Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[Scimitar54]

Not sure what your “2019 Model” looks like!

[tomuk]

[Scimitar54]

tomuk Thank-you for the photograph. It is not as bad as I had envisaged, but it is still far from ideal. Subject to Top Weight considerations, one solution might be a position for one phalanx behind (forward of) and slightly above the aft 40mm, with the other , but probably the best locations for them would be on sponsons to port and starboard.

[tomuk]

An interesting tidbit from the announcement of the signing of new agreements enhancing UK-Polish defence relations.

The two ministers also agreed a new working group, which will explore the potential for the UK and Polish Armed Forces to cooperate on the development of a Future Common Missile. Though requirements for the missile are still in development, it is envisioned to be a medium-to-long range, surface launched missile that can be used in both Land and Maritime environments and will be a development of the CAMM family of missiles.

What is the new CAMM variant? A combined UK/Polish buy of CAMM-ER or is it a CAMM equivalent of Aster 30, a CAMM on an even bigger booster?


Landmark agreements strengthen UK-Poland defence relations
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/land ... -relations

[Poiuytrewq]

An interesting tidbit from the announcement of the signing of new agreements enhancing UK-Polish defence relations.

What is the new CAMM variant? A combined UK/Polish buy of CAMM-ER or is it a CAMM equivalent of Aster 30, a CAMM on an even bigger booster?

Seems like a pretty important announcement.

Unlikely to match Aster30 but potentially equal or better than CAMM-ER. From a naval perspective how densely packed could these upgraded CAMM actually be?

If viable quad packing long range CAMM into a Mk41 sized space could be a game changer for the T45 and T83.

[Tempest414]

tomuk Thank-you for the photograph. It is not as bad as I had envisaged, but it is still far from ideal. Subject to Top Weight considerations, one solution might be a position for one phalanx behind (forward of) and slightly above the aft 40mm, with the other , but probably the best locations for them would be on sponsons to port and starboard.

When we talk about type 31's top weight we need to remember that we have removed the long range radar which will save a lot of top weight more than one or two Phalanx

[Scimitar54]

You may well be correct, I hope so. However,, some of that “headroom” MUST have been used up by the 40mm mounting located above the hangar. Another contributor to the use of that “headroom“ is likely to be the CAMM silo (depending on its size naturally).

[wargame_insomniac]

An interesting tidbit from the announcement of the signing of new agreements enhancing UK-Polish defence relations.

The two ministers also agreed a new working group, which will explore the potential for the UK and Polish Armed Forces to cooperate on the development of a Future Common Missile. Though requirements for the missile are still in development, it is envisioned to be a medium-to-long range, surface launched missile that can be used in both Land and Maritime environments and will be a development of the CAMM family of missiles.

What is the new CAMM variant? A combined UK/Polish buy of CAMM-ER or is it a CAMM equivalent of Aster 30, a CAMM on an even bigger booster?


Landmark agreements strengthen UK-Poland defence relations
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/land ... -relations

Some speculation on Twitter main post + 3 replies in thread:

[tomuk]

You may well be correct, I hope so. However,, some of that “headroom” MUST have been used up by the 40mm mounting located above the hangar. Another contributor to the use of that “headroom“ is likely to be the CAMM silo (depending on its size naturally).

The parent Iver Huitfeldt frigate has loads more equipment than T31, APAR Radar, Smart L Radar, Cerios FCR, Mk41 silos for SM2, Mk56 ESSM silo, 8x Harpoon plus a 35mm millennium turret. I'm sure T31 could cope with a pair of Phallanx if needed.

Personally I'd go for and an X-band Radar and optical fire control dedicated to the guns to give a 'Phalanx like' capability

[tomuk]

An interesting tidbit from the announcement of the signing of new agreements enhancing UK-Polish defence relations.

The two ministers also agreed a new working group, which will explore the potential for the UK and Polish Armed Forces to cooperate on the development of a Future Common Missile. Though requirements for the missile are still in development, it is envisioned to be a medium-to-long range, surface launched missile that can be used in both Land and Maritime environments and will be a development of the CAMM family of missiles.

What is the new CAMM variant? A combined UK/Polish buy of CAMM-ER or is it a CAMM equivalent of Aster 30, a CAMM on an even bigger booster?


Landmark agreements strengthen UK-Poland defence relations
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/land ... -relations

Some speculation on Twitter main post + 3 replies in thread:

Hmm so speculation it could be a longer range CAMM-EX and\or a precision strike variant, that is CAMM backend with Brimstone seeker.

[Jdam]

An interesting tidbit from the announcement of the signing of new agreements enhancing UK-Polish defence relations.

What is the new CAMM variant? A combined UK/Polish buy of CAMM-ER or is it a CAMM equivalent of Aster 30, a CAMM on an even bigger booster?

Seems like a pretty important announcement.

Unlikely to match Aster30 but potentially equal or better than CAMM-ER. From a naval perspective how densely packed could these upgraded CAMM actually be?

If viable quad packing long range CAMM into a Mk41 sized space could be a game changer for the T45 and T83.

If we start making all these changes to CAMM, will it still be quad pack able into the Mk41? CAMM ER looks like bit chuncker than the normal missile, have we had any confirmation it can be quad packed into a Mk41?

I am just thinking after you have added on a bigger boaster and anything else required it might just take up the same room as the Aster 30.

[JohnM]

An interesting tidbit from the announcement of the signing of new agreements enhancing UK-Polish defence relations.

What is the new CAMM variant? A combined UK/Polish buy of CAMM-ER or is it a CAMM equivalent of Aster 30, a CAMM on an even bigger booster?

Seems like a pretty important announcement.

Unlikely to match Aster30 but potentially equal or better than CAMM-ER. From a naval perspective how densely packed could these upgraded CAMM actually be?

If viable quad packing long range CAMM into a Mk41 sized space could be a game changer for the T45 and T83.

If we start making all these changes to CAMM, will it still be quad pack able into the Mk41? CAMM ER looks like bit chuncker than the normal missile, have we had any confirmation it can be quad packed into a Mk41?

I am just thinking after you have added on a bigger boaster and anything else required it might just take up the same room as the Aster 30.

As I understand it (read it somewhere, can't remember where) CAMM-ER can only be dual-packed, because the body is wider than the regular CAMM.

[SD67]

Open Source info - the body is the same diameter as Aster 15/30

[donald_of_tokyo]

As I understand it (read it somewhere, can't remember where) CAMM-ER can only be dual-packed, because the body is wider than the regular CAMM.

CAMM-ER is narrower (significantly) than ESSM. ESSM can be quad-packed in Mk. 41 VLS. As such, CAMM-ER can be quad-packed in Mk.41 VLS. Also, I read somewhere that CAMM-ER and CAMM has the same canister size, other than the length.

"Cannot quad-pack" issue, was for me, VL-MICA cannot be quad-packed in Sylver VLS. CAMM family follows the ASRAMM aero-dymaics, which is not using large fins for maneuver as MICA and Aster darts. Less fin reduces drag force and help keeping the speed, but will be less maneuverable with the same speed. Different way of thinking.

[tomuk]

Mass
CAMM — 99 kg (218 lb)
CAMM-ER - 166 kg (366 lb)
Length
CAMM — 3.2 m (10 ft 6 in)
CAMM-ER - 4.2 m (13 ft 9 in)
Diameter
CAMM — 166 mm (6.5 in)
CAMM-ER - 190 mm (7.5 in)

Mass Aster 15: 310 kg[1]
Aster 30: 450 kg[2]
Length Aster 15: 4.2 m[3]
Aster 30: 4.9 m[4]
Diameter Aster 15 & 30: 180 mm (7.1 in)

ESSM
Mass 620 lb (280 kg)
Length 12 ft (3.66 m)
Diameter 10 in (254 mm)

[Poiuytrewq]

Aster 30 and CAMM-ER are very different beasts

53E44AD6-705C-4912-8B05-37054469B3C5.jpeg

Aster15 and Aster30

C6B4DC64-623D-4943-AD81-BBB63B9CAB18.jpeg

CAMM and CAMM-ER

6C95F259-1F2D-4693-B50E-314AE098D6AA.jpeg

[Lord Jim]

So the booster section of CAMM-ER has a greater diameter then CAMM. Is the difference sufficient to stop CAMM-ER being quad packed then?

[JohnM]

So the booster section of CAMM-ER has a greater diameter then CAMM. Is the difference sufficient to stop CAMM-ER being quad packed then?

Like I said, I remember reading it’s dual-packed. I think that’s what the Italians are doing in the PPAs…

[donald_of_tokyo]

It is still much narrower than ESSM.

Also the fin is compact.

No reason to disable quad pack, I understand.

[donald_of_tokyo]

So the booster section of CAMM-ER has a greater diameter then CAMM. Is the difference sufficient to stop CAMM-ER being quad packed then?

Like I said, I remember reading it’s dual-packed. I think that’s what the Italians are doing in the PPAs…

Isn’t it Sylver? rather than Mk 41?

[Jensy]

So the booster section of CAMM-ER has a greater diameter then CAMM. Is the difference sufficient to stop CAMM-ER being quad packed then?

Although the missile's body is wider, it's still narrower than the tail fins of either variant.

As Donald says, there shouldn't be an issue with width. However I understand the Italians, not MK41 users, are buying a longer version of the MBDA mushroom launcher for CAMM-ER (the article is somewhere on here).

With the global user base of the MK-41, not to mention the 192 cells we're buying, I think we'd be unwise not to work with LockMart to integrate CAMM with it in all its current and future forms. The Type 45 upgrade being a perfect example where we could quad-pack 48 CAMM in the space planned for 24 mushroom VLS, with four out of sixteen cells left empty.

I previously thought the mushroom launchers were adequate but this years has made apparent the importance of quantity, alongside quality.

[donald_of_tokyo]

.. I previously thought the mushroom launchers were adequate but this years has made apparent the importance of quantity, alongside quality.

Not against your point, but on what regard are you saying "importance of quantity"?

Ukrainan way told us stock of ammo is critically important. I agree.
But, at least in that war, shortage of missiles in a launcher system have never been an issue? (Or I missed some information?)

Just for curiosity...

[donald_of_tokyo]

I do understand the flexibility of Mk41 if CAMM can be quad-packed within.

But, not so much against independent light-weight VLSs for CAMM.
- The weight difference is huge, so we can be (almost) free of center-of-gravity issue to locate the independent light-weight VLSs
- The "depth" difference is also huge, so we can locate light-weight VLSs if there is one-level of room (HMNZS TeKaha/TeMana's CAMM is penetrating only one floor. Original short-Mk.41 was penetrating two floors)

* note: T26 and probably T31 are apparently using 2 floors.

For me, I strongly push to develop a "higher density mushroom farms". Even with current system, by slightly arranging the top surface, it looks quite easy to make the density DOUBLED. Three time denser looks also doable. Four time can be tried. If we do it NOW, we can reflect it T26, T31 and T45.

Yes, T31 and T26 design has pretty much advanced. BUT, they both use the "6-cell" units to mount CAMM. This means, it is just needed to replace the "6-cell units" with "12-cell units". We need more LMS boxes, and twice more wires, so it is not plug-and-play. But, I understand it is simple modification.

Another option is adopting 3-cell ExLS independent version. No objection here.

[Tempest414]

Just to throw a hat in the ring could it be a VL Meteor that could be interesting

[Jensy]

.. I previously thought the mushroom launchers were adequate but this years has made apparent the importance of quantity, alongside quality.

Not against your point, but on what regard are you saying "importance of quantity"?

Ukrainan way told us stock of ammo is critically important. I agree.
But, at least in that war, shortage of missiles in a launcher system have never been an issue? (Or I missed some information?)

Just for curiosity...

I was more generally referring to the air threats now posed against forces on land or sea. With both sides in the conflict making use of loitering munitions, which are increasing in their capability and lethality, carrying only 24 CAMM on Type 45 seems far too few. The 48 missile maximum for a single Sea Ceptor system seems a good benchmark going forward for T26/32/45/83.

In terms of stocks, I think it's probably our greatest defence weak point at present. Far beyond a lack of platforms.