Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[Repulse]

Do you mean the Venari 85?

Venator 90, my mistake. Originally there was envisaged 10+ MHPCs so I don’t see the 5 B2s being blockers to having a MHPC class, especially given the number of hulls to be replaced.

[Repulse]

No MICA's elsewhere to be seen

Khareef class Oman

[Caribbean]

VL Mica is used by:

Indonesians on Martadinata-class frigate (Sigma);
Morrocco on Sigma;
Egypt on Gowind;
Singapore on Independence Class;
UAE on Falaj 2-class (Italian Diciotti-class).

Plus Khareefs as noted above

[Timmymagic]

Khareef class Oman

VL Mica is used by:

Indonesians on Martadinata-class frigate (Sigma);
Morrocco on Sigma;
Egypt on Gowind;
Singapore on Independence Class;
UAE on Falaj 2-class (Italian Diciotti-class).

Plus Khareefs as noted above

I was referring to within the Singapore Armed Forces...

[Caribbean]

SeaRAM being around for 15+ years and getting near the square root of bugger all orders

Apart from Egypt, Germany, Greece, Japan, Mexico, Qatar, South Korea, Saudi, Turkey and UAE, you mean?

[Lord Jim]

But don't these nations use the dedicated RAM launcher rather than the modified Phalanx mount?

[Timmymagic]

Apart from Egypt, Germany, Greece, Japan, Mexico, Qatar, South Korea, Saudi, Turkey and UAE, you mean?

They don't use SeaRAM...

They use the Mk.49 RAM launcher with 21 missiles, this isn't a standalone system and needs to be fully integrated with the vessels sensors and CMS to get cue'd to the target and fired. SeaRAM has 11 missiles, uses an adapted Phalanx mount and can operate as a standalone system like Phalanx, utilising its own radar and E/O systems.

I did make a mistake, however, as the USN uses SeaRAM on their Independence Class LCS, the Freedom Class utilise the full Mk.49 system. Quite why they have different systems I have no idea, it could be down to the different radar and CMS choices or merely a weight limit on the installation. Bottom line is the USN prefers to use the Mk.49 where possible.

[Tempest414]

As I keep saying for me we are now looking at a 100 meter Vanari leave the front end as is fitted with a 57mm and adding a 25 meter covered working deck leading to a 25 meter open working deck with a flight deck on top of the covered work deck. it should be fitted with a Scanter 4100 radar and M Cube CMS and be able to operate off board MCM , Survey , ASW , UAV's , helicopter and SeaRAM

You've pretty much just described the Venator 90. Only it would have a better radar, CMS and weapon fit, the ability to contribute to task force operations and to operate as a single vessel in a low to medium threat environment.

All I have done is add 15 meters to a Venari 85 giving it bigger working decks so it can handle bigger USV's

But why pay $25m+ for a SeaRAM and an inferior radar when the same money will stretch to a decent radar and a VLS for CAMM? The radar would be useful all the time, not just at war, and you can put a 12 CAMM in a VLS quicker than you can install SeaRAM, and have far greater capability.

firstly I am not that bothered about about radar fit my point of using scanter 4100 is it is already in service. As for SeaRam over over CAMM on this class of ship yes CAMM can be fitted into the VLS quickly if the VLS is fitted in to very ship so 10 ships would need 10 sets of VLS . Where as long as each ship has a mount you could have 5 SeaRam units pooled between the 10 ships fitted as needed it also allows flexibility from nothing to Phalanx to SeaRam. One last thing is once the 12 CAMM are loaded that is it until the ship returns to port where RAM units can be reloaded at sea

[ArmChairCivvy]

the Mk.49 RAM launcher with 21 missiles, this isn't a standalone system and needs to be fully integrated

So quite a different ball game

Quite why they have different systems I have no idea, it could be down to the different radar

+

RAM units can be reloaded at sea

Searam, just like the gun mount, are dual use, also against surface targets. Whether the radars they rely on are better optimised to deal with the flicker from waves when you are trying to detect and then track 1 or 2 mtrs above sea level... don't know; but would fit within "probabilities"

[Timmymagic]

Searam, just like the gun mount, are dual use, also against surface targets. Whether the radars they rely on are better optimised to deal with the flicker from waves when you are trying to detect and then track 1 or 2 mtrs above sea level... don't know; but would fit within "probabilities"

The question about RIM-116 I've always wanted to see answered is how well it performs in adverse weather conditions. It's not going to work very well with an IR seeker, in the conditions that the RN is used to engagements with RIM-116 could be rather close range, no channce of being able to exploit its 10+ mile range....Sea Ceptor is massively superior in that regard.

[ArmChairCivvy]

I've always wanted to see answered is how well it performs in adverse weather conditions. It's not going to work very well with an IR seeker

Fog, mist, or simply clouds and rain... that's the German Navy for you, whether in the Baltic or the North Sea. And it is still their favourite?
- could not quite interpret what this means as for the guidance, beyond an IR-seeker head:
"The SeaRAM self-contained system also employs Phalanx Block 1B CIWS’ high-resolution search and track radar and electro-optical sensor suite, which provides the RAM missile with reliable radio frequency, infrared (IR) detection and tracking capabilities to defeat both air and surface threats."

[Timmymagic]

- could not quite interpret what this means as for the guidance, beyond an IR-seeker head:
"The SeaRAM self-contained system also employs Phalanx Block 1B CIWS’ high-resolution search and track radar and electro-optical sensor suite, which provides the RAM missile with reliable radio frequency, infrared (IR) detection and tracking capabilities to defeat both air and surface threats."

It's got the MMW radar on the mount and the E/O system to point the mount in the right direction. RIM-116 uses passive radar emissions (homing) to get reasonably close then switches to IR. Quite how that works with the SeaRAM rather than being connected to the full radar suite of a combat vessel I'm not sure. But being dependent on the radar alone on the SeaRAM could lessen its range. I'm also not sure if the SeaRAM will accept the Blk.2 RIM-116 as its a bit bigger than Blk.1.

[donald_of_tokyo]

SeaRAM is good.

It is bit limited compared to Sea Captor. SeaRAM cannot perform local-area air defense = "defend the neighbor ships", but for self-defense, it will be nice.

Problem is, it is a missile very similar to CAMM itself. They are both ~100 kg missile. Adding SeaRAM to CVF will mean no chance of CAMM added. Adding SeaRAM on T31 will enable deleting CAMM from T31. Adding SeaRAM on T45 will also help deleting Aster15 and no chance for adding CAMM. I think these are logical choices.

Adding SeaRAM to RFA vessels and LPDs will be "ok", as these ship will never be required to "defend the neighbor ships", and not-needing a good CMS is also attractive.

But, duplication of logistics is a good thing to happen? I do not think so. If SeaRAM is coming, I think T26 must adopt Aster15 with SeaRAM, delete CAMM. T31 adopt SeaRAM, delete CAMM. And, RN will lose its UK-based missile system. This is logistically logical answer, I'm afraid.

On this regard, I am NOT "for" SeaRAM.

--- fantasy, from here ----

Why cannot UK build a "UK-version of SeaRAM-like system" using the CAMM missile. No need for local-area air defense capability = simpler CMS. Maybe even good to have IR-seaker version of CAMM (= ASRAMM2 added with 2-way datalink and sub-booster?). As RAM blk.2 has an option to be launched from Mk.41 VLS (or even ExLS), "simplified-CAMM" shall be able to do the same?

[Max Jones]

Why cannot UK build a "UK-version of SeaRAM-like system" using the CAMM missile. No need for local-area air defense capability = simpler CMS. Maybe even good to have IR-seaker version of CAMM (= ASRAMM2 added with 2-way datalink and sub-booster?). As RAM blk.2 has an option to be launched from Mk.41 VLS (or even ExLS), "simplified-CAMM" shall be able to do the same?

CAMM is more like ESSM in terms of its role and capabilities - Starstreak would probably be a more direct comparison.



There was this prototype made a while ago. I assume they didn't go with it since it didn't suite their needs for a Close In Weapon System - same as SeaRAM when we tested that.

[ArmChairCivvy]

CAMM is more like ESSM in terms of its role and capabilities

Exactly. Except that Bl2 ESSM ups the game considerably
- Italy's CAMM-ER order is back on, but it is for airbase defence, so might enter (or not) this discussion at some point in the future

[donald_of_tokyo]

CAMM is more like ESSM in terms of its role and capabilities

Thanks for comment. Yes and no. CAMM is exactly "in-between" RAM and ESSM.
ESSM = 50 km range, local-area air defense capable, RF seeker, with datalink (can go ballistic trajectory)
CAMM = 25 km range, local-area air defense capable, RF seeker, with datalink (can go ballistic trajectory)
RAM = 20 km range, point air defense, IR+passiveR seeker, direct-aim (cannot go ballistic)

Beauty of CAMM is, it nicely covers "inner half of ESSM" and "RAM" by a single system, packed in a "RAM-missile sized compact missile". Great, I think.

- Starstreak would probably be a more direct comparison. ...
There was this prototype made a while ago. I assume they didn't go with it since it didn't suite their needs for a Close In Weapon System - same as SeaRAM when we tested that.

Oh, the old-good Sea Starstreak... I think 4 of them was mounted on the future-DDG artists impression image around 1990s, which turned out to be T45 later...

But, I do not agree here. Many are misunderstanding RAM, I'm afraid.

Sea-Starstreak's direct comparison is the systems with MISTRAL missile (SIMBAD, TETRAL and/or SADRAL). Very successful in export. France says MISTRAL missile can shoot down ASMs, and looking at the fact that modernized LaFayette class is getting 2 SADRALs in place of their VT-1 missiles, it might be true.

But, they are < 20 kg AA missile, only weight 1/5 of RAM (which is nearly equal to CAMM in its weight). Warhead also differs a lot. Actually, they are MANPADS. Starstreak is in the same league.

Saying RAM and Starstreak the same is similar to saying CAMM and ASTER-30 is the same. In some sense, yes. But, in many sense, no.

[Max Jones]

CAMM is more like ESSM in terms of its role and capabilities

Thanks for comment. Yes and no. CAMM is exactly "in-between" RAM and ESSM.
ESSM = 50 km range, local-area air defense capable, RF seeker, with datalink (can go ballistic trajectory)
CAMM = 25 km range, local-area air defense capable, RF seeker, with datalink (can go ballistic trajectory)
RAM = 20 km range, point air defense, IR+passiveR seeker, direct-aim (cannot go ballistic)

Beauty of CAMM is, it nicely covers "inner half of ESSM" and "RAM" by a single system, packed in a "RAM-missile sized compact missile". Great, I think.

- Starstreak would probably be a more direct comparison. ...
There was this prototype made a while ago. I assume they didn't go with it since it didn't suite their needs for a Close In Weapon System - same as SeaRAM when we tested that.

Oh, the old-good Sea Starstreak... I think 4 of them was mounted on the future-DDG artists impression image around 1990s, which turned out to be T45 later...

But, I do not agree here. Many are misunderstanding RAM, I'm afraid.

Sea-Starstreak's direct comparison is the systems with MISTRAL missile (SIMBAD, TETRAL and/or SADRAL). Very successful in export. France says MISTRAL missile can shoot down ASMs, and looking at the fact that modernized LaFayette class is getting 2 SADRALs in place of their VT-1 missiles, it might be true.

But, they are < 20 kg AA missile, only weight 1/5 of RAM (which is nearly equal to CAMM in its weight). Warhead also differs a lot. Actually, they are MANPADS. Starstreak is in the same league.

Saying RAM and Starstreak the same is similar to saying CAMM and ASTER-30 is the same. In some sense, yes. But, in many sense, no.

You make one or two accurate observations like the comparative weights of the missiles - RIM-116 is certainly far more versatile than Starstreak, however I think a few of your stats substantially misrepresent things.

I've never heard RIM-116 quoted as having a 20km range. Are you sure that's not the radar system is uses? It seems like a reasonable range for that instead. While CAMM generally does have a reported range of 25km, this is supposed to go higher in practise, and one report by Jane's even claimed it could be as high as 60km.

The most fundamental division is in role. SM-2/6 and Aster 30 are area defence missiles; ESSM and CAMM/Aster 15 are short range SAMs; RAM is a missile-based CIWS, similar to the Mistral system (though more numerous - variants of Starstreak have been designed in a sextuple turret like Mistral and the larger 24-cell variant I displayed above). They may have some very basic anti-air capabilities in defending against direct attacks at short range but are generally otherwise installed for missile defence. A close counterpart to the RIM-116 in use is the TY-90, specifically FL-3000N, China's equivalent. It has 8 and 24 cell launchers and a 9km range, similar to the 11 and 21 cell launchers and 10km range on RAM systems.

The original TY-90 was designed as a helicopter-based air-to-air missile for self defence, similar to the way MANPADS have been adapted in other countries like Stingers in the US. If you look at the way these systems are used on ships, they are far more similar to CIWS than short range anti-missile/aircraft missiles like ESSM, Aster 15, CAMM and their various predecessors like Sea Sparrow, Aspide, Sea Wolf and Crotale. Phalanx CIWS on arleigh-burkes, for example, have been directly replaced by RAM rather than moving Mk.41 space for additional SeaRAM launchers.

As a whole it all comes down to the difference between 'point air defence' and 'local area defence' as you clearly separate them in your summary. CAMM may be less capable at fulfilling that role than ESSM, but that is the role it fulfils nonetheless.

(sorry about quoting the long comment - if it is easier for everyone that I just respond directly I will do that in the future)

[ArmChairCivvy]

A close counterpart to the RIM-116 in use is the TY-90, specifically FL-3000N, China's equivalent. It has 8 and 24 cell launchers and a 9km range, similar to the 11 and 21 cell launchers and 10km range on RAM systems.

These are gun ranges, I mean for 'proper' guns that are coming back. Not the pop guns with 2-3 km range that supposedly lay 'down'... or is it up , a wall of lead
- and for some reason have been supplemented by close-in missiles very soon after coming into service

On the facts side

ESSM and CAMM/Aster 15 are short range SAMs

of things I was already earlier pointing to ESSM Bl.2 which takes it to the next league... whatever the definition for that might be. Not that the older ones would automatically be replaced by it

[Max Jones]

A close counterpart to the RIM-116 in use is the TY-90, specifically FL-3000N, China's equivalent. It has 8 and 24 cell launchers and a 9km range, similar to the 11 and 21 cell launchers and 10km range on RAM systems.

These are gun ranges, I mean for 'proper' guns that are coming back. Not the pop guns with 2-3 km range that supposedly lay 'down'... or is it up , a wall of lead
- and for some reason have been supplemented by close-in missiles very soon after coming into service

On the facts side

ESSM and CAMM/Aster 15 are short range SAMs

of things I was already earlier pointing to ESSM Bl.2 which takes it to the next league... whatever the definition for that might be. Not that the older ones would automatically be replaced by it

Of course, the gun-based CIWS and the missile variants don't perform the exact same way, but in places where systems like SeaRAM are commonly used, it is clear it's used in a similar way - on carriers, on amphibious warfare vessels, and in the same spots on major surface combatants where systems like Phalanx is placed. The Royal Navy considered introducing SeaRAM in the place of CIWS but decided Phalanx worked better for the needs and limitations present at the time. Each system has its own pros and cons but that is the general role and I think that's the best way to compare them.

Similarly, sea wolf's most modern variants only have a range of 10km but that doesn't mean they are necessarily a direct counterpart to RIM-116, rather a technologically inferior and older counterpart of ESSM or CAMM (by my understanding, I imagine you might disagree). US SAMs have typically always had a greater range than UK counterparts - SM-6 has 240km over 120km on Aster 30; RIM-7 Sea Sparrow had 19km over Sea Wolf's 10km; etc.

I don't know if it's a deliberate variation in design priority or simply something they are better at than us, but I would imagine if the US was building our ships with their weapons, they would probably put SM-6 in the place of Aster 30, ESSM in the places of Aster 15 and CAMM, SeaRAM in the place of Phalanx.

[ArmChairCivvy]

120km on Aster 30

Note also the minimum range = not the last mile, but 3 km
- Watchkeeper 3 km
- Phalanx 2 km
... as fill-ins

[Lord Jim]

Watchkeeper 3 km

??? ???

[Scimitar54]

Senior Moment? Did you mean Goalkeeper?

[donald_of_tokyo]

I've never heard RIM-116 quoted as having a 20km range. Are you sure that's not the radar system is uses? It seems like a reasonable range for that instead. While CAMM generally does have a reported range of 25km, this is supposed to go higher in practise, and one report by Jane's even claimed it could be as high as 60km.

I am talking about RIM-116 Blk.2. As it states x1.5 range, I should have quote 15 km not 20 km. On the other hand, I understand CAMM shall be quoted as 25 km in this comparison. You need kinetic energy to maneuver against your target, and I understand 25 km is at which distance CAMM can intercept incoming maneuvering ASM. For slow moving air planes, yes 40-50 km may work (depend on data-link distance and battery life).

The most fundamental division is in role. SM-2/6 and Aster 30 are area defence missiles; ESSM and CAMM/Aster 15 are short range SAMs; RAM is a missile-based CIWS, similar to the Mistral system (though more numerous - variants of Starstreak have been designed in a sextuple turret like Mistral and the larger 24-cell variant I displayed above). They may have some very basic anti-air capabilities in defending against direct attacks at short range but are generally otherwise installed for missile defence.

One thing. ESSM and CAMM/Aster 15 are short rage SAMs, but it is fundamentally different from the SHORAD system until 2000s ("Sea Sparrow, Aspide, Sea Wolf and Crotale"), which are point defense system (=can only defend itself). These new missiles, ESSM, Aster15, CAMM, can do "area air defense" (= can defend neighboring vessels), thanks to data-link combined with good CMS. (I think you agree here, if I correctly reading your comment...)

Difference of "ESSM, CAMM, Aster15" to "SM-2/6 and Aster 30" are primarily on its range and numbers of target which can be handled. In other words, if you enlarge your booster of Aster15, it becomes Aster30. Of course, all of this is limited by ship's radar range and CMS level.

As you said, RAM is anti-missile system with limited anti-air capability. It is point defense system. Yes in its task, it is the same to MISTRAL missile. But in its capability, RAM differs from MISTRAL as much as "SM-2/6 and Aster 30" differs from "ESSM, Aster15, CAMM". This is my point. (and may be this is the only point in debate with you, I guess?).

The biggest change in these decade is, "Sea Sparrow, Aspide, Sea Wolf and Crotale" are all point-defense system, while "ESSM, Aster15, CAMM" are all area-defense capable. Big difference. (I think we don't have any disagreement here).

Anyway, back on the original point, I think RAM is covering "BOTH" ESSM and RAM. "MISTARL + CAMM +Aster30" is good, "gun-CIWS + CAMM +Aster 30" is good, but "RAM + CAMM +Aster 30" is too much eating into CAMM regime, I'm afraid. (= I mean, bean counters will happily replace CAMM with RAM, and destroy the technical support of the UK-origin, very successful at the moment, SAM system = CAMM). Note I deleted Aster15 already. "CAMM + Aster30" virtually negates needs for Aster 15.

# I agree the last point can have many discussion. For example, USN is having "57mm 3P + RAM + ESSM Blk2 + SM2/6". And Canadian navy is, I understand, going to have "57mm 3P + CAMM + ESSM Blk2 + SM2/6" ?

Thanks.

[Max Jones]

The biggest change in these decade is, "Sea Sparrow, Aspide, Sea Wolf and Crotale" are all point-defense system, while "ESSM, Aster15, CAMM" are all area-defense capable. Big difference. (I think we don't have any disagreement here).

Anyway, back on the original point, I think RAM is covering "BOTH" ESSM and RAM. "MISTARL + CAMM +Aster30" is good, "gun-CIWS + CAMM +Aster 30" is good, but "RAM + CAMM +Aster 30" is too much eating into CAMM regime, I'm afraid. (= I mean, bean counters will happily replace CAMM with RAM, and destroy the technical support of the UK-origin, very successful at the moment, SAM system = CAMM). Note I deleted Aster15 already. "CAMM + Aster30" virtually negates needs for Aster 15.

You are right about the older SAM's like Sea Sparrow, Aspide, etc. That was an oversight on my part.

I generally agree with the rest of your reply, too. I think CAMM is generally at a place where it is versatile enough to cover the role of CIWS (which is mainly a backup for old point defence systems like Sea Wolf in their turret variants for reloading or in case of technical failures - part of why they were never installed on the Type 23s. Still, with the somewhat comparable capabilities with RAM I can see how the use of both is somewhat needless.

The only other thing is your brief comment on Aster 15. CAMM has some advantages to Aster 15 - it is cheaper and, in the case of the T45, could be packed into multi SYLVER A.50 cells so we could have 36 cells with 36 Aster 30s and the last 12 with 3-4 Sea Ceptors each for 36+ additional short range missiles. Aster 15, however, is a far more advanced missile and is good for high speed, highly manoeuvrable targets whereas CAMM, with a similar general engagement range, is not as manoeuvrable nor is its guidance system as advanced, so it's more of a jack-of-all trades system - Aster 15 is a bit more single use but with certain threats you don't really want to take that risk. Ideally on a Type 45, you might have maybe half of the Aster 15 cells taken up by CAMMs just to give you some extra backup missiles in a prolonged engagement, however keep some for A15 in case of more severe threats at close range. It's only a small point, anyway.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Senior Moment? Did you mean Goalkeeper?

Indeed. To my mind it was a mistake to withdraw it, in the name of standardisation, from amphibs that, at times, are practically working as if anchored. As the sole armament, the 50% greater reach compared to Phalanx should have weighed into that decision.

But of course the comment I made was about dead zones of air defence missiles. Citing a longish one. The smaller/ lighter/ cheaper missiles are there not just to fill that gap, but also to add to the depth of the magazines (against saturation attacks).
- in the case of escorts 'every little helps' and Phalanx is a totally appropriate system, esp. with its operating autonomy - so that one hit is less likely to leave the ship 'defenceless'