RFA Fort Victoria
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: RFA Fort Victoria
Continue from the T45 thread...
The Falklands war happened, and the Royal Navy learnt the hard way how important proper air defence systems are, so all the T23 we're fitted with their own, making those on the fort class redundant.Dahedd wrote:Wtf. Why go to the trouble of fitting the blooming ships with the silos then never filling them. Absolutely pointless
@LandSharkUK
Re: RFA Fort Victoria
Surely it made more sense too utilise the silos in addition to those on the 22/23s. Got to despair at times. Sounds like the brass didn't know their are from their elbow.shark bait wrote:Continue from the T45 thread...
The Falklands war happened, and the Royal Navy learnt the hard way how important proper air defence systems are, so all the T23 we're fitted with their own, making those on the fort class redundant.
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: RFA Fort Victoria
Not much point maintaining equipment and skills that will be rarely used.
They tried something new, but the baseline for the project changed dramatically through lessons learned at war, they recognized that, and adapted the plan. Absolutely nothing wrong with that.
They tried something new, but the baseline for the project changed dramatically through lessons learned at war, they recognized that, and adapted the plan. Absolutely nothing wrong with that.
@LandSharkUK
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: RFA Fort Victoria
Wasnt a v good baseline (if you check Seawolfs range).shark bait wrote: the baseline for the project changed dramatically
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5545
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: RFA Fort Victoria
SeaWolf with very short range (6 to 10 km) CANNOT do "local-area air-defense". So, T23 not carrying SeaWolf and Fort Victoria carrying it is clearly not a good idea. I shall say, the original concept was wrong, regardless of Falkland war (OR SeaWolf's performance was significantly overestimated at the beginning).
Now with SeaCeptor, local-area air-defense is possible. SeaWolf and SeaCeptor is VERY DIFFERENT. SeaWolf is practically a "super sonic SeaCat" = point defense SAM. But SeaCeptor is a "short-ranged SeaViper system" = (local-) area defense SAM.
Now with SeaCeptor, local-area air-defense is possible. SeaWolf and SeaCeptor is VERY DIFFERENT. SeaWolf is practically a "super sonic SeaCat" = point defense SAM. But SeaCeptor is a "short-ranged SeaViper system" = (local-) area defense SAM.
Re: RFA Fort Victoria
Forts can be / are fitted with Phalanx. However it does make you wonder in a hot war situation would we have enough escorts to accompany a vessel like Fort Victoria if it were exposed to enemy aircraft at any point. The answer would probably be no as they would be protecting other valuable assets so you could say there is a case for fitting Seawolf / SeaCeptor to a Fort. But that isn't going to happen. I'm sure it would be wiser to fit SeaCeptor to QE more than anything.
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: RFA Fort Victoria
That's the real selling point for CAMM, launching is simple, and it guides its self so it can be fitted anywhere with ease. It may be worth having a few kits that can be rapidly installed on other platforms, similar to phalanx, giving the platform greater self-escorting capabilities. There is then the question of whether to permanently fir a cheap 3D radar to all platforms, or make that a modular fit too.
A platform with CAMM and a Wildcat would be fairly effective at self escorting.
I think concepts like the above will become necessary as a method to partly offset the reduction in traditional escorts.
That doesn't get around the shortage of helicopters, but they're cheaper to get more of than frigates
A platform with CAMM and a Wildcat would be fairly effective at self escorting.
I think concepts like the above will become necessary as a method to partly offset the reduction in traditional escorts.
That doesn't get around the shortage of helicopters, but they're cheaper to get more of than frigates
@LandSharkUK
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4640
- Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Re: RFA Fort Victoria
employing the likes of an RFA like fort victoria to carry additional helicopter support is a useful force multilpier. to reflect that "enhanced" role I see the requirement for additional defences for example Layered air defences, Torpedo decoys. ESM, ECM and radars.
Re: RFA Fort Victoria
I've always been a tad dubious of the CAMM's claim to be an area defense missile. And other missiles in the same class like ESSM and Aster 15.
I agree with the comment above, fitting CAMM to all high value assets like the QE's should be pretty high on the RN's priority list. And probably is.
I agree with the comment above, fitting CAMM to all high value assets like the QE's should be pretty high on the RN's priority list. And probably is.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4640
- Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Re: RFA Fort Victoria
totally agree even using it as a point defence system for high value assets like the QE's the Amphib ships and the large RFA'sRon5 wrote:I've always been a tad dubious of the CAMM's claim to be an area defense missile. And other missiles in the same class like ESSM and Aster 15.
I agree with the comment above, fitting CAMM to all high value assets like the QE's should be pretty high on the RN's priority list. And probably is.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: RFA Fort Victoria
[quote="shark bait"]selling point for CAMM, launching is simple, and it guides its self so it can be fitted anywhere with ease. It may be worth having a few kits that can be rapidly installed on other platforms, similar to phalanx, giving the platform greater self-escorting capabilities. There is then the question of whether to permanently fir a cheap 3D radar to all platforms[/]
3D radar does not automatically follow; we will have more CrowsNest(s) than will be boarded on a QE. And the helo platform for it has considerable range/ endurance.
- one of those on station will be able to cue a CAMM for the initial part of the flight, until it becomes active/ the narrow seeker cone can see the target.
- remember those little boxes on T26 imagery (much cheaper than a 3D radar)?
3D radar does not automatically follow; we will have more CrowsNest(s) than will be boarded on a QE. And the helo platform for it has considerable range/ endurance.
- one of those on station will be able to cue a CAMM for the initial part of the flight, until it becomes active/ the narrow seeker cone can see the target.
- remember those little boxes on T26 imagery (much cheaper than a 3D radar)?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: RFA Fort Victoria
All that is true, but the Merlin likely wont be with a lone escort, and if it we're theres no way to guarantee crows nest will be in the air when its needed.
@LandSharkUK
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4640
- Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Re: RFA Fort Victoria
Artisan is fitted to Albion & Bulwark, Queen Elizabeth and Ocean as well as Type 23. The Set on Ocean could be reused on one of the LPD's or Fort Victoria and she could be fitted with the Sea Ceptor in the space that the sea wolf occupied
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5545
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: RFA Fort Victoria
Why? Using salvo of "25km-range high-velosity SAMs" to defend yourself in 10-15 km distance, is nothing different from protecting ships "close-escorted", steaming 4 km distance from you. But, as you can see, it is only valid for close escort. That it why CAMM is NOT area defense SAM, just a LOCAL-area air defense.Ron5 wrote:I've always been a tad dubious of the CAMM's claim to be an area defense missile. And other missiles in the same class like ESSM and Aster 15.
Long range, multiple target engagement capability, and at least for CAMM, high-velocity is the key. We in Japan is using ESSM with (Japanized)-APAR to protect our fleet, while AEGIS ships are too busy with BMD. Of course I am not a navy person, but that is what they say and I here no "objection" to date.
Re: RFA Fort Victoria
A 25km radius gives you a tad under 2000 km2 of coverage vs. a little more than 300 km2 for Sea Wolf. Both are more than self-defence systems and are capable of defending other ships within range, so I think that the local-area air defence tag is deserved. How effective it is in the role is, of course, the crux of the matter, but I believe that Sea Wolf is still the only missile publicly accredited with a combat intercept and I doubt that CAMM is inferior to Sea Wolf.Ron5 wrote:I've always been a tad dubious of the CAMM's claim to be an area defense missile. And other missiles in the same class like ESSM and Aster 15.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Re: RFA Fort Victoria
Very tough to defend against a high velocity, maneuvering, crossing target. Much easier to defend against one coming straight at you. Missile range has little to do with it.
Missiles have a long, long, long, history of not living up to brochure performance.
Missiles have a long, long, long, history of not living up to brochure performance.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5545
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: RFA Fort Victoria
First of all, modern SSM do maneuvers, so modern SAM must not be designed to only handle incoming missile. SeaWolf, which is only CLOS missile, will not be good at this. I understand AMRAAM, Patriots, and ASTER can handle crossing target, why not CAMM?Ron5 wrote:Very tough to defend against a high velocity, maneuvering, crossing target. Much easier to defend against one coming straight at you. Missile range has little to do with it.
Yes. But this is also valid for SSMs. So I do not think it is a big problem for discussion here.Missiles have a long, long, long, history of not living up to brochure performance.
Re: RFA Fort Victoria
Exocet worked as claimed. Sea Dart, Sea Cat & Rapier not so much. SSM is a lot easier problem to solve than SAM.
Big difference between a maneuvering crossing target and a maneuvering head on target. Are you aware of a fighter pilots tactics when he detects an incoming missile?
Big difference between a maneuvering crossing target and a maneuvering head on target. Are you aware of a fighter pilots tactics when he detects an incoming missile?
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: RFA Fort Victoria
A Sea Dart from HMS Gloucester managed to intercept an Iraqi missile aimed at a USN Battleship, so its not unprecedented, and of course both sided have advanced significantly since then.
@LandSharkUK
Re: RFA Fort Victoria
It remains the one and only confirmed successful hard kill of an anti-ship missile with a SAM. Of over 240 anti-ship missiles used so far worlwide, about half hit their targets, 1 was downed by Gloucester, the others seduced away by decoys.shark bait wrote:A Sea Dart from HMS Gloucester managed to intercept an Iraqi missile aimed at a USN Battleship, so its not unprecedented, and of course both sided have advanced significantly since then.
Drawing a circle and counting its area is kind of deceiving, especially as ASM elsewhere become high-supersonic or even hypersonic within the next five years. CAMM is going to be hard-pressed to race to intercept a fast sea skimmer at a safe distance not only from the launching ship, but other ships sailing within a few kilometers of it. Interception will happen well within the 25 km range. A mach-3 russian ASM will only give you 30 - 40 seconds to reply assuming that it is detected at 30 to 40 km away.A 25km radius gives you a tad under 2000 km2 of coverage vs. a little more than 300 km2 for Sea Wolf. Both are more than self-defence systems and are capable of defending other ships within range, so I think that the local-area air defence tag is deserved.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.
Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum
Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4640
- Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Re: RFA Fort Victoria
which is why you need a layered system of point defence on high value assets CAMM and phalanx.
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: RFA Fort Victoria
You forget soft kill systems, which have proven to be much more effective over the decades.
@LandSharkUK
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4640
- Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Re: RFA Fort Victoria
No I haven't the soft kill systems are as much a part of the layered defences as the missiles and gunsshark bait wrote:You forget soft kill systems, which have proven to be much more effective over the decades.
Re: RFA Fort Victoria
Apologies - yes - Sea Dart, not Sea Wolf- thanks SB/ Gabriele!
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill