Type 4X Destroyer

Hood said:
Of course one might ask why we didn't try to pack CAMMs into Sylver?
Click to expand...

Mainly because there has been no need. Sylver customers have purchased an expensive hot launch VLS specifically for expensive hot launch missiles (Aster, and I believe MICA-VL in due course). As those customers have their VL and compatible missiles there isn't a real possibility of sales, so why spend money on a trials campaign for no benefit? Instead CAMM customers seem to be happy with standalone launchers that get benefit from the cold launch method from the canister to keep costs down. It would be tempting to put Sylver VLS on Type 26 for the CAMM missiles, but it wouldn't give any benefit, just add cost.
 
timmymagic said:
Instead CAMM customers seem to be happy with standalone launchers that get benefit from the cold launch method from the canister to keep costs down.
Click to expand...

And of course the Canadians opted for CAMM but with ExLS instead of the dedicated mushroom launchers. As well as Mk 41 with SM-2 and ESSM. And no, I don't understand that choice either, except that they already own ESSM (and ESSM production workshare) so feel the need to use it. And Lockheed really needed a launch customer for ExLS.
 
Last edited:
timmymagic said:
Mainly because there has been no need.
Click to expand...
It was just my musing, after all the RN does have Sylver and doesn't (yet) have Mk 41 so it crossed my mind why wouldn't you make it compatible with Sylver since we're wedded to Aster anyway - hell we could have even brought MdCN instead of trying to get Tomahawks off the subs and into the ships and instead of having to buy RGMs to complement the UGMs, that money could have been used to support MBDA.

But I guess having missiles with three different sets of VLS is fine - I mean who says the MOD has to work with any logic?
 
Hood said:
timmymagic said:
Mainly because there has been no need.
Click to expand...
It was just my musing, after all the RN does have Sylver and doesn't (yet) have Mk 41 so it crossed my mind why wouldn't you make it compatible with Sylver since we're wedded to Aster anyway - hell we could have even brought MdCN instead of trying to get Tomahawks off the subs and into the ships and instead of having to buy RGMs to complement the UGMs, that money could have been used to support MBDA.

But I guess having missiles with three different sets of VLS is fine - I mean who says the MOD has to work with any logic?
Click to expand...
To be honest I think we're all as mystified as you are. It makes no sense at all, and I really don't think the RN could really articulate it either. Which given the amount of public money they're proposing to spend is incredible really.

Tomahawk was definitely the right choice at the time, and MdCN is more expensive, but I wonder how much of that is due to the limited production run, that may have been bolstered by a UK order. I'm not sure how much (if any) UK content is in it though.
 
I remember, back during the FSC debates over on warships1 that my conclusion of the need to cut costs was.
Diesels.
Sylver silo.
Aster or MICA-VL or 'some development of ASRAAM' and a PAAMS system but skimping on the radar as cheaply as possible.
At the time I argued ASRAAM's use of datalink and a beefed up helicopter rotating AESA would do at a pinch.

And during this I remember pointing out we've already committed to Sylver so following the French and opting for MdCN seemed a logical choice and ought to integrate it to the SSN fleet as well.
As equally a development based on Storm Shadow for Anti-ship Missile.

So in part I'm fairly chuffed to have called some things right but perplexed by what diverges so far from that.

It seems the obsession with USN 5" and the wider user base at sea trumped domestic integration with the Army's use of 155mm. Even though BAE Systems built a prototype.....
 
zen said:
It seems the obsession with USN 5" and the wider user base at sea trumped domestic integration with the Army's use of 155mm. Even though BAE Systems built a prototype.....
Click to expand...
Admittedly, the 5" gun has a huge production run and therefore an equally huge supply of spare parts and ammunition, which tends to mean lower costs. And being able to take ammo from USN stockpiles in a conflict.

The 155mm would have required the development of a brass case to hold the powder. Or at least a hybrid case like a shotgun shell. And the modification of the autoloader to handle the case.
 
Well i think we now know why MK.41 for some ships. CAMM-MR which is dual Packed into the cells. Probaly WE will see also Sylver cells in the Type 45 replacement. Maybe something like 16-48 Sylver cells, 16-32 mk.41 and camm mushrooms. Then a it could with 16-48 Aster 30, 32-64 CAMM-MR or 16-32 FC-ASW or a mix, and other camm missiles. I would guess 32-48 Aster, 32 CAMM-MR and 16 cells for both FC/ASW and then camm in the range of 24-48 missiles. With that it has 3 layers for Air defense and 16 Strike weapons.
 
Mk41 has a generic connotation coming from politicians. The average politician couldn't tell you what a Mk41 is otherthan its a VLS container. There is no grasp that VLS has been progressing such as with Mk57 on the Zumwalt, or G-VLS built around MRC from the army. European politicians are probably unaware Sylver is not another Mk41. Perhaps they can figure out an SCL on a slight slope to pop the missile out where it would never dud drop back on its own footprint.
 
MadRat said:
Mk41 has a generic connotation coming from politicians. The average politician couldn't tell you what a Mk41 is otherthan its a VLS container. There is no grasp that VLS has been progressing such as with Mk57 on the Zumwalt, or G-VLS built around MRC from the army. European politicians are probably unaware Sylver is not another Mk41. Perhaps they can figure out an SCL on a slight slope to pop the missile out where it would never dud drop back on its own footprint.
Click to expand...
Politicians aren't the ones making technical design decisions like selecting the type of VLS.
 
kqcke for you said:
Well i think we now know why MK.41 for some ships. CAMM-MR which is dual Packed into the cells. Probaly WE will see also Sylver cells in the Type 45 replacement. Maybe something like 16-48 Sylver cells, 16-32 mk.41 and camm mushrooms. Then a it could with 16-48 Aster 30, 32-64 CAMM-MR or 16-32 FC-ASW or a mix, and other camm missiles. I would guess 32-48 Aster, 32 CAMM-MR and 16 cells for both FC/ASW and then camm in the range of 24-48 missiles. With that it has 3 layers for Air defense and 16 Strike weapons.
Click to expand...

We don't even know that any British forces will adopt CAMM-MR -- it's a Polish initiative, after all. And it comes a solid decade after the decision to fit Mk 41 in the T26. And of course T31 has nothing like the appropriate sensors to exploit CAMM-MR.
 
zen said:
On what do you base this assertion?
Click to expand...

I was thinking that the T31 had a less capable radar, but I think I crossed that with the T26, which has Artisan.

Still, it seems unlikely that the T31 will be fitted for area air defense, which is CAMM-MR's role.
 
My understanding is CAMM is sensor agnostic and thus as long as you can give the system the right data, it has a reasonable chance of success.
Obviously the more data, and the more accurate, the better the chances of success.
 
TomS said:
I was thinking that the T31 had a less capable radar, but I think I crossed that with the T26, which has Artisan.

Still, it seems unlikely that the T31 will be fitted for area air defense, which is CAMM-MR's role.
Click to expand...
Maybe not in every Mission but its possible. It can be on of the reasons they toke MK.41. We dont know how old the Talk with poland is that the new camm (CAMM-MR) is for MK.41. That with FC/ASW can be some good reason on why to use it even if its larger and heavier then Sylver.
 
kqcke for you said:
Also If i remember right Camm has a CEC capability as all use the same Data-Link?. So they could work as "Arsenal Ships" as example for bigger ships with mutch better Radar.
Click to expand...

I think you're confusing CEC for the datalink system used by CAMM.

CAMM doesn't communicate directly with any shipborne radars for its midcourse updates, but rather datalinks with Platform Data Link Terminal, which is a two-way datalink that communicates with the ship's CMS. This stands in contrast with systems like Aster or the Standard Missile Family, where these uplink/downlinks are transmitted via the multi-function radar (EMPAR, SAMPSON, MFRA, SPY-1, SPY-6, etc).

This makes CAMM somewhat simpler to integrate on to different platforms, because you no longer have to concern yourself with the integration of the missile with any specific radar. The same applies to CAMM-ER and presumably will also for CAMM-MR.

This is not the same thing as CEC, however. A ship equipped with any missiles from the CAMM family certainly could engage with the benefit of sensor fusion with another ship with more capable radars, but that would depend on the ships actually being equipped with the appropriate datalinks for CEC in the first place (as would be the case with any SAM family).
 
Scott Kenny said:
They are the ones holding the purse strings, however.

"Why are you buying (other VLS) instead of Mk41? Mk41 is a lot cheaper!"
Click to expand...
Mk 41 is a lot heavier (for equivelant size launcher), it's also an awful lot slower. when the priority is to get Aster into the sky as quickly as possible, a slow hatch and gas exhaust system isn't ideal.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom