There is also an ASW version of the OTOMAT called the MILAS that has only recently entered service. It makes sense that both types would be retained in service for quite some time now and I believe Italy is still marketing both to various navies.
The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
Not that recent. Over ten years ago.
MM40 Block 3 gave Exocet the same range as Otomat has always had, & Otomat has been upgraded over the years, e.g. a two-way datalink, GPS navigation, & improved ECCM.
Interesting, cheers for the info on Otomat guys. I've never really known much about the missile, just made assumptions based on its appearance that it was rather antiquated (unless I've just missed all the pictures of modern variants). It almost looks like an old Soviet AShM.
AFAIK it's typically is a chunkier missile than modern AShMs, some 7 - 8cm wider than Exocet & about ~20cm shorter as well as being ~100kg heavier (MM40 Blk3 is lighter still) which explains why it's slightly slower than an Exocet.
Warhead is ~50kg heavier too. Boosters are fitted to the flanks of the missile rather than in line.
Although i'd imagine the operational performances of a faster missile with a lower silhouette would make an Exocet harder to destroy and have less of a reaction window than the Otomat.
Warhead is ~50kg heavier too. Boosters are fitted to the flanks of the missile rather than in line.
Although i'd imagine the operational performances of a faster missile with a lower silhouette would make an Exocet harder to destroy and have less of a reaction window than the Otomat.
When it comes to datalinks for in flight updates, the big question becomes what network, with what kind of network security and availability you are playing on. If the missile can't communicate over a robust network, it's not likely to be available against a more sophisticated opponent, which puts you back to square one.
Networks obviously bring a lot to the table, but also introduce a lot of other factors for consideration as well. So when evaluating different options, if getting in flight updates is a big part of how the weapon works, it becomes necessary to also evaluate the supporting networks.
Networks obviously bring a lot to the table, but also introduce a lot of other factors for consideration as well. So when evaluating different options, if getting in flight updates is a big part of how the weapon works, it becomes necessary to also evaluate the supporting networks.
Is it due to these issues that LRASM is supposed to support a more autonomous weapon capability, or is that range-based, or both?
Just a general principle. Cruise missiles have some very similar concerns as UAVs. A UAV that's 100% dependent on its network has very limited usefulness.
Nope, goal is capable from both launchers. MBDA are working with LockMart to get more products certified for the Mk41 and they say the same would be true with Perseus.
WRT Duncan and Harpoon, posted up 6 days ago
Unconfirmed, it's very much up in the air until next year. As to it helping the ASW version not particularly because we're not going to be using any ASW munitions in 'em anyway so the priority becomes land attack and anti shipping weapons. LAAD is no concern either due to CAMM compatibility.
Frankly I feel it's an unknown about which would be 'best' until it's discovered what the RN plans to do about sustaining Harpoon, because if that was the case and deck space set aside for quads of Harpoon anyway then picking A-70 and some kind of Exocet MM40 + MdCN wouldn't be a bad option at all. However if there isn't the plan to bring forward Harpoon to the Type 26 and that means a VL option then it would absolutely be LRASM/TLAM without a doubt.
There can be cross overs sure, but is it necessary to fund the integration to do it and is it worth it? As has been said, France (our main 'buddy' in Europe to integrate with) is set for anti shipping weapons with the newest version of Exocet so there's no option of teaming up to work on a project (although that might not be a great idea in any case)
Frankly I feel it's an unknown about which would be 'best' until it's discovered what the RN plans to do about sustaining Harpoon, because if that was the case and deck space set aside for quads of Harpoon anyway then picking A-70 and some kind of Exocet MM40 + MdCN wouldn't be a bad option at all. However if there isn't the plan to bring forward Harpoon to the Type 26 and that means a VL option then it would absolutely be LRASM/TLAM without a doubt.
There can be cross overs sure, but is it necessary to fund the integration to do it and is it worth it? As has been said, France (our main 'buddy' in Europe to integrate with) is set for anti shipping weapons with the newest version of Exocet so there's no option of teaming up to work on a project (although that might not be a great idea in any case)
Towed sonar array (2087) and associated consoles etc, that's pretty much the only difference and my understanding between the two types literally is that 8 have a towed sonar array and 5 are fitted for but not with.
I'd imagine if surface launched Stingrays are brought forward that every ship in class would have them, although considering there's a first batch of 8 to be ordered and the ASW ships are 8 in number that maybe they'll delete it on the remaining batch,
Probably both have some hull mounted sonar, the Type 45 has one (but that's only really good for stuff like mine detection) but it's unclear how good it will be.
EDIT Not really hot on new guys posting one liners, it's frowned upon because we get a lot of people trying to boost their post count rapidly to post some pretty irrelevant weblinks who are then swiftly banned.
Jeneral2885
Banned Member
I am not a long winded person and I dont believe any of the links I posted are irrelevant. The Thai political crisis is certainly not irrelevant, nor is looking at the history of near nuclear exchanges.
If that is so, something is wrong.
Nice info on the Type 26.
How about you read the forum rules to start with, and try to abide by them. I'd appreciate that. Cheers.
If you read what I said I didn't say at any point I was talking about you, these are rules which everyone (including myself) had to abide by when you're a new member. That's the rules.
Jeneral2885
Banned Member
I read what you said. Interesting that that's how they divide the ASW from the GP variant. We will just have to wait for the various decisions and political power plays.
Indeed. MBDA does not own Sylver, or have any shares in the manufacturer, so has no incentive to restrict its products to that VLS. It wants the widest possible market for its missiles, & that means integrating them with the best selling launcher.Nope, goal is capable from both launchers. MBDA are working with LockMart to get more products certified for the Mk41 and they say the same would be true with Perseus.
WRT Duncan and Harpoon, posted up 6 days ago
Hopefully they bring forward the surface launched torpedo system, but there's very little we need to be concerned about with the Type 26 more than numbers.
Exactly, it's common business sense considering the global popularity of the Mk41. CAMM was the logical first step as it's pretty much the easiest product they've got to integrate.
Jeneral2885
Banned Member
It still could head in a different direction given changing political and economic environments. But we'll just have to wait and see as is the case with so many other pieces of hardware.
Nah, the main elements are fixed, they're not going to change (CAMM, ARTISAN, 2087, strike length cells, 5in gun, the most common elements all the way back to the C1, C2 and C3 tiered system). The biggest threat will be a reduction of hull numbers, it always was.