I’m interested in truth, not speculation based on a handful of small facts. The real truth, if you can call it that, would have far more evidence than you usually present. Sometimes you hit the ball, I’ve been around here long enough to know, but usually, you beat around the bush. I don’t claim to have classified data, and neither should you (and you do not), so, we are, basically, speculating out of our rear ends. Which is fine by me.

Thats good you are interested in truth – straight up. I’m not sure what you expect to find by saying that there would be far more evidence – evidence of what type do you think is missing?. I dont claim to have classified knowledge – never have done and wouldn’t say so anyway. I have some knowledge from the perspective of a trained weapons engineer who lived in very close proximity with the operators of the weapons he fixed. That gives me a perspective on the ludicrous claims for over-the-horizon missile shots made, from both east and west, in the media and by small boys on the internet.

You have no presented actual evidence of the system being offline, other than SUPPOSED “offline” dates. Yet the Kirovs are slated for repair, and the Oscar II subs are being maintained (and certainly not just to fire those big nasty Type 65 torpedoes!)

The date that the satellite ceased orbital correction is sourced from NASA and the cease-function was from a Russian aersopace source. The Kirov’s and Oscars being slated for repair complete the circularity of your argument – there MUST be a Legenda equivalent because there is resource being spent on the P-700 shooters and there MUST be value in the P-700 because they are still trying to get space-based targetting working. Its a self-reinforcing fantasy.

The simplest fact, Dionis, is that P-700 was developed as a way to fill Soviet Atlantic sea denial doctrine. That doctrine is well documented to use powerful surface forces to support the prime striking element of the Northern Fleet – the SSN’s. P-700, targetted off Legenda, had to deliver a nuclear warhead within a couple of thousand yards of a CV or try and hit a lesser defended target set (CVH ASW group/SAG etc) with conventional warheads in a 1980’s threat scenario.

Now maybe P-700 has been uprated with armour and EW, fine I accept that, but it is still a Cold War system and it is still tied to the element it is sorely missing….Legenda. That being the case, bringing this round to the point about the big ships and subs carrying it, the raison d’etre for Kirov and the Oscars is gone, there are no more ASW hunter groups in the North Atlantic and no SIOP-tasked carriers prowling the Barents, and the enabling technology for the employment of both ships main battery is gone. You tell me what value there is in keeping them?.

You ask:

What is the rush for Russia to implement a brand new targeting system?

I give you, in answer, your own words. They are refitting the Oscars and the Kirovs. For that spend to have any return whatsoever they absolutely HAVE to get something in place to replace Legenda. For my money the satellites are a fools game and were demonstrably proven so when the USN decided to pot a satellite with an SM-3 – if thats not saying ‘forget using satellites to target our ships’ I dont know what is!.

2) Have presented no evidence whatsoever on any real “Soviet failures” other than your deep rooted hate for the Soviet Union. Sad individual you are. 😀

Dont hate them. They kept me employed in a job I loved and, ok, they got me made redundant when they decided to throw their hand in, but, I do quite well in civvy street with what I learned because of them.

3) And yeah, ok, 1200 yards is 1.1KM. Essentially, it is enough for just one fix for the Granit equipped force to launch an attack. That’s pretty impressive indeed.

Missed a nought. 1200yds not 1200. 30knts i.e 30 nautical miles per hour divided by 12 minutes = 6 nautical or about 12,000yds.

This means any MARPAT, AWACS, patrol boat, submarine, fishing trawler on the Russian side can relay a relative fix for the missile to be fired at.

Relative fix from a trawler will be dependent on how good its navigation is and how accurate its radar – is conceivable you could be adding miles to the targetting error on seeker activation. Marpat has to get close enough to identify a target and survive long enough to link back. AWACS is rarely going to be staged out a long way overwater as they tend to be high value systems themselves.

At this rate, I can claim that the Harpoon will never sink a single decently defended ships – EVER! :rolleyes:

I wouldn’t argue that with you – I dont think Harpoon is an especially good weapon either!. 😉

Which missiles with passive/active seekers have been failures?

TASM is the spectacular one. Some of the trials performances of that weapon were almost comical.

For example, Aster 15: as you say, it has shown there is (or was) a market. It may sell as a system regardless of the existence of CAMM, on the grounds of greater capability. It has a greater range & I think ceiling, & that may be enough for potential customers to see a benefit in it, even if it does not exceed CAMM performance in other areas.

It would have to be a very significant performance advantage, I would assume, to overlook the 4 vs 1 missile in the cells ratio!. Which would be a concern. CAMM has to be seen, if it is anywhere near competetive, as a massive threat to future sales of SAAM…..the one part of the whole Aster family that has seen export success.

But we are discussing the possibility of using CAMM in place of Aster 15 in combination with Aster 30, not stand-alone. The expensive add-ons will therefore already have been sold.

Not really I have already acknowledged that the, only, flexibility offered by Sylver quad-pack is for those circumstances where you have Aster 30 in A50 cells and want a higher density rapid-reaction missile embarked to cover the inner layer. My comment was that the number of customers who have the requirement and resources to order full-on PAAMS AAW escorts is small and being able to offer quad-pack CAMM in to the bargain isn’t going to make much difference to that.

You argue that Type 45 does not need a shorter-range missile to complement Aster 30. This is, of course, also an argument against mixing Aster 15 & Aster 30 – which the RN seems to be planning to do.

I have no idea why the RN would consider an Aster15 purchase if they are. I’d strongly hope that every T45 sails with 48 Aster30’s embarked for every deployment.

You also argue in terms of Royal Navy practice in division of roles between ships. I hope you will forgive me for saying that I sometimes find your arguments, while well-informed & logical, rather narrowly focused on the UK: what the UK makes, what the RN needs, how the RN does things. All well & good when discussing purely British needs, but not necessarily the best way to look at things when considering possible exports.

Absolutely fair comment, guilty as charged, I do use what I know best as my frame of reference – accused of that before!. In this case though its hard to look past the RN when we are talking of CAMM, Sylver A50 and Aster30….seeings as the RN are going to be the only, firm(ish) users of all three in the forseeable future. The comments on the thread about quadpack CAMM, I believed, where intentioned towards the concept of T45 deploying both missile types simultaneously. My comment was aimed to respond to that, specifically, in that it is not the best use of magazine space.

A quadpack CAMM setup for Sylver A50 tubes to offer an export mix of area Aster30 and inner-layer CAMM for a notional high-end AAW escort obviously has some merit. The question returns to my initial point though – what is the global market for such high-end AAW escorts?. I can think of one possible…but the price might put them off and I doubt CAMM, quadpacked or otherwise, would sway their decision much.

Whether these options are commercially worthwhile depends on the market. As you point out, not all customers think the same. If there are enough customers who see a particular combination of characteristics as desirable, it’s worth building. Who knows, maybe there’s someone out there who’d like A43/Aster 15 with a few cells reserved for quad-packed VT1! 😀

A good point. I’d imagine that, if Aster30 where to suddenly start attracting much wider interest or DCN started qualifying more missiles with Sylver Mk41-style, then Sylver, as a launcher becomes more credible as a CAMM component. The market doesnt seem to be bearing the former out and DCN dont seem all that interested in getting hard qualification of any new weapons with Sylver.

Until something in that changes I’d be still questioning whether its value for money for us to pay DCN to qualify a quadpack CAMM with Sylver, just for commonality with the T45 VLS – which shouldnt be carrying CAMM anyway – when MBDA will furnish their own launcher which is looking likely to offer quadpack anyway!.

Of course, it does not absolutely need to be a Sylver launcher. The reason for discussing it is that Sylver is out there, in use, & if you have a product, it makes sense to explore how to maximise its value.

Seems to me that the value there would be geared more towards DCN getting someone else to pay for integration of a missile with their launcher than it would be for us, the RN, getting the most cost-effective solution for deploying CAMM!.:)

Old Lock Mart press release about UK CEC:

http://www.lockheedmartin.co.uk/news/129.html

Does anybody know where the program has got too so far?

UK CEC has been deferred.

IIRC it was pushed into a general study on Network Enabled Capability – will try and dig up the project title. It is informative to note, though, that the current MoD document on UK NEC (71 pages long) has absolutely no mention of CEC whatsoever!.

I think you misunderstand me I wasn’t necessarily advocating Fireshadow for T45 merely that it was mooted as a possible upgrade path as it fitted the dimensions for the A50 launcher.

Ahh sorry it did look like you were advocating Fireshadow for T45.

I agree about C2 being the more sensible use for Fireshadow but if that’s the case then what you are talking about is fitting two different launcher types to the same vessel, this seems rather pointless when with a bit of extra spend we could get one that does both, and that goes for the C1 as well, having the 1 type of launcher for all of you’re missiles means flexibility which I’m all for.

Flexibility is good but only where the money spent to get that flexibility generates a return. You seem to be making the assumption that Fireshadow would definitely fit in an A50 cell. Figuring in a longer VL booster than that lofting the inclined-launch weapon I’d not be so certain that we would be looking at a weapon no longer than 5m. Would you choose to standardise all the VL launchers aboard your vessel as A70’s just so that you can swap around Fireshadow or, perhaps, SCALP with CAMM?. No – you wouldn’t!.

Thats why its not necessarily pointless to have two types of launchers. Even with Sylver A50 you have to have the hull to accomodate a VLS that penetrates three decks down!. Do you need that kind of ship impact – for primarily a self-defence missile fit?.

The only thing is that the ROF aint that great but the weight of shot should make up for it in theory. Why does the RN not like the 5″ mount apart from it’s almost the same as what they have? i would guess it’s something to do with the gun mount and systems attached to it rather than the caliber.

The greater weight of shot really counts in NGS especially if you are going in against anything fortified in even the most rudimentry of fashion – target effects counts!. RoF for the proposed mount is more than adequate for fire support.

Why do the RN keep rejecting the 5″ calibre – mostly because it is little improvement in capability over what we have/had. The mounts themselves (if we are talking about the US Mk45 or the OTO127) are arguably quite a bit better than the Mk8 mod 0 – in terms of reliability they couldnt be much worse!. The Mk8 had the virtue of being developed from a weapon BAE put together for the Army so it had ‘jointness’ appeal plus it was, allegedly, a reasonably cheap weapon. I never saw proof of that mind. Seeing we had already decided to replace Mk6 with the Mk8 that was it for a 5″ the actual effects difference between the two basic rounds is marginal though obviously tips in favour of the 5″.

Fair point on the C3, Lebanon type op’s i would still like to see a proper frigate or destroyer there to protect the Amphib or whatever is extracting the nationals. I know the French are looking at improving the AAW fit on the Mistral class because of the Lebanon evacuation, i dont see much of a reason why as i doubt the Isreali AF would do anything stupid.

In most cases the RN unit thats going to be johnny-on-the-spot will be a C3. That could be a C3 on a patrol task or even doing droggy route-survey work in the vicinity. Putting the coercive presence in theatre as quickly as a C3 can be retasked could be a real serious card to have in your hand ready to play. As to improving AAW, for C3, thats most likely best done by putting a section from the booties Air Defence Troop aboard with Starstreak wherever necessary.

Believe it or not Wan I’m aware of the Sylver product range!. Thanks for the aide memoire at any rate 🙂

What I find curious is the view that we should very definitely ensure that CAMM is integrated with what is someone elses product?. DCN build the Sylver launcher and we would, naturally, have to pay them to undertake the work on integrating CAMM with those launchers.

DCN may have developed the A35 module for VT1 and to fit missiles like VLM and CAMM, but, there is no reason to suggest that it is better than the launcher MBDA have developed for VL MICA or will be fielded with CAMM. There is certainly nothing to suggest that a DCN Sylver launcher is going to be capable of quad-packing CAMM. The video imagery of Venator shows a quad-pack arrangement in a 4×1 launcher array more reminiscent of the ground launch pack from MBDA for VLM.

To suggest that Sylver offers more flexibility than a bespoke launcher is also slightly disingenuous…what alternative loads do any of the A35, A43 or A50’s offer of practical value to a vessel intending to carry CAMM?. The Sylver launchers are capable of deploying Aster and anticipated to be compatible with VT1, VL MICA and what else?. Would you mix VL MICA with CAMM….no. Would you mix in CAAM on a Sea Viper ship….similarly no!.

Then we come to the cost/efficiency savings how much commonality is there between, say, an A35 and an A50 module where we to induct both for CAMM and Aster respectively. Wans picture is quite stark on the physical differences between the two. Are there any training similarities between the two modules that could be carried through?. More importantly are those training/logistics savings worthwhile when compared to the spend to DCN for integrating the missile with their launcher?. For me theres a reason why Khareef will sail with the bespoke MBDA launcher and not a Sylver fit out.

Swerve,

There is one very good reason: exports. Being able to fit four CAMM into an A50 could be very attractive to some customers, potentially boosting sales of CAMM, Aster, & Sylver, to the benefit of both MBDA & DCNS.

No-one who wants a self-defence missile fit is going to specify Sylver A50 to launch it though. Perhaps a customer who has signed on for Aster 30 might want to be able to put a quick-reaction missile in but in most cases that is going to be Aster 15 – after all why go to the expense of the PAAMS system just to drive a missile that can cue off a normal 3D TI set???.

Potentially boosting the sales might sound good in theory, but, I will be interested in seeing if DCN pick up the tab for integrating the UK weapon. As I understand it they haven’t been so forward-thinking with VL MICA.

Flubba,

The 114mm Mk8 in its new revision is only just barely fully installed in the Fleet. Its supportability is not in question.

The 155 howitzer BAE is working on may replace it in the frigate fleet eventually, but, I dont see that happening in any hurry – its not a priority for T23 and T22B3 to have greater NGS capability than they have with the base-bleed 4.5″ rounds now in the magazines. The T45’s will never see a 155 mount in their lives I promise you that!. The 4.5″ round and the Mk8 will be a feature in the Royal Navy for a few decades yet have little fear on that score.

Against the small boat threat if its in direct fire range the REMSIG 30 secondary guns would be a better choice than a 76mm. For dealing with pirates and druggies the Mk8 has already proven that the ability to produce a very large shell-splash, in front of said bad-guy, at horizon range has the most wonderful coercive effect. Even the appearance of just a ‘big gun’ on the pointy end has value.

As to the political dimension, be honest, if the Treasury want to try and swing the axe whether the MCG on the front is a 76mm or a 4.5″ it still ‘looks like a warship’. The distinction would be lost on people who wouldn’t acknowledge it regardless.

The issue of what sized main gun should be mounted on C3 does not rest on ‘what everyone else does’. It rests on what mission requirements there are that could be met by the inclusion of a particular calibre of ordnance. Though to use your criteria I can think of only, really, one equivalent vessel that fits with the C3 concept of forward presence Oceanic Capable Patrol Vessel intended for long-duration lone deployment. That vessel is the French Floreal class and do you know what she mounts forward?!.