RN wish list

Re: RN wish list

feeds@yuku.com (Zen9) — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 00:08:23 GMT

A fin fold or a fin redesign, likely to broaden while reducing span seems possible....I wonder if thats part of what CAAM will be about?

Re: RN wish list

feeds@yuku.com (StevoJH) — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 18:19:54 GMT

The main question is really the size of each individual "silo", can it fit 4 ASRAAM or 4 Meteor or 4 ESSM etc.

Maybe they could buy a bunch of ESSM's and put the active seeker from an Aster on them assuming they would fit and the software was compatible

Re: RN wish list

feeds@yuku.com (esp49129) — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 18:14:32 GMT

I don't remember the exact publication date (at least 3-4 years ago), but Janes quoted Sylver A70 as 7.6m in length, same as "strike length" Mk41 for Tomahawk. The only place I've seen the 8.15m number is in one post on a forum, so I would trust Janes ahead of that forumer.

Edit: I checked my sources: In May 2002, Janes Defence Weekly and Janes International Defense Review quoted Sylver A70 as 7.6m in...

Re: RN wish list

feeds@yuku.com (Bledlow) — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 17:17:24 GMT

StevoJH wrote:
no one would happen to know the Sylver A50 or A70 width x length times height dimensions by any chance?

Sylver A43/A50 - each 8 cell module is 2.6 x 2.3 metres, which works out at 6m2.

Height - A43 5.4m, A50 6.0m. Someone on another forum reckons A70 is 8.15m tall. A43 7500 kg, A50 8000 kg.

Zen9 wrote:

ASRAAM

2.7m long, by 16.5cm diameter, 1.6m span of fins.

SeaWolf

1.9m long without booster, 18cm diameter, 0.56m span.

So from this CAAM needs to reduce fin span and use a shorter booster. But I think ASRAAM is lighter.

However there is are several successful short range AAM's...

Re: RN wish list

feeds@yuku.com (Zen9) — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 13:33:37 GMT

ASRAAM
2.7m long, by 16.5cm diameter, 1.6m span of fins.
SeaWolf
1.9m long without booster, 18cm diameter, 0.56m span.

So from this CAAM needs to reduce fin span and use a shorter booster. But I think ASRAAM is lighter.

However there is are several successful short range AAM's that have been modified for SAMs aboard warships, and several proposals for others.

Re: RN wish list

feeds@yuku.com (StevoJH) — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 13:17:07 GMT

Zen9 wrote:

More likely is CAAM will be ASRAAM with a SeaWolf booster (sinner) and VLS slios, but it does'nt need the bulky guidance system onboard, just a search
radar and datalink(s). The result should be an extension to existing Type 23 life, with CAAM replacing SeaWolf and the removal of the old TIR units saving
weight, power/fuelburn and maintenence costs/personnel.

...

Re: RN wish list

feeds@yuku.com (perfectgeneral) — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 12:54:12 GMT

CAAM will just be RAM with ASRAAM instead of Sidewinder right? Basicly a CIWS.

See that 30mm CIWS each side? I bet you could slap 3-4 CAAM on each side of both of these for a 12-16 CAAM capability using the same targeting system. The key to developing C3 will be the 20-40ft ISO container(s) at the stern. All kinds of mission modules should fit in those.

Re: RN wish list

feeds@yuku.com (Zen9) — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 12:51:47 GMT

More likely is CAAM will be ASRAAM with a SeaWolf booster (sinner) and VLS slios, but it does'nt need the bulky guidance system onboard, just a search radar and datalink(s). The result should be an extension to existing Type 23 life, with CAAM replacing SeaWolf and the removal of the old TIR units saving weight, power/fuelburn and maintenence costs/personnel.

8 cells is fine if we're talking Sylver and its able to handle at least two, preferably four, CAAM per silo via a...

Re: RN wish list

feeds@yuku.com (StevoJH) — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 12:26:12 GMT

Jim WH wrote:
I think that the most important point to remember with the C3 is that it is a minor vessel, and needs to be considered and planned as such. At most I'd
argue for a single 8 cell VLS for CAMM and Aster 15 cued by a cheap MOTS MFR. Most of the time I'd be very happy for the VLS to be unloaded and cocooned
(i.e. no maintainers aboard), and only manned and loaded in the event of C3 deploying to a...

Re: RN wish list

feeds@yuku.com (Jim WH) — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 11:55:33 GMT

I think that the most important point to remember with the C3 is that it is a minor vessel, and needs to be considered and planned as such. At most I'd argue for a single 8 cell VLS for CAMM and Aster 15 cued by a cheap MOTS MFR. Most of the time I'd be very happy for the VLS to be unloaded and cocooned (i.e. no maintainers aboard), and only manned and loaded in the event of C3 deploying to a hot-spot/war.
The VT C3 design looks to be just what the doctor ordered. Now, the trick...

Re: RN wish list

feeds@yuku.com (Practica) — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 11:45:59 GMT

Moskit wrote:
The biggest problem faced by the Type 21 was that it wasn't designed by the RCNC and carried that stigma throughout its career with the RN.

So nothing to do with the lack of margin for growth or the structural weakness then?

Re: RN wish list

feeds@yuku.com (Moskit) — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 09:41:53 GMT

The biggest problem faced by the Type 21 was that it wasn't designed by the RCNC and carried that stigma throughout its career with the RN.

Re: RN wish list

feeds@yuku.com (perfectgeneral) — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 07:59:44 GMT

C3 has legs as an idea but don't strap to much to it or you'll do yourself no favours, keep it basic, keep it simple and make sure it looks nothing at all like a frigate.

Wheel invented, but how much do they (BVT) want for it?

RN wish list

feeds@yuku.com (Benneh) — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 11:00:04 GMT

many thanks to scouse for his recent links on CIWS, this has me thinking we all like to put or 2p worth in a discussion of the RN capabilitys and its possible future procurement but can any one tell me if the first sea lord was given a pad, a pencil and a half decent budget what would the RN want in upgrades for current vessels etc. My point being there is much new and impressive equipment out there what would RN buy with no treasurey sticking its nose in.