I don't think that's an adequate reason for choosing one over the other. Firstly, it isn't going to be obvious which missile it is, unless the warhead fails to explode. Secondly, even if the enemy knows exactly what's hit them, so what? If they're hit by a missile when there is no RN surface ship that they know of (will they be absolutely sure there isn't one out there?), within range, that could carry cruise missiles, then they'll know there's an SSN out there anyway. To conceal the presence of an SSN somewhere within a thousand miles, but only when RN surface ships - and at that, only particular RN surface ships - are known (that word is significant) to be in the same area - just how tactically significant is that? Not very, IMO. Nowhere near enough to be worth basing your choice of weapons on it.
The Royal Navy's future? S2C2 project news from Janes'
- Thread starter Musashi_kenshin
- Start date
Perhaps, i think that is a valid point.
I think i am thinking beyond the Iraq/Afghanistan scenario - in ten years the UK will likely have pulled out of there one way or another, and who know where the next threat will come from, and what is to say this will not be a competant military power?
Given the Tomahawk's proven capability, and the (albeit possibly minor) advantage i stated earlier i feel that unless cost comes into it Tomahawk shoul be the weapon to take. However, i think we can all agree that weapon fits such as the TLAM or Harpoon, were rejected on the T45 on cost grounds - and there is no reason to sugest this won't happen in future!
Yeah, point taken on the Mk41 VLS - i think i was refering to them as a generic whole for the variety of weapons they can fire - and the reference to stike length was as an augumentation to the Sylver 50.
That's certainly something we agree on. If T45 was equipped with (e.g.) SMART-L, APAR, SM-2 & ESSM instead of S1850, Sampson, & Aster, I'd want it to have some of its Mk 41s strike length (probably not all, for reasons of weight, volume & cost), to permit both cruise missiles & possibly ABMs to be carried. Future-proofing . . . Since it has PAAMS, I'd like any additional VLS fitted to be Sylver A70 instead of more A50, for the same reason.... - and the reference to stike length was as an augumentation to the Sylver 50.
One advantage of Sylver: as a trade-off for the lesser variety of weapons which fit it, you get a much lighter and rather smaller launcher, so you can put a few more of them in the same space.
Yeah, the UK has seemed to have been led up the primrose path a bit with HORIZON and PAAMS, although PAAMS seems (on paper) to be a very good system.
What weapon fit would you go for on the C1/C2. Mixed Sylver and Mk41? Or one of the other. I read that the Mk41 could fire the Aster missile, which would suggest if the combat systems could operate them, a Mk41 fit would be more future proof. However, if the SYLVER 70 could fire TLAM...