A target boat took a direct hit in the Irish Sea as the Type 23 Frigate tested a new missile designed to defeat terrorists and suicide bombers.
Martlet – also known as the Lightweight Multi-role Missile – was originally designed to be fired by Wildcat helicopters to take out small boats which posed a threat to the Fleet, say the Royal Navy.
The Royal Navy say that recent incidents where both merchant and military shipping have been attacked by manned and unmanned surface and air systems armed with explosive devices, underlined the risks faced by Royal Navy units deployed in danger zones.
“Just five months after the idea was mooted, the Plymouth-based frigate was off the Aberporth Range at the southern end of Cardigan Bay facing a fast inshore attack craft tearing across the water.
After first proving that the gun could still fire accurately with the missile fitted – 120 rounds obliterated a large red ‘killer tomato’ target – and that the sensors behind Martlet could track its radio-controlled foe at ranges of up to five kilometres.
Finally, four missiles were fired – one to test the effect of the Martlet ‘blasting off’ from its launcher on the gun mounting and the side of Sutherland (the missile accelerates to one and a half times the speed of sound in an instant), three packed with telemetry to measure the missile’s accuracy (ordinarily the weapon carries a 3kg warhead).”
Most Royal Navy vessels are armed with a series of machine-guns and mini-guns to fend off small craft, while some are also equipped with Phalanx close in weapons systems in addition to missiles like Sea Ceptor which are designed for aerial threats.
“The current defence against fast inshore attack craft, the 30mm gun, is highly effective for closer range engagements,” said Lieutenant Commander George Blakeman, HMS Sutherland’s Weapon Engineer Officer.
“By adding the missile to the gun mount it is anticipated it will extend the reach of the ship’s defensive systems – key to successful defence against fast craft using swarm attack tactics.”
I assume the wires behind the gun will be shielded for a real installation? That rocket blast would melt them to bits…
Two stage missile, first stage relatively cold pushes it a couple of meters clear from the vehicle before main engine engages.
See video of launch and same exposed wire.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iDjvc2r02V4
Thanks. That makes sense. The picture is quite decieving as that flame looks like the main stage.
Still, I pity the matelot who chooses that moment to take a leak! Gonads on toast!
Yes having watched the Thales demonstration vid, which clearly shows a very minor powered ejection sequence but not checked if it’s the same vid as above, but that photo at the top here is nothing like what their video shows so not quite sure what is going on there.
Looking again the initial blast is momentary and the pic above is misleading but still wouldn’t want to be near it even so in that moment.
https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/uk-complex-weapons/lightweight-multirole-missile-martlet/
Hmmm…looks as if the arc of fire is limited! Anything outside of an arc of 30 degrees off ships heading means a lot of burnt superstructure and cabling!
Definitely not an expert, but looking at the pictures, i’d Imagine the gun mount might be able to swivel close to 180 degrees.
And what will the rocket blast do to the side of the ship?
Probably not much; 0.2 second blast wont have a lot of heat.
Lucky the ship can turn any direction it needs.
Hopefully in time…if the threat comes from the stern?
Let’s hope radar can pick up any threat in time then.
Have you been on a ship trying to do a 180. Takes a bloody long time!
Yes I have, and I understand it takes time, but can’t we pick up craft many miles away long before we fire any weapons.
In the film Battleship they did a handbrake turn in a WW2 battleship with about 10 people as the the entire crew. I’m not sure why that film would lie to us all so it seems even huge warships are nimble as hell.
Lol but they don’t take hours.
Oh well, if Hollywood can do it then it MUST be true!
Not sure, but “In combat, the Stinger has a backblast danger zone of 50 feet (15m) for personnel and 16 feet (5m) for equipment”
ref; https://guns.fandom.com/wiki/FIM-92_Stinger
If it is 5 m also for LMM, then we need to only protect the nearest wall, and the front of RHIB, only, I guess?
If I was one of the ship’s crew the main recommendation from this test I’d like to see is a soft launch system. Imagine a world where such common sense solutions saw the light of day!
I’m sure the incredibly clever scientists and technicians and the RN will take note of your recommendation, but I think they have it covered.
Not really those guys I lack faith in. I’ll make my distain of pen pushers more obvious in future for the hard of understanding.
The pen pushes that are vital to our national defence? Plenty of armchair missile experts on this thread, the pen pushers have helped get this system from the drawing board to a full test in 5 weeks, that is pretty good going. And there has always been urgent operational requirements to meet the threat.
Some people really need a better developed sense of humour. Pen pushers aren’t the rocket scientists, ship designers and logisticians that get these things into service, it’s just a catch-all phrase like bureaucrat or mandarin to represent the obfuscators that put obsticles in their way. Stop getting your knickers in a twist over jokes at their expense. Hopefully this prototype develops into an effective means of self defense and the RN get enough of them.
(For the avoidance of doubt the previous sentence was my actual opinion.)
Soft launch tends to be for VL systems. It adds another layer of complexity to a system. As fitted here with a blip motor then sustainer its a quick launch and simple in operation.
No need to over complicate it… More to go wrong when you need it for real and it would not be compatible with a helo carriage and launch system.
“Dear America, those Javs you sold us were VLS all along, please have them back and let us have the ones that incinerate everything in a 40 degree arc to our rear. K thx bye xxx.”
Guys, im pretty sure they have thought about the shielding and the potential for burning the superstructure. I would reckon that training will iron the potential to burn the sailors and/or electrical or superstructure parts. The picture doesn’t do it justice, but the missiles will be in the tube for just a very tiny fraction of a moment.
I wonder if Hms QE will get this system on her guns. Would add allot to her defence.
What is allot? Is it another defence system?
Yeah, it is cam..allot…arf,arf….
Ok! again don’t quote me!. Do I need to come up to your standard to comment on here?
Ok don’t quote! You should get what I mean…
Well it’s a light missile system isn’t it, and even if just for propaganda purposes the fact HMS QE has missiles might deter anyone trying to atack her. That’s all I was getting at.
Also worth noting that in this current configuration, launches could damage the seaboat. A few well-placed plates should be able to protect the areas around the mount.
This does represent a fantastic additional capability for the fleet and demonstrates using Martlet in more than just one role (helicopter launch). Would be a welcome addition to all vessels, particularly B2 Rivers and future 31 hulls.
yeah would make sense on all our 30mm cannons on all ships that have them, shame marlet doesn’t have a light anti air option also.
It does the HVM Starstreak a very cpable missile that seems to be overlooked, however I am unsure on whether the navies mounts have the same Fire Control System – but as it exists as a MANPAD I wouldn’t have thought a major investment
The RM Air Defence Troop trialled LMM in the AAW role quite successfully, so that’s another string to the PWO’s bow. LMM is half the speed of Starstreak so easier to engage/track slower moving treats such as UAV, save wasting a Ceptor on.
The speed of this initiative is interesting. What has galvanised the penpushers? As for the exhaust – paintwork versus survival! I expect this is a ‘proof of concept’ and the issues like the arc of fire and consequential blast or heat would be resolved. Genuinely pleased to see this. Previous tests of a sort of navalised Brimstone missile fired in a salvo were impressive.
Funny how the proximity of the shit to the fan can speed things up! On another point, why not Brimstone….why are we developing two systems that appear to do the same thing; helicopter/surface mounts?
Hello Herodotus. Yes, my thinking also. This fast boat tactic is a Republican Guard speciality I believe. Is this not ‘Brimstone’ by some other name? Sounds similar in performance and operational terms. It is stunning what British scientists and engineers were able to do following a disastrous start in 1939-40 by 1944. Get this box of vipers out to the Gulf yesterday!
Yes, my thoughts entirely. Perhaps more knowledgeable posters can help out in terms of Martlet vs Brimstone? On your point about WW2….I don’t think that we will have that sort of time for the next adventure! Look how quickly our pants were pulled down by Germany at the start of the war. Perhaps we ought to have learnt something from that?
Yeah we did learn something from our red ass from Germany, “Blitzkrieg” and how it’s so effective.
Brimstone is a big anti-tank and land attack missile with a 60km+ range. Martlets a smaller, cheaper, dedicated maritime weapon designed for helicopters to use against boats.
Martlet is arguably the better choice for a defensive weapon like this. It’s lighter, more easily integrated into existing weapons (like the 30mm), and it’s already going to be carried on board to arm the embarked helicopter. Brimstone, and the Sea Spear launcher, offer a higher end but more expensive and difficult-to-integrate option.
Thanks for that!
Thanks for that information.
What has galvanised the pen pushers?
This is a guess but I think there are development delays to Sea Venom, which I believe shares the launch mount with Sea Martlet on the Wildcat. So Martlet which is good to go might be delayed. Makes sense to provide Martlet independent of Sea Venom.
Does the martlet have any anti air capability?
My thought exactly, even if just a light air atack option would be ok for our OPVs and maybe RFA vessels for relatively little cost.
UAV only but in theory you could add Starstreak easily
I think there’s a MANPAD version the Royal Marines are testing? Only really useful against helicopters and drones though
Callum, its the same missile. The missile is multi-purpose, original built on the chassis of the Starsteak, but has a different engine. The missile can be shoulder launched, fitted to a tripod, helicopter and now to the ship’s DS30. It was originally designed to deal with small fast attack craft ranging from ribs up to OPVs. However, it was soon discovered that the combination of the laser seeker and imaging infra-red seeker gave it a multi-target capability. So yes it can target small craft, but can be used against moving light armoured vehicles, static infrastructure and aircraft travelling up to… Read more »
Correction – The Martlet/LMM uses the chassis of the starburst not the Starstreak and can come in a number of flavours. The basic version uses the same guidance control as Starstreak i.e. semi-active control line of sight (SACLOS). This requires the guidance unit to maintain a lock on the target. The difference between the missile and the target is measured and corrections transmitted to the missile to steer it towards the target. The missile has two fuses, one a contact fuse the other a laser proximity fuse that can detect targets up to 3m away. The missile can be operated… Read more »
I believe it a laser/IR guided so anything fast moving would be a challenge to target.
This system is ripe for emergency fit status. With the situation hotting up in the Gulf, this will be a welcome addition to close-in defence?
Why are we talking about emergency fits. This threat has been known about for decades! I’d like to fit the MOD with something….but it isn’t printable!
There is only ever abundant money for Urgent Operational Requirements, long term procurement budgets tend to be always put to the back of the queue.
It does look like it could do with some form of blast shield to protect the ships hull.
If they can do this with the DS30, i wonder if this could also be added to the rivers, to give them a bit more punch for low intensity escort work.
It isn’t the hull, it’s the upper decks. The videos of Brimstone didn’t look anywhere near as aggressive.
the still image is misleading. If you watch the video that plume is for a fraction of a second, not sustained like Apollo 11!
It’s got a kick motor so shielding needed would be minimal
putting this kind of system should be prioritised for the q.e
Why? The priority should clearly be on the escorts and maybe minesweepers in the Gulf, the carriers don’t need it anywhere near as much given that they’ll always have an escort anyway.
It’s the same argument about the carriers other defences: if the escorts are carrying all the same or better weapons, is it worth spending more of a very tight budget putting those weapons on the carrier?
what about some news, any news on the t 31?
I think the announcement for the T31 is in Dec, but a word of caution as there is a rumor of an SDR coming up.
Maybe this link will also give some extra information
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/whall/?id=2019-07-11a.205.1&s=Type+31+General+Purpose+Frigate#g210.0
Maybe we should be looking at developing the next generation defensive weapon mounts. One combining the 30mm with martlet and Seavenom, but in larger quantities, and another with dragon fire and a gun/missile system that could be mated.
I say this as I believe most ships have very limited viable space for weapons mounts so multiple weapons sharing mounts seems the way to go.
Not sure we would want anything of the size requiring Sea Venom that close to the Ship! but definitely Dragon Fire and other options could be explored. Hopefully SPEAR 3 for the RAF will get a maritime version adding a cheap backup to the main Anti-Ship Missile – it could be quad packed in MK41 and have 80km range
Other options!
“The UK Royal Air Force (RAF) has outlined near-term plans for the development of hypersonic weapon and propulsion technologies for its current and future fleets of combat aircraft.”
https://www.janes.com/article/89919/raf-sets-out-hypersonic-weapons-and-propulsion-plans
Yep, called it. Both Janes and the Telegraph have reported that the RAF are investigating how they can use the Reaction Engines technology. It’s taken them long enough.
Typhoon using the current EJ200 could have the reaction engines pre-cooler installed and gain an extra 25% thrust increase using the wings fuel as cooling medium. If they managed to find a way of fitting a liquid gas cooling medium then the benefits would be even greater.
I share the sentiment of everyone here that this is an excellent advancement and great bit of news! My concern however, is that the penny pinchers at the MoD will roll it out on the cheap only fitting the system to escorts going into the Gulf region instead of fitting it as standard to the escort fleet, Albion’s and QEs at a minimum. In my opinion, even the RFA fleet should also have the mount fitted. Here’s hoping common sense wins out!! It can’t cost that much to update the existing gun mounts can it????
Hopefully won’t cost to much to add to all Ds30 carrying ships, we don’t exactly have hundreds, but it must be the most common large gun in the Navy?, if so that’s a good thing and we could fit many ships with Marlet.
Hi,
This is a very good development. However Sea Ceptor has an optional surface attack option the the RN said it would not buy… why not pay for the Sea Ceptor upgrade and add a few more to our ships. This would give extra air capability too..
However, this is good news.
Rob
Sea Ceptor is really too expensive to deal with FIACs and also would double earmark one weapon system for 2 roles. I did think the Sea Ceptor did have a secondary surface attack anyway? and surprised to hear this was an option especially as to how low anti-ship missiles can skim. Also adding a VLS to smaller vessels would also be more expensive than this mount. If AA is required Starstreak uses the same fittings as Martlet. Seeing as T45 originally had an inner layer missile system requirement, I am unsure as to why the HVM missile wasn’t adopted by… Read more »
Yes you are probably right on cost grounds. Sea Ceptor has a surface capability but I suspect this is a software upgrade you have to pay for – the RN has said it has not bought it. However RN skippers commentating on their new Sea Ceptor fit have implied that it IS surface capable. Perhaps the RN do not wish to advertise any anti-Ship capability it may have in RN service.
Don’t you mean penny pinchers in the Tory party whose mantra is “cut taxes”
Nope – penny-pinching has existed no matter which party was in power. The fact is our politicians regardless of party, simply don’t value defence and have shown a willingness to spend as little as humanly possible whenever possible.
Curious. At first I thought MSI Seahawk Sigma mount but that isn’t listed on MSI’s site any more (that I could find, it certainly used to be there) and when it was listed it had 7 launchers strapped on the side (https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/a-ship-that-still-isnt-a-frigate/getting-fighty/msi-seahawk-sigma/) whereas this is 5. Just what is this?
Despite my confusion I’m still happy to read this. As an outsider I’m still left with a hankering for a Sigma-like mount to be developed for a 40mm CTAS cannon to leverage Ajax commonality, hopefully drive down ammo prices, and give access to presumably more potent ammo natures.
I think until the CTAS 40mm has proven maturity, the Navy won’t look at it. However, the 40mm has shown in trials how much more effective it is compared to 25, 30 and 35mm weapons. I believe the issue is still the reliability of the feed mechanism?
Oh!
Excellent stuff.
Now is this a one off, FFBNW, or will all our escorts, Amphibs, and RFA have it as standard?
Hi Danielle, That’s the million-dollar question isn’t it. I would love to think it would be fitted to every DS30 mount currently bolted down on a deck somewhere – 23s, 45s, QE’s, etc., but in my heart I feel that it will only be rolled out “as needed” when a ship enters the Gulf – something akin to the RFA ships with Phalanx – they are FFBNW until they enter an area of perceived threat. As usual, defence done on the cheap unfortunately…. but I hope I am wrong this time around. This kit needs to be fitted across the… Read more »
Would be an excellent option to up gun our OPV’s. Containerise the system and it could be deployed easily to a number of platforms.
Yes perfect item for the rivers.
As the batch 2 have the 30mm mount and the common mission system no need to containerise.
Up-gunned and protection improved in a near instant.
I was actually thinking that you could add an additional Martlet launcher by adding a container on the flight deck. I would like to see more containerised weapons system that could easily be transferred between platforms effectively making them role fit.
Stick the OTO 76mm on them.
Excellent news! I’d imagine heat shielding and further mods will be added once these tests are evaluated. A big step in the right direction as I’m sure most on here would agree the surface fleets defensive fit is somewhat minimal with room for improvement in the layered defence envelope. Coupled with offensive surface and possible anti air capabilities it looks like a no-brainer. Whilst I’d love to see this fitted to every RN/RFA vessel guessing the budget wouldn’t stretch that far. Not a fan of FFBNW but at least in this instance you could modify all the DS30 mounts in… Read more »
Wouldn’t APKWS also be an option Range sounds similar as does guidance. I believe the US has tested APKWS against attack craft also.
I think the beauty in this system is that it’s the same missile the wildcat would carry. Therefore escorts etc would already have the magazine setup and crew with relevant training….
AV I agree, logistics makes sense but APKWS would also be a economical option for Wildcat.
The trial used an adapted Wildcat mount, hence 5 rather than 7 cannisters, but shows commendable agility on the part of the boffs. Be interesting to see what HMS Kent, and for that matter Wave Knight, turn up with later. Of course, as the permanent Gulf security vessel, HMS Montrose should come out of her spell alongside with the upgrade logically.
The bolt on guidance kit is ok, but it is not in the same league as the Martlet. For starters the APKWS gives a guidance package to a unguided 2.75″ air to surface rocket. The rockets are designed to fly in as straight a line a possible so its wing area is quite small (large wing = more drag = lower range). The kit fitted to the nose gives a limited ability to turn, so think of long sweeping turns rather than snappy rolls etc. So this kit would be good against slow moving targets, boats and fixed structures. High… Read more »
Thanks, good point and Martlet would be more effective if it has more manoeuvrability. I still think APKWS could have a place though in the UK inventory. US are upgrade the Nammo rocket motor to a report range of 15km and the Hydra rocket has a number of warhead and fuse options also, proximity airburst would be useful against small craft which have limited protection.
Would be interesting to know the cost comparison.
On a different topic, how long do people think Turkey will remain in NATO
US removes Turkey from F-35 fighter jet programme
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-49023115
Look at it the other way. How willing is Russia to have NATO forces looking into the secrets of its S400? Suppose a new Turkey govt is less friendly to Russia?
Suppose NATO have a suitable spy in Turkey?
If Turkey leaves NATO, will say Germany be willing to sell spares for its tanks?
To what extent is Russia questionable when it fits its best stuff when it exports kit like the S400?
An unfortunate development, Erdoğan’s posturing on this matter will cause great harm to Turkeys aerospace industry. He was being offered the latest version of Patriot, ASTER, I bet THAAD and maybe even AEGIS Ashore could have been on the cards with technology transfer yet he doubled down over S-400 a system that is incompatible with all the NATO integrated systems Turkey fields with a deal that offers no technology transfer whatsoever. The interesting thing is the production slots allocated to Turkey could go to another nation that wants F-35A quick. Poland for example has declared they want it this is… Read more »
As this is the ultimate multi purpose (anti air, surface ship) weapon it would seem to be ideal as a point defence system for all the RNs high value assessed ( carriers, assault ships etc).
You’d think that a race of delicious, fruity, red, homicidal vegetables would have learned by now not to cross us either on land or at sea. What’s next? Will tomatoes attack by air? We will slice, dice and purée them as many times as it takes. We will crush the killer tomatoes!
One and a half times the speed of sound?
A little on the slow side I’d say!
“RAF sets out hypersonic weapons and propulsion plans”
https://www.janes.com/article/89919/raf-sets-out-hypersonic-weapons-and-propulsion-plans
Unless small speed boats have CIWS or anti misile missiles, hypersonic is way beyond overkill. M1.5 is fine.
I think you missed the point Frank, There’s a clue in the !
If i understand how this works correctly, it works using an operator within the t23, whom targets and fires the weapon. Which is unlike the phalanx which uses its own inbuilt radar to automatically target threats.
If my understanding is correct, then it would not suit RFA ships, as the crew are not trained for such weapons and the ships are not designed around it.
If they could integrate into the phalanx that would be a different topic, but then there is seaRAM for that.
But what is becoming de facto standard self defence fit on RFA vessels in hot areas (i.e. when Phalanx is fitted on a per-deployment basis) is 2 x DS 30mm plus 2 x Phalanx isn’t it? I take your point on Phalanx but if 30mm is there then that isn’t fully automated so surely there is man-in-the-loop for that anyway?
My point exactly, cheers Julian.
Worth noting that some 30mm mounts are now fully automated, which includes the mounts on the Tide class (I think). Some RN and RFA ships still use the older mountings though.
Good point Lusty, yeah that’s still on going I think. 20 to 30 were updated to DS30M spec for the type 23 I think. The Tides and batch 2 will be M spec also I believe. Doubt this system will be compatible with the older manual mounts.
Indeed. QE class would be to this spec along with the Wave class, which had the DS30M spec added I believe.
New type of threat. This looks like a solution. Might or might not be perfect but better than nothing. Need to be arming ourselves for future threats not living in the past.
Quite agree, but the Martlet is a relatively low cost weapon, that offers more punch than the DS30 alone can deliver and is available today.
Not all DS 30 mounts are created equal. Some DS 30 mounts are KCM 30 cannon equipped (MCMV and originally the T45) whilst others are now 30mm Bushmaster equipped. Bushmaster mounts have no drivers cabin fitted so you can fit missiles on that side. They also have the off mount TV/THIM Laser range finder/Illuminator turrets on the GDP. (This is the turret directly above the sea boat , the furthest thing outboard) MCMV mounts have a driver and are not remote control so unless they get bushmaster and a TV/Thim turret system fitted they cannot get Martlet. Where the mounting… Read more »
Good info Gunbuster. Never as straight forward as people would think. I believe this has been going on behind closed doors for much longer than the 5 months stated. I maybe wrong but seem to remember some paid research done on behalf of the MOD about 10 years ago when the rising threat of fast craft became apparent. The limitations of the DS30 mounts were muted and gaps in lethality highlighted. Unsure as to whether missile adaptations were recommended at that point but certainly concerns were raised.
Great news otherwise as a much needed addition that wants prioritising.
So, not much chance of seeing the system in action without some time consuming mods! Who came up with the name ‘Durestos’….sounds like a cross between a prophylactic and a well known toilet cleanser!
It’s been in use for years and years as a protective plate behind rocket motors when missiles are stowed in magazines.
Good, with the limited numbers of warships we have, they all need to be armed to the teeth, fitting martlett to the ds30m gun mounts means for very little additional outlay small attack craft, terrorist boats etc can be targetted, whilst a larger warship although not likely to be sunk could still be damaged significantky by 5 or 6 of these missile hitting at mach 1.5
Prior to this great idea the only launch platfirm for martlett was the attached helicopter which takes time to prepare, arm, launch etc.
Sometime you need an immediate available weapon system
USS Boxer shoots down Iranian drone. Probably with a SeaRAM – maybe the CIWS at 1000 yards.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/iran-seizes-foreign-tanker-it-accuses-of-smuggling-fuel-11563449352
Cheers
Heard on the news they used electronic countermeasures rather than a hard kill to bring the drone down which “apparently” was a 1000m off from the USS Boxer.
More info – follow the link below.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/29063/marine-anti-drone-buggies-on-uss-boxer-knocked-down-threatening-iranian-drone
Could have done with one of the LMADIS buggies for Gatwick.
This is welcome news. We need to get Martlet on the 45’s, 23″s and QE’s as soon as possible.
I think we missed a trick when developing the Sea Venom. It could have been created as a modular missile (like CAMM) and we could have used one iteration as a 100 mile Mach 3 Harpoon replacement with export in mind.