New RN interceptor missile

I’m not sure the need for a VLS is every bit the drawback you believe it to be,

What he said.

Whilst its a pipe dream to hope that VLS is maintenance-free fewer moving parts and (possibly, hopefully) a hermetically sealed unit containing the round should reduce maintenance as compared to a training launcher like on RAM or SeaRAM.

VLS (almost by definition) gives you all rounds ready to fire at once. This was one of original SeaWolf’s downfalls (and what cost it any chance of adoption by USN) the reloading procedures and times simply did not suit a short range anti-saturation attack role.

There is also the issue of arcs of fire. To get 360 degree coverage you are going to need (at least) two launchers. I’m too lazy to look up total weight for either RAM system and double it but I suspect that ship impact for two systems is going to equal to exceed that of a CAAMM farm.

The only weapons I can think of that would fit in that space are more of the same, & I don’t think that’ll be needed. 48 should be plenty.

It would be nice if CAAMM transfer goes both ways and the RN gets an IR homing version of FLAAD. 48 of those in the other half of the VLS sounds nice (but luxurious and expensive).

A (large) part of me hopes that MoD in general and Team Complex Weapons in particular have been very canny and that empty half of that VLS is to allow for trial fits of VLS SCALP/Harpoon/TacTom/Tom/Jumper/etc rather than try to integrate everything on T26 in one go.

Anyone else remember the nightmares T23 had with C3I when first launched?

The idea of putting Artisan and CAAMM on a platform which we (now) know works and then transferring to a new platform is very sensible (if it doesn’t work at least we’ll know which bit is wrong).

Indeed.

The footprint of the CAMM launchers is very small, by the look of it. As well as the Venator video. the MBDA Type 23 refit video shows 12 quadruple launchers fitting into the same space as 16 single Sea Wolf launchers.

That way they side stepped the need to simultaneously develop the ship, radar, systems, launcher and missile.

That is exactly what we did though. Aster, Sylver, S1850 VSR etc are all off-the-shelf components that we haven’t had to develop for the UKPAAMS/Sea Viper.

For FLAADS Artisan is selected as the standard shipboard mid-range radar and was evolving out of 996 anyway. The CAMM round is an evolution of ASRAAM with Team Complex Weapons tinkering round the edges.

I’m not sure the need for a VLS is every bit the drawback you believe it to be, first any mechanical training mount is going to require onboard maintenance support which a VLS will require less of, and the Venator concept is clear illustration of the marginal footprint involved. 4 single cells in a cluster on a very modest hull for a robust capability not only in point air-defence but, for a short fight, the ability to put a local air screen around a consort. Block 2 RIM may be heading that way but why introduce the new system when we have the ability to ‘grow our own’ out of existing systems?.

My understanding is that FLAD/CAAAMMM/FLA/AS is intended to do both ESSSSSM and RAM’s jobs.

It is supposed to be bolt on (like RAM) and active so needing no dedicated tracker/illuminator (like active ESSSSM and arguably like SeaRAM).

I suppose the argument could be made that it neither be as effective as ESSM for local area (smaller, lighter and thus shorter range) nor as numerous for point defence as RAM (bigger, heavier,possibly more expensive thus less carried). But since realistically RN were only going to get one system FLAADS looks like the least worst option to me.

I agree that that is the general idea with it, but my problem is that, as you say, it doesn’t do it in quite the same way. What I mean by that is that although the active seeker obviates the need for the illuminator, the need for the VLS pretty much do away with the advantage. Equally, the ESSM has much greater range than CAMM, and in fact a bit more than even Aster 15 (according to the official figures). As such, it isn’t necessarily ideal building the Type 26 with just CAMM, versus a rival frigate equipped with ESSM (or even SM-2MR).

With the RAM, it can be bolted onto anything big enough to physically fit it, and any ship that can take a Phalanx can take RAM (in SeaRAM form). This makes it a possible fit for the fleet auxiliaries, which are very unlikely to be able to be rapidly fitted with a VLS! Also, the RAM is supposed to be getting a larger diameter motor, which is meant to boost its range and capability, possibly elevating it beyond point defence…

Overall, I would have liked to see the UK go down the Dutch route, taking a proven set of systems (Aegis, ESSM, SM-2 etc…) and then adapting it to use your own, better, radars. That way they side stepped the need to simultaneously develop the ship, radar, systems, launcher and missile. Just look at the development of Horizon, Sylver, PAAMS, Aster 30 – not a tremendous example of an on-time on-budget project!

Jumper land-attack missile

Thanks for bringing thi to my attention:)

Dave

In many ways I would have liked to see the UK going down a slightly different route,

My understanding is that FLAD/CAAAMMM/FLA/AS is intended to do both ESSSSSM and RAM’s jobs.

It is supposed to be bolt on (like RAM) and active so needing no dedicated tracker/illuminator (like active ESSSSM and arguably like SeaRAM).

I suppose the argument could be made that it neither be as effective as ESSM for local area (smaller, lighter and thus shorter range) nor as numerous for point defence as RAM (bigger, heavier,possibly more expensive thus less carried). But since realistically RN were only going to get one system FLAADS looks like the least worst option to me.

http://www.mbda-systems.com/e-catalogue/#/solutions/maritime/40/video

With the spare room that is left, any idea’s what could be added to incress the fire power of a Type 23?

Dave

As has been said there is not an awful lot of space there. IAI have, though, just navalised their Jumper land-attack missile and made its VL pack ship deployable – presumeably in response to the US cancellation of NLOS.

As a 50km ranged precision light strike weapon you could conceive of uses for it in ops like ELLAMY or an opposed transit through Hormuz – especially where the vagueries of shell drop might collaterol limit the opportunity to use the big gun on the pointy end.

Hardly a priority fit, but, as a UOR option should we have to intevene somewhere just slightly to the east of Suez, in a few years time, could be a very useful system to occupy that extra space.

It really is an impressively awful name.

I’m more interested in it having a reasonable cost 🙂

The RN is good at awful names. 🙁

At least it’s better at ship names.

It really is an impressively awful name.

In many ways I would have liked to see the UK going down a slightly different route, more like the Dutch, Spanish and German navies. It would have been quite attractive to see Britain putting an active seeker on ESSM and then basically adopting the RIM-116, ideally with a British built missile as a slot-in replacement for the actual RIM-116 itself (keeping the launcher).

The attraction of the RIM-116’s launchers (11-cell and 21-cell launchers) is the ability to quite readily bolt them onto ships, as opposed to needing to find space to install a proper VLS. This would have allowed them to be added to far more of the RN’s ships, and even the RFA’s support ships. In particular, fitting a small bolt-on trainable launcher on the CVF’s sponsons would have been easier than having to give up deck space for a VLS.

Bear in mind this is just an idle wish, and there would obviously have been issues in terms of British industry and getting US permission to produce variants of their missiles…

Last ditch would be 30mm cannons like the MSI DS30.

Primarily because it is a point defence system designed to be the last line of missiles before the cannon have a go.

Outer layer: F35.
Medium to outer layer: Sea Viper.
Inner layer to Medium layer: Sea Cepter.
Point defence: RIM-116.
Last ditch defence: CIWS cannon.

Each system has a nice overlap. Give me the choice and I would prefer enabling technology like CEC to be installed on the fleet then RIM-116 on the carriers.

CEC would give a quantum leap on RN capability by networking or the systems together.

In effect I regard RIM-116 on QE class as an idle nice to have rather then anything I think seriously about as the CIWS canon on the carriers overlaps the engagement range of Sea Cepter. Also we mustn’t forget the soft kill capabilty of chaff rockets, something shown to be effective during the Falklands war.

On an idle side note I remember having a conversation with one of the maintainers of HMS Illustrious Goal Keeper cannon at a Portsmouth navy day several years ago. In his opinion if you got to the point where you had to rely on his cannon he would already be sitting in the life boat ready to cast off! Best policy is take out the launch platform and beyond that try spoof or engage the missile as far out as possible.

If I was fitting some point defence missiles to the QE class my choice would be RIM116 rather then CAMM.

Currently the only plan is to mount Sea Cepter on the Type 23 and Type 26.

But why would you prefer RIM-116?

Ah well remember the Invincible class was only meant to operate ASW helicopters at inception. Fitting Sea Dart makes sense in that context.

If I was fitting some point defence missiles to the QE class my choice would be RIM116 rather then CAMM.

I never saw the sense of Sea Dart on the Invincibles, but I think it’s very desirable to have short range AD weapons to deal with leakers. I can’t imagine that even a Type 45 is 100% effective.

Well the RN have done without a self defence missile capabilty before on the carriers. The Sea Cat was next to useless and Sea Dart was pulled off the Invincible class as it took up useful space.

Its a case of nice to have but not at the cost of something else, in a hot war the carrier will have a goal keeper frigate/destroyer close to hand. I have no doubt room could be found for a few launch cells but I would rather they put the money towards other things. Fof
for example ensuring a replacement for Sea King ASAC.7 will enhance the air defence capabilities of the carrier more then fitting some self defence missiles.

Why – so you think CVF should only have CIWS

If they RN were plush with cash then maybe it would be a good idea to fit them with Sea Ceptor but they are not. Also CVF is a strike carrier not a fleet carrier and on top of this they should always be escorted by T45 destroyers when operating in a risky environment. The only situation that I can imagine the MoD deciding to put Sea Ceptor on CVF is if they decide that they don’t need escorts if they put the missile system on the ship and save money that way. Which is a terrible idea and I hope that it never happens!

http://www.mbda-systems.com/e-catalogue/#/solutions/maritime/40/video

With the spare room that is left, any idea’s what could be added to incress the fire power of a Type 23?

Dave

The only weapons I can think of that would fit in that space are more of the same, & I don’t think that’ll be needed. 48 should be plenty.