www.twz.com
The plus side with CSC is that this is feeding into their plans for initial provisioning and sparing, as well as what they are looking for as the support model, so optimistic they will have more ISSCs to cover off what woudl normally be 1st line PM because there won't be many actual technical people onboard, so alongside once they do duty watches etc will be pretty much tapped.
Shark trainer would be pretty high speed new trade for recruiting anyway! At least until the first story about a VAC claim being denied because someone clearly came in missing a limb and with shark bites as a pre existing injury.Everybody knows that maritime laser systems are mounted on sharks.
24 CAMM aren’t a cost effective method of dealing with small OWUAS.
It has been under discussion for a long time, it's just a hard nut to crack with a lot of ideas not working as well as you would think.
www.mbda-systems.com
Time to bring back all the harbour mouth embellishments? Nets, gate boats, gun and missile shore batteries, and so on?
I wonder.
We do not know the cost of CAMM on a per missile basis, so such a comparison cannot be made. There is a difference in not being concerned and being realistic about the future, many people are having knee jerk overreactions while also underestimating the systems already in place to deal with these threats.
ExLS can function as either a drop in adaptor to existing Mark 41 systems in order to fire other non-standard weapons (RAM, CAMM, Nulka, Hellfire/JAGM, etc) or can act as a lightweight and small standalone launching platform for the same weapons systems.
isn't that what Russia has done to protect their Crimean bridge?
I don't doubt that we should take security of our military installations more seriously but with Russian cruise missiles having 3,000km range the nature of the threats may have changed from the past.
Benefit of the CAMM over the Phalanx from what I can see is the reload time for the CAMM is significantly shorter than the Phalanx based on what I have learned on this site?
The advantage that missile based systems have over gun based systems is stretching the engagement range as far from the ship as possible. CAMM can reach out past 25km while Phalanx has an effective range of 1.5km with a maximum range out to 5.5km. You can reload gun based systems at sea compared to missiles generally not being able to be effectively reloaded from VLS tubes. CAMM can engage more targets at further ranges than Phalanx can, keeping the ship safer and giving additional time for more missiles/other systems to engage as well.
Both can use the ships main sensors (Germans do this with SEA RAM IIRC). CAMM also can engage multiple targets from multiple directions and SEARAM as you can see is unidirectional. CAMM has a much longer range allowing for the potential of re-engagement. Also CAMM is flush deck, which has its own advantaged when you are looking at antenna/rader placement.My error I was thinking the Rolling Airframe missile systems which seem to be more of a direct replacement for the Phalanx
Actually it’s fairly easy to look up if you have access. I am sure Canada will be paying more than others simply due to acquisition numbers though.
I’m seeing the current potential for an overwhelming non swarm number of OWUAS, when you start getting into AI/ML controlled swarms, missiles options are a non starter. Even using large number of ships to engage.
