SHARE

In what has been described as an unconventional move, Egypt is using the Avenger self-propelled surface-to-air missile system to protect its assault ships.

The system is designed to be a mobile, short-range air defence protection system for ground units against cruise missiles, unmanned aerial vehicles, low-flying fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters. It is not designed for naval use.

Oddly, the class also carry their former Russian armament int he form of 3M-47 Ghibka surface-to-air missile turrets.

in 2015, Egypt and France agreed a deal for Egypt to acquire two Mistral class vessels originally built for Russia for roughly 950 million euros, including the costs of training Egyptian crews.

Speaking on RMC Radio, Jean-Yves Le Drian, French Defence Minister at the time, said that Egypt had paid the whole price for the helicopter carriers. Egypt also purchased the Russian helicopters that were planned for the ships.

Egypt operates two ships of this class, the Gamal Abdel Nasser (ex-Vladivostok) and Anwar El Sadat (ex-Sevastopol).

The video where this information first came ot light was posted by the Egyptian Ministry of Defence and can be viewed below.

21 COMMENTS

        • And does it?

          If an enemy aircraft has come within the 3-4 mile range of the humble old stinger, then something has gone terribly wrong!

          • You are right if you get that close then it depends upon the efficiency of the weapon defending against it. An effective weapon at 1500m yes might be better than a less efficient one at a couple miles. A comparison therefore between the two against various incoming in that scenario might be the best thing to do rather than simply presume a greater range is inherently the better defensive solution. Anyone able to do that?

  1. Well, the Queen Liz could do similar by parking a CAMM/FLAADs truck on deck.

    Put the very powerful SMART-L radar to work.
    Wireless datalink to the launcher.

    Robert would indeed be your mother’s brother.

    Better than nothing!

    • I’d call that a good shout to be fair at least in the short term while we can fit them permanently when the funds are avaliable. And you could have another few below decks taking up little space, when you need to reload just drive another up on deck and strap it down.

  2. I still can’t believe the Admiralty is going to allow QE/PoW into harm’s way without Sea Ceptor and rely solely on our all too few escorts. Even the Americans – with considerably more escorts available than us – wouldn’t dream of doing that!

    Sure, it’s a matter of money but there has been absolutely nothing published to say this would be fitted later – like the Type 45 ‘fitted for but not with’. I’d settle for that at this point.

    Very worrying indeed.

    • Yes very good point, would be madness not to make provision for it at some future date as multi level defence is required particularly in the future with more sophisticated threats.

  3. Joe has the answer either a CAMM/ sea ceptor truck or containerised weapons silo. Very cheap solution.
    this was proposed in the Falklands using sea wolf for Atlantic Conveyor and would have likely saved her from exocet strike if it had been fitted. Without a SAM fitted QE carriers are missing a vital component in layered defence.
    they are the ONLY strike carrier in the entire world with no SAM, that cannot be tactically or morally right!

  4. I’d be really interested to know whether the carriers do have any topside space with compartments below designed to take one or more properly integrated VLS silos or whether provision for local defence was left off the design completely.

    Putting any permanent silos over on the starboard side which is already an aircraft no-fly zone because of the superstructure would seem to be the obvious place where space might have been allocated. On top of the superstructure might have been even better but with all the funnels and antennae up there it looks as if there probably isn’t enough space but maybe there is. If not then it’s a big shame because just a 3m stretch would probably have created the required space.

    Any thoughts about where permanent VLS silos could be fitted on QEC? It would be such a shame to see a bodge job like the one in this article having to be implemented on ships that are supposedly so well designed for their purpose.

    • My guess would be that the idea was omitted from design altogether.

      A curious example of this kind of integration is the “Hyuga Class” helicopter carrier.
      If folks google the VLS cells for that ship they will see that the Japanese put in 16 vls cells embedded into the deck right at the back of the vessel next to one of the helicopter landing spots.

  5. The place with the most space, uninterrupted by antennae etc is alongside the ski jump. There may be issues when shipping it green over the bows, but that should be a rarity. As Joe pointed out above, Sea Ceptor/ Land Ceptor is designed to use a separate radar to give it target information and needs very little in the way of integration into the ship. Land Ceptor is designed to fit on a pallet which can be mounted on a truck and as such could easily be mounted straight on the deck, although protection from the elements may be problematic.
    Incidentally, I have previously considered the possibility of using the MLRS ground attack weapon mounted on a ship to provide shore support, although I’m not sure of the problems that would encounter.

    • Thanks. I know that Artisan is more than capable of guiding a Sea Ceptor into its kill-zone so it wasn’t the systems integration that I was worrying about. It’s more as someone who has been an industrial designer for some of his career it hurts my design sensibilities to think that we might end up forced to use trucks strapped to the deck just because somewhere in however many compartments there are in a QEC there weren’t any left unallocated but intended for future installation of one or more VLS silos.

      One other thing to worry about alongside the ski jump would be turning circles for planes since starboard of the ski jump is also a parking area. Perhaps not such a big issue for the truck-on-deck solution since it could be moved if necessary but maybe more of an issue to weld a fixed box onto the side for a permanent installation.

      If there are no allocated compartments (but I really hope there are) then I wonder whether welding a box housing onto the starboard side right up at the front might be a suitable permanent location. From the image at the top of this page (http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/queenelizabeth) one could almost be forgiven for thinking there’s a bit missing there anyway.

      • Meant starboard side of the hull in my last paragraph re possible permanent site for VLS, not starboard side of the ski ramp which is what I was talking about in the second para on where to put a truck.

  6. I wonder what the cost would actually be to fit a sea captor silo mounted in a containerised form. If the QE class has the radar system designed to operate the sea captor system it seems utter madness and penny pinching in the extreme not to fit a point defence and limited area defence SAM system to a £3billion strike carrier.
    “Fitted for but not with” all over again.
    MBDA’s own literature alludes to the option of a 24 or 36 or 48 cell containerised system costing between £10 and £18 million- not a huge expense on a £7 billion carrier. A QE would be much more able to protect herself from saturation missile attack if fitted with a 48 cell sea captor container. 48 cell fits into a 30ft container apparently, 24 cell a 20ft standard shipping container sized footprint- not likely to take up a huge area of deck space on a vessel as large as a QE.

  7. Please correct me if I’m wrong but I think I read in “Warship magazine ” that the RN was going to fit a lazer systems on the phalanx platform. If this is true I think it would be a realy good sulution as a defence system as it’s faster than the new Russian and Chinese weapons.

LEAVE A REPLY