The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[Palnatoke]

Swerve

I am not obssed with ASTER, I don't care which missile the RN uses, I am meerly pointing out that it (the RN) should have one missile for the same task.
This one missile type, could very well, as somebody suggested, be CAMM, (though, then, somebody should get sacked for buying the ASTER15.)

Looking from the outside it does look like wastefull practices.
Whether it's
"Let's buy something that don't fit into our plans" Or "Let's buy something we allready have"
Doesn't make much of a difference from my point of view.

I accept the benefits, and in principle condone, a missile that's tri-service. Though if the cababilities of this missile is allready part of one's service inventory, I fail to see much of the advantage.


Though I am slightly puzzled of this CAMM as the principle air defense weapon of future RN frigate sized ships. With a range of 20km (Some stated above), it seems a little bit too short range for anything other than defeating an incoming weapon.
F.ex. Let's consider the following scenario: A ship with radar placed in a height of 30M, and an attacking aircraft flying 30m altitude don't know if that's realistic).
The two objects will achive line of sight (and hence (mutual) detection possibility) at approx 40km distance.
With CAMM (essentially an horizon range, given 30m height of radar), the attacking aircraft will have a space of 20 km distance in which it can fire it's weapons (or evade or any other action) before CAMM can engage it. On the other hand ASTER or ESSM can be fired at detection. Achieving, if not anything else, the activation of some basic self-perservation instincts in the pilot's brain. In the CAMM scenario the airplance can operate with impunity.

As far as I can see, apparently the RN plans for a future battle in which it either enjoys 100% air superiority (Falklands, anybody?), or the assets are closely followed by an T45 to look after them. I would think it a little bit sad to have a high value asset like a T45 closely following an ASW-frigate as it operate against a sub.


I underline that I am not much interested in the actual outfitting (which radar, which missile etc.) , I think the first thing to discuss should be architecture, it should be how we make a fleet as simple/Less complex as possible under the restraint of cababilities. One aspect of this is conformity of systems.

Let's for comparison look at the french plans.

FREMM frigtes plus the mishap Horizon plus, possible, a new line of corvettes (don't know so much about those).

Radar of choise is EMPAR (also on CdG, perhaps Mistral as well?).
Airdefense of choise ASTER and the french-italien version of PAMMs
Same VLS (those who have it)
etc.

The Fremm platform will serve as a platform for AAW,ASW,land attack, surface warfare etc.
(As far as I know 25 fremm platforms will be builded for four navies).

As far as I can see, The french navy will achive a very high degree of conformity of systems, in this manner. I think that's highly desirable.

 

[Palnatoke]

Off topic

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.

Well that's very nice.
So have the british goverment now becomed merchants, or maybe, I would suggest, they should leave trading to those who have a knack for that.

It's reassuring to know that you tax profit on the manufacturer. Tell me again the british cooperative tax, how much is that 10-20%? of profits reported in the UK.

OK, so you probably don't get coorporative tax in any larger volumne out of a large multinational cooperation (case story; Coca cola), instead you take on the risc and financial burden in exchange for unknown royalties.

In the case of no export: you have a lot of bright british brains paid by a company that's paid by the state. So the state hands out money, getting some tax back on those same money.

If these bright heads made UK-Ford cars instead, I, a foreigner, might buy such a car. and the british state would tax a person paid by a company which is paid by, amoung others, me - a foreigner.
And the real beauty of this is that the british state (AKA taxpayers) don't have to pay ford and accept a huge risc when Ford makes a new car.

 

[FluffyThoughts]

Swerve

I am not obssed with ASTER, I don't care which missile the RN uses, I am meerly pointing out that it (the RN) should have one missile for the same task.
This one missile type, could very well, as somebody suggested, be CAMM, (though, then, somebody should get sacked for buying the ASTER15.) ...

Palnatoke, may I make a couple of observations.

CAMM replaces SeaWolf; Aster30 replaces SeaDart. The Aster15 requirement appears the odd-man-out, no doubt due to complex contract negotiations were are not privy to.

As mentioned upthread Aster15's can be converted to Aster30 by changing the booster. The round is recyclable (so long as it is not fired).

If the numbers upthread are correct we have bought enough Asters to fit-out five-boats with room to spare. Only 20% of that fit will be Aster15 so the Royal Navy appear none too interested with the mid-range air-defence capability.

Given the rounds shelf-life, Aster15s will be phasing-out as the Type-23/26 CAMM-ships come on stream. It appears to be an interim solution at best.

Royal Navy frigates only provide local air-defence. Despite shrinking numbers our AAW-vessels are still classed as destroyers not multi-role frigates.

If frigates go to [a hot] war they will be accompanied by a pair of destroyers. The frigates will hunt for subs and escort the second-line fleet. A 20-km radius air-defence system is suitable for the latter; any leakage will be down the the Type-45s not being fitted with the correct numbers and/or systems.

So CAMM improves upon SeaWolf in a number of metrics, not least cost. Alternatively Aster15 has little relevance for our navy's air-defence doctrine. Maybe we could sell our spare units come 2020+...? :hippie

 

[kev 99]

Radar of choise is EMPAR (also on CdG, perhaps Mistral as well?).
Airdefense of choise ASTER and the french-italien version of PAMMs
Same VLS (those who have it)
etc.

Sorry Empar is not the radar of choice for France, CdG has Arabel, the French FREMMs will be getting Herakles with the 2 air defence variants getting an improved version. The Italian FREMM will have EMPAR.

As far as I can see, The french navy will achive a very high degree of conformity of systems, in this manner. I think that's highly desirable.

There is certainly a case that to suggest there will be less conformity of radar systems in the Marine nationale than the RN.

 

[Palnatoke]

Palnatoke, may I make a couple of observations.

CAMM replaces SeaWolf; Aster30 replaces SeaDart. The Aster15 requirement appears the odd-man-out, no doubt due to complex contract negotiations were are not privy to.

As mentioned upthread Aster15's can be converted to Aster30 by changing the booster. The round is recyclable (so long as it is not fired).

If the numbers upthread are correct we have bought enough Asters to fit-out five-boats with room to spare. Only 20% of that fit will be Aster15 so the Royal Navy appear none too interested with the mid-range air-defence capability.

Given the rounds shelf-life, Aster15s will be phasing-out as the Type-23/26 CAMM-ships come on stream. It appears to be an interim solution at best.

Royal Navy frigates only provide local air-defence. Despite shrinking numbers our AAW-vessels are still classed as destroyers not multi-role frigates.

If frigates go to [a hot] war they will be accompanied by a pair of destroyers. The frigates will hunt for subs and escort the second-line fleet. A 20-km radius air-defence system is suitable for the latter; any leakage will be down the the Type-45s not being fitted with the correct numbers and/or systems.

So CAMM improves upon SeaWolf in a number of metrics, not least cost. Alternatively Aster15 has little relevance for our navy's air-defence doctrine. Maybe we could sell our spare units come 2020+...? :hippie

I accept much of what you say.

With the following observations:

You are saying that the ASTER system (as noted the diffirence between 15 and 30 aren't great) is an intrim solution? A system that is the primary weapon system of 6 ships priced at £1b each?

"Royal Navy frigates only provide local air-defence. Despite shrinking numbers our AAW-vessels are still classed as destroyers not multi-role frigates.

If frigates go to [a hot] war they will be accompanied by a pair of destroyers. The frigates will hunt for subs and escort the second-line fleet. A 20-km radius air-defence system is suitable for the latter; any leakage will be down the the Type-45s not being fitted with the correct numbers and/or systems."

In my reply to swerve I have posted my thoughts about that, now I am no admiral, but if I am not much mistaken all other important navies see a use for ESSM, ASTER15 types. Not just defending their ships with an AD system that , as far as I can se, is only usefull against incoming weapons.

 

[Palnatoke]

Sorry Empar is not the radar of choice for France, CdG has Arabel, the French FREMMs will be getting Herakles with the 2 air defence variants getting an improved version. The Italian FREMM will have EMPAR.



There is certainly a case that to suggest there will be less conformity of radar systems in the Marine nationale than the RN.

I stand corrected.

 

[swerve]

I accept much of what you say.

With the following observations:

You are saying that the ASTER system (as noted the diffirence between 15 and 30 aren't great) is an intrim solution? A system that is the primary weapon system of 6 ships priced at £1b each?.

You are conflating Aster 30 & Aster 15. Aster 30 will be the long range air defence missile of the Royal Navy for the foreseeable future. Don't confuse it with Aster 15.

Swerve

I am not obssed with ASTER, I don't care which missile the RN uses, I am meerly pointing out that it (the RN) should have one missile for the same task.

Though I am slightly puzzled of this CAMM as the principle air defense weapon of future RN frigate sized ships. With a range of 20km (Some stated above), it seems a little bit too short range for anything other than defeating an incoming weapon.

As far as I can see, apparently the RN plans for a future battle in which it either enjoys 100% air superiority (Falklands, anybody?), or the assets are closely followed by an T45 to look after them. I would think it a little bit sad to have a high value asset like a T45 closely following an ASW-frigate as it operate against a sub.

Let's for comparison look at the french plans....
As far as I can see, The french navy will achive a very high degree of conformity of systems, in this manner. I think that's highly desirable.

The RN will have one missile for one task: Aster 30 for long range AAW, CAMM for local self-defence.

There's nothing wrong with having a 20-25 km range missile for self-defence. It's also able to defeat air-surface missiles, if soft kill (favoured by the RN) fails.

Why & where is an ASW frigate chasing a submarine? In defence of a fleet? It'll have an AAW destroyer around in any case. Alone? If so, where & why? Open ocean, to defend sea lanes? If so, what's the air threat? Coastal waters? Well . . . . if it's a friendly coast, what's the air threat? If it's a hostile & well-armed coast, no ship is going there alone.

The French navy will not have the degree of commonality you expect. For the next 15 years, at least, it will be operating four surface-air missiles: Aster 30, Aster 15, VT1 (Crotale NG) & Mistral, with different classes of ship having different primary missiles. The Lafayette class are very unlikely to ever have Aster 15 fitted. Future replacements for them & the Floreal class, will probably have VL Mica or whatever succeeds it, not Aster 15. French policy is arguably less coherent than the RNs, not more.

You seem to think the RN has a big investment in Aster 15, & launchers for it. This is a mistake. The RN has a small number of Aster 15 boosters, & not a single dedicated Aster 15 launcher. The launcher for Aster 15 is Sylver A43. The RN has Sylver A50, designed to launch Aster 30, but also suitable for Aster 15.

Fitting Aster 15 to new ships would mean a large new investment in Sylver A43 launchers, which are quite expensive, & the purchase of a large number of new Aster 15 missiles. For the same money, a much larger number of CAMM missiles & the necessary launchers for them could be bought.

You know that CAMM is also being developed for the British army, & the defence of RAF bases. The British armed forces seek, for cost & operational logistic reasons, to have commonality in weapons & equipment where possible. They share central depots, logistics computer systems, etc. A single RN/Army/RAF missile type saves a lot of money & makes administration & operations a lot easier.

 

[harryriedl]

You are conflating Aster 30 & Aster 15. Aster 30 will be the long range air defence missile of the Royal Navy for the foreseeable future. Don't confuse it with Aster 15.

You're either completely missing the point, or you're trolling.

You seem to think the RN has a big investment in Aster 15, & launchers for it. This is a mistake. The RN has a small number of Aster 15 boosters, & not a single dedicated Aster 15 launcher. The launcher for Aster 15 is Sylver A43. The RN has Sylver A50, designed to launch Aster 30, but also suitable for Aster 15.

Fitting Aster 15 to new ships would mean a large new investment in Sylver A43 launchers, which are quite expensive, & the purchase of a large number of new Aster 15 missiles. For the same money, a much larger number of CAMM missiles & the necessary launchers for them could be bought.

CAMM is also being developed for the British army, & the defence of RAF bases. The British armed forces seek, for cost & operational logistic reasons, to have commonality in weapons & equipment where possible. They share central depots, logistics computer systems, etc. A single RN/Army/RAF missile type saves a lot of money & makes administration & operations a lot easier.

Also an inadvertent side effect is to make the RN like the Russian navy what with cold launched VLS and shared missiles between Army and Navy.

 

[Palnatoke]

Swerve

I got that.

It's fine for me that you want CAMM for short range and ASTER30 for long.

I then ask: What's with the A15s on Type45 - they are apparently orpfaned - or what? Shouldn't they have been CAMM then?


I doubt that the development&initial introduction&maintenance structure of a new cheaper (per unit price) and less cabable weapon, as I understand it, is really more cheap compared to cababilities than keeping the system you got and have allready invested money in (development&initial introduction&maintenance structure). (The difference between average unit price and marginal unit price. CAMM is average unit cost , ASTER is marginal unit cost because you have paid the initial costs) That's just my "hunch", I don't have the data to back it up.
But one could argue that the army will anyway pay for that expense.

I doubt the wisdom in having large warships that looks really weak in AD, a deficiency that apparently will never be possible to correct, due to design constraints of the platform (space).



Also, one should think that that the UK would benefit from having weapons that her friends also has (in this case be that f.ex. ASTER or ESSM) to share costs with. For all we know, CAMM is a UK only project.


Some points:
"There's nothing wrong with having a 20-25 km range missile for self-defence. It's also able to defeat air-surface missiles, if soft kill (favoured by the RN) fails."

Just that The engagement ranges are longer than 20-25KM, in my amature oppinion. Se the "line of sight" example above. But yes the stuff that get's within 20km can be fought with CAMM (that'll mostly be weapons, like missiles, I think)

The French navy will not have the degree of commonality you expect. For the next 15 years, at least, it will be operating four surface-air missiles: Aster 30, Aster 15, VT1 (Crotale NG) & Mistral, with different classes of ship having different primary missiles. The Lafayette class are very unlikely to ever have Aster 15 fitted. Future replacements for them & the Floreal class, will probably have VL Mica or whatever succeeds it, not Aster 15. French policy is arguably less coherent than the RNs, not more.


Aster 30, Aster 15, VT1 (Crotale NG) & Mistral

That's three by your own count. Crotale is an existing weapon, f.ex. on the Lafayette (as far as I know). Can't really blame the french for not having fitted a non-existing weapon at the time.
The replacements for Laf and Floreal are, as far as I know, Corvettes. So limited airdefense makes sense to me.


"Why & where is an ASW frigate chasing a submarine? In defence of a fleet? It'll have an AAW destroyer around in any case. Alone? If so, where & why? Open ocean, to defend sea lanes? If so, what's the air threat? Coastal waters? Well . . . . if it's a friendly coast, what's the air threat? If it's a hostile & well-armed coast, no ship is going there alone."

That's what I call; "limiting possible scenarios". Also The AAW has to stay quite near to the ASW unit, else you will have a below horison cap that the attacker can hide in (OR you could broadcast situational awareness from the ASW back to the AAW, perhaps even command the weapon of the AAW from the ASW, but that gives other problems)
If the AAW is near to the ASW which is near to the sub, won't the AAW be near the sub?

 

[swerve]

Swerve

I got that.

It's fine for me that you want CAMM for short range and ASTER30 for long.

I then ask: What's with the A15s on Type45 - they are apparently orpfaned - or what? Shouldn't they have been CAMM then?

I doubt that the development&initial introduction&maintenance structure of a new cheaper (per unit price) and less cabable weapon, as I understand it, is really more cheap compared to cababilities than keeping the system you got and have allready invested money in (development&initial introduction&maintenance structure).

Aster 30, Aster 15, VT1 (Crotale NG) & Mistral

That's three by your own count. [EDIT] No it isn't! Can't you count? Aster 15 is not 30. Different booster. Fits in different size launchers, & the French navy has both A43 & A50 [/EDIT] Crotale is an existing weapon, f.ex. on the Lafayette (as far as I know). Can't really blame the french for not having fitted a non-existing weapon at the time.
The replacements for Laf and Floreal are, as far as I know, Corvettes. So limited airdefense makes sense to me.

"Why & where is an ASW frigate chasing a submarine? In defence of a fleet? It'll have an AAW destroyer around in any case. Alone? If so, where & why? Open ocean, to defend sea lanes? If so, what's the air threat? Coastal waters? Well . . . . if it's a friendly coast, what's the air threat? If it's a hostile & well-armed coast, no ship is going there alone."

That's what I call; "limiting possible scenarios". Also The AAW has to stay quite near to the ASW unit, else you will have a below horison cap that the attacker can hide in (OR you could broadcast situational awareness from the ASW back to the AAW, perhaps even command the weapon of the AAW from the ASW, but that gives other problems)
If the AAW is near to the ASW which is near to the sub, won't the AAW be near the sub?

Good grief! When are you going to pay attention?

CAMM can not be viewed in isolation as a navy missile, as you insist on doing. The army needs a new missile. RAF bases need a new missile. The RAF wants improvements to ASRAAM. The average cost per missile for the navy is greatly reduced by this. If the marginal cost per missile is one third that of an Aster 15, and the cost of launchers is 25%, how much development cost do you have to allocate to the RN to make it more expensive than Aster 15? All of it? You've acknowledged it's a tri-service missile, why are you ignoring the implications of that?

As for logistics, I refer you to previous replies. If the logistics are in place for the army, they're in place for the navy. They share! When are you going to acknowledge this?

As for buying CAMM instead of Aster 15 for Type 45 - have you looked at timescales? CAMM will not be ready for service for several years. As you say yourself, you can't buy a missile which doesn't exist, & CAMM didn't exist when Aster 15 was ordered. The alternative to Aster 15 was no short/medium range missile until then, or Sea Wolf launchers, or RAM launchers, or some other add-on system, completely separate from the Aster 30. Type 45 has VLS in which Aster 15 fits, radar integrated with it, combat system which recognises it, etc.

Oh, and before you start - none of these arguments apply to Type 26, because it isn't built yet, and won't have Aster 30, or the same radars as Type 45. It will, however, have a radar & combat system compatible with CAMM, which will already be in RN service on upgraded Type 23. See where the commonality is?

If an ASW ship is protecting a major unit, of course it won't venture too far from it. No point being 200 km away to the west when a sub comes from the east. It has a helicopter for rapid response. And no, I'm not limiting possible scenarios, I'm trying to point out that deployments aren't random. Ships do things for reasons.

I note that you are replying to some posts as if much of what is in them had not been said. Would you care to explain why?

 

[Hambo]

Swerve

I am not obssed with ASTER, I don't care which missile the RN uses, I am meerly pointing out that it (the RN) should have one missile for the same task.
This one missile type, could very well, as somebody suggested, be CAMM, (though, then, somebody should get sacked for buying the ASTER15.)

Looking from the outside it does look like wastefull practices.
Whether it's
"Let's buy something that don't fit into our plans" Or "Let's buy something we allready have"
Doesn't make much of a difference from my point of view.

I accept the benefits, and in principle condone, a missile that's tri-service. Though if the cababilities of this missile is allready part of one's service inventory, I fail to see much of the advantage.

Though I am slightly puzzled of this CAMM as the principle air defense weapon of future RN frigate sized ships. With a range of 20km (Some stated above), it seems a little bit too short range for anything other than defeating an incoming weapon.
F.ex. Let's consider the following scenario: A ship with radar placed in a height of 30M, and an attacking aircraft flying 30m altitude don't know if that's realistic).
The two objects will achive line of sight (and hence (mutual) detection possibility) at approx 40km distance.
With CAMM (essentially an horizon range, given 30m height of radar), the attacking aircraft will have a space of 20 km distance in which it can fire it's weapons (or evade or any other action) before CAMM can engage it. On the other hand ASTER or ESSM can be fired at detection. Achieving, if not anything else, the activation of some basic self-perservation instincts in the pilot's brain. In the CAMM scenario the airplance can operate with impunity.

As far as I can see, apparently the RN plans for a future battle in which it either enjoys 100% air superiority (Falklands, anybody?), or the assets are closely followed by an T45 to look after them. I would think it a little bit sad to have a high value asset like a T45 closely following an ASW-frigate as it operate against a sub.


I underline that I am not much interested in the actual outfitting (which radar, which missile etc.) , I think the first thing to discuss should be architecture, it should be how we make a fleet as simple/Less complex as possible under the restraint of cababilities. One aspect of this is conformity of systems.

Let's for comparison look at the french plans.

FREMM frigtes plus the mishap Horizon plus, possible, a new line of corvettes (don't know so much about those).

Radar of choise is EMPAR (also on CdG, perhaps Mistral as well?).
Airdefense of choise ASTER and the french-italien version of PAMMs
Same VLS (those who have it)
etc.

The Fremm platform will serve as a platform for AAW,ASW,land attack, surface warfare etc.
(As far as I know 25 fremm platforms will be builded for four navies).

As far as I can see, The french navy will achive a very high degree of conformity of systems, in this manner. I think that's highly desirable.

Palnatoke.
So say you are a pilot, strapped into your Sukhoi/MIG/Mirage and you have two anti ship missiles under your wings with a 100km range? Why would you chose to fly within 20km an RN vessel before launching? Surely you would launch as far away from the threat as possible, certainly you would launch far beyong the maximum 30km range of Aster 15 in any case, I would think you would launch over the horizon, then turn and run, trying to gain suprise, you would be ill advised to dance around at 25km tormenting the RN weapons Officer.

Do that and two things would happen.
1)The Ship would deploy chaff, decoys lessening the chance of a kill
2) The F35 on CAP would have fired a Meteor at you.

You might see Caam as deficient, but you should see it as part of a system. If the current plans arent chopped (if) then a RN task group would have Sea King ASaC (I dont know what the radar horizon/detection range for a fighter sized target is for Sea King but I suspect 160km plus), we will also likely have F35 on CAP. Although we may never see 36 F35 on one ship, even 12 would be a very very tough prospect to get passed. A combo of Type 45 and F35 should be a very potent air defence asset. Two permanent F35s on CAP at high altitude armed with BVR missiles of 100km range gives a massive radius of protective cover in which the ships would operate.

Ships on ASW ops or transiting from anchorages or rear repair areas need something to stop leakers, and stop sub launched anti ship missiles. If you read the blurb on Artisan, this radar would seem to be able to pick out even stealthy sea skimmers against the clutter, ample time you would hope to fire multiple Caams.

I wouldnt say a 10km range difference is a real match winner in those circumstances.

 

[Palnatoke]

Good grief! When are you going to pay attention?

CAMM can not be viewed in isolation as a navy missile, as you insist on doing. The army needs a new missile. RAF bases need a new missile. The RAF wants improvements to ASRAAM. The average cost per missile for the navy is greatly reduced by this. If the marginal cost per missile is one third that of an Aster 15, and the cost of launchers is 25%, how much development cost do you have to allocate to the RN to make it more expensive than Aster 15? All of it? You've acknowledged it's a tri-service missile, why are you ignoring the implications of that?

As for logistics, I refer you to previous replies. If the logistics are in place for the army, they're in place for the navy. They share! When are you going to acknowledge this?

As for buying CAMM instead of Aster 15 for Type 45 - have you looked at timescales? CAMM will not be ready for service for several years. As you say yourself, you can't buy a missile which doesn't exist, & CAMM didn't exist when Aster 15 was ordered. The alternative to Aster 15 was no short/medium range missile until then, or Sea Wolf launchers, or RAM launchers, or some other add-on system, completely separate from the Aster 30. Type 45 has VLS in which Aster 15 fits, radar integrated with it, combat system which recognises it, etc.

Oh, and before you start - none of these arguments apply to Type 26, because it isn't built yet, and won't have Aster 30, or the same radars as Type 45. It will, however, have a radar & combat system compatible with CAMM, which will already be in RN service on upgraded Type 23. See where the commonality is?

If an ASW ship is protecting a major unit, of course it won't venture too far from it. No point being 200 km away to the west when a sub comes from the east. It has a helicopter for rapid response. And no, I'm not limiting possible scenarios, I'm trying to point out that deployments aren't random. Ships do things for reasons.

I note that you are replying to some posts as if much of what is in them had not been said. Would you care to explain why?

"If the marginal cost per missile is one third that of an Aster 15, and the cost of launchers is 25%, how much development cost do you have to allocate to the RN to make it more expensive than Aster 15?"


And

"As for logistics, I refer you to previous replies. If the logistics are in place for the army, they're in place for the navy. They share! When are you going to acknowledge this?"


Is the average cost per unit deployed including maintenance (average project cost per unit, if you want) greater than the marginal cost of an ASTER15? - deployed including maintenance, for The RN (I am asking for the pricetag to the RN. might be that Army and RAF is also procuring)
If so, it's clear, assuming that CAMM is as effective as ASTER15, that concerning the short range missile question, developing and deploying CAMM is more economically feasable than continuing deploying ASTER15. But I doubt that, though I am easely swayed by data which disproves my doubt.
Regarding the logistics issue
I agree to some extent. (the different enviroments in which army and RN deploy and install these systems should bring some dissimilarity, I should think.

That is one of the few questions that I am trying to raise: Is it feasable to develop (however cheaply, however shared by other branches) a new missile, next to continuig with what you got (in this case ASTER15) and have allready paid for.

"As for buying CAMM instead of Aster 15 for Type 45 - have you looked at timescales? "

Yes, I have, and yes, CAMM is not in service while T45 is (or is near in service).
If we take interest in conformity of systems, I would think, assuming that ASTER15 and CAMM are alike in cababilities) that, that was too bad for CAMM, being too late. The choise has been made.
Now some people might not think conformity of systems,Standards, or a great similarity between components, lean (what ever you like to call it) in a given industrial process (be that ships or cars or housing etc) is important, though I can assure you that many who has an interest in industrial processes thinks that such is VERY important. You know this goes back to Taylor and Ford.
But you could also go the other way around and remove aster15 and get CAMM
Third option (which is probably what will happen) is to keep ASTER15 and CAMM, accepting some level dis-similarity, abcense of standard or what ever you like to call it.

"See where the commonality is?"
Yes, but I could also see an intrim solution, being upgraded to a permanent solution.

And this is a second question that I try to raise: Should the RN desire/attempt to get an infrastructure as lean as possible?
A system like CAMM might have it's very own justification in bringing cababilities that, ASTER15 doesn't have. That could f.ex. be that CAMM is easier to fit (I would say that, that is most relevant for small units), in which case the introduction is justified under consideration of "an infrastructure as lean as possible"

Which brings me to the third question I try to raise:
Can a short range CAMM system replace a short-medium Range ASTER15? on a larger, say 4k-6k, surface combattant (that which some people call a frigate, without making distinctions between AD roles or not)
I think not, of the reasons I have stated in above posts. If so, if CAMM can't replace ASTER15, then, I would argue, ASTER can anyway do the job of CAMM - hence it is not necessary on that larger unit, that has an irreplaceable need of medium range AD . (not saying anything about ships that only needs limited AD)


And yes, I think it's obvious that you are limiting scenarios.
Let me give you a simple scenario to work with: The AAW is not avaliable (malfunction, lost in battle, not present - doesn't matter) Are you going to send a hundreds of letters with a golden stamp: "Sorry Miss <<insert name>> your husband died as there, to our surprise, were only limited AD around the fleet and regretfully, the enemy did have planes".

I don't understand how one, in a modern world, can wave the magic rod and say: We don't have to plan for extensive AD on (all) our future surface combattants", how can we say: "Our side control the air". In near future, there is a possibility of an enemy, who's industrial potential far outstretches the combined industrial potential of all Nato countries - and you know of whom I speak.


If I am not answering all points, I apologize, but we all have time constraints.

 

[Palnatoke]

Hambo


So say you are a pilot, strapped into your Sukhoi/MIG/Mirage and you have two anti ship missiles under your wings with a 100km range? Why would you chose to fly within 20km an RN vessel before launching? Surely you would launch as far away from the threat as possible, certainly you would launch far beyong the maximum 30km range of Aster 15 in any case, I would think you would launch over the horizon, then turn and run, trying to gain suprise, you would be ill advised to dance around at 25km tormenting the RN weapons Officer.

True, though the airplane also has to detect the ship. The airplane, not enjoying 100% situational awareness, would laso has an interest in staying as low as possible.

I agree with you that if the case is 30km vs 20km it doesn't seem so significant, though it's still a 50% range advantage.

I agree with rest of your post. Though I think we should contemplate the situation in which "we" (the good guys) are not untop with CAP patrols etc.

 

[Hambo]

Hambo


So say you are a pilot, strapped into your Sukhoi/MIG/Mirage and you have two anti ship missiles under your wings with a 100km range? Why would you chose to fly within 20km an RN vessel before launching? Surely you would launch as far away from the threat as possible, certainly you would launch far beyong the maximum 30km range of Aster 15 in any case, I would think you would launch over the horizon, then turn and run, trying to gain suprise, you would be ill advised to dance around at 25km tormenting the RN weapons Officer.

True, though the airplane also has to detect the ship. The airplane, not enjoying 100% situational awareness, would laso has an interest in staying as low as possible.

I agree with you that if the case is 30km vs 20km it doesn't seem so significant, though it's still a 50% range advantage.

I agree with rest of your post. Though I think we should contemplate the situation in which "we" (the good guys) are not untop with CAP patrols etc.

I think the RN plans to be able to fight alone. National pride, or national delusion, call it what you will, still deems that a nation of 60million could at a push carry out an expedition such as the Falklands. As much as its unlikely that we will go solo, we have quite well rounded forces. France is in the same boat. The richer germany, for obvious reasons is somewhat more self defence orientated. There is no moral right or wrong. What is good is that there is good spread of capabiliites within the european defence community, albeit some nations could pay more.

What europe doesnt lack is good quality Air warfare ships, its no point really having an ego contest about what is the best system.Should a far eastern power wish to shut the trade routes down, I would be confident that a dutch or german ship would provide a good air defence screen for HMS QE or the Charles De Gaulle and I would probably argue that a Danish army battlegroup would be more economically transported to the Indian ocean in a Bay Class than an Absalon. That is perhaps a common path, just like the Nato buy or E3 or C17, a Nato buy of Bays/Rotterdams/Mistrals could be feasible. There seems too much pride with joint projects of the "warfighters" eg frigates but for the utility vessels there could maybe be agreement??

 

[Palnatoke]

I think the RN plans to be able to fight alone. National pride, or national delusion, call it what you will, still deems that a nation of 60million could at a push carry out an expedition such as the Falklands. As much as its unlikely that we will go solo, we have quite well rounded forces. France is in the same boat. The richer germany, for obvious reasons is somewhat more self defence orientated. There is no moral right or wrong. What is good is that there is good spread of capabiliites within the european defence community, albeit some nations could pay more.

What europe doesnt lack is good quality Air warfare ships, its no point really having an ego contest about what is the best system.Should a far eastern power wish to shut the trade routes down, I would be confident that a dutch or german ship would provide a good air defence screen for HMS QE or the Charles De Gaulle and I would probably argue that a Danish army battlegroup would be more economically transported to the Indian ocean in a Bay Class than an Absalon. That is perhaps a common path, just like the Nato buy or E3 or C17, a Nato buy of Bays/Rotterdams/Mistrals could be feasible. There seems too much pride with joint projects of the "warfighters" eg frigates but for the utility vessels there could maybe be agreement??

Very much agree.

In my view, while much has been done internally, Europe first of all lacks cohesion in foreign policy and defense policy. There is 2 plus 1 countries that can do something about that: France, UK plus Germany, Though we are not making much progress for the moment.

I wellcome what I see as clear strengthenings of Europe's navial cababilities in the last and coming decade. If, and we all hope so, the RN get's two "QE" carriers and however unlikely france does get their 2nd much will have been done wrt. "tools" and we have clear strengthenings - on a more modest scale - of the small and medium powers of europe.

Still, there is too much national-centric thinking in defense policy. We are loosing on that.

And you are right, discussing CAMM vs. Aster aren't important

 

[StevoJH]

Still, there is too much national-centric thinking in defense policy.

No such thing, unless you think that France, Germany, the UK, Belgium etc all have identical foreign policies?

Or did they all invade Iraq? did they all intervene in Sierra Leone? Do they all send task groups (rather then individual ships) to the Pacific or Indian oceans once every year or two?

 

[Palnatoke]

offtopic

No such thing, unless you think that France, Germany, the UK, Belgium etc all have identical foreign policies?

Or did they all invade Iraq? did they all intervene in Sierra Leone? Do they all send task groups (rather then individual ships) to the Pacific or Indian oceans once every year or two?

We don't need an identical foreign policy. Though we do need, imho, a converging foreign policy on subject matters central to our region (EU).

That UK (and my country) thought the Iraq adventure wise or that the french still have strange interests in france, or the more broadly surported war in Afgh, I consider as secondary to core interests of europe's foreign and security policy.

What I do consider as central foreign policy areas to our region, is stuff like who we deal with russia, how we deal with North africa and the levant. Global Trade. How we manage our relationship to the US and our relationship to China. etc.

In Securiy policy I think it's central how to make sure that we control our own region. That we have millitary-industrial policies that facilitates that Europe continues to have the means and know to make the weapons we need (and sorry, I think that the national-centric approch is damaging that, severly). That we, through, or because of, wise industrial policies, get value for money when we buy weapons (and sorry, I think that the national-centric approch is damaging that, severly)..
That European forces can operate integrated in an army (more or less achived via NATO, though we need to have a stronger European pillar). etc etc.


edit:
" that the french still have strange interests in france,"

Lol, I meant
" that the french still have strange interests in WEST AFRICA,"

 

[1805]

I think the RN plans to be able to fight alone. National pride, or national delusion, call it what you will, still deems that a nation of 60million could at a push carry out an expedition such as the Falklands. As much as its unlikely that we will go solo, we have quite well rounded forces. France is in the same boat. The richer germany, for obvious reasons is somewhat more self defence orientated. There is no moral right or wrong. What is good is that there is good spread of capabiliites within the european defence community, albeit some nations could pay more.

What europe doesnt lack is good quality Air warfare ships, its no point really having an ego contest about what is the best system.Should a far eastern power wish to shut the trade routes down, I would be confident that a dutch or german ship would provide a good air defence screen for HMS QE or the Charles De Gaulle and I would probably argue that a Danish army battlegroup would be more economically transported to the Indian ocean in a Bay Class than an Absalon. That is perhaps a common path, just like the Nato buy or E3 or C17, a Nato buy of Bays/Rotterdams/Mistrals could be feasible. There seems too much pride with joint projects of the "warfighters" eg frigates but for the utility vessels there could maybe be agreement??

Which Far Eastern power is going to shut the trade routes down by force? The only such powers are India, Japan & China all 3 are also massive exporters. In 30 years time if the Chinese wanted to bring the West to is knees by cutting access to imports they could just refuse to export in the first place. But then she would not have any income? We do have to plan for the unexpected but not for events that are so unlikely....a US invasion of Canda?

 

[1805]

offtopic



We don't need an identical foreign policy. Though we do need, imho, a converging foreign policy on subject matters central to our region (EU).

That UK (and my country) thought the Iraq adventure wise or that the french still have strange interests in france, or the more broadly surported war in Afgh, I consider as secondary to core interests of europe's foreign and security policy.

What I do consider as central foreign policy areas to our region, is stuff like who we deal with russia, how we deal with North africa and the levant. Global Trade. How we manage our relationship to the US and our relationship to China. etc.

In Securiy policy I think it's central how to make sure that we control our own region. That we have millitary-industrial policies that facilitates that Europe continues to have the means and know to make the weapons we need (and sorry, I think that the national-centric approch is damaging that, severly). That we, through, or because of, wise industrial policies, get value for money when we buy weapons (and sorry, I think that the national-centric approch is damaging that, severly)..
That European forces can operate integrated in an army (more or less achived via NATO, though we need to have a stronger European pillar). etc etc.

But we don't need a common EU foreign, we face no foes of any size that require an EU army that is not handled more effectivly by NATO and even that looks very unlikely. The few really serious security issues we face need to be dealt with Global support under a UN banner, as policial buy-in is much more important than more military capability. Under such operations there is massive capability that can be provided from all over the Globe. Look at GW1 the forces depolyed were almost more impressive from the nations engaged than the actual capability.

The most damaging thing about the initial phase of GW2 was the disunity in the West, and that was the US appoach not the French at fault.

 

[swerve]

...What europe doesnt lack is good quality Air warfare ships,...

Currently new in service or being procured . . .

Aster 30 -
6 Type 45
4 Horizon

Smart-L/APAR/SM-2 -
4 De Zeven Provincien
3 F124
3 Ivar Huitfeldt

SPY-1/Aegis/SM-2 -
5 F100

Total 25