I see my Sylver appreciation post went down like a lead balloon! All good points made but still no silver bullet to solve our triple VLS conundrum.
Ron5 wrote:Sylver was a mistake by the RN.
I don't dispute that at all. When the UK left the Horizon programme, we should have probably ditched the Sylver aspect of PAAMS too and either integrated Aster with MK41 or gone with a different missile. However we are where we are.
Also fair point on Sea Ceptor, should have specified that CAMM-ER is being integrated for dual packing in Italian Navy service, rather than the vanilla CAMM.
donald_of_tokyo wrote: I prefer Mk.41.
On balance so do I. However I'm unconvinced by the current selection of weapons to fire from it, and doubt that the MoD would be going on a Dollar shopping spree for US made weapons with the current currency exchange rate.
SD67 wrote:Sylver is a dead end, even in Europe. It’s only France and (for now) Italy. Germany and Spain both build around mk41. MBDA future products will all be Mk41 compatible. In terms of what will T26 ship in their silos well ideally TLAM and ASROC, IMHO
You might well be right but Italy still seems to building an awful lot of ships with Sylver cells (Trieste, PPA and those new AAW destroyers are described as 'Horizon follow ons', which would be surprising to see with MK41). Spain is an Aegis user and Germany is not a navy we should be in any rush to copy.
Either way we're talking about integration with the other two largest navies on our continent whom we share MBDA with. If Sylver 'is' a dead end, we're partially responsible for that state of affairs.
In terms of A43/A50, I'd note that the Saudi and Singapore navies have 128 and 288 192
cells worth respectively, Qatar and Malaysia are joining the club. For better or worse, all four are nations we have close defence ties to.
I've been hearing about Aster integration with MK41 for decades. If it were that easy, surely there would be a business case for MBDA to at least carry out initial trials? As everyone points out, there plenty of MK41 users (at least for the AAW VLS).
TLAM is a great weapon and has been for many decades, how much longer that's going to last against peer adversaries is to be seen. ASROC is also far from new, uses an American made torpedo (I know we're buying them for P-8 but the Poseidons won't be flying off the Type 26 flight deck) and has about half the range of the Korean equivalent I referenced up-pape.
As an aside, I find it interesting that the RoK Navy has gone with their own VLS for firing larger projectiles, as well as MK41. Perhaps there is a need for two standards after all?