Swingfire Marks

[Bob_Mackenzie]

Gents

 

The Swingfire missile went through at least 4 marks AFAIK. Does anyone know the differences in the marks?

 

Thanks

 

Bob

[JW Collins]

For a missile with such a long production run there doesn't seem to be much information out there about it.

[Bob_Mackenzie]

I agree, not much at all. There are some files in the Nationa Archives and I may well take a look when I'm next there.

 

I'm sure there are some ex BAOR men out there who have the answers

[DB]

The only thing I recall (from a plate at the Tank Museum from years ago) was that there was a change from MCLOS to SACLOS at some point. Not really useful, I know.

[ramontxo]

Some cuestions... How did it (the Swingfire) compare with Hot and Tow?, The 27 kg weight refered in Wiki was in a ready to launch configuration?, Was the MCLOS guidance mode deliberate and could the SACLOS had been developed from the start? As always thanks a lot...

[ramontxo]

Some cuestions... How did it (the Swingfire) compare with Hot and Tow?, The 27 kg weight refered in Wiki was in a ready to launch configuration?, Was the MCLOS guidance mode deliberate and could the SACLOS had been developed from the start? As always thanks a lot...

[CaptLuke]

Some cuestions... How did it (the Swingfire) compare with Hot and Tow?, The 27 kg weight refered in Wiki was in a ready to launch configuration?, Was the MCLOS guidance mode deliberate and could the SACLOS had been developed from the start? As always thanks a lot...

 

Swingfire filled a similar niche as the others, but but came into service a few years before TOW with the decidedly inferior MCLOS guidance (compared to TOW and HOT's SACLOS).

 

This did, however, give Swingfire one tactical advantage: you could hide the launcher, well separated from the operator, and then 'swing' the missile through a turn of up to 90 degrees to guide it to the target (hence the missile's name). I deeply suspect this 'advantage' sounded much better on paper than in the field but haven't seen any employment information to confirm/deny this.

 

Seeing the limitations of MCLOS, the UK upgraded Swingfire to an interesting hybrid guidance system in 1995 for continued use on their Striker vehicle. This was called Swingfire Improved Guidance (SWIG) and there's a good explanation of it on Army Guide here, but the pull quote is this:

 

The improved system offers a simple to use ACLOS (Automatic Command to Line Of Sight) guidance mode so reducing operator training needs. The existing MANCLOS (Manual Command to Line Of Sight) mode is retained, for direct fire reversionary capability, as is the versatile separated fire mode, where the operator can be positioned remotely, up to 100 m from the launching vehicle.

 

Edited November 8, 2014 by CaptLuke

[ramontxo]

Thanks (and sorry for the double post..)

[Bob_Mackenzie]

Some cuestions... How did it (the Swingfire) compare with Hot and Tow?, The 27 kg weight refered in Wiki was in a ready to launch configuration?, Was the MCLOS guidance mode deliberate and could the SACLOS had been developed from the start? As always thanks a lot...

There is a document in the national Archives dealing with the correspondance around procurement of Milan. The docs describe different options including a SACLOS "light" Swingfire, so it appaers possible for it to have been fitted

[Dawes]

The different Marks were probably combinations of the below warheads/assemblage to some extent:

 

1 65515-10 T6/1420-99-964-2511 GM Main Assemblage K13A5

2 65540-22 T6/1336-99-963-4661 GM Head Practice K19A2

3 65540-23 T6/1336-99-965-9145 GM Head Practice K19A3

4 65540-23 T6/1336-99-754-7281 GM Head Practice K19A4

5 65545-01 T6/1336-99-965-4770 GM Head Practice Inert K32A1 Obsolescent

6 65545-02 T6/1336-99-965-6722 GM Head practice Inert K32A2 Obsolescent

7 65550-20 T6/1336-99-966-0337 Warhead GM Heat K33A1

8 65550-21 T6/1336-99-252-5240 Warhead GM HEAT K33A2

9 65577-22 T6/1410-99-966-4062 GM HEAT K13A5/K33A1 (K78A1)

10 65577-23 T6/1410-99-252-5241 GM HEAT K13A5/K33A2 (K78A2)

11 65588-01 T6/1410-99-965-9802 GM Practice K13A5/K19A3 (K79A1)

12 65588-02 T6/1410-99-965-5639 GM Practice K13A5/K19A2 (K79A2)

13 65588-03 T6/1410-99-252-4545 GM Practice K13A5/K19A4 (K79A3)

14 65588-11 T6/1410-99-965-5638 GM Practice (Inert) K13A5/K32A1 (K80A1) Used in BATUS only

15 65588-12 T6/1410-99-965-8392 GM Practice (Inert) K13A5/K32A2 (K80A2) Used in BATUS only (Obsolescent)

16 65588-13 T7/1410-99-221-0554 GM Drill K34A1 Weighted launcher box

[Bob_Mackenzie]

Interesting lists, there must be docs out there describing the different types of warheads

[Sovngard]

Seeing the limitations of MCLOS, the UK upgraded Swingfire to an interesting hybrid guidance system in 1995 for continued use on their Striker vehicle. This was called Swingfire Improved Guidance (SWIG)

So, the Swingfire anti-tank missile relied on MCLOS guidance during much of its service life ?

[CaptLuke]

 

So, the Swingfire anti-tank missile relied on MCLOS guidance during much of its service life ?

 

 

Yes, it was introduced about 1966 and didn't get the SWIG upgrade till 1995 (so almost 30 years with MCLOS) compared to 1995 (SWIG) till roughly 2005 when Javelin replaced it (only 10 years with SACLOS guidance).

 

My impression was that Swingfire was the last, and maybe the best, of the MCLOS ATGM. Only the somewhat inexplicable, and probably inferior, Argentine Mathogo being introduced after it (in 1978!). Other than Mathogo, I think it was all SACLOS after the Swingfire. Dates are approximate, but should be close enough for illustration:

• pre-1966: whole bunch of MCLOS, notably the SS-11 in 1956 and 9M14 Malyutka (AT-3 Sagger) in 1963
• 1966 Swingfire introduced
• 1970 TOW introduced
• 1970 9K111 Fagot (AT-4 Spigot)
• 1972 MILAN
• 1974 9M113 Konkurs (AT-5 Spandrel)
• 1975 Dragon
• 1977 HOT

Edited January 21, 2017 by CaptLuke

[Chris Werb]

 

Seeing the limitations of MCLOS, the UK upgraded Swingfire to an interesting hybrid guidance system in 1995 for continued use on their Striker vehicle. This was called Swingfire Improved Guidance (SWIG)

So, the Swingfire anti-tank missile relied on MCLOS guidance during much of its service life ?

 

 

MCLOS with autopilot assistance which apparently made a big difference.

[Nikolas93TS]

 

 

Seeing the limitations of MCLOS, the UK upgraded Swingfire to an interesting hybrid guidance system in 1995 for continued use on their Striker vehicle. This was called Swingfire Improved Guidance (SWIG)

So, the Swingfire anti-tank missile relied on MCLOS guidance during much of its service life ?

 

 

MCLOS with autopilot assistance which apparently made a big difference.

 

 

I guess that autopilot assistance is extremely similar to "velocity control" method of Vigilant missiles, relying on gyroscopes, rather than the simpler "acceleration control" of contemporary MCLOS missiles. Vigilant's autopilot uses a gyroscope to maintain a straight flight path directly away from the launch point, compensating for any wind buffeting. When the operator moves the joystick, the missile applies a steering correction in the appropriate direction, once the joystick is released the opposite correction is applied automatically, keeping the missile travelling directly away from the launch point. "Velocity control" also reduced time-lag between command input and missile response, lowering minimal range and improving accuracy. Not exactly SACLOS, but it was reportedly appreciated for accuracy and ease of use.

 

It is quite a shame Vigilant never saw service worth of notice, but since Swingfire had similar guidance method (plus it was more modern and performing missile) I can understand why it was kept for so long.

Edited December 29, 2017 by Nikolas93TS

[Nikolas93TS]

Is it likely Mk.2 included a warhead improvements? Some sources noted the Swingfire penetration as "up to 2ft thick" (~610mm), and some estimates go up to 800mm. Former sounds feasible with waveshaper, latter is unlikely IMHO. Nevertheless, waveshapers (from what I have gathered) were more of 1970s technology but I don't exclude a possibility Swingfire had it from start.

 

One reports says that Arab-British Dynamics (founded as a joint-venture company in 1978 by the Arab Organization for Industrialization and British-owned BAE Systems at 70/30 share) developed a Mk 2 HEAT warhead for its Swingfire, but it is not clear if it is related with British Mk.2 Swingfire, which was reportedly introduced in 1980 featuring better and lighter electronics, improved guidance and depending on source, improved warhead.

Also, Barr & Stroud thermal sights were developed with that upgrade, they were evaluated by the British army in 1982 and apparently orders for 3,500 units were placed in February 1984. I am confident it eventually entered service as SWIG upgrade, experimental in the late 1980s, used that thermal sight as a sensor for ACLOS guidance. SWIG acquires the thermal signature of the outgoing missile and generates control signals to bring to zero the angular displacement between missile and target.

Edited December 29, 2017 by Nikolas93TS

[bojan]

...Nevertheless, waveshapers (from what I have gathered) were more of 1970s technology but I don't exclude a possibility Swingfire had it from start.

 

1961. introduction 100mm BK-5M had it.

[Nikolas93TS]

 

...Nevertheless, waveshapers (from what I have gathered) were more of 1970s technology but I don't exclude a possibility Swingfire had it from start.

 

1961. introduction 100mm BK-5M had it.

 

 

So it is not beyond the stretch of the imagination for Swingfire to possibly have shaper too, but we cannot really know for sure until a document or cutout of the warhead pops up.

 

By the way, is there any updates on Yugoslav ATGM trials from the 1960s? I think it was you who mentioned Vigilant was discarded early, and mentioned 350mm pen (marketed values was something over 500mm)

[bojan]

Nothing sure, initially Kobra won in the "competition" (not really competition but more like evaluation of different ones) of SS-10, Vigilante and ENTAC. Troop trials found out some problems with Kobra however (it had tendency to dive w/o any input vs climb like any other ATGM) so it was found out that even temporarily loss of control would crash ATGM. in the end Sagger was acquired as it was almost ideal blend of range, size, weight and penetration..

[GARGEAN]

Nothing sure, initially Kobra won in the "competition" (not really competition but more like evaluation of different ones) of SS-10, Vigilante and ENTAC. Troop trials found out some problems with Kobra however (it had tendency to dive w/o any input vs climb like any other ATGM) so it was found out that even temporarily loss of control would crash ATGM. in the end Sagger was acquired as it was almost ideal blend of range, size, weight and penetration..

Kobra?..

[bojan]

Swiss/German Cobra MCLOS guided one, not the fancy Soviet tank launched ATGM. Sorry for confusion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobra_(missile)

Edited December 30, 2017 by bojan

[GARGEAN]

Swiss/German Cobra MCLOS guided one, not the fancy Soviet tank launched ATGM. Sorry for confusion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobra_(missile)

Yeah, that K confused me)

[Wiedzmin]

 

is there any good info about warhead development for swingfire ?

[DB]

Nothing obvious shows up, but the list of assemblies posted by Dawes suggest that there were only two warhead identifiers, K33A1 and K33A2 - there would not have been a "K33". Given the duration of manufacture (from the 60s through the 90s), there could be any number of reasons for a change, including component and even explosive obsolescence, so there is no real information to be gained from the change in warhead "mark".

Bear in mind also that the "Restricted" header and footer on the diagram probably means that the diagram is a deliberately redacted one to allow it to be published at that classification level, so you shouldn't rely on it to determine the precise shape and (lack of!) internal structure from it, but it might be as simple as that shown.

A little search shows this Kew record.

https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C11273192

Which might be of interest and might also include a description with some detail, or not...

[Gman]

I was discussing Swingfire with a retired British armoured WO2 and he was scathing of it.  Said that the FV438 Swingfire was a loathed vehicle and that it was nigh on impossible to hit anything with swingfire on a range.   This was late 1980's though and the consensus was that when the 438 was withdrawn, good riddance.   Striker was a more manouverable source of irritation and equally as pointless a missile.  He was not aware of any British Swingfire firing actually hitting an enemy AFV successfully in combat.