The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[swerve]

Aster 15 probably really does have a slightly (several km) greater absolute maximum range, gets there a bit faster, & as you say, has those terminal pif-paf thrusters. I'd therefore bet on it being able to intercept a fast incoming missile further out, & as you say, have a higher probability of killing it.

But where you have a mix of Aster 15 & 30, I can see the advantages of changing it to a mix of Aster 30 & CAMM. You should be able to have more missiles overall, plus slightly more Aster 30 (perhaps getting those fast incoming missiles even further out), for about the same price.

CAMM has a better minimum range, BTW.

 

[StobieWan]

I think it's a bit of a no-brainer if CAMM performs to spec - ASTER-15 looks a bit redundant given the very healthy overlap between CAMM and Aster-30.

The min range for Aster 15 vs 30 isn't that much different either, barely 1.5km I think - so yeah, stick 40 Aster 30, 32 quad packed CAMM in there and you've got a ship capable of taking on pretty much most of an airforce in one sitting.

 

[RobWilliams]

Just realised something, the Type 26 is designed - at this point - for 2 x Phalanx each, and seeming as the Type 23 doesn't actually have any that means we're relying on the MOD to actually buy ~ 26 new Phalanx units.

Off the top of my head I can't see where any existing ones will come from.

• Type 45 got them from Type 42s
• Will probably need more Phalanx to fit the MARS tankers than what's being given up
• CVF definitely needs her compliment, suspect they'll be swapped out for alternating service

Of course, this actually counts on the MOD buying the numbers they officially need

Gotta say though, for the CVF i'd prefer something more substantial like the Goalkeepers from Illustrious or slotting in a few CAMM launchers really. For a capital ship like the CVF IMO it's the dedicated protection it should get rather than a few Phalanx's, it just seems like a half-assed attempt at self AAW defence.

EDIT: Also, does anyone have a rough date to when the first Type 26 is due to be laid down? Not looking for something like 13th August 2017 or anything, the year is fine

 

[StobieWan]

Goal Keeper goes end of life in RN service in about 2015 - that's a formal statement - with the retirement of the Type 22's plus some the bulk of the other units carrying it, it's too expensive to keep maintained.. Shame, I'd sooner have had four permanently installed on each CVF.

That leaves buying more Phalanx - I'd guess they'll buy no more than 2/3 the maximum total of units that could be fitted and cycle them around.

I'd prefer CAMM, or better, CAMM as well - and that needn't be extravagant - they're already fitting Artisan-3D so you just need some cabling to a couple of places they can bolt down some launchers. CAMM is a soft launch system, even 16 a side backed by Phalanx would cheer me up quite a bit.

 

[RobWilliams]

Goal Keeper goes end of life in RN service in about 2015 - that's a formal statement - with the retirement of the Type 22's plus some the bulk of the other units carrying it, it's too expensive to keep maintained.. Shame, I'd sooner have had four permanently installed on each CVF.

That leaves buying more Phalanx - I'd guess they'll buy no more than 2/3 the maximum total of units that could be fitted and cycle them around.

I'd prefer CAMM, or better, CAMM as well - and that needn't be extravagant - they're already fitting Artisan-3D so you just need some cabling to a couple of places they can bolt down some launchers. CAMM is a soft launch system, even 16 a side backed by Phalanx would cheer me up quite a bit.

Yeah, I know the die is cast but it just seems a real shame IMO. Just seems like when you spend billions on a single ship, you do what you can to protect your investment.

Most probably will, put them on as/when they deploy East of Suez or now just the Eastern Med. How long does it actually take to swap out Phalanx units?

Definitely, their own launchers seem very easy to slot into any particular spot with room so it just seems like a logical upgrade in point defence for a - relatively - cheap price.

 

[RobWilliams]

Yeah, I know the die is cast but it just seems a real shame IMO. Just seems like when you spend billions on a single ship, you do what you can to protect your investment + considering many see Goalkeeper as something more effective than Phalanx, then maybe recycling the units would've been a good idea

Most probably will, put them on as/when they deploy East of Suez or now just the Eastern Med. How long does it actually take to swap out Phalanx units?

Definitely, their own launchers seem very easy to slot into any particular spot with room so it just seems like a logical upgrade in point defence for a - relatively - cheap price.

 

[FluffyThoughts]

If you look carefully you'd find that the GCS is not being fitted with Phalanx 20mm. Instead it is a Phalanx-based directed-energy system. This seems to explain the hangar-mounted system: Firing cased-ammunition over the flight-deck is considered by many a no-no....

[ Will try to find a link to Think Defence blog.... ]

 

[RobWilliams]

If you look carefully you'd find that the GCS is not being fitted with Phalanx 20mm. Instead it is a Phalanx-based directed-energy system. This seems to explain the hangar-mounted system: Firing cased-ammunition over the flight-deck is considered by many a no-no....

[ Will try to find a link to Think Defence blog.... ]

Like the MOD would fund a direct energy system . . .

I would very much like to see the link to the blog (would love to see how he'll try justify his opinion), would also like to see something official about it too. Seeming as its clear to see (apparently), someone would have said something as IMO that'd be a huuuge investment

Personally, I think that's an absolute pile of crap, directed energy instead of a CIWS, never ever heard anything of the like before for the Type 26.

 

[colay]

Wouldn't SeaRAM be a superior alternative to a rotary cannon-based CIWS? It can engage hostiles at extended distances and is better able to deal with multiple threats.

One thing that surprises me re the Type 26 is the lack of CEC compatibility from what I've read. I assume that cost reduction played a part in this decision.

 

[the concerned]

Direct energy CIWS would be ok against a missile threat if we could afford such a thing but what about the threat from stuff like small attack craft wouldn't something like the ram block 2 be better.

 

[StobieWan]

If you look carefully you'd find that the GCS is not being fitted with Phalanx 20mm. Instead it is a Phalanx-based directed-energy system. This seems to explain the hangar-mounted system: Firing cased-ammunition over the flight-deck is considered by many a no-no....

[ Will try to find a link to Think Defence blog.... ]

That's pure speculation on the part of the author, based on a very "sales and marketing" rendering I'm afraid.

I doubt the RN would be betting on anything like that but there is a laser based bit of kit that fits onto a Phalanx mount.


http://www.raytheon.com/newsroom/feature/stellent/groups/public/documents/content/cms04_025223.pdf


Thing is, that's limited to a range of 5km by default as the radar from Phalanx tops out near that and I'm not convinced the thing can tackle high speed missiles but we'll see.

I don't think there's any serious plans for the RN to buy the thing and reading between the lines on that pdf, there'd need to be a chunk of stuff under the deck to make it work - whereas the current model for use is based on swapping a self contained Phalanx 20mm in and out as required.

 

[StobieWan]

Direct energy CIWS would be ok against a missile threat if we could afford such a thing but what about the threat from stuff like small attack craft wouldn't something like the ram block 2 be better.

There's a pair of 30mm cannon plus a 5 inch gun at the front,plus maybe a pair of Wildcat with FASGW etc.

That'd be one determined Haji...

 

[swerve]

Wouldn't SeaRAM be a superior alternative to a rotary cannon-based CIWS? It can engage hostiles at extended distances and is better able to deal with multiple threats.

A CIWS is to deal with leakers, not engage at extended distance. That's what CAMM (Sea Ceptor) is for - & it's meant to cope with multiple threats.

 

[colay]

A CIWS is to deal with leakers, not engage at extended distance. That's what CAMM (Sea Ceptor) is for - & it's meant to cope with multiple threats.

Understood.. by extended distance I meant relative to the effective range rotary cannon but below that of something like CAMM.

 

[StobieWan]

Understood.. by extended distance I meant relative to the effective range rotary cannon but below that of something like CAMM.

CAMM's minimum range is well within the engagement envelope of Phalanx so no worries there.

 

[STURM]

Wouldn't SeaRAM be a superior alternative to a rotary cannon-based CIWS? It can engage hostiles at extended distances and is better able to deal with multiple threats.

But which would be more effective in dealing with supersonic sea-skimmers. This unfortunately is a question that can't be accurately answered as so far, only simulated tests have been performed. We may have reached a point where the most effective way of dealing with such threats would be by a soft-kill option.

A CIWS is to deal with leakers, not engage at extended distance. That's what CAMM (Sea Ceptor) is for - & it's meant to cope with multiple threats.

In your opinion, would VL MICA fall in the same category, as a point defence system? Due to its range, Seawolf, eventhough it was the only surface to air missile system on certain ships, has been described as a point defence weapons. Due to budgetary and other issues, missiles like MICA will be the only surface to air missile system on ships operated by smaller navies.

The question which comes to my mind is whether or not the RN originally specified a need for a shorter range missile system to supplement PAAMs on the Daring class? I like the approach taken by the Bundesmarine and the ROKN with the Sachsen, Bradenburg and KDX-5 [also has a Goalkeeper] class, in having a MK41 VLS but still having RAM to deal with leakers - granted only a few navies, including the RN, can afford this approach.

 

[colay]

CAMM's minimum range is well within the engagement envelope of Phalanx so no worries there.

Good to know. However, another way to look at it is while Sea Ceptor utilizes active radar homing, SeaRAM would have an IR seeker so having both would provide a larger safety margin vs incoming hostiles specially those that may have reduced signatures.

 

[StobieWan]

Good to know. However, another way to look at it is while Sea Ceptor utilizes active radar homing, SeaRAM would have an IR seeker so having both would provide a larger safety margin vs incoming hostiles specially those that may have reduced signatures.

It would do and I like RAM - it's a phenomenally creative use of existing components, it works very well in tests from all I can here (one observer said it usually got a paint to paint contact hit in tests)


The RN isn't apparently interested however - and it was trialled on a Type 23 a few years back. Shame - but apparently organisationally the RN doesn't want another missile type in service.

It'd be great for CVF, the various auxiliaries etc.

 

[1805]

Good to know. However, another way to look at it is while Sea Ceptor utilizes active radar homing, SeaRAM would have an IR seeker so having both would provide a larger safety margin vs incoming hostiles specially those that may have reduced signatures.

If there was a requirement I'm sure Sea Ceptor could be provided with an IR option. MICA has this and they are made by the same company, so I can't believe it would be a major issue to raid the parts bin!

One would hope that MBDA will be able to merger development of MICA/CAMM at distance some point, and with volume provide a really attractive alternative to the likes of ESSM.

 

[StobieWan]

If there was a requirement I'm sure Sea Ceptor could be provided with an IR option. MICA has this and they are made by the same company, so I can't believe it would be a major issue to raid the parts bin!

One would hope that MBDA will be able to merger development of MICA/CAMM at distance some point, and with volume provide a really attractive alternative to the likes of ESSM.

I'm not sure if there's the right size rocket motor rattling around in the catalogue to get that reach - Meteor uses a ram jet so you'd need a booster to get it airborne, which rules out quad packing (too fat)


Mica doesn't have the legs..hmm...I don't think there's a solid fuel rocket motor in the MBDA catalogue that is long and narrow enough?