Ah - guess we were talking at cross purposes then. I was responding to Rik's post
"One of the Bays recently spent five years in the Gulf supporting maritime operations with two Phalanx mounted port and starboard on the rear helo deck, CAMM would be a marked improvement. and could be fitted forward of the bridge in a self-contained unit fitted for, but not with (unless required)."
The Bay's are RFA and we have experimented with fitting for but not with SeaWolf on I believe the Fort class, after experiences in the Falklands war, but I don't *think* any of them shipped with the kit in the end.
The original concept for the T23 operating against Russian Subs in the Atlantic was to have a high-end AsW fit, but no missile system. They were to operate under the protection of a large replenishment vessel armed with an AAW system providing a protective umbrella for the Frigates hunting in packs. Falklands snipped that concept in the bud.
The recent deployment of a Bay acting as mother ship to RIBS in the Gulf proved a success. Having two Phalanx mounted port & starboard offered the right level of protection against small fast attack boats favoured by the Iranians and potential terrorists looking for easy targets. Add Sea/Ram/CAMM to the foredeck and you have a very useful, cheap asset capable of supporting 6 off armed and armoured RIBS and a single helo - more useful for anti-piracy than a Frigate.
Can Sea-Ram/CAMM be used against surface targets? I know Starstreak can (having watched a demo by the manufacturers). Having a self-defense system, which has the versatility to attack aircraft, helo's, UAV's and small fast attack boats is a real boon when operating in a littoral environment against an asymmetrical threat.
My question about CAMM is driven by cost, having something which is designed for both land and sea usage saving on maintenance and logistics. Depending on the mission being able to retrofit land based pallet mounted CAMM units on a RFA operating in a high threat environment will take some of the burden off the escorts. The recent trend of transferring Phalanx from ship to shore as an anti-missile/mortar/rocket system is an excellent example of how to make the most out of a single weapon system.
The RN moved away from arming it's LHP and light carriers with a missile systems (Sea Dart removed to allow for more aircraft). The QE will only have 30mm/Phalanx and rely on the T45 for area defence. Should a Falklands style conflict raise it's ugly head promising high numbers of anti-ship missiles, being able to very quickly retrofit some form of missile system already held and operated by the armed forces would be great, further enhanced by the fact that the escorting T26 will be firing the same missiles (if CAMM) allowing for a less complicated supplychain.
Physically fitting CAMM to anything should be relatively straight forward as it's a cold launch system, with little or no efflux and the motor only starts running after the missile is clear of the tube and has been toppled by a small gas generator/thruster unit - so it's requirements will be similar or less than Phalanx 1b - some data connection and power I should think, to a box launcher, which can be located any place.
In other words, as the QE already has or should have Artisan 3D on board, assuming there's some sort of control system on board that can handle a missile intercept, adding CAMM could be about as plug and play as it ever will be. I think it'd be criminally stupid not to add it in fact.
Adding it to an RFA will be physically simple for similar reasons but you then need to spend another several tens of millions in adding a relatively high end radar plus the other bits. Thing is, SeaRam is autonomous - the entire thing just plugs in and works. Adding CAMM as a working local area defence is a much larger task and far more expensive.
From my perspective, I'm really worried that we won't get all the Type 23 replacements and adding Artisan or similar radar to RFA's will take away resources for that pool of ships.
I don't know if CAMM has a secondary anti surface role - for the money I'd just back the 30mm optical mounts on an RFA with a marine detachment with Javelin. That should upset the average surface raider. We're desperately short of cash, and the idea of using RFA's on anti piracy patrols is to save money.
Ian
