Sea Ceptor Missile?

#1
See here:

Ministry of Defence | Defence News | Equipment and Logistics | New Sea Ceptor missiles to be developed for Royal Navy


Now forgive my ignorance, but doesn't this look like a slimmed down version of the Sylver system fitted to T-45?

Are we aiming for some sort of golden future, where the Navy will be able to cruise the high seas once more, merrily shooting down supersonic cricket balls whenever the whim takes them (although relying on a tiny fleet of SSN for anything like an offensive anti-surface of land-attack capability)?
 
#3
It's leveraged off ASRAAM.

It will also apparently quad pack into a SYLVER VLS cell as fitted to T45. It would be interesting to see if that is done to up the firepower of T45 for relatively low cost and with missiles that cost less than just over £1 Million a bang to shoot down a Mach 3 cricket ball.

Interesting MDBA video here including how it will retrofit to T23

[video]http://www.mbda-systems.com/e-catalogue/#/solutions/maritime/40/video[/video]

Woosh bang stuff here

[video=youtube;7oRmGFVLJ08]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oRmGFVLJ08[/video]
 
#4
Call me crazy but wouldn't the ideal time to develop a new anti aircraft missile be shortly before you spend tens of billions of pounds on a new anti aircraft destroyer and not shortly afterwards?
 
#5
Call me crazy but wouldn't the ideal time to develop a new anti aircraft missile be shortly before you spend tens of billions of pounds on a new anti aircraft destroyer and not shortly afterwards?
This is a point defence missile for smaller war canoes, Sea Viper does the area defence.
 
#10
MBDA - Mouldy Blinds & Duff Ammo

nuff said!
i delivered some "kit" to a contractor in the very same location as that companies location in stevenage, it had a different name back then though.....
 
#11
So we don't have the money for tanks anymore but the navy has a shiny new plane wacker? That's it, i'm donning my inter-service jealousy hat and going straight over to NavyNet to rant!
 
#12
So we don't have the money for tanks anymore but the navy has a shiny new plane wacker? That's it, i'm donning my inter-service jealousy hat and going straight over to NavyNet to rant!
Most of the development for this will be valid for the land based system that is coming to replace Rapier.
 
#13
Most of the development for this will be valid for the land based system that is coming to replace Rapier.
What is wrong with Rapier FSC? when was the last time the arty shot a plain down and the RAF reg dont do air defence, surly we could invest the money in something more useful like.............. anything!
 
#14
"Its flexible design also means that it could in future be adapted for use by the Army and RAF".

Or, could it be a Camel, (A horse designed by defence committee)?
 
#15
#17
What is wrong with Rapier FSC? when was the last time the arty shot a plain down and the RAF reg dont do air defence, surly we could invest the money in something more useful like.............. anything!
There is nothing wrong with Rapier at the moment, however it is going to be replaced and yes it could be a land version of the sea ceptor.

As for something more usfull if you have noticed we have not had to fight any one with a crediable air force since 1982. Who are we going to be fighting in the next 10 years? Do you know cause I don't.
 
#18
There is nothing wrong with Rapier at the moment, however it is going to be replaced and yes it could be a land version of the sea ceptor.

As for something more usfull if you have noticed we have not had to fight any one with a crediable air force since 1982. Who are we going to be fighting in the next 10 years? Do you know cause I don't.
My point is (rant mode on) why are we spending money on better systems that we already have and might not use, when we could be spending it on systems we don't have but will almost certainly will use. For example, FRES SV, or a close support aircraft for the RAF, kit which we will use no matter what scale of war we will be fighting. I think we should concentrate on core battle group units (which are in rag order) then the stuff we might use. (rant off)

Off subject but got an Arty question for you. have you heard the idea swapping out the 105mm in the PBs in Afhan with nasties so they need less crew to cover the area with OS? what you opinion?
 
#19
Because when it comes down to it, the armed forces real raison d'etre is fighting proper wars - i.e. being ready in case we actually have to fight someone who is better kitted than just a camel and an AK.

In the event that we need to fight one of those, there's no way we will win without air superiority - hence why we need air defence stuff and Eurofighters, even if they're not that relevant to the sort of stuff we're doing now.
 
#20
Because when it comes down to it, the armed forces real raison d'etre is fighting proper wars - i.e. being ready in case we actually have to fight someone who is better kitted than just a camel and an AK.

In the event that we need to fight one of those, there's no way we will win without air superiority - hence why we need air defence stuff and Eurofighters, even if they're not that relevant to the sort of stuff we're doing now.
I agree. What we don't need is armed forces "fitted for the unknown and therefore without capability"

On the one hand we have nuke subs and on the other ......?
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top