UK-Poland missile deal ‘strengthens NATO Security’

What is interesting from that video, is that KNDS have also added a radar to the Rapidfire turret. This gives the turret a CIWS capability.

That’s next level… Lol…😆

Hi Meirion, I hope they can do better than just 60km as that’s not much better than the existing ER! Please Sir, we want a bit more zip, altitude and distance! Is anyone listening to us here?

Quentin, the CAMM-MR is still under development, it’s range may go well beyond 60km. CAMM is still limited to about 10km altitude, so Aster 30+ BMD, is the way to go for very high altitude.

Yes, just waiting for “Aster-EX” (pun intended) to manifest. MBDA also has a high altitude interceptor in development but I don’t think the UK has signed up to this? Seems to be a further evolution of Aster but I could be wrong there. Good that the UK is updating its Aster.

CAMM-MR is more for somewhere between A30 and A15?

And that is a pretty high performance missile.

Almost as soon as Army got Sky Saber they wanted to stop that acquisition and get some thing better. Which was ridiculous as they would then have nothing in the inter regnum.

Sky Sabre is pretty useful for defending HQ etc but it is not a sector or theatre control system. ER would be sector control and MR getting close to theatre…..depends of course on the size of the theatre…….

There was mention of CAMM-EX….at one point….whether that is MR or something else I’m not at all sure!

I think the answer to the radar conundrum is a synthetic radar approach with distributed firing nodes. I’m not at all sure that having a radar truck on a battlefield is a great idea less still having a missile truck close by. Not all future opponent are doing to be as useless as the Russians have proved to be and even an amateur drone could stumble upon a unit and send back GPS coordinates.

It’s more “CAMM-EO” at the moment if nothing is happening for GBAD. It’s been mentioned before that the Army has only just purchased 11 new Giraffe radars. Would these be used with a future GBAD?

There were always 10 sets of Sky Sabre in the offing.

11 makes sense as one for a fixed training setup.

GIRAFFE is no use for GBAD it is a local radar for local battle airspace control.

Given that GIRAFFE is pretty good you could hook up more units that are just CAMM carriers to the GIRAFFE network and thereby increase covert and coverage density.

Morning SB, correct me if I wrong but don’t both Sky Sabre batteries in the Falklands and Poland have Giraffe? If they do it can’t be that useless and should be able to handle CAMM-ER even MR if made more powerful?
PT, tell you what needs to be a lot better right now and that’s the English batters! They can’t handle Aussie pace bowlers too well. Hopefully Stokes and Duckett can hold it together and pull through.

GIRAFFE is far from useless. It is an excellent and affordable system that works perfectly well.

It just doesn’t have the range, on its own, for theatre control which PT / MR combos would require.

However, there is no real need for the radar to be local other data sources can be used to create a radar-of-radars

Hi SB, I have heard that the requirement for the Polish MR version is 100km. In which case, it’s likely going to be a two stage rocket system. Haven’t heard if the forebody dimensions are changing, but I do expect it to be longer.

There was also that RA Officer, who at the acceptance parade, said in an interview that they would be getting a longer ranged version of CAMM.

Following the Lancet attack on the IRIS-T SLM’s radar. Which kind of shocked me, as Ukraine were given the latest Hensoldt TRML-4D radar. Which is a mechanical rotating C-band new generation AESA radar. By all accounts, it is a very good radar. But crucially, it did not detect the Lancet drone targeting it. Which is a bit worrying, as the TRML should be significantly better than the Giraffe that the Land Ceptor uses.

Distributed networked radars would be the logical answer, except they will be costly. However, the Lancet is primary constructed from composites and uses a battery powered engine. Which would make it fairly difficult for a C band radar to detect, especially at distance. Perhaps what is needed is a second search/tracking radar that operates in the upper X, Ku or preferably Ka band. As this will stand a better chance of getting a reflection of wiring, nuts, bolts and anything metal internally (motor etc). But its range wont be more than 25 to 50km at best, unless you can afford to up the power output and cooling considerably.

This is where the Gepard has a bit of an advantage, even though its technology is pretty dated. As it has a Ku band tracking radar that can also be used for searching. Though there has been next to no mention of Gepard taking down Lancet, Shahed drones yes.

Gepard is a tone dial telephone on a SystemX exchange in an iPhone era: amazingly it still works for making telephone calls! OK the analogy won’t work when POTS is withdrawn soon.

It all depends on the filtering used in the other units. Was there a minimum land speed for target recognition set? Could be a lot of reasons for apparent failure. Could be just a poor Ukrainian operator: they are not all superman. Maybe the operator got distracted or froze or misinterpreted the outputs?

I think that’s a fair analogy.

The TRML is one of the very latest radar systems. It is also one of the first that incorporates a limited AI. From what I remember it’s a pattern learning system, that is supposed to help determine if a fleeting and intermittent object is a missile or aircraft that is radar stealthy. Before Germany gave Ukraine the IRIS-T SLM, Russia had been using Lancet for at least 6 months of the conflict. Hensoldt who make the TRML radar, would have known what the threats Ukraine were facing. I’m certain they would have tested the radar against the threats Ukraine was facing, including Lancet drones. Which is why I am surprised that the Lancet was able to target the TRML without being shot down.

But you could be right the crews were having an off day, taking a leak etc

from what we know so far the 32 MK41 silos for the T31 are going where the CAMM soft launchers were going..so it seems the type 31 will get the 32 MK41 launchers but not cold launch silos for CAMM. So I think we will fine CAMM in MK41 silos in the T31.

Not necessarily. The Danish vessels have Mk 56 VLS next to the Mk 41 VLS.

Precisely

Yes but that space is taken up by a boat bay in the T31..so unless they start doing some redesign…the PowerPoint going around just showed the MK 41s…

CAMM are quite short and could be moved to the foredeck as in the T32 models.

Mk41 going as per the Danish version.

Why would we do that ? The original Iver Huitfeldt has 2 MK56 VLS right next to the MK41. The space and weight is reserved for another missile system and besides which MK41 are a very expensive VLS system. It will be used for the next generation FC/ASW missiles or TLAM.
CAMM is a soft launch system and is using a MK41 is just not needed.

No it’s a rubbish waste…but you have to remember the MOD are cheap…these ships will have 32 MK41 silos, they will not be filled with mainly standard missiles ( like the U.S. does) so what would the RN put in them….the MOD is never stumping up and having the 2 east of suez based T31s having 32 next generation strikes Missiles each…never happen…maybe 8 or 16 at best….so what will the RN do with all those other 16-24 empty MK41 silos…run them empty…or put Air defence missiles in them….the MOD was debating if it was putting more than 16 CAMM on these ships…they are not suddenly sticking 32 MK41 and 16 soft launcher on the ship ..when they can just stick the CAMM in the MK 41 silo and save a bit of cash….sad but these ships are not going to be carting many tens of heavyweight strike missiles around for normal business. The RN had to sacrifice something to get the MK41 launchers and it would be a direct replacement for the soft launch CAMM…is it inefficient and a waste…but government wastes loads on inefficiency based around a bit of in year project saving.

CAMM in MK41 is not saving cash.
You need another launcher inside the MK41.

I suppose we will need to wait and see, it would be good if they did fit both MK41 silos and CAMM soft launch silos……

The CAMM soft launchers will already have been ordered and be a in a warehouse by now as they would be on the long lead times items list.

It also means that there is commonality of systems across the 3 warship platforms.

So the question really is: physical space?

I hope they do…but I’m not sure about the space looking at the boat bays and mission bay lay out….they are big ships, but 32 MK41 and 16 individual CAMM launchers is a lot of space and the T31 has a lot of space taken up with mission/boat bays.

As for the ordered CAMM soft launchers they can easily be put over for the T45 upgrade program.

I’m pretty sure it will be 16 Mk41 given the T32 layout.

With the CAMM kept separate.

Yes I could see that, if you re read all the spin there is no promise of 32 MK41s…just to platting was in place for 32 of them and that they were getting MK41 and a study was underway…

so yes maybe we will see 16 MK41 and 16CAMM. But even that is a very strong fit for a GP frigate…

What I’m really not sure about is the lack of a hull sonar….that’s a saving to far.

Why 16 CAMM? 🍄 CAMM is in sixes, so if 4 lots likely to be 24.

There has been a lot of discussion around minimum fit. I don’t believe there specifically needs for CAMM to be fitted in any specific numbers, the soft launch silos are all bespoke..not like MK41 that come in modules. I specifically used the 16 number as this is equivalent to the AAW fit of the majority of the FREMMs and is a reasonable base line.

Probably should not categorically state T-31 heavy strike load out will never occur; the two T-31s to be stationed East of Suez, may become precisely those which are loaded for bear. This could depend upon how malevolent the scum-sucking slimeball ChiComs appear to be at that time. 🤔

Honestly you have to remember that UK has never been big at carting around large war loads of missiles…you can really see the RNs view of how many strike missiles it needs from the Type 26 design…with 24 silos, so I think best count would be something south of 24…..to be honest I think one of the really interesting things could also be will when the RN takes forward its work on a more integrated air defence system…as you could have the T31 acting as a forward silo for sea viper with a load of Aster 30 missiles.

That’s not true. The Mk41 vls is in addition to CAMM/ Sea Ceptor mushroom farm

We don’t have any evidence of that mr Bell, the RN are undertaking exploration of the weapons fit…we don’t actually know if they will be the whole 32 MK41…if you look back at the announcements…it was announced that the plating would be put in place for up to 32 MK 41 (that was back in 22) then in 23 they confirmed that the T31 would be fitted with MK 41 launchers and they were going to work up what this would look like with the ship builder and manufacture…so we really have no idea…only our individual thoughts and hopes.

We will see as soon as George buzzes it on launch!

Other advantage of a build shed things are more secretive than our on the hard.

Yes, CAMM Cold launched from a canister.

Apologies, yes your correct, was smashing out a response to DB and got mixed up. Why is it a waste of resources to put the longer CAMM-ER missile in VLS? Or does CAMM ER fit the existing soft launch system? Or is it unnecessary to have the longer range of CAMM-ER?

Meanwhile from Naval News a MBDA PR from Formidable Shield 2023

During the exercise, Italian Navy frigate “Margottini” successfully fired an Aster 30 against a Coyote GQM-163A supersonic target and an Aster 15 against a Firejet target. Meanwhile, French Navy frigate “Bretagne” fired an Aster 30 against a Coyote GQM-163A supersonic target and Royal Navy destroyer “HMS Defender” successfully conducted an Aster 30 firing against a Firejet.

with Aster successfully conducting single-shot kills against all targets.

On FCASW, I see that its stated it will be VLS and Sylver 70 compatible, Sylver 70 means its MK41 strike length for FCASW. So I would be very surprise if we go for tactical length on the T31 as it would limit the deployment one of our future weapons.

With designs for the T26 and T31 frozen we’re going to have nothing capable of launching a hypersonic weapon with decent range until T32 or T83. I saw somewhere the new US system was based on a 87″ tube with 3 hypersonic missiles triple packed. That’s big. If we end up adopting the US design then its not realistically an option for T32 and T83 will need to be a big hull to accommodate it.

Totally agree. I cannot see the point of the tactical length Mk41 on the T31. It severely limits current and future missile options.

The 87″ tube is interesting, as that must be the tube’s dimension. Which is over 3 times larger in diameter than a standard Mk41.

I know in the past the US have used Minuteman missiles as the launch vehicle for hypersonic test vehicles. Though at 16 to 18m long, depending on the variant, they are bit too long for a ship.

Looking at the Angle-French blurb on the FC/ASW requirements. I believe the hypersonic version won’t be massive and be of medium-ish range, ie 500 to 1000km max. This is due to two factors. One is that it is to be air carried. Neither France or the UK are designing a future large bomber that would be needed to carry it. The second, is that I haven’t heard of of a new French VLS requirement. Which suggests it will have to fit the Sylver A70 launcher. Which will thereby limit its maximum range due to the restricted size.

Judging by the 87″ diameter. I would say that the US are looking at a strategic hypersonic weapon, that has a range significantly further than 1000km.

Hope the UK will be able to adopt both versions of the FC/ASW and not just be limited to one. If future vls missiles are going to be too big for MK41s shouldn’t there be some preparation for that by the UK ship designer’s or are these just going to be kept the SSNR subs?

Agree the tactical length MK41 is essentially there to carry standard missiles…as the type T31 would be using CAMM why would you bother. The strike length MK41 is there give flexibility…I’m not sure we will see 32 of them on the T31 as there is no way the RN is buying the strike missiles to fill them. I’m betting we see maybe a fit of 12-24 MK41 silos and. A fit of 12-24 CAMM soft launchers…if they went for 32 MK41 launchers we would see no Soft launchers and the MK 41 isles would end up having a lot of CAMM missiles in them. The other way it could go is they see an opportunity to have the T31 carry a number of Aster 30 missiles as part of the carrier screen..with the missiles being cued by the type 45 ( the RN clearly want to do some more work on developing a better integrated air defence network capability as part of the future T83 work up). So I could see a potential future load out of a T31 in an escort function having a load out of 8-16 strike missiles and 8-16 Aster 30 in MK41 silos..with 12-16 CAMM in soft launchers….

Cheers Jon, just to clarify. The Mk41 uses cell group sizes of 8, ie 8, 16, 24 etc. Though the Lockheed Martin EXLS uses a cell group of 3. So they batch up as 3, 6, 9 etc. For CAMM they can be quad packed as per Mk41.

Once the T45 gets CAMM it should have the ability of giving interception updates to another ship’s launched CAMM. I would also expect the T45 to be able to give a launch command via datalink to a T23, 26, T31 and T32 as well. It will be interesting to see how the safety and security protocols are worked out for such a networked system?

I only see a marginal benefit of the T31 with Mk41 fitted filled with Aster. I get the point of adding magazine depth to a networked T45. But critically, the T31 but also have the capability of using Aster, if the T45 is incapacitated. Therefore can the combination of the NS100 radar and the Thales Tacticos CMS work with Aster?

CAMM could theoretically still be put on the sides of the MK41s and if they split 2 MK41s forward in the B gun position and 2 aft, maybe a 24 CAMM farm is still possible in the back plus room for 2*4 NSM or even forward.

Hmmm… therefore, no matter the choice, tactical or strike length Mk41s, the entire issue will need to be revisited in the 2030s, when hypersonic weapons are matured?!? You know that will occur as a result of AUKUS Pillar 2 R&D, paced by scum-sucking, slimeball ChiCom R&D. 🤔😳😱

Yes, in all probability. It looks like the Zumwelts will be the first ships modified with the new bigger VLS. As I’ve heard that the USN want to seriously up the offensive capability as a possible supplement/replacement for the TLAM carrying Ohios. I can’t see them going on the Arliegh Burkes. If there were to be fitted they’d have to give up some Mk41s. Perhaps this is an option for the future DDGX program that replaces the ABs?

Makes apparent sense, hadn’t read about the proposed change for the Zumwalts. The ABs may be nearing the end of the evolutionary change line, but believe DDG(X) design is a relatively clean sheet.

The canister of the CAMM stays put so will not need the launch tolerances needed for a missile.

And Portsmouth news says she returned to Portsmouth yesterday to start her refit including PIP, Radar, CMS and adding CAMM.

👍 Hence, the extended project timeline. Presume this will be the first DDG overhaul which includes all major projected upgrades/updates.

I did have a chuckle when people started saying the overhaul would take 3-4 years.

All it means is that this type of ship is due and overhaul between every 3-4 years. And this is that type of overhaul.

The idea that the overhaul would take 3-4 years was TBH hysterical – even MOD couldn’t manage that…..

Now that PiP is properly debugged it will be much faster from having done the first three T45 and so the risk(s) of adding the Sea Ceptor project on top of it is/are much less.

The radar upgrade has already been done and I suspect this will be from part swapping from one SAMPSON from a T45 already in PiP that has had the radar taken off and physically upgraded.

Hope your interpretation is correct, from text envisioned all subprojects accomplished serially, rather than largely in parallel. 🤞🤞

Think that could be around 2026..

Wonder if they’ll give the 🍄 CAMM silos a wee stretch and make it 8*4 for 32+48 Asters. 80 is more useful than 72!

Err who mentioned WMD ? He just said long range U.K./USA weapons. Which means giving the Ukraine ATACMS and the full bore Storm Shadow.

WMD were found. The failure is that there were no working WMD program going on.

Ha ha ha lol cheers for that.

False equivalence is your friend. Iraq under Saddam in 2003 is the same as Ukraine in 2022. Aiming, deliberately, missiles at non military built up areas as the Russians do nearly daily is the same as attacking military infrastructure; apartment blocks (hundreds) hit by Russian missiles is the same as Iraqi bunkers and airfields, chemical weapon facilities notified as targets beforehand. Civilian women and children raped by Russian infantry or freeing same fleeing from Basra under fire in 2003 by British infantry are equivalent.

Several around here with experience regret all loss of life and have acknowledged that as a consequence of doing something instead of nothing in the face of tyranny.

Would any of these events have taken place had not Saddam invaded (and murdered, raped its population likewise) in 1990 and Putin’s illegal occupation of Ukraine in 2014 followed by this disastrous war in 2022? It takes two to tango should be your watch word.

Will Canada actually buy all 16 – they have a habit of anointing and not doing too much?

I agree UK could do with 3-5 more P8.