How? The ships computers don't command guide the missiles, the tracker/director does. The tracker itself has a limited field of view (particularly if using the TV camera for target tracking) and only one J-band guidance beam. What you suggest is only plausible if the targets are flying in very close proximity to each other on almost the same bearing, or if Sea Wolf has an autopilot. Given the missiles very short range and the fact that the existence of an autopilot has never been published, nor is there any evidence of the shipboard antenna's needed to update the autopilot this latter option seems unlikely. Part of the attraction of PAAMS is the fact that it can engage a large number of targets simultaneously, unlike existing RN air defense systems because the missiles are guided by updatable autopilot to a point near the target before the missile lights up its own active radar.

The 11-round launcher on the Mk 15 Phalanx mount is SeaRAM. IT is teh only fully autonomous version. All other versions are just called RAM and require integration with a ships combat system or fire control system for target designation.

Whilst the attraction of PAAMS is that it provides a huge leap in area air defence capability over the Sa Dart system, which is only capable of engaging as many targets as it has directors symultaneously, the Sea Wolf system can already do this. Not as many as the PAAMs system, and only as a point defence due to the short range of the missiles, but it can. Oh, and short ranged yes, I wouldn't say 'very' short ranged, although everything is relative. 10 miles, though, is an order of magnitude different from the mile or two offered by most close-in-weapon-systems. I'll admit I'm not an engineer, so I'll apologise where I'm not very good at explaining the mechanics of something I only know works, not how, but I don't see why a system where fire control computers see multiple targets and the missile is not dependent upon homing in on radar reflection / riding a beam can't be made to engage those multiple targets..

I get my data from Naval Institute Guide to World Naval Weapons Systems 97-98. Sorry about typos, I was in a hurry as the library was soon closing. I was under impression Sea Wolf needed seperate directors for each target. The RAM launcher has 21 rounds and is fire and forget, the Sea RAM launcher has 11 rounds. RAM range is 5 nm.

But Sea Wolf is a beam rider, just like any CLOS system - it depends on some sort of positive guidance from the launch platform or an associated target designator. TOW uses a wire. RBS-70 uses a laser beam, Sea Wolf uses a J-band radar set to a specific frequency. Each director has one J-band radar and each director uses a slightly different frequency so that they can each engage a target without fouling the other. Lets examine GWS26, the system in the Type 23's. Guidance for Sea Wolf is Command to Line of Sight. The target is designated either by Type 996 search/TI radar or ESM, then the Type 911 director is slewed to the target bearing. Type 911 contains a X (I)-band tracking radar on the left which acquires and tracks the target. The older Type 910 director could use a coaxially mounted TV camera as an alternative tracker but 911 omits this. On the right is a dish that tracks the Sea Wolf missiles via J-band radar and transmits commands to the weapon for course updates. Again Type 910 could track Sea Wolf visually with another TV differential tracker but this is omitted in Type 911. After lauch the Sea Wolf missile is gathered into the tracking beam and command-guided up that beam until intercepting the target. As described in "World Naval Weapon Systems", 1989 edition: " A ship carries one radar per missile launcher, so that (for example) a Type 22 frigate has two engagement channels. ...individual trackers operate in different frequencies, so that a ship can guide two missiles independently toward the same (or alternative) targets simultaneously. Missile launch is entirely automatic (subject to operator veto), the weapon system ranking and engaging threats in turn. GWS27 on the other hand would have given the kind of performance you describe. This version would have increased the range (from 5km in container and 7.5-8km in VLS versions) to more than 10km and would have used an ACTIVE SEEKER and command-guidance with mid-course updates and inertial autopilot to engage multiple targets simultaneously. GWS27 however, was cancelled in 1986. BAe did propose in the late 1980's a system called Missile Reference Command to Line of Sight (MRCLOS) which added an intertial reference unit to the missile, thus reducing the number of guidance commands required from the tracker/director. This however, was intended for a land-based ABM version of the system with active seeker, not the ship-launched Sea Wolf. While it would be possible to engage multiple (more than 2) targets with Sea Wolf , the limitations of the guidance system limit the conditions under which that can be done to those I described earlier. In other words, truly low-rent and not very practical. PS ADIMP upgraded Sea Dart platforms can time-share directors because when the missiles were overhauled 6 circuit boards were replaced by one, thus making space for a commandable autopilot. This gives Sea Dart similar capabilities to SM-2. Range is doubled, missiles can be fired before a target is acquired, targets can be changed mid-flight etc...

fitz: The range you quote of 5km for sextuple Sea Wolf and 7-8km for VLS Sea Wolf is incorrect, insofar as the engagement range taught in Royal Naval basic training is repsectively about 6 and 10 miles. While I'm suitably impressed by the technical points you make, that so many of the specifications published differ from the real world specifications does put an element of doubt into my mind. My claim for double figure simultaneous engagements were given to me in conversation with a Royal Naval air warfare officer, thus the credence I give to them..

But double-figure simultaneous engagements are incompatible with Sea Wolf's guidance system. Hence the problem. PS I'm not surprised they teach engagement ranges greater than the range of the missile, that range is going to close significantly before the two weapons meet.

No, they teach that as the range of the missiles..

So they teach that a rather compact missile with a published range of 4.5 miles really has a range of 10 miles? And they also teach that short-ranged and dumb missile with no on-board navigation system or target seeking that relies on Command-to-Line-Of-Sight guidance can engage a dozen or more targets SIMULTANEOUSLY in spite of the firing ship having only 2 Command channels as well? Where was this again and did you actually attend these courses? You see, I've asked people who were career officers in the RN and none of them agree with your story.

The technicalities of such weapons systems are not my particular area of expertise, my job being to design the ship around them which involved both the Type 22 (B3) and Type 23‘s as well as the F2000… However here are some pretty comprehensive roundups of their capabilities offered by the RN and MBDA: http://www.mbda.net/site/FO/scripts/siteFO_contenu.php?lang=EN&noeu_id=96 http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/1989.html Will the Block two upgrade afford the capabilities HS is referring to? Maybe that’s where you are at crossed purposes. The Type 23’s do have two Type 911 fire control radars at the moment which will be extensively upgraded in the mid life upgrade as well as the addition of IR tracking modes…