Talk:Sea Wolf (missile)

VLS Variant

The Type 23 frigate article seems to have some useful background information that may explain the motivation for introducing the previously abandoned concept of vertical launch. It appears that deployment of a missile system on the Type 23 was an after-thought, motivated by the Falklands losses to Exocets. Perhaps the VLS system could be more easily assimilated into the existing Type 23 frigate design?

I have vague recollections of discussions during the Falklands related to a "containterised" missile system for deployment on commercial ships being used for transport of supplies in war zones. The VLS missile silos are sort of containerised.

With regard to the increased range of VL Seawolf, it is presumably due to the additional boost motor used for vertical launch.

This is my recollection as well. GWS 25 has relatively high "ship impact" (it needs quite a lot of ship to be designed around it). The idea discussed in the aftermath of the Falklands was for a simpler, cheaper version which could be bolted on to (for example) mercantile shipping in time of war.

But I very much doubt whether this "bolt-on" version was Vertical Launch. VLS (GWS 26) was added to the T23 design after the Falklands, when T23 was evolving from a cheap towed array tug (with flight deck but no hangar) into a more self-sufficient warship. My recollection is that the bolt-on version of Sea Wolf was going to be a four-box launcher. --Vvmodel (talk) 16:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm very interesting, I'd love to include this merchant shipping thing in the article. Justin seems to be Wikipedia's resident missile expert. Ryan4314 (talk) 16:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry guys but the VLS on the Type 23 has nothing to do with deployment on commercial ships or a containerised system. The requirement stems from the introduction of supersonic Russian sea skimming missiles, the VLS is necessary to have the reaction time to intercept a sea skimming missile at supersonic speeds coming over the horizon. A traverse system doesn't have the reaction time. Secondly the original Sea Wolf launcher had six missiles, they had to be loaded by hand. The VLS makes more ready rounds available. Justin talk 21:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow so the vertical system actually actually reacts quicker than a system that turns and points the missile towards the taget? Ryan4314 (talk) 22:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes it does in the case of Sea Wolf but there is a very big boost motor and Thrust Vector Control (TVC) system to enable it to happen. Its quite a tricky control problem. And I see someone referred to the 4 round launcher, that was a reduced weight version that was supposed to be installed on the Batch 3 Type 42 destroyer but was cancelled to save money. Justin talk 10:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Aw I do remember hearing about the 42's having Sea Wolf fitted, but assumed it was bullshit. Ryan4314 (talk) 14:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Think it was supposed to go on the Invincible class as well. Its a shame it would have made for a more balanced ship design. The Type 42 was badly compromised by treasury cuts and they're making exactly the same mistake again now with the Type 45. Justin talk 16:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hang on, did I just read on the T45 article that it's fitted "for but not with" Phalanx's? What CIWS do they plan to have then, apart from x2 30 mm? Found an interesting article online recently about Exeter being 'on tour' without any Sea Darts, in her latter years. Ryan4314 (talk) 16:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't sure if that had been approved or not. Its an unbelievably stupid decision, they should have some spare Block 1B Phalanx available from the Type 42 scrapping but they were cut as a cost-cutting exercise as "the missile can do it all". Exactly the same decision in the '70s led to the shortened Type 42 design without CIWS and the Falklands is history. Madness, simply madness. Justin talk 16:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

OMG, I've just read this n all, I need to take my nose out of the cold war and pay more attention to what's happening now! I knew Joint Force Harrier was a pretty silly idea, but I assumed the RAF Harriers were at least attempting to do air defence. No offence to you, but it seems SAM operators always believe their own bullshit. So is this new Aster missile meant to act as a CIWS as well then? Ryan4314 (talk) 16:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Its utter madness, defence in depth involved Sea Harrier on CAP directed by AEW Sea King, Outer layer of Sea Dart, Inner Layer of Sea Wolf and CIWS as the final layer. Now the first opportunity to engage will probably be Sea Wolf or Aster as a sea skimmer comes over the horizon and thats it. Shit happens, computers crash at inopportune moments and the lunacy of the Type 45 is the command system runs under Windows XP - a blue screen of death could be literal. Justin talk 19:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

LOL yes I'd heard that "PAAMS" uses Windows, before you know it they'll be using [[wiki syntax]]! Do the GR9s even carry Amraam or Sidewinder? Speaking of AEW, are we getting AEW planes with these new huge carriers, or still relying on Sea Kings. Ryan4314 (talk) 21:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

There is supposed to be an AEW capability but as the carriers have a ski jump we can't use the E2 Hawkeye. Current favourite is likely to be a Merlin based derivative of the Sea King AEW but a tilt rotor solution based on the V-22 Osprey was mooted. Justin talk 22:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I didn't realise they had a ski-jump, can the F-35's do a short take off then? Ryan4314 (talk) 22:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes it can, main operational mode will be STOVL as per the Sea Harrier. Justin talk 09:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

O rly, I was under the impression these were super carriers like the American ones. Ryan4314 (talk) 16:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Provision for but not fitted with catapults - another cost cutting measure. Ho hum. We're being the F-35B STOVL version, along with the USMC. Justin talk 16:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

These cost cutting measures seem awfully planned out. In regards to the F-35B, we've invested all this money in a "stealth" plane with internal weapon systems, only to then have whacking great big gun pods stuck on the carrier versions. Also I heard something about our Eurofighters not having cannons, but lumps of concrete instead??? Ryan4314 (talk) 18:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Eurofighter will have a cannon as it would be too expensive to rewrite the aircraft flight control software for the revised mass characteristics but they won't buy any ammunition. Justin talk 23:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

LOL that was it, and the concrete makes up the weight of the would-be bullets

Welcome to the world Ryan. Procurement takes a long time and a lot of horse trading. Cash is king and we end up compromising on military capability just so that the gimps in Treasury can balance the books in the short term, regardless of the fact that most of the compromise ends up costing more in the medium to long term.

T45 is a nice looking empty shell with a very good radar and a pretty good combat system. CVF is not a competent replacement for the CVS.

ALR (talk) 08:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

LOL stop it! I keep imagining Russian marines running across my garden. ;) ALR I've also posted something interesting about blinding lasers on Justin's talk page that you might be able to help us with. Ryan4314 (talk) 13:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Text of Sea Wolf missile by User:Hammersfan 1, needs merging into main article:

"Sea Wolf is an advanced point defence missile in service aboard general purpose frigates of the Royal Navy. The weapon is 1.9m long and weighs 82kg, including a 13.4kg warhead. In the Royal Navy, it is used in two versions; on the Type 22 frigate, it is carried in two 6-cell launchers that are set at about 20 degrees above horizontal, giving a range of approximately 6.5km; on the Type 23 frigate, it is carried in a 32-cell vertical launch system, which increases the missile's range to approximately 10km. The weapon is used to defend against both aircraft and anti-ship missiles. To this end, the entire system (tracking radars, fire control computers, missiles) are all completely automated."

David Newton 15:31, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Falklands Kills

• "Modern Combat Ships 4: Type 22" Leo Marriot, 1986 - Brilliant 2 confirmed, 1 possible. Broadsword 4 claims
• "Royal Navy Frigates 1945-1983" Leo Marriot, 1983 - Brilliant 2 confirmed, 1 possible. Broadsword 3 claims
• "BATTLE ATLAS of the FALKLANDS WAR 1982, by Land, Sea, Air" Gordon Smith, 2006 (on http://www.naval-history.net/F64argaircraftlost.htm]) - Brilliant 2 confirmed, 1 possible. Broadsword 2 claims;
  • Wednesday 12th May - Two A-4B Skyhawks of FAA Grupo 5 shot down off Stanley by Sea Wolf fired by HMS Brilliant and third aircraft hit sea trying to evade missile (1.45 pm). All three pilots, Lt Bustos, Lt Ibarlucea and Lt Nivoli killed.
  • Friday 21st May - Dagger A of FAA Grupo 6 shot down near Fanning Head by Sea Cat fired by HMS Argonaut or Plymouth, or more likely Sea Wolf from HMS Broadsword (10.30 am). Lt Bean killed.
  • Sunday 23rd May - A-4B Skyhawk of FAA Grupo 5 shot down over San Carlos Water by unknown SAM (1.50 pm). Claims that day include "Broadsword" Sea Wolf, "Antelope" Sea Cat, and land-based Rapiers and Blowpipe. Lt Guadagnini killed.

These sources all indicate 2 confirmed kills, and at least 3 further possibles. I have therefore changed the text in the article to indicate this. Emoscopes ^Talk 13:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

seawolf missle

ive always had the opinion that the seawolf was a good short range defence missle and most sources say that it is good at its job. however i have recently bought a book called "Lions,donkeys and dinosaurs" by lewis page which says that sea wolf isnt that good and thats why were the only country that uses it. like i said every other information ive read about it says its a good missle thats effective at its job. in the book as well he critises both army and raf expediture even though he was a royal navy officer who served on the minesweepers so does he really have the expertise to critise these things that he wasnt invovled in also he left the RN and never served on frigates and destroyers which he also sees as a waste of money.Corustar 15:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

If he thinks frigates and destroyers are a waste of money why does he care about a whether a short range missile which is used from frigates and destroyers is any good or not? Sounds like a real genius. BTW according to the article there are at least two foreign users, I don't have any info as to whether that is correct or not. Riddley 11:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

its an interesting read but it is biased. he was a minesweeper and when it comes to talking about the navy he doesnt mention these in his views or the patrol boats. also theres no mention of LCS or other small ship escourts. hes got some interesting views on both how many brass there are in the forces "enough colonels to make a battalion" and BAE. hes also talks about getting rid of the RAF and having it as a part of both the army and the navy without the seperate service which is interesting but would never happen.Corustar 18:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

"Citation Needed": In the 'Combat Performance' section?

In the text, it notes that HMS Coventry turned in front of HMS Broadsword just as the latters Seawolf missile system computed a 'solution' on the oncoming Argentine aircraft, thus forcing the ship not to fire the missile system.

Citation needed? This is mentioned in the Book 'Battle For The Falklands' by Max Hastings & Simon Jenkings. Pan Books, 1983. p259. Coventry was fatally damaged due to the above engagment and sank.

Would this be acceptable as a source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.43.176 (talk) 22:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes Ryan4314 (talk) 16:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

My understanding was that a tracking fault was discovered in the Sea Wolf system early in the Falklands conflict. When presented with (say) two targets, Sea Wolf would compromise between them rather than select a single target. Technicians were flown to the South Atlantic in order to apply minor corrections. --Vvmodel (talk) 15:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Have got a source for that because it sounds like urban legend or Hollywood to me. Track confusion can be a problem but its not a unique problem to Sea Wolf. Justin talk 11:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I heard a bloke say something similar to this in "Sea of Fire", I'll have to watch it on YouTube again. Ryan4314 (talk) 14:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

IIRC, Coventry swung in front of Broadsword physically coming between the missile and target, thus the missile refused to fire, as Coventry was in the way. The attacking aircraft were at low-level and therefore behind Coventry from Broadsword's point-of-view at the time.

A 1976 Flight article on "Seawolf" (one word) here: [1]

Originally a 'hittile'?

I distinctly recall that at the time of the Falklands conflict the Sea Wolf was described in the media as a 'hittile', i.e. a missile weapon that relies on precisely hitting the target, and not on a proximity fuse. This seems to be borne out by an article from 1982, which states that 'Rapier [a land-based missile] and Sea Wolf are impact-only missiles' https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1982/1982%20-%201899.PDF But the present Wikipedia article states that the Sea Wolf has a proximity fuse. Is this correct, and if so was the missile modified after the Falklands experience? The Rapier was certainly modified in this way, because in the heat of battle for various reasons it tended to miss the target, which made it about as much use as a chocolate teapot. There was also much concern about the performance of Sea Wolf as a close-defence system, and the Royal Navy hastily equipped its ships with the American Vulcan Phalanx Gatling gun.109.150.6.198 (talk) 18:05, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

The Royal Navy's guided weapons systems of the time were designed for defending NATO convoys from North America while in the open ocean of the North Atlantic, not defending ships within the narrow confines of small harbours and inlets where hills and other ground clutter get in the way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.50.176 (talk) 18:59, 16 September 2018 (UTC)