Type 31 GPFF

[TomS]

Any idea as to what the main armament will be? I once heard that the Storm Shadow was once considered for the VLS.

The article notes that the in-service date (ISD) for the T31s aligns more or less with the projected ISD for the new Future Cruise/Anti-Ship Weapon (FCASW). But there has been very little public progress reported on FCASW, so the 2028 ISD seems really optimistic.

It also seems possible that the Mk 41 will actually replace the CAMM launch tubes on the Mk 31 (I don't know the exact internal space claims there). If so, then CAMM would need to be carried via Host ExLS modules that fit inside the Mk 41 VLS. CAMM in Host ExLS has been demonstrated, but might still take money to qualify. (Edit: But Canada is already doing that, so maybe not much extra cost for the RN to adopt it as well.)

I don't think Storm Shadow would fit in a Mk 41. If it did, the French would not have gone to the trouble of turning SCALP into MdCN to fit the similar-sized Sylver launchers.

 

[FighterJock]

So it is the Future Cruise/Anti-ship Weapon that will be arming the Type-31s I only wish is that there were more information publicly available about the said missile. There was yet another missile called Perseus that had Hypersonic speeds that was in the works years ago I take it that the FCASW is a successor to that missile?

 

[Jason Dykstra (Wyvern)]

If it does indeed get Mk.41s, it should be able to fire Tomahawks. The Royal Navy ordered NSMs a few months ago, so those may go on there, but I will have to research further on them to confirm. Whatever comes afterwards is still in the air, and is subject to change .

 

[TomS]

So it is the Future Cruise/Anti-ship Weapon that will be arming the Type-31s I only wish is that there were more information publicly available about the said missile. There was yet another missile called Perseus that had Hypersonic speeds that was in the works years ago I take it that the FCASW is a successor to that missile?

Perseus was an MBDA internal study (and it was Mach 3, so not strictly hypersonic).

Persus is an input into FC/ASW, but it's not the case that FC/ASW is just Perseus developed. We know that FC/ASW was evaluating at least two complementary concepts: a supersonic one like Perseus and a stealthy subsonic one.

Rolls-Royce and Safran Team Up for FC/ASW Next Gen Missile - Naval News

Rolls-Royce and Safran Power Units have jointly signed an Assessment Phase contract with MBDA, as part of the Franco-British Future Cruise / Anti-Ship Weapon (FC/ASW) programme.

www.navalnews.com

If it does indeed get Mk.41s, it should be able to fire Tomahawks. The Royal Navy ordered NSMs a few months ago, so those may go on there, but I will have to research further on them to confirm. Whatever comes afterwards is still in the air, and is subject to change .

Tomahawk needs a fairly elaborate mission planning system, not just a launcher. That's one reason Tomahawk isn't on the USN's FFG-62 armament list despite having suitable Mk 41 cells.

NSM does not fit in Mk 41 VLS. The Joint Strike Missile version, reconfigured to fit in the F-35's internal weapon bays, can fit in a VLS canister, but there really hasn't been much outward progress on the version since about 2015.

Exclusive: New Details on the Kongsberg Vertical Launch Joint Strike Missile (VL JSM)

Exclusive: New Details on the Kongsberg Vertical Launch Joint Strike Missile (VL JSM)

www.navyrecognition.com

 

[FighterJock]

Thanks again TomS. So my internet source got it's data for the Perseus wrong. I won't be going back to them that is for sure.

 

[timmymagic]

CAMM in Host ExLS has been demonstrated, but might still take money to qualify. (Edit: But Canada is already doing that, so maybe not much extra cost for the RN to adopt it as well.)

It was qualified, but only in the standalone variant. Never whilst nested in a Mk.41. Obviously this was on land as well...

Persus is an input into FC/ASW, but it's not the case that FC/ASW is just Perseus developed. We know that FC/ASW was evaluating at least two complementary concepts: a supersonic one like Perseus and a stealthy subsonic one.

Most recent update was that it was likely both missiles would be going ahead, rather than one. Large, long range, stealthy and subsonic being one..the other being the supersonic, medium ranged missile. The interesting bit was that the Supersonic missile would also have an air to air mode for extreme range attacks on large targets like AWACS or AAR....By all accounts the UK favoured the stealthy missile, the French the Supersonic.

 

[TomS]

Thanks again TomS. So my internet source got it's data for the Perseus wrong. I won't be going back to them that is for sure.

Back to the original source for Perseus:

MBDA unveils PERSEUS, the multirole land and naval strike concept missile system | Press Release | MBDA

MBDA today unveils the output of the Concept Visions process for 2011; CVS 401 Perseus concept missile system.

www.mbda-systems.com

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJ9YKsNfkQ8&ab_channel=NavyRecognition

 

[TomS]

It was qualified, but only in the standalone variant. Never whilst nested in a Mk.41. Obviously this was on land as well...

Maybe not fully qualified, but they have launched CAMM from the Host ExLS configuration as well as the 3-Cell version.

Lockheed Martin to Begin Qualification Testing of 3-Cell ExLS in 2016

/PRNewswire/ -- Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT) is concluding production of its 3-Cell ExLS Stand Alone Launcher designed to fire MBDA's Common Anti-air Modular...

www.prnewswire.com

The announcement follows the successful September 2013 test by Lockheed Martin and MBDA of the first launch of a CAMM from the MK 41 VLS using the host variant of the ExLS.

And a pciture of it from the Host ExLS brochure:

 

[Jason Dykstra (Wyvern)]

Tomahawk needs a fairly elaborate mission planning system, not just a launcher. That's one reason Tomahawk isn't on the USN's FFG-62 armament list despite having suitable Mk 41 cells.

NSM does not fit in Mk 41 VLS.

Thanks for the correction. Is it known whether Type 31 will have the mission planning system for Tomahawk? I presume not.

 

[TomS]

Tomahawk needs a fairly elaborate mission planning system, not just a launcher. That's one reason Tomahawk isn't on the USN's FFG-62 armament list despite having suitable Mk 41 cells.

NSM does not fit in Mk 41 VLS.

Thanks for the correction. Is it known whether Type 31 will have the mission planning system for Tomahawk? I presume not.

I'd assume it does not unless they specifically announce that Tomahawk will be fitted. It's a fairly pricey piece of kit and requires its own space on the ship.

 

[TomS]

Let's hope so - although he didn't make it explicitly clear whether that was the case.

Fair. But it seems much more positive than it has been previously. I'll edit.

So the precise word choice was "intend," which leaves room for this to be a plan to backfit Mk 41 to the Type 31s in the future. Compared with the choice to "ensure" Mk 41 is fitted in the Type 26, I'd say this is NOT actually a statement that Mk 41 will definitely be fitted to the Type 31s as delivered. It's still aspirational not definitive, IMO.

Sea Power Conference keynote speech

Speech by Admiral Sir Ben Key at the First Sea Lord’s Sea Power Conference, part of the London Sea Power Series.

www.gov.uk

But it is not just about the sensors. We also need to advance our ability to deliver lethal long-range offensive fires against our adversaries.

Hence the decision to ensure the Mark 41 Vertical Launch Silo is fitted to the Type 26 and, I am delighted to say, we intend to fit it also to our Type 31 frigates.

 

[timmymagic]

So the precise word choice was "intend," which leaves room for this to be a plan to backfit Mk 41 to the Type 31s in the future. Compared with the choice to "ensure" Mk 41 is fitted in the Type 26, I'd say this is NOT actually a statement that Mk 41 will definitely be fitted to the Type 31s as delivered. It's still aspirational not definitive, IMO.

Also...if they went ahead with CAMM in Mk.41 via ExLS....it would then make sense for the T45's to have CAMM mounted in Mk.41 strike length and ExLS...possibly. Could T45 get Mk.41 as originally intended? I suspect money will be the issue...

The other issue could be....does ExLS come in a long enough version for CAMM-ER...or FCM (mind you that might just be loaded in a VL as standard for all we know...

 

[zen]

The recent announcement seems suspect if Type 31 was always having the ambition to have 4 mk41 sets of 8 silos as well as a minimum of 12 Sea Ceptor cells and some potential in future for Anti-ship Missiles....

Either we've just see the argument for mk41 win out and become firmly committed.....as well as a minimum of 12 Sea Ceptor cells.
Or we've just seen the Sea Ceptor cells ditched and everything is now in the mk41.

Arguably I'd expand Sea Ceptor cells as well and keep those 32 mk41 for more offensive options.

 

[TomS]

Also...if they went ahead with CAMM in Mk.41 via ExLS....it would then make sense for the T45's to have CAMM mounted in Mk.41 strike length and ExLS...possibly. Could T45 get Mk.41 as originally intended? I suspect money will be the issue...

The other issue could be....does ExLS come in a long enough version for CAMM-ER...or FCM (mind you that might just be loaded in a VL as standard for all we know...

The phrasing of the MBDA press release says specifically 24 additional launcher cells and a 50% increase in air defense missiles (meaning 24 CAMM rounds). That seems to exclude ExLS or Mk 41 on those ships.

On CAMM ER, I honestly don't know. I think it might be too wide for ExLS -- the insert looks pretty maxed out with JAGM at 7 inches, (180mm) but one more cm might not matter. ER is definitely too long for the host ExLS launcher as currently shown. There may not be any fundamental reason the host module can't be made deeper, but for now, CAMM seems to pretty much max it out.

 

[TomS]

The recent announcement seems suspect if Type 31 was always having the ambition to have 4 mk41 sets of 8 silos as well as a minimum of 12 Sea Ceptor cells and some potential in future for Anti-ship Missiles....

Either we've just see the argument for mk41 win out and become firmly committed.....as well as a minimum of 12 Sea Ceptor cells.
Or we've just seen the Sea Ceptor cells ditched and everything is now in the mk41.

Arguably I'd expand Sea Ceptor cells as well and keep those 32 mk41 for more offensive options.

I just don't think there's room for both. They go in the same space in the superstructure, based on the drawings we've seen. Especially if you also want to preserve any deck space for NSM.

 

[zen]

Ivar Huitfeldt by comparing has 4 sets of mk41 for a total of 32 and 24 mk56 silos as well as 4-8 Harpoon cannisters.....

 

[TomS]

Ivar Huitfeldt by comparing has 4 sets of mk41 for a total of 32 and 24 mk56 silos as well as 4-8 Harpoon cannisters.....

Yeah, but the T31 has an extra boat bay and some mission space right where the Ivar Huitfeld has the Mk 56.

 

[zen]

Ivar Huitfeldt by comparing has 4 sets of mk41 for a total of 32 and 24 mk56 silos as well as 4-8 Harpoon cannisters.....

Yeah, but the T31 has an extra boat bay and some mission space right where the Ivar Huitfeld has the Mk 56.

True but then CAMM cells are easier to site than those that have to handle rocket exhaust.

ExLS is frankly extra cost, weight and CAMM cells are already in UK military use and on ships...

Also CAMM cells are much shorter than Mk41. Rumour is the mushroom farm doesn't impinge into the gym in Type 45

 

[Hood]

I suspect the Type 31s won't get Mk.41 until the RN have something to actually put into it - whenever (if ever) FCASW is ready.
With only 12 CAMM tubes it would seem very odd to max out 32 Mk.41 cells with just SSMs so there must be something else they are planning to put into them - assuming Type 31 isn't getting Tomahawk (which if they were would be a reason to get Mk.41 from the get go). Of course the MOD might try and cut costs and not fit all four 8-cell blocks anyway.

 

[timmymagic]

On CAMM ER, I honestly don't know. I think it might be too wide for ExLS -- the insert looks pretty maxed out with JAGM at 7 inches, (180mm) but one more cm might not matter. ER is definitely too long for the host ExLS launcher as currently shown. There may not be any fundamental reason the host module can't me made deeper, but for now, CAMM seems to pretty much max it out.

CAMM and CAMM-ER canisters are the same dimensions apart from length. The width of the canister is driven by the folded tailfins, and folded tailfins and fuselage strakes on CAMM-ER, at the rear (positioned to the corners). On both missiles this is the widest part.

 

[zen]

I suspect the Type 31s won't get Mk.41 until the RN have something to actually put into it - whenever (if ever) FCASW is ready.
With only 12 CAMM tubes it would seem very odd to max out 32 Mk.41 cells with just SSMs so there must be something else they are planning to put into them - assuming Type 31 isn't getting Tomahawk (which if they were would be a reason to get Mk.41 from the get go). Of course the MOD might try and cut costs and not fit all four 8-cell blocks anyway.

It's potentially possible RN is looking at GPI and datalinking target solutions from a updated Type 45.

It's equally possible, they are looking at various land attack solutions.

And it may yet be various drone options will become compatible with mk41.

 

[TomS]

On CAMM ER, I honestly don't know. I think it might be too wide for ExLS -- the insert looks pretty maxed out with JAGM at 7 inches, (180mm) but one more cm might not matter. ER is definitely too long for the host ExLS launcher as currently shown. There may not be any fundamental reason the host module can't me made deeper, but for now, CAMM seems to pretty much max it out.

CAMM and CAMM-ER canisters are the same dimensions apart from length. The width of the canister is driven by the folded tailfins, and folded tailfins and fuselage strakes on CAMM-ER, at the rear (positioned to the corners). On both missiles this is the widest part.

Should have known that, given that they are interchangeable on the land launcher.

 

[TandemHEAT]

Babcock showcases Arrowhead 140 Multi-Role Naval Platform concept with view to Type 32 frigate competition | Navy Lookout

www.navylookout.com

 

[TomS]

Interesting that there is no mention (or sign) of the CAMM launchers, just Mk41. But there do seem to be the CAMM datalink antennas, so they must be leaning on Host ExLS or some such to keep the capability.

 

[Oberon_706]

Whilst i understand the supposed range/min-engagement performance, launch signature reduction and hull structure benefits for CAMM in soft-launch 'mushroom' cells - I don't agree that these benefits stack up against the opportunity costs of not integrating Mk41. This irks me as T45, T26 and T31 were (at the very least) designed for Mk41 on a 'fitted for but not with' basis anyway and recent developments in CAMM/Sea-Ceptor evolution will serve to negate the performance and range loss that soft-launching was supposed to ameliorate anyway. To my mind, why bother with a bespoke launching system when there was already a program to integrate CAMM (and possibly Aster/Sea-Viper) with Mk41 (or ExLS - which is nigh on the same thing) - just do that for naval applications from day one and reap the flexibility of hosting a plethora of other US-origin weapons (the catalogue is growing all the time), thereby future-proofing your platform and maximising bang for your buck!. Mk41 is a flexible, high volume, multi-user system so ongoing costs would be relatively reduced compared to CAMM-only mushroom farms (or aster-only hot-launch tubes - as an aside) which are (i believe?) comparatively low-uptake systems (notwithstanding gestating or new integrations of CAMM New Zealand and Canada, as well as proposed Brazilian, Polish and Indonesian future installations etc - which incidentally may well use ExLS rather than soft-launch tubes anyway (not 100% sure on this I must admit)).

Everyone in RN officialdom is harping on about FCASW, but the way that's tracking it'll end up just like Storm Shadow/SCALP: years late, high cost, low volumes (That's difficult to justify in the current fiscal environment - the arguments about maintaining a sovereign industrial and design capacity for such systems notwithstanding). Mk41 opens up the possibility of TLAM, VL-LRASM (when that comes online - being worked on in a US/AUST joint project right now), SM-3, SM-6 and VL-ASROC. There's even talk of integrating Aster-30 now... What's there not to like!

 

[zen]

recent developments in CAMM/Sea-Ceptor evolution will serve to negate the performance and range loss that soft-launching was supposed to ameliorate anyway.

?
Explain

 

[Cordy]

recent developments in CAMM/Sea-Ceptor evolution will serve to negate the performance and range loss that soft-launching was supposed to ameliorate anyway.

?
Explain

Did see claim that soft launch gave a ~30% range advantage over equivalent short range hot launch missiles from VLS cells as did not have to spend rocket motor propellant blasting vertically out of cell to height and then having to use a lot of energy to turn over to the required target direction

 

[timmymagic]

just do that for naval applications from day one and reap the flexibility of hosting a plethora of other US-origin weapons (the catalogue is growing all the time),

Mk-41 has US SAM systems, VL-ASROC and TLAM....and errrr.....thats it....and has been that way with no increase in the missile varieties in 30 years.....lots of proposals/CGI etc. but no actual new developments....

Apart from varieties of SM-2 in the main the 'catalogue' is VERY slow moving...

Everyone in RN officialdom is harping on about FCASW, but the way that's tracking it'll end up just like Storm Shadow/SCALP: years late, high cost, low volumes (That's difficult to justify in the current fiscal environment - the arguments about maintaining a sovereign industrial and design capacity for such systems notwithstanding). Mk41 opens up the possibility of TLAM, VL-LRASM (when that comes online - being worked on in a US/AUST joint project right now), SM-3, SM-6 and VL-ASROC.

Storm Shadow was not late, its cost was not excessive for a very advanced weapon, and it was built in very large numbers for a cruise missile system, by any standards,....and it turns out that having a sovereign capability that we can supply to others without reference to other nations does have value after all....ITAR matters...

TLAM? - One lesson we've learned in the last 16 months.....is that non-stealthy cruise missiles get shot down....they're not credible now
VL-LRASM? - If it comes at all....it will be 10+ years older than FCASW, no UK industrial involvement, huge cost
SM-3/SM-6? - No UK involvement, Treasury won't fund, we have Aster 30, 1 NT on the way and Mk.41 will be on the wrong vessels anyway...
VL-ASROC? - An horrifically dated system now, let alone in 10 years when it would arrive (let alone a 20-30 year service life), with bang average torpedo payload, and quite frankly pathetic range. We'd be better off resurrecting Ikara...

To my mind, why bother with a bespoke launching system

Why pay millions for Mk.41, only to have to insert another, costly, system inside it (ExLS) so that it will work with your missiles.....When those very missiles 'launch system' is their own transport canister.....

the arguments about maintaining a sovereign industrial and design capacity for such systems notwithstanding

I mean....they are fairly colossal reasons for doing it in the first place.....why would you discount those? Particularly right at the point where Sovereign Capability and Capacity are one of the main lessons learned from Ukraine....

Mk41 is a flexible, high volume, multi-user system so ongoing costs would be relatively reduced compared to CAMM-only mushroom farms (or aster-only hot-launch tubes - as an aside) which are (i believe?) comparatively low-uptake systems (notwithstanding gestating or new integrations of CAMM New Zealand and Canada, as well as proposed Brazilian, Polish and Indonesian future installations etc - which incidentally may well use ExLS rather than soft-launch tubes anyway (not 100% sure on this I must admit)).

Mk.41 is high volume, multi user. But compared to a CAMM installation in terms of cost?? Apples to Gold Plated Oranges....

All ExLS is is basically a liner....the same CAMM soft launch container is slid into it....same as the 'Mushroom Farm' or any other CAMM system...the missile is soft launched from its transport case regardless of which VLS/test stand or truck launcher it is attached to.

The only advantage to ExLS is that the Saudi's and Canadian's might pay for the full integration, test campaign and ship testing, none of which have taken place yet....

Sylver is also afloat with 11 Navies....and allegedly significantly lighter than Mk41 (although it has its own peculiarities with its installation, some of which are better than Mk.41, some inferior).

Besides if future proofing is the real goal....surely Mk.57 VLS makes more sense than Mk.41.......

 

[zen]

TLAM? - One lesson we've learned in the last 16 months.....is that non-stealthy cruise missiles get shot down....they're not credible now

It's a doodlebug, granted it's a bigger and much longer ranged doodlebug. But cruise missiles only work against functioning IADS by virtue of weight of numbers and other platforms operating in substantially different ways forcing sacrificial choices on the defender.
In short being unable to shoot down everything.
UK and RN are not getting TLAM in the scale necessary to overwhelm an opponent's defences.

 

[Oberon_706]

recent developments in CAMM/Sea-Ceptor evolution will serve to negate the performance and range loss that soft-launching was supposed to ameliorate anyway.

?
Explain

See post #187

 

[zen]

recent developments in CAMM/Sea-Ceptor evolution will serve to negate the performance and range loss that soft-launching was supposed to ameliorate anyway.

?
Explain

See post #187

Are you suggesting that 'recent developments' of CAMM, which one must presume is a reference to CAMM-MR, are not 'soft launched'?

In which case.
How do you know that?

 

[Oberon_706]

recent developments in CAMM/Sea-Ceptor evolution will serve to negate the performance and range loss that soft-launching was supposed to ameliorate anyway.

?
Explain

See post #187

Are you suggesting that 'recent developments' of CAMM, which one must presume is a reference to CAMM-MR, are not 'soft launched'?

In which case.
How do you know that?

The simple answer - I don't know. Furthermore, I never intended to imply that I did know.

As I understood it, the soft-launch system was engineered to avoid reducing the effective range of CAMM by burning precious fuel lofting the missile in directions other than towards the target. I had also read in the public domain (and believed on that basis - I have no insider knowledge of any sort) that soft launch enabled better minimum engagement range performance in CAMMs point defence function.
In forming the comment you have referenced/questioned above, I had surmised (from reading reports on intended specs and testing available in the public domain) that CAMM ERs performance improvements solved the first problem as a matter of course and, potentially that those same improvements would now also allow for hot launch in a quad-packed Mk41 cell (as per ESSM) if that was a desired option in the future. I have not heard (nor did I seek to imply) that anyone was actually pursuing that possibility.

 

[Oberon_706]

TLAM? - One lesson we've learned in the last 16 months.....is that non-stealthy cruise missiles get shot down....they're not credible now

It's a doodlebug, granted it's a bigger and much longer ranged doodlebug. But cruise missiles only work against functioning IADS by virtue of weight of numbers and other platforms operating in substantially different ways forcing sacrificial choices on the defender.
In short being unable to shoot down everything.
UK and RN are not getting TLAM in the scale necessary to overwhelm an opponent's defences.

Would the USA (as well as the UK, Australia and Japan) be continuing to invest in procuring and upgrading TLAM if it was merely a long-range 'doodlebug' as you claim? Surely it's a bit much to suggest that it (along with, I assume by inference, Russia's 'Kalibr', RoKs 'Hyunmoo-III', PRCs 'CJ-10' and other similar cruise missiles) are all but useless without the benefit of overwhelming numbers + expendable EW/jamming/spoofing systems (like MALD) as part of the strike package?

Not all IADS are created equal, nor are all cruise missiles, and I would suggest that the unique circumstances of the Ukraine conflict have served to skew perceptions. Western military support has conspired to congregate most of the world's best GBAD/SHORAD systems into one conflict zone in ways that have no precedent. Also, published interception rates of Russian missile/drone attacks (backed intermittently by visually confirmed OSINT data) show they are largely living up to expectations. As much as S300/400 and Pantsir have been lauded as state-of-the-art systems in their turn - they're not Patriot/PAC 3, NASAMS or IRIS-T. In fact, if Ukraine has proven anything, it has shown that Western weapon performance mostly lives up to or even outperforms the published capability data. By contrast, the real-world performance of comparable Russian/soviet-developed systems in Ukraine has not lived up to the sales brochure.

Back to TLAM (which has a record of highly effective combat employment over many years). The most recent uses of Tomahawks - that I can remember - were against targets in Syria between 2016-2018. In those instances, the Russians/Syrians claimed poor strike performance and to have shot down a number, but no verifiable proof was able to be provided to counteract favourable open-source and independent battle-damage assessments (made using commercial satellite imagery). Incidentally, the Russians also made these claims about Anglo/French Storm Shadow/SCALP strikes launched during the same period.

 

[zen]

To my understanding CAMM-ER is launched the same way as CAMM and removes the need for conventional silo design and hot rocket efflux management.

To my understanding the use of the 'mushroom' design of cell avoids the need for hatches to open or close.

Which is a valid issue aboard a ship.

There would be no logical reason to now to launch these versions of CAMM in conventional 'hot launch' manner. Rather to slot into existing silos a CAMM 'cell'. Which is if anything easier. The remaining challenges after getting them to fit and clamp into place, would be to connect to existing connections or provide alternatives. The rocket exhaust management structures are superfluous to CAMM.
In short dead weight and cost.

 

[timmymagic]

In forming the comment you have referenced/questioned above, I had surmised (from reading reports on intended specs and testing available in the public domain) that CAMM ERs performance improvements solved the first problem as a matter of course and, potentially that those same improvements would now also allow for hot launch in a quad-packed Mk41 cell (as per ESSM) if that was a desired option in the future.

Think about it logically. Why would CAMM adopt a very sensible and efficient cold launch method, which would then be ditched for CAMM-ER....but only in Mk.41.....and the ditching of that method would by default lose a lot of the additional range and speed of response that the larger rocket motor gave you in the first place..... The effort to make it 'hot launch' would mean it may not be compatible with existing launch systems like Land Ceptor, and would need an entirely new launch canister arrangement developed and tested....

And its not like integrating a non-US missile to Mk.41 leads to export sales either...

I think we're all a little confused about your original point to be honest.

CAMM-ER is soft launch, CAMM-MR will be as well....because otherwise it would not be compatible with some of the current systems....which is one of the main reasons to develop a 'family' of missiles. Larger missiles also use soft launch i.e. S-300. So size isn't an issue.

Would the USA (as well as the UK, Australia and Japan) be continuing to invest in procuring and upgrading TLAM if it was merely a long-range 'doodlebug' as you claim?

In the light of little else to choose they might not have a choice at present. But the UK/France/Italy and the US in its own efforts are clearly looking for other solutions...Tomahawk was supposed to leave production....

Surely it's a bit much to suggest that it (along with, I assume by inference, Russia's 'Kalibr', RoKs 'Hyunmoo-III', PRCs 'CJ-10' and other similar cruise missiles) are all but useless without the benefit of overwhelming numbers + expendable EW/jamming/spoofing systems (like MALD) as part of the strike package?

Looking at the current record of Kalibr vs. a limited number of advanced radars and missile systems its hard to reach any other conclusion...the overwhelming amount of Ukrainian AD is still 30-40 year old systems...

Western military support has conspired to congregate most of the world's best GBAD/SHORAD systems into one conflict zone in ways that have no precedent.

The number of Western 'systems' present is quite small, and the area they are covering is colossal. They're also missing items such as AWACS and fighters with decent AAM's and sensors.

By contrast, the real-world performance of comparable Russian/soviet-developed systems in Ukraine has not lived up to the sales brochure.

I've not seen anyone credible who believes that Ukrainian AD performance with 30-40 year old ex-Soviet AD systems hasn't been a revelation...the performance of the Ukrainian S-300 and Buk systems has actually been outstanding. They've pretty much held off the entire Russian Air Force for 15+ months...

Back to TLAM (which has a record of highly effective combat employment over many years).

It has been very effective. And its been updated. But at its base its still the same missile that was hitting Iraq in 1991....30+ years ago. In most of the conflicts it has been employed it has been used alongside the vast panoply of resources from the US Military suppressing AD, with the aid of surprise or against countrys without functioning AD.

The most recent uses of Tomahawks - that I can remember - were against targets in Syria between 2016-2018. In those instances, the Russians/Syrians claimed poor strike performance and to have shot down a number, but no verifiable proof was able to be provided to counteract favourable open-source and independent battle-damage assessments (made using commercial satellite imagery). Incidentally, the Russians also made these claims about Anglo/French Storm Shadow/SCALP strikes launched during the same period.

Alongside a very good number of JASSM, Storm Shadow/SCALP and MdCN.

And no-one but themselves believed the claims made by Syria...However, hitting some targets with overwhelming force in a country whose AD forces have been essentially gutted by a 7 year old civil war, and decades of underinvestment in modern equipment is hardly a great test of a system.

We're seeing a clear example of the survivability of non-stealthy cruise missiles right now against a very small number of modern systems, and a large number of very well crewed but old systems, all of which operate without the resources we could expect a peer threat to have, and the picture at present is one of the Russian's effectively trying to use cruise missiles to exhaust the Ukrainian AD stockpiles rather than actually hit targets...apart from the US, Russia and China no-one else has the stockpiles or production capacity to attempt that strategy, no matter how misguided.

 

[zen]

Not all IADS are created equal,

This is entirely correct.

 

[TomS]

As I understood it, the soft-launch system was engineered to avoid reducing the effective range of CAMM by burning precious fuel lofting the missile in directions other than towards the target.

I've never encountered that rationale before. The usual reason given for soft-launch is that the launcher can be lighter and less complex, since you don't have to handle hot gasses or worry about restrained firings. The mushroom launcher for CAMM is essentially the same unit as the transport canister, just with an extra frangible weather cap over it. No separate exhaust plenum and so forth required.

As far as energy spent ejecting and turning the missile, ESSM (a hot-launched missile) manages just fine with a separate, very compact, thrust-vectoring booster that lofts the missile to roughly masthead height and then turns it to near horizontal before the main motor fires. CAMM may manage to turn a little lower and faster than ESSM, but it's not a huge difference. No one seems to worry that ESSM has given up too much (if any) range being hot-launched.

 

[zen]

Is it rational to compare CAMM to ESSM?

 

[TomS]

Is it rational to compare CAMM to ESSM?

I wasn't suggesting that they are interchangeable, just that ESSM is is an example of a vertical hot-launched missile that turns over quickly without sacrificing significant range.

 

[aonestudio]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1691833229492334862

View: https://twitter.com/NavyLookout/status/1691833229492334862