Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Online
donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Tempest414 wrote: 30 Sep 2022, 10:55
RichardIC wrote: 29 Sep 2022, 13:50 The gunnery based on the Type 31 was the best offer Babcock could male within the fixed price contract.
Yes but it must of been signed off by the navy so at some level the RN wanted 40mm as well as 57mm which was a given

AH140 could have had 1 x 57mm , 2 x Phalanx 1 on B point and 1 on top of the Hangar plus 2 x 30mm one each side of rear Phalanx. This could of allowed type 31 to sail with just the 57mm and 30mm and add the Phalanx as need and maybe just maybe the Phalanx could have been upgraded to SeaRam to give type 31 46 x defence missiles plus 57mm and 30mm latter down the line
No SeaRAM, if there is CAMM. To much overlap. SeaRAM is also not cheap. If RN is bann CAMM and move to CAMM-ER only option, then SeaRAM becomes a good option, I think. Just a personal view. But, RAM missile and CAMM missile is the same in their size...

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

Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 29 Sep 2022, 22:12
RichardIC wrote: 29 Sep 2022, 13:50 The gunnery based on the Type 31 was the best offer Babcock could male within the fixed price contract.
I know. Does nt mean that I like it though. Especially with the resulting increase in RN guns to 7 or 8:
5 inch, 4.5 inch, 57mm, 40mm, 30mm, 20mm, 12.7mm.
Would be 8 if Oerlikon 20 mm cannon uses different ammo to Phalanx CIWS.

Nothing like making logistics simple....
That means, let's replace T45's 4.5 inch gun with a 57 mm gun (and extra CAMM) within 5-10 years. 4.5 inch will go away with the last T23.

On 30mm, the story has a bit changed with USN selecting it. Now it has air-burst rounds and proximity-fused rounds. And, its "normal rounds" which will be used in every-day patrol is much much cheaper than 40mm rounds. So, there is a clear merit, especially when the 20mm GP goes out. I therefore think, RN may remain keeping them.

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Post by tomuk »

Replacing the four five with a 57mm on the T45s will cost money. As long as there enough ammunition stocks I can see the T45s staying as they are. With CAMM and Phalanx what is the need for the 'smarter' 57mm rounds?

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

Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

Maybe remove the forward gun installation on the T-45 entirely and add two or three eight cell Mk41 VLS for say TLAMs, or two or three eight cell Sylver VLS to increase the number of Aster-30 carried.

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

Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

tomuk wrote: 30 Sep 2022, 20:35 Replacing the four five with a 57mm on the T45s will cost money. As long as there enough ammunition stocks I can see the T45s staying as they are. With CAMM and Phalanx what is the need for the 'smarter' 57mm rounds?
Ben Wallace said there will be the money. What will NOT easily increase is manpower. Replacing 4.5inch to 57mm will reduce manpower. Increasing the (already planned) 24 CAMM to 48 will not dramatically increase the man-power need. (Maybe just two or three person? All the software, console, connection to CMS is there. Added is only the 24 canisters and 2 Launch Management Boxes (both not much maintenance intensive, I guess).
Lord Jim wrote: 30 Sep 2022, 23:38 Maybe remove the forward gun installation on the T-45 entirely and add two or three eight cell Mk41 VLS for say TLAMs, or two or three eight cell Sylver VLS to increase the number of Aster-30 carried.
One option, I agree. In that case, we shall also replace the two 30mm gun in the waist to two 40 mm Mk.4s, I think. "Missile + 40mm gun" was once a standard in RN in 1970s. With clear decline of NGFS needs these days (counter attack from land has longer reach, now), the "missile + 40mm gun" model may work better than it did in 1970-80s.

User avatar
RichardIC
Senior Member
Posts: 1371
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Post by RichardIC »

tomuk wrote: 30 Sep 2022, 20:35 Replacing the four five with a 57mm on the T45s will cost money. As long as there enough ammunition stocks I can see the T45s staying as they are. With CAMM and Phalanx what is the need for the 'smarter' 57mm rounds?
What’s the effective range of Phalanx? 1nm? Maybe less. Far too close for comfort.

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 01 Oct 2022, 01:43
tomuk wrote: 30 Sep 2022, 20:35 Replacing the four five with a 57mm on the T45s will cost money. As long as there enough ammunition stocks I can see the T45s staying as they are. With CAMM and Phalanx what is the need for the 'smarter' 57mm rounds?
Ben Wallace said there will be the money. What will NOT easily increase is manpower. Replacing 4.5inch to 57mm will reduce manpower. Increasing the (already planned) 24 CAMM to 48 will not dramatically increase the man-power need. (Maybe just two or three person? All the software, console, connection to CMS is there. Added is only the 24 canisters and 2 Launch Management Boxes (both not much maintenance intensive, I guess).
Lord Jim wrote: 30 Sep 2022, 23:38 Maybe remove the forward gun installation on the T-45 entirely and add two or three eight cell Mk41 VLS for say TLAMs, or two or three eight cell Sylver VLS to increase the number of Aster-30 carried.
One option, I agree. In that case, we shall also replace the two 30mm gun in the waist to two 40 mm Mk.4s, I think. "Missile + 40mm gun" was once a standard in RN in 1970s. With clear decline of NGFS needs these days (counter attack from land has longer reach, now), the "missile + 40mm gun" model may work better than it did in 1970-80s.
A big part of my confusion on the RN Gunnery is that if the Bofors 40mm is the right answer for the T31's, then why was it not also the right answer for T26's? If the Bofors 40mm is the best option for dealing with fast attack boats, USV's, UAV's etc then I think it should be the RN's primary gun on non-frontline warships such as OPV's, LPD's etc, and secondary gun on all escorts.

I would priortise fitting the Bofors 40mm on RN's frontline warships, moving the 30mm to replace the few remaining 20mm mounts so that they can be fully retired.

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

RichardIC wrote: 01 Oct 2022, 11:27
tomuk wrote: 30 Sep 2022, 20:35 Replacing the four five with a 57mm on the T45s will cost money. As long as there enough ammunition stocks I can see the T45s staying as they are. With CAMM and Phalanx what is the need for the 'smarter' 57mm rounds?
What’s the effective range of Phalanx? 1nm? Maybe less. Far too close for comfort.
I have asked before if the Phalanx is till suitable as a CIWS in the era of hypersonic anti ship missiles. They are moving so fast that even if the Phalanx hit the missiles in that 1nm, the sheer speed of these new hypersonic missiles mean would still hit it's target.

Therefore I have queried whether the RN should consider start swithing it's CIWS to SeaRam, with it's faster speed and longer range than Phalanx. Everytime I have been shouted down by the CAMM Brigade who just state that SeaRam and CAMM are too similar. Now SeaRam has a range of 6 miles, whilst CAMM has a range of 16 miles. But the cruical advantage of SeaRAM over CAMM is the radar and electrooptical system of the Phalanx CIWS to produce an autonomous system

The key thing for me i missile defence is layering. If you look at USN, their escorts have 3 or 4 layers of defence against missiles, with SM-3 for BMD, SM-6 with range of 150 miles, SM-1MR with a range of 90 miles, quad packed RIM-162 Evolved SeaSparrow Missile (ESSM) with range of 30+ miles and afforementioed SeaRam.

The RN get similar layered defence if it went for Aster Block 1NT missiles for BMD, Aster 30 Block 0 with a range of 75+ miles, and quad packed CAMM-ER with a range of 28 miles / the afformentioned CAMM, with SeaRam as an autonomous CIWS, as a last line of defence. SeaRam might be more expensive than Phalanx as CIWS but if it keeps a billion pound warship afloat then surely it is worth it??

Apologies if getting away from RN Gunnery to talk RM Missiles but it is because I woryy that RN's exisiting Phalanx guns are no longer fully up to the task.

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

So what do you think the difference is then, between the RN’s Phalanx Guns and the USN’s Sea Whizz (Phalanx) Guns ? :mrgreen

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Scimitar54 wrote: 01 Oct 2022, 22:39 So what do you think the difference is then, between the RN’s Phalanx Guns and the USN’s Sea Whizz (Phalanx) Guns ? :mrgreen
Yes but the USN is moving towards either having BOTH Phalanx and SeaRam on their ships, or on ships like the San Antonio class (which lack the massed Mk41 VLS of frontline warships and thus lack the layered AAW defence I mentioned in my previous post) having just SeaRam as their preferred CIWS....

Again the RN lacks the layered AAW defence that most USN ships can provide. We have what just six T45's with Aster (and not yet Aster Block 1NT missiles for BMD) and just the T23's currently with CAMM, and not even CAMM quadpacked but in mushrooms.

So yes - YOU should be green, green with envy at USN's layered AAW defence.

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

Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 01 Oct 2022, 17:40I have asked before if the Phalanx is till suitable as a CIWS in the era of hypersonic anti ship missiles. They are moving so fast that even if the Phalanx hit the missiles in that 1nm, the sheer speed of these new hypersonic missiles mean would still hit it's target.
To my understanding, Phalanx is good for sub-sonic sea skimmer, and partly for super-sonic missiles (a kind of active armor?). SeaRAM is good for sub-sonic sea skimmer, super-sonic missiles, but not intended for hyper-sonic ones.

I understand hyper-sonic missile is more a sibling of ballistic missile, not upgraded sub-sonic sea skimmer. It cannot "sea skim" in hyper-sonic speed, it cannot be cheap, cannot be small, and thus cannot be "numerous".
Therefore I have queried whether the RN should consider start swithing it's CIWS to SeaRam, with it's faster speed and longer range than Phalanx. Everytime I have been shouted down by the CAMM Brigade who just state that SeaRam and CAMM are too similar. Now SeaRam has a range of 6 miles, whilst CAMM has a range of 16 miles. But the cruical advantage of SeaRAM over CAMM is the radar and electrooptical system of the Phalanx CIWS to produce an autonomous system
Sorry, I agree SeaRAM is good, and I'm just afraid SesRAM will "replace", not supplement, CAMM in many RN assets. For example, T31 can go with ONLY SeaRAM, i.e. CAMM can be banned. T45 will not need additional CAMM, if its Phalanx be replaced with SeaRAM. CAMM for T23/26 is good, supplemented by 20mm CIWS. In other words, no need to add SeaRAM. CVF will be happy only with SeaRAM, and adding CAMM will become "reason-less".

As such, T23/26 will be the "only" assets to carry CAMM. This is my point.

Good thing of CAMM is it is designed to do "local area air defense". In short, CAMM can defend "not only" the frigate itself, "but also" several (un-armed) ships located around her. CAMM as a SeaWolf successor, inherently has an overlap with SeaRAM as ASMD oriented missile. But CAMM do needs CMS to handle two-way-data-link.

SeaRAM is a point defense system. Good for self defense, but not designed to "escort" other ships. Good thing of SeaRAM is, as you said, that it does not need CMS (or if CMS is there, do not need it to be "fully active"). For example, even if the CMS is "down", SeaRAM can be operated (of course, better to be integrated with CMS). But, lacking radar homing, it cannot detect enemy missile in far range if it is not emitting radar.

I understand RN selected the way to station at least one T31 (or T23/T26/T45) around the vessels to be escorted (CVF, LPD, LSD, Points, AO, FSSS, and merchant ships).

On the other hand, USN does not have CAMM, and relies on ESSM for "local area air defense". ESSM is even partly replacing SM-1 standard missile, not in the same league with CAMM (although it does have large overlap). Therefore, LCS (I think has a large overlap with T31 aim) relies on SeaRAM and not ESSM. Ships "to be escorted", like large amphibious vessels (LPD, LHD, CVN) carries SeaRAM. But, of course, it is NOT ALL. So, capability for (local) area air defense is needed in addition to SeaRAM equipped ships. Good and bad.
The key thing for me i missile defence is layering. If you look at USN, their escorts have 3 or 4 layers of defence against missiles, with SM-3 for BMD, SM-6 with range of 150 miles, SM-1MR with a range of 90 miles, quad packed RIM-162 Evolved SeaSparrow Missile (ESSM) with range of 30+ miles and afforementioed SeaRam.

The RN get similar layered defence if it went for Aster Block 1NT missiles for BMD, Aster 30 Block 0 with a range of 75+ miles, and quad packed CAMM-ER with a range of 28 miles / the afformentioned CAMM, with SeaRam as an autonomous CIWS, as a last line of defence. SeaRam might be more expensive than Phalanx as CIWS but if it keeps a billion pound warship afloat then surely it is worth it??

Apologies if getting away from RN Gunnery to talk RM Missiles but it is because I woryy that RN's exisiting Phalanx guns are no longer fully up to the task.
My understanding is
USN: SM-3 for BMD, SM-6 for BMD/hypersonic, supersonic, sub-sonic ASMD, SM-2 for supersonic, sub-sonic ASMD, (SM-1 is gone), ESSM for supersonic, sub-sonic ASMD (up to here, it includes "area defense" aim), SeaRAM for supersonic, sub-sonic ASMD and UAVs (point defense) and Phalanx CIWS and/or 57mm guided-rounds for supersonic, sub-sonic ASMD and UAVs (point defense).

RN: (Nothing equivalent to SM-3), Aster-30 Blk1(and 1NT) for BMD/hypersonic, supersonic, sub-sonic ASMD, CAMM for supersonic, sub-sonic ASMD and UAVs (up to here, it includes "area defense" aim), Phalanx CIWS and/or 57mm guided-rounds for supersonic, sub-sonic ASMD and UAVs (point defense).

Of course, there is a room for SeaRAM, but surely has a ("big" for me, or "small" for you) overlap with CAMM. That's it.
These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post:
wargame_insomniac

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

Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 01 Oct 2022, 17:01 A big part of my confusion on the RN Gunnery is that if the Bofors 40mm is the right answer for the T31's, then why was it not also the right answer for T26's? If the Bofors 40mm is the best option for dealing with fast attack boats, USV's, UAV's etc then I think it should be the RN's primary gun on non-frontline warships such as OPV's, LPD's etc, and secondary gun on all escorts.
Very good point, I also have similar concern/confusion.

1: I understand UK will be using 30mm for "every day tasks" even in future. Cheap "simple-rounds" are very important here.

2: As the T31 happen to adopt 40 mm 3P, which was a surprise for all of us, it "looked like" RN (once) agreed that "the Bofors 40mm is the best option for dealing with fast attack boats, USV's, UAV's etc". Thinking of adopting 40mm 3P for T26 and T45 is just reasonable.

Especially, 30mm guns WAS NOT good against UAVs. As UAVs as a small airplanes with a speed "of WW-II fighter or less", proximity fuse of 40mm gun is surely a good answer there. As T45/T26 will be also confronting such UAVs, and firing CAMM against such cheap UAV is not a good option, up-arming or replacing the 30mm gun is clearly a good point to discuss (as they also have Phalanx, which is also so-so good for UAV, it is NOT urgent though).

3: Making it more complex is the US Navy/CG adoption of 30mm MSI guns. In other words, US decided that 57mm + 30mm guns is the right answer. It invoked large investments, and now there are air-burst rounds, and even proximity-fused rounds in 30 mm.

4: Yet another complexity comes from the possible LMM mounts on the 30mm MSI turret. This was trialed AFTER the 40mm selection. But, being silent for tens of months, I have an impression that the trial was NOT satisfactory. But, if the issue is just technical one and additional small amount of development cost can solve it, "5 LMM on the 30mm MSI turret" looks like another good answer.

Complex and confusing, it is.

40 mm Mk.4 turret is more powerful but heavier, complex, and more expensive than the MSI 30 mm turrets. Cost difference also holds for their ammo. With virtually hundreds of systems to be purchased for USN/USCG, 30 mm MSI turret now has a huge logistics background. 40 mm Mk.4 turrets production is less in number, but so-so sold in export (e.g. UK-T31 and Dutch/Belguim MCMVs) so not so bad. In short, BOTH is NOT bad. As I think 30 mm rounds will NOT disappear in RN (for dull usage), I think we do not need to hurry here. Let's see how it goes. Especially, we shall wait for T31's trial results?

On the other hand, replacing 4.5inch with 57mm can be done more faster. 4.5inch gun will disappear in due course, and earlier is better to release huge logistic burden to support it, I think. Not related? Yes, I think it is related. The manpower which will be release from 4.5 inch guns will be able to provide most of the required manpower to introduce 57mm and 40mm guns for T31.
These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post:
wargame_insomniac

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Donald-san
Thank you for the discussion.

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

Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 01 Oct 2022, 17:40..Therefore I have queried whether the RN should consider start swithing it's CIWS to SeaRam, with it's faster speed and longer range than Phalanx. Everytime I have been shouted down by the CAMM Brigade who just state that SeaRam and CAMM are too similar.
Supplement comment.
I do think SeaRAM coming into RN is "possible". In 1980s, RN adopted Gaolkeeper CIWS in addition to Phalanx. Recently, RN adopted 40 mm Mk4 systems in addition to 30mm guns. An overlap like Phalanx-SeaRAM-CAMM is not much different from these examples.

So, it may happen. I am just personally against it. Not saying "not going to happen".

Cheers.
These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post:
wargame_insomniac

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

Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Post by Timmymagic »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 02 Oct 2022, 04:41 4: Yet another complexity comes from the possible LMM mounts on the 30mm MSI turret. This was trialed AFTER the 40mm selection. But, being silent for tens of months, I have an impression that the trial was NOT satisfactory. But, if the issue is just technical one and additional small amount of development cost can solve it, "5 LMM on the 30mm MSI turret" looks like another good answer.
The 5 round pannier on the side of the DS-30M was a trials lash up. As was the previously exhibited 7 round pannier.

MSI have since shown a fully developed Seahawk Sigma with a far more robust and integrated 4 round launcher. I suspect as a lesson learned from the trials. Given Martlets recent success in Ukraine I wouldn't bet against it making an appearance.

New Seahawk Sigma design

Image
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 02 Oct 2022, 15:05 I do think SeaRAM coming into RN is "possible". In 1980s, RN adopted Gaolkeeper CIWS in addition to Phalanx. Recently, RN adopted 40 mm Mk4 systems in addition to 30mm guns. An overlap like Phalanx-SeaRAM-CAMM is not much different from these examples.
The RN looked at SeaRAM in 2001 and even installed it on HMS York. They didn't like it...with CAMM now in place that won't change. RIM-116 missiles are far more expensive than CAMM, and I would argue less capable, certainly in terms of range, but also in their ability in bad weather (IR in fog anyone?).

SeaRAM on HMS York for trials.

Image
These users liked the author Timmymagic for the post:
donald_of_tokyo

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

Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

We are well aware of the cross over between CAMM & RAM however for me what I would like to see is

40mm replace Phalanx on Type 45 & 26
40mm replace 30mm on RB2's
Phalanx units converted to SeaRam
All RFA ships fitted with 30mm

what SeaRam allows is the likes of the Fort Vic , Bay's , Tides , Waves & RB2's to be fitted with a stand alone missile defence system as and when needed which CAMM can't do
These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post:
wargame_insomniac

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

Timmymagic wrote: 02 Oct 2022, 16:25
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 02 Oct 2022, 15:05 I do think SeaRAM coming into RN is "possible". In 1980s, RN adopted Gaolkeeper CIWS in addition to Phalanx. Recently, RN adopted 40 mm Mk4 systems in addition to 30mm guns. An overlap like Phalanx-SeaRAM-CAMM is not much different from these examples.
The RN looked at SeaRAM in 2001 and even installed it on HMS York. They didn't like it...with CAMM now in place that won't change. RIM-116 missiles are far more expensive than CAMM, and I would argue less capable, certainly in terms of range, but also in their ability in bad weather (IR in fog anyone?).

SeaRAM on HMS York for trials.

Image
Again, at the risk of repitition, I was NOT asking whether SeaRan should replace CAMM.
I was asking should SeaRam replace Phoenix as a last ditch automated CIWS ssytem, given the higher speeds of Any Ship Missiles.
Tempest414 wrote: 02 Oct 2022, 16:37 We are well aware of the cross over between CAMM & RAM however for me what I would like to see is

40mm replace Phalanx on Type 45 & 26
40mm replace 30mm on RB2's
Phalanx units converted to SeaRam
All RFA ships fitted with 30mm

what SeaRam allows is the likes of the Fort Vic , Bay's , Tides , Waves & RB2's to be fitted with a stand alone missile defence system as and when needed which CAMM can't do
Exactly - I had used the example of San Antonio Class which do not have Mk41 VLS and thus can't use the aforementioned SM2 / SM3 / SM6 / quad packed ESSM, and thus relies on SeaRam for last ditch self defence if the enemies Anti Ship Missile barrage gets through their escorts area defence.

I agree and just think its is sensible for the likes of Albion/Argus/Bays/Tides/Waves etc to have SOME AAW defence if their RN escorts are nt available, because we know how stretched the RN escort fleet is currently.

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

Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

And of course, don't forget the Carriers either.

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

Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Albion could be the odd one out as they have a 3d radar and could maybe be given something like a army CAMM pallet

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

Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Post by Timmymagic »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 02 Oct 2022, 18:22 Again, at the risk of repitition, I was NOT asking whether SeaRan should replace CAMM.
I was asking should SeaRam replace Phoenix as a last ditch automated CIWS ssytem, given the higher speeds of Any Ship Missiles.
Each RIM-116 is over $1.4m each. SeaRAM holds 11. So straight away you're looking at around £14m just in missiles. Just to fill the launchers. Add in the conversion costs of an existing Phalanx mount and I'd wager you'd get little change from £25m per equipped unit. And thats before we get to the costs of introducing an entirely new system with spares, maintenance, training, documentation, tactics etc. into the system. And remember we have to buy all of that in cold, hard USD...which is an issue at the moment...

Most of our ships that are equipped with Phalanx have the CMS and Radar necessary to have CAMM installed, if they don't have it already. CAMM is ITAR Free (i.e. no US parts) , supports the UK economy, is in the RN's training and maintenance system already. And any further buys of the system contribute to the shared stockpile that is maintained for RN and Army use. The same applies to the radar and CMS. It's also superior to RIM-116.

So the question should be...for the limited number of ships that do not have the necessary CMS and radar to support CAMM would it make sense to introduce an entirely new and expensive system. The ships that that covers at present are the Tide Class and Bay Class. Fort Vic and the Albion Class have the CMS and Radar necessary for CAMM already.

So 7 ships in total. £25m per system....£175m. By the time you've purchased additional missiles for training and stockpile, training, support contract, maintenance etc. you won't be getting any change from £300 million....For that money you could upgrade the CMS, add Artisan and a 12 round CAMM launcher on each ship easily...The CMS and Radar would have other uses all the time, not just in combat, and the ships could also offer protection to nearby ships with CAMM.....plus they'd still have a 20mm Phalanx as a back up...an upgrade path to CAMM-ER and, potentially, a navalised LPS missile.

CAMM, Artisan, upgraded CMS AND Phalanx....or SeaRAM on its own....I know what I'd pick.
These users liked the author Timmymagic for the post (total 3):
donald_of_tokyoScimitar54jimthelad

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

Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Timmymagic wrote: 03 Oct 2022, 14:10Each RIM-116 is over $1.4m each. SeaRAM holds 11. So straight away you're looking at around £14m just in missiles. Just to fill the launchers. Add in the conversion costs of an existing Phalanx mount and I'd wager you'd get little change from £25m per equipped unit. And thats before we get to the costs of introducing an entirely new system with spares, maintenance, training, documentation, tactics etc. into the system. And remember we have to buy all of that in cold, hard USD...which is an issue at the moment...

Most of our ships that are equipped with Phalanx have the CMS and Radar necessary to have CAMM installed, if they don't have it already. CAMM is ITAR Free (i.e. no US parts) , supports the UK economy, is in the RN's training and maintenance system already. And any further buys of the system contribute to the shared stockpile that is maintained for RN and Army use. The same applies to the radar and CMS. It's also superior to RIM-116.

So the question should be...for the limited number of ships that do not have the necessary CMS and radar to support CAMM would it make sense to introduce an entirely new and expensive system. The ships that that covers at present are the Tide Class and Bay Class. Fort Vic and the Albion Class have the CMS and Radar necessary for CAMM already.

So 7 ships in total. £25m per system....£175m. By the time you've purchased additional missiles for training and stockpile, training, support contract, maintenance etc. you won't be getting any change from £300 million....For that money you could upgrade the CMS, add Artisan and a 12 round CAMM launcher on each ship easily...The CMS and Radar would have other uses all the time, not just in combat, and the ships could also offer protection to nearby ships with CAMM.....plus they'd still have a 20mm Phalanx as a back up...

CAMM, Artisan, upgraded CMS AND Phalanx....or SeaRAM on its own....I know what I'd pick.
Impressive argument. :thumbup:

By the way, if there are money, how about developing a SeaCeptor-lite. A POD concept with minimum analysis power, 6-to-12 cell CAMM launcher, and a simple short-range radar (even re-using that on Phalanx). No local area air defense capability. Just work similar to SeaRAM, but using CAMM?

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

Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Only the Albion class have the 3D radar capable of operating CAMM and this would have to be patched into a standalone army CAMM pallet

The Bay's , Tides , Waves , RB-2's would all need a 3D radar and CMS upgrade / install to use CAMM

Did Fort Vic get a radar upgrade as I said before she is the odd one out as she did have a 3D radar and space for Seawolf so could get a Type 23 style upgrade

Know one said SeaRam is cheap but it dose allow is all the ships that currently carry Phalanx to carry a missile defence system without any other work carried out to the ship
These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post:
donald_of_tokyo

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

Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Post by Timmymagic »

Tempest414 wrote: 03 Oct 2022, 14:50 Only the Albion class have the 3D radar capable of operating CAMM and this would have to be patched into a standalone army CAMM pallet

The Bay's , Tides , Waves , RB-2's would all need a 3D radar and CMS upgrade / install to use CAMM

Did Fort Vic get a radar upgrade as I said before she is the odd one out as she did have a 3D radar and space for Seawolf so could get a Type 23 style upgrade

Know one said SeaRam is cheap but it dose allow is all the ships that currently carry Phalanx to carry a missile defence system without any other work carried out to the ship
Fort Vic got Artisan.

The Bays and Tides would need a CMS upgrade and Artisan to use CAMM.

Waves and River Batch 2 do not carry Phalanx/are laid up...with no spare Phalanx to equip them with if they were active or it was desired to be fitted so the question is moot. In fact it would be even worse as you'd need to purchase entirely new SeaRAM/Phalanx in order to have enough to fit them....even more cost. Again CAMM with CMS and Artisan would be cheaper.

SeaRAM was around for a while before it got a customer. That was the USN. But even then it was only for very limited use cases, and thats for a Navy with RIM-116 and Phalanx already in service, and with no missile like CAMM that could be fitted. The fitting of ESSM is a far more complex affair. For the USN it made marginal sense for a limited number of platforms, but is clearly seen as not as effective as the full Mk.49 launcher.

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

Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Post by Timmymagic »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 03 Oct 2022, 14:47 By the way, if there are money, how about developing a SeaCeptor-lite. A POD concept with minimum analysis power, 6-to-12 cell CAMM launcher, and a simple short-range radar (even re-using that on Phalanx). No local area air defense capability. Just work similar to SeaRAM, but using CAMM?
To be honest I'd rather there be some focus on a cheaper interceptor missile for UAV's/Loitering Munitions that could be packed in CAMM cells. Someting like the Denel Cheetah.
These users liked the author Timmymagic for the post:
Poiuytrewq

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

Re: Royal Navy Gunnery Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

The other to deal with UAV's and loiter weapons is to fit all RFA's with triple 40mm Mk-4's

Post Reply