So put Mica in the VL Seawolf launchers. Active radar, as well - fire and forget.
The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
Here are some pictures of VL Mica & Seawolf launchers, in packs -
http://www.irek.co.kr/wizstock/051951900_1143770684.jpg
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/vlmica/images/VLMica_3.jpg
http://www.eads.net/xml/content/OF00000000400004/1/90/560901.jpg
The land-based VL Mica shows what can be done.
contedicavour
New Member
Good then, let's discuss their actual performance. The first Seawolfs deployed in the Falklands didn't fare well. The UK had a lot of trouble exporting Sea Wolf systems if you exclude the systems delivered with second hand RN ships changing hands. The only export I remember is Malaysia.
Crotale has been adopted in tens of systems by China (local version) plus Saudi Arabia. Even better, Aspide has been sold to Venezuela, Peru, Ecuador, Brazil, post-Falklands war Argentina, Nigeria, Malaysia, Thailand ...
Sure ideally a comparison would require war situations in which the 3 systems really fought, but short of that export performance is THE test. Sea Wolf was a failure...
cheers
contedicavour
New Member
Thanks for the pictures !
Why all this enthousiasm for a system (Mica) that isn't operational and hasn't been ordered by a single navy so far ? An upgrade with Aster-15, though expensive, would at least provide a missile compatible with the Darings' and, even more, a proven missile system.
cheers
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Allright. Here is my proposal.
OPV(H) role
- ~ 4,000 tons, CODAD, 28 kts top speed.
- Either 57mm or 76mm gun. Whatever is cheapest.
- .50 MG's for secondary.
- Can operate an EH101 but carries basic Lynx as default.
- 70 crew, including airgroup.
- MFR, sonar, ESM etc. (Keep in mind high end is to be taken care of by other assets in high intensity theatres.)
- Good but not high end signature management.
With the flex modules the OPV gone combatant would include:
- 3*8 VL Mica
- 2*4 Harpoon
- CIWS - could be Phalanx or Millenium.
- Torpedoes
- TAS ?
- + crew for maintenance, operation of kit and expanded mission.
- Optional Merlin HM1 for ASW.
Operating as part of a battle group - scalable if tasked with being a carrier escort or interdicting traffic in the Gulf.
Perhaps a T23+ hull with CODAD and flex positions?
contedicavour
New Member
Interesting. I wonder to what extent the T23 hull can be "stanflex-ised"
It is easy to be "fitted for but not with" Harpoon SSMs or a CIWS gun, but it's much harder to add serious VLS for AAW and ASW sensors...Historically the British have built long series of specialized ships (ASW FFGs, AAW DDGs, and so on) so adopting this sort of modular OPVH would be a huge change.
cheers
Musashi_kenshin
Well-Known Member
That was arguably because of tactics, not because of Sea Wolf itself. Anyway an upgrade Block 2 version is already being rolled out (or about to be rolled out - I forget which).
So because Rafale hasn't picked up any orders outside of France yet, does that make it a failure too? Come on, to use export orders as evidence of whether something is "good" or not is ridiculous.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
These ships are not meant to be specialised for AAW. I'll agree to the ASW - but it depends so much on how ASW develops over the coming years. Modularised VLS for self defense seems to be solvable to satisfaction, read Mk56 or the already containerised VL Mica.Interesting. I wonder to what extent the T23 hull can be "stanflex-ised"
Historically the British have built long series of specialized ships (ASW FFGs, AAW DDGs, and so on) so adopting this sort of modular OPVH would be a huge change.
cheers
contedicavour
New Member
Honestly ? Yes, if a fighter can't be exported after 10 years of trying, it IS a failure at least in terms of commercial viability.
So far, I have brought up 2 arguments : specs and export success both put Sea Wolf at the bottom of its SAM class. If you have concrete examples of why this should not be the case, be my guest.
cheers
contedicavour
New Member
Yep... I guess financial constraints force us all to be creative. The Danish navy has come out of a budget squeeze with AAW DDGs and original LPD-cum-FFGs, which is good proof that the modular ship works in terms of cost efficiency. If the USN has managed to adapt that concept to the LCS, I guess all of us with our poorer navies (RN included) will have to think this through as well.These ships are not meant to be specialised for AAW. I'll agree to the ASW - but it depends so much on how ASW develops over the coming years. Modularised VLS for self defense seems to be solvable to satisfaction, read Mk56 or the already containerised VL Mica.
cheers
Musashi_kenshin
Well-Known Member
For the love of God, commercial viability was never an issue in the discussion until you raised it as a half-hearted attempt to prove it was a "bad" PD-missile.
As I pointed out above, retail has no bearing on whether it is something the Royal Navy should have. And this is exactly what you were getting at when you I responded to your earlier point. In regards to specs, you have only compared long-range, and I suggested the shorter minimum range was a good aspect. It is not for me to prove it should not be at the bottom of the class, you should be the one to give a convincing argument as to why it is at the bottom as you are making the allegation. So far saying "it has a shorter range" is far from being enough in my book. What do you know about rate-of-fire, accuracy, etc? People that used to serve on Royal Navy ships told me they thought SW was better than Crotale and Sea Sparrow.
Range should be pretty big in anyones book. It is important to be able to engage threats further out to enable enough time to re-enage if you miss. With the SW you only have time for one salvo. With the longer range systems you have time for 2-3. Unless SW is 2-3x more accurate I wouldn't bet my life on it. Rate-of-fire has little to do with it... it's not a MG. Your not going to fire more than two rounds in a salvo. The speed of the engagement vehicle is also important as it helps increase lead time on the next shot. SW is much slower than Mica and only meets Aster 15 in speed but not range. I would say Range, Speed and Accuracy are the triumvirate of point missile defense and SW doesn't meet all three requirements to be effective.
With a Scalp Naval & Storm Shadow a vessel would have offensive capabilities against ship (provided OTH targeting works) and stationary land targets. Pretty good capability.
But why stick with short-range self-defense SAM systems, a purely defensive capability? Aster-30 would give a ship an offensive anti-air capability for aerial denial without increasing too much the weight and space requirements.
And a patrol vessel I think should be limited to guns as main armament (3in+), plus some RAM for self-defense, plus depth charges, plus two light/medium helicopters. And with a good C4ISR suite. After all, such patrols are realistically viewed never combat missions, but police missions.
So do not try to model it into a ship-of-the-line. That only drives up the costs and tempt politicians into wrong use of such assets.
But why stick with short-range self-defense SAM systems, a purely defensive capability? Aster-30 would give a ship an offensive anti-air capability for aerial denial without increasing too much the weight and space requirements.
And a patrol vessel I think should be limited to guns as main armament (3in+), plus some RAM for self-defense, plus depth charges, plus two light/medium helicopters. And with a good C4ISR suite. After all, such patrols are realistically viewed never combat missions, but police missions.
So do not try to model it into a ship-of-the-line. That only drives up the costs and tempt politicians into wrong use of such assets.
I'm thinking a Hamilton class cutter would do the job just fine.
Musashi_kenshin
Well-Known Member
But I'm not comparing it to things that were developed afterwards - it's to do with older missiles of its own generation. If you compare Crotale or Sea Sparrow to ESSM/Aster 15 they don't look too good either, do they?
I don't know what your advocating. You seem to be fighting to keep the SW in service yet you admit it is obsolete. Will you concede to the point that RN FFGs would be better served to replace the SW VLS to a longer range system?
contedicavour
New Member
Ok I've got my JFS 06-07 under my eyes.
Let's compare the late '80s SAMs in service :
Sea Wolf VLS : range 6km, Mach 2.5, warhead 14kg
Sea Wolf GWS 25 Mod 3 : range 5km, Mach 2, warhead 14kg
Aspide : range 13km, Mach 2.5, warhead 30kg
Crotale : range 13km, Mach 2.4, warhead 14kg
=> Aspide already had more than twice the range, same speed, a warhead twice as big as Sea Wolf (it helps in case of near miss). Accuracy against high subsonic speed manoeuvring targets bypassed 4 out of 5 shots fired in late '90s tests in Sardegna.
No argument left here,
cheers
contedicavour
New Member
You are right. Instead of thinking of developing an improved Sea Wolf it would be just about time the RN standardized its SAMs on the Darings', ie Aster family in which btw the British defence industry is heavily involved.
cheers
Sea Wolf 2 is already in production, so 'de-inventing' it makes no sence at this point. Moreover, its considered to be a both a manoverable and accurate missile, with good jam-resistence, but, with out good refernce base i am not getting too wrapped up in that debate. IMO its good, and good enough for duke point defence needs for the future.
I do agree Aster should be the standard SAM for the RN, and it will no doubt be on FSC (if it ever gets built) it will be the SAM of choice. However, the Aster 15 is over kill for a patrol like corvette, thus, RAM or MICA VL are my arguments for a SAM system. These vessles need to be afforable so they can by purchased in some numbers.
Daring apparently had provide for a point defence missile system, at this point i;d image it would be MICA VL, it uses the same asctive seeker as aster, its vertical launched, it can employ an IIR seekerwhich as a surface attack role. I think it would be a great suppliment too Darling and good for a corvette. Saying that, RAM, which is in production and its low cost makes an attractive option.
contedicavour
New Member
I've searched around for data on the Sea Wolf 2 but I can't find its detailed specifications. Does it at least match Aster 15's speed and range ?
Regarding Daring's pont defence, since they already have Aster 15 I doubt they need a further missile system. A couple of Phalanx/Goalkeepers would be enough (just disembark the systems of retiring Type 42 and Type 22 batch 3).
For the patrol corvettes, I agree RAM is a very good option.
cheers