BAE Systems has secured a $37 million contract from the U.S. Department of Defense Ordnance Technology Consortium (DOTC) to design the Next Generation Evolved SeaSparrow Missile Launch System (NGELS).
Under the contract, BAE Systems will support the NATO SeaSparrow Program Office (NSPO) by designing and delivering prototype deck launching systems for the U.S. Navy and allied countries’ Evolved SeaSparrow Missile (ESSM) ship self-defence system.
The NGELS is a deck-mounted, fixed-angle launcher that utilises BAE Systems’ Adaptable Deck Launcher (ADL) concept.
It is designed to store and launch ESSMs from Mk 25 missile canisters, also produced by BAE Systems. This system can be easily integrated into large deck platforms and will support the fielding of the latest, most capable ESSM missile, the Block 2 variant.
This multi-role surface-to-air and surface-to-surface missile is designed to safeguard aircraft carriers and other flat-decked ships against advanced air and surface threats.
The NGELS employs proven Mk 41 Vertical Launching System subsystems to offer surface-to-air and surface-to-surface defense capabilities to aircraft carriers and amphibious ships to counter missile threats.
Brent Butcher, Vice President of the weapon systems product line at BAE Systems, commented on the award: “NGELS leverages the expertise of our workforce to provide a ready-to-deploy system that enhances mission effectiveness and enables reliable ship defense for the U.S. Navy. We look forward to working with our customers to bring this enhanced capability to the fleet and introducing it to international users.”
The QE Class would be an ideal customer.
Agree but wishful thinking 🤔
A small mushroom farm would be better.
It depends if it fits into the PODs concept or not.
CAMM with soft launch is the least worst system from a FOD point of view.
As everyone who has had any real experience will tell you missiles / aircraft carriers and jet engines a poor mix do make.
Personally I’d put some 40mm’s where the 30mm were to go – if the sponsons will take them. Then you have 3P ammunition.
Directed energy weapons when they become available. Oh, and attach a cluster of 5/7 of Martlets to the 30mm cannons that RN have been testing. I have always wondered where it would be best to put a CAMM system on the carrier.
At the back corners probably a deck or 2 below the flight deck. As the carrier moves forward less FOD can land on the deck.
I can’t remember if there’s platforms sticking out already.
Nimitz have missiles positioned around the edges of the ship.
Not sure if CAMM would go vertical high enough up and over the carrier and could then cause potential interference with Air Ops. A pair RAM style launchers paired with Phalanx’s could work.
I was thinking about RAM launchers around the edge.
I have some concerns over direct energy weapons as they require a huge source of electical energy, as others have highlighted electrical generation is noisy and can only really be substatially reduced. Stored electrical energy is a possibility but thay is also full of problems ( you may as well call a battary a ticking bomb) yet to be overcome not least the dangers of fire. The problems will be overcome but when?
https://www.naval-technology.com/news/uk-and-us-test-energy-storage-system-for-advanced-royal-navy-ships/
👍
With you SB, at least 2x40mm in the aft 2x30mm positions and maybe a couple of Nexter type 30mm RWS+Marlet x4 in the two forward positions. Would have liked Samson instead of Artisan and some Aster 15/30s middish port side but maybe not doable and FOD still an issue according to some.
The original plan was to put SAMPSON on QEC. However, I’m pretty sure it was that or CROWSNEST – both wouldn’t have happened. As QEC isn’t an AAW missile platform that isn’t an issue. But SAPMSON networked at twice the mast height of T45 would be useful. However you don’t want to depend on active radar on your main asset. ASTER is a bad idea as it is hot launched. The main missile threat to a QEC is a diving missile and horizontal launch isn’t the best defensive layout? Vertical launch is a no-no because of the risk to air… Read more »
SB, with respect, Asters are on the French current and future and current Italian carriers. If they can do it so can the RN. Even RAM style launchers away from the main decks to minimise FOD should also doable. At a minimum something extra in the CIWS department is surely needed, even a pair of 40mm for anti air/drone out to 5km+ and or Marlet/Sky Streak mounts. Can’t expect any T45 escorts to shoot all this smaller stuff out of the sky with their Asters and CAMMs. Where is Dragonfire at?
I agree with the 40mm replacing 30mm absolutely.
French operate their carrier more like a battle ship of old.
Let’s put it this way. Why are you going to put a whole AAW department replicating T45 onto QEC when you can boost T45 (as is the funded plan) and cooperatively engage using missiles from T26 and T31 as needed?
TBH you’d be better off putting more CAMM in PODs onto RFA and Albions.
I think for an asset the size and value of an aircraft carrier with a strong anti air suite wouldn’t be a bad idea. There’s billions of pounds of assets and people on these things. And yes, the upgrades to the T45s are a priority too and welcome force multipliers. I do think they could remove the forward 40mm off T31s and putting them on the Carriers, and then using that space for more CAMM or MK41s. I agree with you on missile/torpedo PODs, that can be put on board when needed, and on the Albions, Bays, Argus, Tides, Waves… Read more »
👍
I agree up to a point. The vertical soft launch distance that CAMM reaches (about 35m) could be a problem for the carrier. Which may necessitate having a farm forward and one aft, to make sure CAMM clears the islands. Especially if it still requires CAMM to have a point defence capability? Otherwise it could activate the rocket at the apogee and head to the target in a ballistic arc as per ESSM etc. Which kind of defeats the point of CAMM. I’m pretty certain there’s space in the launcher/container for an additional gas generator, to give the piston more… Read more »
Both those countries have no carrier experience. The Royal Navy has actually fought a peer enemy since WW2 and has plenty of carrier experience.
Just because the RN could do it doesn’t mean they should, it’s all about different doctrines but ultimately the RN have the most experience.
France have much more carrier experience than UK, they actually have an AEW for 20 years and carrier aircraft for more than 40 years continously something that can not be said about Royal Navy.
Are you aware that USN have had Sea Sparrows for more than 40 years in their CVN’s?
But what that has anything to do with missiles in carriers?
France does not have more carrier experience than Britain what makes you say that? The Royal Navy is the only western Navy to have fought a peer enemy since WW2, the only carrier Navy to have fought a peer enemy since WW2 and the only Navy with SAM’s on a carrier in a peer conflict. All lovey dovey launching the occasional missile on a carrier in peacetime operations, not practical in wartime when conducting carrier operations. The US has a different doctrine to Britain with their Carriers. American carriers are significantly faster than British and nuclear powered so don’t require… Read more »
Are you joking? I suported my assertion with facts you did not contested.
5 Years ago Royal Navy did not even have an operational carrier and today it is very limited.
Are you talking about individual experience of the experience of a Navy? On the experience of a Navy, RN hands down wins, what combat carrier experience does France have? The two carriers had first crew assigned in 2012 and 2016. Ark Royal decommissioned in 2011, Illustrious in 2014 and Ocean in 2018. In addition there were pilots sent over to the US to keep up carrier training and there are still RN pilots flying off US carriers. Of course the gap in capability was bad and a lot of experience was lost, but it’s not as bad as you make… Read more »
It’s an aircraft carrier. Not a Destroyer. It needs more of it’s primary weapon systems. Aircraft. Let the escorts do the job they are designed to do. That’s why they are getting the investment. The RN removed Sea Dart off the Invincible class for that very reason.
Hi Robert, I do understand that, we’ll just have to disagree on somethings. The QEs are of a very different order than the Invincible’s and could do some more primary defensive systems.
Its primary weapon systems are its airwing. The RN uses the layer air defence approach. Nothing moves within 500 + Miles without the carrier knowing about it. Use it like a proper aircraft carrier, and let the escorts do the job they are designed for. And the aircraft. Warfare has moved on, it’s not going to be like the Falklands war. If a carrier has to use its defensive weapons, then bugger me, something has massively gone wrong. And I’m talking about full on WW3 stuff. And so far, no enemy has that kind of capability, short of tactical nukes.
Things can go massively wrong for numerous reasons that is why a carrier should have self defence weapons.
Some of you really learn nothing from Falklands.
Even USN with all its power have i in their CVN’s
And somebody like you doesn’t know the first thing about Naval warfare. It isn’t like it is in the movies.
Well it was your Royal Navy that keep making costly – in lives- mistakes.
That comment doesn’t make any sense?
No…it really wouldn’t.
FOD
Hot launch
New foreign missile with zero UK input into its design or production.
The USN use a completely different command system for big ship self defence and you would still need to fit Semi Active illuminators for one of the modes of operation which the RN has binned.
The RN has moved away from missiles on carriers for several reasons.
Let the escorts do the missile thing and let the carriers do the launching aircraft and CIWS thing.
Every other navy in the world disagrees. Particularily when the numbers of escorts are so small. Multi-layer defense is the best answer. Air and missle defense has allways been a dicey proposition. Skipping layers for whatever alleged reason just does not seem prudent.
Does it make them right? Different Ships…Different Cap Tallies. Which navy in the last 50 Years has fought a multi domain conflict using carriers and learnt the lessons the hard way on fighting its ships? Having CIWS on carriers brings with it issues. Adding missiles to the mix adds further complexity in command and control that you can do without. Taking Sea Ceptor as an example and this is just from just the engineering perspective it’s not a straightforward fit. Blind arcs, Data Link placement, console integration, RATTAM, magazine depth all bring issues. Now add in the Operation side of… Read more »
Which other carrier Navy has fought a peer enemy since WW2?
The Royal Navy is the only Navy to operate a carrier in a peer conflict with SAM’s.
You calling Argentina a peer?
Whatever you want to call them, no Western Navy has encountered similar since WW2. The US is the only current carrier Navy that has ever encountered similar.
The task force would be in bottom of ocean if Argentinians had 40 Super Entendard and 100 Exocet. Even WW2 attacks with iron bombs had success.
And if they had ballistic missiles, long range bombers, nuclear submarines and Patriot AD missiles the campaign would’ve gone differently. They didn’t so the campaign didn’t go differently.
Everything you have said there is pretty pointless and meaningless.
No other western navy/carrier navy has experienced anything like the Falklands since WW2, and neither France nor Italy have ever encountered similar.
Why don’t you reply to GB and follow up on your post? Ah you can’t as you would be trying to challenge an experienced career sailor, with a multitude of skills and experience, while you are just a sad troll with an anti UK chip on your shoulder!
What needs to be remembered is the aircraft on board have missiles that can go after incoming missiles, as well as the escorts.
A carrier should not be sailing in a hot zone without several escorts. I think the U.K. does it right.
Off-topic, but this is good news for Ukraine. SKY NEWS Paris to supply Kyiv with French equivalent of Storm Shadow long-range cruise missilesFrance will join the UK in supplying Ukraine with long-range cruise missiles, which can travel 250 km, French officials have said. Emmanuel Macron said he had decided to boost military aid to Ukraine to help its counteroffensive as he arrived at the NATO summit. The move will allow Ukrainian forces to hit Russian troops and supplies deep behind front lines. “I have decided to increase deliveries of weapons and equipment to enable the Ukrainians to have the… Read more »
Ukraine conflict: Macron pledges SCALP cruise missiles for Kyiv11 JULY 2023
by Gareth Jennings
I wish the West would stop broadcasting so much of what it’s doing and giving for Ukraine. Let the missiles do the talking on the battlefield. Why tell the Russian’s everything, in fact anything in advance?! It could at a point give crazy ol Putin a desperate urge to go for some crazy nuclear strikes.
Very true, but on the flip side it helps to lessen the morale of the occupying Russian forces knowing what’s heading their way.
It’s not “french equivalent of”
Storm shadow and SCALP is the same missile…
The reason why it is called “SCALP” in France is because the missile is based on the Apache missile…
Apache / SCALP I think everyone can understand.
Even if officially SCALP mean “Système de Croisière Autonome à Longue Portée” (Long Range Autonomous Cruise System)
And except if the range is modified before export, it far exceed 250km…
One for the editor at sky.
Oh, BAE getting even more taxpayers money. Splendid…
What have you got against BAE, Tom?
Hello Graham… my issue with BAE, is the fact that they, and their ‘friends in procurement’ rake in 100’s of millions of British taxpayers money every year, seemingly, without any opposition form other companies. Whatever happened to competitive tendering? Who or what protects us as taxpayers, ensuring that we get value for money? The Competition Commission and the Office of Fair Trading, were abolished in 2014, and was replaced by the Competition and Markets Authority, The CMA is a non Ministerial Government department. It has a senior executive, and ‘several’ appointed directors. (‘several’, for reasons only known to themselves) In… Read more »
Tom,
The first paragraph from the above article:
Hello Tom, I don’t share your concern and anger at BAE Systems. They rake in lots of money for providing the military equipment that the MoD and foreign governments have ordered. It is generally regarded to be good equipment – do say what equipment you think is sub-standard or overpriced. Not sure what you mean by their friends in procurement receiving millions. Are you referreing to the ‘sweeteners’ paid to Saudi Arabian Princes many years ago? There is little to no corruption in UK procurement. Not sure why you think competitive tendering has gone. Some 50-60% of MoD contracts are… Read more »
American tax money.
Not that much of it either?
In the grand scheme of things., not really. The US armed forces spend $20.2 billion just on air conditioning a year.
More good news for BAE.. https://www.defensenews.com/industry/2023/07/11/bae-systems-wins-order-for-munitions-as-uk-rebuilds-stocks/
Sorry $20 billion on air con! What are they trying to cool down, The whole Middle East!
Just for info and to show you that the grass isn’t always greener over the pond here is a link to the US Govts own in house Test and Evaluation Report 2022 2022 Annual Report (osd.mil) or here FY22 DOT&E Annual Report (osd.mil) Of interest to me being Maritime centric are Carrier issues (P169) LCS MCM issues (P192) Mk54 Torp still not meeting the performance spec especially from P8s which the RAF have bought at the expense of Sting Ray (P198) Some good insight to other systems from Army and Airforce especially active protection systems, long range strike and F35… Read more »
Totally correct. Stuff goes wrong all over the place not just the U.K.
Hopefully CAMM-ER/MR/EX developments can also get some more takers and made better than the ESSM. This looks like the ADL, adaptable deck launcher, basically MK41 angled on its side. Looks kind of heavy but it works and should take other missiles?
Some good news regards the UK, BAE and 155mm ammuntion replen : DE&S places new order with BAE Systems to increase 155mm shells stockpile for British Army DE&S has placed a significant order for 155mm artillery shells with BAE Systems, which will increase the UK’s stockpile and deliver an eight-fold increase in production capacity. As part of an initial £190 million contract increase under the existing long-term Next Generation Munitions Solution (NGMS) agreement, BAE Systems will ramp up production of the NATO-standard round, creating more than 100 new jobs in South Wales and the North-East of England. 155mm shells are… Read more »
Good news. If there’s one thing that’s crucial to Ukraine and any forces around the world it’s ammo.
Would love to know how Russia is actually doing with the ammo situation.
There are numerous reports that N Korea is supplying Russia with artillery shells. The N Korea regime are said to be demanding gold in payment. It’s quite likely that Iran will be supplying shells in addition to their Shahed drones.
With respect, FOD is less of worry to flight operations than receiving a missile strike to the carrier.
OT, the Reds just flew over my house! About an hour ago, heading towards Farnborough. In 2 formations of 5 and 3. 😍