UK Defence Forum

Adding Starstreak/LMM launch tubes to 30mm mounts should be an easy win for the RN and RFA, adding to the air defence and close anti surface capabilities of numerous ships.

Shame the MOD/RN doesn't see it that easy.

Lord Jim wrote:Adding Starstreak/LMM launch tubes to 30mm mounts should be an easy win for the RN and RFA, adding to the air defence and close anti surface capabilities of numerous ships.

Not to mention the 40mm and/or 57mm mounts on the Type 31s...

KiwiMuzz wrote:Not to mention the 40mm and/or 57mm mounts on the Type 31s...

Probably cheaper, and far easier, to add the standalone 4 round Martlet launcher recently seen, than hang it on the side of a closed mount of a larger gun.

It is interesting that the Seahawk Sigma platform has dropped from 5 to 4 missiles, there must be a reason for it? Perhaps the trials on HMS Sutherland a couple of years ago highlighted an issue?

Repulse wrote:Perhaps the trials on HMS Sutherland a couple of years ago highlighted an issue?

Like this could do considerable damage to your ship?

RichardIC wrote:

Repulse wrote:Perhaps the trials on HMS Sutherland a couple of years ago highlighted an issue?

Like this could do considerable damage to your ship?

Would agree with that - at best a very limit arc of fire. What I'm not clear on is why go from five to four? The rocket exhaust would still strip the paint (and melt a new window).

That picture looks dramatic, but doesn’t indicate how long that fire trail lasts. It’s the duration that will determine how much energy is transferred and thus how much damage is done.

Repulse wrote:It is interesting that the Seahawk Sigma platform has dropped from 5 to 4 missiles, there must be a reason for it? Perhaps the trials on HMS Sutherland a couple of years ago highlighted an issue?

I expect it's a performance issue. That's a fair bit of imbalance weight to be hanging off a gun system that's supposed to be quite rapid moving.

Repulse wrote:It is interesting that the Seahawk Sigma platform has dropped from 5 to 4 missiles, there must be a reason for it? Perhaps the trials on HMS Sutherland a couple of years ago highlighted an issue?

It was originally 7 missiles....



The 7 missile set up was the same as was originally proposed for Wildcat.



I think that was changed due to the new Wildcat Weapons Wing, and potential ground clearance issues of the bottom 2 canisters when a heavy landing occured, particularly aboard ship. The 5 missile canister seen in the trials aboard HMS Sutherland was borrowed from that programme. I suspect the reason for the switch to 4 missiles is far more prosaic, it looks like a more durable, 'sea ready' setup rather than the lighter, air focused 5 missile container used in the trials.

And that might be a good sign....if MSI are prepared to invest to create a more, permanent, integrated solution than the previous 7 or 5 missile lash-ups it looks like they may have confidence in orders coming...

mr.fred wrote:That picture looks dramatic, but doesn’t indicate how long that fire trail lasts. It’s the duration that will determine how much energy is transferred and thus how much damage is done.

It's a kick motor so its measured in milliseconds. Main motor ignition is c15 metres from the firing platform.

Even in this slowed down footage its over in an incredibly short space of time..you can see the main motor ignition when the missile has cleared the Wildcat.

MISTARL missile is used worldwide. The initial stage motor backdraft is common, and they are all "properly handled".

- SADRAL 6-missile launcher
- TETRAL 4-missile launcher
- Simbad/Simbad-RC 2-missile launcher

So the initial stage motor backdraft is clearly an issue which can be easily handled.

donald_of_tokyo wrote:MISTARL missile is used worldwide. The initial stage motor backdraft is common, and they are all "properly handled".

- SADRAL 6-missile launcher
- TETRAL 4-missile launcher
- Simbad/Simbad-RC 2-missile launcher

So the initial stage motor backdraft is clearly an issue which can be easily handled.

That will be the case for Mistral or Martlet(LMM). If we ever want to use Starstreak on the mount though (which may be dependent on whether the missile can be 'gathered' into the remote E/O sight in good time) we might need to do a bit more work. Starstreak firing is a lot more energetic than other MANPADS, particularly the blast and shock behind the firing post.

The video below really illustrates what a monster of a missile Starstreak is in comparison with other MANPADS (which are no slouch themselves, but look positively pedestrian in comparison..).



You can contrast it with LMM..



18 successful shots, then Army trials...plus Navy trials on Martlet and ASCG, made up of a whole lot more firings (particularly the Wildcat shots)....you have to wonder how many of the original 1,000 missiles ordered we actually have left...

Timmymagic wrote:Starstreak firing is a lot more energetic than other MANPADS, particularly the blast and shock behind the firing post.

Doesn’t look that bad to me.

Agreed. Interesting that they seems to be a programme to push the MANPADS further forward and include them in Infantry Companies or be part of the Battalions Support Weapons Company etc. Does this means the non SP Starstreak/LMM launchers will be removed for the Reserve Royal Artillery Air Defence Regiment that currently hold the Army's Weapons, and be given to Infantry Battalions? Maybe the Regiment could then become a second such unit to operate CAMM is additional systems are ordered?

Timmymagic wrote:I think that was changed due to the new Wildcat Weapons Wing, and potential ground clearance issues of the bottom 2 canisters when a heavy landing occured, particularly aboard ship.

For real or just a theory?

Ron5 wrote:For real or just a theory?

Just a theory, but it was 7 rounds for an age, the 5 round launcher arrived with the weapons wing. Could be a host of reasons, aero related or weapons handling perhaps. But when you look at a Wildcat on the ground with the new wing and a 5 round pod they're only just lower than the main fuselage (the radome is obviously as well, but the Wildcat squats somewhat to the rear so its not as pronounced). The original wing seen with the 7 round pods held the missile pack higher and had an upwards camber (see the pic on previous page) so the bottom 2 canisters were still above the bottom of the fuselage. The switch to the larger weapons wing brought the munitions closer to the ground at rest. I suspect it was related (plus the ability to carry 4 packs, with a total of 20 missiles, rather than 2 with a total of 14 missiles).

Timmymagic wrote:

Ron5 wrote:For real or just a theory?

Just a theory, but it was 7 rounds for an age, the 5 round launcher arrived with the weapons wing. Could be a host of reasons, aero related or weapons handling perhaps. But when you look at a Wildcat on the ground with the new wing and a 5 round pod they're just lower than the main fuselage (the radome is obviously as well, but the Wildcat squats somewhat to the rear so its not as pronounced). The original wing seen with the 7 round pods had an upwards camber (see the pic on previous page) so the bottom 2 canisters were still above the bottom of the fuselage. The switch to the larger weapons wing brought the munitions closer to the ground at rest.

Makes sense to me. Saves weight too

It is also interesting to see the difference in the launch tube between LMM and Starstreak. For example the four missiles on the Seahawk are Starstreak, the giveaway is the tube is the same diameter its whole length and the three bumps on the cover that coincide with the three darts. LMM's launch tube has a larger diameter for the first third of the tube.

There is a video on YouTube which shows Starstreak having a 12 second launch sequence. Surely this is too long. Does anyone know if this can be over ridden?

Starstreak is much faster than that. It whole reason for being was to engage helicopters conducting "Pop up" attacks with little or no warning and low level fast jets that were only visible for a short time, though more effective against the former.

GarethDavies1 wrote:There is a video on YouTube which shows Starstreak having a 12 second launch sequence. Surely this is too long. Does anyone know if this can be over ridden?

What does “launch sequence” mean in that context? Trigger pull to launch? detection to impact? You can see that these represent extreme ends of the scale. Can you share which video states this?

Not sure what is is meant by the 12 second timer start

GarethDavies1 wrote:

It states that there is a 12s timer (and a 7.8s one) but it doesn’t indicate what that timer actually does. It could be a safety timer that cuts launch signal power after the launch window or breaks up the darts to reduce the danger area.
Given the other videos out there or the intended mode of function I cannot see any way that there could be a 12s delay between trigger pull and launch.