Talk:Seacat (missile)

This is my first article for Wikipedia, I hope I have not broken any fundamental rules. I wanted this to compliment the bald facts about the Sea Cat missile system found on the article page, please forgive me if I have misstated anything, I am writing from memory about events that happened thirty years ago.

As a Royal Navy Able Seaman Missiles, I worked on the Sea Cat missile system in the late 1970's. I was a Sea Cat Missile Aimer on two Leander class frigates, HMS Apollo and HMS Diomede. As I'm sure you will understand if you read the description on the article page, these were very elementary missiles systems from a technology viewpoint and they required someone to guide or aim them into the target. This task required three primary attributes, which all gunnery trainees were screened for; keen eyesight, fast reaction times and manual dexterity. Trainees displaying these attributes went through additional training to turn them into Sea Cat Aimers. This training involved the use of what must have been one of the earliest examples of a "simulator". As a Sea Cat Aimer, you received a patch to be worn on your right sleeve with the image of a Sea Cat missile at a 45 degree angle. There were usually 1 or 2 aimers on each Navy ship in the late 70’s and we usually took turns to shoot missiles during live firing exercises. Live firing exercises were always (in my experience) done with dummy warheads, there was a way to determine proximity to the target and bringing the missile to within 20 to 30 feet of the target was deemed a ‘hit’ since the missile had a proximity fuse and it was assumed that the target would be fatally damaged by shrapnel at that distance. Targets were usually either towed ‘sleeve types’ or small propeller driven drones launched and controlled from the ships deck similar to a radio controlled model airplane but much larger. (I actually downed one of these drones while serving on HMS Diomede and a subsequent visit to the ship many years later found the propeller from the drone still hanging in place of honor in the Gunners mess.) The missile would be launched by the missile control center but was actually controlled by the aimer from a circular dome like structure that sat on deck usually next to the missile battery containing 4 ready to launch missiles. The Sea Cat aimers dome revolved at the deck and had a radar dish on the front. The aimer sat in a center chair and had a two handed yoke in front of him that controlled the domes direction. Once the canvas semicircular concertina cover was lowered, the dome was open to the air and the aimer had a powerful set of binoculars on a type of gimbaled bar at eye level. By using the hand yoke the aimer could train the binoculars in any direction when looking for a target and many an aimer spent many an hour doing this during war exercises. Naturally in a real wartime situation the ships radar would pick out an incoming target long before an aimer could and these coordinates would be transmitted to the missile control center which would automatically rotate the dome and elevate the binoculars to the correct position where the domes own radar could lock in on the target. Once the missile launched, the aimer would use a tiny joystick located under his right thumb to guide the missile towards the center cross hairs on the binoculars and by minute adjustments he would edge it back on course each time it tried to stray. This was very hard to do, imagine trying to keep the flight of a bottle rocket straight and you’ll get some idea of how hard it was. It required lighting reactions but very small corresponding movements of the joystick. It was not unusual to keep a missile straight on target the whole way out and just before impact have it veer off course with no time to correct. Although hard to control and very primitive by the standards of contemporary missiles, the Sea Cat did benefit from not having an easy way to counteract it. I can imagine the consternation of the Argentinean pilots during the Falklands War as they dumped chaff and magnesium flares only to have a Sea Cat missile keep coming at them completely unaffected. Steve Kemp Ex RN Able Seaman Missiles, 1976 - 1981.

Thanks Steve. It would be great to see some pictures if any existed of the other parts of the system. Missile storage, types of radar used to cue the system on to target, the aimers position of GWS20. There are so many books on warships, but none of them go into the technical aspects to my satisfaction. Even the very good Warship Quarterly series that used to do articles on radar systems never seemed to show the displays, and how weapons systems were integrated into them for radar control purposes. I imagine, having recently had the chance to work on an old E4 analogue auto-pilot out of a C130 aircraft, that there would have been plenty of valve and servo driven computers, and I find that stuff just fascinating. It would be great to see a diagram of every component of the various seacat systems, where they were in the ship, and how they integrated.

I am in the process of building a model of an unmodified Rothsay Class frigate with GWS-20, and its always interesting wondering exactly where everything was located below decks, and why they chose the weapons systems they did. This had the old canvas dome covered director, and I remember my older brother visiting one such ship and being told it was incredibly difficult for the aimers to hit the target, and it took a lot more practice than they got.

Also of interest is just how this system was tested and sold to the navies. Was this a case of good salesmen pulling the wool over the military eyes? I just can't reconcile over 80 launches in the Falklands with just one possible kill against aircraft of the same era of design, as being the performance of a credible weapons system. It almost seems a case of designer weapons systems, we don't care how effective it is, as long as we can say we have a "guided missile" system. The unfortunate STAAG gun system might have been better bet to have persevered with, despite its maintenance problems. If valve and synchro operation can work in a rattly old C130 auto-pilot, I'm sure the problems could have been overcome for STAAG somehow, even if much of the electronics were moved off the gun mount.

Also Steve, interested to know how the proximity warhead operated. This can't have been fired manually, so how did it work? Was there a sensor in the warhead, or did ship's radar provide the command? I see that GWS-21 used Type 262 radar on the old CRBF Director, but not sure how GWS-20 did it as the director looks entirely optical with no dedicated radar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.61.184.18 (talk) 18:52, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

KD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.239.116.184 (talk) 21:32, 4 December 2015 (UTC)   The whole aim of putting guided missiles to sea in the RN,  in the early and mid 1960s was to present the UK as a leader in high technology as part of the general export sales effort, not just in relation to defence goods. Many of the export buyers had the same need to present their warships as modern systems with precise weapons, not brutal guns. A classic example would be the Admiralte class destroyers sold to Chile which had to add a couple of Seacat mounts for the Chilean Navy to impress it political leadership, despite the fact Seacat was a joke compared wih the advanced single 4 inch Vickers auto guns and the L70s fitted as well. The uselessness of Seacat and other weapons such as Limbo, are discussed in retired outspoken { Rear Admiral Christoper Parry} presentation about the Falklands war on (you tube) to East Coast uS Naval audiences a few years ago. Ironically the US Tartar and US Terrier missiles did not really work in so far as have the capabilities to hit the intended Russians Migs and bombers wither until the late 1960s and replacement by Standard. Useful Sources here are various RAN papers by Rear Admiral Goldrick and Jones on the RAN purchase of the Adams DDG class in 1960. The greatest cost was that by carrying useless weapons like Seacat,LImbo and most of all Seaslug south into combat off the Falklands in 1982 the ships vulnerability was greatly increased.


 * Some people may be under a misapprehension of what Seacat, Limbo, etc. were designed for. From the 1950's on, RN vessels were designed for one over-riding purpose, that of defending shipping bringing over supplies from North America in support of NATO in any war against the Warsaw Pact. This defence of shipping required good anti-submarine fitments, as well as capability of detecting and shooting down aerial targets - which might be carrying nuclear weapons - on the open ocean areas of the North Atlantic at as long a range as was practicable. Other operations took second place, and offensive operation in a country far from home came very low down on the priority list, Britain having by then divested herself of much of her former empire. Thus Seacat and it's predecessor, Seaslug, was designed for use in the open ocean away from ground clutter, and not within the confines of a sound sheltered by hills on three sides against fast-moving aircraft at low level.


 * BTW, you may have noticed that Argentina did not attack the Task Force while it was in the open ocean, but instead waited until the ships had approached to within sight of the Falklands. Seacat and the other GWS are the reason why.


 * One more thing, you cannot shoot down at long range, an aircraft carrying a nuclear weapon, with a gun, in order to achieve the required range the gun has to be big, and a big gun is heavy, which means it cannot be trained quickly enough to track a fast-moving jet aircraft target. Hence a guided weapon is required, preferably with its own propulsion system, i.e., a rocket motor. You have to shoot down an aircraft carrying a nuclear weapon at long range as if you don't once the attacker has approached to within a certain distance even if you shoot him down and the nuclear weapon is detonated it will still cause serous damage to the ship. This is the reason the RN stopped armouring its ships, as in the sort of war the Navy was planning to fight, armour would have been no use whatsoever.

Falklands kills

 * "BATTLE ATLAS of the FALKLANDS WAR 1982, by Land, Sea, Air" Gordon Smith, 2006 (on http://www.naval-history.net/F64argaircraftlost.htm]) - Argonaut 1 claim, Plymouth 1/2 claim, Antelope 1 claim, Fearless 1/2 claim, Yarmouth 1 claim;


 * Friday 21st May - Dagger A of FAA Grupo 6 shot down near Fanning Head by Sea Cat fired by HMS Argonaut or Plymouth, or more likely Sea Wolf from HMS Broadsword (10.30 am). Lt Bean killed.
 * Sunday 23rd May - A-4B Skyhawk of FAA Grupo 5 shot down over San Carlos Water by unknown SAM (1.50 pm). Claims that day include "Broadsword" Sea Wolf, "Antelope" Sea Cat, and land-based Rapiers and Blowpipe. Lt Guadagnini killed.
 * Monday 24th May - A-4C Skyhawk of FAA Grupo 4 damaged over San Carlos Water by ship and ground-based air defences and crashed into King George Bay, West Falkland on flight home (1.30 pm). Claims that day include "Argonaut" and "Fearless" Sea Cat, and Rapier and Blowpipe SAM's. Lt Bono lost.
 * Tuesday 25th May - A-4C Skyhawk of FAA Grupo 4 destroyed over San Carlos Water by a variety of weapons, claims including small arms fire, "Yarmouth" Sea Cat, and Rapier and Blowpipe SAM's (12.30 pm). Lt Lucero ejected.

This gives a total of at least 4 confirmed kills that Sea Cat claimed, I have amended the article accordingly Emoscopes Talk 14:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


 * All of the above is true to the book but later analysis suggests, Lt Bean was indeed hit by the SeaWolf & there is Missile Camera footage of his loss. According to his comrades Lt Guadagnini was hit my 20mm cannon fire from HMS Antelope (F170) before crashing through her mainmast.  Lt Bono seems to have been hit by a lot of Small Arms fire & probably 40mm.  So that just leaves Lt Lucero who sadly was killed in March 2010

Name
The manufacturers spelt the name "SEACAT" (one word) - see Shorts' 1965 advertisement for the system here; — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 20:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Seacat today in service?
for The Military Balance 2019, the Seacat was in service on a nigerian corvette, the Erinomi a Vosper mk 9, some can confirm that the Seacat is operational? for note the Tigercat is listed under the iranian air force sectionFrancomemoria (talk) 15:38, 19 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Came here thinking the same thing I'm pretty sure no one is using Sea Cat anymore, anyone have better knowledge? WCM email 15:39, 6 July 2023 (UTC)