SeaWolf

[lucklucky]

1 hour ago, Sardaukar said:

I don't remember who, back in days of British Engineering said:

"Brits have tendency to look for complex solutions for simple problems".

I never understood why the SeaWolf a 7km range missile had such an heavy installation. it almost looks like they sold it by its weight... 

There are some stuff in UK defence industry that was so heavy/huge and big compared to other systems specially to American stuff.  Radios are another.

Edited October 31, 2022 by lucklucky

[Stuart Galbraith]

Id argue that at least before WW2, it was the other way around, it was American aircraft that were over engineered. They had far higher G tolerances because they were carved out the solid, with all the penalty that took in weight. Which is why it took British Air Ministry specifications to come up with the Mustang, or for that matter, the Mosquito. Its worth remembering, Manchester, the forerunner of Lancaster, was designed to be launched by catapult and carry an antiship torpedo (dont ask). And it still ended up with a gross weight a thousand kg lighter than a B17, even after they hung two extra engines and larger wings on it.

As for missiles, I cant think of an area where Government interfered more in changing specifications or underfunding. Im amazed we built anything during the cold war, far less we ended up with weird abberations like Seaslug or Malkara. Seawolf for all its size, actually had a pretty good record during the Falklands, far better than Seadart or Rapier anyway.

 

Edited October 31, 2022 by Stuart Galbraith

[DB]

3 hours ago, lucklucky said:

I never understood why the SeaWolf a 7km range missile had such an heavy installation. it almost looks like they sold it by its weight... 

There are some stuff in UK defence industry that was so heavy/huge and big compared to other systems specially to American stuff.  Radios are another.

Can't speak for Sea Wolf, directly, but I suspect the requirement was driven by North Atlantic heavy sea loadings combined with a blanket requirement for reserve factor for energetics carriage that is absurd to apply, but almost impossible to get rid of without excessive argument with a stubborn customer. Compare and contrast with missile systems that don't permanently store their missiles above decks. (ignore things like RAM launchers and early Sea Sparrow, they don't support my argument ).

A key driver of UK weapon systems bulk is likely to be the specific details of MoD requirement specifications, which aren't generally satisfied by conformity to STANAG, nor even Def Stans. They often sling in additional requirements that are near impossible to test and so result in over building to allow for every engineer with MathCAD to add their own 10% rule-of-thumb margin. Some of the Def Stan "requirements" are antediluvian, too - based on a lot of historical experience that is just obsolete now.

Compare the Brimstone launcher in a small truck delivered to Ukraine with the potential I think for a 12 missile salvo versus the bulk of the Boxer mission module with 8.

UK engineering *can* do it, if we throw out the traditional rule book.

[lucklucky]

12 hours ago, DB said:

Can't speak for Sea Wolf, directly, but I suspect the requirement was driven by North Atlantic heavy sea loadings combined with a blanket requirement for reserve factor for energetics carriage that is absurd to apply, but almost impossible to get rid of without excessive argument with a stubborn customer. Compare and contrast with missile systems that don't permanently store their missiles above decks. (ignore things like RAM launchers and early Sea Sparrow, they don't support my argument ).

A key driver of UK weapon systems bulk is likely to be the specific details of MoD requirement specifications, which aren't generally satisfied by conformity to STANAG, nor even Def Stans. They often sling in additional requirements that are near impossible to test and so result in over building to allow for every engineer with MathCAD to add their own 10% rule-of-thumb margin. Some of the Def Stan "requirements" are antediluvian, too - based on a lot of historical experience that is just obsolete now.

Compare the Brimstone launcher in a small truck delivered to Ukraine with the potential I think for a 12 missile salvo versus the bulk of the Boxer mission module with 8.

UK engineering *can* do it, if we throw out the traditional rule book.

Well Sparrow and equivalent Italian Aspide were what i was thinking about. >15km missiles with double weight of a Sea Wolf and could be put in small combatants. 

Here is a 4 cell Aspide in a 700t corvette.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esmeraldas-class_corvette

And one issue with Sea Wolf is that its complication and weight pretty much prevented it to be exported to anyone despite its reputation of being able to hit a 114mm round. Euro navies basically had Sparrow, Aspide or in French case the Crotale. Even the French could export the Crotale (Saudi frigates i think) 

Interesting point about Brimstone in the truck vs the Boxer. I guess that is it.

 

PS; Aspide could have had a below deck resupply system.

https://ibb.co/r4MvHgY

 

Edited November 1, 2022 by lucklucky

[ramontxo]

On 11/1/2022 at 7:54 AM, lucklucky said:

Well Sparrow and equivalent Italian Aspide were what i was thinking about. >15km missiles with double weight of a Sea Wolf and could be put in small combatants. 

Here is a 4 cell Aspide in a 700t corvette.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esmeraldas-class_corvette

And one issue with Sea Wolf is that its complication and weight pretty much prevented it to be exported to anyone despite its reputation of being able to hit a 114mm round. Euro navies basically had Sparrow, Aspide or in French case the Crotale. Even the French could export the Crotale (Saudi frigates i think) 

Interesting point about Brimstone in the truck vs the Boxer. I guess that is it.

 

PS; Aspide could have had a below deck resupply system.

https://ibb.co/r4MvHgY

 

Ok old anglophile here, but how would that sistems perform in the real world?. Not meaning anything against Aspide or Sea Sparrow, but were there used in anger against an real threat? Sea Wolfe was on some of the worst seas of the world. And after learning from that they were developed (one expect with something more than hope than certainty) for increased reliability and performance.

Edited November 5, 2022 by ramontxo

[BansheeOne]

There was a planned Lightweight Sea Wolf variant based upon a Sea Cat quad launcher, meant to replace the latter system on older ships or complement Sea Dart on new ones like the Invincible class carriers and Type 42 destroyers. Never introduced, though the single-channel Marconi ST1802SW guidance radar developed for it was used for Sea Wolf on export frigates.

[Dawes]

Was Sea Wolf able to deal with multiple incoming threats? 

[DB]

We're getting a long way from Ajax at this point but a couple of notes.

Type 22 Sea Wolf (GWS-25) installations had two trackers, so could attack two independent targets. it could salvo two missiles per target, so potentially controlling4 missiles simultaneously, but only to two targets.

Wiki notes that Sea Wolf installation weight was reduced when the original Type 910 tracker was replaced by the type 911 - claimed to be about 5 tonnes compared to 13.5 (!). I don't believe that the launcher itself changed significantly

VL Sea Wolf (GWS-26) is quite a bit different, of course, and also gained a little bit of additional performance due to the booster stage.

Of course, Sea Wolf is out of service now, and CAMM and the Sea Ceptor platform are hugely more capable, with CAMM-ER pushing into the latest ESSM envelope somewhat with a bit over half the mass per missile.

[Colin]

This wiki article give the history of the Sea Slug which helps people understand how the newer systems came to be

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seaslug_(missile)

[DB]

Sea Slug and and the French MASURCA had a common feature - they were assembled from separate sections prior to launching.

I was lucky enough to visit Colbert in Bordeaux back in the mid 90s. A terrible loss that she was scrapped.

[DougRichards]

On 11/1/2022 at 2:20 AM, Stuart Galbraith said:

 Its worth remembering, Manchester, the forerunner of Lancaster, was designed to be launched by catapult and carry an antiship torpedo (dont ask). And it still ended up with a gross weight a thousand kg lighter than a B17, even after they hung two extra engines and larger wings on it.

 

 

The need for torpedo carriage, I believe that two were to be carried, boded well for the Lancaster later, with a large unobstructed bomb bay and good load carrying abilities. 

[Stuart Galbraith]

Yes indeed. Its rather ironic that Torpedo's were the one thing it never carried, except maybe in Canadian service as an MPA postwar.

[lucklucky]

On 11/5/2022 at 7:55 PM, ramontxo said:

Ok old anglophile here, but how would that sistems perform in the real world?. Not meaning anything against Aspide or Sea Sparrow, but were there used in anger against an real threat? Sea Wolfe was on some of the worst seas of the world. And after learning from that they were developed (one expect with something more than hope than certainty) for increased reliability and performance.

Sparrows were used in combat specially air to air, success improved as tech evolved, Selenia build Sparrows under license and developed Aspide from that knowledge. with some advantages specially manoeuvrability.

The automated Seacat  GWS-24 its last version used a 70's  Italian tracking radar  RTN-10X (in RN it was renamed Type 912) It was a well regarded radar still conical scan with widespread usage all over world specially for the 76mm gun.  So it is not like they did not know what they were doing. The Esmeraldas in above picture use  also the RTN-10X for the Aspides.

Aspides in Italian Navy use the more modern monopulse and heavier RTN-30X with EO sights as backup - it also operated the 127mm gun in a combo system. Of course with Aspides there is need of a CW illuminator too.

Contrary to the RN blind belief in missiles Italian Navy needed more anti aircraft fire channels for the closed Mediterranean and all their ships had a much more balanced AA armament with all guns being designed for AA. So a typical 80's Frigate had a 40 rpm 127mm, a 2x300 rpm 40mm double Breda Bofors each side and an Aspide 8 cell launcher.

In war it is probable that the land version was used, but i don't have any feedback. Naval and land version had some export success  in 80's and 90's 

There is chance that the Aspides that Spain is providing Ukraine with might be employed in current war.

[lucklucky]

On 10/31/2022 at 3:20 PM, Stuart Galbraith said:

Id argue that at least before WW2, it was the other way around, it was American aircraft that were over engineered. They had far higher G tolerances because they were carved out the solid, with all the penalty that took in weight. Which is why it took British Air Ministry specifications to come up with the Mustang, or for that matter, the Mosquito. Its worth remembering, Manchester, the forerunner of Lancaster, was designed to be launched by catapult and carry an antiship torpedo (dont ask). And it still ended up with a gross weight a thousand kg lighter than a B17, even after they hung two extra engines and larger wings on it.

As for missiles, I cant think of an area where Government interfered more in changing specifications or underfunding. Im amazed we built anything during the cold war, far less we ended up with weird abberations like Seaslug or Malkara. Seawolf for all its size, actually had a pretty good record during the Falklands, far better than Seadart or Rapier anyway.

 

I contest that   Sea Dart was the most successful RN missile in that conflict, it worked for what was designed for. Sea World had several failures, some can be discounted by being a green system. Seacat was a disaster . Rappier do not seem to be very effective and being on land it should have been - Sea Wolf uses Rapper tech.   For example  Argentinian 35mm guns effectively made a bubble that Harriers could not penetrate. 2 were downed.

[ramontxo]

On 11/7/2022 at 8:43 PM, lucklucky said:

Sparrows were used in combat specially air to air, success improved as tech evolved, Selenia build Sparrows under license and developed Aspide from that knowledge. with some advantages specially manoeuvrability.

The automated Seacat  GWS-24 its last version used a 70's  Italian tracking radar  RTN-10X (in RN it was renamed Type 912) It was a well regarded radar still conical scan with widespread usage all over world specially for the 76mm gun.  So it is not like they did not know what they were doing. The Esmeraldas in above picture use  also the RTN-10X for the Aspides.

Aspides in Italian Navy use the more modern monopulse and heavier RTN-30X with EO sights as backup - it also operated the 127mm gun in a combo system. Of course with Aspides there is need of a CW illuminator too.

Contrary to the RN blind belief in missiles Italian Navy needed more anti aircraft fire channels for the closed Mediterranean and all their ships had a much more balanced AA armament with all guns being designed for AA. So a typical 80's Frigate had a 40 rpm 127mm, a 2x300 rpm 40mm double Breda Bofors each side and an Aspide 8 cell launcher.

In war it is probable that the land version was used, but i don't have any feedback. Naval and land version had some export success  in 80's and 90's 

There is chance that the Aspides that Spain is providing Ukraine with might be employed in current war.

Thanks for the information 👍 

[Stuart Galbraith]

On 11/7/2022 at 7:53 PM, lucklucky said:

I contest that   Sea Dart was the most successful RN missile in that conflict, it worked for what was designed for. Sea World had several failures, some can be discounted by being a green system. Seacat was a disaster . Rappier do not seem to be very effective and being on land it should have been - Sea Wolf uses Rapper tech.   For example  Argentinian 35mm guns effectively made a bubble that Harriers could not penetrate. 2 were downed.

And yet, they couldnt hit Vulcan Black Buck 1 at 10000 feet, protected by a borrowed Buccaneer Jammer pod......

[lucklucky]

5 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

And yet, they couldnt hit Vulcan Black Buck 1 at 10000 feet, protected by a borrowed Buccaneer Jammer pod......

Nothing special about that even if they were already deployed.  The effective range of a 35mm gun is 3-4km. For ceiling should be less due to gravity.

[lucklucky]

https://www.infodefensa.com/texto-diario/mostrar/4062625/llega-ucrania-bateria-aspide-donada-espana

I think a battery means 4 launchers and fire control with associated search and tracking radar. 

Edited November 9, 2022 by lucklucky

[sunday]

16 minutes ago, lucklucky said:

https://www.infodefensa.com/texto-diario/mostrar/4062625/llega-ucrania-bateria-aspide-donada-espana

I think a battery means 4 launchers and fire control with associated search and tracking radar. 

This is Spain, where batteries of 2 launchers are known to exist. Aspide's are likely to include 4 launchers.

Could not find a source specifying the total number of launchers and ancillary equipment sent to Ukraine, but it could be all of them as Aspide was recently decommissioned from Ejército de Tierra.

[DB]

Aspide is the not-quite-a-Sparrow currently used in SPADA 2000. It's being replaced by CAMM ER in EMADS, at least in Italian service.

Is Spain going for NASAMS?

[DB]

In other news, Dragonfire appears to be coming together.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/british-dragonfire-laser-weapon-test-fired-in-the-uk/

I don't understand laser systems at all well, but I'm told that this one is different because phase combining is tricky, but yields higher efficiency when it works.

[sunday]

7 hours ago, DB said:

Aspide is the not-quite-a-Sparrow currently used in SPADA 2000. It's being replaced by CAMM ER in EMADS, at least in Italian service.

Is Spain going for NASAMS?

We have NASAMS too. They initially came as industrial compensation for the Nansen-class frigates, but the general modernization of the Spanish AAA is in a hiatus for lack of funding.

[Dawes]

21 hours ago, DB said:

In other news, Dragonfire appears to be coming together.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/british-dragonfire-laser-weapon-test-fired-in-the-uk/

I don't understand laser systems at all well, but I'm told that this one is different because phase combining is tricky, but yields higher efficiency when it works.

The US has been working on lasers for decades (remember the 747-based USAF effort?) but I haven't seen anything in terms of fielded equipment yet. Maybe Europe will have better luck.

[DB]

The US is already deploying lasers with similar powers, maybe more. The USMC has one, and USS Ponce had a demonstrator/pre-production system perhaps 4-5 years ago.

Also seen stories about pod mounted systems in test on fighter-sized aircraft. Publicly, the US seems well ahead.

[Dawes]

Lasers would seem to be tailor-made for the C-RAM role, but again, I haven't read about any used in actual combat yet. Israel is pursuing the "Iron Beam" laser system as a cheaper supplement to it's Iron Dome missile system.