Go Back   Defense Technology & Military Forum > Global Defense & Military > Navy & Maritime
Forgot Password? Join Us! Its's free!

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures

F-35_launches_Joint_Strike_Missile.jpg

us-south-korea-drill.jpg

this-year-12700-us-troops-are-participating-alongside-many-more-south-korean-soldiers.jpg

the-us-routinely-dedicates-an-extremely-large-contingent-of-soldiers-and-marines-to-the-drills.jpg
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence







Recent Photos - DefenceTalk Military Gallery





The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

This is a discussion on The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates within the Navy & Maritime forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by contedicavour Honestly ? Yes, if a fighter can't be exported after 10 years of trying, it IS ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 27 votes, 3.63 average.
Old December 28th, 2006   #31
Defense Enthusiast
Captain
Musashi_kenshin's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 658
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by contedicavour View Post
Honestly ? Yes, if a fighter can't be exported after 10 years of trying, it IS a failure at least in terms of commercial viability.
For the love of God, commercial viability was never an issue in the discussion until you raised it as a half-hearted attempt to prove it was a "bad" PD-missile.

Quote:
So far, I have brought up 2 arguments : specs and export success both put Sea Wolf at the bottom of its SAM class. If you have concrete examples of why this should not be the case, be my guest.
As I pointed out above, retail has no bearing on whether it is something the Royal Navy should have. And this is exactly what you were getting at when you I responded to your earlier point. In regards to specs, you have only compared long-range, and I suggested the shorter minimum range was a good aspect. It is not for me to prove it should not be at the bottom of the class, you should be the one to give a convincing argument as to why it is at the bottom as you are making the allegation. So far saying "it has a shorter range" is far from being enough in my book. What do you know about rate-of-fire, accuracy, etc? People that used to serve on Royal Navy ships told me they thought SW was better than Crotale and Sea Sparrow.
Musashi_kenshin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 28th, 2006   #32
Banned Member
Major General
No Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,045
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Musashi_kenshin View Post
So far saying "it has a shorter range" is far from being enough in my book. What do you know about rate-of-fire, accuracy, etc? People that used to serve on Royal Navy ships told me they thought SW was better than Crotale and Sea Sparrow.
Range should be pretty big in anyones book. It is important to be able to engage threats further out to enable enough time to re-enage if you miss. With the SW you only have time for one salvo. With the longer range systems you have time for 2-3. Unless SW is 2-3x more accurate I wouldn't bet my life on it. Rate-of-fire has little to do with it... it's not a MG. Your not going to fire more than two rounds in a salvo. The speed of the engagement vehicle is also important as it helps increase lead time on the next shot. SW is much slower than Mica and only meets Aster 15 in speed but not range. I would say Range, Speed and Accuracy are the triumvirate of point missile defense and SW doesn't meet all three requirements to be effective.
Big-E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 29th, 2006   #33
Junior Member
Private First Class
No Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: MOCKBA
Posts: 88
Threads:
With a Scalp Naval & Storm Shadow a vessel would have offensive capabilities against ship (provided OTH targeting works) and stationary land targets. Pretty good capability.
But why stick with short-range self-defense SAM systems, a purely defensive capability? Aster-30 would give a ship an offensive anti-air capability for aerial denial without increasing too much the weight and space requirements.

And a patrol vessel I think should be limited to guns as main armament (3in+), plus some RAM for self-defense, plus depth charges, plus two light/medium helicopters. And with a good C4ISR suite. After all, such patrols are realistically viewed never combat missions, but police missions.
So do not try to model it into a ship-of-the-line. That only drives up the costs and tempt politicians into wrong use of such assets.
Distiller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 29th, 2006   #34
Banned Member
Major General
No Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,045
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Distiller View Post
And a patrol vessel I think should be limited to guns as main armament (3in+), plus some RAM for self-defense, plus depth charges, plus two light/medium helicopters. And with a good C4ISR suite. After all, such patrols are realistically viewed never combat missions, but police missions.
So do not try to model it into a ship-of-the-line. That only drives up the costs and tempt politicians into wrong use of such assets.
I'm thinking a Hamilton class cutter would do the job just fine.
Big-E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 29th, 2006   #35
Defense Enthusiast
Captain
Musashi_kenshin's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 658
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big-E View Post
SW is much slower than Mica and only meets Aster 15 in speed but not range. I would say Range, Speed and Accuracy are the triumvirate of point missile defense and SW doesn't meet all three requirements to be effective.
But I'm not comparing it to things that were developed afterwards - it's to do with older missiles of its own generation. If you compare Crotale or Sea Sparrow to ESSM/Aster 15 they don't look too good either, do they?
Musashi_kenshin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 29th, 2006   #36
Banned Member
Major General
No Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,045
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Musashi_kenshin View Post
But I'm not comparing it to things that were developed afterwards - it's to do with older missiles of its own generation. If you compare Crotale or Sea Sparrow to ESSM/Aster 15 they don't look too good either, do they?
I don't know what your advocating. You seem to be fighting to keep the SW in service yet you admit it is obsolete. Will you concede to the point that RN FFGs would be better served to replace the SW VLS to a longer range system?
Big-E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 29th, 2006   #37
Defense Aficionado
Lieutenant General
contedicavour's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Paris/Geneva (but I'm Italian)
Posts: 2,901
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Musashi_kenshin View Post
But I'm not comparing it to things that were developed afterwards - it's to do with older missiles of its own generation. If you compare Crotale or Sea Sparrow to ESSM/Aster 15 they don't look too good either, do they?
Ok I've got my JFS 06-07 under my eyes.
Let's compare the late '80s SAMs in service :

Sea Wolf VLS : range 6km, Mach 2.5, warhead 14kg
Sea Wolf GWS 25 Mod 3 : range 5km, Mach 2, warhead 14kg
Aspide : range 13km, Mach 2.5, warhead 30kg
Crotale : range 13km, Mach 2.4, warhead 14kg

=> Aspide already had more than twice the range, same speed, a warhead twice as big as Sea Wolf (it helps in case of near miss). Accuracy against high subsonic speed manoeuvring targets bypassed 4 out of 5 shots fired in late '90s tests in Sardegna.

No argument left here,

cheers
contedicavour is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 29th, 2006   #38
Defense Aficionado
Lieutenant General
contedicavour's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Paris/Geneva (but I'm Italian)
Posts: 2,901
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big-E View Post
I don't know what your advocating. You seem to be fighting to keep the SW in service yet you admit it is obsolete. Will you concede to the point that RN FFGs would be better served to replace the SW VLS to a longer range system?
You are right. Instead of thinking of developing an improved Sea Wolf it would be just about time the RN standardized its SAMs on the Darings', ie Aster family in which btw the British defence industry is heavily involved.

cheers
contedicavour is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 29th, 2006   #39
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
Dr Phobus's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Illinios, USA
Posts: 241
Threads:
Arrow

Quote:
Originally Posted by contedicavour View Post
You are right. Instead of thinking of developing an improved Sea Wolf it would be just about time the RN standardized its SAMs on the Darings', ie Aster family in which btw the British defence industry is heavily involved.

cheers
Sea Wolf 2 is already in production, so 'de-inventing' it makes no sence at this point. Moreover, its considered to be a both a manoverable and accurate missile, with good jam-resistence, but, with out good refernce base i am not getting too wrapped up in that debate. IMO its good, and good enough for duke point defence needs for the future.

I do agree Aster should be the standard SAM for the RN, and it will no doubt be on FSC (if it ever gets built) it will be the SAM of choice. However, the Aster 15 is over kill for a patrol like corvette, thus, RAM or MICA VL are my arguments for a SAM system. These vessles need to be afforable so they can by purchased in some numbers.

Daring apparently had provide for a point defence missile system, at this point i;d image it would be MICA VL, it uses the same asctive seeker as aster, its vertical launched, it can employ an IIR seekerwhich as a surface attack role. I think it would be a great suppliment too Darling and good for a corvette. Saying that, RAM, which is in production and its low cost makes an attractive option.
________________
Dr Carl D. Vincent
Dr Phobus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 29th, 2006   #40
Defense Aficionado
Lieutenant General
contedicavour's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Paris/Geneva (but I'm Italian)
Posts: 2,901
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Phobus View Post
Sea Wolf 2 is already in production, so 'de-inventing' it makes no sence at this point. Moreover, its considered to be a both a manoverable and accurate missile, with good jam-resistence, but, with out good refernce base i am not getting too wrapped up in that debate. IMO its good, and good enough for duke point defence needs for the future.

I do agree Aster should be the standard SAM for the RN, and it will no doubt be on FSC (if it ever gets built) it will be the SAM of choice. However, the Aster 15 is over kill for a patrol like corvette, thus, RAM or MICA VL are my arguments for a SAM system. These vessles need to be afforable so they can by purchased in some numbers.

Daring apparently had provide for a point defence missile system, at this point i;d image it would be MICA VL, it uses the same asctive seeker as aster, its vertical launched, it can employ an IIR seekerwhich as a surface attack role. I think it would be a great suppliment too Darling and good for a corvette. Saying that, RAM, which is in production and its low cost makes an attractive option.
I've searched around for data on the Sea Wolf 2 but I can't find its detailed specifications. Does it at least match Aster 15's speed and range ?
Regarding Daring's pont defence, since they already have Aster 15 I doubt they need a further missile system. A couple of Phalanx/Goalkeepers would be enough (just disembark the systems of retiring Type 42 and Type 22 batch 3).
For the patrol corvettes, I agree RAM is a very good option.

cheers
contedicavour is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 29th, 2006   #41
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
Dr Phobus's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Illinios, USA
Posts: 241
Threads:
The Sea Wolf 2 does not match Aster 15 for speed or range. Aster 15 range is close to 30Km, Sea Wolf 2 is not better than 9km ( and maybe a little below that). Speed is close to MACH 3, Seawolf over MACH 2

Here are some details:
Engine Solid propellant two-stage rocket
Launch mass 310 kg (Aster 15)
510 kg (Aster 30)
Length 4.2 m
Diameter 180 mm
Speed Mach 3 (1000 m/s) (Aster 15)
Mach 4.5; 1,400 m/s (Aster 30)
Range 1.7–30 km (Aster 15)
3–120 km (Aster 30)
Flying altitude 13 km maximum (Aster 15)
20 km (Aster 30)
Warhead Directed fragmentation
Guidance Telemetry uplink, terminal active radar homing

We can all agree ASTER 15 is a superior weapon, and i'd be the frist to cheer if it was retrofitted to Duke. Cost and number of missiles would be the issues. But for some of the newer Dukes, its may not be a bad idea.
________________
Dr Carl D. Vincent
Dr Phobus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 29th, 2006   #42
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
Dr Phobus's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Illinios, USA
Posts: 241
Threads:
This link to the site for ASTER information, its a little basic chaps, but it works


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MBDA_Aster
________________
Dr Carl D. Vincent
Dr Phobus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 29th, 2006   #43
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
Dr Phobus's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Illinios, USA
Posts: 241
Threads:
Sea wolf was faster than i thought, and 4 nations, Chile, Brazil, UK, Malayia, use it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Wolf_missile

Sea Wolf 2 details:
Guidance Automatic command line of site
Speed Mach 3
Range 1-5 km (GWS-25)[1]
1-6 km (GWS-26)[1] [2]
Ceiling 3000 m
Payload/Warhead 14 kg blast
Trigger Proximity or contact
________________
Dr Carl D. Vincent
Dr Phobus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 29th, 2006   #44
Just Hatched
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8
Threads:
As a SAM for the FSC the Aster 15 is rather bulky and expensive! Better for the RN to deploy a couple of SeaRams on there and free up more Cells for Tomahawks or Storm Shadows...In fact when the FSC enters service around 2020 most of these missiles systems will be around 20 years old and newer and better SAMs probably available...maybe the UK should team Thales UK and MBDA together to come up with a lightweight inner layer missile defence system to replace SeaRAM!
daviesg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 29th, 2006   #45
Defense Enthusiast
Captain
Musashi_kenshin's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 658
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big-E View Post
I don't know what your advocating. You seem to be fighting to keep the SW in service yet you admit it is obsolete. Will you concede to the point that RN FFGs would be better served to replace the SW VLS to a longer range system?
I certainly do not advocate SW being replaced with a completely new system on existing ships - the cost would probably cripple future procurement. If it is possible in terms of space and cost to have a better system on future frigates then of course that would be nice. But if Seawolf Block 2 is all that can be afforded or fitted on then that will suffice.

The point I was trying to make was that SW is not worse than any other kind of PD-missile, including Crotale and Sea Sparrow, as Contedicavour was claiming, especially given the Block 2 upgrade.
Musashi_kenshin is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:36 PM.