I’d be very surprised if it got even one export order, except maybe one Western European customer. As I mentioned, that market’s already full of proven systems.

CAMM is said to be based on ASRAAM, a missile developed in the UK for the RAF at a cost of hundreds of millions of pounds, that has won only one export order to date (Australia).

Nope. The main argument behind developing it is to provide a joint service weapon for the RN, Army and RAF. There is as yet no land-based ESSM that I have heard of and air-launched Aster doesnt exist and isnt likely!.

If commonality is a concern, would it not make more sense for the RN to stick with the Aster 15 – since it’s already in use on the Type 45s – rather than introduce a new weapon system?

an interesting read

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/119910/us-deficit-panel-proposes-to-halve-jsf-buy%2C-cancel-efv-to-save-%24100-bn.html

I think that document, like the UK’s SDSR, is the beginning of a realisation that the levels of defence spending of recent decades cannot be sustained, simply because the money isn’t there anymore.

….If the Argentines were to seize RAF Mount Pleasant in a commando raid, it would all be over.

If an Argentine sub were to sink a CVF, it would be all over…. Of course the Navy would say that could never happen, like the Army and the RAF would say that there is not a hope in hell of a successful Argentine commando raid on Mount Pleasant.

There are all sorts of ‘ifs’. You can’t have a Defence policy that covers every possible eventuality, especially these days when money is so tight: choices have to be made.

Both German and Swedish SSKs draw a lot less water than Astute; both also have X-shaped rudders, which might have helped in this case, since according to reports it was Astute’s rudder that got stuck on the shingle bank.

A surprisingly entry-level article for Proceedings. Swerve’s comments accurately take most of the core premise of the article apart. SSK’s were termed ‘Patrol Subs’ in the RN for a reason….thats about all they are good for…tooling along in local waters seeking to gain position to launch ambushes on passing targets.

In support of expeditionary warfare it is not required to patrol the other guys littoral!. Most of the time he’ll know his own waters better than you do anyway and home advantage counts big in sub ops. Even with a modest qualitative advantage in ‘your SSK’ over his you could very well come off a distinct second best to someone who knows the currents, shoals, salinity gradients….even wreck locations better than you do. SSK’s are cheapish, compared to SSNs, but hardly disposable!.

What you need to do is to deny the use of his littoral to him for the duration of the time you need to use it, to sit your amphibs and carriers in, to complete the process of breaking his stuff ashore. For that you dont need stealth you need netted persistent sensors, Spartan ASW USV’s, high endurance multistatic LF Active sonobuoy fields, discrete ASW frigates/corvettes with LFA tails and lots of high-end pinger choppers. These all coupled to rapid engagement shooter capability to create a no-go-zone around your operational areas for his SSK’s. That is the capability that is being pursued now.

Does this mean that SSNs have no role in expeditionary operations in littoral areas?

….. SSK’s are not suitable in any way for fast-paced expeditionary operations…

Hi Jonesy, I take some of your points, but a lot of the focus these days is on the so-called ‘littorals’ – relatively shallow coastal waters – which is where expeditionary operations usually take place. There is an argument that SSKs are more suited to operations in that environment than SSNs. For example, this is from a recent article in the US Naval Institute Proceedings

The Right Submarine for Lurking in the Littorals
Issue: Proceedings Magazine – June 2010 Vol. 136/6/1,288
By Milan Vego

SSKs are better designed for narrow, shallow seas than fast attack submarines. Nuclear-powered attack submarines (SSNs) are capable of operating in shallow, confined waters-but the smaller, quieter, more maneuverable antisubmarine subs (SSKs) are better suited for operations in such waters. The U.S. Navy should acquire a relatively small number of SSKs for operations in the littorals. SSNs, which can conduct long-range operations submerged and at high sustained speed, should be used primarily in deep water……

http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2010-06/right-submarine-lurking-littorals