Subscribe
Notify of
guest
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Rodders

It’s a shame that the freeing up of the 911 FCR didn’t allow the bolting on of a Phalanx CIWS either forward or aft on the T23s

Callum

You’d think even the politicians would be in favour of quad packing SC into Sylver. Imagine the good publicity they’d get: “New upgrade more than doubles missiles on Royal Navy destroyers”.

Geoffrey Hicking

All those times I was told by experts that 100+ AA missiles on a Type 45 was just “fantasy fleet”.

All those times that building frigates alongside Canada and Australia was “just fantasy fleet, grow up!”.

Factor in the cooperation with the Indian carrier, and it appears that the Fantasy Fleeters aren’t wrong about everything methinks….

Mike

There are many “experts” out there who seem to look down upon the opinion of those who take part in the defence blogging community. Despite many of us having served and everyone seemingly caring about the defence of our nation. History has often shown that the experts can be wrong. An enthusiastic outside perspective unbiased by institutional culture and tradition is worth listening to. Even if the occasional opinion is unrealistic there is often a point to what has been said.

Grubbie

Careful James might call the police on you

Steve Taylor

I remember reading a discussion on another website between a lay person and a RN commander. This was back when we were going to get 13 T26. The lay person suggested cancelling one of the T26 and using the money to buy T2087 and other upgrades for the 12. Remember 5 of that 13 were not to have 2087. The RN commander kept on saying there were only 8 2087 sets (there aren’t actually there are more) and the lay person kept saying yes that was his point. And round and round it went. To think that the RN allowed such an individual to command an expensive piece of hardware staggered belief. There is a smug cleverness about British defence professionals. Lay persons look at the rest of the world and ask why aren’t we doing x, y, or z and the professionals always allude to the themselves being uber-competent and the lay personages being, well just, stupid when mostly it seems to be more about money.

Steve

The Falklands war showed up the arrogant stupidity of the professionals in the Royal Navy. The navy was ill equipped to deal with the air threat posed by a teir 2 nation. The surface to air missiles were designed for a high altitude threat that dissipated 15-20 years earlier. Despite the fact that low level attacks had been the norm for over decade most of the ships were not equipped to defend against the threat. The sinking of the INS Eliat by anti ship cruise missiles had occurred 15 years earlier and yet there was only one weapon system (seawolf) that could counter it. Even when they had a credible low altitude missile in sea wolf, they tactically screwed up putting HMS Coventry closer to the threat rather than the better equipped HMS Broadsword. We all know how that ended.

Hach

Agree. I’m Ex-navy

James Harrington Law

very informative, thanks.

Pacman27

No doubt its a great product and I have been a long term advocate of its adoption on the T45.

Not convinced by the argument in the article that Sea Ceptor is not as good as Aster 15 – I think it is probably better.

The other thing to say is that the only difference between Aster 15/30 is an additional fuel cell, so it would be cheap for the UK to upgrade current stock of Aster 15 by adding the additional booster pack.

All in all another good article and really great product that is cost effective

John Clark

Agreed, I’ve also long argued for SC to be fitted to T45’s .

100 missiles per ship would give a huge capability boost.

I wonder what the true range is, clearly more than 25 km, probably more like 40km.

ONeil Padilla

My understanding the CAMM-ER (extended Range) variant has a range of 45km+ which would be a more appropriate replacement for the Aster 15. Seriously a Type 45 could have load out of 36 x Aster 30 and 48 x CAMM-ER’s. Can anyone assist me in regards to whether or not CAMM-ER is Mk41 compatible yet or tested?

Captain Nemo

There’s a question mark over CAMM-ER at the moment I believe due to Italians withholding funding.

“As Pasquale di Bartolomeo, Managing Director of MBDA Italy and Executive Group Director Sales & Business Development of the whole holding, put it, the programme has to be considered slowed down rather than cancelled”

JohnHartley

There was the land based CAMM-ER truck launcher at the last Farnborough. With only 6x T45, I thought it might be wise to mix SeaCeptor with CAMM + CAMM-ER, so the RN can deter aircraft armed with ASMs from getting too close. Probably no money in the budget for it though.

Captain Nemo

Just to update: Gabrielle Molinelli is reporting that the Italians have restored funding for CAMM-ER, 95m Euros to complete development by 2024.

Jim

I’ve no idea what the true ranges are of either missile as they just seem to say 30km+ for Aster 15, but I think it’s safe to assume both systems are considerably more than the official ranges. Some reports and estimates for Sea Ceptor/CAMM put it at anything from 1.6-2.4x the stated range.
For the sake of arguement if we assume it was about 2x for both systems, that would mean the range for the Aster 15 is about 20% more than Sea Ceptor (at 60km and 50km respectively), but if you can effectively quadrouple your short range missile supply, at the expense of some range, I’d have thought it were worth it.
Then if the extended range version can even beat the Aster 15 AND still fit 4 per VLS cell, then it’s just a win-win (except for the treasury who has to buy more missiles).

Callum

Generally speaking, almost every missile has a greater range than advertised. Partially to avoid providing opponents with information on true capability, but also because they want to avoid unrealistic expectations of performance under combat conditions.

D J

What is happening re CAMM-ER development without Italian funding? Is it still on the go slow or has someone else stepped up?

Callum

I think the Spanish have already selected CAMM+ER for their next frigates, so its probably ok

Paul Hopkins

The Spanish are going for the Raytheon ESSM on F110.

Callum

My bad, CAMMs wiki page clearly hasn’t been updated in a while

MikeKiloPapa

You’d be surprised how often the opposite is the case……that the brochure numbers are theoretical best case figures, not comparable to actual real life use. The same goes for other weapon systems and sensors like radar. Knowing the real range of ESSM , seeing numbers like 60km being used for the much smaller sea ceptor , seems downright ridiculous. In fact i am willing to bet that SCs effective range is well below 25km against a small maneuvering target (like an AShM)

Bloke down the pub

Just because Sea Ceptor might be able to travel >60kM doesn’t mean it’s able to intercept a target at that range.

Rob N

I would like to see the current T45 Aster load-out retained but with the 12 extra VLS rubes added and quad packed with CAMMS-ER . A nice mix would be 38 ASTEr 30, 10 ASTEr 15 and 48 CAMMS-ER. This mix would up the number of long range missiles. Add CAMMS for medium range and leave a few ASTER 15 for local defence against challenging targets. Because we only have 6 of these ships we should give them maximum capability. It is all very well having the worlds best AAW platform but it will not help if it runs out of missiles! We should also upgrade ASTEr 30 block o to block 1 and buy ASTER 39 1NT when it comes out.

Sam

Its a Quality vs Quantity issue 😊 Aster 15 is more accurate (And Expensive) but its hard to beat 4 Ceptors in a bad mood 😁 Plus CAMMS is multi service.

DaveyB

I’m not sure that the SeaCeptor is as manoeuvrable as the Aster 15. As the exact performance of the missiles are secret, I can only base my judgement on the reason why the German Air Force use the Iris-T instead of the Asraam on their Typhoons. They believed that the Iris-T was a much more manoeuvrable missile, especially at the end game part of the engagement. However, the philosophy behind the use of the short range missile is different between the Air Forces. We choose Asraam as it has nearly double the range of a Sidewinder/AA-11 Archer. Therefore we can launch an Asraam much earlier than the opponent can launch theirs. Giving our Typhoons a much better chance of a kill but also evading their response.
The SeaCeptor is based on the Asraam and uses the same tail fin arrangement. Compared to the Iris-T and Aster-15 the SeaCeptor is a much less draggy design which helps its top speed and range. However, the Aster has more wing surface area, so theoretically should be able to turn better.
The Aster is slightly bigger but has more mass, so a large anti-ship missile may only require one Aster, whilst it may require two SeaCeptors to destroy it.

Rob N

Aster also has the PIF-PAF thrust system that literally pushes the missile sideways to correct last minute targeting error. SC has no such system.

DaveyB

MBDA have been talking about developing a dual head seeker for the CAMM family, which would include the ASRAAM. Not sure how they are going to do this, as the missile body is quite slim. Perhaps, another upgrade should be including a piff-paff system for end game engagements?

Jim

The ASRAAM/CAMM’s seeker head is more spacious than many short-range air-to-air missiles as it has a 166mm diameter body, compared to the 127mm of AIM-9 type missiles, and not much less than the 180mm of the Aster. The CAMM-ER is mean to be something like 190mm, though I’m not sure if that’s the whole thing or an add-on booster.

Gunbuster

The SC jetvators that are used to do the missile turn over on launch can do a pif/paff imitation in the terminal phase to assist in getting a hit.

Jim

What we have to also bear in mind is the Sea Ceptor is a much smaller and ligher missile than the Aster 15, so it doesn’t need the same amount of aerodynamic forces in order to turn it than the larger missile does. For the ASRAAM (basically the same propulsion and steering unit as Sea Ceptor) I’ve seen figures for turning quotes as >50g, which even if it’s not quite as much as the Aster 15, still should make it more manouverable than any anti-ship missile it will have to intercept, as by nature those are far, far larger and heavier than either surface-to-air missile.
Also, hypersonic missiles will be less manouverable than their slower counterparts, since the turning radius of a 20g turn at mach 8 is far larger than a 20g turn at mach 2.

Rob N

Aster is better. It is more agile and has a better radar. It also is faster and has a better kill probability. I suspect it would be better at challenging targets like supersonic/hypersonic ASMs…

Rob N

MikeKiloPapa

I think there is no way that Sea Ceptor is as good , let alone better than ASTER 15……its a much smaller, lighter and cheaper missile and there is no such thing as a free lunch so it has to compromise somewhere. Aster likely has greater effective range, better maneuverability ,bigger killzone and therefore also a higher Pk , at the expense of a bigger footprint and much higher cost. I think the latter is probably Sea Ceptors greatest selling point.

Rob N

Yes I think SC is good for the RN as it is way better then Sea Wolf and it provides an extra layer of defence supplementing Sea Viper. Also if the have implemented the Anti-surface capability it can cope with force protection. All in all a very useful addition to the fleet. Lets see some fitted to the QE..,.

Andy

I remember watching a film of HMS Glamorgan firing her sea slug at a land target , the navy was seeing if the Sea Slug could be used as a cruise missile.
The end result was spectacular, the structure was totally destroyed, unfortunately the Sea Slug had missed the target by 6 miles and had destroyed a hay barn in the corner of a distant field. The farmer was not impressed.
So the Sea Slug was just as accurate as a cruise missile as it was a SAM totally useless.

John Clark

Sea Slug, the name dosen’t inspire confidence does it….

Designed for taking out slow high Soviet maritime reconnaissance aircraft and bombers, anything else, forget it.

Sam

And Sea Cat got the bad rep during the Falklands lol At least sea Cat worked, it would be interesting to see the outcome of the Falklands had Sea Cat not been around. I would not be surprised if more ships were lost as although Sea cat wasnt effective at killing Aircraft it did supress the Argentine Air Force attacks and rush their sorties. The only time I saw Sea Slug hit anything was in that Episode of UFO lol

Rick

Oh well, at least the Sea Slug launcher on the aft end looked dangerous.

Sam

It was dangerous…..to the RN sailors 😉 and Welsh hills too

Andy

Sailors hated handling the sea Slug, apparently loading one was a grade A pain in the butt ,frequently involving bruised thumbs and torn clothes, apparently there was a part of the launch structure that if you where not careful would give you a nasty bruise on the ole meat and two veg .

I just wish I had seen the discussions with the farmer whose barn they blew up ,you can just imagine a cple navy boss trying to explain how a state of the art missile missed its target by 6 miles.

Rudeboy

IIRC correctly Antrim or Glamorgan did use some Sea Slug as land attack missiles in the Falklands. Can’t remember which one apparently expended a number firing (no doubt with no spectacular accuracy) at the Argentinian troops on the hills around Stanley. They thought the psychological effect of a Mach 2 telegraph pole arriving on the positions would be quite morale sapping. This was apparently done as the missile was recognised as being utterly useless against aircraft and due to be retired post haste.
Mind you I suspect the crew were happy just to get them off the ship at the earliest opportunity…if I’d been the captain I’d have expended the whole lot of them.

Andy

Yes they fired there entire stock at the hills around Stanley, they actually managed to miss Mount Kent and hit Mount Challenger much to the annoyance to a obversation unit.

I mean how do you miss a target 2,000 feet high covering 6 sq miles and hit something 10 miles away?

Rick

Why not replace Sea Slug with Sea Dart? Was this ever proposed?

Andy

Sea dart was the replacement for the sea Slug.

Rick

I know, what I meant was replacing Sea Slug with Sea Dart on the 8 County Class destroyers.

Rudeboy

Warships used to have 20 year lifespans in those days. Even nuclear subs. The County Class were at the end of their RN lives.
You could argue that lots were then sold on to other nations that then went on to have another 20 year lease of life. But postwar UK designs until T45 arrived and stopped the madness (and QE and T26 are designed on the same lines) were not designed to have spare space, power etc to be easily upgradeable. Basically to do an upgrade usually meant taking the ship apart and trying to squeeze kit into spaces that it wouldn’t fit into. The end result was refits that costed as much as buying new. The Treasury were finally forced to see sense with T45 onwards with the mantra that ‘steel is cheap, air is free’.
When you look at a cutaway of a County Class it becomes utterly apparent that the entire ship was built around Sea Slug. Replacing it with another system wasn’t worth the effort.

Rick

Thanks for commenting Rudeboy. Counties probably would have been better off with American T class missles.

Geo

Slug had a horizontal magazine, Dart required vertical space under the launcher to fit the magazine and there wasn’t there wasn’t enough space in the hull to fit it in. Even if the money had been there for a major reconstruction the magazine would have remained above the waterline.

Replacing the missiles wouldn’t have been the expensive part anyway, replacing the fire control system is where the big money would have been needed (the first 4 Counties were retired early because they were tied to the carriers with the analogue air defence system that’s name escapes me right now, the one with that huge searchlight looking 3D radar instead of the bedstead).

In saying that, what really killed the Counties wasn’t so much the cost and difficulty factor of any potential modernisation, it was the cost of crewing them, even if there was a way to fit Sea Dart and ADAWS4 a County needed a crew of 471 (probably a few less after a refit to replace Slug with Dart, but still 450-ish) because of the COSAG propulsion whereas to crew a COGOG Type 42 the RN only had to recruit, train and retain 250 or so, and those are highly trained technical ratings we are discussing here as well.

Geo

Type 984 was the radar, HMShips Eagle, Victorious and Hermes were the carriers and CDS (Comprehensive Display System) was the fire control system. Once that was out of the fleet the first 4 Counties were out s well.

Rick

Geo, lf Sea Slug worked with carriers 3D radar, was it able to work more effectively as a SAM missle or was it completely useless from day one?

Geo

The reality with missiles is that the fire control system is in many ways more important that the missile body itself (and much of that conversation earlier in this thread about the range of SC v Aster/ESSM misses the point that absent a data linked 3rd party such as Crows Nest, the range of both against sea skimming missiles is limited by the radar horizon of the firing ship, SC’s range against sea skimming missiles is whenever Artisan can see it, probably closer to 10 than 25 [but I’m plucking those numbers from thin air, don’t hold me to them], this is why data links have gone to sea since the 1960s – yes, warships had wifi 50 years before your laptop – and CEC is so desirable).

There were two marks of Sea Slug (that map to the two batches of County DDGs), Mk1 was tied into CDS and the Batch 1 Counties only had the single bedstead version of the Type 965 radar themselves (and couldn’t carry the Type 984 because that thing was massive). It was tested in Australia at Woomera in 1959 and it is worth noting that the RAN went for Tartar over Sea Slug (The RAN going for Charles F Adams over County is another story).

Mk 2 Sea Slug on Batch 2 Counties can be visually distinguished by the double bedstead version of Type 965. But this is a red herring, the real difference is that the Batch 2 Counties isn’t the radars, it’s the computers, Batch 2 had a brand new fire control system, ADAWS, which in improved versions served throughout Sea Darts lifespan.

I’m not in a position to judge the merits of either Sea Slug version, but the batch 1 Counties were retired early, the Batch 2 ships had closer to normal life spans.

*I’m calling it a fire control system but really it’s a command and control system

Gunbuster

Sea Slug was a tail chaser. It did not have proportional navigation built into it. The missile was always going to be chasing the target.
New systems since then (Dart, Aster , SC) fly to a calculated point of intercept where the target is (Hopefully!) going to be. Seeker look angles, Constant K and all those other good things I learnt about as a Weapons Tiff!

Gunbuster

The Sea Slug magazine was horizontal in design and took up most of one deck. It was a truley horrible desigm.
Dart was a lot more compact and was stored vertically but took up over 3 decks vertically.

The two systems where not economical for a conversion.

Bloke down the pub

One question that I have about Sea Ceptor / Sky Sabre. Could, for example, a RN frigate in an anchorage such as San Carlos fire a Sea Ceptor that was receiving guidance from a shore battery ? The Sky Sabre system utilizes a microwave link to send information from the Giraffe radar to the missile launcher, why not to a ship?

Captain Nemo

Link 16 I think, the ship could tell the battery where to throw it.
I was just watching a presentation on the F35 over on Popular Mechanics and the Lockheed Martin guy brought up F35’s Link 16 to land sea and air units, I think the idea there being that all the services can prosecute targets as the F35 lights them up as it goes on its merry way.
“Direct as required”
Scary stuff.

DaveyB

A good example is from the ongoing Project Bablefish. This is where the capabilities of the F35’s Multi-Function Advanced Data Link (MADL) are explored. The last trial involved a F35 and a Typhoon. The Typhoon only has Link-16 which uses an omni-directional antenna, so if you have the right equipment it can be detected quite easily. The F35’s MADL is highly directional and uses the same principles as AESA for beam forming and directing its broadcast. The trial added extra code to the F35’s MADL that converts its code to the same format as Link-16. The F35 could then still use the highly narrow beam to direct mission data to the Typhoon. The Typhoon used this data to launch an AMRAAM at a drone and a Brimestone at a ground target. The Typhoon also broadcast to the F35 images from its Pirate Infrared sensor and data from its radar using its Link-16.
All our ships have Link-16 and it’s part of the Sky Sabre system. Therefore a SeaCeptor should be able to receive targeting data from the Sky Sabre’s Giraffe radar and vice versa, the Sky Sabre should be able to receive data from a ship’s Link-16.

donald_of_tokyo

I think CAMM successful in export is very important. I can only recall Rapier, in the past. Rival is ESSM blk 2, which is also an active radar homing missile. It also has much longer range and CAMM.

For me, CAMM’s great advantage comes from commonality with ASRAAM. ESSM has no commonality to any other missiles. Because of this, the CAMM airframe becomes cheaper, and hence can be bought more. So, its cold launch nature combined with high-density packing will “work”. (this is why I am not much interested in CAMM-ER for a moment).

In this point, the mushroom tube is very bad. T26 having it is OK, because the ship is very large, and mushroom tubes looks as “margin for future growth”, for me. But, for export customers, compact package means smaller hull, smaller man power, and smaller cost, which could be the key to win the bid. Therefore, I really hope RN shift to stand-alone ExLS system as much as possible, on T31e and even on T45. Quad packing to Mk.41 has almost no merit against ESSM, I guess?

ExLS is adopted by Brazil and Canada. So, “CAMM+ExLS” can be a world standard in corvette/light-frigate and even in full-fat frigate regime. In this case, enemy is also Sea MICA.

Captain Nemo

I don’t like the ‘mushroom farm’ because it lays bare your capability. Confronted with Mk.41 an adversary can make an educated guess as to what you’re probably carrying but has to accept additional risk or defer. More expensive yes, but a countermeasure in its own right.

Mike

I thought the mushroom farm was just just left over from the sea wolf VLS tubes? Not how an original design would look. Hence no mushrooms on type 26/31 designs.

Captain Nemo

T31 is pretty mushroomy, they’re even shown on the Arrow 140 where you could have the option for up to 32 Mk.41.
In practical terms I’d know that a Leander is a sitting duck after 24 shots and that I’m probably safe launching at 30km.
I’d just like them to show some foresight and include an element of futureproofing and subterfuge in the designs, you either say this is what I carry, or in the case of Mk.41 what do you think I’m carrying?

Mike

Yeah you are right. Some of the type 31 designs are pretty mushroomy. Perhaps the VLS from Type 23 will be part of the donated/scavenged equipment. Not just the control cabinets/electronics etc that I assumed.

donald_of_tokyo

T26 is also “mushroomy”, looks like. So, it is the RN standard tubes. I hope RN change it to ExLS.

On the other hand, mushroom is just a cover. When firing, the “nearly flat top tube head” appears. I’m afraid, T23 needs to take off their mushroom cover before be ready to fire?

But, if this is the case, we can put the same cover on the “empty tube”, so “not showing how many CAMMs are left” is doable, I guess.

On the other hand, I do not think it is important. As I said, it is very easy to be “hidden” from satellites.

Also, yes, Mk.41 can carry many types of missiles, but RN do not operate many. So, ambiguity in loads is also not a priority for me.

At least, I do not think it will pay the cost of installing compact ExLS within large Mk.41, compared to use compact ExLS in stand alone.

D J

The mushroom farm is cheap. It’s understandable in the case of Sea Wolf conversions. It should not however be too hard to make something that at least looks like mk41 or Sylver, quad packable & handle both CAMM, CAMM-ER & any other soft launch capable missile they come up with. Just bringing the CAMM-ER into service will help, so long as the mushroom farm launchers can launch both. While CAMM appears a better point defence option than say RAM, with some medium range ability, it still gives air power too many options. Even relatively cheap options like JDAM style smart bombs (27km) & anti-armour missiles is enough to burn through defence missiles. The further you can convince them to keep away, the larger & more expensive their options become.

Cam Hunter

Let’s hope our type 26 frigates will receive tomahawks…. Even just 16 is enough, the type 45 has space and was designed for a 16 mk41 silo next to sea viper, but again fitted for but didn’t receive!!…

Julian

I completely agree on the mushroom farm thing. I fully understand why it was expedient for T23 conversion and have no issue there but I find its appearance in CGI renders of the T31 proposals perplexing because, as you (Donald) say, LM ExLS seems to give so much better packing density in terms of deck space per missile hosted. It’s not at all clear to me what is being used in the renders of T26, it isn’t mushroom farm but seems to have nothing like the packing density of ExLS.

Also, am I right that even on the 3-cell stand-alone ExLS the basic tube that 4 SCs are quad-packed into still has the capability to handle hot-launch exhaust gasses? If so then with the amount that we are investing in Sea Ceptor I would have thought that investing in a design for a true cold-launch-only system that had similar or better packing density than ExLS but would presumably be cheaper per cell because it had no exhaust venting capability would be a worthwhile investment to increase load-out for T26, T31 (if it ever happens) and other vessels yet to come. Such a design would I hope also be sized for CAMM-ER in the hope that goes ahead and sizing it for the ER variant might also open up the option at some point to host a booster-enabled VLS SPEAR 3 which has been muted by MBDA in the past.

Pongoglo

Completely agree by sticking with the ‘mushrooms’ we seem to totally negate one of the real advantages of CAMM, the ability to quad pack a reasonable number of missiles into a comparatively small space. True ExLS would achieve this but being designed primarily for ESSM it is still a a hot launch system which is not needed for CAMM, and whilst not as costly as a MK41 it is still a pricey but of kit. The ‘mushrooms’ made sense on T23, but I really can’t understand the obsession with retaining them on new build designs. In the early concept videos MBDA show cased a four cell quad packed launcher the was clearly designed as a cold launch system right from the start and which if installed on Leander for example should come in much cheaper than ExLS and with more missiles too , an example being here;

https://youtu.be/SRIJgH776cU

Jeff

I think the Sea Ceptor tubes are tilted in the old Sea Wolf tubes so if a missile fails to ignite it ends up overboard. I know Sea Ceptor has been launched from an ExLS, I don’t know if the launcher was tilted, but I would suspect if quad packed in a Mk41 it would be launched vertically and risk landing back on the ship if there was a failure.

Gunbuster

I know that a 911 weighs a lot more than 1.7 tons!
Its nearer 6-7 tons with all the below decks cabinets and other equipment that is in a tracker office.
With SC fitted the tracker office is just a big empty space with a couple of small fridge sized electronic cabinets in the corner.
Another big advantage with SC and Artisan is that the chilled water load that the T23 had for SW and R996 is no longer needed. Its actually quite pleasant down aft on a T23 in hot climes now …(with the exception of the winch well)

Andrew Deacon

All the videos I’ve seen show the missile engaging sea skimming threats and the article describes how the missile changes from vertical to horizontal, but what if the target is diving vertically towards the ship? Can sea ceptor go straight up ? Likewise aster Essm etc

D J

Going straight up is not a problem. While AShM are often of sea skimming type, aircraft tend not to be. It’s a bit like the difference between an oval & a circle or a rectangle & a square. If however you are worried about a AShM that has been programmed to go into a bunt, then its probably to late if that’s what has happened (unlike gun CIWS, missiles have a minimum range which for SC is somethink like 1km). ie missiles tend to have a minum range (in order to get into gear if you like).

Dazz

Excellent article – two questions can the CAMM-ER version of the missile also be quad packed in to the MK41 and Sylver launchers.

Has the Royal Navy purchased the ER version of the missile, a mixed load of each version would give the type 23, 26, 31 and possibly the type 45 a short range (25km) and medium range (45km) air defence capability. Any Aster 15 missiles not required could be rebuilt to Aster 30 standard.

[…] in 1980. In the late 1970s, the RN was also aware of the threat from sea skim­mers and the GWS-25 Sea Wolf Point Defence Missile System was seen as the answer. Unfortunately, Sea Wolf was expen­sive, had […]