Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

For me, if we want a greater density as well as increased numbers of Sea Ceptor on our Escorts, then the ExLS system in both its stand alone and Mk41 VLS insert could be seen as the way forward. The Mk41 VLS in theory gives our vessels greater flexibility in the future whilst the stand alone version at least doubles the density of any Sea Ceptors missiles installed on a ship as well as greater options as to where they are fitted. The latter system may also facilitate a containerised version of Sea Ceptor allowing its use on vessels such as RFAs which are not normally fitted with the system.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Timmymagic »

Lord Jim wrote: 06 Oct 2022, 19:41 For me, if we want a greater density as well as increased numbers of Sea Ceptor on our Escorts, then the ExLS system in both its stand alone and Mk41 VLS insert could be seen as the way forward. The Mk41 VLS in theory gives our vessels greater flexibility in the future whilst the stand alone version at least doubles the density of any Sea Ceptors missiles installed on a ship as well as greater options as to where they are fitted. The latter system may also facilitate a containerised version of Sea Ceptor allowing its use on vessels such as RFAs which are not normally fitted with the system.
Why waste an expensive Mk41 slot for the additional cost of ExLS on top?

In 10+years of ExLS there is now 1 customer in total for it...the RCN for their Type 26 derivative, and that might only be because LM is the Prime Contractor.... By the time its in service ExLS will have been around for 20 years with no operational use. Thats not a great advertisement for the concept...

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

Timmymagic wrote: 07 Oct 2022, 15:25
Lord Jim wrote: 06 Oct 2022, 19:41 For me, if we want a greater density as well as increased numbers of Sea Ceptor on our Escorts, then the ExLS system in both its stand alone and Mk41 VLS insert could be seen as the way forward. The Mk41 VLS in theory gives our vessels greater flexibility in the future whilst the stand alone version at least doubles the density of any Sea Ceptors missiles installed on a ship as well as greater options as to where they are fitted. The latter system may also facilitate a containerised version of Sea Ceptor allowing its use on vessels such as RFAs which are not normally fitted with the system.
Why waste an expensive Mk41 slot for the additional cost of ExLS on top?

In 10+years of ExLS there is now 1 customer in total for it...the RCN for their Type 26 derivative, and that might only be because LM is the Prime Contractor.... By the time its in service ExLS will have been around for 20 years with no operational use. Thats not a great advertisement for the concept...
Because it allows the ship to have Mk41 flexiblity, while CAMM is in use but change to other missiles when needed. This can’t be done if you have stand alone ExLS or mushrooms and on a AAW that will be around till 2070 odd that flexiblity will be needed.

As for ExLS lack of sales, there hasn’t been much missile wise that could be used in them until CAMM / CAMM-ER now it just looks stupid to use mushroom Lurnchers taking up far more room giving you less missiles for CAMM over ExLS, and can only be justified by cost abd the fact the RN has loads going from the T23s.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

What missiles beyond camm or future variants of it are we acquiring that requires mk41 systems? If nsm or equivalent is being bought surely it will be canister launched like everyone else who’s bought it.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Jake1992 wrote: 07 Oct 2022, 15:54
Timmymagic wrote: 07 Oct 2022, 15:25
Lord Jim wrote: 06 Oct 2022, 19:41 For me, if we want a greater density as well as increased numbers of Sea Ceptor on our Escorts, then the ExLS system in both its stand alone and Mk41 VLS insert could be seen as the way forward. The Mk41 VLS in theory gives our vessels greater flexibility in the future whilst the stand alone version at least doubles the density of any Sea Ceptors missiles installed on a ship as well as greater options as to where they are fitted. The latter system may also facilitate a containerised version of Sea Ceptor allowing its use on vessels such as RFAs which are not normally fitted with the system.
Why waste an expensive Mk41 slot for the additional cost of ExLS on top?

In 10+years of ExLS there is now 1 customer in total for it...the RCN for their Type 26 derivative, and that might only be because LM is the Prime Contractor.... By the time its in service ExLS will have been around for 20 years with no operational use. Thats not a great advertisement for the concept...
Because it allows the ship to have Mk41 flexiblity, while CAMM is in use but change to other missiles when needed. This can’t be done if you have stand alone ExLS or mushrooms and on a AAW that will be around till 2070 odd that flexiblity will be needed.

As for ExLS lack of sales, there hasn’t been much missile wise that could be used in them until CAMM / CAMM-ER now it just looks stupid to use mushroom Lurnchers taking up far more room giving you less missiles for CAMM over ExLS, and can only be justified by cost abd the fact the RN has loads going from the T23s.
What make thinga complex is, the mushroom VLS is SO simple.

1: In case of Mk.41 option, we have
-1A Mk.41 cells,
-1B ExLS cells installed,
-1C and then CAMM canister installed.

2: Mushroom VLS has
- a simple steel pole and the CAMM canister

In view of flexibility, having Mk41 is good. But, installing ExLS and CAMM within it takes similar effort to putting the mushroom systems "elsewhere in the hull". I am not sure which is better, because in the latter option, we can have "CAMM AND other missiles", while the former option is "CAMM OR other missiles", while the effort looks not much different.

But (again) putting the mushroom systems "elsewhere in the hull" is not always easy, because you need over-the-top clearance.

I think this is the reason this debate has no answer. Both is valid. For me, it looks like just a matter of choice. For relatively large ships like T26, T31 and T45, I think (personally), independent mushroom VLS in addition to possible Mk.41 VLS will be the way forward...

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Timmymagic »

SW1 wrote: 07 Oct 2022, 16:04 What missiles beyond camm or future variants of it are we acquiring that requires mk41 systems? If nsm or equivalent is being bought surely it will be canister launched like everyone else who’s bought it.
Thats the thing...nothing at present.

And the options now and in the future aren't that great...

- We're not going to buy into the Standard Missile lineup whilst we have Aster...nor should we in the future.
- We're not going to buy ESSM whilst we have CAMM with CAMM-ER and CAMM-LR on the way...
- We're not going to buy LRASM instead of FCASW...
- NSM is better in the canistered variant as it can be switched to different ship classes from a shared stockpile...
- ASROC is ridiculously short ranged and out dated with an inferior torpedo mounted (Mk.54), we'd be better with MBDA MILAS with Stingray attached...again canisterised..so switchable to other platforms easily like NSM...twice the range, European, and uses our existing Stingray stockpile...

The only 2 missiles that could interest us and be useful are...

- SM-3...but its that expensive that we're not going to buy it...for UK protection it would be better mounted on land anyway...and besides...we've not put Mk.41 on Type 45 which could use SM-3...its on Type 26..
- Tomahawk...which will leave production at some point, there will also be a superior FCASW stealthy long ranged missile...and we only have a stockpile of 65 at present, so its not like we will suddenly fill our VL tubes with them...

And thats it folks...thats all the currently integrated, or planned to be integrated, missiles for the Mk.41 VLS...

There are a couple of minor points in Mk.41's favour though...but there are massive drawbacks to those...

- Widen's the potential for MBDA missile sales to Mk.41 users if weapons are developed to be compatible...BUT....opens up the UK market to US competition at the expense of a sovereign capability...if MBDA want it to be Mk.41 capable just qualify it seperately...
- Could allow US developments in Hypersonics to be added as a capability....BUT...we've also heard the head of the RN and SoS describe hypersonic capabilities as a critical development for UK defence industry and sovereign capability, buying US kit would stymie that at birth...

Basically I don't think there is anyone in the RN or MoD who could give a coherent answer as to why we have placed Mk.41 VLS on Type 26 at the very least, or why we are getting it at all...its a complete waste of time. And thats why...despite the Type 26 being 5 years away from sea trials that we have not ordered a single missile that can be fired from Mk.41....because they don't know why they've picked it either...

Love to hear others thoughts, particularly which weapons we'll be putting in it and why that would be a better idea than the above....

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 07 Oct 2022, 17:02
Jake1992 wrote: 07 Oct 2022, 15:54
Timmymagic wrote: 07 Oct 2022, 15:25
Lord Jim wrote: 06 Oct 2022, 19:41 For me, if we want a greater density as well as increased numbers of Sea Ceptor on our Escorts, then the ExLS system in both its stand alone and Mk41 VLS insert could be seen as the way forward. The Mk41 VLS in theory gives our vessels greater flexibility in the future whilst the stand alone version at least doubles the density of any Sea Ceptors missiles installed on a ship as well as greater options as to where they are fitted. The latter system may also facilitate a containerised version of Sea Ceptor allowing its use on vessels such as RFAs which are not normally fitted with the system.
Why waste an expensive Mk41 slot for the additional cost of ExLS on top?

In 10+years of ExLS there is now 1 customer in total for it...the RCN for their Type 26 derivative, and that might only be because LM is the Prime Contractor.... By the time its in service ExLS will have been around for 20 years with no operational use. Thats not a great advertisement for the concept...
Because it allows the ship to have Mk41 flexiblity, while CAMM is in use but change to other missiles when needed. This can’t be done if you have stand alone ExLS or mushrooms and on a AAW that will be around till 2070 odd that flexiblity will be needed.

As for ExLS lack of sales, there hasn’t been much missile wise that could be used in them until CAMM / CAMM-ER now it just looks stupid to use mushroom Lurnchers taking up far more room giving you less missiles for CAMM over ExLS, and can only be justified by cost abd the fact the RN has loads going from the T23s.
What make thinga complex is, the mushroom VLS is SO simple.

1: In case of Mk.41 option, we have
-1A Mk.41 cells,
-1B ExLS cells installed,
-1C and then CAMM canister installed.

2: Mushroom VLS has
- a simple steel pole and the CAMM canister

In view of flexibility, having Mk41 is good. But, installing ExLS and CAMM within it takes similar effort to putting the mushroom systems "elsewhere in the hull". I am not sure which is better, because in the latter option, we can have "CAMM AND other missiles", while the former option is "CAMM OR other missiles", while the effort looks not much different.

But (again) putting the mushroom systems "elsewhere in the hull" is not always easy, because you need over-the-top clearance.

I think this is the reason this debate has no answer. Both is valid. For me, it looks like just a matter of choice. For relatively large ships like T26, T31 and T45, I think (personally), independent mushroom VLS in addition to possible Mk.41 VLS will be the way forward...
While ExLS do add complexity over mushrooms they give the benifit of great missile density ie more missiles in the same area taken.

The idea that ExLS Mk41 inserts take away from other missiles is only valid if the CAMMs can be placed else where. The best way to look at this is the current T26 lay out, what we have is 24 Mk41 with 24 mushrooms forward of these and 24 mushrooms mid ship.

Now EsLS inserts of take away from other missiles if they were placed in the 24 mk41 while taking away the mushrooms but not if the forward mushrooms were replaced with mk41 first, in this case you gain the flexiblity with out lose to other missiles. Down side it cost more and adds compexity.

The other answer is you could remove all the mushrooms leaving the forward space free for extra Mk41s and replace the mid ship with 12 stand alone ExLS. This gives the same current load out while free up space for growth.

What I’m getting at over all is the ExSL stand alone give greater over all capacity pretty much anywhere on a ship over mushrooms and the ExLS inserts give us the ability to use CAMM / CAMM-ER in an all Mk41 set such as the T83 most likely will be.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Timmymagic wrote: 07 Oct 2022, 17:26
SW1 wrote: 07 Oct 2022, 16:04 What missiles beyond camm or future variants of it are we acquiring that requires mk41 systems? If nsm or equivalent is being bought surely it will be canister launched like everyone else who’s bought it.
Thats the thing...nothing at present.

And the options now and in the future aren't that great...

- We're not going to buy into the Standard Missile lineup whilst we have Aster...nor should we in the future.
- We're not going to buy ESSM whilst we have CAMM with CAMM-ER and CAMM-LR on the way...
- We're not going to buy LRASM instead of FCASW...
- NSM is better in the canistered variant as it can be switched to different ship classes from a shared stockpile...
- ASROC is ridiculously short ranged and out dated with an inferior torpedo mounted (Mk.54), we'd be better with MBDA MILAS with Stingray attached...again canisterised..so switchable to other platforms easily like NSM...twice the range, European, and uses our existing Stingray stockpile...

The only 2 missiles that could interest us and be useful are...

- SM-3...but its that expensive that we're not going to buy it...for UK protection it would be better mounted on land anyway...and besides...we've not put Mk.41 on Type 45 which could use SM-3...its on Type 26..
- Tomahawk...which will leave production at some point, there will also be a superior FCASW stealthy long ranged missile...and we only have a stockpile of 65 at present, so its not like we will suddenly fill our VL tubes with them...

And thats it folks...thats all the currently integrated, or planned to be integrated, missiles for the Mk.41 VLS...

There are a couple of minor points in Mk.41's favour though...but there are massive drawbacks to those...

- Widen's the potential for MBDA missile sales to Mk.41 users if weapons are developed to be compatible...BUT....opens up the UK market to US competition at the expense of a sovereign capability...if MBDA want it to be Mk.41 capable just qualify it seperately...
- Could allow US developments in Hypersonics to be added as a capability....BUT...we've also heard the head of the RN and SoS describe hypersonic capabilities as a critical development for UK defence industry and sovereign capability, buying US kit would stymie that at birth...

Basically I don't think there is anyone in the RN or MoD who could give a coherent answer as to why we have placed Mk.41 VLS on Type 26 at the very least, or why we are getting it at all...its a complete waste of time. And thats why...despite the Type 26 being 5 years away from sea trials that we have not ordered a single missile that can be fired from Mk.41....because they don't know why they've picked it either...

Love to hear others thoughts, particularly which weapons we'll be putting in it and why that would be a better idea than the above....
Indeed and with the success of camm it’s launching method and agnostic nature you would think we would try to replicate that going fwd.

Tomahawk back in the day was canister launched and when you think of the cost of hypersonic style replacements and a desire for long range land systems in the army you would think a canister type system for such weapons that can be placed on a truck or ship may make economic sense.
These users liked the author SW1 for the post:
Timmymagic

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1411
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

Jake1992 wrote: 07 Oct 2022, 15:54As for ExLS lack of sales, there hasn’t been much missile wise that could be used in them until CAMM / CAMM-ER now it just looks stupid to use mushroom Lurnchers taking up far more room giving you less missiles for CAMM over ExLS, and can only be justified by cost abd the fact the RN has loads going from the T23s.
The choice of mushroom launchers has nothing to do with recovering anything from T23 the old seawolf tubes just provide a useful way of moounting the CAMM container and it's seagoing mushroom cap.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Timmymagic »

tomuk wrote: 07 Oct 2022, 18:46 The choice of mushroom launchers has nothing to do with recovering anything from T23 the old seawolf tubes just provide a useful way of moounting the CAMM container and it's seagoing mushroom cap.
Ultimately its a safe, well protected installation. New Zealand could have gone for an ExLS solution on the ANZAC MLU's, but went for the mushroom farm as well...

And they could have re-used the existing 8 cell Mk.41 installation...with ExLS.

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1411
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

Timmymagic wrote: 07 Oct 2022, 19:55
tomuk wrote: 07 Oct 2022, 18:46 The choice of mushroom launchers has nothing to do with recovering anything from T23 the old seawolf tubes just provide a useful way of moounting the CAMM container and it's seagoing mushroom cap.
Ultimately its a safe, well protected installation. New Zealand could have gone for an ExLS solution on the ANZAC MLU's, but went for the mushroom farm as well...
The point I'm trying to make is although outwardly the same the T23 mushroom farm bears no relation to that fitted to the NZ Anzacs or more to the point the T26/T31/Albatross mushroom farm. The mushroom is just a weatherproof cap on top of the CAMM canister underdeck all you have is a frame like Land Ceptor.
Image

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

SW1 wrote: 07 Oct 2022, 16:04 What missiles beyond camm or future variants of it are we acquiring that requires mk41 systems? If nsm or equivalent is being bought surely it will be canister launched like everyone else who’s bought it.
So if we had CAMM and NSM, we would have short range AAW and one of the cheaper but shorter ranged Anti-Ship Missiles. (not for nothing is USN putting NSM mainly on their LCS).

We would still be lacking any medium range AAW, any longer range Anti-Ship Missiles, any land attack cruise missiles and any Anti-Submarine Missiles.

At a time when we are seemingly loosing any ASW torpedoes on our frigates, so if we had a sonar contact would have to scramble an ASW helicopter, wiat for it to get in range of the smoar contact and then hope that the enemy sup had nt like moved in the meantime or more seriously shot off a torpedo at our frigate....

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 07 Oct 2022, 22:31
SW1 wrote: 07 Oct 2022, 16:04 What missiles beyond camm or future variants of it are we acquiring that requires mk41 systems? If nsm or equivalent is being bought surely it will be canister launched like everyone else who’s bought it.
So if we had CAMM and NSM, we would have short range AAW and one of the cheaper but shorter ranged Anti-Ship Missiles. (not for nothing is USN putting NSM mainly on their LCS).

We would still be lacking any medium range AAW, any longer range Anti-Ship Missiles, any land attack cruise missiles and any Anti-Submarine Missiles.

At a time when we are seemingly loosing any ASW torpedoes on our frigates, so if we had a sonar contact would have to scramble an ASW helicopter, wiat for it to get in range of the smoar contact and then hope that the enemy sup had nt like moved in the meantime or more seriously shot off a torpedo at our frigate....
There is longer range variants of the camm missile I assume we will purchase it. The NSM has a land attack capability I believe and I thought they are also to arm the American constellation class?.

Do we have anti submarine missiles? A single ship won’t be fighting subs on there own if you are at the sinking sun stages it will be task group operations and why there is req for 9 asw merlins in the group to provide continuous presence. the people that do it say if you’ve got to the stage of needing to fire ship launches torpedos something has gone terribly wrong.

If you want very long range missile why can they not also be in a canister? They have been in the past may even call them a navy pod these days
These users liked the author SW1 for the post:
Timmymagic

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Timmymagic wrote: 07 Oct 2022, 17:26
SW1 wrote: 07 Oct 2022, 16:04 What missiles beyond camm or future variants of it are we acquiring that requires mk41 systems? If nsm or equivalent is being bought surely it will be canister launched like everyone else who’s bought it.
Thats the thing...nothing at present.
FC/ASW is designed to be integrated with Mk.41 VLS, to my understanding.
...
- ASROC is ridiculously short ranged and out dated with an inferior torpedo mounted (Mk.54), we'd be better with MBDA MILAS with Stingray attached...again canisterised..so switchable to other platforms easily like NSM...twice the range, European, and uses our existing Stingray stockpile...
There are several types of ASROC-like. For example, VL-ASROC has a range of 9 nm (or 17 km), which is enough I think? South Korea had their ASROC, and Japan has our own Type-07 ASROC with Mach-2 speed and 17 nm (30 km) range. If newly integrating Stingray is needed, there are plenty of options.

However, I think RN is aiming at drones to used to deliver torpedoes, and I think it is not a bad idea.
The only 2 missiles that could interest us and be useful are...
- SM-3...
- Tomahawk...which will leave production at some point, there will also be a superior FCASW stealthy long ranged missile...and we only have a stockpile of 65 at present, so its not like we will suddenly fill our VL tubes with them...
Why not Tomahawk?

(ref; seapowermagazine.org/navy-orders-tomahawk-cruise-missiles-for-marine-corps-army)
Raytheon Missiles and Defense, ...was awarded a $217.1 million fixed-price-incentive, firm-fixed-price contract for 154 full-rate production Block V Tactical Tomahawk All-Up Round Vertical Launch System missiles, including 70 for the Navy, 54 for the Marine Corps, and 30 for the Army, the Defense Department said May 24 2022. ... scheduled to be delivered by 2025.

If we can order next year, it will be delivered on 2026, exactly when T26 hull1 and 2 need them.

- Tomahawk eventually replaced (hopefully on mid-2030s *) by FC/ASW long-range version.
- Hypersonic FC/ASW version (hopefully on mid-2030s *)
(- If needed, some Japanese Type-07 mod (with Stingrey) ASROC)

In short, all land-attack or ship-attack missiles. That will well explain why it is only 24 cells there. If used for land-attack, 24 is not so large a number.

* they say, 2027, 2028 or something like that. But, being very new, at least the hypersonic ones will need another 10 years to be available.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

tomuk wrote: 07 Oct 2022, 20:05The point I'm trying to make is although outwardly the same the T23 mushroom farm bears no relation to that fitted to the NZ Anzacs or more to the point the T26/T31/Albatross mushroom farm. The mushroom is just a weatherproof cap on top of the CAMM canister underdeck all you have is a frame like Land Ceptor.
If we look at how LandCeptor are launched, they are using the truck chassis if self as the shock absorber. In other words, when one CAMM is launched, remaining 7 CAMM experiences the reaction. This means, it is very easy to develop a quad-canister system sharing a single shock absorber. May be also sharing the top cap.

With this I really hope RN develop a higher-density simple VLS system for SeaCeptor, say, replacing the 6-cell module with 12-cell one. How about 4-raws of triple canister? Like, 3x4 in place of 2x3?



Image

Meriv9
Member
Posts: 185
Joined: 05 Feb 2016, 00:19
Italy

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Meriv9 »

just in case, relative to the Italian mention few days ago, I'm not sure but I'm 90% confident the MMI ditched the CAMM-ER, the Navy is sticking only to the Sylver launchers and Asters.

Jdam
Member
Posts: 923
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:26
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jdam »

Are you saying CAMM-ER has been cancelled?

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Timmymagic »

Jdam wrote: 11 Oct 2022, 14:51 Are you saying CAMM-ER has been cancelled?
Might be for Italy (no idea on that) but its already got export sales so it will still exist as a system.

Jdam
Member
Posts: 923
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:26
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jdam »

The export of the CAMM-ER was always a bit fuzzy for me, was Pakistan confirmed to be getting CAMM-ER? I remember its being hush hush at the time for some reason.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

isn't Italy also looking to use the land based version?

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5557
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

maybe this is why Poland and the UK are taking over CAMM ER/ LR

Jdam
Member
Posts: 923
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:26
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jdam »

Good point, it did seem like we were reinventing the wheel with the agreement with Poland when CAMM ER was a thing.

From the article it did say.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/britain ... -together/
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.
We really need a bit more information.

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Timmymagic »

Just opened a new thread in the British Army section for the MBDA Land Precision Strike missile...that should also have some relevance here...

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

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Timmymagic »

Jdam wrote: 11 Oct 2022, 16:10 The export of the CAMM-ER was always a bit fuzzy for me, was Pakistan confirmed to be getting CAMM-ER? I remember its being hush hush at the time for some reason.
Yes Pakistan Navy.
Lord Jim wrote: 11 Oct 2022, 17:31 isn't Italy also looking to use the land based version?
Yes Italian Army and Air Force are purchasing it.
Tempest414 wrote: 11 Oct 2022, 18:21 maybe this is why Poland and the UK are taking over CAMM ER/ LR
Everything points to a new missile with even longer range. With CAMM-ER staying as a seperate Italian led system. Polish defence commentators have been very clear on this. A 'CAMM-LR' or 'EX'. The suspicion is that Poland will now use CAMM with its Pilica system to defence Patriot batteries alongside 35mm AA guns and Piorun MANPADS, seperate standalone CAMM-ER batteries and CAMM-LR integrated with its Patriot, alongside PAC-3 missiles, as a cheaper interceptor missile (than PAC-3). Quite an arsenal to say the least...

I do wonder if this is MBDA UK seeing MBDA Italy getting some traction with CAMM-ER and thinking they'd have some of that...fantastic news for the RN and British Army as well...
These users liked the author Timmymagic for the post:
wargame_insomniac

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

Naval News reported October 10th that SEA has won £34 million contract from the RN for upgrading T23 LWT launchers to next generation capability with fixed barrel system and new countermeasures kit for T23/T45 and Albion.

Have seen comments to the effect that LWT not worth fitting to frigates but it appears RN takes different view, no mention LWT will be fitted to the T31 OPV and T26 frigate?

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... -contract/

Post Reply