RN anti-ship missiles

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Tempest414 »

the idea of the shipping container would be to help with any problems that long term salt water may give

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Ron5 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:I understand SAMPSON has independent array (on the side?) for communicating with Aster?
If so, no difference. I forgot if the CAMM and Aster uses the same radio-band for the data-link. If not, independent array is needed. If yes, software update may solve it.
I was under the impression that the Sampson performed the communication but I have no idea why I think that :D

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by shark bait »

Like Timmymagic already says, its pretty much there already with the Army's CAMM launcher.

Image

Bit of metal cladding on the side and you have your shipping container!
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Tempest414 »

I agree 90% there as you say build a box to put it in and we are there . Maybe it is the radar on the River B2's at we should look to upgrade to something like SAAB sea giraffe

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Tempest414 »

We should however look to be able fit one or two of these on the Albion's as and when it could help to cover the LRG

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Ron5 »

Tempest414 wrote:I agree 90% there as you say build a box to put it in and we are there . Maybe it is the radar on the River B2's at we should look to upgrade to something like SAAB sea giraffe
If you put it in a box, you can't fire it.

If you cut holes in the box to fire it, all that nasty salt water comes in.

Not the best idea I've read here.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Tempest414 »

It is really not that hard to do the system above is put in a box and the last third over the missiles has a rubberised top to allow the missile to launch we have to remember this would a as and when needed plug and play option

User avatar
Pseudo
Senior Member
Posts: 1732
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 21:37
Tuvalu

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Pseudo »

Ron5 wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:I agree 90% there as you say build a box to put it in and we are there . Maybe it is the radar on the River B2's at we should look to upgrade to something like SAAB sea giraffe
If you put it in a box, you can't fire it.

If you cut holes in the box to fire it, all that nasty salt water comes in.

Not the best idea I've read here.
Call me crazy, but that doesn't exactly seem like an insurmountable obstacle. In fact, it seems pretty readily surmountable.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Ron5 »

Sure that's why there are sooo many weapons in a box systems in service with the navies of the world (rolls eyes).

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Lord Jim »

Why are we talking about having a container full of CAMMs sitting on a B2 River.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Tempest414 »

Ron5 wrote:Sure that's why there are sooo many weapons in a box systems in service with the navies of the world (rolls eyes).
Oh dear Ron clearly you are sticking your head in the sand there are a lot of system now being worked on that are in containers including unmanned systems , sonar systems , 120mm Nemo mortar system and even missiles

@ LJ CAMM has been tested for anti surface by the RN and they seemed quit happy with it plus if we were to get a plug and play CAMM system for CAMM this could lead to the same system operating Spear. Also more than the River B2's it could be a every good to have on a Albion two of the above units plugged into the Artisan giving them 16 missiles if operations need

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Ron5 »

Tempest414 wrote:Oh dear Ron clearly you are sticking your head in the sand there are a lot of system now being worked on that are in containers including unmanned systems , sonar systems , 120mm Nemo mortar system and even missiles
There's a history of land weapon systems being put in or on boxes to go to sea. All have failed to date. I am not aware of any current proposal. But enough of this nonsense.

Dahedd
Member
Posts: 660
Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:18

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Dahedd »

Tempest414 wrote:We should however look to be able fit one or two of these on the Albion's as and when it could help to cover the LRG
If it was feasible to do this then why (other than cost i guess) stop at the Albions. Role it out over as many of the auxiliaries as possible. Nothing in that case to stop the remaining Fort, the Bays and the Tides being fitted in the same way.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Lord Jim »

Ron5 wrote:There's a history of land weapon systems being put in or on boxes to go to sea. All have failed to date. I am not aware of any current proposal. But enough of this nonsense.
To put the proverbial Cat amongst the Pigeons, what about the containerised Ground Launched Small Diameter Bomb currently being successfully tested. It mates a SDB with the rocket motor of a MLRS and is fired from six round clips as per the M270 and HIMARS. But the icing on the cake is that being test fired is a version where multiple clips are installed in an ISO container like box for mounting on everything from Lorries to LPD and so on.

As for CAMM on the B2 Rivers, if we want to give them more punch the first stop should be to up gun them, which will be of far more use. Alternatively they could strip a five round LMM launcher on the 30mm to give a basic AShM capability. Regarding other ships we need CAMM on the Queen Elizabeths and the MRS or whatever it is now called should have CAMM in ExLS silos.

CAMM might have a AShM mode but taking the T-31 for example it only has twelve. How many would actually fit in an ISO container by the way? Is such a container tall enough for them to be mounted vertically?

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Tempest414 »

Image

If you take this image it has 8 missiles so do away with the ram part of the system and I could see 16 missiles

cyrilranch
Member
Posts: 96
Joined: 01 May 2015, 11:36
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by cyrilranch »

Tempest414 wrote:Image

If you take this image it has 8 missiles so do away with the ram part of the system and I could see 16 missiles
It should be noted this is only apart of the kit used ,it's will normally have a saab 3D radar with it to give target data to the misslies.
So not so good on the opv's

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Timmymagic »

Lord Jim wrote:Is such a container tall enough for them to be mounted vertically?
No. The CAMM missile itself is 10ft 6" (without canister, which will add at least 1 ft), a standard ISO is 8ft 6".
Lord Jim wrote:But the icing on the cake is that being test fired is a version where multiple clips are installed in an ISO container like box for mounting on everything from Lorries to LPD and so on.
It's a bit of a lash-up...suspect they're making more of it than they should...its mainly for environmental reasons whilst testing.

Image
Tempest414 wrote:If you take this image it has 8 missiles so do away with the ram part of the system and I could see 16 missiles
THe original imagery of the Land Ceptor system had 12 missiles in a bank of 3x4, not the 8 in 2 x 4 configuration at present.

I'm a fan of slapping CAMM on everything fighty...but there are other priorities. For River B.2 you'd need a more capable radar, need additional consoles in the CIC, and before you did all this you'd probably want to upgrade the gun. CAMM would be a long way down the list...
As to the Albion's I think there is a case. The US for example slap Phalanx AND RAM on their LPD's. Given the size and scarcity of the vessel I can't blame them. Nor the fact that it is expected to carry 800 souls into harms way, close to an enemy shoreline. If we're honest the RN's failure to add any real defensive weaponry to them is cost based, not experience based...If the RN had the money I'm sure they would have stuck missiles on the QE Class and the Albions.

As for the River B.2's the mistake was to not use some of that juicy TOBA money to make them look more like the BAE Avenger design...forget about the gun...or the space for CAMM. The real loss was the hangar, particularly in a future of unmanned systems.

Image

Anyway back to RN Anti Ship missiles...

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by NickC »

Tempest414 wrote:Image

If you take this image it has 8 missiles so do away with the ram part of the system and I could see 16 missiles
The Israeli Iron Dome uses a 20 round launcher for its Tamir missiles including its rams, Tamir very similar in size and weight to CAMM. Jan this year pic surfaced with two of the 20 round launchers fitted on helo deck of a Sa'ar 5.

The Israelis missile numbers reflect the reality of fighting a semi-hot war and not the tokenism of the RN in only fitting 24 CAMM to the T31, a ship four times the size of the Sa'ar 5. (Israel claims Iron Dome on land has made ~2,500 successful interceptions in the last ten years, including misses expect that's approx 6,000 Tamir missiles).

PS Tried to post pic of Iron Dome launcher but rejected by UK Defence Forum, might be my system :cry:

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Timmymagic »

NickC wrote:PS Tried to post pic of Iron Dome launcher but rejected by UK Defence Forum, might be my system
This is the one you're thinking of....Iron Dome is a little shorter than CAMM and with a lot less performance, the powered ram system is more complex as well.

Image

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by NickC »

@ Timmymagic, thx for posting the pic, it was the one I was thinking of :angel:

Dimensions of CAMM vs Tamir not that much of a difference, so wouldn't expect that much less in the performance envelope.
CAMM 3.2 m; 166 mm; 99 kg
Tamir 3.0 m; 160 mm; 90 kg

The advantage of the Tamir launcher, though slightly more complicated, is that over the CAMM launcher it holds 2.5x more missiles, 20 vs 8.

PS If Israelis require additional capabilities/longer range etc they have the option to use the larger 275 kg Barak 8 jointly developed with India. Claimed that during the recent conflict earlier this year over the disputed region of Nagorno-Karabak region Azerbaijan shot down an Armenian Russian Iskander missile with their Barak 8s, Barack use eight cell launchers.

PS Azerbaijan contracted for its Barak 8 air defence system from Israel after test firing them in 2016, 12 launchers and 75 surface-to-air missiles.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

NickC wrote:The Israelis missile numbers reflect the reality of fighting a semi-hot war and not the tokenism of the RN in only fitting 24 CAMM to the T31, a ship four times the size of the Sa'ar 5...
1: On the armement.

First of all, all information to date shows T31 carries 12 CAMM, not 24.

T31 is NOT intended to perform AAW task in semi-hot war (not to say full-hot war). It is a Patrol Frigate (once called a sloop). In peace time, it is tasked to provide patrol, show-the-flag, and cover gray-zone threats (terrorists or quasi-war), in many case in singleton. In hot wars, it is tasked to provide escort to the back-end logistic fleet as a member of the task group (either UK/RN task force or NATO group). As such, T31 armed as a typical heavy corvette (like Sigma 10514, Gowind-2500, and Al Khareef) is very reasonable. If much different tasks are assigned, then more powerful armament is needed, which simply means less hull number, or in its extreme, "why not simply increase T26?".


2: On the hull size of T31.

By the way, T31 requirement for hull size was 4000t, 3 times larger than Sa'ar 5 corvettes. Never a 6000t hull. T31 now is simply larger than required, because Babcock used the existing design to bid for T31 in short notice (they abandoned their own Arrowhead 120 design, right before the 2nd-bid was opened).

T31 having larger hull than needed is a good thing, not bad thing. But, if you say its armament is too small compared to its hull is, the first answer must be, "then the hull must have been much smaller, as required". On the other hand, saying that "as a 4000t-class patrol frigate, its armament can be more powerful" has no problem. If not, we will go into never ending inflation of requirements; define a task --> armament and hull-size requirement --> then say "larger hull is better" --> get larger hull which become relatively empty --> and then say "more armaments is better" --> hull being crowded --> and say "larger hull is better" --> ....

Clearly this simple ending is, "we get 2 ships not 5". Funding is limited. Man power is limited. We shall be thinking about its best balance.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Ron5 »

Timmymagic wrote:As for the River B.2's the mistake was to not use some of that juicy TOBA money to make them look more like the BAE Avenger design...forget about the gun...or the space for CAMM. The real loss was the hangar, particularly in a future of unmanned systems.
There wasn't enough time to make major changes to the design. They needed work right then thanks to the Treasury effing up placing the T26 order.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Ron5 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
NickC wrote:The Israelis missile numbers reflect the reality of fighting a semi-hot war and not the tokenism of the RN in only fitting 24 CAMM to the T31, a ship four times the size of the Sa'ar 5...
1: On the armement.

First of all, all information to date shows T31 carries 12 CAMM, not 24.

T31 is NOT intended to perform AAW task in semi-hot war (not to say full-hot war). It is a Patrol Frigate (once called a sloop). In peace time, it is tasked to provide patrol, show-the-flag, and cover gray-zone threats (terrorists or quasi-war), in many case in singleton. In hot wars, it is tasked to provide escort to the back-end logistic fleet as a member of the task group (either UK/RN task force or NATO group). As such, T31 armed as a typical heavy corvette (like Sigma 10514, Gowind-2500, and Al Khareef) is very reasonable. If much different tasks are assigned, then more powerful armament is needed, which simply means less hull number, or in its extreme, "why not simply increase T26?".


2: On the hull size of T31.

By the way, T31 requirement for hull size was 4000t, 3 times larger than Sa'ar 5 corvettes. Never a 6000t hull. T31 now is simply larger than required, because Babcock used the existing design to bid for T31 in short notice (they abandoned their own Arrowhead 120 design, right before the 2nd-bid was opened).

T31 having larger hull than needed is a good thing, not bad thing. But, if you say its armament is too small compared to its hull is, the first answer must be, "then the hull must have been much smaller, as required". On the other hand, saying that "as a 4000t-class patrol frigate, its armament can be more powerful" has no problem. If not, we will go into never ending inflation of requirements; define a task --> armament and hull-size requirement --> then say "larger hull is better" --> get larger hull which become relatively empty --> and then say "more armaments is better" --> hull being crowded --> and say "larger hull is better" --> ....

Clearly this simple ending is, "we get 2 ships not 5". Funding is limited. Man power is limited. We shall be thinking about its best balance.
Good post Donald-san :thumbup:

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Timmymagic wrote: I'm a fan of slapping CAMM on everything fighty...but there are other priorities. For River B.2 you'd need a more capable radar, need additional consoles in the CIC, and before you did all this you'd probably want to upgrade the gun. CAMM would be a long way down the list... As for the River B.2's the mistake was to not use some of that juicy TOBA money to make them look more like the BAE Avenger design...forget about the gun...or the space for CAMM. The real loss was the hangar, particularly in a future of unmanned systems.
I think the "uparmed River B2" or "River B2 with a hangar" you are talking about here, is exactly the T31 itself. It has 12 CAMM, 1x 57 mm gun, 2x 40mm gun, with good radar and so-so CIC. It has a good flight deck and hangar for "up to" Merlin. Completely fits in the capability you proposed for "uparmed River B2".

River B2 is River B2. As UK lacks effective coast-guard fleet, River B2 (and B1) is exactly the ship for this task. Then, when compared to most of the Coast-Guard's armed cutters, River B2 capability is "right in the middle". Its capability is less than the USCG National Security cutter or the Offshore Patrol cutter (also smaller), but is powerful than Reliance class cutter and many of the Japan Coast Guards cutters with flight deck.
Anyway back to RN Anti Ship missiles...
Ooops! Sorry.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

By the way.

Containerized CAMM, up-arming River B2, both I am not so eager to. But, one aspect which is very important is promotion of UK-based equipments. On this regard, up-arming River B2 with "interesting kits" is NOT A BAD IDEA.

- why not add 5-LMM option to the 30 mm canon? Will be a very good "push" for its export, even though it has less relevance to RN itself.

- In the same line, even the I-ASGW systems shall be carried on their waist, to make it look like a "corvette" with very long range/endurance. Actually, French navy's Floreal class Surveillance Frigate has/had Exocet SSM. Modern SSM like NSM can be used in crowded area, also can be used for land attack.

- CAMM in container, might also be a good option. A modular 12-cell CAMM launcher on the waist will "look" like very attractive option. Actually, if combined with Scanter 4100 2D radar, it will be a very attractive choice for export, as well.

I think RN/UK lacks the idea of promotion. See French navy. It is full of promotional equipments. Spending 1 or 2 River B2s for this task, with full of port visits for diplomacy and show the flag, will be a good idea.

Post Reply