donald_of_tokyo wrote:1: My major motivation (although just a guy in far east) comes from the fact that, SPEAR3 is primarily a land-attack missile. Thus, it will be produced in number, even 1000+. If the air-launched SPEAR3 and VL-SPEAR3 can share the majority of the airframe, it will be cheap. Mass production will never happen to SSM.
Correct, butt hat doesn't justify spending millions upon millions o na missile whos point of use is so niche and has mass overlap with other systems that it becomes a waste.
I like the CAMM being common in many part with ASRAAM. Short-range AAM is a missile to be mass produced. Sharing the components with frigate-launched SAM has a big merit, I guess. Can the same happen to SPEAR3? This is my sole point.
Specialized anti-ship 120 kg missile SeaVenom, vs common anti-surface/land 100 kg SPEAR3.
As a replacement for Sea Venom from helos? Sure. On escorts, pointless.
2: By the way, against modern escorts, swarm of SPEAR3 will be critical. Its warhead is small but still cannot be overlooked. So, any ASTER-equipped escort will rapidly consume their 16 ASTER15/30 try to shoot them down (here I suppose SPEAR3 is resilient against soft kill). As an intelligent modern missile, I understand SPEAR3 can easily arrange to do simultaneous swarm attack. I think it will be a nightmare?
If launched from air yes.
An escort will never be in viable range against a peer foe to ripple launch Spears. Not when most navies of that scale are slinging 500km+ AShMs at each other en masse.
Aethulwulf wrote:The real questions are:
A. How likely is it in the next ~20 years that a small scale UK force will be faced with an opposition force mostly armed with Toyota pick-up Technicals or other light armour, and these operations will be within a coastal area.
B. How much priority should be given to equipping UK forces for such a scenario, versus all of the other potential threats.
I would say the answer to A is greater than 50%. I don't know the answer to B.
More likely, but that doesn't justify wasting money on a weapon system that even in that scenario it might be used, is still an incredibly niche thing. Lets say it's a fantastic range for its size, out to 100km. That's still a tiny area. And every target that is not a moving one can be gunned. And those that do move need spotted from the air anyway. The odds that such a target is being spotted from the air, specifically by an asset which cannot target itself, or have another asset capable of launching the same munition even faster and even further nearby, and is within the small range of a ship off the coast, but has no air assets in the area to be tasked, and is not ceasing moving to simply be naval gunned...it's specifics within specifics within specifics. The requirement for weapons taking up VLS space and budget to account for JUST that instance is a huge waste.
ArmChairCivvy wrote:On the ship-to-ship 'front' I have made my views known:
- it won't kill 'anything' (of equivalence)
- but you can ripple launch, saturate the defences and 'blind' the opposing vessel(s) by taking most of their sensors out... as good as a mission kill that would be
And as I've already said, Spear-VLS is far too short a range to ever be used in such a manner. That sort of "knife fight" fleet to fleet firing of major escorts within 75-100km of each other simply does not exist in any sane manner today.
If you want to kill an escort, you hit it with Spears from aircraft, you set a sub on it, or you launch coordinated AShMs at it. it is suicide to entertain this notion of ships waltzing up with weapons a fifth of the range of the enemy until they can finally get a shot.