Taildog / SRAAM / ASRAAM family

It had a passive radar seeker and an IIR one. The later VSRAAM was similar but had an active Ka band seeker.

BAe proposed a near-term version of SRARM that was about the size of ASRAAM (but with a different airframe derived from BAe's FLAME proposal for ASRAAM https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/taildog-sraam-asraam-family.5619/page-4#post-578076) and a later version that was scaled down in size with TVC. No lateral thrust system for SRARM and more range compared to VSRAAM. Could also be used as an AAM.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/1980s-weapons-and-the-p-1216.13338/#post-677218
1767216495951.png
1767215860926.jpeg
 
Last edited:
Mike Pryce said:
It had a passive radar seeker and an IIR one. The later VSRAAM was similar but had an active Ka band seeker.

BAe proposed a near-term version of SRARM that was about the size of ASRAAM (but with a different airframe derived from BAe's FLAME proposal for ASRAAM https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/taildog-sraam-asraam-family.5619/page-4#post-578076) and a later version that was scaled down in size with TVC. No lateral thrust system for SRARM and more range compared to VSRAAM. Could also be used as an AAM.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/1980s-weapons-and-the-p-1216.13338/#post-677218
View attachment 796997
View attachment 796994
Click to expand...
Did the smaller version have a warhead? IIRC VSRAAM didn't and relied on its impact on the target for effect.
 
timmymagic said:
Did the smaller version have a warhead? IIRC VSRAAM didn't and relied on its impact on the target for effect.
Click to expand...
Yes it did. The original concept for FLAME did not have one but, like Rapier, it got a small one for AR, to go off after it punched through light armour or to mash up a radar antenna.
 
timmymagic said:
Don't think thats a goer....iLauncher is built around soft vertical launch from containerised rounds. To add 'old' Asraam would require launch rails, could damage the rest of the launcher due to efflux and if there were containerised rounds alongside the efflux could damage them...the Asraam rounds also don't have the tip over mechanism that CAMM has...

If we had spare kit to make some more Raven though it could make some sense...but that would also depend on the life left in the missiles...

Personally, I'd rather see the UK develop a NOMAD style unit based on new Supacat HMT600 (with the armoured enclosed dual cab) chassis with radar (Blighter style on mast or Saab Giraffe 1X), EO/IR, RWS and 2-4 CAMM rounds on the back as a standalone system that could be deployed forward of Land Ceptor batteries and operate independently...but also connected via networks. Stick it alongside the HMT600 with Moog RWS equipped with 30mm and 8 Starstreak/LMM and you have a useful capability. More likely to get some export sales from that as well...
Click to expand...

Seems like I wasn't far wrong with this...

I'd still like to see a few things changed...

- Needs a radar on it, preferably a small 4 panel AESA set up on the mast below the EO/IR (not for medium range search/acquisition, but to contribute to the air picture alongside Giraffe AMB...Giraffe 1X would be lovely...but I'm afraid at £2m+ per unit is too expensive for this use case...a 4 panel would definitely pick up cruise missiles and fighters/helo at the likely max engagement range (think 20km max)
- Needs an RWS for local self protection...the 4 panel radar would pick up drones for engagement by this...
- Needs one of the 360 deg EO/IR systems the UK has recently contracted to replace ADAD (SPYNEL-X)
- If its going to use Asraam, it needs a box launcher with internal rails (like NASAMS) for environmental protection
- The MooG FMP will also carry APKWS pods...which like the RiWP would be useful to have around...unfortunately its elevation limit is 30deg, so I suspect attaching canisterised CAMM is a non-starter (I'm pretty sure the soft vertical launch canister won't work at 30deg elevation max...). But 3 Asraam and a 4 round APKWS (or other laser guided rocket) box would be a good set-up.

Land Ceptor with CAMM, CAMM-ER and MR, linked with this (in the above form) and the HMT400 with RiWP, 30mm cannon, LMM and Starstreak could sort out practically all of the UK's deployed AD woes...just sprinkle some SAMP-T/NG on top...
 
Last edited:
timmymagic said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/2047289352301039739
View: https://x.com/JonHawkes275/status/2047289352301039739
Click to expand...
I like this thing a lot, though I really wish they developed a NASAMS style launch container for the ASRAAM to protect it from the elements on the launcher.
And that would allow the missile to be integrated with the iLauncher too, which would be a nice addition to the Sky Sabre (and maybe to the Pilica+ for us here in Poland, as there is a chance we'll procure some ASRAAMs in the future).
Also, why no sensors? Even if it has some sort of optical sensor on the launcher between the launch rails, that's still not enough I think.
 
olek_z17 said:
I like this thing a lot, though I really wish they developed a NASAMS style launch container for the ASRAAM to protect it from the elements on the launcher.
And that would allow the missile to be integrated with the iLauncher too, which would be a nice addition to the Sky Sabre (and maybe to the Pilica+ for us here in Poland, as there is a chance we'll procure some ASRAAMs in the future).
Click to expand...
I think that for an IR missile, you'd need an IR-transparent dome or leaving the missile out in the elements.


olek_z17 said:
Also, why no sensors? Even if it has some sort of optical sensor on the launcher between the launch rails, that's still not enough I think.
Click to expand...
Uses a datalink from an off-mount radar.
 
olek_z17 said:
And that would allow the missile to be integrated with the iLauncher too, which would be a nice addition to the Sky Sabre (and maybe to the Pilica+ for us here in Poland, as there is a chance we'll procure some ASRAAMs in the future).
Click to expand...

I still think the hot efflux would be an issue for neighbouring CAMM containers. I'd see this, with the HMT400/RiWP as a networked, forward deployed node of a Land Ceptor battery (although I'd also station another HMT400/RiWP with that battery for anti-drone defence), working closer to the 'front' (whatever that is now). If it had a 4 panel AESA and Spynel-X (and the CAMM datalink) it could add data into LEAPP and widen coverage at a comparatively low cost. The RiWP mount has, apparently, AESA panels that can be mounted on the front and rear.

olek_z17 said:
Also, why no sensors? Even if it has some sort of optical sensor on the launcher between the launch rails, that's still not enough I think.
Click to expand...

I suspect this has, like Raven, an EO/IR sensor on a mast. Wouldn't be that hard to add 4 Blighter A400 radar panels (which we've seen on UK trials masts previously).

Scott Kenny said:
I think that for an IR missile, you'd need an IR-transparent dome or leaving the missile out in the elements.
Click to expand...

It can. Though you could pop a canister lid open when engagement was likely (like Strela 10), or like has been done previously only have the IR element 'poking out'. But it should be noted that the Ukrainian Raven have been engaging targets well outside the seeker head acquisition limits by using LOAL. With the trainable mount though it would make sense to make more use of the seeker though...

Scott Kenny said:
Uses a datalink from an off-mount radar.
Click to expand...

We can't see the CAMM datalink, which would be the one they'd use, in the images to date...mind you we can't actually see the EO/IR mast mounted sensor...which surely must be there. Any production unit would surely need the datalink though...

The only thing that could improve it...would be if you could mount the mast, with EO/IR, data link and radar panels, actually on the centre or rear of the MooG FMP...giving 360 deg field of fire (well perhaps not directly rearward...).
 
Last edited:
Scott Kenny said:
I think that for an IR missile, you'd need an IR-transparent dome or leaving the missile out in the elements.
Click to expand...
The Block 6 ASRAAMs have an uplink if I recall, so they're LOAL-capable. Not sure to what extent that uplink is compatible with the CAMM's data link, so that's where a software update for the iLauncher might be necessary for the integration.
Though the Spyder SR uses a container lid design that fully exposes the seeker head when taken off, so that is one potential solution for vertical launching older ASRAAM variants.
timmymagic said:
I still think the hot efflux would be an issue for neighbouring CAMM containers. I'd see this, with the HMT400/RiWP as a networked, forward deployed node of a Land Ceptor battery (although I'd station a HMT400/RiWP with that for anti-drone defence), working closer to the 'front' (whatever that is now).
Click to expand...
Mixing ASRAAMs and CAMMs/-ERs on the same launcher wouldn't be possible anyways as the container for the ASRAAM has to be bigger - the diagonal of the CAMM launch container is around 387 mm and ASRAAM's wingspan is 450 mm, so applying the proportions from the NASAMS (those between the AIM-120A/B wingspan and the container diagonal), the ASRAAM launch container would be around 475 × 475 mm (675 mm diagonal).
That being said, I'm pretty sure that fitting a missile rack with 8 such containers onto the iLauncher would be possible.
 
olek_z17 said:
The Block 6 ASRAAMs have an uplink if I recall, so they're LOAL-capable. Not sure to what extent that uplink is compatible with the CAMM's data link, so that's where a software update for the iLauncher might be necessary for the integration.
Click to expand...

All versions of Asraam have a data link. Asraam was the first real LOAL and Over the Shoulder missile in service. It is only 1 way though on Asraam.

But you're right, I'm assuming that the improvements from CAMM that have been put into Asraam Block VI include some datalink compatability, and there isn't any actual evidence for that. Surely wouldn't be that big a deal, but might mean seperate stocks of ground launched Asraam from air launched, which isn't really in the Joint or Complex Weapons ethos...

olek_z17 said:
Mixing ASRAAMs and CAMMs/-ERs on the same launcher wouldn't be possible anyways as the container for the ASRAAM has to be bigger - the diagonal of the CAMM launch container is around 387 mm and ASRAAM's wingspan is 450 mm, so applying the proportions from the NASAMS (those between the AIM-120A/B wingspan and the container diagonal), the ASRAAM launch container would be around 475 × 475 mm (675 mm diagonal). That being said, I'm pretty sure that fitting a missile rack with 8 such containers onto the iLauncher would be possible.
Click to expand...

The folding fins on CAMM always get forgotten about when we're all talking about hot launch and turnover packs...

But in truth I don't see any need for an IR seeker missile on Land Ceptor batteries, I'd rather focus on getting CAMM-ER...and eventually CAMM-MR on them.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I think that for an IR missile, you'd need an IR-transparent dome or leaving the missile out in the elements.
Click to expand...
It's noticeable that the IFPC Inc 2/Enduring Shield launcher has fully encosed AIM-9X Sidewinder, though I suppose they may pop the front hatch open prior to launch - OTOH the palletised launchers* don't seem to be trainable, so they may rely solely on datalinked LOAL.

* The only pictures I can find of a trainable Enduring Shield launcher are truck mounted, and it's visibly different from the palletised launcher.
 
olek_z17 said:
I like this thing a lot, though I really wish they developed a NASAMS style launch container for the ASRAAM to protect it from the elements on the launcher.
Click to expand...

Missed one point...something that this unit needs to address, and the HMT400/RiWP set up as well, is missile handling for reloads. The Gravehawk has a winch/block and tackle set up to assist with getting R-73 on the rails. Both of these HMT400 systems need a solution as well, particularly given that one of the issues of Hellfire being disliked on Sgt Stout was due to the difficulty of reloading at height....so those Brimstone rounds might not be very popular....still think they're ignoring environmental issues too much as well...the solutions are pretty straightforward...
 
timmymagic said:
Surely wouldn't be that big a deal, but might mean seperate stocks of ground launched Asraam from air launched, which isn't really in the Joint or Complex Weapons ethos...
Click to expand...
I hope that wouldn't be the case as the main advantage of being able to use ASRAAMs in the iLauncher would be the ability to "recycle" missiles past their captive carry life.

timmymagic said:
The folding fins on CAMM always get forgotten about when we're all talking about hot launch and turnover packs...
Click to expand...
If by that you mean that the surface launched ASRAAMs should have CAMM's folding fins then I don't think this is a good idea, again, for commonality reasons, I think that these missiles should be the unmodified A2A variant, like in the NASAMS.
 
As far as future ASRAAM, it would help for internal weapons bays if it had CAMM style folding fins.
But that seems GCAP only if I've read current plans correctly.
 
timmymagic said:
It can. Though you could pop a canister lid open when engagement was likely, or like has been done previously only have the IR element 'poking out'. But it should be noted that the Ukrainian Raven have been engaging targets well outside the seeker head acquisition limits by using LOAL. With the trainable mount though it would make sense to make more use of the seeker though...
Click to expand...
Surely the solution would be to have Sea Wolf style 'eyelids' that are mechanically opened when an engagement is imminent? Then the missile can either do LOAL or point the seeker at the target and it is still protected from bright world outside most of the time.
 
TorpedoJ said:
Surely the solution would be to have Sea Wolf style 'eyelids' that are mechanically opened when an engagement is imminent? Then the missile can either do LOAL or point the seeker at the target and it is still protected from bright world outside most of the time.
Click to expand...

That would be the sensible move, it is a point of failure, but its a fairly straightforward mechanism. Just protecting the sensitive seeker from dust, keeping it dry and nice and warm(er) would be enough...even without protecting it a little from fragmentation.
DWG said:
Bit of an older pic, but the vehicle between the Rapier/ASRAAM launcher and the Raven 5 appears to have launch cannisters, as possibly does the tracked variant (I think it's an Ajax hull, but I'm not certain).
Click to expand...

Yep. It is an Ajax/Ares etc hull...that and the JLTV (and Themis UGV) were depicted with a canister, that appeared to have a frangible or pop off lid, but that doesn't appear to be a CAMM canister. But it definitely was Asraam inside...not CAMM. No idea if they're taking that forward...would be a sensible move (but again would preclude the shared stockpile idea, but perhaps that doesn't matter for this).

One thing we've all missed though...is if a canister (perhaps a storage and launch sealed 'wooden round' or with internal rails and pop-off lid/or 'eyelids' like Seawolf GWS.25 could be built)....and a trainable mount exists....it could lend itself rather well to an Asraam with CAMM RF seeker (remember the 'modular' bit...) that could hot launch (no need for turnover pack).....perfect for a self defence missile on a Carrier for example. Removes all the worry about FOD from VL (even if SVL produces little to any). After all there is a reason why the USN uses trainable mounts and not VL on its CVN and LPH...

A couple of those on the QE Class would address a lot of concerns...kind of a Super-RAM setup...

Stick it on a rack, like MSI's Paladin Seahawk A3 seagoing system and you have a rather capable AD system that you can shift around...rather more capable (albeit larger) than a SeaRAM or SIMBAD-RC....

https://www.msi-dsl.com/product-category/msi-ds-seahawk-a3/
Nah....makes far too much sense...
 
timmymagic said:
One thing we've all missed though...is if a canister (perhaps a storage and launch sealed 'wooden round' or with internal rails and pop-off lid/or 'eyelids' like Seawolf GWS.25 could be built)....and a trainable mount exists....it could lend itself rather well to an Asraam with CAMM RF seeker (remember the 'modular' bit...) that could hot launch (no need for turnover pack).....perfect for a self defence missile on a Carrier for example. Removes all the worry about FOD from VL (even if SVL produces little to any). After all there is a reason why the USN uses trainable mounts and not VL on its CVN and LPH...

A couple of those on the QE Class would address a lot of concerns...kind of a Super-RAM setup...

Stick it on a rack, like MSI's Paladin Seahawk A3 seagoing system and you have a rather capable AD system that you can shift around...rather more capable (albeit larger) than a SeaRAM or SIMBAD-RC....

Nah....makes far too much sense...
Click to expand...
Sounds good to me. I reckon you could get six missiles in boxes on a TEU footprint, it would look like a slimmer Sea Wolf. Going to try and mock it up now.
 
timmymagic said:
Yep. It is an Ajax/Ares etc hull...that and the JLTV (and Themis UGV) were depicted with a canister, that appeared to have a frangible or pop off lid, but that doesn't appear to be a CAMM canister. But it definitely was Asraam inside...not CAMM. No idea if they're taking that forward...would be a sensible move (but again would preclude the shared stockpile idea, but perhaps that doesn't matter for this).
Click to expand...
Not sure if I can tell, even from the closeup pics of these renders that I have here.
Though I really hope it's not a frangible lid as that would require some sort of a nose cone, thus negating the biggest advantage of a surface launch ASRAAM, which is the common missile stockpile.
 

Attachments

  • G0wk__jXAAAGkk-.jpg
    G0wk__jXAAAGkk-.jpg
    742.6 KB · Views: 26
  • Raven 8 missiles.jpg
    Raven 8 missiles.jpg
    35.5 KB · Views: 24
While another path forward is amongst the options for GCAP/FCAS come Tempest was a smaller ASRAAM. Supposedly delivering ASRAAM performance in a smaller package......
Re-apply to a Raven setup or modernised Rapier mount.

And yet frankly SVL was judged the better path forward than trainable launchers. So LOAL with improved datalinks is a better option.
But a shorter CAMM/ASRAAM might package SVL inside container, without the need to raise cells to position. Being they be permanently vertical.

Hence my view on a CAMM-SR (short range) and merger with ASRAAM. Though a resurrection of FLAME is yet another path and that merges IR and ARH together.
 
zen said:
While another path forward is amongst the options for GCAP/FCAS come Tempest was a smaller ASRAAM. Supposedly delivering ASRAAM performance in a smaller package......
Re-apply to a Raven setup or modernised Rapier mount.

And yet frankly SVL was judged the better path forward than trainable launchers. So LOAL with improved datalinks is a better option.
But a shorter CAMM/ASRAAM might package SVL inside container, without the need to raise cells to position. Being they be permanently vertical.

Hence my view on a CAMM-SR (short range) and merger with ASRAAM. Though a resurrection of FLAME is yet another path and that merges IR and ARH together.
Click to expand...
This concept got nicknamed Fat-SRAAM in the GCAP threat, posting the image again as a reference. It's unclear whether the two refer to the same missile being both fatter and wider than ASRAAM or two different concepts, one a fatter ASRAAM and one a much smaller missile.
1777402814060.png
If both notes are referring to one concept, faster-accelerating and more compact ASRAAM would also do great for VSHORAD, certainly.
 
olek_z17 said:
Not sure if I can tell, even from the closeup pics of these renders that I have here.
Though I really hope it's not a frangible lid as that would require some sort of a nose cone, thus negating the biggest advantage of a surface launch ASRAAM, which is the common missile stockpile.
Click to expand...
You can place a linear shaped charge to pop the frangible lid, or just let the sudden rapid increase in canister pressure blow it off.
 
Scott Kenny said:
just let the sudden rapid increase in canister pressure blow it off.
Click to expand...

Thats the mechanism used with Starstreak (though not LMM which has captured frangible triangular segments).

TorpedoJ said:
This concept got nicknamed Fat-SRAAM in the GCAP threat, posting the image again as a reference. It's unclear whether the two refer to the same missile being both fatter and wider than ASRAAM or two different concepts, one a fatter ASRAAM and one a much smaller missile.
Click to expand...

From the mockups they presented at the Tempest mock up launch the 'Fat-SRAAM' was only marginally shorter than standard Asraam. The smaller ones were just a little under half the size. The MBDA 'MHTK' mini-missile was also present (in A2A and A2G versions) so the smaller Asraam was not there for missile defence. We've not seen those concepts in some time to my knowledge though (they may be with the GCAP mockup on stands, but I've not seen them there or on MBDA stands)...unlike SPEAR, SPEAR-EW and the Stratus ones....

TorpedoJ said:
Only 4 missiles fit because otherwise the launcher wouldn't be able to elevate far enough.
Click to expand...

I'd put some Blighter A400 panels (or the circular ones on the Paladin S3, believe they're Polish) on the mast rather than the Giraffe 1X on the mount. Keep it simple and as cheap as possible. Such panels offer more than enough range for such an application, without adding huge cost. to note: Giraffe 1X also has a short (c1-1.5m) elevating mast for the panel, but the unit below is a bit too chunky to mount on the missile unit.

zen said:
Hence my view on a CAMM-SR (short range) and merger with ASRAAM. Though a resurrection of FLAME is yet another path and that merges IR and ARH together.
Click to expand...

Dual mode was being looked at as part of the future concept work, specifically mentioned for the 'Fat SRAAM', not sure if it applied to the smaller 2 missile 1 rail Asraam lookalikes though...

For a notional CAMM-SR I think the route to take would be the seeker on existing unguided rocket route (like APKWS). Essentially you'd be using the CAMM name as a 'brand name' like Spike. The real trick then would be if you could make a cheap enough turnover pack to make SVL really viable for it, that way you could maximise range and minimum engagement distances, obviously for trainable launch you could ditch the turnover pack. As for seeker stick to SAL, unless a really cheap seeker option is available.

I'm still hoping someone buys the CRV-7 motor design from Magellan....(maybe not the entire factory which apparently is very old school, and still in use for Black Brandt sounding rockets). Its capabilities (speed and range) far exceed any other 70mm rocket motor out there...
 
Last edited:
timmymagic said:
From the mockups they presented at the Tempest mock up launch the 'Fat-SRAAM' was only marginally shorter than standard Asraam. The smaller ones were just a little under half the size. The MBDA 'MHTK' mini-missile was also present (in A2A and A2G versions) so the smaller Asraam was not there for missile defence. We've not seen those concepts in some time to my knowledge though (they may be with the GCAP mockup on stands, but I've not seen them there or on MBDA stands)...unlike SPEAR, SPEAR-EW and the Stratus ones....
Click to expand...
Ah, thanks. I'd guess the twin packs would be Meteor sized and fit the self defence bays on Tempest as they were at the time. It seems worth retaining as a dogfight missile, and then the fatter missile could try to compete with MICA in the medium range category.
timmymagic said:
I'd put some Blighter A400 panels (or the circular ones on the Paladin S3, believe they're Polish) on the mast rather than the Giraffe 1X on the mount. Keep it simple and as cheap as possible. Such panels offer more than enough range for such an application, without adding huge cost. to note: Giraffe 1X also has a short (c1-1.5m) elevating mast for the panel, but the unit below is a bit too chunky to mount on the missile unit.
Click to expand...
I hadn't heard of those, thanks. Yes it seems a lot better than Giraffe 1x for this sort of application, perhaps a single panel could be fitted between the missiles Pantsir style?
 
TorpedoJ said:
Ah, thanks. I'd guess the twin packs would be Meteor sized and fit the self defence bays on Tempest as they were at the time. It seems worth retaining as a dogfight missile, and then the fatter missile could try to compete with MICA in the medium range category.

I hadn't heard of those, thanks. Yes it seems a lot better than Giraffe 1x for this sort of application, perhaps a single panel could be fitted between the missiles Pantsir style?
Click to expand...

To be honest they're that small you'd be mad not to just mount them on the mast, get elevated range increase plus 360 deg coverage, like the below image...believe the EO/IR on the top is the same as Raven....mast can go up another 2-3 metres as well...worth noting this is the system used alongside an RF inhibitor on the Blighter AUDS C-UAS system that has seen strong sales (and combat use) around the world for a number of years.

For a rack mounted, and fixed, naval application you could probably mount the slightly larger A800 series, though I suspect the mast would need to be fixed and a little stronger for that application.

https://blighter.com/products/a800-mk-2-multi-mode-radar/

a400-series-on-6x6-supacat-with-chess-vs-camera-1.jpg
 
timmymagic said:
To be honest they're that small you'd be mad not to just mount them on the mast, get elevated range increase plus 360 deg coverage, like the below image...believe the EO/IR on the top is the same as Raven....mast can go up another 2-3 metres as well...worth noting this is the system used alongside an RF inhibitor on the Blighter AUDS C-UAS system that has seen strong sales (and combat use) around the world for a number of years.

For a rack mounted, and fixed, naval application you could probably mount the slightly larger A800 series, though I suspect the mast would need to be fixed and a little stronger for that application.

https://blighter.com/products/a800-mk-2-multi-mode-radar/
Click to expand...
For naval roles it has occurred to me that you might not want a radar at all because of RF clutter and radio silence etc on board a warship. Perhaps better to stick with passive sensors and then use the CMS to cue.
 
TorpedoJ said:
For naval roles it has occurred to me that you might not want a radar at all because of RF clutter and radio silence etc on board a warship. Perhaps better to stick with passive sensors and then use the CMS to cue.
Click to expand...
If your CWIS is firing, there's probably not a lot of point in EMCON anymore.
 
DWG said:
If your CWIS is firing, there's probably not a lot of point in EMCON anymore.
Click to expand...
More than adding multiple new radars onto an existing vessel by containerisation might interfere with the permanent radars and ESM.
 
Scott Kenny said:
So you set your CIWS radars to not point a side lobe at your ESM receivers.
Click to expand...
That might work for a fixed CIWS but a containerised SAM might get shifted between positions on a ship and between different ships where doing it would take integration work each time it was shifted. At that stage what's the point of modularity?
Cheaper and easier to avoid the risks entirely.
 
TorpedoJ said:
That might work for a fixed CIWS but a containerised SAM might get shifted between positions on a ship and between different ships where doing it would take integration work each time it was shifted. At that stage what's the point of modularity?
Cheaper and easier to avoid the risks entirely.
Click to expand...
Software limits/interlocks to your radar search pattern, not hardware.

Takes more setup time if you drop it onto a ship or location it's never been before, but once done you hit CTRL+S and you don't have to repeat the process until someone changes the ship systems locations.

It's been 10 years since the last time you dropped a CIWS at this location? Has anything changed? No? Then you just pull up the old config file and run it.

Thing is, most ships have very limited footprint areas to drop a CIWS, between field of fire/mount radar field of view and open deck space. So short of dropping CIWS onto container ships in random places, you're really only doing maybe 2 setups per class anyways.
 
olek_z17 said:
Not sure if I can tell, even from the closeup pics of these renders that I have here.
Though I really hope it's not a frangible lid as that would require some sort of a nose cone, thus negating the biggest advantage of a surface launch ASRAAM, which is the common missile stockpile.
Click to expand...

I would suspect that any canister for an IR missile or other relatively fragile seeker would have an opening lid of some sort. MML had a hinged flap on its AIM-9X and Hellfire canisters, for example.

1777514163582.jpeg
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom