JonesyWith all due respect Scooter ESSM isnt really a good fit here. Firstly I dont think the US has a lightweight X-band director it can provide to handle the fire control and I dont see Thales being too eager to provide SEAPAR or the Aussies to come through with CEA Mount to accomplish the task.
I dont think that any of the lightweight mechanically-trained directors associated with ESSM currently would be sufficient in capability to offer a practical solution in Taiwans threat environment so I wouldnt even investigate that option.
To be honest in the ROCN’s position I’d want an active missile from the gitgo and would be strongly encouraging of them going down the TC-2 route. So much so in fact, in their shoes, I might be looking at some kind of booster/missile combination with TC-2 for an Aster-style area defence weapon to replace SM-2 on the Kidds. If they can knock together a VLS that could quadpack Naval TC-2’s and accomodate an ER version retrofitting the Kidds would enhance their capabilities by several orders of magnitude.
JonesyYou sure about that Garry. As I understood it there were two distinctly different variants of the Silex round.
ASW variant
SSM variant
The green lower section visible on the ASW variant being the torpedo payload and the IR sensor and fixed warhead on the SSM variant being obvious on that round?.
EDIT: No matter Garry, I remembered I’d already been confused by this one and had the answer previously. There was an ASW only variant, but, it was supplanted by the dual-role missile you describe (the ‘SSM’ version pictured).
JonesyJezza,
Sorry for the brevity but if you search in the archive for a thread called ‘Horizon vs. F100’ you’ll dredge up quite a bit of the information you are looking for. Failing that one of the fine gentlemen lurking hereabouts might link it up for you.
Cheers
JonesySeen them do that before!. Crack in the solid booster composition that leads to low-order combustion rather than boost!.
The testimony that that is a bloody powerful booster is that the fragment that did fire properly was sufficient to throw a big heavy missile like a Dart clear overboard!
JonesyIs this still going on?. Unbelieveable.
The pertinent facts here have been well covered it seems though. People are claiming that the PLA has some form of AShBM capability in utter ignorance of the fact that no wide-area blue-water targetting system exists anywhere on or over the planet – in anyones inventory.
Sean mentioned RORSATs as targetting platforms for AShBMs…that would be fine but, as of right now, there are precisely no RORSATs in orbit. The Russians have a maritime-recce tasked EOSAT which has, I believe, a fairly low powered search set bolted to it, but, this is a far different proposition from a full-powered RORSAT. Several nations have radar-imaging birds lofted and more have EO imaging birds up – neither of these are wide-area search/track assets though.
That is only one aspect of the backend system that would need to be in place to coordinate the engagement cycle of an AShBM though and, to be honest, I agree with Norman Friedman here. The PLA are a long way away from having the C3I to take this kind of shot. ASAT tests are utterly irrelevent here as its a lot, lot easier to spot a target satellite as it comes over the horizon so lets not have that back in fudging the issue either.
It is undeniable that, right now, a descending RV would be a hard target to engage for today’s AEGIS/APAR/PAAMs ships and such a weapon, if it existed as part of a full-up integrated anti-ship system, would be remarkably valuable in the short-term. The problem is that its science-fiction now as, quite simply, no-one yet has managed to hit a moving target with a strategic size RV from a ballistic launcher. Then, by the time it is realised and the wide-aspect targetting issues have been addressed, anti-TBM capability will be baseline on any competent AAW ship. So once again, as with the salutory lessons Moskit taught everyone, people will be making the ludicrous error of developing weapons system along the lines of already-defeated technology. Remarkable really how some like to steadfastly cling to such things.
JonesyThe “IS” system “istrebitel sputnikov” was the analagous system, to the Chinese ASAT, that the Russians devised for ASAT. It was fielded in 1968. You are congratulating yourselves for mastering technology the Russians cracked nearly 4 decades ago?.
Like Nick says there is a huge gulf in the challenge of tracking and intercepting a satellite and the challenge of localising, identifying, tracking and engaging a carrier group in open water which is, after all, the topic of debate.
JonesyCrobato,
Tell me you are going by more than this:
The development programme has been confirmed by both US government and Asian military sources, with the latter estimating that the PLA may be able to deploy the space targeting systems needed to make its anti-ship ballistic missile operational by 2009.
PLA efforts to provide terminal guidance capabilities to both its 600 km-range DF-15 (CSS-6) short-range ballistic missile and DF-21 (CSS-5) medium-range ballistic missile with a range of 2,150 km, or 2,500 km for the DF-21A (CSS-5 Mod 2), have been known since the mid-1990s. The existence of a terminally guided DF-21C has long been reported. Asian military sources said that the PLA will be using a version of the DF-21 for its ballistic anti-ship missions.
However, the PLA would need to make substantial advances in missile guidance and countermeasures in order to achieve the very high precision required to attack a moving target. To do so, the US Office of Naval Intelligence noted: “The current TBM force would be modified by changing some to the current missiles’ re-entry vehicles to manoeuvring re-entry vehicles with radar or infra-red seekers to provide the accuracy needed to attack ships at sea.”
I LOVE that last quote from the ONI – similar to that quaint Americanism ‘If my aunt had balls she’d be my uncle’.
All they say is that the TBM’s are nowhere near that capabiliity and, if they were to try and do it they’d have to add in some form of terminal guidance. We have a saying in the UK – ‘no sh*t Sherlock’.
To put this in perspective active radar terminal guidance has been tried before with the Pershing II’s RADAG system. It gave a CEP of about 40 yards against a stationary target…get that bit….STATIONARY target.
Like I said, and I know you hate it when I point out the operational realities like targetting here Crobato, the detect-to-shoot cycle would have to be measured in seconds for this to stand half a prayer of working in the real world…and I ask you again…because you must have missed the question last time…WHO has the C3I backend to do that???.
JonesyAnti-ship ballistic missile???????
You lads are priceless – where did you dredge that one up?
At high speeds, even small fins can generate more than enough control authority. Especially at the range of speeds you would expect an SRBM to make
Crobato, yeah sure you dont need honking great wings to establish aerodynamic control on a M6 vehicle….but you are not going to get much cross-range deflection either!. Hitting a moving target with a guided conventional ‘MARV’ section???. What a hoot!. The detect to shoot cycle would have to be measured in seconds – who the hell has the backend systems to do that???.
Lads trust me that this is not a good idea in the same way that the steam-powered airship concept was never pushed very hard!. Simply put there are better ways to do the job. If you are conviced about anticarrier ballistic missiles then do what the soviets did….go nuclear!. A spread of fullbore nuke RV’s from a dozen launchers over a 20km square box that the CVBG is roughly centred on will remove one carrier group from the board!. No kidding.
Alternatively use the ballistic launcher to bus out multiple LOCAAS/TACIT RAINBOW type autonomous target recog. cruise missiles. Again put a dozen RV’s bussing out 80 LOCAAS and 20-30 TACIT RAINBOWS plus decoys and you will make a mess of a CVBG through attrition.
JonesyMeteor wouldn’t have anywhere near the same range launched from a ship as from a plane, unless it had a damn good booster, & VL Mica would need a good booster to compete with Aster 15. VL Mica only has about 10-12km range at the moment, i.e. a fraction of the range of air-launched.
I wonder if you could squeeze more Aster 15 in a Sylver A50 with a slimmer booster? Current one is the same diameter as for Aster 30, but shorter. Would a longer, slimmer booster be practical?
Yep, of course, Meteor would need a booster stage to match its flight parameters from an airborne launch. Even if the booster only replicated 75% of standard aerial launch parameters you are still looking at an area defence weapon in the Aster30 category as opposed to a quick reaction PDMS like ESSM or Aster15 though.
Yep MICA has a 10-12km range at present…that is in the midrange for the Aster15 engagement envelope though. IIRC All Aster15 test shots to date have culminated in intercepts in the sub-10km range envelope. Mate VL MICA with a good, hi-datarate, MFR and quadpack it for Sylver and you have a weapon that IS competing with Aster15!. At the end of the day that is going to impact someones bottom line to detrimental effect!.
You are thinking along the lines of the SM-2 booster stage that is ‘inline’ wih the round. The simple answer is that yes such a change would be feasible if a slimmer booster could be devised that would generate the same thrust along the same acceleration curve as the existing ‘fat’ booster. Best people to fire that question at are probably Eurosam themselves!.
JonesyKev
I consider myself to have at least a partial sense of humour but I have never had the urge, even in childhood, to make things go bang. So maybe it is a service thing.
Possibly…possibly not. As part of a gang of bored grammar school lads, with a bad combination of too much summer holiday time and the proverbial ‘good idea’, we knocked together our first batch of home-made black powder when we were about 13-14 and proceeded to blow a 2ft crater in a mates back garden…narrowly avoiding peppering his sister with shrapnel from the empty paint can we used as a casing!. Perhaps that isnt as ‘normal’ as I thought it was???.
I know what you are saying about the service people you have spoken to being singularly unimpressed by their experience over there. I have a mate who’s deploying to Basra in November and is only happy about it cos her other choice was Falklands!. Again, as you say, its anecdotal and I guess it depends on what individuals have seen on their tours. The guy I was talking about with the detcord ended up feeling a deep affinity with the people he encountered in Bosnia and, some years later, when he was stationed back in Germany he met up with a girl from those parts and ended up marrying her.
All I was saying was that there are many service people who do see we have a job to do over there and who sincerely do want to see us ‘do the right thing’ by people they were told that they were going out to help. This is more prevalent in those that served in Afghanistan than Basra I think, but, I know lads who’ve got good things to say about the Iraqi’s too.
one wonders exactly what retention rates are for personnel who have served in Iraq/Afghanistan compared to those who fought in the South Atlantic 25 years ago?
Its funny, in a way, I work with a bloke who was on Shiney Sheff when she got hit in 82 – his duty station was even in the Computer Room where the missile hit – he’s often talked about the the mood prevalent on transit south. There were common remarks about fighting for a bunch of rocks nobody had ever even heard of. When they were there they just got on with the jobs they were paid to do until they got hit. After that they had a personal stake in the fight and the war took on a new complexion.
For retention rates you cant really compare I dont think. Everyone loves a winner…the RN came away from the Falklands with renewed sense of pride and that filtered all the way through the ranks…of course retention would be high in those circumstances. In Afghanistan and Iraq the definition of success is not so easily defined or quantified. There is little chance of a clear-cut win against insurgent forces or guerilla’s. There is also the chance of the UK electorate forcing them to ‘lose’ the war by pulling them out and letting the other side take the spoils. The irony in that case would be that it would be the self-same electorate criticising them for losing the war that would have caused them to lose it in the first place.
JonesyKev
I consider myself to have at least a partial sense of humour but I have never had the urge, even in childhood, to make things go bang. So maybe it is a service thing.
Possibly…possibly not. As part of a gang of bored grammar school lads, with a bad combination of too much summer holiday time and the proverbial ‘good idea’, we knocked together our first batch of home-made black powder when we were about 13-14 and proceeded to blow a 2ft crater in a mates back garden…narrowly avoiding peppering his sister with shrapnel from the empty paint can we used as a casing!. Perhaps that isnt as ‘normal’ as I thought it was???.
I know what you are saying about the service people you have spoken to being singularly unimpressed by their experience over there. I have a mate who’s deploying to Basra in November and is only happy about it cos her other choice was Falklands!. Again, as you say, its anecdotal and I guess it depends on what individuals have seen on their tours. The guy I was talking about with the detcord ended up feeling a deep affinity with the people he encountered in Bosnia and, some years later, when he was stationed back in Germany he met up with a girl from those parts and ended up marrying her.
All I was saying was that there are many service people who do see we have a job to do over there and who sincerely do want to see us ‘do the right thing’ by people they were told that they were going out to help. This is more prevalent in those that served in Afghanistan than Basra I think, but, I know lads who’ve got good things to say about the Iraqi’s too.
one wonders exactly what retention rates are for personnel who have served in Iraq/Afghanistan compared to those who fought in the South Atlantic 25 years ago?
Its funny, in a way, I work with a bloke who was on Shiney Sheff when she got hit in 82 – his duty station was even in the Computer Room where the missile hit – he’s often talked about the the mood prevalent on transit south. There were common remarks about fighting for a bunch of rocks nobody had ever even heard of. When they were there they just got on with the jobs they were paid to do until they got hit. After that they had a personal stake in the fight and the war took on a new complexion.
For retention rates you cant really compare I dont think. Everyone loves a winner…the RN came away from the Falklands with renewed sense of pride and that filtered all the way through the ranks…of course retention would be high in those circumstances. In Afghanistan and Iraq the definition of success is not so easily defined or quantified. There is little chance of a clear-cut win against insurgent forces or guerilla’s. There is also the chance of the UK electorate forcing them to ‘lose’ the war by pulling them out and letting the other side take the spoils. The irony in that case would be that it would be the self-same electorate criticising them for losing the war that would have caused them to lose it in the first place.
JonesyHow about trying to do a quad-pack Meteor for the Sylver launcher? If the Sylver launcher could quad pack Meteor, then it would make a massive difference. As for the extra cells, I would generally favour Tomahawk over the unknown Naval Scalp (Naval Storm Shadow :diablo: ), but I am open to being swayed! If the T-45 could carry 16 Naval Storm Shadows, 32 Aster 30s, and 64 Meteors, plus eight Harpoon or similar, it would be an excellent capability.
I still feel the Mk41 is more flexible, even though the Sylver may be lighter, though I would need to see a like-for-like comparison. I would not be surprised if the Tac-length Mk41 came in relatively close to the Sylver!
Interesting, but, what would you see the role of the quad-packed Meteor being Ed?. Meteor is, by nature, a long range BVRAAM not a highly maneoverable WVR type so its no analogy of ESSM. Meteor, as I see it, could only be used in place, or as augment to, Aster30. You could therefore have a long-range Sea Meteor with Aster15 as inner-layer defence in the tubes, but, Eurosam might get a bit cranky with MBDA for pulling the rug on Aster30 with that one!.
The better option might be for Eurosam to work with MBDA on quadpacking VL MICA as an inner layer adjunct to Aster15…again though a too-good VL MICA could easily undermine Aster15 so that might be an own goal for Eurosam/MBDA.
Alternatively it could be possible, in extremis, I guess to have quadpacked Sea Meteor AND quadpacked VL MICA embarked. 192 missiles in 48 tubes would be interesting!. IF it was all feasible in the first place of course!.;)
JonesyBex,
Finally, your friends actions with said detchord, was the last time I checked, an offence under Queens Regs. “I have no live rounds or empty cases in my possession, pyrotechnics or parts there of” blah de blah
Yes and……?. His ‘special ball of plasticine’ was entirely against Queens Regs as well…a more sizeable private collection of PE4 I’ve never seen!. Could tell you of many stories of regs being bent entirely out of shape because that is the nature of the service, all branches, always has been and always will be. Now you can get all parochial about this like some parade-ground rupert if you want but it will change nothing!.
The point through all this that you are clearly not getting, Bex, is that the video clip originally presented on this thread shows nothing more than a bunch of lads cutting loose a bit in a way not unrecognisable to any serviceman in the world. You accept above that there was no willful intent to maim or injure the goat…yet you have how many posts here deriding these Marines for animal cruelty. Which is it then?. By your own comment above you contradict yourself. If you accept that no intent existed to hurt the animal what are you really having a crack at these lads for?. Surely not because they are having a laugh? How unprofessional! FFS.:eek:
JonesyBex,
Finally, your friends actions with said detchord, was the last time I checked, an offence under Queens Regs. “I have no live rounds or empty cases in my possession, pyrotechnics or parts there of” blah de blah
Yes and……?. His ‘special ball of plasticine’ was entirely against Queens Regs as well…a more sizeable private collection of PE4 I’ve never seen!. Could tell you of many stories of regs being bent entirely out of shape because that is the nature of the service, all branches, always has been and always will be. Now you can get all parochial about this like some parade-ground rupert if you want but it will change nothing!.
The point through all this that you are clearly not getting, Bex, is that the video clip originally presented on this thread shows nothing more than a bunch of lads cutting loose a bit in a way not unrecognisable to any serviceman in the world. You accept above that there was no willful intent to maim or injure the goat…yet you have how many posts here deriding these Marines for animal cruelty. Which is it then?. By your own comment above you contradict yourself. If you accept that no intent existed to hurt the animal what are you really having a crack at these lads for?. Surely not because they are having a laugh? How unprofessional! FFS.:eek:
JonesyUnicorn,
For example a RN Marine force in action in a UN operation somewhere in Africa gets pinned down at night in bad weather (no air supprt available) and calls for NGS.
Again though mate your talking about an ARG deployment if there are Booties ashore. If there is a significant threat to the ARG then a T45 will consort the group and there will be additional attachments of 22B3 or, more likely, T23’s. If there is a low threat level, as in Op Palliser in Sierra Leone, it’ll likely just be a 23 or two that consort the amphibs. Either way it is unlikely that a circumstance would arise that would see a 45 on gunline.
You may think I’m being deliberately obtuse here and I’d understand that, but, what I am trying to say is that the situation you describe, where one fights with what one has, is not applicable here. The 45’s are specialist assets….any advanced AAW ship would be even if we had gone down the US route and bought Burke IIA’s with their 5″ guns and all the bells and whistles. No matter what the secondary capabilities on the boats they are far too important, and there are far too few of them, to allow them to stray far from the performance of their primary duty – that of solo area air defence over a task group.
It may be the accepted wisdom that single use ships are no longer useful in any Navy. The Royal Navy, despite its ever shrinking numbers, doesnt adhere to that rule though. The T23 isnt really a GP FFG….its a very specialised ASW ship and, ton-for-ton, is the best all round ASW escort afloat anywhere. Here, with the T45, we have a very specialsed AAW ship that is, on a single unit basis, the best that will sail the seas until the yanks get a SPY-3 ship under way. ASuW has for decades, in the RN, been the preserve of the SSN and we have the Trafalgars and Astutes in the fleet, or entering service, and it would be a lucky surface vessel that survived an encounter with either.
We dont therefore actually NEED to have these jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none ships in the fleet as, when we combine our assets, we get task groups that are comprised of masters of their individual roles crewed by specialist operators and officers highly trained in their specific discipline. Surely an optimal situation.
All we actually need is more of the designs we have in service and coming into service so that we can meet our taskings…and thats simply a money issue. That will either be turned around by the UK electorate realising that its more essential to have a comprehensive military than it is, for example, to spend £13bn on hosting the Olympics or it wont and we will end up with an armed forces commensurate with that the politicians can get away with on minimum funding. Either way dont mourn the death of the RN because the RN will always be able to give a good account of itself no matter the outcome. Pity the idiots of the UK who one day will ‘expect every man to do his duty’ and then get a nasty shock when they find they’ve let things atrophy that one step too far!.
Sign In
