Today, it was announced that the new missile being developed to replace 'SeaWolf' on Royal Navy ships is to be called 'SeaCeptor'. this missile is to become the UK's next generation SAM missile and anti-missile missile. The missile was previously known as 'CAMM', and will be fitted firstly to the RN Type 23 Frigates, then onto the new Type 26 Combat ship. see attached link below for more details. http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/D...eaCeptorMissilesToBeDevelopedForRoyalNavy.htm Incidently, i think the name SEA CEPTOR is a little unusual, presumably playing on the word interceptor. Bearing in mind the UK military call its naval missiles 'SEA (something), some have had good names and others somewhat naff. Dynamic named missiles such as:- SEA VIPER, SEA WOLF, SEA DART & SEA EAGLE. Naff named missiles:- SEA SKUA, SEA CAT....but worst of all was SEA SLUG, which had performance to match its name. Anyway, elsewhere, what missiles are currently under development?
It may be a very good anti-missile system, tests will tell how effective it is though. It vertainly seems to have the right characteristics to be able to shoot down incomming missiles. However, it still lacks the thing that the Royal Navy needs most. And that is the ability to "reach out and touch someone". With it's range of 25 kilometers, it is still a purely defensive weapon. And it can only be used in a purely reactive manner, not in a way to prevent any aircraft from launching at it in the first place. This is what I see as the largest flaw in the RN's attempt at air defense. They lack a single weapon that can launch at incoming planes armed with anti-ship missiles before it gets within shooting range. "Wow, look at those fighters coming at us! There it is, 100 miles, 60 miles, 50 miles, it launched something! Now it is tearing away at MACH 2 and we have 9 missiles comming at us and 1 dud falling into the sea! Of wow, hope those defensive missiles all work, or we are up (*)(*)(*)(*)e creek!" That is the problem I see with their entire Air Defense strategy. A US ship of the same class would have missiles that can reach from 50-90 miles (75-175 km). So they can launch before the aircraft even get within range. Even if they did not hit them, they might cause the fighters to abort the attack run, or burn more fuel then expected in evading the missiles.
Blimey.....a reply to my post...thanks. Yes, i generally agree, the RN is basically setup for defence rather than attack, when you look at its weapon suites, and i think more attacking systems should be developed. The 'Sea Viper' on the 'Darings' does come in 2 versions, with the larger missile having a range of 75 miles. From a anti-ship point of view there is also the American 'Harpoon' system fitted to the Type 23's. ....and some nuke killer subs have the 'Tomahawk' missile....but yes apart from these the other missile systems are generally short range defensive types.
Sorry, but I have been out in the field doing training for the last week, so needless to say I have no internet when I am out in the middle of the desert in a tent. *laugh*
Uncle Ferd says dat's why Putin wanted to be Russian President again - so's he could stick it to us when Obama not lookin'... Russia tests new missile with previously unachievable performance 24.05.2012 - Russia's "asymmetric response" to the US missile defense system, the test flight of which took place on Wednesday from Plesetsk spaceport, was an analogue of the sea-based intercontinental ballistic missile Bulava. Sources from the Russian rocket industry told the Kommesant newspaper that the two missiles were identical in their construction. They weigh nearly 36 tons, and are 12 meters in length. The two rockets also have the same amount of stages. See also: Russia works on 100-ton monster ballistic missile 19.12.2011 - In connection with the plans of the United States to develop the air defense system in Europe, in close vicinity to Russia's borders, and because of the unwillingness of the US side to provide any guarantees, the Russian Federation continues to take measures to preserve parity in the field. In particular, Russia's Strategic Missile Forces (SMF) will be renovated with the help of state-of-the-art Topol-M and Yars complexes during the upcoming ten years. In addition, Russia will pass into service a new intercontinental missile of enormous power.
Russia and the world need new ICBMs about as much as it needs a return to the concept of World Socialism. And people love to say it is the US that is creating this arms race. However, the land based missile system we use now has been around for over 40 years now (Minuteman III) and the sea based system for over 20 years (Trident II). And this is one of the things that bankrupted the Soviet Union in the first place. This inferiority complex they have culturally, that insists that they constantly have to develop something new to evade or eliminate anything their perceived "adversary" has. So they wase huge amounts of money into essentially black hole projects, while the rest of the world sits back and laughs. But ya gotta love that language. "stands against the creation of the missile defense system, which would be directly aimed against Russia". Funny, how do you aim a defensive system at somebody, and how is that a threat? Does wearing a bulletproof vest make it a threat to somebody? Is putting locks on your dorrs a threat to your neighbor? Is buying a gun for home defense a threat to everybody? Well, maybe, if they planned on attacking you. Otherwise, none of these things would matter a single bit. Of course, I still believe the absolute best missile deterent would be to reduce global stocks to say 15 per country. Still enough to devistate a large portion of their adversaries, but not enough to worry about global armageddon if an accident happens.
