I could see having both on larger, higher value platforms It is used in exactly that way on the USN Wasp and Tarawa amphibious assault ships Steve

RAM is absolutely a Close-In-Weapon-System. In fact, Phalanx was originally intended only as a interim system, pending the development of RAM. As it turned out RAM was late (VERY late) and Phalanx ended up far more widely deployed than was ever intended.

RAM has the advantage over Sea Wolfe in being a fire and forget missile. In the 21 shot RAM launcher targetting comes from ESM/EW systems with the primary sensorbeing Phlanx radar in doubled range mode. Sea RAM has its own Phlanx on mount radar. Sea Wolfe requires seperate directors for each target, typically only two directors are provided so RAM/SeaRAM would be more effective against a mass or stream assault than Sea Wolfe. Meanwhile the ADSAM (Air Directed Surface to Air)concept has been of some interest to the USN. Here a Hawkeye radar plane would provide initial launch and midcourse guidance to a Standard and terminal illumination with an X band illluminator nose mounted. Standard 6 will have ADSAM concept incorporaated possibly with RN arguement against long range SAMs in the waste basket if they buy AEW V-22s with nose tracking/illuminator radar.

SeaRAM and Sea Wolf are very different systems, as you allude to but don't seem to appreciate. One is a CIWS and the other is a point defence system (a layer outwards). Sorry to be a pedant, but I'm always suspicious of people's opinions when they include typos and incorrect names - no E on the end of Sea Wolf please; whilst RAM is the missile itself, the system is SeaRAM. You could well be right on this, but I was of the idea that the SeaRAM mount had significantly less than 21 rounds. Sea Wolf can engage more than 2 targets at any one time. It is not a semi-active radar homing system, but rather an automatic command to line of sight system. (Happy to explain the basics - I'm not an engineer! - if you want.) The number it can engage is classified, but we're talking double figures. Also, the Sea Wolf missile, especially in VLS iteration, has greater range than the RAM missile, a factor in it being a different layer system, together with the 909 director being superior in range to the Phalanx radar (obvious due to it being a top-of-superstructure stand alone radar v a top-of-weapon radar..

Sea Wolf is limited to the simultaneous engagement of just one target per director (and two missiles per target) but this is not necessarily a strike against it vis-a-vis RAM. RAM Block I can only engage radiating targets while Block II is limited to a small onboard disposable IR seeker. Sea Wolf can depend on much smarter optics and electronics for target designation and terminal engagement. As for SeaRAM, the effective range of its search radar is so low it actually reduces the effective engagement range for the weapon. SeaRAM is also limited in that it has no TWS mode and can only track one target at a time. I would disagree with HorribleSailor though in that Sea Wolf is very much a ship self-defense system, just like RAM.

'Sea Wolf is limited to the simultaneous engagement of just one target per director (and two missiles per target)' No it's not. So far as my information goes. Which is classified. Damn, I sound like french stratege! I think the point can be partially proved by re-stating that Sea Wolf is an ACLOS system, however, which works very differently from the single director illumination that fitz talks about. A point defence system is also a self-defence system in a similar way to a close-in-weapon-system, with the difference being a CIWS is 'last chance saloon' whereas point-defence is 'take incomming out before it gets to last chance saloon'..

If an attacking force is large enough to be a risk to saturate a TFs defenses, it's probably going to have enough to go after an airborne radar platform, too. A Hawkeye is a high value target in itself, worth diverting some of the strike package to take out, and vulnerable to longish range, high speed antiradiation weapons.

Sea Wolf requires positive guidance from the firing ship all the way to the target. That requires the EO tracker (using either the radar or a TV camera) to follow both the target and the missile from launch all the way to intercept. When launched the missile is gathered into the tracking beam of the director and command-guided up the beam until intercepting the target. That's how SACLOS works. It is very much like semi-active in that it does hog a director for the entire engagement. Are you sure your not confusing the number of targets the system can track with how many it can simultaneously engage? Missiles like SM-2 can engage more targets than the ship had directors by time-sharing. The missiles are steered by auto-pilot near the area where the target is expected, the illuminator painting the target only in the terminal phase. For a very short range missile like Sea Wolf there is little point in having such an autopilot.

No, I'm not confusing the tracking capabilities with the engagement capabilities. Each target does not hog the director, the director tracks multiple targets and the ships fire control computers are capable of command guiding mutiple missiles at one time to those multiple targets..

Horrible sailor - there are two types of launcher for the RAM. The first is a 21 cell launcher - fitted to USN vessels such as some Spruance destroyers, Tarawa and Wasp amphibs for example and some German warships. A smaller launcher (I think with 11 missiles???) has been delevloped that can be fitted into the esting Phalanx mounts. It's this latter system that was tried out by the RN in a Type 42. Not aware that anyone actually has this version in active service yet - stand to be corrected on that one. Steve