RN Type-4X Poll: SAM

Ok, the vote is a draw between the Aster system and the US ESSM/SM-2 combo.

I’m closing voting now this thread has died and we need to move on. The most diplomatic solution is to leave the AAD fit flexible to the “designers” (i.e. you go draw/describe your ideas and argue your case and collaborate etc). So SAM fit is completely open. Plus I have a hunch that had I included CAAM in my original list the votes might be a bit different.

The quoted figures are CAMM >20 km, Aster 15 at least 30km. That puts CAMM at or above the range of VL Mica. The launch system probably helps increase range, by saving fuel at launch.

Okay,

Surely we’re not replicating T45 here, relatively local defensive fit.

(A)
(I) – Aster 15
(C)

Not (g) for logistics and politics.

As far as i know, At the moment Aster 15 is not being purchased, CAMM has similar range to Aster 15 but can be quad packed in a Sylver VLS.

Okay,

Surely we’re not replicating T45 here, relatively local defensive fit.

(A)
(I) – Aster 15
(C)

Not (g) for logistics and politics.

More votes please. Currently a close run between C) Aster and G) ESSM+Standard

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBF-0OxpW6Q&feature=related

Plus even VL-Seawolf doesn’t have that much range. It is speedy though 😮

I must admit VL MICA is interesting and it offers the advantage of using VL Seawolf launch silo’s. The issue I see on the other hand is Seawolf is getting upgraded for another 10 years service and I’m not sure VL MICA would offer that significant a performance advantage over Sea Wolf.

I can certainly see the VL Seawolf container being used for CAAM.

CLOS vs active.

Aster variants….Longer legs and maybe faster

I believe it already reaches 60g’s due to its interesting TVC… 😮

Maybe VL MICA….

But I think I’ll stick to one type of SAM

Other SAMs would be part of the CIWS (gun + missile combo)

I must admit VL MICA is interesting and it offers the advantage of using VL Seawolf launch silo’s. The issue I see on the other hand is Seawolf is getting upgraded for another 10 years service and I’m not sure VL MICA would offer that significant a performance advantage over Sea Wolf.

I can certainly see the VL Seawolf container being used for CAAM.

Aster variants….Longer legs and maybe faster

I believe it already reaches 60g’s due to its interesting TVC… 😮

Maybe VL MICA….

But I think I’ll stick to one type of SAM

Other SAMs would be part of the CIWS (gun + missile combo)

Does the RN have the means to replenish far away from home? Wouldn’t a U.S. missile solution make logistics actually easier in expeditionary ops???

1. Yes.
2. Not worth discussing, since –
i. The RN is already committed to Aster. Ships built & building, missiles, radars & other equipment bought, logistics infrastructure set up. Adding a second, incompatible system would mean immense extra expense, ongoing extra support costs, & add operational problems.
ii. Replenishing our ships by piggy-backing on the USN makes us dependent on the whim, & convenience, of the USA. It runs the risk of the USA refusing to supply us because it disagrees with our plans, or because it has other uses for the supplies, or supply ships, which it considers more important. Decisions on which systems to operate should therefore not be made with the assumption of US support.

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=2200&tid=1200&ct=2

That actually has a range of 230 miles = 368 Km – the missile is in the same class of the S-400 family of missiles and out ranges any aster variant by a fair margin. It also formed the basis of the RIM-161 SM-3 which reportedly has a range of over 500 Km.

I wonder if they’ve ever considered a SAM based on the full-caliber SM-3 Block II they’re working on or if it’d even be worth the cost.

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=2200&tid=1200&ct=2

That actually has a range of 230 miles = 368 Km – the missile is in the same class of the S-400 family of missiles

Uh-oh. Now you’ve done it. 😉

d) Standard SM-2ER Block IV
Range: 240km, Alt: 33km, Agility: ?, Guidance: Semi-Active

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=2200&tid=1200&ct=2

That actually has a range of 230 miles = 368 Km – the missile is in the same class of the S-400 family of missiles and out ranges any aster variant by a fair margin. It also formed the basis of the RIM-161 SM-3 which reportedly has a range of over 500 Km.
________
Lamborghini Countach History

VL-Mica should be part of the SSDS, not of the mission weapon system.
Aster is sooo thin, making it real hard for any future version. A non-starter.

“I” — meaning the whole SM-family like SM-6, incl non-booster versions (= Mk41/57 VLS), plus conditionally VL-Mica in distributed cells (see comment above)

Re comments about logistics: Does the RN have the means to replenish far away from home? Wouldn’t a U.S. missile solution make logistics actually easier in expeditionary ops???

1. C
2. G
3. I – 9M96 :diablo:

“I” (V1) – CAAM, enough for point defense, this isn´t suposed to be a AAW Destroyer (and the RN Budget will kill anything expensive)

“I” (V2) – CAAM+ASTER30 “and throw in a SAMPSON Radar” (to hell with “Bean counters”)

“C” – ASTER15 with a THALES Herakles, not dreadfully expensive and already developed

Standards and ESSM on Royal Navy Ships´s is a “Non Starter” by some very obvious reason´s (cost, logistic footprint, etc)

(g) it fits well to the choosen tactom and sm-3 ->mk-41
(i -> other) sm-6 in addition to (g)

1. I) COMBO – ASTER 30 + CAAM with PAAMS or SAAM-ESD
2. C) ASTER 30 with PAAMS or SAAM-ESD
3. I) CAAM

Oh, and i’m sceptical about the numbers for SM2 and ESSM. Not to mention i’d rather stick with the system that the RN has already invested several billion pounds in its development.

Quite right. Not forgetting that we now have a logistics base for the system, & SM2/ESSM would need their own.

Introducing SM2 & ESSM would lead to us having some ships operating one medium/long range combo, and others operating a different combo. We would lose all the advantages of commonality, increase out costs, & decrease our operational flexibility (“Sorry captain, we can’t reload your ship because we’ve run out of SM2. We have plenty of Aster 30, though . . .” ). This is a case where debate doesn’t get as far as considering the respective qualities of combo A vs. combo B: everyone sticks with what they have, whichever it is.

Note that these arguments don’t apply to a missile in a different niche, such as CAMM, or RAM, or even VL-Mica. Nor do they apply to a missile which could be used alongside, or even substitute for, an existing missile, such as a theoretical quad-packed-inside-a-Sylver missile, whether completely new or a development of an existing one.

B D G The rest of the systems pretty much demand Mk. 41, we’ve already chosen SM-3 for the ABM. Personally I’d rather stick with the ESSM and free up more space for ASW and land-attack roles, rather then becoming a versitile failure.

MAtt

First, nice idea planeman!

C.)
A.)
B.)

I know we’re supposed to make our own choices and not second-guess future MOD decisions, but the main reason for this choice is the existence of, and expensive investment in the T-45/PAAMS, with all the issues of logistics, common training and so on. I interpreted the the main thread saying “Area air defense – joint primary role” in the way that you would want a 100km+ SAM system. Maybe I read that wrong, so I added another vote for a shorter ranged option.