Guardian: Sea Ceptor: "MoD Signs £500m Missile Defence Deal"

Discussion in 'The Fleet' started by soleil, Jan 30, 2012.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. .

    Good news (?) - but bloody stupid name, the average matelot will find numerous ways to mis-spell it.

    I somehow doubt the "500 mile radius" - it would make the Type 45's missiles look a bit anaemic, but 5 miles would be too small for present threats. I find the idea that the Army and RAF will use it quite amusing as well. The BIG question will be what radar/control system will be used or developed for it.

    Where does this leave the Aster 15 ( name correct ?) ?

    Need more info (and a simpler name - all "PR" geeks should be shot).

    .
     
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2012
  2. As this MoD article states, Sea Ceptor is meant to cover an area of 500 square miles, not a radius of 500 miles (or even a range of 500 miles as some articles mis-report). Wikipedia contains this article which gives the range as 25 kilometres (16 miles) or three times the range of Sea Wolf.

    Based on the airframe and some components of the ASRAAM (AIM-132 Advanced Short Range Air-to-Air Missile) infra-red air to air missile with updated electronics and an active radar seeker, Sea Ceptor is a version of CAMM (Common Anti-Air Modular Missile) incorporating Sea Viper technology.

    I doubt Type 23s are capable of carrying Aster 15 and its associated systems.
     
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2012
  3. Thanks for that Naval_Gazer - it does seem to compete nearly head-on with the Aster-15 (but presumably overcomes the perceived range limitations of the US Sea RAM system) ????.

    The article says "system", but then mainly talks about the "missile". I ASSUME that the cost is for "system" development, including some sort of lightweight radar, plus ops room ?

    .
     
  4. Can someone explain the difference between ASTER 15 and CAMM?
     
  5. CAMM is smaller - so can be quad-packed into a typical VLS cell that can only hold one A15, or dropped into a VL Sea Wolf launcher as a one-for-one replacement (so 32 x Sea Ceptor on those T23s getting it).

    It's a lot cheaper. Partly newer technology (same processing power and RAM costs a fraction of what it did when ASTER was designed), partly pulling through a lot of ASRAAM technology and components that are known to work.

    It's been accepted as being less capable against the really super scary threats, but the solution there is "fire more at those tough ones" (or in extremis, "hide behind the Type 45") rather than "make the missile really expensive to deal with the top-end threat using single shots"; while for the merely challenging threats, it's highly effective.

    It needs less infrastructure and support from the ship - ASTER needs Radar 1045 or EMPAR for a rapid update rate on the targets and for the uplink, while Sea Ceptor is happy with Radar 997 and a couple of small terminals for the datalink.

    It's got different ranges: less reach against highly supersonic weavers which ASTER was optimised for, as good or better against less violently agile targets (like anything manned, for example) where A15 runs out of energy. (Rocket science stuff about burn profiles and drag coefficients and suchlike).
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Thanks alot. So once CAMM is operational in the fleet, would there be a need to load many ASTER 15 on a Type 45? Could it be the case the Type 23/26 has CAMM, while the Type 45 hold more ASTER 30s?
     

Share This Page