Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[Tempest414]

Moving over here from the Type 31 thread

If we wanted to up type 31s CAMM we could even out missile loads between type 26 and type 31 by removing 12 CAMM from each T-26 = 96 if we split these between the 5 T-31's this would give them 19 extra missiles meaning if they started with 12 they would end up with 31. This would leave the T-26's with 36 CAMM plus all there MK-41's in tacked. Same could apply if T-31 started with 24 CAMM and we took 8 CAMM from each T-26 = 64 leaving T-26 with 40 CAMM and giving T-31 36 CAMM .

As I have said a Type 31 with a weapons fit of 1 x 57mm , 2 x 40mm , 30+ CAMM and 8 NSM plus a Wildcat with 20 LMM or 4 Sea venom or 2 torpedoes would make a very good global patrol frigate. However if we need to rob T-26 to make this happen it should be done with the least impact on T-26 as possible as I have tried to do above

Edit . I also think that if the 200 million is still there for I-SSGW we should look to up this to 300 million and buy 19 sets of 8 NSM one for each escort giving both T-45 and 31 a much needed over the horizon anti-ship / land attack capability

I do agree - but it has to be said - reducing the amount of MK41 on 5 T26 from 24 to 16 would be well worth adding the option for 16 extra CAMM and 4 strike missiles (and the other options this opens up) on the 5 T31.

Adds much needed redundancy to the fleet when the sonar's on T26 will be much in demand.

For me if we were to rob Mk-41's from the T-26's I would fit them to the T-45's

[donald_of_tokyo]

If we wanted to up type 31s CAMM we could even out missile loads between type 26 and type 31 by removing 12 CAMM from each T-26 = 96 if we split these between the 5 T-31's this would give them 19 extra missiles meaning if they started with 12 they would end up with 31. This would leave the T-26's with 36 CAMM plus all there MK-41's in tacked. Same could apply if T-31 started with 24 CAMM and we took 8 CAMM from each T-26 = 64 leaving T-26 with 40 CAMM and giving T-31 36 CAMM .

Even though I understand your point, I am against down-arming T26 anymore. Rather increase its CAMM to 64 or 96, to handle the real saturation attack from hundreds of drones.

For me, T31 armed as much as a typical heavy corvette, is OK with what it currently has. See T21 and T81. All RN GP frigates (which has its origin in sloops) were "a frigate hull with corvette armament". T31 just matches it. Leave it as such, and if there comes a money, rather improve the armaments of the real escorts = T45 and T26.

This is why I think both the UK and Italy need to get behind CAMM-ER quad packed in A-50 cells this could allow a missile load out in both destroyer classes of

1 ) 40 x Aster 30 and 32 CAMM-ER = 72 missiles
2) 32 x Aster 30 and 64 CAMM-ER = 96 missiles

Development cost for quad-pack CAMM and/or CAMM-ER on Sylver, and logistic introduction cost for introducing CAMM-ER in addition to CAMM, will easily pay for doubling the CAMM number on T31, from 12 to 24.

Which will be better?

[Phil R]

While I agree it should be pointed out that MBDA state on their site that " Sea Ceptor will operate from Sylver launcher using quad pack configuration"

CAMM canister is 11" x 11", Sylver internal is 22" x 22" (MK41 internal is 25" x 25")
Quad pack CAMM should fit, but would be tight, probably requiring specialised quad pack canisters (£££).

Phil R

[donald_of_tokyo]

Improvement on MICA --> MICA NG is very interesting.

From: https://www.edrmagazine.eu/naval-launch ... vl-mica-ng

- Making the electronics parts compact to increase the rocket motor size.
- Using the space, they added "second boost" option, adding kinetic power in later phase. If ignited at the top of ballistic trajectory, it will significantly increase its range (from 12 km to 40 km, more than 3 times), and if ignited right before the engagement, it will significantly improve the kinetic energy of the darts and its kill probability.
- As the package size is the same, it can be easily accommodated on existing VL-MICA launchers.
Beautiful it is.

Can the same be done on CAMM?

From: https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/uk-compl ... r-missile/

Looks like making electronics part more compact is feasible. If so, 25 km range will increase to what? Say, 75-100 km?
This option has a big merit that it can be hosted in the same CAMM launcher already existing.

To be a good rival for VL-MICA, such improvements on CAMM will be very interesting.

#Not saying CAMM-ER is bad, but surely its introduction overhead exists. In this option, it is just CAMM --> CAMM blk 2. Easy?

[Ron5]

Getting awfully serious considering that we started with how to use extra 'bits' coming with a model kit?
- you wanted to put two of the four guns (and they are not MGs, either) to the sides of the helo hangar... has that been done for 100 yrs? In fact, has it ever been done

With the Halifax class, when they ran out of space they didn't use the sides of the hangar, but the sides of the funnel; I'll let you figure out what weapons https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=htt ... AdAAAAABAs are 'hiding' there

Guns on either beam are even more common that A & B. They go back a thousand years.

[Ron5]

While I agree it should be pointed out that MBDA state on their site that " Sea Ceptor will operate from Sylver launcher using quad pack configuration"

CAMM canister is 11" x 11", Sylver internal is 22" x 22" (MK41 internal is 25" x 25")
Quad pack CAMM should fit, but would be tight, probably requiring specialised quad pack canisters (£££).

Phil R

Why buy Sylver if all you want to load is CAMM? Makes no sense to me. Just save a shed load of money and buy ExLs. Save even more and buy mushrooms.

[Ron5]

Improvement on MICA --> MICA NG is very interesting.

From: https://www.edrmagazine.eu/naval-launch ... vl-mica-ng

- Making the electronics parts compact to increase the rocket motor size.
- Using the space, they added "second boost" option, adding kinetic power in later phase. If ignited at the top of ballistic trajectory, it will significantly increase its range (from 12 km to 40 km, more than 3 times), and if ignited right before the engagement, it will significantly improve the kinetic energy of the darts and its kill probability.
- As the package size is the same, it can be easily accommodated on existing VL-MICA launchers.
Beautiful it is.

Can the same be done on CAMM?

From: https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/uk-compl ... r-missile/

Looks like making electronics part more compact is feasible. If so, 25 km range will increase to what? Say, 75-100 km?
This option has a big merit that it can be hosted in the same CAMM launcher already existing.

To be a good rival for VL-MICA, such improvements on CAMM will be very interesting.

#Not saying CAMM-ER is bad, but surely its introduction overhead exists. In this option, it is just CAMM --> CAMM blk 2. Easy?

All brochures and manufacturer presentations are beautiful. Personally I don't see anything here that demonstrates that the more expensive MICA, and its more expensive VLS, is superior to either CAMM.

[Tempest414]

While I agree it should be pointed out that MBDA state on their site that " Sea Ceptor will operate from Sylver launcher using quad pack configuration"

CAMM canister is 11" x 11", Sylver internal is 22" x 22" (MK41 internal is 25" x 25")
Quad pack CAMM should fit, but would be tight, probably requiring specialised quad pack canisters (£££).

Phil R

Why buy Sylver if all you want to load is CAMM? Makes no sense to me. Just save a shed load of money and buy ExLs. Save even more and buy mushrooms.

I did not say anything about buying more Sylver units it was about making do with what T-45 and Horizon had

[Tempest414]

Development cost for quad-pack CAMM and/or CAMM-ER on Sylver, and logistic introduction cost for introducing CAMM-ER in addition to CAMM, will easily pay for doubling the CAMM number on T31, from 12 to 24.

Which will be better?

Well I would go with join with Italy to quad pack CAMM / CAMM-ER in Sylver to allow T-45 to carry between 72 and 96 Missiles and then as said rob 12 CAMM from T-26 leaving them with 36 and giving T-31 a CAMM load out of 30. This would give the Carrier group a missile load out of 264 Missiles with 2 x T-45 & 2 x T-26 against what is seen for the same ships which is 192 and if more money comes pay to quad pack CAMM in Mk-41 or add more mushrooms again

[JohnM]

CAMM-ER is wider than CAMM and can only be dual-packed into Sylver VLS; that’s what the Italians are planning for their PPA... replace the Aster 15 with dual-packed CAMM-ER...

[Max Jones]

If we were to quad-pack the Type 45 with CAMM I wouldn't want to it completely replace Aster 15. CAMM can perform a lot of the same jobs and would help for saturation attacks but its generally a cheaper general purpose missile while Aster is most specialised and capable against diverse targets like low-altitude missiles with countermeasures.

[JohnM]

If it’s true that there’s room for 12 cells in front of the Sylver launchers on T45, it should be relatively simple to add 12 ExLS cells and quad-pack Sea Ceptor... that would give T45 a 96 missile load for AA for very little cost...

[Ron5]

CAMM-ER is wider than CAMM and can only be dual-packed into Sylver VLS; that’s what the Italians are planning for their PPA... replace the Aster 15 with dual-packed CAMM-ER...

No it isn't. The canister launcher/container is exactly the same cross section as the regular CAMM.

Whether either missile can be dual/quad/single packed into a Sylver is a purely theoretical discussion right now as I do not believe anyone has actually tried it. When it comes down to it, very few missile types actually operate with Sylver. Rather a dead end in VLS development.

[Ron5]

If it’s true that there’s room for 12 cells in front of the Sylver launchers on T45, it should be relatively simple to add 12 ExLS cells and quad-pack Sea Ceptor... that would give T45 a 96 missile load for AA for very little cost...

The space was earmarked for Mk 41 so there would be room for either 8 or 16 cells in 4x2 or 8x2 or 4x4 configurations. Certainly enough room for multiple stand alone ExLs.

STA ExLS comes in a 3x1 configuration so maybe we could imagine 4 modules side by side giving 48 CAMM.

[JohnM]

I heard 16 cells, which makes sense, but then multiple more recent sources mention 12, which is weird for MK-41 and is why I mentioned 12 (4x3) ExLS, which are already quad-pack CAMM-ready... should be a simple and relatively cheap job to install them...

[Timmymagic]

Looks like making electronics part more compact is feasible. If so, 25 km range will increase to what? Say, 75-100 km?
This option has a big merit that it can be hosted in the same CAMM launcher already existing.

To be a good rival for VL-MICA, such improvements on CAMM will be very interesting.

Decreasing the size of the electronics would cost a silly amount of money for little gain. CAMM-ER increases the range, but if you still wanted to increase the range cheaply the solution is to extend the VL turnover pack and make it a VL turnover AND boost pack. If that could propel the missile out of the canister, turn it over and orient it, then boost to m2 and a reasonable height before the main motor ignited that would be very useful. It could also be re-used on CAMM, CAMM-ER and a VL-Spear...the only other worthwhile, cheaper, addition would be a 'pif-paf' style gas generator unit, like Aster, between the seeker and main missile body to give it some additional manoeuverability when it was reaching longer ranges.

[ArmChairCivvy]

increase the range cheaply the solution is to extend the VL turnover pack and make it a VL turnover AND boost pack

That "and make it" part lost me as I have been thinking it is the good old CO2 - as in home-made whisky sodas - that was the secret sauce, for the soft launch
... how would this version work?

[Ron5]

Seeing that CAMM is limited by line of sight datalinks, not sure that more range than CAMM-ER is worthwhile, and I'm not entirely convinced CAMM-ER is worthwhile in the first place. Bigger boosters have to be traded off against minimum engagement range which, for a last ditch weapon, is kinda critical.

[Roders96]

Seeing that CAMM is limited by line of sight datalinks, not sure that more range than CAMM-ER is worthwhile, and I'm not entirely convinced CAMM-ER is worthwhile in the first place. Bigger boosters have to be traded off against minimum engagement range which, for a last ditch weapon, is kinda critical.

What is your source for the line of sight datalinks? Most I've seen says it's fire and forget with its own seeker?

[ArmChairCivvy]

What is your source for the line of sight datalinks

This is as easy as 123:
- the initial launch by soda-pop has the missile turning into the right (general) direction
- then there is no more load onto anything else as these broadcasting boxes narrow down the sector *the CMS knows where the target is* but there is no illuminating of the target
- once this little, further guidance has been done, for sure the active seeker head will do the rest

Bigger boosters have to be traded off against minimum engagement range which, for a last ditch weapon, is kinda critical.

- you can mix them; not a worry
- if there is anything to worry about is whether the added length fro the booster will make it incompatible with the 'previously planned/ specced' launch tubes

[NickC]

My understanding Sea Ceptor is not a fire and forget missile

No Sea Ceptor is a fire and forget missile. The launching platform does not need to keep the target illuminated with a fire control radar.

The fact that mid course updates are sent to the missile after launch doesn't change this. In theory no updates could be sent or updates could come from another ship or aircraft.

The MBDA Sea Ceptor pdf states "Robust two way RF datalink provides 360 degree coverage. In addition to the in flight target updates the down link reports missile status."

Back of the envelopment calcs, the rocket motor burn of 10 sec and accelerates missile to ~ Mach 3+ and then it coasts, losing speed the further it travels, assume average of Mach 2 and take ~36 secs to reach 25 km range quoted by MBDA.

The active RF seeker likely a high frequency/definition Ku band radar or similar with very limited range as antenna only a minute 6/6.5" in dia, would think max range of ~ 4/5 km?

If Sea Ceptor was only a fire and forget missile it would likely miss a manoeuvring target at 25 km by a country mile, eg the old Russian anti-ship Kalibr missile, thou it cruises at subsonic speed but when attacking it uses a rocket motor to accelerate to Mach 2.5 plus as it climbs before diving on ship. That's why Sea Ceptor has a mid-course guidance unit built in with two way data link so the FCR or eeven a EO-IR continuously tracking the target can give the necessary new co-ordinates to Sea Ceptor to change its direction to bring it in range to use its active RF homing seeker.

PS What is Sea Ceptor effective range, it depends, if a its a highly manoeuvring target might require it pull 40 G's, that needs a lot of energy which as said drops off quickly as range increases, that's why the new MICA uses a throttleable dual-pulse rocket motor to provide additional energy to the missile at the end of its flight, improving its manoeuvrability and its ability to intercept targets at long range, as does the Meteor with its throttleable ramjet.

[Ron5]

Get over it. Sea Ceptor doesn't have or need a FCS or a FCR. Accept that for goodness sake and move on. Jeesh.

Sea Ceptor effective range is in excess of 25 km. The missile itself can go over 40 km as proven in flight trials.

Where does it say the new MICA has a throttleable booster?

[ArmChairCivvy]

Where does it say the new MICA has a throttleable booster?

It is not a booster:
" The lower volume of electronic components will enable the MICA NG to carry a larger load of propellant, significantly extending its range, and the new dual-pulse rocket motor will provide additional energy to the missile at the end of its flight, improving its manoeuvrability and its ability to intercept targets at long range. In surface-to-air mode, the MICA NG will be able to intercept targets over 40 km away."

A customer signed up (the missile dimensions unchanged) and "mass availability from 2026"
sign on this line
----------------------------------

[tomuk]

My understanding Sea Ceptor is not a fire and forget missile

No Sea Ceptor is a fire and forget missile. The launching platform does not need to keep the target illuminated with a fire control radar.

The fact that mid course updates are sent to the missile after launch doesn't change this. In theory no updates could be sent or updates could come from another ship or aircraft.

The MBDA Sea Ceptor pdf states "Robust two way RF datalink provides 360 degree coverage. In addition to the in flight target updates the down link reports missile status."

Back of the envelopment calcs, the rocket motor burn of 10 sec and accelerates missile to ~ Mach 3+ and then it coasts, losing speed the further it travels, assume average of Mach 2 and take ~36 secs to reach 25 km range quoted by MBDA.

The active RF seeker likely a high frequency/definition Ku band radar or similar with very limited range as antenna only a minute 6/6.5" in dia, would think max range of ~ 4/5 km?

If Sea Ceptor was only a fire and forget missile it would likely miss a manoeuvring target at 25 km by a country mile, eg the old Russian anti-ship Kalibr missile, thou it cruises at subsonic speed but when attacking it uses a rocket motor to accelerate to Mach 2.5 plus as it climbs before diving on ship. That's why Sea Ceptor has a mid-course guidance unit built in with two way data link so the FCR or eeven a EO-IR continuously tracking the target can give the necessary new co-ordinates to Sea Ceptor to change its direction to bring it in range to use its active RF homing seeker.

PS What is Sea Ceptor effective range, it depends, if a its a highly manoeuvring target might require it pull 40 G's, that needs a lot of energy which as said drops off quickly as range increases, that's why the new MICA uses a throttleable dual-pulse rocket motor to provide additional energy to the missile at the end of its flight, improving its manoeuvrability and its ability to intercept targets at long range, as does the Meteor with its throttleable ramjet.

Needing mid course updates for improved performance against manoeuvring targets doesn't change the fact that Sea Ceptor has an active seaker which makes it fire and forget as no target illumination is needed.

MICA NG has a dual pulse rocket motor it is not throttleable. The upgrade to NG fits a similar if not the same motor already fitted to Sea Ceptor. They are made by Roxel which is owned by MBDA.

[ArmChairCivvy]

doesn't change the fact that Sea Ceptor has an active seaker which makes it fire and forget as no target illumination is needed.

That is the F&F definition, so yes

MICA NG has a dual pulse rocket motor it is not throttleable.

Here my English starts to fail me?
- dual pulse = a jab in the arm, for the last leg (regaining the kinetics, but not adjustable, except for direction, thereafter)
- throttle-able = feed-in, as needed? Indeed, can any solid fuel rocket engines be throttleable? - As opposed to space flight where such adjustments are a matter of 'life and death'