The Royal Navy has successfully tested a new missile designed to protect warships from attacks by swarms of small boats.

The Royal Navy say here that during operations in the Pacific Ocean with the UK Carrier Strike Group, HMS Defender’s Wildcat helicopter of 815 Naval Air Squadron fired the Martlet lightweight missile at an inflatable target in the sea – known in the navy as the big red tomato.

“It is the first time this type of missile has been launched on frontline operations by the Royal Navy after rigorous testing at ranges off the UK coast by the Yeovilton-based Wildcat Maritime Force last year.

In 0.3 seconds, the missile detached from the Wildcat HMA Mk2 helicopter, accelerating to one and a half times the speed of sound towards its target. The purpose of the missile system is to add another layer of protection around the Royal Navy’s aircraft carriers, with the Wildcats able to carry up to 20 of the laser-sensor missiles that can be used against stationary and moving targets.”

Captain James Blackmore, Carrier Strike Group’s Air Wing Commander, said in a news release:

“Martlet is a new air to surface lightweight multi-role missile recently introduced into service for the Wildcat helicopter and provides an offensive and defensive capability against small boats and maritime targets that may pose a threat to the Carrier Strike Group.

The Wildcat is a phenomenally versatile aircraft and the inclusion of up to 20 missiles on each of the four embarked aircraft adds yet another potent capability to the Air Wing and the Carrier Strike Group. This first firing during an operational deployment not only gives confidence in the end to end weapon kill chain but also offers an overt demonstration of one of the many strike capabilities provided by the Air Wing from within the Task Group.”

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

106 COMMENTS

  1. Excellent, it’s a superb naval helicopter, perhaps the RN should also invest in the plug and play dipping sonar sets, to back up the rather small Merlin fleet.

    • Yep that would be great. Seems a data link is finally on the way and a few dipping sonars would be another big improvement. It would provide a rudimentary anti-submarine capability for the T31’s eventually deployed East of Sussex for example.

      Personally i’d shift most-all of the Army Wildcat’s across to the RN as i still don’t really understand what function they currently fill. Leave the AAC with the new Apache’s as the combat platform and something very cheap/off the shelf to replace the Wildcat’s and Gazelle’s as a basic recce and liaison capability.

        • I don’t think the crew of a T31 would survive a night out in Hastings.

          40% would be admitted as inpatients with SOAHID (Sudden Onset Acute Hastings induced depression).

          10% would have become HIDAs ( Hastings induced drug addicts) and need addiction therapy and anti Hastings workshops.

          20% would have suffered HISOPH ( Hastings induced sudden onset parenthood)

          10% would be having treatment for needle stick injuries After stumbling drunk into Alexandra park under the false impression the grass was safe to sit on.

          10% Would be having blood tests due to the bit marks they got from fighting the locals.

          The final 10% would have sodded of to Brighton or London.

          • I rather enjoyed my week in the old part of Hastings this year, the ‘new’ part is I agree worth missing and hope it misses you.

          • It’s a bit of an unfortunate place, has one of the worst
            suicide and mental health rates, deprivation ratings are really bad as is employment, education and IV drug use. I had to do a number of site visits of mental health and physical health settings in hastings and it was on the fare edge of my patch for monitoring and investigating deaths from harms.

            Like many old forgotten end of the line Victorian resort towns the old parts have a frontage that’s is pleasing to the eye but behind the elegant facades tend to be bed sits and run down flats full of people living at the extreme end if what life in this county can give. What is really bizarre (and thought provoking) is a few miles away you can have another trendy Victorian town with a Victoria facade that hides expensive trendy flats. It’s a modern tale of to cities ( just compare the price of a sea front flat in a Victorian manse in Brighton vs a no hopevil like littlehampton or Hastings).

          • If you make a distillation of LA (littlehampton):and Bognor, then spice it with a flavour of whitehawk your close but to really get the full experience you need to move it to a place in the arse end of nowhere with no job opportunity or easy links….then you have hastings.

        • With an eventual aim of deploying South of the Isle of Wight 😂

          Good grief, were sounding like the German Naval deployment strategy now, go round and and round the Baltic until you get dizzy and head back to Kiel for tea and medals….

          • I’m not sure I would even go south of the Isle of Wight to be honest and the only reason to keep up links to the Isle of Wight is as an easy source of foreign holidays to keep all the kids happy. Otherwise I think we should consider a north of the Solent policy.

          • After the disaster of our resent deployments, your caution is rightly justified Jonathan, I stopped at Milford on Sea a little back and the locals looked a little twitchy to me, so keeping away, North of there is probably a good plan!

      • Its very possible that the T31 will get a TA sonar that is kitted to fit on 11m workboats.
        The 11m workboats are getting a whole plethora of mix and match optional fits to go on them

        • By TA sonar Gunbuster, do you mean an Army Reserve soldier, intently listening with an old stethoscope against the hull?

        • Hi Gunbuster,

          The sense I get is that the introduction of autonomous platforms is that they will give our escort force considerable additional flexibility and operational choices. I could see a T31 using its workboat(s) / towed array to provide an ASW ‘barrier’ while it got on with something else e.g. evacuation or raiding mission with RM.

          Long endurance XLUUV’s could be ‘sowed’ choke points to monitor adversaries submarine movements, again allowing the escort to undertake other tasks while the autonomous platform was on task.

          This tech and the new platforms that will deploy it will change how the RN operates. Naval power will not simply be measured by ships and submarines alone.

          Interesting times.

          Cheers CR

          • My issue with this is it costs money to do right. Yes you can theoretically create an umbrella around an area or task force using drones, each with low power sensors all communicating to a mothership, however you need them in large numbers to do so, and that comes with a cost, at which point the question has to be whether just using conventional methods would be cheaper/more effective. I fear we will use cheap drones to one for one replace more capable traditional assets and therefore lose capability rather than gain it.

        • What sort of size array are we talking about here? Only it’s a fairly hefty bit of kit to lug about as you know, even in Schweppes slimline form!
          What would they do with the incoming data, am assuming that it’s transmitted to the host ship for processing and displaying?

    • Along with the sonar, some S-100s armed with Martlet to compliment the Wildcat’s swing role. I don’t understand why these things aren’t protecting RN vessels already. Are they waiting until 2030 for a rotary drone?

      • There is going to be one trailled in the Gulf soon. RN wants a SAR radar as well as EO/IR and targeting, and Thales are faffing around trying to shoehorn the i-Master from Watchkeeper onto a S-100 and give it a maritime mode. Makes sense really, radar and targeting means you can use it to find and track small targets and cue your over the horizon assets like a Wildcat or AshM.

        • Some previous groundwork has been done on i-Master integration hasn’t it? I’m pretty sure I’ve seen pictures of an S-100 with an i-Master installed, maybe even in Thales or Schiebel marketing materials. I think the payload of an S-100 fuelled for 6 hour endurance is somewhere around the 30kg range isn’t it? I think the weight of the i-Master alone is 30kg so I suppose the challenge is weight-optimising the whole SAR/EO/IR/targeting package so as not to lose an unacceptable amount of endurance when carrying it.

          If a weight-optimised comprehensive sensor & targeting package can be developed that would be big and very valuable progress but I still find it frustrating that there isn’t anything that I have seen that is slightly above the S-100 in terms of payload/endurance yet still small enough to potentially be able to be housed and maintained from a standard 20′ ISO container. The next jump up from S-100 seems to be a big leap in size to stuff like Fire Scout that certainly wouldn’t fit in a container. Have I not discovered a whole class of maybe 300-500kg max take-off weight drones? S-100 is quite compact so I would think a drone that is at least slightly (20%?) physically bigger than an S-100 could still be housed and maintained from within a 20′ container.

          S-100 can carry i-Master, hopefully a full sensor/targeting suite if the “faffing around” for the Gulf trial is successful, and we have probably all seen the Schiebel publicity shot of an S-100 carrying 2 Martlet, but weight-wise that’s an either/or proposition, carry a sensor/targeting package or Martlet but not both. A 30kg step up in the payload capability from the S-100, ideally while maintaining 6 hour endurance, could allow both which surely would be a useful additional capability to have?

          I would absolutely love to see UK industry, with all its expertise in high performance engines, material science and a load of other appropriate areas attempt to create such a drone that still fits in the ISO-container-as-its-hangar size constraint. As well as all the utility that the RN/RFA could get from it to I would have though that the export market could be significant for such a drone as well.

          • I think that is the primary reason why S100 hasn’t been picked by the RN so far! It can’t carry both a quality EO turret and a decent radar. There’s no real easy way to increase the aircraft’s payload, without effecting its endurance. As fitting a bigger engine, will eat into the fuel quicker and thereby decrease its endurance.

            The Schiebel S100 is a real handy size for a ship based VTOL UAV. Its small enough where you can stack them in a hangar but still get a Wildcat in for example on a T23. If only it could lift more?

            It would be feasible for Schiebel to significantly increase the lift capacity of the S100, but it won’t be cheap. They could do this with getting rid of the tail rotor and making it a coaxial rotor. The two sets of rotors will take up a similar footprint, it will just be taller. However, it will increase lift capacity by a minimum of 50%, plus give all the other benefits of a coaxial rotor head design. This will need a more powerful engine to spin the blades and will come at a fuel cost. But if the there surplus lift capacity and spare space in the airframe, more fuel could also be carried to compensate for this. Then the RN would have a VTOL UAV that could carry a EO turret used for target identification and designation along with a high frequency radar for over the horizon searching and tracking.

          • Would a 4 blade foldable rotor be another way to increase lift? On “full sized” helicopters foldable rotors definitely have their downsides since high-level access is required to fold and unfold (I assume) but according to the Wikipedia spec the S-100 stands only 1.12m tall so someone standing on the ground/deck could easily get to a foldable rotor mechanism to fold/unfold it.

            Going back to my fantasy of a UK-developed slightly bigger drone I note that Wikipedia gives the footprint (length and width) of an S-100 of 3.11 metres x 1.24 metres. If one wants to maintain the capability to actually maintain the drone within a 20′ container as well as simply storing/shipping it then I suspect there is little opportunity for any increased width for fear of leaving too little clearance each side to have good working access but I would have thought that there is at least some leeway for increasing the length maybe up to as much as 4 metres without compromising “my shipping container is also my hangar” concept. That could add extra airframe space for the extra fuel you mention.

            I know – fantasy fleet stuff. Oh well, back to reality. At least it’s good to hear that the RN are actively looking at stuff in this sort of reasonably big but still able to fit in a container drone category.

          • Is a four bladed rotor disc doable for a S100, yes definitely. However, it won’t provide as much lift as a coaxial design! The reason for this is the rotation of the blades leading edges all being in one direction. It doesn’t matter if the aircraft is flying forwards or hovering. A single rotor design will always have the following problem.

            If the aircraft is hovering in still air (no wind). The aircraft should develop similar lift on all its blades. If we now throw in a wind, the blades advancing into the wind perpendicularly will develop more lift. Which means one side of the aircraft will try to rise. This is compensated for by the flight stabs tilting the swash plate, to decrease the blades pitch angle for the advancing blades and increase the blades pitch angle for the retreating blades, to rebalance the overall lift.

            Now, if the pilot/operator accelerates the aircraft forward, the disc is tilted in the required direction. This has the effect of passing more wind (air) over the advancing blades. Which therefore will develop a lot more lift than the retreating blades. The retreating blades will still develop lift, but not as much. This means the aircraft will try to rotate in the direction that develops the most lift. Which the flight stabs will try to compensate for, by tilting the swash plate as before. As the aircraft accelerates faster this exacerbates the problem. There will be a finite limit on how much you can tilt the swash plate. This will then limit the aircraft’s maneuverability, airspeed and vertical lift.

            To generate more lift, you can introduce more blades, eg. Sea/King Stallion (7 blades). Which means there is a higher proportion of blades advancing through the incoming air and thereby generating more lift. But it exacerbates the lift imbalance between the left and ride side of the airframe even more. Perhaps just as importantly, because each blade is now a lot closer to the preceding blade, the blade’s lift is more affected by the preceding blades wake, so the lift isn’t as much as you hoped it would be. It is still a monster for lifting though, plus the blade folding mechanism must be a nightmare to set up!

            Now, with a coaxial rotor head design, you have two sets of blades rotating in opposite directions. If we keep it simple and just have two blades per head. But also set the blades up to balance out each other, so have the blades synchronised to start on top of each other. This means that there are two blade leading edges advancing through the oncoming air opposite of each other, so the disturbance by the preceding blade’s wake is substantially less (you will get a wake disturbance from the retreating blade, as it passes the advancing one. However, the wake is determined by how much vertical separation there is between the blades). Therefore, the blade will develop equal(ish) lift on both sides of the aircraft and there’s no need to tilt the swash plate to compensate for a disproportion of lift (depending on crosswind direction). Thereby making the aircraft significantly more manoeuvrable, faster and having greater blade pitch movement, which will develop more lift overall.

            In general a coaxial design rotor head can develop about 35% more lift than a similar bladed single rotor head. The Sikorsky/Boeing SB1 team have said it develops more. The other benefit of a coaxial design, is that the airframe can be made much shorter, so it takes up less space when stored. As there is no need for a very long tail to help the leverage to counter the torque reaction using a tail rotor. It will also have more power available for lift, as the tail rotor robs power for lift.

            The main issue with a coaxial design though, is the complexity of having two swash plates, along with the duplicated pitch change rods and linkages (Have a look at the Kamov designs for example). However, for something like the S100, it doesn’t have to be massively complicated, as each head can have just two blades. This also makes blade folding and storage easier, as both sets can be folded back over the tail. It would be touch and go if you could stack them on top of each other in an ISO which would be dependent on the rotor head vertical separation, you’d probably need to stagger them vertically against a wall. But it does mean the coaxial design keeps the same footprint as the original one, but with a much higher payload and performance capability!

          • Wow. Thanks for the amazingly helpful and detailed explanation. Apart from these next-gen S-100 (or similar) discussions I now also understand why that design was chosen for Ingenuity. Given Mars’ super thin atmosphere I suspect such a coaxial design was absolutely essential in order to get enough lift to get the thing to fly at all, plus a crazy high rotational speed on the rotors as well I believe.

    • Alternatively, buy some more Merlin’s and update the Wildcats with some dipping sonar sets just like the SK versions have.

      • I’m sure the RN would love another 8-10 Merlins, it must be a logistical nightmare trying to keep sufficient airframes in the forward fleet and juggle maintenance and upgrades with a total of only 30 aircraft.

        It’s not going to happen unfortunately. The affordable option is to add the plug and play already developed dipper to the Wildcat.

        It may not be as effective as Merlins, but it’s available now and an affordable upgrade option, that’s importantly already matured, developed and fielded.

        No matter how you look at it, the AAC examples are of ‘far’ greater use to the RN.

        As mentioned by Challenger and others, it would allow two per ship when needed and provide some ASW utility to the forthcoming T31.

        • Yes, I don’t disagree that it’s not going to happen, but , we really need all 3 to happen!

          Would be nice if we choose the AW149 as a Puma replacement to add some 10-14 Merlin’s onto the order – alas that wouldn’t be happening either?

          As our new ships T31/26 start coming online and we get LSG (N +S) up and running we are going to need more cabs.nI suspect that the Puma replacement will fill some of that capability, but the army needs some assets too, and, as always assets can’t be in two places at once. An interesting time ahead.

    • Some great points guys, absolutely agree with them all….

      We’ve often debated the rather pointless Army Wildcat, the ‘Recce helo’ with no Recce equipment, or data link, or ability to protect itself….

      The glorious 20 minuters from Black Adder goes forth comes to mind….

      It would be a death trap for its crews against a well armed enemy.

      I would also give the AAC examples to the RN, 20 upgraded to full Naval spec and the remainder sold off to try and Kickstart the abysmal foreign sales…

      I would buy more AH64E’s for scouting and an off the shelf light transport helo for the Army.

      A buy of Lacota (I think that’s spelt right) straight from US Army multi year contracts, would fit the bill just fine and at a reasonable cost.

      • Yep, the AAC Wildcat in it’s current form doesn’t seem to have a role. Move them to the FAA and leave the Army with Apache for the shooting and a cheap platform from the civilian market for recce and light utility away from the front-line. Up-threat surveillance can/should be done with drones and any heavy lift is covered by the RAF’s rather large helo fleet.

        • I am not very familiar with the AAC Wildcat. Wikipedia describe it as designed to serve in the battlefield utility and anti-surface warfare roles, with SAR presumably being done by the FAA Wildcats. Some army assets support SF. Surely with their Martlet missiles they have a precision ground attack capability?
          I doubt you could restrict recce and utility duties away from the front line – the former by definition, is well forward.

      • I believe they are looking at installing the Sea spray 7000E Radar into the army wildcats to bring them up to the same standard as the Navel wildcats as ISAR platforms. You also have to remember all the Wildcat airframes are all navilised and so even the army Wildcats can operate from ships.

        in regards to protect itself the wild cat does have a very good passive and self defence suit. I managed to have a good chat with a guy who oversaw he crash protect systems and he was pretty clear that I’d your going to crash in a rotor the the wildcat would be the one you would most likely walk away from ( one of the benefits of a newer airframe over something like a black hawk).

        I do agree I think the wildcats should be given over to the RN and Marines ( it’s a very quite and stealthy rotor, as these things go), with the Army getting the new medium rotor it needs.

      • If I had my way, I’d move all of them over to the RN – none of this upgrading a few and quietly cutting some like we saw with both Merlin types.

        I’d upgrade all to full naval spec and add data link. I’d update some (~15) to also carry martlet/venom as additional force protection assets for our current and future escort fleet, potentially allowing T45 and other large escorts to carry two helicopters. I’d retain 7 as they are, as recon flights for RFA vessels deployed on disaster relief or for future use on a replacement for HMS Protector, bringing back a capability lost. I’d add dipping sonar to the remaining 12 and send them down to Culdrose as an additional ASW asset.

        • I can’t pick a hole in that idea Lusty, excellent and utterly common sense….

          Therefore, no chance it will happen….

      • Hi John,

        I read somewhere recently that there is a possibility the AAC Wildcats might get a modified version of the SeaSpray radar optimised fo rover land use.

        This would make the AAC Wildcat a valuable recce asset for the Army which is already being gutted.

        What we really need is more airframes, but I think that is unlikely at least until UAV’s mature into something really useful. That might happen sooner rather than later, but we’ll see.

        Cheers CR

  3. Good to see the capability hull closed at last, should never existed in the first place. Next up is upgunning the army wildcats/marine merlins.

  4. What happens if the Wildcat is lost or suffers mechanical failure and can’t get airborne? Relying on a helicopter solely for protection against swarm attacks with Marlet is risky in my opinion. Why not also fit it to the 30mm gun mounts that have already been tested? Things went mysteriously quiet post test. There is no way the RN budget couldn’t afford that and it would add another layer of protection for little in the way of investment.

    • I notice ‘Andy a’ gave an answer to this above, first reference I have heard to the results of those tests, might explain why nothing has been actioned don’t know if there is anything else to add from him. Paul below has introduced another reason mind.

  5. I don’t think you will see the Martlet fitted to 30mm mount short of an actual conflict in the next 3-5 years. The reason is I think the RN is about to phase out the 30mm in favour of the 40mm as fitted on the type 31. If my theory hold then expect to see the batch 2 type 26 fitted with the 40mm and not the 30mm. This will entail integrating it with the artisan rader. Once this is done expect to see 40mm fitted to the Queen Elizabeth class carriers instead of the 30mm, which are conspicuous by their absence.

    • Being of a certain age, I think it would be wonderful to see the Bofors 40mm back on RN ships (even if “slightly” updated!)

    • I do hope so. I’m not a fan of the current proliferation of different calibers. Consolidating down to 40mm, 57mm and 127mm would be great, although sadly i can’t see something bigger replacing the old 20mm’s on things like the Echo’s and various RFA’s whilst the Mark 8 will probably soldier on with the T45’s until their OSD’s and Phalanx doesn’t appear to be going anywhere soon.

      T26 with 4x 40mm guns instead of 2x 30mm and 2x 20mm Phalanx….yes please!

    • There are suddenly a lot of CTA 40mm cannons around that are not needed for Warrior and guess what…the MSI mount can take a 40mm gun…

      Martlet on a 30mm had massive blow back issues when fired.
      On a T23 immediatley behind the mount if its trained outboard at Red or Green 90 is a magazine. Flames and magazines are not a good combo. When trained aft the blow back would toast the sea boat. When trained fwd the blow back would have toasted anyone in the midships cross passage.

      • You would have thought they would have identified that issue before they tested it on an actual ship, sounds a bit sloppy. A bit of a shame, as it looked like a smart solution to upgunning the lightly armed vessels for cheap

        • Perhaps it was never intended for present T23s but for future platforms were such problems could be designed out. Obviously tests would be required from a representative naval platform however, even if they are not safe to use operationally from them.

      • thats good to know i wonder how much gas pressure you would need to eject a 13kg missile out like they do with Sea Ceptor? have the tubes offset at 30-45 degrees eject missile few meters out before motors ignite would prob do wonders for the range to reducing the inertia load on the rockets

        • I really don’t get what Thales did with LMM/Martlet! It was supposed to be based on the Starstreak, but ended up as a new missile. With Starstreak you have a two stage motor. The 1st stage fires for less than a second, then burns out before the missile has left the tube. This launches the missile sufficiently enough to not only get the missile out of the tube but also safely away from the operator. Then the second stage kicks in when it’s about 5m away. This means the operator is not in the exhaust plume, when the main rocket engine fires. How difficult would have been to give LMM/Martlet this 1st stage booster? Therefore allowing the missile to be safely fired from its tube, before the main engine fires, thereby making sure the exhaust flame doesn’t damage the ship!

          Whilst I’m on my soapbox, why is it so slow, compared to Starstreak? At Mach 1.5 (497m/s) it will take the missile about 10 seconds to reach a target 5km away. Whereas, Starstreak travelling at Mach 3.5 (1,160m/s) will take about 4.3 seconds to reach the same 5km target. Therefore, the rate of firer for multiple targets will be a lot slower. So why didn’t Thales opt for the Starstreak motor, thereby increasing the rate at which multiple targets can be engaged in?

          • or even maybe apply KISS process how big a spring would you need to generate about 70N of force which would chuck it well away from mount?

          • This is what GB was alluding to

            https://www.navylookout.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/LMM-Launch.jpg

            The above attached image is of HMS Sutherland with the 5 round missile mounted to the DS30M weapon system. As shown in the image, the missile is still in the tube when the main rocket is fired. As opposed to being thrown clear before firing the rocket. I’m not sure why there is a difference, between the one fired from the tripod and the one fitted to the 30mm mount? In the attached video of the Wildcat firing the Martlet, it also shows the missile’s rocket igniting whilst still in the tube. So perhaps there are two versions? Which begs the question, why is the “tripod” version not used on the ship mount?

            Forces News – Martlet: Firing the missile protecting UK’s aircraft carriers – Bing video

          • Daveyb
            Exactly that.
            in the LH picture the door behind the mount if trained at red/green 90 is the 30mm mag.
            Train the mount aft and all that lovely flame hits your GRP and rubber RIB Sea Boat.
            As it is in the picture the only place it would not toast something is with the exhaust pointing at the cross passage. Even them it might be a bit iffy as the RAS gear is there with the fuel ras hose rigged.

          • Initially, I thought bugger being on deck nearby, when that thing fires! But having watched a few videos of it, the still image of Martlet being fired from Sutherland is a bit misleading. Still wouldn’t like to be near when it goes off though!

            Watched the RM video of them firing Martlet from a tripod. In it, the missile’s 1st stage rocket is clearly fired when still in the tube, producing a flame as per Sutherland’s and the Wildcat firings. Funny, you don’t see anyone standing behind the firer! Once out of the tube the 2nd stage rocket kicks in, accelerating it towards the target. However, the flame although fairly long, last less than half a second. Mind you having an exhaust flame with a temperature probably over 500C for such a short period, will still cause damage. Its similar to Starstreak, except the 1st stage remains part of the Martlet missile, whereas Starstreak gets rid of it, before igniting the 2nd stage.

            It’s a pity Thales couldn’t use a soft launch method and still keep the two stage rocket process?

          • To be honest a seperate launcher would be the solution, putting it on the Hangar roof. No issues up there and the optical tracker could stay where it is as its dual use for the 30mm.
            FOD could be an issue though.

    • I never understood why after the Falklands war the lesson of better AAA was learnt, then more recently we replaced AA capable light guns with these 30mm Bushmasters with negligable AA capability(V low rate of fire). 40mm will be a huge relief. Make it so!

      • Force protection against asymmetric surface threats is a bigger issue than the outside chance of being bounced by some FGA’s with rockets, cannons and bombs.

        Ohhh… I just reverted to a threat assessment brief for an ADEX 323 low level beat’em up !

  6. Good for that job, but when is the interim AShM being selected & introduced & why can’t our Merlins carry missiles like other nations do?

    • There ASW helicopters, so not really used in the ‘Maritime Attack’ role, so they either carry depth charges or Sting Ray’s whilst the Wildcats can carry Small and Medium Anti-ship missiles (Martlet and Sea Venom). They can probably, if needed carry Hellfire, Rockets or pretty much anything the Apache carries (potentially even Air-Air Stingers!)

      However, I’m sure that Merlin could mount any Helicopter-Launched missiles,rockets or even bombs but as its a mainly ASW helicopter with Sonar, it doesn’t need to. Wildcat doesn’t have a sonar, but could also act as ASW helo with Ships sensors, and a payload of Sting Ray if need be.

      • I fail to see what being an ASW helicopter has to do with it. Even the RNZN ASW helicopters manage to operate both torpedoes & Penguin AShM. A naval combat helicopter should be capable of more than one role (not necessarily at the same time). Merlin is a little like the T45, overspecialised. Great at what it does do. Too much it can’t do (but in most other navies it would be doing). If there are no submarines to chase, it should be doing something else.

        • Yeh but the trouble is T-45’s, T-23’s and future vessels only carry one or other! So as none of our surface ships have torpedos unless the ship is patrolling Norh Atlantic on dedicated ASW patrol with no threat of swarm attacks anything going elsewhere will only be able to take Wildcat because at least that can carry torpedos and missle to cover both threats. for CSG half a dozen ASW Merlins on QE and Wildcats on escorts especially for deployments South of Cowes

  7. Good news. But I would have liked to see a fire and forget missile rather then one the helicopter needs to hang around to illuminate. It also means you can only attack a target at a time. Hardly a plus when going after swarming attack boats…

    • When your mate in the next boat disappears in a black cloud of smoke and shrapnel its going to test your resolve. With the range of the missile, its speed and the average speed of approach of a speed boat a Wildcat can take out a lot of threats before they get near to the ship.

      Whilst all that is happening the ship will be manoeuvring hard and at speed to cause a big wake that will flip boats and also be joining in with possibly Ceptor , 4.5″, 30mm, 50 Cal, Mini Gun , GPMG and SA80…. Thats a lot of firepower

      • What happens if the boats are autonomous a capability that I suspect the likes of Iran will have not too distant into the future considering their arial drone capabilities and the progress of such weapons generally. With billions of dollars worth of Russian weapon (and who knows what tech) imports about to be agreed that doesn’t help matters either as Im sure Russia (and China) would just love to help and encourage them to tweak western noses in any way they can.

      • Hi Gunbuster, Yeep old school works, I still wonder every now and then if we should have for asymetric threats/policing duties a modern County class. Still in my opinion one of the best ships the RN had post WW2.

    • Makes you wonder why it needs to (potentially) carry so many if that is the case, be lucky to survive before it has released very many in that scenario unless the threat around it was very basic indeed.

      • From experience aiming a mounted GPMG whilst rocking and rolling in a RIB in a seaway doing 15 knots is almost impossible. You fire goes all over the place.
        Trying to fire a MANPADS, RPG or a 50 cal at a manoeuvring helo that may well be running parallel to you course at 3+Km away would be almost impossible. Even if you did succed to get a IR lock on a missile the Wildcat has all the goodies fitted such as IR jammers and chaff and flare launchers

        It doesn’t matter if the boat is manned or unmanned its just a target that marlett will hit in a handful of seconds from launch. A modest 6 launches in a minute at a group of boats is approx 1/2 km covered at 30 knts. Thats a good bit of thinning out the ranks right there.

        • Wasn’t this one of the issues that the Iraqis found with there FAC’s in gulf war 1, they were bouncing all over the place and couldn’t get a radar lock on

  8. Good to see the Wildcat getting more claws. I agree with several comments made that it would be nice if we could equip dipping sonar to some of the Wildcats. We know it is possible as the South Korean Navy has this version.
    What would also be good to see is twin helicopter hangers for our surface combat vessels. T45s and T31 twin hangers for Wildcat,Wildcat/Apache combination or a single Merlin and three RUAVs. The Type 26 twin hanger for Merlins, or any combination.
    The RN is speaking about PODS, well we could have containerised towed array, Thales has CAPTAS compact and Ultra has the Sea Sabre and Sea Lancer. These could be with limited alterations to the ship just dropped in as long as there is space under the flight deck. Sea Sabre for example is a single container. So by possibly using some of the bow sonars removed from the T23s, I think all T23s have bow mounted sonar, containerised towed array, they come complete with the command and control postion and a Wildcat with dipping sonar we could turn the T31 into a very potent ASW platform for a limited investment. From my understanding all they would need is a power supply and a communications link to the CIC. Possibly we could even put these conainers on Batch II OPVs and operate them as a ASW picket line.

    • That’s something I’ve been banging on about for a while. T45 can accommodate up to two Wildcat in the hangar. My personal view is that the space should be utilised to help generate additional availability – particularly with the missiles now being available.

      T26 can take up to two Merlin and at least three Wildcat, depending on the configuration of the hangar and mission bay. The amount of helicopters that could be deployed and supported by one kind of reminds me of the very last cruisers operated by the RN.

      • Its ok having the space but we need airframes to fill them and there simply is not enough of anything in the box to make it work while. The FAA managed to get the CSG away but left not much at home to fill up the second flat top and of course the escorts.

        FAA should double in size (lets have the AAC units to start with as we already have the main operating unit NAS 847 showing the way with the Navy fit of weapons (50 Cal as against a GPMG) and adding the missiles will make them a real potent force which could also cover those Litterol Groups they want to forward deploy which has to have the air units to support them.

        The report on firing from the waist 30’s is spot on although the OPV’s forward mount would not have the same issues and give a quick fix to those without really needing additional manpower.

        Minimal cost and let the Army get a true replacement for the Gazelle

        • I don’t think anyone here is more passionate than old Lusty about acquiring more assets for the FAA. Daniele can attest to that!

          If it were up to me, I’d do what I suggested above for Wildcat and bring the mothballed Merlin back into service. If I recall, there are only 8 HM1 airframes left and 2 HC3. In an ideal world, I’d have the 8 serve as the dedicated AEW asset and upgrade the other two to HC4 standard for some additional SAR/disaster relief/commando support.

          I’d also look to incorporating the new medium-lift capability into the RN, either by ensuring that the type can operate from the flat-tops or bays OR by giving the RN a dedicated squadron or two of its own.

          • Alternatively if we choose the AW 149 to fill the new medium lift capability, why not add a Sqn worth of Merlin’s in the order???

      • “T26 can take up to two Merlin and at least three Wildcat,”

        I did not realise that. Crikey, that is some space, Merlin is a beast!

        • Yeah! It’s all thanks to the mission bay, which connects directly to the hangar. It’ll likely be used for sea boats and PODS for routine operations, but it can be used for rotary-wing assets if needed

      • The WAFUs would outnumber the crew!
        Its also a lot of air equipment spares to store. Sonobuoy’s etc if merlin is onboard.
        You would need a big magazine for the air weapons. Sting Ray, Venom, Martlet and all the other pyros and smokes they use. You would need something possibly twice the size of a T23 air weapons mag and all the associated gubbins that ships staff bomb heads like me used to provide such as FIAM, trolleys, supply and prep teams,

  9. My feeling is that the world is now becoming an increasingly dangerous place, and that the design software now available is enabling small countries to bring some very effective technology to market. So – watch the UK defence and science budget start to expand – especially after AUKUS.

  11. Ok, so Marlet requires laser guidance, In a scenario where a swarm attack is happening how does that work? , how would you quickly fire at multiple targets? I read that Marlet will detonate if it loses the tracking beam for more than 1.5 seconds.

    • Its a beam rider so its immune to any countermeasures. You keep the target on the screen in the cab and the laser and guidance system do the rest . You can select targets from the radar and slew the PID (Passive Identification Device which is TV system, THIM and Laser in the ball in the nose) onto them or do it by hand from the screen. The PID has an insane look/see range far greater than martlet so you can lock up the target well before you need to close to fire.
      Flight time is less than 10 seconds at M1.5 for a max range engagement . Lock onto the next target and fire again until ammunition expended. If it loses the beam it will self destruct which can be used to destroy a missile if you suddenly don’t want to hit a target.

      6 targets a minute with targets covering around 800m in a minute at max speed of 30knts. You are going to be firing with the helo away from the ship at a range of at least 3-5 km so chances are there will not be much left for the ships own guns at the ships 2000m engagement mark.

      • It’s a backwards looking beam rider so it’s immune to countermeasures. Well at least the (world leading) Starstreak was.
        Don’t get why it was 8 years late, being based on Starstreak. Actually, the initial version may have a forward looking sensor ??

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here