MBDA UK has been awarded an 11-year contract to integrate the Common Anti-Air Modular Missile, often referred to as Sea Ceptor, into the Type 45 destroyers’ Sea Viper weapon systems.
In addition to this, a 10-year contract with Eurosam will provide a refresh of the Aster 30 missiles that are currently in use, say the Ministry of Defence.
MBDA also say on their website:
“The work will see CAMM (Sea Ceptor) paired with an upgraded Sea Viper command and control (C2) system for the first time. CAMM offers both world-leading close-in and local-area air defence, and will complement Aster 30, strengthening the anti-air defence capability of the Royal Navy. Fitting CAMM onto the Type 45s will give the destroyers a 50% increase in the number of its air defence missiles. Installation will be via 24 additional launcher cells, and the Sea Viper C2 will get a technology upgrade, giving it a major increase in processing power. The existing 48 Sylver cells on the Type 45 will now be solely for the longer-range Aster 30 missile, which is also subject to a recently announced mid-life refresh. This will see the missile remain in service throughout the life of the Type 45s.”
Minister for Defence Procurement, Jeremy Quin was quoted here as saying:
“Enhancing our destroyer capabilities, this investment reaffirms our commitment to equip the Royal Navy with the most advanced and powerful defensive systems. This upgrade ensures the Type 45 remains hugely respected by naval fleets across the globe and secures highly-skilled jobs and investment.”
The MoD add that currently, the Type 45 destroyers use a combination of short-range Aster 15 and long-range Aster 30 anti-air missiles to engage and destroy enemy threats.
To facilitate the introduction of Sea Ceptor (CAMM), a new 24-missile silo will be added in front of the current 48-missile Aster 30 silos, therefore increasing the overall missile capacity of the vessels by 50 per cent.
This will result in a total capacity of 72 anti-air missiles per destroyer.
“These programmes will provide an exceptional capability to the front line, ensuring the RN remains poised to defend the surface fleet, and most importantly the Carrier Strike Group, against complex air threats both now and into the future.”
DE&S CEO Sir Simon Bollom said:
“The introduction of the UK produced CAMM missile in conjunction with the current Aster 30 missile will provide the Type 45 with a significant uplift in anti-air capability into the future as the Type 45 delivers the backbone of air defence to the Royal Navy’s Carrier Strike Group.”
The Ministry of Defence say that Sea Ceptor also provides a means to accurately and effectively engage small, fast inshore attack craft, hovering helicopters and low-speed targets alongside defeating their more traditional high-speed air targets.
“The Aster 30 missile system refresh is a tri-national sustainment and enhancement contract between the UK, France and Italy which includes investment in a dedicated UK embodiment facility at Defence Munitions in Gosport, Hampshire. The Royal Navy’s Type 45 destroyers are among the most advanced in the fleet and carry out a range of activity, including defence from air attack, counter-piracy operations and providing humanitarian aid.”
The first Type 45 destroyer is expected to have been overhauled by summer 2026, you can read more here.
Recently, we also reported that MBDA had been awarded a contract to equip the Brazilian Navy’s new Tamandaré-class frigates with the Sea Ceptor air defence missile system.
You can read more about this at the link above or by clicking here.
In service on upgraded Royal Navy Type 23 frigates, Sea Ceptor will also be fitted to Type 26 and Type 31 in the future. MBDA say that the system has proven a rapid success with international customers, with Canada and Brazil among the new users ordering the missile this year.
Presumably this is an acknowledgement of the threat posed by saturation attacks?
Without a doubt Ian, plus the need to demonstrate the RN’s determination not to be mugged by Russian and Chinses naval vessels deploying countless drones. The drone is the future fear factor as it acts remotely and without compassion, plus the possibility it will be terrorists and so-called liberation groups’ weapon of choice. In addition, I welcome the weapon upgrades to the 45’s resulting in turning them into truly heavy-weight warships. By the time these 45’s are out of service, they will be formidable vessels and a tall order to replace?
and maybe if the additional 16 vls are added if the financial situation (possibly after the production of the frigates) allows then these will be a truly formidable vessels, maybe comparable to the likes of the segon the great class or the arleigh burke or dare i say even better then them.
Are these a Mk41 system?, so could integrate other modules in the future? Plus, why not do this whilst they are completing the upgrades to the power/propulsion system issues, and are already out of the fleet for upgrades?
No Sea Ceptor uses a soft launch system – does not need a hot launch VLS like Mk 41 or Sylver. I hope the T45’s Sylver 50s will all be used for long range Aster 30 1NT/2 with ABM capability, and maybe CAMM ER, while Sea Ceptor provides protection for the launch vessel. Short ranged Aster 15 will be phased out.
wait does that mean that the type 31s won’t have mk 41?
They never where going to have mk41’s.
It’s my understanding that while the Aster 30NT is under consideration the Aster30 block 2 would be too big for the Sylver 50’s launch cell’s
I think that it is likely to be the GWS-35 / mushroom farm silos, so little chance of integrating new missiles in the future. Shame but the up lift in AA fire power is welcome.
Cheers CR
It’s a massive uplift. It appears that that RN is also switching its Aster 15’s into Aster 30’s (just a change of booster, no change to missile). This effectively doubles the Type 45’s (and the RN’s) long range firepower and missile stocks. CAMM handles the shorter range engagements…now if they only hadd CAMM-ER as well it would mean mid range totally covered without using Aster 30’s.
Hi Rudeboy,
I had an discussion with Gunbuster recently about this GWS-35 VLS the RN has gone with. I see it as a developmental deadend because no other major navy has bought the system (New Zealand and I think Chile have bought it). Apparently, it can take the CAMM-ER cannister if it is lengthened and the deck mountings are strengthened. Should be possible for a new future installation but I would not be surprised to hear we stick with the standard GWS-35 / CAMM combo while everyone else moves to the CAMM-ER / Sylver or ExLS combination.
Another thought that occured to me is that the VLS control boxes fitted to standard VLS are deisgned to be programmed to take different weapons – I doubt the GWS-35 control boxes have the same capability without some additional work / cost.
The upgrade is welcome and very good news but even then our decision makers manage to miss oportunities by ignoring the need for building in flexibility and adaptability, really drives me mad with frustration.
Penny pinchers rule OK, grrr!
Cheers CR
Depends what you classify as mid range as the standard CAMM has almost the range of the old sea dart system. Close to 20+ miles isnt it?. Seems pretty medium ranged to me.
IRL you might have been able to get the Dart missile out to 80 miles but the missile would have had reduced kinetic energy and be beyond the limits of the control system to hit an evasive target.
CAMM has, I suspect, as somewhat longer range than is advertised and range tends to creep up with upgrades over time.
CAMM-ER will have pretty much the same kill range as Dart did and be much more lethal. It will be interesting to see if the slightly longer tubes needed for ER are fitted. I *assume* that ER length tubes can have the standard CAMM in them?
That said there are sound logistical reasons why you would want one single missile type across the fleet. That way you can have a decent stockpile of essentially two missile types ASTER30 and CAMM rather than splitting the stockpile down to ASTER15/30 and CAMM/CAMM-ER.
Anyway fantastic upgrade much needed.
GWS-35 is the RN designation for the Sea Ceptor system, it is not a silo. It will be the same 24 silo pack as being fitted to Type 26. The ‘mushrooms’ poke above deck on the T-23 because CAMM is longer than Sea Wolf and the soft-launch system has a piston to accomodate. They will be flush on Type 26, Type 31 and Type 45.
Hi James,
I realise that, but the RN GWS-35 has its own specialist VLS i.e. the VLS that is being fitted to the T26 and T31. The Sea Viper uses the Sylver VLS and the USN puts Standard SAM’s into their standard VLS e.g. MK41. These VLS are not weapon system / missile specific. The GWS-35 VLS apparently is missile specific. A discussion I had with Gunbuster recently confirmed this, if I have understood his comments correctly.
I am a great believer in flexibility and standardisation, so putting CAMM and CAMM-ER into say a ExLS VLS has real long term benefits, for example, MBDA have already proposed SPEAR 3 quadpacked into ExLS…
The RN is going into the SCS soon. China commissioned 18x type 056A corvettes last year alone and they have 72 such vessels in service, each one armed with 4 heavy weight anti ship missiles. So I would suggest that a quadpackable VLS with either CAMM / CAMM-ER and or SPEAR 3 would be a good future proofing move.
Don’t get me wrong. This up lift is good news. 72 missiles isn’t too shabby, but it could have been more, with future flexibility expansion built in. It is the kind of penny pinching short termism that I used to witness pretty much all of the time when I worked in defence procurement and it really rattles my cage. Frustratingly, I think it will actually end up costing us more in the long term as I suspect we will be forced to switch over to a different VLS as some point in the future to keep up with the evolving threat – especially if we are serious about tilting towards the Indo / Pacific region.
Sorry I just feel it is another missed opportunity to do the job properly and save money in the long term.
Cheers CR
Why would you put a soft launch missile, specifically designed not to need a complex hot launch VLS, into a hot launch VLS like ExLS? Type 41 is useful for other systems – but only strike length. There remains space for box launched AShMs behind the A50s.
Hi James,
ExLS is the soft launch version of the MK41 and is the VLS that MBDA have been working with. Link. There is nothing stopping you using the A50 other than qualification which I don’t think has been achieved, unless the Italians are going that way for their CAMM-ER implementation.
Cheers CR
It is designed to be ‘extensible’ – i.e. do both hot and cold launches, and specifically to take a quad pack Sea Ceptor insert. That makes it expensive. Type 45 will always need 24 short ranged air defence missiles, CAMM or CAMM-ER. I guess the UK launcher is good enough. I’m assuming if we went for ExLS the whole project would be unaffordable for minimal benefit (the potential for not having 24 Sea Ceptor loaded for some reason).
Hi James,
I am not sure that the 3 cell Standalone ExLS needs to fit into the MK41. One of the pictures on the link above shows a CAMM missile apparently launched from the 3 cell unit. However, it is not clear in what I have briefly read. It does use MK41 hatches and other components, but I think the ‘standalone’ suggests it can be fitted directly to the platform. MBDA have also proposed a 3 cell ExLS based quadpack for SPEAR 3.
Having said that it is a complex scene as both MBDA and Lockheed Martin have taken a modular approach to their systems. Even the GWS-35 doesn’t really exist in the same way as the Sea Wolf GWS-25 used to exist. The T23 / T26 look like the most similar, but the T31 uses a different radar and combat information system, so the only common elements across the three classes of ship is the missile and VLS. T45 uses yet another set of radars.
This is all good news for the RN in terms of technology exploitation and opportunities for capability enhancements, but takes a lot to keep up. I’ve learnt something in this discussion so thanks for pointing out how ExLS fits into MK41.
Cheers CR
There is also the commonality argument – RN will have Ceptor cold launch on T45, T23, T26, T31 and probably elsewhere if I read the runes right.
In this case the costs and integrations are well understood as BAE is doing that anyway for T26.
These missiles are factory sealed in the inner tube so they don’t need in field service like the older generations did. So they are weapons team lite.
Starting to quad pack things into Mk41 VLS or XLS or whatever then you end up with an expensive unique orphaned headache on only six ships.
I would, sort of, like to see T45 with some cruise missile type capability too but I think we will see that with a dual mode AShM / LAM which will be limited to the 8 canisters.
That being said as just about the whole fighting surface fleet will have 8 canisters, as I suspect, then that is a lot of firepower.
Hi James (again 🙂 ),
The issue of affordability is obviously a factor, but I think that using a standard VLS is probably cheaper in the long term, especially as missile developers will develop their products for the most common VLS out there – that is where the is market. The UK might yet have to switch in the future. It is typical of the short term thinking of the UK procurement system and I spent 22 years of my career as a techie in that system – frustrating if fun at times 🙂
Cheers CR
I think the answer is much simpler.
Sylver is a french system. Integrating Sea Ceptor sees money go to France for the work (and information about the missile…) France has Mica and its record even within MBDA is not promoting competing projects to Sylver’ising it sees higher risk of costs and issues.
The working, tested and T26/31 installed cold launch system has none of that and draws on the extant T23 installation too.
Buying the cold launch cells is not only cheaper but is buying UK stuff designed and built and supported in the UK.
With Mk41 VLS going on T26 it seems clear the UK will have nothing more to do with Sylver and the cells we have on T45 are the only ones we’ll ever buy.
All in all, at minimum cost a very significant increase in capability and more critically gets Sea Ceptor into the Sea Viper command and sensor system.
Just a pity the 4.5 isnt going…
This’ll be the first RN warship with 2 SAM systems since the Counties…
The issue is that a Hot Launch VLS like Sylver or Mk41 is a lot heavier and more expensive than a soft launch one like the CAMM launcher.
If you’re only planning on putting CAMM on the ships then it’s entirely sensible to save money, and displacement, by using the simpler system that doesn’t require all the extra pluming that a Hot Launch system would require.
Hi Dern,
From what I have read the 3 Cell Standalone ExLS VLS system is a cold launch version of the system. The single Host ExLS launcher is a adapter that fits into the MK41 and can launch cold or hot launch missiles. This link is to a techie sheet from Lockmeed Martin explaining the 3 Cell Standalone ExLS / CAMM combination. There is a picture of a cold launching CAMM missile.
This version of the Mk41 family also looks like it would lend itself to ‘edge’ mounting on platforms similarly to the Ratheon developed Mk57.
I will admit that I could be wrong about my assessment of the 3 Cell ExLS being cold launched, the data / information is obviously quite cagey. However, I will also point out that the ExLS family is clearly a very flexible modular system and Lockmeed Martin do point out that it is intended to be a cost effective solution. So I would be surprised if there was unneccessary extra expense of hot launch built in where it is not wanted.
My preference is still for a standard VLS system. The reason for this is two fold. Through life costs will be lower as the standard VLS will have a much wider market share. The integration costs of new weapons might actual be taken up by the contractor rather than the RN as in the case of the ExLS / CAMM combination. MBDA have proposed a ExLS / SPEAR 3 combination. If SPEAR 3 is t achieve overseas sales, making it available to clients who use the MK41 / ExLS system would be a great start. The Brimstone / SPEAR 3 family deserve to do well in the international market.
Cheers CR
”forced to switch over to a different VLS as some point in the future to keep up with the evolving threats”.
CR, this T45 proposal is surely evidence that that decision was taken a while back. I think T45 will get Aster Block1 NT but will end of life without Block 2 BMD and any change of VLS that this would require. T26 has gone Mk41 as will T83.
I’ll bet MBDA are pondering how to make Aster Block 2 Mk41 compatible.
Hi Paul.P,
Probably a £500m investment is a major project so it was probably started at least 2 or 3 years ago although it is more likely at least 5 years ago. So yeh good point. However, the MBDA / Lockheed Martin project to integrate the CAMM into the ExLS system achieved a successful launch back in 2018 / 19…
The article on Navy Lookout finished with the hope that the upgrade might include upgrading the SAMPSON radar to a 3 panel system. The third panel would be mounted horizontally on the top of the radar to look straight up. This with the ABM version of the Aster 30 would given the T45 a real ABM capability to defend the CSG against guided ballistic missiles. This would be a great feeder into the T83 programme as well.
The Mk41 / Aster 30 combination would open up the Aster to a wider global market and possibly reduce costs for the RN, so I would be surprised if MBDA isn’t talking to Lockheed about such a link up, given the success of their efforts with the ExLS / CAMM combination. Of course, France might try to make such a move difficult…
Cheers CR
It will be interesting to see how the radar developments go. I understand the latest incarnation of the Smart 1850 radar is AESA and capable of detecting exoatmospheric targets.
And as you say, it’s all about France 😉
Fitting a top panel Sampson array in my opinion would be a wasted opportunity. We can do better!
As you are aware, Sampson uses a pair of arrays mounted back to back. This gives it a field of view of 120 degrees plus 120 degrees, for a total coverage of 240 degrees in one instant. Therefore at either end of the arrays, there are two 60 degree dead zones. Even though Sampson is spinning at 30rpm, this still means that the system must use predictive tracking algorithms to maintain a target’s track when the array turns away from the target. The next array will then scan where it predicts the target to be and when found updates the track.
If we now fit a top panel array this will cover directly above, which is great for tracking ballistic missiles etc. But the radar still has two rotating dead zones.
There is an answer that would get rid of the dead zones, plus still cover the space directly above the radar. This is to fit the third array horizontally and form a three panel triangulated array.
An AESA panel is generally limited to a horizontal field of view of 120 degrees and a vertical view of 90 degrees. However, they can see further but the detection range is greatly reduced. Going past this limit reduces the number of phase delay feeds that can add to the beam’s strength. There are also issues with side lobbing and spurious returns (ghosting). These can be mitigated through expensive signal processing. As the beam leans away from the boresight and goes past 45 degrees horizontally, the beams effective range will start to decrease. The decrease follows a degrading curve, in simplistic terms it’s a bit like the downward slope of a sinewave. When the beam reaches about 45 degrees horizontal offset from the boresight, the beam’s effective power can be reduced by up to half strength or more. (A lot is determined by the type of antenna the transmit-receive module (TRM) is using but also the amount of processing and amplification power is available.) A similar limitation faces the beam in the vertical plane. This is one of the reasons that most ships mounting flat panel PESA/AESA arrays tend to use 4, so the field of view is predominantly in the sweet spot over a field of view of 90 degrees horizontally, even though the panels can actually see further (wider).
How does having 3 horizontal panel help Sampson? For starters they are all rotating in one direction following each other. This means that each panel has a possible field of view 120 degrees. Therefore, due to the very fast scan rate a target can be continuously tracked even though the panels are rotating. it also means the panel’s sweet spot is also rotating, so where two panels meet, the rotation mitigates the lower detection range.
What about ballistic and high angle diving targets? The two arrays Sampson currently uses lean back by about 30 degrees. Thus the array’s boresight is also elevated. This means the look angle is something like +75 degrees leaving a dead zone directly above the radar. To further increase the look up and dwell time, each array could be placed on a tilting mechanism (much like the Typhoon’s Captor-E). This would tilt the array to give an additional 20 to 30 degrees field of regard. Allowing the radar, to look directly above the ship, yet remove the rotating dead zones.
Another great step forward. Presumably the end of cruise missiles though.
Isn’t there still room for canister launched missiles like LRASM behind the A50s?
Hi Paul.P,
Just checked out some aerial photos of the T45’s to make sure, but yes that would seem to be the case. So may be the T45’s will get a heavy weight SSM as well in the future.
Cheers CR
Cheers. That would be good I think. As I understand things the GP Type 23s will be the only ship (in a CSG ) carrying the interim AShM / SSM.
Your right Paul. I misread. The new silo’s are in front , not behind the existing launchers.
So all in all this looks like a well thought through, elegant and cost effective upgrade plan delivering a lot of extra capability: layered AAW and if they fit the interim AShM layered SS defence too.
Trying to work out where in front – presumably the new silos will go forward of the gun? On the aerial photos there’s a yellow circle which,I presume, traces out the loci of the gun’s rotation and it appears to go right up against the A50 with little room to spare.
If they are built forward of the gun then I hope they don’t get the same salt-crusting issues which hampered the Sea Dart launchers on the early T42s.
Look at an aerial photo of a T23. Gun arc much constrained by VLS.
I asked the same question a little while back as to gun arcs, apparantly not an issue. I think the 360 as existing is simply a bonus rather than a requirement.
Ideally we’d replace the gun, either 5” or even the 57mms from T31 and give that the big one since it’ll be available for NGFS whereas the T45s won’t. But lets get the 4.5 out of service (noting T23s with it will serve to the mid 2030s though).
Dart & Slug salt crusting issues were largely on the micro switches on the loading g mechanisms.
The logic for the load / not load / hold was all controlled by the microswitches.
On later versions of Dart it was replaced by an improved system that didn’t foul up.
Ahhh those microswitches!
They where also on the MK8 Mod 0. The Mk8 Mod 1 work replaced them with completly sealed proximity reed switches. Nothing to get hit or broken or salted up. Probably the biggest single reliability improvement to the MK8 that happened.
I was going to say reed switches in my earlier post.
But there was something else used in some areas and I cannot quite remember what it was!
Reed switches is close enough!
Well I have vivid memories of the rubber boots that went round some of the micro switches. They were a nightmare to get on or off and pretty useless at keeping out the salt spray. The rubber was also that unique grade of MOD 1960’s rubber that appeared to split or perish at the sight of any sunshine.
The solution, on some of them, was to use a very flexible household rubber product, commonly found in chemists, underneath the rubber boot. With lashing of lubricant.
If I was to be more specific the jokes just wouldn’t stop coming.
Mind you the jokes were inbound as soon as anyone saw a working party walking around with a box of those household products onboard…..
Yep… Always plenty available from the doc… Silicon Grease… Mmmmmmmhhhh!
Changing the bags on mag spray tanks where you had to coat the inside of the tank in silicon grease before fitting the bag. Wear a pair of shorts only and get slippy! Or was that just me…
STRN has a pretty good mock up posted on their website:
Any idea what appear to be tubes are aft of the missile box on each side behind the shields?
Hi Geoffrey
That question was asked by someone awhile ago. If I remember rightly someone who knew said they were decoys – can’t remember which ones. One thing for sure is that they are quite big, at least 1m long I’d say.
Hope that helps.
Cheers CR
Thanks.
I believe they are inflatable passive radar decoys which are deployed around the ship.
Thanks.
Gareth..I think there inside what I call the missile box immediately in front of the Aster cells which still leaves room for a t41 silo aft of the box. They’ll be heavy duty warships with this lot aboard.
So bye-bye mk8 then….
No longer a destroyer, only an air defence vessel…
There is still room for the Mk 8 behind the existing missile box.
theoretically yes
Type 26 will have that capability.
Appreciate that James but the 45’s were originally designed to take them so where practical I’m for up arming. Failing that a good, albeit interim, SSM fit.
a welcome announcement to be sure. Presumably there is enough space between the existing VLS and the 4.5in mount to take the Sea Ceptor VLS?
It’s where the 16 Mk.41 VLS were going to go, so no issue whatsoever.
No, the Sea Ceptor silo is to be just in front of the existing A50s, just behind the main gun, and gun magazine underneath the deck. The Mk. 41 was to be behind the A50 silo. There’s No way they would put Mk. 41 hot launch missiles so close to the gun magazine.
Mk41s would have gone in front of the A50 silos, not behind them
Well the gym space that would’ve been taken up by the Mk41’s is in front of the A50 silo so…
There is compartment space allotted in the design for future silo growth. The crews currently use it as a gym.
Annoucement says they are going IN FRONT of the A50 silos.
Good news. You can use all the 48 A50 VLS for Aster 30 or block 1NT. Layered defence and surface attack. Wonder if we will go for CAMM or CAMM-ER?
CAMM-ER is an Italian idea, i doubt RN will go there.
UK: sea wolf 8km range
Italy : Aspide 20km range
The countries have had different ship AAW tactics.
Tend to agree. CAMM-ER might be an attractive proposition if you are looking for a cheaper alternative to ESSM perhaps. CAMM plus Aster 30 give good coverage.
Excellent news. We are putting a lot of faith in Sea Ceptor and with luck this bodes well for the hope that the type 31’s will also now carry a suitable compliment.
Perceptive aside on the T31
It would be nice to think that this enhancement has been in the pipework for some time and they just deferred the announcement until they had built up operational confidence in the Sea Ceptor.
Hmm, sounds suspiciously like they are going to fit the GWS-35 / mushroom farm silos. The quotes also talk about CAMM, so may be not the CAMM-ER.
Nevertheless, this is good news for the T45’s – if a slightly missed opportunity for building in additional future flexibility e.g. the possibility of loading SPEAR 3 into the load out to at least give a light weight stand off surface to surface capability.
Cheers CR
Will be same silos as type 26. Not suspicious. https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/TYpe-26-frigate-missile-silos.jpg
That was my guess, the article is not explicit – understandably I suppose.
I would love to see them put a standard quad packable VLS in. They could achieve a similar load out with 2x trible ExLS, for example, which can, if the right length is procured, handle CAMM-ER. The current GWS-35 VLS apparently would need physical upgrade, e.g. deck strengthened to take the extra weight and hence launch forces of the CAMM-ER.
Put 3x triple ExLS VLS and you could have 24 CAMM-ER and 12x SPEAR 3 when or if they go ahead with a MBDA proposal for a ship launched version of SPEAR 3. This would give the RN a stand off light weight SSM well suited to dealing with corvettes and missile boats equipped with heavy weight SSM’s or land targets.
Nevertheless this is great news.
Cheers CR
Why? CAMM and CAMM-ER are designed for soft-launch, they don’t need a hot launch system with extensive exhaust venting like Mk 41 ExLS – also they have to have a special quad pack soft launch insert if they use Mk 41 for the pistons – so in effect you pay twice. Waste of money and a failure to capitalise on a key feature of the design which requires less deck penetration and cost. ExLS is particularly useless as it cannot handle strike length weapons. The Canadians chose it for T26 as they also use ESSM which hot launches, and presumably want to be able to flex back to ESSM from CAMM if they wish.
Hi James,
CAMM-ER is heavier than the CAMM so even cold launch loads will also be heavier. The so called soft launch is probably better termed a cold launch. It uses what amounts to a rather large airbag to generate the ‘thrust’ so that is still quite a punch into the deck. CAMM-ER is 60kg heavier than the basic CAMM missile so will definately need higher launch forces.
ExLS has been the VLS used and tested by MBDA to date.
Link. The 3x Cell Standalone ExLS is a cold launch version of the Mk41 using a number of Mk41 components. There is also the single ExLS adaptor for the MK41 which I believe may also allow hot launch – I’m not clear on that.
Cheers CR
I think the RN will stick with Wildcat and Sea Venom as the lightweight SSM.
You can also add Martlet to Sea Venom for Wildcat to launch and then add CAMM for anti-FIAC SSM, per the official PR.
Hi Paul,
Yeh, I know. Apparently the CSG has sailed with pre-IOC versions of the Martlet and Sea Venom missiles.
I still like the idea of having a light weight ship bourne anti-ship / land attack missile such as SPEAR 3 for two reasons. One the ship board helicopter may be on an ASW tasking we a surface threat pops up and two the SPEAR 3 has significantly longer legs than both Martlet and Sea Venom. Finally, I like the land attack capability. THe SPEAR 3 could be used instead of NGFS, given the RN is putting a 57mm on the T31, and I can’t really see them putting such a high value escort as the T26 in close to shore…
Which brings me back to the need for a standard flexible VLS system.
Cheers CR
Hi CR,
Well don’t give up on your wish for a flexible VLS system but I think Santa might be your best bet. 😉
I don’t know the numbers but I would guess the cold launch CAMM GWS-35 tubes must be an order of magnitude cheaper than any hot launch VLS.
Hi Paul,
The 3 Cell Standalone ExLS VLS appears to be a cold launch version of the ExLS / Mk41 family. Lockheed Martin highlight its modular construction and cost effectiveness.
However, I would accept that it is likely to be more expensive to procure than the Sea Ceptor VLS. However, the cost of owership including future missile upgrades are likely to be cheaper given the fact that the mark Mk41 family is widely used by NATO and allied navies.
For example, MBDA / Lockheed Martin worked together to certificate the CAMM / ExLS combination so no one customer will have to stump up the full cost of the integration work.
Cheers CR
I didn’t know that the 3 cell ExLS was cold launch. So it must have been in the frame.
Hi Paul.P,
Possibly, but as you pointed out somewhere above this project would have been started sometime ago and the CAMM ExLS combo was only certificated in 2018/19. So it might not have been ready in time to be included in the analysis. COVID would have slowed everything down so the studies could have started 5 years ago! Possible more given the elections and Brexit…
This might explain why they have stuck with CAMM and not gone for CAMM-ER as well.
So whilst I am still miffed about the quadpacking opportunity I could have some sympathy with the decision to stick with the decision if the alternative was another delay.
Cheers CR
Hi CR,
Yeh, good point re the dates and timeline. I think you’ve got it there.
Cheers PP.
CAMM and the 2×3 launch module really has all the flexibility we need for the numbers we are fitting to our ships, without adding cost for future speculative options.
Consider CAMM provides CIWS, point defence and area defence against static up to at least high supersonic air threats, if not better. CAMM also provides CIWS out to the horizon defence against FIAC surface threats. With a 10kg warhead its about 3x that of Martlet, while Sea Venom at 30kg is 3x CAMM, so complements both.
T26 probably has the optimum fit out with two banks of 24 missiles for these roles. Mk 41 on T26 would support other hot launch solutions, including a quad-packed SPEAR Cap 3 solution, if we develop a surface launch version. Both T31 and T45 CAMM numbers are such that we wouldn’t want to replace with anything else anyway.
Good call, sensible thought process, but methinks more to do with the cost of the Astors, in relation to the large production lot and commonality for the CAMM. But also a dual role capabilty for kinetic effect against smaller surface targets. Good call all round but lets hope it doesnt effect the budget for the interim ASM which the 5 GP 23s should be getting.
Damn, I was hoping they’d go to the Mk41 & Quad pack CAMM + CAMM-ER route.
Hi Jayce,
I was beginning to think I was the only one hoping for a quadpacked solution…
Cheers CR
This is such good news! 100% sensible, necessary and doable.. just being a bit greedy but could they squeeze in 2*24 silos? But one is better than none. Next, is some news on those ASMs…
The other future operators of CAMM seem to be choosing CAMM-ER
Perhaps we may be doing the same?
Regardless of the end outcome, it is a very welcome boost,
Long discussed on UKDJ many times as to what we would like to see added and upgraded.
A step in the right direction ✌ 😋
Only 1 nation has so far ordered CAMM-ER apart from Italy and thats a small order from Pakistan. They haven’t ordered CAMM though, just the ER variant.
All the other orders are for CAMM.
However, the British Army may get CAMM-ER soon as the Cmdr of 7AD mentioned that it was in the works. British Army will likely be the first customer of both missiles.
I know Pakistan buys a lot of kit from the US, but generally older block F16 and the like, but the idea that they are getting their hands on the Camm active seeker via the Italians is a disappointing, because Pakistan is now in China’s pocket, so China will soon be able to flog ASMs to its client states after a very good snoop at the weapon chosen by UK, Canada, NZ and others to defeat such threats. Personally I wouldn’t sell anything to Pakistan.
In the news today China are using Pakistan to buy favour with the Taleban to fill the void and gain strategic Influence.
Yes, being a cynic too, we’ll probably see a Chinese CAMM type missile appearing soon. I thought the Spanish were looking at CAMM-ER on their ships too? Maybe we should he trying to sell CAMM to India.
Fantastic news. There’s no denying that this is a major upgrade to the already excellent counter air capabilities on the Type 45. Not wanting to sound like I’m never satisfied but I’d be on cloud nine if a surface to surface capability is also added some time in the nearish future. Also I’m a little worried that this is an attempt to justify the “built for but not equipped with” approach to introducing warships in the Royal Navy and MOD. It occurring not too long before the introduction of the the Type 26 and the Type 31 may be a sign of a similar approach in those programmes. Perhaps I’m being a little too pessimistic. I certainly hope so.
If there could be some commonality across the fleet wrt missiles that would hopefully feed some cost savings.
I’m a little confused with the wording. Are they going between the gun and the Sylver VLS or where the Harpoons are?
Regarding the provsion for strike-length VLS I’ve also seen people mention they would go between the gun and the existing Sylver VLS because there is not enough depth under the Harpoons…
I think these are in place of the MK41’s between the gun and Sylver VLS. Shame but there you are.
One point to note though, the new SSM being developed with France (assuming it arrives on time) might fit where the Harpoons went – might.
Cheers CR
Thanks CR 😀 .
So this mean IF the MoD were to get more than 5 interim SSGW the Type 45s could be fitted with them too?
Could Kongsberg’s JSM be canister-launched like the NSM? Kongsberg say shaping the JSM to fit into the F-35’s bomb bay means it could also fit in Mk 41 VLS, they are also looking into submarine-launched JSM.
I guess so, 2e.
Whatever weapon gets selected I think they will stick with the 5 units for the T31 as they will use the excuse that the Anglo-French heavy weight weapon is due about 2030. Which is fine if it is on time, but…
Cheers CR
wait so is the type 31 getting mk 41 vls or just sea ceptor vls?
Sea Captor. T31 isn’t designed to be a high end warship. Hence the low cost of 250M each.
But in its original guide it does have Mk41 VLS so it is not an impossibility.
But I agree 8 deck mounts are much more likely.
Hi Nate,
Just the Sea Ceptor VLS, the interim SSM will be canister launched as per Harpoon.
Cheers CR
The Kongsberg NSM is basically the same Missile as the JSM but Surface (Canister) Launched unless I’m missing something.
They’re going between the gun and current VLS, fitting in 24 Sea Ceptor instead of the designed-for 16 Mk 41s.
There is loads of depth under the Harpoons. The problem is that it is too close to the bridge windows if there is a misfire.
That is why the Mk41 VLS was never fitted in its intended place.
This spot will be for an canister AShM and 8 would be a great load out with 72 AAW missiles.
The other places that VLS can go are either side of the Sylver silo but due to the hull curvature the silos are not long enough for a full length Mk41. And the silos would be more vulnerable closer to the hull plate.
Thanks SB 😀 .
I really dont understand the hangfire issue. If a Harpoon is launched or in the very unlikely event stays in the launcher the efflux deflectors send the efflux up so that the DLF 3 isnt toast.
And yes there is loads of depth under the Harpoons.
Having just been on the gulf based T23 this morning I also remembered that the SW Silo and Harpoon on a T23 are a lot closer to the bridge than on a T45.
I understand space alocated for Mk.41 VLS is not between the bridge and VLS, but between the VLS and the gun.
So, Mk.41 VLS is never fitted in its intended places, but the intended place is “in between gun and VLS”, so now it is going to be used by CAMM.
This is my understanding.
I take it that the T45s will lose their gym facillities which I believe were installed where the MK41s were meant to be.
Great picture of the MK41 gym on a T45 on Navy Lookout 🙂
Cheers CR
So they may be able to keep the gym, just no more trampolining.
😆
Press Ups only? 😆
Good news…but 11 years ?
Hi Pete,
The contract will include trials and probably spares and training, the latter because the CAMM missiles will be integrated into the Sea Viper system rather than the Sea Ceptor system. I would not expect there to be a huge training overhead but there are likely to be some differences between Sea Viper / CAMM combination and existing versions. Also I am guess but I think the system will be integrated during normal refit rotations once the system has been developed and tested ashore.
Cheers CR
Cheers.
Excellent news.
Awaits the moans.
Hi Daniele,
I’ve already started – sorry mate 🙂
Cheers CR
You’re exempt CR! You’re usually positive and balanced where’s some only find fault.
Moan away….😏😀
Ahh, thanks mate – you spoil me 🙂
I have been has you may have noticed.
Hope you’re well.
Cheers CR
I’d noticed! But not actually read as of yet. Busy today. Will absorb later.
Absolutely fantastic news, regardless of which system is used, this is a combat upgrade that will give the T45s more protection and firepower. With luck the new AShM will be fitted as well and suddenly T45 looks a capable multi role warship. Hopefully a template for T83
Think this would be the right way to go 🚀
Kind of how I see it too, I’ve been following the chats by the more knowledgeable ones on missile systems and am still none the wiser but I see this as an upgrade either way. 😀
The mentions of it being used in a lightweight SSM role is honestly worrying me. Twenty four isn’t anywhere near enough to be the ship’s local/point missile defence and as it’s anti-swarm counter, especially since Martlet isn’t going on the 30mms.
About time anyway, the extra Aster 30 will be welcome I’m sure.
Have there drop Martlet then ryan 🤔
I’m afraid it looks like it. There was no comment from the RN after the trials, which suggests that they let it quietly drop. There was some speculation that they did not like loosing the on mount man in the loop option as the Martlet was fitted in place of the gunners seat and sights.
I guess the sight of matelots prepping a gun for firing can be a useful tool for detering some from pushing their luck too far…
Cheers CR
Errrr…The helo will be up with Martlett and even if it isnt it has EO aimed 30mm, EO aimed Phalanx, a 4.5 Gun that is EO aimed and will be chucking out VT Fuzed high 45 bricks at 20 a min, 50 cals, mini guns , GPMGs and everyman and his dog on the upperdeck given a rifle.
That is about as anti swarm as you get!
Totally didn’t forget about the Wildcat 😅. That aside, I maybe should have specified a longer range. Of course the question is if there’s the main gun, both DS30s and Phalanxes firing in the surface role why talk about using CAMM like that? I’m probably missing something, just seems a bit overlapping.
Speaking of that, do you know how the Bofors Mk4 stacks up against the 30mm? Found a few images (Photoshop AFAIK) of how the extra cells are getting fitted and I just starting wondering if the Bofors could be added too.
CAMM will give the ships a quick reaction anti surface capability with a almost guarenteed hit out to the horizon. 15Km in less than 30 secs and far more accurate than a 4.5. Drop a CAMM on someone and they wont be playing again.
Now let e think about this…yes I’m not happy with this because well it’s a good decision, which means I can’t moan about it. Yes I’m going to moan about not being able to moan.
serous though I think is a really good decision that the MOD/RN is levering as much use as possible from Seaceptor. The doubling down on the Type 45s primary role is also the right move. I’m assuming that Seaceptor as an active homer will also allow for a greater number of targets to be engaged at anyone time. Finally increasing the load out to to 48 Aster 30s and 24 Seaceptors with the fact that Aster 30 is a one shot one kill missile does remove the T45s only major weakness.
It’s being so cheerful what keeps you going. Lol.
This seems a very odd choice. Type 45 has space for 16 Mk41 Strike length tubes between the existing Sea Viper tubes. These could surely be quad-packed with CAMM giving 64 CAMM’s or 48 CAMMs + 4 free for another strike length missile, or any other combination thereof. Surely doing this would be cheaper and simpler than fitting tubes that can only ever carry CAMM’s in a place that was not designed to ever hold missiles ?
Fitting Mk41 VLS requires a far greater investment in both work and funding, because it’s a bigger, more complex, and more expensive system that has to be imported from the US and then certified for Sea Ceptor. In what world would it be cheaper than a simpler, domestically produced, low cost system designed specifically for SC?
Also, the space being used IS designed to have VLS fitted. Its where the Mk41 would’ve gone.
Logistically it would make sense to have the T26, T31 and the T45 all sharing the same CAMM and launch system rather than have just 6 ships with a unique quad pack system. Also I can’t see us buying anything else to go into the MK41 until the joint French developed anti ship missile arrives along with the Type 26. The interim anti ship system will be canister based and when the T45 is replaced I assume the canisters will be transferred to the T31/2.
I’m sure somebody must have been out with a tape measure but there does not seem to be much room between the current silos and the gun.
Space provision was for 2 extra Sylver modules or possibly Mk41 modules to be accommodated. Obviously the ‘metalwork at the front of the launcher will change.
The VLS is a really odd design. I get all of the shielding around the silos was to enable them to launch in an emergency if the deck wasn’t cleared but there is a huge gap running between the two rows of VLS that could have accommodated another 24 A50s if it was a little wider. Addinb VLS behind or infront of the A50s look like it will be too close to the main gun or the bridge but if the RN confirm both options are possible I will take their word for it.
That gap between Sylver banks in the middle is presumably for a gangway below decks to get from behind the VLS to in front of it for access to compartments, including the gun magazine.
In a T23 you go can under the Sea Wolf mag (iirc – possibly also down the middle / mixture of both – deck heights were pretty random in that area), but there is also a narrow access route from a door on the starboard (can’t remember if also port) side of the VLS to down below between it and the gun, which is the route to load 4.5” ammo (been in there helping shift it in human conveyor!). Also other compartments between the two including armory (iirc, where I went to draw weapons and do maint/tests etc.). Presumably there as the gunners also “owned” the 4.5” mag and associated areas.
On T45 etween VLS and bridge is a no go as the space under the deck is full of compartments incl iirc accomodation, there is reserved space between the VLS and gun, hence this is where the new cells will go.
Yes, I agree, the Aster silos are end on, north south not joined across. Doesn’t look too space efficient. But just happy they can squeeze the 4*6 Camm in the box!
Maybe, the main gun with the magazine underneath the deck, will be removed and replaced?
Seem to recall there was talk many moons ago of 5″ being retro fitted. Add smart munitions and probably removes the need for T45 to have anti ship missiles although 76mm probably more in keeping with primary role.
When Type 31 armament published there was an excellent article in Navy Lookout pretty much demolishing 76 at least in comparison with 57. They also did the same with CIWS 20 versus Bofors 40.
Cheers. I’ll look it up. Key point is the 4.5″ probably offers little utility given the role of T45 and that for different scenarios the 5″ or 76 or 57 would.. with the right ammunition…would greater utility.
Have looked at Article. Wouldn’t exactly call it a ‘demolishing’ (weight of explosives at any given moment) and lots of interesting counter debate in comments. Nonetheless either would be more appropriate than 4.5″ on T45. Interesting days and good were debating what mix of upgrade rather than the fundamentals of requiring an upgrade. Cheers p
Yeah just re-read it I was a bit OTT. Your right about 4.5 on Type45 it’s there because it’s there not because it will ever be used.
cheers
Fantastic investment for the T45 fleet. Great news. 🇬🇧👍
Great news. Just need to give the fleet (both sea and air based) some long range anti surface capability now! Future enemies might not be obliging enough to rely purely on air power…
It will be interesting to see where the forward CAMM Platform Datalink Terminal is placed. Real estate on the bridge roof is quite limited!
Add a platform on the mast and put it on there?…mutual interference not withstanding as it going to have Sampson turning and burning and SCOT in that area as well
I thought that as well. But if Sampson can handle the data streams for Aster, why can’t it also handle them for Ceptor? I mean, big difference in the capability of AESA Sampson and PESA Artisan. Or are we talking completely different frequencies?
Sounds like great news, at least some of that ‘spare room’ is getting used as it was supposed to (ie weapons). As others have said, hopefully it won’t get in the way of any future anti ship/land attack missiles.
Can’t Sampson do that? I thought ASEA radars could dedicate a beam to brew the tea.
Think we’re at cross purposes Paul, I was meaning the space on the ship that we’d be hopefully launching them from in the future rather than stopping someone else’s. Sorry for the confusion.
My bad Andy. Replied to wrong post…🙁
No worries mate, sometimes things get a bit confused with the way replies get stacked. We’ve all done it. 🤗
Brilliant news, about time if we are going to be facing off with Russia or properly protecting csg
I presume this will be done at the same time as each T45 gets its troublesome propulsion upgrade?
..or would that be too much like common sense for the bean counters in the MOD.
Excellent news, it’s almost exactly what many of us have been suggesting for ages, in a slightly different arrangement.
Land the Astor15, fit long range Astor NG in its place and Sea Ceptor…..
I would assume adding ABM capability too, if we are going for the NG variant of Sea Viper.
Really chuffed, it’s a very sensible solution and more very welcome news regarding the RN.
I wonder if the upgraded 3 pane version of Sampson will be part of this new potential ABM capability (probably not). If it were I suspect aliens will be sh..ing themselves (if they have that capability) at the risk of approaching Earth too closely. 👽
What Sampson 3 pane version?
Hi Mac,
Probably not as it would be a minor miracle if the two programmes lined up. I would expect there to be some development work has the CAMM missiles will need to be integrated into the Sea Viper system which is unique to the RN.
More likely the upgrades will be aligned to routine refits – which will take longer as a result – may be.
Of course, we might get lucky…
Cheers CR
I strongly suspect that the Sea Ceptor C2 software draws heavily on that provided for Sea Viper. It is quite possible that in software terms the main activity will be integrating a module to drive the the CAMMS PDLTs, into the PAAMS C2. The relatively low price tag suggests this to be the case. The driving factor is likely to be physically installing the Sea Ceptor launcher
Just read the same on Navy Lookout Anthony, you’re spot on.
There is a good CGI image of an upgraded T45 as well.
Cheers CR
Think Defence in his article on CAM stated “The FLAADS Command and Control system features 75% re-use from the Sea Viper command and control software.” so s/w integration is likely to be relatively straightforward.
I wonder if the CAMM PDLT is needed vs. being able to use the same data links used for Aster? It seems that level of commonality would have been designed in. MBDA certainly have the Universal Miniaturized Missile Data Link (UMMD) should there be differences.
https://www.mbda-systems.com/solutions-and-services/subsystems-components/universal-miniaturized-missile-data-link-ummd/
Aster does not have a dedicated data link as Sampson emissions are used to pass data to the missile. Would be very interested in what the intention is as there not a lot of room on the Type 45 bridge roof.
The UMMD I linked to uses S-band frequencies. So if the Sea Ceptor data link also uses similar frequency bands then Sampson might be used for CAMM too? It seems that might have been a design consideration, given the likely expectation of fitting to T45 … but if not then as you say things get a bit busy on the roof.
Sorry I was being really, really thick earlier in my replies,
You comments have just jolted my brain into action.
This is, of course, about going above the advertised 16 target engagement limit.
Which was why the Russians buzzed her with 20 jets to get the point across.
So, no, I don’t think there will be commonality in the launch and control as this would be subject the same bottlenecks. This, of course, assumes that there is no a fix for the 16 target bottleneck anyway which is quite possible.
The CMS will of course control all 72 slots and the software will decide which is the best missile to use according to the preset parameters.
The Russians didn’t send 20 aircraft at once.
They claimed to have done so.
As they won’t have had their beacons on it would be hard to know from OSINT.
Do you have another source.
20 or not at least 1 of them was a 4 engine transport aircraft so they were seriously scraping the bottom of the barrel.
The video.
The video does not offer a full 3D mapping of what was going on.
Whilst I accept that nothing the Russians say can be taken at face value……
It could be spiralled in during FTSP periods.
So cut the holes in the bulkheads and run the cables in the first FTSP. FTSP2 de-ammo ship Fwd and do the hotwork to the silo and aft of the gun . The new silo module would be pre built anyway to slot into place in one go. Re ammo on completion
FTSP 3 Software mods, integration etc
3 FTSP periods is 3 x 4-6 week maintenance periods over an 18 month window.
AH, thanks Gunbuster,
I was assuming that the work would be completed on a single refit cycle, running it over the 3 as you detail means the ship spends (hopefully) no extra time alongside.
Thanks, that was really informative.
Cheers CR
The RN’s press release (below) says the first ship will be equipped by summer 2026, the last by 2032. So not concurrent with the PIP refits.
https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2021/july/06/20210706-sea-ceptor
I wondered what the 11 year contract meant. Now we know. Not exactly a UOR, is it.
It depends if the desire is to keep number of deployable hulls up or have a huge % in the dockyards all the time?
@GB sheds some light above on how it is likely to be done.
Excellent news. Takes the SAM capability closer to that of the US AB class.
The UK missile programmes seem to have been well managed, avoiding the long delays and cost overruns that have plagued other procurements. The ability to use common components on missiles performing different tasks seems to have been a crucial element in this all too rare success.
The Type 45 is already on par with the Arleigh-Burke as the Type 45 is a one-shot one-kill system. So the 48 Aster missiles can deal with 48 targets.
Whereas with the AB, two missiles are launched per target. So 96 missiles can deal with 48 targets.
Adding Sea Ceptor gives the T45 a greater anti-air capacity.
Poor old US has to fire two missiles while brilliant UK only needs to fire one?
Gimme a break.
USN doctrine is to fire two, RN believes T45 needs to only fire one.
Take it up with the top brass if you don’t like the facts…
So says you and the internet. Meanwhile in the real world ….
Something to do with have a state of the art system? PAMMS / Viper.
Really it is a question of where you are in an upgrade cycle.
USN are moving to active seeker on newer flights of AB – as you yourself have previously echoed.
RN were behind with T42 @ EoL and now ahead with T45.
Given everyone else is moving in the same direction as RN – technology has improved – RN have made the right call.
Sure (eyes roll)
By the way, did you check out the US anti-ballistic missile tests?
I was aware of the USN 2 missile practice but wasn’t sure how many shorter range missiles the ABs carry. Hence ” closer to”. Overall it does seem that with this upgrade, the type 45 will be in the same ball park of ASM capability.
To be fair the T45 was already there or actually better with SAMs as compared to a AB.
More firing channels , no tracker/illuminators, active missiles.
I’m going to be slightly smug about this, because for years I’ve argued for this exact upgrade on the grounds that it’s the most cost-effective solution to increasing the T45s capability.
Mk41 VLS, as much as everyone loves to crow about how they’re more versatile and such, was simply never a practical option
Well, you are entitled. Just don’t make a habit of it 😁
this can only be good news I just wish we had the other 2 making the numbers 8, instead of 6..
I’m with you on the extra 2 T45s Andy especially if the T83/T32s are going to a long way off. I wish this CAMM upgrade could be done a bit sooner too, all within this decade would good. It’s still very good news and don’t laugh but I had been praying for this happen like a lot of us here. I now wonder if they’re looking at adding CAMM to the carriers or any RWS or just leave it at the three Phalanx’s?
Any upgrade is most welcome, but a decent ant-ship missile is still required.
Helicopters take out small warships, Astute class for large warships. Simple.
Very limited number of Astutes, and helicopters. A decent long range ASM eliminates the risks posed to both in attacking surface warships which may or may not carry AAW,/ASW suites or both.
Real world combat experience would say otherwise. Rules of engagement would forbid the use of long range ASM’s in many scenarios. If the RN truly felt the need for ASM’s, they would have them, and sacrifice another project or capability to fund them.
Real world combat experience in 1982 showed just how effective a long range ASM can be, as Exocet in the hands of an airforce that had no previous experience in its use took out a Type 42 Destoyer, plus Atlantic Conveyor and hit and damaged a County Class Destroyer. We haven’t got a more modern ASM capability is that badly needed funds have been poured into other projects including badly needed new hulls to replace existing vessels on the basis that we do possess a limited existing capability as opposed to none.
Yet not a single one came from a ship, or was even close to coming from one.
Even Belgrano and her Exocet armed escorts were a diversion intended to allow their carrier to get close enough to launch a strike.
The lesson of 82 was air and submarines, surface ships are there to provide AAW and ASW screening and NGFS.
Hence the RN relentlessly focussing on ASW capability for yonks, and its big post falklands project being the AAW focussed T45. With a bit if NGFS thrown in and on T23, some SSMs because why not – but clearly never a priority hence how that has atrophied.
I’m not so sure the Russians or Chinese would be so shy with their surface vessels as Argentina was. Couple of further comments. Astutes are a great deterrent but with very limited numbers they can’t be everywhere at the same time. Ship borne missiles provide layered redundancy. Other key issue is next RN purchase of anti ship missiles are likely to be dual purpose and come with a reasonable land strike capability. Don’t necessarily need to be on T45 but the fleet will certainly benefit from that dual capability. Issue will be does RN go for a land attack option with an anti ship capability or vice versa. Given land targets generally don’t move my assumption would be the latter would make sense.
The Falklands was 40 years ago. You can’t keep arguing for what kit we should have today based on the experience of 40 years ago. Like I said, if the expert’s in the RN and the wider intelligence community really really said we needed ASM’s as a critical capability requirement, we would have them, and have them on every single escort.
True, ASM’s were effective during the Falkland conflict, but none were fired from an Argentine naval vessel, all came from low level aerial attack by warplanes. In fact, all Royal Navy ship losses in that conflict were directly due to air launched missiles and bombs , the Argentine navy never got near, had they tried to engage they would have been detected and destroyed well before they could have got within ASM range. I would expect that the same tactical scenario applies now. The future or interim SSM being planned for the RN will have more uses in a land attack mode than anything else.
Actually, the missile that hit HMS Glamorgan was fired from an improvised shore battery. Third paragraph on the link below.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Glamorgan_(D19)
Cheers CR
The thing with long range anti ship missiles are targeting. How do see the enemy ship at 100+ miles. Is it on its own. Where will it be when the missile flies there etc. U can’t just fire the things off thinking it’s seeker will do all the work.
Imagine ur in the thames and want to hit a ship in Denmark. And u don’t know where it is exactly. If ur sending the chopper to find it might aswell get it to shoot the missile.
Great news for the type 45
Hi Monkey,
Of course, targetting is an issue. However, some missiles have the ability to be fired into a pretty large ‘engagement box’ and then their seekers can identify the best target. Brimstone / SPEAR 3 certainly have this capability.
Obviously, you need to be able to get sufficient data to put the engagement box over the target when the missile arrives, and as many have pointed out even CSG can hide quite effectively in the wide expanse of the world’s oceans. Large UAV’s, sono bouys, helicopter, satellites can all help in finding and identifying the target, but it ain’t easy. If it was the naval war would be all over blinking quickly…
As for the helicopter shooting the missile, absolutely when shooting at smaller vessels equipped with short range air defences and you can use a ASM with a longer standoff range. However, if the target had something akin to a T45 hanging around I would be looking to get a ‘fix’ using passive means that give the potential to stay out of range, otherwise you risk your helicopter becoming a one shoot system, something the crew might not appreciate. The helicopter / UAV can then come up with an estimated position good enough to put the engagement box on the target.
I make it sound easy, but obviously it isn’t and it could take hours or even days of cloak and dagger manoeuvring.
Cheers CR
As well as regular reconnaissance assets is the desire not to have surveillance (and from that targeting data) provided by combinations of UAVs, USVs, UUVs, satellites etc.
Trouble is helo with missile will have half the radius of action. Better to have the helo full of fuel and fire a long range missile from the ship. Same with ASW torpedo carrying helicopters. Never understood why we don’t employ ASW missiles carrying Stingray to where its needed.
Yes, you’re right, I’d forgotten about that. Thanks.
I’m not sure that’s true. The RN has never fired a heavyweight anti ship missile in anger. The ROE will aways be very tight and most places your are lively to see any form or navel conflict are by nature jam packed full ships lanes.
the quickest way to loose a war would be to put a heavyweight anti ship missile into the side of a cruise ship.
As noted by others we have lots of more precise tools for engaging ships. That’s what nuclear submarines are for, now I now everyone says we o ly have a handful and they can’t be everywhere. But the point is they could be anywhere at all and they are one of the most strategically mobile platforms on the planet, unlimited range and endurance with a speed of 30 knots is 870 miles traveled per day, that’s Portsmouth to the eastern med in a handful of days.
The last major use of AshM was by the Houti rebels in Yemen. They used the Iranian Noor missile, which is itself a reverse engineered Chinese C802, which is a direct copy of an Exocet. The USS Mason in 2016, was targeted on 3 separate occasions in October by these missiles. They fired a total of 9 missiles at the ship, none of which hit. They were either intercepted by the ship’s air defences, spoofed by countermeasures, or were of such crap build standards crashed into the sea. The launch sites and search radars where hit by Tomahawks in response.
If the RN were to get an interim anti-ship missile, then it would have to meet the current rules of engagement, i.e. have the ability to positively identify the target and be retargeted if required. This means radar as the primary sensor would be out, unless it was operating at a very high frequency that would aid recognition as per Brimstone/Spear 3. Therefore, it would also require a 2 way data-link, so the operator can see what the sensor sees, but then can also update the missile’s targeting en-route. But then there’s cost vs capability to think off, a single use weapon is expensive, to appease the bean counters, a multi-use missile would be preferable, i.e. anti-ship plus land attack.
There’s only one missile system that I believe meets these requirements, which is the Kongsberg Naval Strike Missile (NSM)/Joint Strike Missile (JSM). It has a imaging infra red primary sensor, which will give a high resolution image of the target, which it also compares with a library image. It has a two way data-link allowing the operator to make sure it stays on the right target. It can also be used against land targets plus it has hit a moving vehicle target. Perhaps the ace up its sleeve is that Norway, Australia and Japan have paid for the missile’s integration on the F35, which is part of the Block IV upgrade. Therefore, our F35Bs will also be capable of using this missile (externally). Something I believe the MoD will announce soon as part of expanded weapons package for the F35.
Hi Davey
Yes unfortunately the nutters of this world have always been happy throw heavyweight AshM into shipping lanes as it serves their purpose. Where as western nations have not used them, I would much prefer to see the RN invest in something that it’s more likely to use, something like spear 3 capability seems to be a better option . After all mission kill is all thats needed and may actually be preferable.
Ah old school. Disable the ship and prepare for boarding…:
Wow. That provoked a response. Biggest list of comments I’ve seen for a while so quickly. Good upgrade for the T45. I like the increase in area defence capacity without sacrificing self defence. Much needed. Wonder if Defender had a say in the decision.
Good news, but this basically say that Aster 15 are dead. Another good news is that Aster 15 most certainly can be upgraded to Aster 30.
It could be to upgrade some A15s with larger cells for Hypersonic missle, like USN is to do.
Aster 30 is just an Aster 15 with a booster module attached, otherwise same hardware.
As many will have mentioned in the comments here in the past it makes perfect sense. Great decision and I am currently very impressed with the RN leadership and future they are forging for the Navy. The army on the other hand…
Maybe those respondents who dismissed the posts from people who suggested RN vessels are severely underarmed as ill informed and amateurishly ignorant, may now chose to review their positions?
A very satisfactory and cost effective enhancement overall, by the sound of it.
Wasnt expecting this news. Its great. Much heavier air defence load meaning better defence against a saturation attack.
Just need an updated anti ship missile fit (could be cannister launched) and we are laughing.
Wow. Somethinng actually happening like this is a shock! A good one but still a shock
I guess it allows a change in the loadout of Asters potentially to add ABM capable variant and drawdown/convert the A15s with SC taking that role.
Perhaps if integrated in Sea Viper then still an export hope on the table…
Let’s be honest this is a fantastic upgrade which doubles the area defence capacity of the T45 and significantly enhances the point defence too. Now we should be looking to integrate CAMM-ER onto the frigates too.
And maybe some CAMM /CAMM-ER silos onto the aircraft carriers?
At the beginning the Invincible’s carried Sea Dart but had problems with debris on deck. Don’t know if that would be issue with cold launched missiles but jet engines and even small pieces of debris are a bad combination.
Having Sea Dart at the front with probably a headwind also blowing across the deck wouldn’t have helped. Having half a dozen CAMM on a rear Starboard platform with soft launch angled to rear would probably help. Having said that less of a need if the T45s are being uparmed.
That’s interesting news!
Does that suggest, therefore, that CAMM’s true range is closer to Aster 15 than published? Otherwise, I’d be concerned about something of a gap in capability between the two…
Good question, but Aster 30 has a minimum engagement range of 1.7km so there’s a good overlap with CAMM, even if it’s slightly shorter ranged. And Vs Aster 15, CAMM likely has a much shorter minimum engagement range (less than 1km).
Thanks, good to know that there isn’t really any concern with regards engagement enevelopes
CAMM was rumoured to have engaged at 35km in trials, apparently. Don’t know under what circumstances, of course.
aster 15 will go to ？ its not bad
Aster 15 is just like Aster 30 without a booster, so just add a booster, they become 30’s.
Not correct. Both have booster, jut the A30 is longer..
I think people are getting the wrong end of the stick if they think this is about increasing their swarm defence against drones. They are keeping the same proportion of short range missiles (a like for like capability replacement) and increasing the number of long range missiles. This upgrade is really about improving their performance in carrier group escort giving them more long reach ammunition to cover a dispersed fleet.
If I can be pedantic, there is an increase of 8 short range missiles, to 24 CAMM vs 16 Aster 15s. That is pretty useful and adding to a very good tiered protection from very close in Phalanx, to CAMM to Aster. Now waiting to hear on any news if anything new will get added onto the QE, PoW and RFAs?
As others have mentioned it also increases the number of simultaneous engagements possible, because Ceptor uses different data links to Aster, which is currently limited to 16 channels. So AFAICS the upgrade seems to cover off three objectives:
1) Improved saturation performance
2) Deeper magazine per T45
3) Larger overall effective stockpile due to shared CAMM pool and Aster 15 stock converted to Aster 30.
This is very good news. Shame it will take so long to introduce. Another advantage is that the T45 will be able to control Sea Ceptors from other ships T23/T26 and other T45s. This capability will make T45 a very powerful asset. In addition Sea Ceptor can be used to attack surface targets too.
They should also rip out the 30mms and put in the 40mms that the T31 will use. Swapping out the old 4.5 for a modern 76 or 57 would be a good option too.
Buying the ASTER 30 1NT would be the obvious Sea Viper upgrade.
Hi Rob,
I agree that buying ASTER 30 1NT is a must if we are to fully protect the CSG. However, the SAMPSON radar will need an upgrade as well as there is a scan gap directly above the ship into which a ballistic missile could likely dive.
BAE System have already proposed a 3 panel version of SAMPSON with the 3rd panel mounted on the top of the radar looking straight up.
It might be included in the £500m, if so then it is a good deal.
Cheers CR
“BAE System have already proposed a 3 panel version of SAMPSON with the 3rd panel mounted on the top of the radar looking straight up”
Very interesting, do you have a source for more information?
TIA
Yeh sure. It is on Navy Lookout here.
The relevant section is the last section called ‘Missed Opportunity’, but the whole article is very good. The historical part gives considerable insight into just how much the UK invested in getting to the SAMPSON. Research started in the late 80’s early 90’s if I remember rightly.
Also there were 3 SAMPSON prototypes and 6 production versions built – development costs were big per unit…
Cheers CR
Thanks @CR
Yes I read about the 3 plate SAMPSON to. I should imagine it will be bought too. It is obvious that T45 needs an enhanced ABM capability and the 1NT and the radar upgrade are the obvious rout. I am sure T83 will get ASTER 30 block 2 ABM.
Yes thinking about the navel gun, how likely are we now to ever ask one of our six AAW destroyers to stop providing optimised AAW cover to a carrier or amphibious group and to go off and undertake a bit of NGFS. So putting in a medium gun more suited to AAW ( like a 76 or 57) would double down on the AAW role but still provide that navel gun for constabulary work.
The issue you would face, is what ship would you use for NGFS?
A Type 23 has the venerable 4.5″ gun is still ok-ish for near to shore NGFS. It does not have rocket assisted shells only base bleed, so will likely need to operate close to the shore in full view. It has the Artisan radar, which although an older PESA design still has very good performance in the littorals along with 32 SeaCeptor missiles.
A Type 26 has the best gun for the job. The L62 5″ gun with the option of guided and rocket assisted rounds, that can strike targets over 20nm away. Yet, this lass are our dedicated sub hunters. It will have Artisan plus potentially 48 SeaCeptors.
A Type 31 will have a fast firing but weedy 57mm gun, which is useless for NGFS. It will have a very good NS100 AESA radar with either 12 or 24 SeaCeptors.
A Type 45 again with the 4.5″ gun. It has two primary radars, with Sampson having excellent performance operating in the littorals, with potentially 48 Aster and 24 SeaCeptors.
T32 and T83?
Basically we have armed our general purpose frigate as a gunboat, instead of for its likely war role as part of the amphibious task group and will therefore need to use one of our high end ships for the task.
I do agree, it seems a bit odd that our dedicated escorts have the best medium guns for NGFS. When we would probably not want them heading off to undertake that task and when a 57mm would have more functional use as an extra CIWS.
where as our New GP frigates that have only a limited use as escorts and would be the ideal assets to send out for NGFS don’t have the medium gun to do it.
it seems to me they would have been better off putting the 5 inch guns on the type 32s.
Unfortunately, I understand the reasons for the smaller 57mm gun. It’s all due to the cost constraints of the 5 ship fixed priced budget. After all the BAe 5” L62 isn’t cheap. We can only hope that after the ships have been delivered, that there’s a plan to up arm them and make them more useful.
From the stuff that’s been published so far about the T32, i.e. acting as the mothership for unmanned surface and subsurface vehicles. The T32 is also unlikely to be armed for NGFS.
Good news, yes but wait a minute. Many of us have argued about the installation of the Mk41 or A-70 VLS and use some of the tubes for Sea Ceptor. OK we got Sea Ceptor but in a way that we did not expect. By installing a dedicated Sea Ceptor VLS system means that the T45 losses any possibility of the Mk41 or A-70 vls meaning no Naval Scalp, no long range anti ship missile, no Block 2 BMD as that version is longer than the NT. Looking at the time line it looks like T23 hand me downs rather than new. So yes a step in the right direction but we now need to ask ourselves what anti ship capability will the T45s have, Harpoon is going yes we are buying five sets of anti ship missiles as an intrim but they are expected to go to the T31s. So what will the T45s have, no matter what it will be it will need to be containerised rather than vls.
Most of the 2nd hand CAMMs from T23’s won’t be available until 2028/9, so new CAMM need procuring for T45. It will be the electronics bits that need salvaging from T23’s, not metal cylinders welded in tightly.
Why install Mk. 41 for only 10 years or so of service?
A ASM for T45 can be canister launched – like Harpoon. ASTER 30 Block 1NT will fit the existing VLS. I am sure T83 will have strike length VLS. Given the timescales it is not worth installing a new heavy VLS.
Great news, was kind of hoping AShM would’ve been fitted….
Great news. Can these missiles be repurposed like the SM6 to hit surface targets ?
HI Tim,
Yes, but the warhead is pretty small so only really effective against corvettes and FIAC’s.
Cheers CR
Yeah but they’d make their eyes water !
Hi David,
You are right. Someone else pointed out the speed and possibly burning rocket fuel would also be significant threats. HMS Sheffield was sunk in the Falklands by an Exocet that failed to explode, speed and burning rocket fuel started a serious fire…
Also, the old Sea Dart SAM had a secondary top attack mode for anti-ship work. The designers actually worked out that the weapon was potentially more lethal with the warhead disarmed! Basically, it went so fast and was sufficiently heavy that it could punch right through reasonably sized ships! Even if it didn’t, the chances are it would start fires with the heat generated by the impact an dpunching through the decks!
So warhead size ain’t everything.
Cheers CR
Yes most people forget how much kinetic energy there is in something. moving at supersonic speed, even a small missile has a lot of energy to dump into what it hits if it’s travelling at 3 times the speed of sound.
i did work out the kinetic energy available in a heavyweight hypersonic missile and it was in the same order of magnitude as an intercity 125 doing 125mph. But can’t be arsed to do the Math for Seaceptor.
I think I calculated a ceptor as hitting with around 32 M Joules of energy at M3.
I was bored….
Bar closed then?
They opened last week…we are now one week out of yet another short lock down…the last one was 5 weeks long post Eid when the numbers jumped due to Eid family celebrations after Ramadan.
Just had my third (Booster) jab 2 weeks ago and am now slowly getting pub fit again! Dont want to rush it although I may go big on Sunday Night!
Seem to recall during WW2 8 inch cruisers were feared by capital ships due to the number of rounds they could loose off in a short time, notwithstanding the greater size of projectile carried by the capital unit. Suppose an early illustration was evidenced at River Plate.
Perhaps CAMM could still fill a similar role in the heat of battle.
I think that there is an interesting straw in the wind here. Since the last ship refit will not be completed until 2032 it implies that the OSD for the class may be put back. It has been stated recently that the class will go out of service between 2035 and 2038, so on that timescale the last ship fitted will only have a maximum life with the upgrade of 6 years. Even with the convoluted thinking of our civil servants that is not cost effective.
So if the class is being run on the implication is that the successor class, the T83, will have a gestation period of 20 years, much like the T26 did. Or could it be that the MOD actually want to get the T83 in service earlier, say mid 2030’s to follow on from the 26’s at Govan/Scotstoun. This could indicate an aspiration to increase the number of destroyers in the long run. It might also indicate some longer term thinking about fleet size, although I think I am being very optimistic about that!
Good points, maybe you are not being optimistic? It’s entirely possible looking at the dates that the aspiration is for T83 ISD to overlap with T45 OSD, to increase the number of units quicker. i.e. don’t start retiring T45 until 2-3 off T83 are in service? That would allow the AAW fleet to grow to 8-9 units as soon as T83 comes in.
Well thats nice to see.
Noting the height of the existing Viper Silo above 1 deck there should only be minimum depth penetration of the deck below. A simple Mezz deck will suffice to enable a magazine to be constructed to hold the Ceptor launch boxes.
The Gym will still be in place below and the gym space aft of the silo will be unaffected.
As well as a welcomed increase in long range AA and local area defence/PDMS missiles the bonus is the ship will also have a quick reaction M3+ ASuM that can reach out to the horizon with a Shoot to hit of around 30 seconds. Irrespective of the size of the target its something else for a beligerent force to consider. A high diver M3 missile hitting you, with a blast warhead, lots of kinetic energy and maybe some propelant left to start a fire. Ok a couple of hits wont sink a FF/DD/PC but it will damage them enough to degrade their capabilities.
The time line for fitting is about right. As I have said many many times …nothing is plug and play. Its takes a lot of time and effort to put in new steel work, pipework, cables, complete software mods to command systems, install new power supply breakers, install new electronics, ammendments to drills and not least the platform safety case.
Regarding an interim fit of a Long Range ASuM …For land attack it would be a welcome addition. For Anti ship…You would still require over the horizon targeting by other assets, the ships organic helo capability or a Drone. If your helo is out that far anyway doing OHT its probably going to be fitted out for ASuW anyway with Martlett or Venom. A Wildcat is ideal for this . Using its ESM to find targets of interest and its PID to identify targets …no radar transmissions required.
” .. the ship will also have a quick reaction M3+ ASuM that can reach out to the horizon with a Shoot to hit of around 30 seconds ..”
Implies the ship can detect, ID & fix a sea skimming target 30 seconds before it breaks the horizon. Neat trick.
HI Ron5,
I think Gunbuster was refering to surface targets coming up over the horizon which could then be engaged in about 30seconds with Sea Ceptor. Sea Skimmers are obviously a different issue all together.
I think that is why the RN is looking at UAV’s, eventually it should be possible to use UAV based radar for over the horizon detection of Sea Skimmers. That kind of capability is some way off obviously, in the meantime SAMPSON on top a 40m (ish) mast is the best we have.
Cheers CR
Mis-understanding on TLA’s (Three Letter abreviations) and FLA’s ( Four Letter abbreviatyions)
ASuM (AntiSurface Missile) as opposed to AA.(Anti-AircraftMissile)
One of the design features of the high mast on a T45 was it gave extra detection time because Sampson can see further over the Horizon than a lower down, closer to sea level radar.
Got it, I did misunderstand.
But CAMM as an anti-ship weapon? Mmmm, a small boat on the horizon isn’t much of a threat is it? I’d just send a Wildcat if it were me.
Good news but I do think we are missing a trick here. The CAMM VLS is relatively inexpensive when set against the hot systems, so why aren’t we producing a quad pack VLS that is CAMM-ER capable as the costs of the VLS tubes are probably negligible in the scale of things (over to you Gunbuster)
If 16 Mk41’s could go into that slot – then we should be looking to put at least 16 CAMM Quad VLS into it.
£80m per ship for 24 CAMM’s is an awful lot of money – for 64- 96 its a bargain… even if we don’t fill them all initially.
best of all – it can be transferred and installed to T26/31/32/83, so an investment in future capability as well
Hi Pacman27,
Quadpacking is part of my gripe as well. However, it is still welcome news and 78 missiles is getting closer to where I believe we should be, although likely missing an opportunity for future flexibility around the introduction of new capabilities.
You are right about the costs you highlight, however, the statements above do say that the Sea Viper system will be refreshed. This is apparently under a seperate, recently announced 10year contract with Eurosam. The question is does the £500m lump the two contracts together – my guess is that it does.
However, if we get all optimistic and assume the £500m is solely for the 11 year CAMM integration, then there could be some money for upgrading the SAMPSON radar across the two contract. The statements mention software upgrades, but say nothing about adding a third panel to the radar which would be needed to provide direct overhead coverage for an effective ABM capability. That does not mean it isn’t in one of the contracts as the MoD might see such an upgrade as something they want to keep close to their chest until it is closer to deployment.
However, looking at the numbers and scope mentioned I think that the Aster refresh contract is lumped into £500m and could be limited converting the Aster 15’s to Aster 30’s and perhaps dealing with any sub-system obsolescence issues on the missiles. Also, solid rocket motors and warheads have a shelf life so it may be that the energetic materials needing replacing – that is a skilled and potentially dangerous job, so not cheap I am guessing.
As such, including the steel work, software upgrades, missile conversion and refresh work not to mention training, spares, launch canisters and missiles and I think that actually the £500m is well spent.
It also bodes well for the T83, especially if there is a SAMPSON upgrade in the offering, possibly under a seperate contract, may be under existing maintenance work the BAE Systems do on the radar?
Cheers CR
couldn’t agree more, as the upgrading of Aster 15 to 30 is a relatively simple booster addition.
I just think we should be creating a quad pack VLS, as it shouldn’t take a massive amount of additional space or resource and as many on this and other forums are commenting, the amount of missiles needed is getting higher, not lower.
16 Seaceptor VLS that could be quad packed would bring the T45 upto 112 missiles, which in reality is getting where it needs to be.
Hi Pacman27,
For comparison the Chinese Type055 destroyer has a 24cell launcher for short range SAM’s and 112 VLS for the bigger stuff. That is on 12 to 13,000 tons mind, so a bigger platform.
What caught my eye is the Type 056 Corvette. At 1500tons it is a reasonable size and mounts a short range SAM (looks a bit like Martlet) and 2x twin SSM cruise missiles with 160 or 190kg warheads and a range of 180 to 230km depending on version. They have 72 of them in service. They built 18 in 2020 alone!!!
It is this type of ship (and industrial capability) that makes me think SPEAR 3 quadpacked in a VLS as part of the weapons mix. You’d need to at least send some of those corvettes back to the dock yard for new CIC’s or they’d just keep coming at you in waves. Your helos are going to be doing ASW or trying to keep out of the way of SAM’s to hit them with Martlet or Sea Venom, especially in the SCS. So you’d need establish target position using UAV or passive means on the helos or UAV’s…
These corvettes could be an issue if someone lost control of one of those freedom of navigation missions…
Having said all of that this upgrade suggests that HMG has finally realised that we need to up arm our ships and it does bode well fo rthe T83 if that ever sees the light of day.
Cheers CR
“£80m per ship for 24 CAMM’s is an awful lot of money”
You’re assuming virtually all the £500m is just for CAMM missiles, its VLS, along with h/w and s/w integration costs. However, that sum is split with the Aster 15/30 missile refresh/upgrades along with the increased system processing power. Updating all our Aster 30 stocks along with converting Aster 15 stocks to Aster 30 is not likely to be a trivial expense. It may also include upgrading Aster 30 to Block 1NT standard, because if that’s not included in this program then its unlikely it ever will be.
Its perhaps why Defense News wrote “Overall, the investment in Type 45 lethality improvements comes to £500 million (U.S. $692 million), the Ministry of Defence said. The bulk of that spending is related to Aster 30 upgrades.”
https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2021/07/07/british-warship-to-get-a-boost-in-firepower-with-new-missile/
Agree. Most of the £500M likely spent on Aster30 and SeaViper systems upgrade. “Adding 24 CAMM each” will be only a fraction of the cost (although we all are too much focussed on it).
Maybe, less than £200M for CAMM, I guess. It is only two datalink antenna, two LMS box, and 24 canister holder (canister-with-missile itself shall be covered by complex weapon budget, as I understand?). Software integration of CAMM into SeaViper system may cost a little, but not large.
Refurbishing all aster30 might cost a lot. Upgrading the SeaViper system and its analysis power shall surely cost a lot. Its is a high-end AAW system.
“… although we all are too much focused on it” – there is a tendency for many to focus too much on numbers and not enough on relevant capabilities.
I’m curious as to whether it will be possible to provide the datalink capability using Sampson and eliminate the two antennas, which would avoid integration issues from the PDLT on or around the mast. I also wonder how much of the other infrastructure, such as LMS and C&C cabinets are required on T45 given the reportedly high commonality between Sea Ceptor and PAAMS.
There is also the probable SAMPSON radar upgrade it will need to do ABM defence.
BAES do show a BMD update for Sampson around the 2023/4 time-frame in a roadmap shown in a video about their Cowes facility. So you may be right that it is also included in this project cost, assuming its a s/w only update in conjunction with the increased processing capability mentioned in the PR.
you are right of course
A single Mk 41 with 12 tubes comes in at at around 30- 50Mil USD for the USN. You can bet the costs for an RN buy be at the top end price + as it would come through FMS.(Foreign Military Sales)
Buying Mk41 for 6 T45 would cost 300-400m USD. Thats before you do any integration work on the command system, update and upgrade Sampson, fit the actual Ceptor electronics, Steel work, piping for the deluge system that isnt needed for Ceptor, rework Aster missiles…
What is the fixation with a quad packed hot launch VLS for a cold launch missile. You are pishing money into the wind because its a nice to have.
I can only comment on T23 as thats the system I have worked with on T23.
The T23 fit was done to reduce costs and to get the system in service as quickly as possible. The round holes in the deck where left in place and an adaptor arrangement fitted to allow the smaller, square cross-section Ceptor launch container to fit into the existing (VL Seawolf) large diameter round launch tube hole.
It worked!
Square Peg, round hole, new highly capable missile system in the silo, trackers removed, System quickly fitted and at a respectable cost, no need to do SWMLU upgrades to Seawolf ( and that was a Massive cost saving), reduced top weight, lower wild heat solving the Chilled water issues on T23 ( They are positivley chilly onboard now even in the Gulf!),
Now on the T45 ( and T26, T31 for that matter) its in effect and unlike a T23, a new build instalation. It may be possible to design the Ceptor silo to just have the square launch containers fitted into the deck. The mushroom covers will still exist but to just cover the top of the square launch containers. If thats the case , you can squeeze in a lot more square launch containers than you could round hole adaptor plate fitted containers, into the same space.
Now I havent seen the design details or a T26 fit close up but that may be the solution to get more missiles than a T 23 into less space. If thats the case you dont need a quad pack launcher as the footprint is already lowered.
Hope that makes sense…
Hi Gunbusters, I am more than happy not to use Mk41 or Sylver, but I am unhappy with us not getting a better cold launch VLS that packs them in more, that space (and the space on the T26) can accommodate 64 Seaceptor especially if we come up with something with the same footprint as Mk41 – but cold launch
surely that would be a win all round and not a lot of extra cost for the tubes etc…
Perhaps that was lost in my mails above.
This is the Type 26 VLS. As can be seen, the missiles are closer together than on the Tpe 23’s.
https://www.edrmagazine.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/MBDA-Albatros-NG_09.jpg
great picture Ron5
This is now a bit of a bugbear with me, why can’t the UK design a cold launch VLS for Seaceptor ER that fits into the same deck footprint as a mk41 silo and quad pack these missiles.
With Mk 41 being the defacto std for VLS – this makes sense on so many levels.
It can’t be due to cost as its metal and everyone tells me metal is cheap in these things.
I also want an automated opener – I mean who wants the job of taking the lids off..
Maybe its because quad packing in a Mk41 cell footprint isn’t optimal for CAMM unless trying to pack a very large number in a very small space? Perhaps spacing out the blocks of 2×3 cells may make more sense when trying to launch multiple missiles rapidly.
Remember, CAMM is cold launched and then tips over to point in the direction of travel, which takes a finite time. While its doing that we don’t want another missile launching until the first missile has cleared the launch region. Spacing out the cells may enable a faster rate of ripple fire.
Thats a great point, something I hadn’t considered, as MBDA has stated that it could be quad packed into the sea wolf VLS (RN chose not to) and has already been tested quad packed in mk41 I am not convinced.
Taking a look at land ceptor, you have 2 banks of 4 VLS across the width of a MAN truck with its lifting arm probably taking up the space of another block of 4, so for the width of a man truck we can probably get 24 VLS tubes in a square and I suspect we can get 3 of these in the space allocated to
Surely we can insert 16 lots of 4 of these landceptor units into a The space, it would after all seem to be already designed in principle, ready to be marinised.
https://www.mbda-systems.com/product/camm/
So can we build a cradle that would hold 16 sets of 4 tubes as per the landceptor set up already engineered. If we can do it n a truck we can do it here.
Happy they are getting something, but if countering a saturation attack is the use case, then 24 is nowhere near enough. So a missed opportunity in my books to leverage the design of landceptor VLS and bring that value add to the RN for a massive capability upgrade.
Correction landceptor has 12 VLS tubes on a man truck so the density above can be even more if we wanted.
it’s just interesting to me that we have a ready made lane based solution that we can surely replicate and we don’t seem to be.
The lack of high density packing of CAMM in our ships clearly isn’t a technical limitation. It may simply be a case of what the RN see as the primary role of CAMM on T45 in the context of a CSG or amphibious group escorted by both T45 and T26/T23. For example the T45 operating inside the T26/23 ASW screen may see CAMM on T45 used more for CIWS as backup for T26/23 CAMM and the T45’s Aster 30.
Consider, 2x T26 and 2x T45 escort will have 144 CAMM missiles between them, in addition to 96 Aster 30 (probably all upgraded to the Block 1NT variant), assuming full loadout. That ignores contributions from whatever other escorts may be present, and also ignores EW defence. It also doesn’t factor in using ASRAAM or Meteor from F-35B CAP against ASM missiles. An adversary is going to need a very large stock of high end ASM to attempt to counter not just one UK CSG but every other naval asset that would be in play, or otherwise leave themselves vulnerable to the response.
Yes of course it all adds up, but set against peers it’s still a low load out, the fleet you have just described has the same kind of capability as a single ticonderoga class. What happens after a single attack, as the ships can’t reload at sea.
I understand your logic, but for me we need to plan and build for worst case and I would rather have empty cheap tubes than not having them at all,
so the optimal overall VLS solution is mk41/57 as it offers so much flexibility, but Given this is wasteful for those missiles not needing a hot system, surely the next best thing is a cold version of mk41/Sylver that is cheaper but still offers the benefits.
t26 could/should have 48 mk41 strike, and 24 VLS that can hold 96 camm ER this is clearly more expensive than the current plan, but is far more realistic given probable future threats. It also provides a relatively easy way for T26 becoming an AAW asset given it total load out could approach 288 missiles with a radar/systems upgrade.
food for thought, but seems to me that the land ceptor setup should be the way forward for integrating these in RN.
on a similar front the RN committed to bofors 40mm when the army has gone CTA, surely we should standardise (there is a naval version of CTA – one set of ammo etc…)
if it close enough in capabilities then the benefits of a single inventory type should take precedence as it has with CAMM.
this upgrade is better than nothing, but I do want more joined up thinking
Capability is more than the number of VLS cells though.
For all the cells on Arleigh Burkes and Tico’s they lack AESA and high mounted radar capable of detecting modern sea skimming missiles early. They also lack active seekers in ESSM and SM-2 so their missile response is constrained by the 3-4 illumination radars, making them more dependent on limited SM-6 loadout and non-kinetic countermeasures. By the end of the decade the USN should be on the way to addressing these weaknesses. But today, in a CSG, they are very dependent on the E-2D to detect the low flying stealthy threats well outside the radar horizon. Outside a CSG, without air cover and facing sea skimming threats is not their optimum use until they get the upgrades. Fortunately they will get the Constellation class for these roles.
Worst case preparation requires a war time budget, or it isn’t worst case. I don’t see such a budget, or anything approaching it, happening. Its also certainly not in Russia’s or China’s interests to let a high end conflict happen because of the potential domestic backlash that could result. We just need enough deterrence and creation of uncertainty in aggregate with allies to make sure no one is ever tempted to risk it.
Your upgraded, probably overloaded and significantly more expensive T26, especially when adding the high end AAW radar, is closer to a T83 than an ASW focused frigate. Better to design and build a T83 with a hull fit for purpose.
I understand your desire to leverage capability across the services but it has to make sense. For example, the Land Ceptor assembly holding the CAMM canisters has very little of value to offer for a naval installation. Starting from scratch with closely packed CAMM canisters could have been done instead of the 2×3 module with its spacing between canisters, which will be used on T31, T26, probably on T45 and as part of the Italian Albatros NG. There’s probably a good reason why closer packing wasn’t implemented.
Similarly CTA40 is currently unproven in marine applications, many of its land vehicle benefits aren’t relevant in a naval environment. T31 was all about low cost, on time, low risk, so no benefit to potentially undermining that.
It’s still a faster launch method than a hot launch system.
The RA have said that they will be getting CAMM-ER. So you could deduce that the cradle on the MAN truck when in the fully upright position “should” not need any modifications to fit the longer tubes.
Hi I have not seen anything about Sky Sabre getting CAAMMs ER, i knoe the launchers can take the larger missile but I thought the standard one was on order.
16 RA are training with the system now with first deployment to the Falklands later this year (Only 2 years late)!
please source your RA CAAMMs ER comment.
thanks,
Rob N
So you quad pack a MK41… Bit of action damage or a defect and suddenly you cannot open the door and you lose the capability of 4 missiles.
Mushroom farm is simple, and no moving parts.
Like SW before it the covers on the launch tubes are for weather protection during normal everyday steaming . When in a high threat area they come off and are stowed away.
Twin 40mm in place of the 20s anyone, save expensive missiles for something more than drones and speed boats, £££ but.
Is the Type 26 frigate getting a 24 cell Sea Ceptor? Or a quad-packed 12-cell silo?
Hi Goldilocks,
Two 24 cell Sea Ceptor VLS.
James Fennel posted a nice picture of the T26 silos that clearly shows the two 24 Sea Ceptor silos, one forward and one aft. So T26 is getting 48x Sea Ceptor and 24 Mk41 for as yet undisclosed heavy weapons – possibly cruise missiles.
Cheers CR
Cheers
Actually it has not been announced what VLS will be used. The Photoshop referred to by CR was done by an internet user not the Navy or MBDA.
About time too…
But I thought there was a ‘FFBNW’ space at the rear of these ships for this type of upgrade ?
I guess the extra cells will go where the anti-ship capability was. So, finally, we know – no Mk41 or anti-ship capability for the T45s. Not good.
No explicit reference to Aster30 upgrades either.
Going by the cgi on Navylookout that won’t be the case – the space where Harpoon currently resides will still be free to fit whatever ASM the RN have going into the future.
Very pleased to note but why oh why will it take 5 years to upgrade the first T45?? Bonkers!!
Because that’s when the first will go in for its next big refit. Between now and then, none can be spared.
Design, Shore side integration first at Portsdown Hill to test the sytems …thats probably 2 years. Possible spiral fit and integration of the fit so no need to do it during a refit, tests and trials in real life at sea on first of class fit.
Lessons learnt and no need to do the Portsdown Hill bit again will speed it up for subsequent fits . But 5 years for a hugley complex first of class new weapon fit is pretty quick.
The MoD announcement included a very big clue that they would be fitted during their next scheduled refits.
I am sure I read maintenance periods.
The MOD press office would probably count an FTSP as a refit….
About fucking time.
Pithy but accurate 😀
Thanks Russia for recently proving to the people who hold the purse strings why T45’s need to be on top of the air defence game 🙂
Well, well….more good news!
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2021-07-05.27036.h&s=Future+Cruise+and+Anti+Ship+Weapon#g27036.r0
And with ASMs likely getting faster I hope they’re planning for a Mach 4+ Camm…a hypersonic Camm.