We speak the same lanquage. Though I think that certain choises have allready been made with the T45, limiting options.
The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
CVs under attack again, a familiar if worrying theme:
Ex-defence chief calls for cuts | UK news | guardian.co.uk
Ex-defence chief calls for cuts | UK news | guardian.co.uk
From what I can gather, the key should be integration and interoperability of sensors, weapons and command.
To illustrate my point, a "picket" consisting of a T-45 and "C1" T-26 should be able to share information. This should work such that, if the T-45's sensors were to pick up a threat that the T-26 should deal with (for example a submarine, or a land target) this information should be instantly available to the operators in the ops room on the T-26 so it can be acted upon without the crew of the T-45 having to do anything. I believe this wireless networking is being acted upon, and would be a great leap forward in capability.
On the converse, in this circumstance, the T-45 should be able to "take over" the T-26's CAAM when under an air attack in order to maximise its effectiveness and, where necessary, use the superior guidance and data from the SAMPSON radar.
The possibility's are clearly huge and, along with the T-45 these are the first ships designed for the RN where information, sensors and computing power are arguably as potent a weapon as the missiles and guns attached to the ships themselves.
Having said that - they do need a powerful punch to be of any use....
Have a look at the BMT page on there Venator minor warship concept and the attached video showing Caam quadpacked into four tubes housed in the superstructure above the flightdeck. It shows the utiity of it.
So far the UK has purchased 36 8 cell sylver clusters and I believe the total buy for Aster is something like 200 missiles so within the context of the surface fleet thats quite modest. It has been deemed through pennypinching ( and two wars) that we will only get 6 Type 45, each has 48 silos, but this could be extended to 64 dependent on the 155mm being refitted. If you could squeeze one cluster of eight cells you could add 32 Caam, drop Aster 15 and fill out all 48 with the longer ranged Aster 30, or add in future the Block 2 Aster 30 that may have some ABM capability, I think Caam looks more useful than Aster 15 fo a fleet seemingly reducing in size.
Aster 15 cant be quad packed, if you look at the artist impressions for FSC/C1/C2 they dont seem to suggest more than 4 x 8cells. Try dividing 32 between SAM and Land attack 16/16? 20/12? 24/8?. Caam on the same fit out gives you 24 land attack and 32 Caam, or 16/64 or anything in between.
Caam will provide more UK jobs than Aster. Aster would be too big for the army, so the army would need something else, The RAF would also lose potentially a valuable upgrade on Asraam.
I suspect the Type 26 will be sized to fit and be offered for export with both options of the Sylver and US VLS.
Type 26 wont be seen much before 2020, at which time Caams development will be complete, Aster 15 on the other hand will be a relatively old missile by that time. If you are going to need something like 600 missiles in that timeframe, I would suggest it makes sense for the work to be carried out in the UK, securing production and export opportunities from 2020 onwards, it will be attrative to those countries using Sea Wolf, Rapier and Asraam.
The UK government must and should protect UK industry, as long as it works as suggested, even if more expensive that is worth it to keep manufacturing jobs and earn exports over the coming decades, its probably a view you dont share as you have stated that variety is a bad thing in posts above. There is a plan to sustain UK military shipbuilding and arms manufacturing thankfully and such projects and colaborations as Caam, Meteor, Caesar, Type 26, son of Fres are all part of it.
I'm afraid we don't know this.
We know that it will have the ARTISAN radar, not SAMPSON. It's already been selected for the T23 upgrade, & for other ships. Early production T26 will get new ARTISAN, later production will get sets transferred from retiring T23s.
We know that (unless something goes seriously wrong) it will have CAMM, not Aster 15. CAMM is planned to replace Sea Wolf as part of the T23 upgrade, & then be fitted to T26.
In both cases, this is partly but not entirely cost-driven. ARTISAN is much cheaper than SAMPSON. CAMM is much cheaper than Aster 15. The performance will also be less, but not in proportion to the reduced cost, & in both cases is considered to be plenty for the requirement. CAMM should be desirable on export markets. It takes up a lot less space than Aster 15, should be quad-packable in Sylver (including the A35, which is too small for Aster) or Mk 41 silos, or could be distributed in individual rounds or packs in places ruled out by the space & weight requirements of Sylver or Mk 41.
There is no word on what VLS will be fitted. Maybe Sylver, maybe not. I suspect it will depend on the choice of weapons.
Cost a lot less, while being good enough.
Cost a lot less, while being good enough. Fit into much smaller spaces, including being quad-packable in whatever VLS is selected.
As i understand you; what you are saying is that the principle motivation for introducing a new AD-missile, (from what I gather, less cabable than the ASTER15 (though that might be wrong)), because you can fit some more in the same space?
Or are you saying that the principle motivation is to keep missile production in the UK?
In my oppinion one is of less importance, while the other doesn't make much economical sense.
I have problems with The "2020 argument" ASTER would probably be aging at that point in time, but CAMMs wouldn't be brand new either, would it? So why introduce a medium stage between two full upgrades? (assuming that the RN is in a position to make fleetwide upgrades, the feasability of which, will be a question of having the right fleet architecture)
I will repeat my mantra:
If you reduce complexity of infrastructure, you reduce costs.
Further more allow me at this point to suggest that we also consider a concept for an upgrade path for the systems. As an inspiration; F.ex. The danish navy's stanflex concept, allowed the danish navy to perform a fleetwide upgrade from SSM to ESSM, in a just about fretless operation. Adding significant combat power to aging units, with not much more of a cost than the intrinsic cost of procuring the new weapon system, that will allways be.
I am not suggesting stanflex for the RN, just pointing to the possibility that you can make smart upgrades if you make clever design of architecture.
I will return to give you a more full answer.
Though, when I said "We know a lot..." I mean that if we went on with a line of thinking dictated by conformity of systems: Then the existing T45 systems would dictate such and such.
I assume you wouldnt have a problem if there was no UK missile industry? We could buy french or US? Being good europeans I assume we buy french, as would everyone else? And on ship design, if it cant be done profitably in the UK, then we should look to France, Spain, Holland or how about cheap yards in Poland? So we lose what shipyards we have left, "to reduce complexity of infastructure and costs"? Maybe Spain should shut down its state sponsored yards to ease complexity of infrastructure and buy ships from elsewhere? Its not going to happen.
If you went on with that philosophy, there would be hardly any industry in the UK, not a problem for you, why should it be, but a problem for many Brits like me.
Not every country has the same domestic political or international outlook as Denmark, or belgium or norway etc etc, not critical of other countries but we are all different , thats why a naval policy for a smallish country with a smallish population may not be right for a bigger, more highly populace country, thats why the great project will never work.
I would suggest the defences of the EU/Nato would be much stronger, and the product range more cost effective if a large number of european nations were willing to spend a little more
Troothsayer
New Member
Nothing we haven't heard from Guthrie before though. In effect it seems he wants a larger army but with very little force projection behind it.
Hopefully this isn't Tory thinking.
kev 99
Member
Which would essentially turn the UK armed forces into just another unit of the US armed forces as we would almost certainly be entirely locked into working as a coalition with them. If the accept this then we don't need to spend much on the RAF or Navy as we can always rely on the US for these, therefore more money to the army, this is tantamount to moving Australia again.
I would mind. I just don't think that "buy british/french/dutch" is the right policy to defend our industries. CERTAINLY not in the case of warships.
On the contenary, there would be more millitary industry. Though perhaps not the same companies doing the same stuff.
Don't understand your point.
simplistically:
Output is input multiplied by efficiency.
If you have a lowish efficiency, you don't get so much output (tanks, guns, bread) of your input (spending).
But yes I also surport more defense funding, but if money is wasted on inefficency, we have accomplished zero.
You're trying to oversimplify. You are looking for a single principal motivation, rather than the complex web of motivations which there are in reality. CAMM (which, BTW, will enter service ca 2015, so will be pretty nearly brand new, certainly much newer than Aster 15) should, compared to Aster 15, offer -
Cheapness. More for the same money.
Commonality with RAF & Army. Simplified logistics, costs reduced further.
Domestic production.
Possibility of export earnings.
Smaller & lighter, enabling more to be carried for the same weight & space constraints.
It should have a shorter minimum engagement range than Aster 15.
To offset this, Aster 15 offers greater maximum range. Hmmm. A useful characteristic, but not the only thing to be considered when purchasing a missile for ship self-defence. Desirable if you want a missile for semi-area defence.
BTW, it has greatly improved range over its predecessor. It's a Sea Wolf replacement, not a replacement for medium range missiles.
I don't know what you mean by a 'medium stage between two full upgrades'. What are you referring to?
In other words, ASTER can, in most circumstances (I will expend on that, shortly), do the job of the CAMM.
I have a really hard time believing that it's cheaper relative to cababilities, to develop a new system, implement this system (training crew, system integration etc), providing and maintaining surport&Training& production facilities; future upgrades and finally; a future replacement system etc.
Next to buying more ASTER missiles&launchers where many or all of the above costs has or anyway will be paid regardless - but I can be wrong.
And it appears that the french, Italiens and greek and, until recently, the RN think that ASTER is the future. Are they wrong? I mind you, you are still introducing a very expensive ship builded around this system - what has changed?
I care not of the following; "Domestic production.Possibility of export earnings." While the first is a symptom of a dangerous disease the second should not be an issue for the RN - After all this is not the DDR and the british goverment shouldn't funnel taxpayer's money into private hands.
"Smaller & lighter, enabling more to be carried for the same weight & space constraints."
That's a minor thing, isn't it? Not really warranting a rethink of RN's AD missile suite, imho.
In regard to the type23 problem. Since this ageing ship is incompatible with ASTER (I am told) you need an intrim solution to another problem: The obsolete sea wolf. Don't invent another problem to fix a problem. As far as I know there exits cheap systems that can do that job as an intrim solution.
In the scenario where you have both ASTER short-medium and CAMM short range:
You are introducing CAMM while ASTER is still top-modern.
So, by reason, when ASTER is obsolete/ in need of replacement, CAMM is aging. Two missiles that, from all I can read from you guys, are infact competing with each other.
Wouldn't it be a little bit smarter to save your money and introduce a new missile when ASTER is in need of replacement?
My main point here is not CAMM vs. ASTER. CAMM is probably a very good missile. My point is that one should stick with as few as possible systems to get the job done (reduce complexity). And you do have ASTER all ready.
CAAM is/will be a very good self defence system. Aster 15 is a bit in between for me. It offers neither the range of Aster 30, not the safety in numbers of CAAM. For T-26 it means you can fit, say 32 VLS cells. Allocate 16 to CAAM and have 64 missiles for your defence and you can have 24 cells for such things as TLAM, or if you really wanted some Aster 30 or 15.
CAAM in addition to CIWS would make a very good system for T-26 to have. The fact that it helps the budgetry restraints across the board is a welcome bonus.
You're looking at this the wrong way. You're obsessed with Aster, & completely ignoring what CAMM is intended to replace, in the RN and other services, & where it is intended to be used.
The RN doesn't see Aster as anything to do with CAMM. CAMM is a Sea Wolf replacement. Aster is an area air defence system. CAMM is intended to enter service when Sea Wolf retires. It's also a Rapier replacement, for ground-based forces, & features of it are intended to be incorporated into an ASRAAM upgrade or follow on. It will be suitable for fitting to auxiliaries, OPVs, etc., not just frigates. If we don't develop CAMM, we'll have to buy something else in the same class for the other uses, so we'll have the addition to logistics anyway.
Weight & space are not minor considerations on a warship. Would you, for example, try to fit Aster 15 to a Khareef corvette? Of course not! Now think of fitting Aster 15 to auxiliaries, amphibious ships, etc. Ooops! But if we have CAMM, we can, if we choose, fit that - because it takes up much less space, & is lighter.
As a Sea Wolf replacement, CAMM will be fitted to Type 23s from ca 2015 until they retire. That will be a relatively simple change. Fitting Aster 15 is, as you recognise, impractical. There is no cheap interim solution. VL Mica isn't cheap (CAMM is supposed to be significantly cheaper to buy). Any replacement has to serve for 15 years: we don't want a cheap, low-capability gap-filler.
Now do you see? You have to stop thinking about CAMM as an alternative to Aster 15. It's a Sea Wolf replacement. There is no "rethink of RN's AD missile suite". In fact, adopting your proposal would require a rethink. The current plans are a continuation of current policy, upgrading in line with the way things are already done, not a rethink.
The RN doesn't see ASW ships as needing an area air defence weapon, such as Aster. So why buy the much more expensive, bulkier, heavier, system (Aster 15), taking up loads of space on ships that could be used for other weapons, just to get a bit more range which isn't seen as necessary? You can argue with their opinion, but given it, their choices are entirely logical. Stop looking at Aster & CAMM as competitors, & see them as complementary, & it all makes sense.
BTW, if the British government finances development of a weapon, it gets a royalty when it's exported, as well as taxes on any profit the manufacturer makes.
Last edited:
Also just to note, I've heard in the ether that the proportion of A15's purchased was very small. I think it was something like a 1:4 ratio with the A30's.
Hopefully that means that once the A15's we have are all used up, they WILL go for commonality as Palnatoke keeps suggesting, but the other way around, with CAAM replacing A15 on the T45's. It'd certainly make up for the small number of VLS cells fitted.
Hopefully that means that once the A15's we have are all used up, they WILL go for commonality as Palnatoke keeps suggesting, but the other way around, with CAAM replacing A15 on the T45's. It'd certainly make up for the small number of VLS cells fitted.
Good point Grim but I actually think I have missed the point, just googled again, Aster 15 and Aster 30 only differ by the size of the booster, they are exactly the same intercepter dart, just on a different sized booster
Therefore when Caam replaces Sea Wolf we will in fact only operate two SAMS
Range for Aster is 1.7-30km or 3-120km with the bigger booster.
No definative data has been released yet for Caam (but 1-20km) may be reasonable) and as you say that would compliment the long range aster quite nicely. If Caam comes in at a quarter of the cost of Aster that will be a massive saving.
Ah yes, i'd forgotten about that, in that case the A15 doesn't need to be used up before we replace it, we could just replace the booster and make them A30's.
Are you sure the RN bought A15 because I rember some press thing which said that the RN was only buying A30 as they didn't see the need for A15
I think they did yes, but I never saw why, it wasn't replacing anything and I couldn't see a gap. In my eyes Sea Wolf and Sea Dart should be replaced by CAAM and A30 respectively. A15 fills a fairly useless niche IMHO.