I would also worry that LM are planning to build them in the North-East. Which minister really thought that it'd be a good idea to give Hull residents access to space systems?
Possibly they have seeker options?
Yep, if Starhammer improves too much MBDA are going to have to get a point of difference to keep CAMM relevant. This might light a fire under CAMM-MR perhaps.
Perhaps, but they were spreading the word at DSEI about how cheap their seeker was, that they were on the right side of the cost equation for Shaheds even using a radar seeker. Every little helps but the all-weather capability would have been nice and they still need it for Starhammer.
Can Shaheds even fly in heavy weather? I assume if the seekers are IIR they work at night, but perhaps not at the super cheap end. If they can build both Sky and Star at a sufficient rate the cost of the radar seeker will come down, and in the scenarios they expect to use it there won't be much friendly stuff to distinguish between.
Not to be that guy, but do you have a source for that? You sound like it's a dual seeker head, but the radar doesn't really fit unless it's in the chin bulge?
You know most cars have a small X-band radar for the various self-driving systems, right? Either PESAs or AESAs. And they're cheap enough to install on motorcycles for the adaptive cruise control.
My problem is that we have two sets of marketing, one from DSEI and one from the announcement today.
VLS cells mean that you can have submarine-launched Tomahawks.
Fair enough, that's one suggestion I wasn't so sure on.
2029? As in 3 years from now? Not a hope that actual construction for the AUKUS will have started by then, the design is still being worked on, and the Build capacity is still focused on the Dreadnoughts.
It might cause more problems than it solves, but one solution if we really are going to have a 12 boat class could be to build most, say the first 8, with no VLS to save money and make sure they aren't 10kt behemoths and then have 4 'Pacific' subclass SSGNs with 6-8 payload tubes. Barring a significant investment in Stratus we are unlikely to get a submarine launched anti-ship missile so VLS would be of limited use in an Atlantic war and the carrier force plus the significant NATO air power in Scandinavia would be committed to any fight against Russia too, so what difference would 28 more missiles make?
The PWR2 has what, a 25-30 year service life at best? Astute was commissioned in 2010, so, if not refuelled, will run out of spicy rock juice in about 2035-40. If we assume an 8-10 year construction period for the new SSN-AUKUS, then, to avoid dropping back to six boats in the late 2030s, construction would need to begin in the late 2020s.
Note that this is assuming a 12-tube setup like the old 688i or Flight 1 Virginias. Or maybe a pair of the bigger VPTs like on Flight 2s. Not a setup like the 4 VPMs in the Flight Vs.
Yes, that would be an option if the UK is willing to not buy Tomahawks.
I'm talking about something like the 12x small tubes in 688i or Flight 1 Virginias, or maybe the two VPTs in the bow of a Flight 2+ Virginia. only a dozen or so 21" missiles.
www.navalnews.com
I've been reminded that the two big tubes in the bow of a Virginia are VPTs, and were originally based on the Trident tube and muzzle door.If I reccal correctly, the current plan seems to be VLS aft the sail. But there is a report the UK is funding development of the silo.
Odd since I thought we were just getting VPM but it seems the USV and drone requirements have added something.
Here we go.
Royal Navy's SSN-AUKUS Submarines to feature VLS - Naval News
The United Kingdom has requested U.S. aid in generating a common "vertical deployment tube" and other associated weapons systems to be shared across the SSN-AUKUS submarine program.
The FMS notice was initially listed as a $50 million dollar sale, but the growth in cost has skyrocketed, with the total value ballooning to over a $1 billion dollars, likely growing to encompass the development numerous subsystems along with the launching mechanisms themselves. To assist development efforts the State Department says the U.S is to provide embedded U.S. industry personnel in the U.K. along with general industry support from U.S. defense contractors, which includes “engineering, technical, and logistics support services”.
I'd assumed they were going to have 2x2 big tubes amidships (like a very short Trident compartment) so that the missile compartment isn't as unnecessarily long as on the Virginia blk5s but giving a total capacity of 48 tubes across 12 boats. Condensing those onto four of the submarines each with 8 tubes would give 32 tubes across the fleet but those tubes would be more likely to be in the right place to be used.
I believe Babcock in Rosyth are already building the common missile tubes for both ours and yours future SSBNs so we have the capacity to build our own tubes. As we don't have LRHW there's no reason to design the tubes around that either.
I had a thought.
But what would we use diver lockout chambers for anyway? A 130m, 10,000t submarine surely won't be close enough to any targets for the SBS to be of any use? Surely it would be more effective to be able to fit lockout chambers on the back of a smaller design like we do with the Astutes, and then invest in some diver mini-subs: https://www.msubs.com/manned-submersibles/s401/
