I'll happily admit I've never read The Register" but discovered this on another forum http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/02/type_45_viper_paams_fail/ - so whats the
reality behind it?
- Battleship Vs Battleship
- Should Battleships Be Back In Service?
- The United States Navy
- The Royal Navy
- The European Navies
- The Commonwealth Navies
- The Asian Navies
- Aircraft Carriers
- Fighting Ships Of The World
- Submarines
- Designing A Navy/Ship
- The Land Forces
- The Air Forces
- The Naval Fiction Board
- The Politics Of War
- Naval Help
T45 missiles
| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 jock |
T45 missiles |
Lead | |
|
Posts: 1194 ( 2-Dec-2009 20:14:19) |
|
||
|
John1964 |
|||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 233 ( 2-Dec-2009 20:24:47) |
Are the French and Italians having similar difficulties with their version?
|
||
|
Bledlow |
|||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 778 ( 2-Dec-2009 20:51:19) |
Lewis Page has put the worst possible slant on this. There has been one test failure, after a number of successes.
Page has a long history of suggesting that the UK should buy whatever the US military buys, & slagging off everything non-American. He also has some other biases. |
||
|
kev 99a |
|||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 858 ( 2-Dec-2009 20:51:42) |
Lots of speculation there and Lewis Page does love to put his own views across as gospel.
|
||
 BenRoethig |
|||
|
Posts: 2393 ( 2-Dec-2009 21:00:03) |
John1964 wrote: The French and Italians are using the French radar (which the French would have preferred you bought). |
||
|
kev 99a |
|||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 859 ( 2-Dec-2009 21:35:16) |
Bledlow wrote:Which include every surface vessel that isn't an aircraft carrier, auxiliary or minesweeper. He's been banging on about what a waste of money the T45 is for years, you can practically feel the smug eminating from that report. |
||
|
navynick |
|||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 276 ( 2-Dec-2009 22:41:46) |
i was involved in the PAAMS programme for 5 years and only came out of it a year ago and still in touch with the people i worked with!
I can tell you there are a number of errors in that report! The UK version of PAAMS in very different to the FR/IT version, in fact the only thing they actually really share is the missile and the S1850M radar! I know the FR/IT version has got more problems than the UK version! PAAMS does not have the ability to 'shoot' down low orbiting satelites LOL, it make me laugh when i read that! PAAMS is much better than AEGIS in its current configuration for a variety of reasons! Like ALL programme, PAAMS has/is having difficulties, mainly but because of the advanced nature of the system, but they are resolvable, but overall the system is very advanced and i have seen it do some fantastic things compared to other systems! |
||
|
taschoene |
|||
|
Posts: 4705 ( 3-Dec-2009 03:53:39) |
navynick wrote:The article doesn't say that PAAMS can do that. It says that PAAMS is designed to compete with AEGIS and that AEGIS can shoot down satellites, which it did last year. |
||
|
StevoJH |
|||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 1697 ( 3-Dec-2009 05:32:34) |
Nick, is the Block two Sea Viper going to be a completely different missile system from the current Aster 15/30 like some images have suggested? And will it be
a UK only missile or will it be joint with Fr/It still?
|
||
|
navynick |
|||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 277 ( 3-Dec-2009 07:44:36) |
you're right of course Tas, but there was the implicit implication that PAAMS should be able to do that - sorry i should have phrased my answer better!
PAAMS isn't designed to do that! but it could modified, albeit for quite a bit of cash, because those in powers didn't want to spend a little bit more cash to put the capability in now! although currently Aster isn't able to achieve the necessary performance! steve, i've no idea where this 'sea viper block 2' rumour has come from, it maybe true, but as far as i am aware its not! there is talk on increasing the reliability of the missile, but thats not been called block 2 last time i heard. it really does depend what block 2 is though, some people see modification of bits of software as a new 'block', while other see a complete rehash of the system as a 'block' we have bought all our Aster missile for the six T45, just enough to fill one platform each, i doubt there is an intention to buy more, as an attempt by a missguided admiral to stop the purchase of a 100 aster iin order to fund CAMM was forunately overturned when is was reaslised that we would get less than a5th of our money back by not buying them! |
||
|
kev 99a |
|||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 860 ( 3-Dec-2009 11:25:15) |
I believe that people are confusing the proposed Aster Block 2 missile for the SAMP/T land based system that France and Italy are buying.
|
||
|
DMc |
|||
|
Posts: 379 ( 3-Dec-2009 11:28:30) |
>>Lots of speculation there and Lewis Page does love to put his own views across as gospel. His blogspot cites an endorsement from Sir Max Hastings, which might make you think "praise indeed!" (..on t'other hand...) then you read his bio "Lewis Page, the son of a distinguished journalist..." might dear ole dad and Max be beer buddies? who knows... |
||
|
kev 99a |
|||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 861 ( 3-Dec-2009 11:34:34) |
DMc wrote:Lewis shares the same view as Max Hastings that surface combatants are crap and have had their day, he's been known to quote Max frequently in his ramblings. |
||
|
Nauticus27 |
|||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 215 ( 3-Dec-2009 12:00:53) |
Bledlow hit the nail on the head. One failure during the test programme after a string of successes. How many high tech new systems haven't experienced
something similar, or worse, during development? IIRC the current captain has suggested in an interview that if the balloon went up in the relatively near
future the ship would be able to deploy with the missile and do a job. I wonder at what point in the development prog that becomes plausible, and how close to
that point we are?
|
||
|
navynick |
|||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 278 ( 3-Dec-2009 14:11:51) |
well, that depends on what sort of level of capability you want!
if you want to shoot something down like a prop driven aircraft in benign (low clutter, low (but not calm) sea states), then the system passed that about 2 years ago. If you want to be able to 'do what is says on the tin' then there is a little more work to do, mainly just verifying that the system can do what 'it says on the tin'. In reality, at this time, its mainly about optimisation of the capabilty now it is in its operating environment! besides, there have been no firings from ship yet (as far as i am aware), the first firings were supposed by from Dauntless next year! all the firings for UK PAAMS have been from the Long bow barge of the Toulon! |
||
|
Bledlow |
|||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 779 ( 3-Dec-2009 14:18:43) |
StevoJH wrote:The Aster Block 2 is a proposed new missile with considerable ABM capability. AFAIK, it is so far only aimed at the Franco-Italian land-based SAMP/T system, though it should be possible, with radar & other upgrades, to use it in the sea-based systems. SAMP/T will include Aster 30 Block 1, which is an Aster 30 with software upgrades giving it a limited ABM capability (against short-range missiles only) when used with the right radar & control systems. So far, both these are Franco-Italian only. |
||
|
MSR |
|||
|
Posts: 3097 ( 3-Dec-2009 20:47:17) |
navynick wrote:Are you serious? Are these ships and crews never going to be tested again once they've been handed over to the navy? It's my understanding that after every refit, a USN destroyer goes through a series of trials and training cycles that involve firing single and multiple salvoes at increasingly difficult simulated targets, and that USN ships generally get a lot more "real life" practice involving firing off actual "real life" missiles at regular intervals, which has got to be superior to shouting "bang", because shouting "bang" doesn't prove anything! Are these 288 missiles are going to be packed away in their silos and left there for the next few years?
The aim of diplomacy is to achieve results, not win arguments
|
||
|
Nauticus27 |
|||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 216 ( 3-Dec-2009 21:09:25) |
MSR wrote: On the assumption that even the most wildly optimistic surge would see at most 5 vessels deployed at any one time, then that seems to suggest a modest provision for testing if the total figure is indeed 288 or thereabouts. |
||
|
navynick |
|||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 279 ( 3-Dec-2009 22:38:59) |
yeah there will be in service firings, as required, and i am sure in a few year there maybe a further buy of missiles, but thats it for the moment!!!
the idea is that with this system there will be reduced requirement for such in service firings! |
||
- Battleship Vs Battleship
- Should Battleships Be Back In Service?
- The United States Navy
- The Royal Navy
- The European Navies
- The Commonwealth Navies
- The Asian Navies
- Aircraft Carriers
- Fighting Ships Of The World
- Submarines
- Designing A Navy/Ship
- The Land Forces
- The Air Forces
- The Naval Fiction Board
- The Politics Of War
- Naval Help
