Fire Shadow can, in theory, attack targets much further away than 150 miles if it flies straight to them without loitering, & has appropriate comms links. For soft targets a few hundred miles away, it could be used as a cheaper alternative to TLAM. Small warhead, slow-flying, so not suitable for anything hard or well-defended.
The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
Just to illustrate the principle, at around 0:37 of this video you can see a soft launch of CAMM and what it entails. Hope it helps.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oRmGFVLJ08]YouTube - Vertical Launch Trials[/ame]
The capacity to launch these types of munitions (off some kind of launch rail i presume?) seems to be a very useful capabulity to have.
I think this type of support - and flexibility of attacking option is potentially a vital area we can improve upon.
The use of UCAV from ships is something the RN seem to be well prepared for, and their size means they could be used on a large frigate type ship.
kev 99
Member
Yeah I know it's theoretically possible but all the released bumf has consistently mentioned 150m, so maybe there's some limitation other than fuel? Or maybe its just a case of not quite knowing all the limitations? I've also been wondering if a cheap and cheerful missile could be developed from the same airframe, drop the loitering requirement and maybe have room for more fuel and a bigger warhead?
There is also the Nansen class of Norway,
Nansen Class Anti-Submarine Warfare Frigates - Naval Technology
This is an ASW frigate based, as far as I know, on the F100.
Nansen Class Anti-Submarine Warfare Frigates - Naval Technology
This is an ASW frigate based, as far as I know, on the F100.
I think that looks like a decent option. Would be suprised if CAAM was not placed at the fromt of the ship a la T-23 and T-45 and quad packed into SYLVER 70 or Mk.41 VLS. I presume these would have a pair of CIWS on the flanks like the T-45 - Phalynx or Goalkeeper.
For me, it seems a little silly in a way to have only C1 with TAS. I think some C1 and some C2 should have TAS - or have it so a limited number could be fitted on as and when it is needed. (as they wont be sub-hunting all the time...)
That would mean buying more TAS. C1 is going to get the Sonar 2087 sets from Type 23. There aren't quite enough sets for every planned C1 to have one at the same time, let alone fit any to C2.
No, C1 won't be sub-hunting all the time, but if you want any sub-hunting done, you send a C1, not a C2. The TAS won't be the only difference in ASW abilities. Why send a C2 with TAS, when that means you have to have a C1 (better at ASW in every way) pootling around without one?
It's a reduced-size F100, with SPY-1 (though IIRC a smaller model than in F100) & AEGIS. All the arguments against adapting F100 for the RN apply to it, plus the size. There seems to be unanimity that Type 26 will be 6000 tons, maybe a bit more.
Why start with a ship where you have to do more redesign? There is a class of ship with basically the same hull as F100, but without the structure for SPY-1, i.e. the LCF/F124. One of the reasons Australia chose F100 was because Australia wanted SPY-1/Aegis. TKMS offered a ship derived from F124, IIRC, & it was considered to offer no advantages because of the redesign needed, & consequent higher cost & risk, & rejected early on.
Think of it like this: you want a car. You can buy -
a) a car the size & performance you want.
b) a van based on the same chassis, & convert it.
Which do you buy? Obvious, isn't it? In this context, the F100 is a van, & the RN wants a car. It has major structural differences from the RNs requirement. The LCF/F124 has the same basis, but without those structural differences.
The F100s are great ships but unfortunately every time work has to be done on the AEGIS system, Radar upgrades etc technicians from the US are sent to do the work with the Spanish Navy not even getting to open the parts box.
Given any future possible conflict and possible lack of US support we will be glad that we spent more for our own ships with our own systems. This argument also could be applied to the JSF which is not so joint now...
Given any future possible conflict and possible lack of US support we will be glad that we spent more for our own ships with our own systems. This argument also could be applied to the JSF which is not so joint now...
Very true - particulally the part where C1 will be superior to C2 in ASW.
I was thinking more along the lines of having a set number of TAS sets - in effect a "pool", which could be allocated at short notice to the relecant T26 vessel as and when they were required. There are, as you point out, obvious difficulties with this.
I would not be suprised if C1 was a similar size to T-45, given the role it is intended for.
I can see that working if we had a few more 2087s, but given the numbers, I suspect that there'll always be a C1 available for every TAS in service. When we have fewer C1s operational than the total number of TAS (bound to happen sometimes, with refits & repairs), I would expect a TAS to be being overhauled.
I agree with the re-work part.
The Nansen class should be unacceptable to the RN because of it's systems; In my oppinion RN needs to get it's act together and a good place to start is by conformity of systems.
As I see it the RN is in a unique position to do wonders with it's fleet of surface combattants, who all, with the exception of Type45, either is more or less obsolete or ageing. In other words the RN can design a new fleet from scratch.
In this line of thinking; With the type45 the RN has made a commitment to certain new systems, f.ex. ASTER, SAMPSON, Engines, Consoles/computer system, electronics etc. The RN should continue with those systems whenever such cabability is needed and in the greatest possible and feasable extent. Ideally the ship (T45) it self should also be the unified platform of a future fleet (though it appears that the T45 is unsuited for being the backbone of multiple variants? - in that case you need a new platform - ONE (conceptual) platform).
Of this new conceptual platform, we all ready know a lot. It's air defense suite will be like that of the T45 (possibly stripped down). F.ex. it will have a SAMPSON radar (or something alike) and will have ASTER missiles for airdefense. Having said A, you can might as well say B, which means that the VLS system would be Sylvan, which points to other weapon systems that can work with that system and specificly rules out weapons that can't.
We also know that the propulsion system will be fuel-electric like the T45 (disel-turbine-electric). The ASW version might be diesel-electric only (I don't know whether the turbines are good for ASW needs).
Anyway from such conceptual design you spawn the variants that you need, I understand 3 variants. One might need ultra quiet engines, another a powerfull radar yet another might not need all those fancy stuff. and you differentiate the variants according to mission and economical feasability.
And ofcourse, since we live in the 21th century, we all ready now design our architecture in such a way that we facilitate easyness of future upgrades, becase the electronics and weapons are sure to get obsolete long before the hull rust.
And "things" which doesn't fit into this schema is axed imidiately. This new weapon; CAMM. I don't understand, If ASTER15 is a good short to medium range missile allready in service, I can't see the need for developing a new costly missile that can do the same.
FOCUS!!
Last edited:
Type 26/variant wont have SAMPSON, It will have Artisan though a future upgrade may have something like a cut down SAMPSON, there was a concept called Spectre, but it wont be an air defence specialist but will still be a top rate warfighter, as such Artisan is advanced enough for its needs, using technology from SAMPSON and the RAF commander sets. Hence there already is a common plan to preserve a radar industry in the UK.
CAMM is "focus", it will meet RN,RAF and ARMY needs with versions of the same missile. It gives certain advantages highlighted in posts above, it will be significantly cheaper than the Aster £1m a shot. It will use a version of the ASTER seeker (as used in Meteor) on a body derived from Asraam, so logically there is a lot to "get" about the concept, using existing technologies and upgrade paths.
Caam will likely quad pack, which is a weakness of Aster 15 compared to ESSM, so less cells for the same number, or Caams cold launch means you could dispense wih the sylver altogether.
I am unfamiliar with the Artisan, what can it do that the SAMPSON can't?
I am aware of the tri-service aspect of the CAMM project - besides what you write which important cababilities does CAMM have that ASTER hasn't? (on a ship of this size).
I don't understand why you would dispense with the sylver launcher, VLS batteries are in wide use across about all navies and fires a broad range of missiles.
A: Cost a damn sight less
B: Be quadpacked
C: using a dedicated canister for the CAMM can free up space in a forward VLS for larger missiles (I doubt VLS will be got rid of)
Sampson is vastly expensive to be affordable on all ships. Artisan is a more general purpose system that can be fielded across the fleet for medium and lond range search, money I suppose is the key, GP and ASW ships just dont need the full works, at least if we want a fleet of 20 plus escorts. I think the key will be interoperability across the fleet and combining assets to complete the picture, we cant afford Aegis on 80 ships like the USN. Artisan is still supposed to be able to track these Mach 2 cricket balls at 20miles and uplink to Caam to give mid course guidance.
Aster wouldnt fit in the Type 23 I believe, or rather the deep square profile of Sylver wouldnt, hence no Caam , no upgrade path for Type 23's that have upto 20 years left in then, still top class ASW. Upgrading Sea Wolf would probably just be wasted cash, I actually think Caam will be exportable.
If Caam uses a launcher of its own, we could dispense with Sylver and buy Mk41 or strike length VLS, then buy more Tomahawk (that we already use), the alternative is paying for Tomahawk to be integrated into Sylver which would cost a fair bit or buying Scalp Naval (which I wouldnt be against personally).
Maybe Type 26 will get Sylver,I dont know?
The UK is in a perfect position for once to renew and standradise the fleet thus saving a fortune on weapon systems, through life costs and associated logistics (ammunition supply).
For starters:
CAAM - C1, C2, Army & RAF Air-Defence Units
155mm Main Gun - Based on AS90 system - firing common smoke, illumination, extended range & excalibur ammunition - T45 upgrade, C1 & C2, Army SPA.
40mm Secondary Armament - Fit marinised 40mm FRES gun system to C1, C2 replacing standard 30mm weapons currently installed port/starboard on T45 & future T26. Fit as primary on C3 & selected RFA units. New telescopic 40mm rounds have the explosive punch of traditional 50mm systems. Supplement this with Phalanx or bolt on CAAM container (C3 & RFH) subject to selected radar fit (C3) or upgrades (RFA)
common system, common training (weapons techs) common spares. What's not to like.
For starters:
CAAM - C1, C2, Army & RAF Air-Defence Units
155mm Main Gun - Based on AS90 system - firing common smoke, illumination, extended range & excalibur ammunition - T45 upgrade, C1 & C2, Army SPA.
40mm Secondary Armament - Fit marinised 40mm FRES gun system to C1, C2 replacing standard 30mm weapons currently installed port/starboard on T45 & future T26. Fit as primary on C3 & selected RFA units. New telescopic 40mm rounds have the explosive punch of traditional 50mm systems. Supplement this with Phalanx or bolt on CAAM container (C3 & RFH) subject to selected radar fit (C3) or upgrades (RFA)
common system, common training (weapons techs) common spares. What's not to like.
Accept the cost issues of SAMPSON. Though then Artisan should be a system that can be used widely amoung all ships of relevant size, not needing the cababilities of the SAMPSON. compare wih EMPAR on french ships.
But if you allready have ASTER, I still fail to see the purpose of CAMM. Sure there can be "backwards compatibility" issus with the, ageing, Type23 creating a need for an intrim solution. I would suspect that the most cost efficient way is that you simply buy existing systems and strap on (I believe MDBA has such a solution allready).
If you want a VLS battery, I consider it weird not to continue with the system, or a derivative thereof (A70?), all ready in use on the T45. Starting up a new line of VLS batteries doesn't make sense, or constitute a question mark on the T45's primary weapon system - a ship that british tax payers have paid £1b for each.
And if you have an ASTER cabable VLS, I don't see the need of CAMM.
If you don't want VLS at all, I would raise serious questions on such a concept's versatility and future upgrade path.
In regard to the Land attack missile.
In my line of thinking you have two options: Integrate Tomahawk with Sylver or go SCALP.
It's not an option to go MK41, because you have another system and MK41 don't fire ASTER and that (should be) your AD missile familly. It is so of historical reasons (T45). RN has made a choise with the Type45, they have to stick with it, else they end up with a dissimilar infrastructure, which translates into a more complex infrastructure, which, by reason, is inherritly more costly to run and upgrade.