation
of surface-to-air missiles (the So called 3-T family, Talos, Terrier, and
Tartar) were not going to be well suited to a range of new threats
anticipated to enter service by the late 1960s or early 1970s. These
threats included submarine-launched anti-ship missiles and large air raids
with standoff missile shooters and jammers. A new system was needed. It
would have to engage bombers and jammers at long range and but also handle
pop-up threats at short range, which implied little reaction time and the
ability to engage many targets at once.
To meet the requirement that the new system be able to handle large numbers
of targets, it was clear that the traditional rotating radars would have to
go, as would the practice of using one designator for each track the system
engaged. Therefor, any new system would have to adopt some form of
electronic scanning. The search radar would probably also have to perform
fire control duties.
The Radar:
The core of the Typhon system was its novel SPS-59 radar. Unlike previous
radars, it had no rotating antennas. Rather it used a large fixed spherical
emitter array and thee smaller receive arrays spaced around the base of the
transmitting antenna. It operated in C-band, a compromise between
long-range search and fire control requirements, but really ill-suited to
either role. The frequency selection made a planar array (a la AEGIS)
impractical, because the existing C-band phase shifters of the era were
large and inefficient in transmitting energy.
Instead, the transmitting system was based around a Luneberg lens beam
former, which allowed the system to switch beams very quickly without a
mechanical training antenna. A Luneberg Lens has the characteristic of
transforming a signal point signal injected into it one side into a flat
wavefront on the other. To transmit a beam in a specific direction, the
system would activate a single emitter directed into the lens, which would
send a signal through the lens to a number of receiver horns on the other
side. These signals would then be switched through a bank of amplifiers and
then switched again to send them to the appropriate travelling wave tube
emitters in the antenna. Each of these elements had to be carefully
connected; there could be no more than 5mm difference in the lengths of the
various signal paths or the signals would be unacceptably distorted at the
antenna. (Receive characteristics are not so widely quoted, but the
principal was the same.)
Two version of the radar were planned, one for destroyers and one for
cruisers. The destroyer version was to have 3,600 elements in the
beamformer, 900 amplifiers, and 3,400 elements in the antenna. The cruiser
version was to have 10,800 elements in the beamformer, 2700 amplifiers, and
10,200 elements in the antenna.
In the event, the initial tests of a much-simplified version aboard Norton
showed the system was not going to work. Reliability and signal processing
software were both problematic, but the major problem was that the system
was losing far too much of the signal strength in the processing process.
Consequently, in some tests, maximum range was less than the selected
frequency's minimum range to resolve targets.
The Missiles:
There were two missiles associated with Typhon. They had some common
elements but were largely unrelated.
Typhon (Medium Range) was initially called Super Tartar and was based
closely on the improved Tartar then under development but with guidance
adapted to Typhon. It was meant mainly to deal with short-range pop-up
threats and leakers that got past the outer layer Like Tartar, Typhon MR was
13.5 inches in diameter and about 15 feet long. It was to have a maximum
range of 40nm and a max altitude of 80,000 feet (minimum 1.5nm and 50 feet),
with a reaction time of 10 seconds or less. MR was to be compatible with
the fast-firing Mk13 launcher.
Typhon (Long Range) was an entirely new missile meant to break up raids at
long range and engage standoff missile shooters and jammers. Initially
called Super Talos, it was nevertheless a roughly Terrier-sized two-stage
missile. The booster was a conventional solid rocket motor; the upper stage
was ramjet powered, 16 inches in diameter and about 15 feet long. Typhon LR
went through a couple of configurations, starting with a tapered delta wing
and a center inlet and ending with narrow-span wings with ramjet inlets at
the wing roots. * It had a max range of 200nm and a max altitude of 100,000
feet (minimum 3nm and 50 ft), at a speed of about Mach 4. Typhon LR was
supposed to be compatible with the Terrier's Mk10 launcher with minimal
modifications.
Both missiles shared a common warhead design, which was to have
interchangeable conventional and nuclear versions.
Guidance was also the same for both systems. For most of the flight, the
SPG-59 radar tracked the missile and sent steering commands to get the
missile into position for terminal homing. Terminal homing was by
track-via-missile; the missile seeker receiving reflected energy from the
SPG-59 and downlinking the resulting signal back to the ship, which
processed it and sent back steering commands. (Because it was also a search
radar, SPG-59 used pulsed signals, which could not be processed effectively
in a small missile with the technology of the day). This worked, but
imposed rather significant demands on the radar, which was asked to also
serve as a data link. The system could control 20 missiles in flight, but
no more than 10 in terminal homing.
Conclusion:
Typhon was a noble effort, but the technical approach taken had too many
inherent problems, from the compromised frequency selection to the
mechanical complexity of the construction.
Given the precision require and the sheer number of elements involved, one
can immediately see that building the radar was challenging to put it
kindly. Most likely, it would never have been affordable, even if the
signal processing and loss problems were overcome.
Some elements of the design did contribute to the development of AEGIS (most
notably the general idea of electronically scanned radar and the decision to
provide terminal guidance only in the late stage of the missile's flight.).
But in large, AEGIS built on Typhon's lessons of how not to do things.
Thus, the decision to adopt planar phased arrays, continuous-wave terminal
illumination, and S-band radars were all based on the realization that
Typhon's approach to the same issues was unsuccessful.
Sources:
CAPT Bryce D. Inman, USN, "From Typhon to AEGIS - The Issues and Their
Resolution," _Naval Engineer's Journal_, May 1988
Milton Gussow, "Typhon: A Weapon System Ahead of its Time," _Naval
Engineer's Journal_, July 1997
Norman Friedman, _U.S. Naval Weapons_, Naval Institute Press,
* I can't find any pictures of the ultimate configuration, unfortunately.
The initial configuration is shown at
http://www.wsmr.army.mil/paopage/Pages/Typhon.htm. (The 20,000-lb. weight
listed there has to be wrong; Terrier weighs 3,000 lbs. and Typhon LR was
about the same size.)
--
Tom Schoene (replace "invalid" with "net" to email)
We must welcome the future, remembering that soon it will be the
past; and we must respect the past, knowing that once it was all that
was humanly possible. - George Santayana
D. Scott Ferrin
Just wondering if you know why they axed the missile portion of the
program. You would think they could have modified it to use the
systems Tarter/ Terrier used.
Tom Schoene
D. Scott Ferrin <sfe...@xmission.com> wrote in message
news:39c4e468...@news.xmission.com...
>
> >The Missiles:
> >
> >There were two missiles associated with Typhon. They had some common
> >elements but were largely unrelated.
> Just wondering if you know why they axed the missile portion of the
> program. You would think they could have modified it to use the
> systems Tarter/ Terrier used.
Aside from its unique guidance system, Typhon MR really wasn't that much
different from the missiles produced in the Tartar Reliability Enhancement
Program (TRIP). Not too long after Typhon was cancelled, TRIP evolved into
Standard Missile-1 MR, which actually did Typhon one better in some ways, by
cutting warm-up time to essentially zero (1/15th of a second, down from 26
in original Tartar).
As for Typhon LR, I'd argue that the missile was so dependant on the
performance of the radar that they really wouldn't work separately. That
range of 200nm was more than any existing Terrier illuminator could support,
especially if the missile required continuous semi-active homing.
Other developments may also have argued against the need for a really
long-range missile as well. For example, the F-14/Phoenix combination was
in sight by the time Typhon was killed, which shifted the main duty for that
extremely long range outer air battle from the SAMs back to the fighters.
Michael P Reed
"Tom Schoene" <tasc...@starpower.invalid> wrote:
> A couple of people were asking about Typhon, so here's a summary I put
> together.
Many a thanks for the time taken to research and post this.
<snip>
> Two version of the radar were planned, one for destroyers and one for
> cruisers. The destroyer version was to have 3,600 elements in the
> beamformer, 900 amplifiers, and 3,400 elements in the antenna. The
cruiser
> version was to have 10,800 elements in the beamformer, 2700
amplifiers, and
> 10,200 elements in the antenna.
What are the advantages of the larger antenna? Better range? The
ability to control more missiles in flight?
> There were two missiles associated with Typhon. They had some common
> elements but were largely unrelated.
>
> Typhon (Medium Range) was initially called Super Tartar and was based
> closely on the improved Tartar then under development but with
guidance
> adapted to Typhon
Ahhh, ok, I wondered how Typhon was supposed to fit into the Mk-13.
Was Typhon meant for new-construction only, or were retrofits planned?
--
Regards,
Michael P. Reed
Reply to mpreedattdi.net
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Tom Schoene
Michael P Reed <mpr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8q5bnr$job$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > together.
>
No problem. I rather enjoyed it.
> <snip>
>
>
> > Two version of the radar were planned, one for destroyers and one for
> > cruisers.
[snip]
>
> What are the advantages of the larger antenna? Better range? The
> ability to control more missiles in flight?
Both systems could handle the same number of missiles in flight. The bigger
array had two key advantages:
1) More transmitted power, which equated to more range. The cruiser version
had the range to support Typhon LR, the DDG version would only have used
Typhon MR. (This is nothing to sneer at; Typhon MR matched the range of the
Terrier versions then in service.)
2) Better tracking ability; the cruiser system could track 400 targets, the
destroyer version only 120.
> Was Typhon meant for new-construction only, or were retrofits planned?
New construction only. Typhon was *much* larger than any previous radar and
needed really huge amounts of power; it would have been impractical to
backfit. I imagine they might have come up with an equivalent to the New
Threat Upgrade to allow the older Terrier ships to handle the Typhon LR
missile (probably at a lower RoF and range) and it might well have been
possible to adapt Tartar ships to shoot Typhon MR, though again without the
mass raid handling capability.
Michael P Reed
"Tom Schoene" <tasc...@starpower.invalid> wrote:
> No problem. I rather enjoyed it.
Make sure you let us know if/when you get your website up.
> Both systems could handle the same number of missiles in flight. The
bigger
> array had two key advantages:
>
> 1) More transmitted power, which equated to more range.
Pardon my ignorance on this, but how exactly does electrical scanning
work?
> The cruiser version
> had the range to support Typhon LR, the DDG version would only have
used
> Typhon MR. (This is nothing to sneer at; Typhon MR matched the range
of the
> Terrier versions then in service.)
Did SM-1 benefit or was in any way derived from Typhon, or was it a
strict Tartar development?
> > 2) Better tracking ability; the cruiser system could track 400
targets, the
> destroyer version only 120.
Presumably this was a result of more elements?
--
Regards,
Michael P. Reed
Tom Schoene
> In article <8q6dlc$9r8$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>,
> "Tom Schoene" <tasc...@starpower.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> > 1) More transmitted power, which equated to more range.
>
> Pardon my ignorance on this, but how exactly does electrical scanning
> work?
Remember that Luneberg lens? By applying a signal at a specific point on
the lens, you got a particular beam out of the system. Scanning simply
consisted of switching that input from point to point around the lens.
Because the antenna itself didn't rotate, the beam could look in any
direction at any time. IN contrast, a mechanically scanned beam had to wait
until the antenna had tuned back to face the target, which was slower and
more predictable (i.e. easier to jam, because the jamer knew wehn to next
expect a beam.)
> > The cruiser version
> > had the range to support Typhon LR, the DDG version would only have
> used
> > Typhon MR. (This is nothing to sneer at; Typhon MR matched the range
> of the
> > Terrier versions then in service.)
>
> Did SM-1 benefit or was in any way derived from Typhon, or was it a
> strict Tartar development?
Typhon MR and SM-1 were essentially parallel branches of the Tartar
development "tree." Both incorporated elements from the Tartar Reliability
Improvement Program. There was undoubtedly some technology trasnfer from
Typhon to the SM-1 program (esepcially in fast-warming missile systems), but
SM-1 wasn't a direct development of Typhon.
> > > 2) Better tracking ability; the cruiser system could track 400
> targets, the
> > destroyer version only 120.
>
> Presumably this was a result of more elements?
I think more likely this came using from a larger track-holding computer.
Typhon used control consoles adapted from the Navy Tactical Data System
(NTDS). In other ships, it was these consoles that determined the number of
tracks a ship could hold, so it seems likely they served the same role in
Typhon. These consoles and the associated computers were quite bulky, which
meant that shipboard volume really could limit the number of tracks the
system could handle.
The need for more track handling ability in the cruiser version probably
stemmed from its longer range, which obviously meant more search volume and
more potential targets. The larger number of elements were required to give
sufficient transmitted power for longer range beams. Remember that each beam
was formed by multiple transmit elements, and those elements were the same
in both systems, so a stronger beam demanded more elements.