Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[The Armchair Soldier]

As the current individual escort threads are now for news only, this thread will be used for all general discussions related to current and future RN escorts.

Please keep all news in their respective topics:
Type 26 - viewtopic.php?f=41&t=22
Type 31 - viewtopic.php?f=41&t=449
Type 45 - viewtopic.php?f=41&t=35
Type 23 - viewtopic.php?f=41&t=50

[seaspear]

In regard to current and future escorts in littoral operations there is a likely hood of advanced remote control submersables taking on the asw role, these may be launched from an escorting vessel ,it may not beyond the realms of possibility that they may be dropped as well by aircraft and directed by surface vessels ,with regards to torpedos ,they can have an area denial with dwell time and the ability to to later reaquire targets ,certainly recall reading of one model loaded with cyanide gas

[GibMariner]

Copying over from the Type 23 thread to continue the discussion here.

See the end of this video from MBDA. It shows the Type 23 work as they expect(ed?) it to happen, and it shows the 12 quad-packs slotting in.

Thanks. I have seen that video before but I was already biased towards 32 missiles so didn't notice. Can't be too long now until we find out for sure.

[dmereifield]

Could the harpoon OSD of 2018 be an opportunity for the RN to justify fitting the 12 (or 16?) Mk41 VLS on the T45's? Or is it more likely that they will be fitted with other deck/tube launched antiship missiles, or perhaps lose their ship launched ASuW capability?

[shark bait]

I would say another deck launched system is most likely, we need a deck launched missile to support T23 and T31, so it will also appear on the T45. An upgraded harpoon is the most likley choice.

I think Mk41 plan for the T45 has been dropped now evolving Aster is the preferred BDM solution. It may be worth fitting some CAMM to the free space on the T45 to free up some more sylver silos for BDM Aster

[marktigger]

would agree with camm adds another layer and the more layers the better

[dmereifield]

Thanks. I read somewhere else a poster suggesting to add CAMM to the T45, do you think it is likely to happen given budget constraints?

Likewise the replacement of the harpoon? There are two T45's without harpoon at present so this doesn't seem to be a high priority

[Rambo]

I understand the T45 doesnt require CAMM due to carrying Aster 15 and 2 CIWS.
We'd be better adding CAMM to the carriers if the money were available.

[seaspear]

Has there been any further news on the type 45 with abm capabilities , would these capabilities enhance carrier protection ?

[shark bait]

If CAMM was fitted it would effectively replace Aster 15, freeing up more space for Aster 30 and Aster BMD.

[Aethulwulf]

If you want to free up more space for Aster missiles, replace the current Sylver cells with Mk41 cells.
In the space occupied by the current 48 Sylver cells you could fit 80 Mk41 cells. This would allow the Aster 15 to be kept while significantly increasing the number of Aster 30 and BMD missiles that could be carried.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Depends which cells are being compared; here are some scale factors
http://cfile30.uf.tistory.com/image/245 ... 1C7818B4AB

[dmereifield]

I guess the cheapest and easiest (?) option would be to replace some if the Aster 15 with quad packed CAMM to free up space for Aster BMD. Would increase the total number of missiles as well as adding BMD

[shark bait]

Could certainly fit a lot more silos in there than they have at the moment. Problem is the cost of ripping out loads of silos and then buying loads more and then integrating Aster into a new system. Its beginning to sound prohibitively expensive.

There is already space for more Silos, they could be filled with the much cheaper CAMM system, freeing up Sylver space for Aster

[Gabriele]

Not to mention that Aster 15 at that point could just be phased out of service and the rounds swapped for more Aster 30. All it would take would be replacing the booster section.

[ArmChairCivvy]

All it would take would be replacing the booster section.

Talking about booster sections, namely adding one to CAMM-ER (for which the developments are driven by Italian rqrmnts?), I wonder if it will still be soft launch?

[jonas]

All it would take would be replacing the booster section.

Talking about booster sections, namely adding one to CAMM-ER (for which the developments are driven by Italian rqrmnts?), I wonder if it will still be soft launch?

Well according to MBDA's blurb the answer to that is yes, it is still soft launched. In fact if it wasn',t it would surely defeat the whole idea of the maritime version wouldn't it ?

[ArmChairCivvy]

In fact if it wasn',t it would surely defeat the whole idea of the maritime version wouldn't it ?

Wouldn't, but never mind.

Soft launch can
- get the missiles to spaces that otherwise wouldn't be usable (for this purpose)
- onto smaller vessels that do not have enough cleared space for a hot launch (canisters, sideways, a different story).

So I am glad about the confirmation that extra range can be had, without trading in the original design advantages.

[shark bait]

I dont think the extended range variant fits in our CAMM VLS though, its a bit fatter and about a meter longer, so I don't think its an option for the RN.

[Ron5]

Not fatter, fits the same width launcher. About one meter longer. CAMM VLS doesn't exist yet so could be any length you like.

Interestingly, at all the defense exhibitions these days, MBDA shows the CAMM-ER model & info.

Yes, soft launched.

[ArmChairCivvy]

MBDA shows the CAMM-ER model & info.

The proposition is very powerful:
From extended spot defence (cross-shots, sometimes called local AAW)...
To near-AAW (with a fraction of the cost; and it is not a substitute, but complementary).

[shark bait]

Not fatter, fits the same width launcher. About one meter longer. CAMM VLS doesn't exist yet so could be any length you like.

MBDA seem to think it's fatter, 190mm Vs 166mm.

CAMM VLS does exist because it's fitted to one of our friates

[Ron5]

Not fatter, fits the same width launcher. About one meter longer. CAMM VLS doesn't exist yet so could be any length you like.

MBDA seem to think it's fatter, 190mm Vs 166mm.

CAMM VLS does exist because it's fitted to one of our friates

The width of the VLS cell is determined by the missiles fins, not the diameter of the body. It's the same for CAMM and CAMM-ER. In fact it was a design point.

The Type 26 CAMM VLS is not fitted to anything.

P.S. try not to be a smart ass.

[bobp]

CAMM VLS is part of the upgrade to the T23 Frigate. One of which is completed.

[Ron5]

I understand that Bob but it's not the same VLS that will be fitted to the Type 26's.

Actually calling it a VLS might be a tad misleading, it's really just a framework for containing the missile containers which are dual purpose, for storage/transport plus launching. If you look at the army's version mounted on the back of a truck, you can see how minimal it is. Probably the biggest addition for ships would be to beef it up and add watertight doors and their opening mechanism. Maybe a fire extinguisher or flooding arrangement for hangfires.

A mk 41 or Sylver it is not.

Here's the truck (complete with crane for reloading containers) followed by a view from a recent exhibition of a container cross section with missile (the leftmost) the soft launch mechanism is the grey trapezoidal plunger with the cartridge underneath :