The Fifth Column Forum
Not logged in [Login - Register]
Go To Bottom

Printable Version  
 Pages:  1  2    4  ..  8
Author: Subject: Ship-launched Missiles
ADMK2
Member





Posts: 998
Registered: 11-5-2017
Location: Brisvegas
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 16-9-2017 at 01:24 PM


Dunno. I'm just not that jazzed about CAMM.

Seems like a cheap way of doing things to me... It's the Aldi version of air defence, whereas I prefer Coles...




In a low speed post-merge manoeuvring fight, with a high off-boresight 4th generation missile and Helmet Mounted Display, the Super Hornet will be a very difficult opponent for any current Russian fighter, even the Su-27/30
View user's profile View All Posts By User
ARH
Super Administrator
*********




Posts: 886
Registered: 10-5-2017
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 16-9-2017 at 04:33 PM


I like it.

When you look at the point defence systems it will be replacing, it is a massive enhancement, and the space it occupies on a ship is pretty minimal.

I look at it as a way to make smaller ships (i.e. actual frigates) viable again in high threat areas, rather than having to rely on destroyers, which are then labeled as frigates to clear treasury, as being the backbone of surface fleets, which then leave everyone wondering why fleet sizes are half what they used to be 20 years ago.




Repent!

The darkest hour of Humanity is upon us. The world
shall meet it's end and we shall be submerged into a
new dark age. Repent your sins, for the apocalypse,
and the end, is extremely f@#king nigh!
View user's profile View All Posts By User
ADMK2
Member





Posts: 998
Registered: 11-5-2017
Location: Brisvegas
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 17-9-2017 at 12:03 AM


Quote: Originally posted by ARH  
I like it.

When you look at the point defence systems it will be replacing, it is a massive enhancement, and the space it occupies on a ship is pretty minimal.

I look at it as a way to make smaller ships (i.e. actual frigates) viable again in high threat areas, rather than having to rely on destroyers, which are then labeled as frigates to clear treasury, as being the backbone of surface fleets, which then leave everyone wondering why fleet sizes are half what they used to be 20 years ago.


But the space it takes up isn't minimal, because you can't use anything else there. On most ships it is being installed on, it's a choice between CAMM 'mushroom farm' launcher which can only launch CAMM, or a Mk 41VLS which can launch just about anything...

Most frigates can easily handle a genuine anti-air missile such as ESSM or Aster 15. Both of which are significantly more capable, longer ranged and cover a broader operational envelope than CAMM.

To my mind CAMM's sole current capability benefit is it's active radar guidance. ESSM is gaining such under it's Block II variant so even that benefit will soon disappear.

For an OPV or an amphibious vessel it is definitely a step up over RAM Block II or Mistral / SADRAL types. But we are talking it being the main / sole air defence armament on major surface combatants and that is where I see it coming up short...






In a low speed post-merge manoeuvring fight, with a high off-boresight 4th generation missile and Helmet Mounted Display, the Super Hornet will be a very difficult opponent for any current Russian fighter, even the Su-27/30
View user's profile View All Posts By User
bug2
Member





Posts: 18439
Registered: 13-8-2017
Location: Perth
Member Is Online


[*] posted on 17-9-2017 at 11:15 AM


I don't, I see it as a massive benefit...............also Mk41 can be quad-packed with Sea Ceptor as the Kiwi's are doing...............

ESSM does have an Active Seeker programme but by the time it comes into fruition, so will Sea Ceptor ER, the expanded range version currently under development with first firings late this year, or early next..........ESSM will have zero range advantage after this.

As it is, the current version of Sea Ceptor has a significantly greater range than advertised, as proven by actual tests. WHY MBDA persists in under-stating range is beyond me, but there you go.................the ER version is supposed to have a 50km range BUT this is already thought to be too low compared to actual achievable range..............perhaps they'll actually admit what the TRUE maximum is?

By the way, the larger range was witnessed by a senior naval officer of a friendly nation, who is now pushing like crazy to get his own mob to adopt Ceptor for all new warships, and for airfield defence, the latter especially applicable to the ER version as that is why the Italian section of MBDA is leading the development, to replace their ASPIDE etc. SAM's...............

Remember Ceptor missiles come from common box launchers. There is no difference between those for land use versus those for naval use, same missile same box launcher. One stock pile covers multiple users, huge cost savings as a result.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
ADMK2
Member





Posts: 998
Registered: 11-5-2017
Location: Brisvegas
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 17-9-2017 at 12:32 PM


Quote: Originally posted by bug2  
I don't, I see it as a massive benefit...............also Mk41 can be quad-packed with Sea Ceptor as the Kiwi's are doing...............

ESSM does have an Active Seeker programme but by the time it comes into fruition, so will Sea Ceptor ER, the expanded range version currently under development with first firings late this year, or early next..........ESSM will have zero range advantage after this.

As it is, the current version of Sea Ceptor has a significantly greater range than advertised, as proven by actual tests. WHY MBDA persists in under-stating range is beyond me, but there you go.................the ER version is supposed to have a 50km range BUT this is already thought to be too low compared to actual achievable range..............perhaps they'll actually admit what the TRUE maximum is?

By the way, the larger range was witnessed by a senior naval officer of a friendly nation, who is now pushing like crazy to get his own mob to adopt Ceptor for all new warships, and for airfield defence, the latter especially applicable to the ER version as that is why the Italian section of MBDA is leading the development, to replace their ASPIDE etc. SAM's...............

Remember Ceptor missiles come from common box launchers. There is no difference between those for land use versus those for naval use, same missile same box launcher. One stock pile covers multiple users, huge cost savings as a result.


Sorry mate, I don't care what the specs say, but unless MBDA have invented some exponentially more amazing and efficient rocket motor technology there is no way that a missile that is the same length but barely 2/3rds the diameter has anywhere near the same range capability as the much larger ESSM missile body. A 7inch missile body simply can't match a 10 inch missile body, everything else being equal.

The extra 60kgs of fuel and 80cm in booster length that goes into the CAMM-ER missile body is telling. It's doing so to try and match the larger missiles' capability... But I will be interested to see whether the CAMM-ER remains 'quad-packable'. I have my doubts, as always there is no such thing as a free lunch.

There is a reason why the ESSM missile is being integrated into NASAM's and why it is mooted as the basis for an air-launched version if the US wants a genuine long range AAM in-service quickly... In any case there is nothing stopping Raytheon putting a canister booster on the ESSM, not that there have been any serious proposals to do so because A. It doesn't need it and B. If you want 100K plus range you might as well stop fluffing around with 'baby' missiles and go straight to SM-2/6.

The only operational benefit I see is if you are going to use the 'soft launch' CAAM VLS. If you are going to the trouble of having Mk 41 anyway, you might as well put a real full size SAM in there, unless like NZ you are simply looking at the $$$ bottom-line and capability is a secondary consideration...




In a low speed post-merge manoeuvring fight, with a high off-boresight 4th generation missile and Helmet Mounted Display, the Super Hornet will be a very difficult opponent for any current Russian fighter, even the Su-27/30
View user's profile View All Posts By User
bug2
Member





Posts: 18439
Registered: 13-8-2017
Location: Perth
Member Is Online


[*] posted on 17-9-2017 at 08:06 PM


We agree to disagree then..............Whether quad Sea Ceptor ER fits Mk 41 is purely a length equation. Diameter remains the same..............ESSM got into NASAMS purely as a "we're there first" being available a few years prior to Land Ceptor. Cost is always a factor for many, not just NZ.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
ADMK2
Member





Posts: 998
Registered: 11-5-2017
Location: Brisvegas
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 17-9-2017 at 10:53 PM


Quote: Originally posted by bug2  
We agree to disagree then..............Whether quad Sea Ceptor ER fits Mk 41 is purely a length equation. Diameter remains the same..............ESSM got into NASAMS purely as a "we're there first" being available a few years prior to Land Ceptor. Cost is always a factor for many, not just NZ.


Strike length Mk 41 VLS is 7.18m long, so that rules out CAMM-ER being quad-packable... A couple of back of the napkin sums show you couldn't pack a normal CAMM and a CAMM-ER into the same Mk 41 cell either...




In a low speed post-merge manoeuvring fight, with a high off-boresight 4th generation missile and Helmet Mounted Display, the Super Hornet will be a very difficult opponent for any current Russian fighter, even the Su-27/30
View user's profile View All Posts By User
JimWH
Member





Posts: 70
Registered: 27-5-2017
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 18-9-2017 at 06:20 AM


Quote: Originally posted by ADMK2  
Quote: Originally posted by bug2  
We agree to disagree then..............Whether quad Sea Ceptor ER fits Mk 41 is purely a length equation. Diameter remains the same..............ESSM got into NASAMS purely as a "we're there first" being available a few years prior to Land Ceptor. Cost is always a factor for many, not just NZ.


Strike length Mk 41 VLS is 7.18m long, so that rules out CAMM-ER being quad-packable... A couple of back of the napkin sums show you couldn't pack a normal CAMM and a CAMM-ER into the same Mk 41 cell either...


... that's not how you quad pack a missile....
View user's profile View All Posts By User
bug2
Member





Posts: 18439
Registered: 13-8-2017
Location: Perth
Member Is Online


[*] posted on 18-9-2017 at 01:02 PM


Quote: Originally posted by ADMK2  
Quote: Originally posted by bug2  
We agree to disagree then..............Whether quad Sea Ceptor ER fits Mk 41 is purely a length equation. Diameter remains the same..............ESSM got into NASAMS purely as a "we're there first" being available a few years prior to Land Ceptor. Cost is always a factor for many, not just NZ.


Strike length Mk 41 VLS is 7.18m long, so that rules out CAMM-ER being quad-packable... A couple of back of the napkin sums show you couldn't pack a normal CAMM and a CAMM-ER into the same Mk 41 cell either...


The MK 41 module height (missile length) of the launcher are three sizes: 209 inches (5.3 m) for the self-defense version, 266 inches (6.8 m) for the tactical version, and 303 inches (7.7 m) for the strike version. Even CAMM ER will fit in the TACTICAL length Mk 41 as it has a canister height of 4.4metres.

Quad packing is done within the launcher module and its already been clearly stated that CAMM will be quad-boxed in any Mk 41 launcher module; same goes with MK 57.

CAMM ER's additional length of 0.8 metres makes little practical difference to quad packing apart from length. CAMM has already been test fired from a trials, land-based MK 41 Tactical Length module, presumably for Kiwi ANZAC modernisation purposes?

It all fits, you pays your money and takes your pick............simple as that!

Said firing: -


View user's profile View All Posts By User
bug2
Member





Posts: 18439
Registered: 13-8-2017
Location: Perth
Member Is Online


[*] posted on 18-9-2017 at 01:13 PM


Pretty pic time, CAMM versus CAMM ER.................


View user's profile View All Posts By User
Mercator
Member





Posts: 89
Registered: 11-5-2017
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 18-9-2017 at 01:36 PM


I view it as a positive, rather than a negative, that ESSM has semiactive homing as well as active homing on the missile. There is an awful lot of jamming in a maritime environment and we have no idea whether the little active seekers can burn through on it. The semiactive reflection from the bloody great radar on your ship might have a better chance.

I don't know which is the better on the day, but having both, I don't have to worry about it.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
ARH
Super Administrator
*********




Posts: 886
Registered: 10-5-2017
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 18-9-2017 at 07:27 PM


The real advantage and necessity of active guidance will come when dealing with a saturation attack. Big radar or not, I can see the minimum standard increasingly being the ability to ripple fire off dozens of missiles to deal with an incoming attack, and that will only feasibly be done with active radar guided or IR/UV guided missiles missiles.



Repent!

The darkest hour of Humanity is upon us. The world
shall meet it's end and we shall be submerged into a
new dark age. Repent your sins, for the apocalypse,
and the end, is extremely f@#king nigh!
View user's profile View All Posts By User
bug2
Member





Posts: 18439
Registered: 13-8-2017
Location: Perth
Member Is Online


[*] posted on 19-9-2017 at 09:08 AM


Absolutely, couldn't agree more.............
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Mercator
Member





Posts: 89
Registered: 11-5-2017
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 19-9-2017 at 11:15 AM



Quote:

The real advantage and necessity of active guidance will come when dealing with a saturation attack. Big radar or not, I can see the minimum standard increasingly being the ability to ripple fire off dozens of missiles to deal with an incoming attack, and that will only feasibly be done with active radar guided or IR/UV guided missiles missiles.



Well, except that AESA fire control radars, like that planned for SEA5000, can operate many times more channels of fire in all directions at once. I doubt these will be the limiting factor now. And we're talking about ESSM blk II, which has active guidance also.

Also, you guys are all assuming that these tiny little missile sized radars, operating in fixed bands, relying on data links to be guided to the target and only then locking on while looking down into clutter, will all work just fine. In this space, I worry a lot. Falkland Islands Sea Dart style worry. Consequently, I like options, a lot.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
ADMK2
Member





Posts: 998
Registered: 11-5-2017
Location: Brisvegas
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 19-9-2017 at 12:26 PM


Quote: Originally posted by JimWH  
Quote: Originally posted by ADMK2  
Quote: Originally posted by bug2  
We agree to disagree then..............Whether quad Sea Ceptor ER fits Mk 41 is purely a length equation. Diameter remains the same..............ESSM got into NASAMS purely as a "we're there first" being available a few years prior to Land Ceptor. Cost is always a factor for many, not just NZ.


Strike length Mk 41 VLS is 7.18m long, so that rules out CAMM-ER being quad-packable... A couple of back of the napkin sums show you couldn't pack a normal CAMM and a CAMM-ER into the same Mk 41 cell either...


... that's not how you quad pack a missile....


Doh. Smacks forehead, I had it in my mind that the 'quad-pack' was 2x2 stacked on top of one another in strike length cells...

My mistake. Please continue...

ESSM 4EVA! Lol




In a low speed post-merge manoeuvring fight, with a high off-boresight 4th generation missile and Helmet Mounted Display, the Super Hornet will be a very difficult opponent for any current Russian fighter, even the Su-27/30
View user's profile View All Posts By User
ARH
Super Administrator
*********




Posts: 886
Registered: 10-5-2017
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 19-9-2017 at 05:25 PM


Quote: Originally posted by Mercator  

Well, except that AESA fire control radars, like that planned for SEA5000, can operate many times more channels of fire in all directions at once. I doubt these will be the limiting factor now. And we're talking about ESSM blk II, which has active guidance also.

Also, you guys are all assuming that these tiny little missile sized radars, operating in fixed bands, relying on data links to be guided to the target and only then locking on while looking down into clutter, will all work just fine. In this space, I worry a lot. Falkland Islands Sea Dart style worry. Consequently, I like options, a lot.


This goes back to my point earlier about air defence systems for smaller ships. Smaller actively guided missiles can be fitted onto ships, or more to the point, boats practically, that don't have the size, space or aren't tasked for air defence purposes that would otherwise see them fitted with more powerful radar systems.

As a result, 6000t "frigates" no longer become the minimum standard for a credible air defence capability against saturation attacks, so we no longer have to be trapped in the ever diminishing fleet size, because ~3000t frigates (actual frigates) can now once again become the backbone of most navies surface fleets.




Repent!

The darkest hour of Humanity is upon us. The world
shall meet it's end and we shall be submerged into a
new dark age. Repent your sins, for the apocalypse,
and the end, is extremely f@#king nigh!
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Mercator
Member





Posts: 89
Registered: 11-5-2017
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 20-9-2017 at 01:14 PM


Quote: Originally posted by ARH  
Quote: Originally posted by Mercator  

Well, except that AESA fire control radars, like that planned for SEA5000, can operate many times more channels of fire in all directions at once. I doubt these will be the limiting factor now. And we're talking about ESSM blk II, which has active guidance also.

Also, you guys are all assuming that these tiny little missile sized radars, operating in fixed bands, relying on data links to be guided to the target and only then locking on while looking down into clutter, will all work just fine. In this space, I worry a lot. Falkland Islands Sea Dart style worry. Consequently, I like options, a lot.


This goes back to my point earlier about air defence systems for smaller ships. Smaller actively guided missiles can be fitted onto ships, or more to the point, boats practically, that don't have the size, space or aren't tasked for air defence purposes that would otherwise see them fitted with more powerful radar systems.

As a result, 6000t "frigates" no longer become the minimum standard for a credible air defence capability against saturation attacks, so we no longer have to be trapped in the ever diminishing fleet size, because ~3000t frigates (actual frigates) can now once again become the backbone of most navies surface fleets.


I don't think that's quite right.

The fact that SSMs are ubiquitous, and increasingly supersonic, has meant that in order to survive a pretty standard SSM attack you have to engage them early and often. That is to say, you need longer range missiles to give you the time to engage and the time for the missiles to get out of the launch mechanisms (probably in pairs).

It's this requirement, as much as any radar system, that makes it necessary to have a high-end frigate at a minimum just to survive in a antiship environment. It's why it's such bullshit for people to be running around pushing Corvettes, much less up gunned OPVs, as "war fighting" vessels. Every man and their militia (see Hezbollah, Yemen) has SSMs. They have so many, multiple directions are probably likely.

But I don't have to persuade you of that. That's what you're saying is good about these active missiles: you can engage in multiple directions, right? Well, that's a complex attack. Complex enough to require a decent combat system and a properly staffed command team. If you have all that and you are determined to going to harm's way, do it right. Plan to survive. Take the big boat with the big missiles (and yes, maybe the big radar).

I don't think we should be thinking small/simple like that upfront, in the procurement stage, when we could make a better decision for what we know will almost always be complex environments, at least for us here in Asia. As a strap on, quick fix though – fine. It could be useful for something like the LHDs where perhaps our ambitions have grown. I think the Brits are nuts though. They build a destroyer/cruiser in all but name and put shitty air defence kit on it. We don't have to make the same mistake.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
ARH
Super Administrator
*********




Posts: 886
Registered: 10-5-2017
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 20-9-2017 at 03:56 PM


But longer range doesn't help when the distance to the horizon remains the same. Not every ship needs to be a fleet air defence unit.

The way current major navies are being structured, it is becoming a case of having not enough big boats with big missiles to provide presence where it is needed, none of which anyone can afford to lose, and more often than not providing overkill when they are used, or go back to using smaller, cheaper ships that can still manage saturation attacks, but be provided in the numbers they are needed. The Type 31's are slated to cost £250 million each. That's a big step down from what the RNhave been paying, which is particularly relevant now that they have a fleet size of 19 ships, despite 32 being identified as the minimum number needed.




Repent!

The darkest hour of Humanity is upon us. The world
shall meet it's end and we shall be submerged into a
new dark age. Repent your sins, for the apocalypse,
and the end, is extremely f@#king nigh!
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Mercator
Member





Posts: 89
Registered: 11-5-2017
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 20-9-2017 at 05:49 PM


Quote: Originally posted by ARH  
But longer range doesn't help when the distance to the horizon remains the same. Not every ship needs to be a fleet air defence unit.

The way current major navies are being structured, it is becoming a case of having not enough big boats with big missiles to provide presence where it is needed, none of which anyone can afford to lose, and more often than not providing overkill when they are used, or go back to using smaller, cheaper ships that can still manage saturation attacks, but be provided in the numbers they are needed. The Type 31's are slated to cost £250 million each. That's a big step down from what the RNhave been paying, which is particularly relevant now that they have a fleet size of 19 ships, despite 32 being identified as the minimum number needed.


Well, if you can only see to the horizon and you go into a situation where you think you will face a saturation attack, you deserve what's coming for you.

And that's kind of the point of difference between us. I think modern antiship warfare has got to the point where sailing around on your own with just these weapons is useless and frankly a waste of resources. You think they'll survive. I doubt it, myself. I think three or four garden variety SSMs aimed at the right target might be too much if you only spring them on the horizon. And that's not really many, even for a sub, let alone a couple of old 3rd or 4th gen fighters found in everyone's ORBAT. Better to build a ship that is useful, than two (for the price) that are not.

I'm fine with older oilers and amphibs getting an upgrade – it is useful, in the mix – but no one seriously banking on a fight with SSMs should start out like this, IMHO.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
ARH
Super Administrator
*********




Posts: 886
Registered: 10-5-2017
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 20-9-2017 at 08:14 PM


Unless every ship in the fleet is going to have organic AEW, all you'll achieve by putting an area air defence system on every ship is ensure everyone will bypass it by firing their missiles from below the horizon, defeating the whole point of having it. The distance to the horizon will always be the limiting factor.

Now we are left with a small number of large ships that have to deal with the same saturation attack, only with a reduced missile loadout because of the added space taken up by missiles intended to have a range spanning hundreds of kilometers, yet are still limited by the fact they have to wait for the missiles to pass the horizon before they can shoot.

Hense, the standard becomes having shorter range systems with a smaller footprint that can fit on a larger number of smaller ships, which would allow for a higher number of air defence missiles being fired simultaneously, larger mazagine sizes, and an ability to sustain losses.




Repent!

The darkest hour of Humanity is upon us. The world
shall meet it's end and we shall be submerged into a
new dark age. Repent your sins, for the apocalypse,
and the end, is extremely f@#king nigh!
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Mercator
Member





Posts: 89
Registered: 11-5-2017
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 21-9-2017 at 12:37 PM


Yes, I think it has got to the point where you have to see over the horizon a bit more or you are dead. At least, in a complex attack like you describe. Definitely if you are facing supersonic missiles.

If you don't do this, quite simply, I think you're just a target. And therefore a waste of resources.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
ADMK2
Member





Posts: 998
Registered: 11-5-2017
Location: Brisvegas
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 23-9-2017 at 01:02 AM


Quote: Originally posted by ARH  
But longer range doesn't help when the distance to the horizon remains the same. Not every ship needs to be a fleet air defence unit.

The way current major navies are being structured, it is becoming a case of having not enough big boats with big missiles to provide presence where it is needed, none of which anyone can afford to lose, and more often than not providing overkill when they are used, or go back to using smaller, cheaper ships that can still manage saturation attacks, but be provided in the numbers they are needed. The Type 31's are slated to cost £250 million each. That's a big step down from what the RNhave been paying, which is particularly relevant now that they have a fleet size of 19 ships, despite 32 being identified as the minimum number needed.


Who says a ship has to wait til a threat appears over the horizon to that ship?

That’s one reason we operate in taskforces and another why we have CeC capability and soon enough SM-6. Whatever anyone else may be doing we certainly haven’t reduced our fleet size, but with AWD, the future frigates, the subs and LHD’s we are certainly raising our capability levels significantly.

With all due respect to the Type 31’s you get what you pay for. Want a new frigate that essentially has the same, or less combat capability than did an ANZAC frigate in 1989? Then sure if you think numbers of those are important in modern warfare...

But with the RN as your apparent model even they don’t think that way, they are still operating Carrier Strike, T-45’s and T-26’s as their primary surface combatants.

They are making do with the minimal capabilities proposed for T-31’s as a pathetic cost saving measure only. If cost wasn’t an especial dpfactor they’d be building more T-26’s.

As for on-board AEW&C with developments such as the Lockheed Martin AEW&C pod based on the F-35 radar and Crownest, I think you will definitely see organic capability expand in years to come, even if only to provide targetting data for SM-6 and similar capabilities...





In a low speed post-merge manoeuvring fight, with a high off-boresight 4th generation missile and Helmet Mounted Display, the Super Hornet will be a very difficult opponent for any current Russian fighter, even the Su-27/30
View user's profile View All Posts By User
ARH
Super Administrator
*********




Posts: 886
Registered: 10-5-2017
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 23-9-2017 at 02:29 AM


Quote:
Who says a ship has to wait til a threat appears over the horizon to that ship?


The laws of physics. Higher wavelength radar can't see below the horizon of where the radar is located. Options for AEW for ships outside of task groups is close to zero, therefore spending money equipping ships that are intended to operate alone with area air defences isn't the best use of funds, with equipping them with a large number of shorter range actively guided missiles making more sense.




Repent!

The darkest hour of Humanity is upon us. The world
shall meet it's end and we shall be submerged into a
new dark age. Repent your sins, for the apocalypse,
and the end, is extremely f@#king nigh!
View user's profile View All Posts By User
ADMK2
Member





Posts: 998
Registered: 11-5-2017
Location: Brisvegas
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 23-9-2017 at 02:30 PM


Quote: Originally posted by ARH  
Quote:
Who says a ship has to wait til a threat appears over the horizon to that ship?


The laws of physics. Higher wavelength radar can't see below the horizon of where the radar is located. Options for AEW for ships outside of task groups is close to zero, therefore spending money equipping ships that are intended to operate alone with area air defences isn't the best use of funds, with equipping them with a large number of shorter range actively guided missiles making more sense.


Area air defences aren’t primarily designed to engage the sea skimming missiles you seem to think may be the only threat these short-ranged missile armed frigates will ever have to face...

The radar horizon of typical frigate mast mounted surveillance radars is about 20nm (37km’s) give or take, depending on mast height. However that is the surface on the horizon. Anything above the surface can obviously be detected at greater ranges and the theory of only needing short range missiles is great for a single vessel but has less utility any time the ship is operating in concert with other vessels or other off-board targetting capability which is growing with increased helicopter and UAV targetting capabilities...

CAMM is fine if all you want is a light patrol frigate built to the lowest possible cost and intended for low intensity operations only. It offers much improved capability over the RAM Block II / SADRAL level of air defence and much lower cost than higher end systems.

But there is a reason the high end RN combat ships have Aster 15/30 missiles and why the GCS proposed for RAN will have to include ESSM and SM-2/6 capabilities...




In a low speed post-merge manoeuvring fight, with a high off-boresight 4th generation missile and Helmet Mounted Display, the Super Hornet will be a very difficult opponent for any current Russian fighter, even the Su-27/30
View user's profile View All Posts By User
ARH
Super Administrator
*********




Posts: 886
Registered: 10-5-2017
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 23-9-2017 at 06:02 PM


Quote:
However that is the surface on the horizon. Anything above the surface can obviously be detected at greater ranges and the theory of only needing short range missiles is great for a single vessel but has less utility any time the ship is operating in concert with other vessels or other off-board targetting capability which is growing with increased helicopter and UAV targetting capabilities...


That is correct. Anything above the horizon can be targeted, which is why aircraft are equipped with missiles that allow the aircraft to fire from far enough away so that they can stay below the horizon to avoid detection, and why in the majority of instances, the missiles themselves stay ~10m above the water, so that they can't be detected until they pass the horizon, hense the long range air defences get bypassed, and fleet air defence comes down to being able to ripple fire off a large number of shorter range missiles.

Within a task group, not every ship needs area air defences, but pretty much every task group will have the need to defend against saturation attacks that get past area defences, and be able to sustain losses in the process. As it currently stands, basically every combatant in a western navy is a capital ship, with every navy complaining of lack of sea presence due to insufficient numbers.




Repent!

The darkest hour of Humanity is upon us. The world
shall meet it's end and we shall be submerged into a
new dark age. Repent your sins, for the apocalypse,
and the end, is extremely f@#king nigh!
View user's profile View All Posts By User
 Pages:  1  2    4  ..  8

  Go To Top

Powered by XMB 1.9.11
XMB Forum Software © 2001-2017 The XMB Group
[Queries: 16] [PHP: 75.7% - SQL: 24.3%]