Read the forum code of contact
By: - 24th September 2007 at 21:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What a shame, so much time, money and effort spent on this promising missile to date and now it's gone.
-----JT-----
By: - 27th September 2007 at 00:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
BAMSE always resembled RBS 70 with an additional booster stage, and it is fairly shocking that it has taken this long to get the system deployed - not to mention the hardly unsurprising lack of export sales. There has been a dark cloud over this missile program for years, and only time will tell if there was a significant "technical factor" behind its cancellation, besides the very obvious commercial and political aspects of the failure.
The painfully slow Visby program has done well to survive at all, because despite the low observability facade, this program amounts to little more than a glorified fast attack craft, something that has been very unfashionable since the first Gulf War. The Visby successor program wouldn't have amounted to more than a modern minelayer with a nonsensical "disaster relief" tasking.
By: - 27th September 2007 at 04:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
BAMSE wasn't competitive with systems like SA-15 or SA-22, or HUMRAAM.
It's survivability as a static system questionable.
By: - 27th September 2007 at 12:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I do agree that its a shame about the system, but to be honest, the project was pretty much doomed by being Swedish - i.e. very difficult to export. It is arguable that they would have been better off trying to develop a surface-to-air version of the Meteor. This would have had great export potential, and be a good rival for the SLAMRAAM or whatever they're calling it now... It could have been very attractive for nations like the Czech Republic and Poland as an SA-6 replacement.
By: - 27th September 2007 at 12:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
In terms of Visby, I do like it, despite its shortcomings. It is a very Swedish vessel, being a well armed small ship, packing a good punch, and is basically the ultimate extension of the fast missile boat. It is pretty much restricted in sales chances to people with similar geography to Sweden, such as Baltic nations (might be good for Poland for instance, to replace old Soviet type missile boats), or Singapore. It does pack a lot of punch, and if the cost estimates I saw are accurate, it would be a pretty decent choice for quite a few smaller nations.
By: - 30th September 2007 at 14:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
BAMSE wasn't competitive with systems like SA-15 or SA-22, or HUMRAAM.
It's survivability as a static system questionable.
This may not be a valid comparison. Most of the other missiles mentioned are essentially SHORAD systems. BAMSE was designed to provide air-defence coverage up to much higher altitudes – it has a maximum engagement height of about 50,000 ft. From memory of discussions I had with Swedish engineers early in the programme, it was essentially a replacement for the Raytheon Hawk.
I haven’t seen a reliable maximum engagement height for the SLAMRAAM and NASAM. This may be partly dependant on the quality of the air picture. For many users, an AMRAAM-based solution could well be the best present-day solution to the requirement that BAMSE was designed to meet.
One based on Meteor might have an impressive performance, but MBDA is showing no interest in such a concept. For a while, the company was looking at air-to-ground applications, but for the moment seems to be concentrating its efforts on getting the basic air-to-air version developed and into service.
Mercurius Cantabrigiensis
By: - 1st October 2007 at 20:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What might have been
In terms of Visby, I do like it, despite its shortcomings. It is a very Swedish vessel, being a well armed small ship, packing a good punch, and is basically the ultimate extension of the fast missile boat.
You mean, it COULD be a well-armed vessel – but right now the Visbys have nothing except an inadequate 57-mm/70 gun. They have no air defence missiles, no anti-ship missiles, no land attack missiles, no close-in defences at all – not even a 0.50-cal.
At the moment the Visbys are nothing more than glorified minehunters who would have a tough time escaping a couple of E-boats...or even a tank on a beach.
Until this changes, the Visbys remain a great answer in search of a question.
YS
By: - 2nd October 2007 at 18:56 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You mean, it COULD be a well-armed vessel – but right now the Visbys have nothing except an inadequate 57-mm/70 gun. They have no air defence missiles, no anti-ship missiles, no land attack missiles, no close-in defences at all – not even a 0.50-cal.At the moment the Visbys are nothing more than glorified minehunters who would have a tough time escaping a couple of E-boats...or even a tank on a beach.
Until this changes, the Visbys remain a great answer in search of a question.
YS
Now that the BAMSE is gone (and this was going to be the Visby's SAM) what missiles are being considered for this role?
-----JT-----
By: - 2nd October 2007 at 19:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You mean, it COULD be a well-armed vessel – but right now the Visbys have nothing except an inadequate 57-mm/70 gun. They have no air defence missiles, no anti-ship missiles, no land attack missiles, no close-in defences at all – not even a 0.50-cal.At the moment the Visbys are nothing more than glorified minehunters who would have a tough time escaping a couple of E-boats...or even a tank on a beach.
Until this changes, the Visbys remain a great answer in search of a question.
YS
I had a feeling they had already been fitted with the RBS-15 Mk2, and the Umkhonto had already been picked, though not ordered yet. I do agree that at the moment they have the potential to be well equipped, and reasonably well balanced ships, but may not be there yet.
It is certainly arguable that they are no worse for armament than most minehunters - they have a 57mm gun, and could have .50cals or GPMGs added very quickly. The problem is just the lack of funding to actually fit the necessary weapons, but at least they are being fitted for, but not with, a good fitout.
In some senses, they are actually like a mini Lafayette class! Not too heavily armed, but stealthy, and quite affordable.
By: - 2nd October 2007 at 21:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
In some senses, they are actually like a mini Lafayette class! Not too heavily armed, but stealthy, and quite affordable.
And in their current very lightly armed state, very upgradable.:D
By: - 18th August 2010 at 11:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I need to make a correction to my earlier report.
While doing some research on another topic, I found a story in ‘Jane’s Missiles & Rockets’ for November 2009 that makes it clear that although originally destined to be placed in storage rather than being deployed, BAMSE seems to have been granted a reprieve.
The first BAMSE unit completed its training in December 2008, and a second was due to complete its training by the end of 2009.
By: - 19th August 2010 at 22:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You mean it's actually in service?....
By: - 19th August 2010 at 23:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Never mind, according to this it is in service.
http://www.saabgroup.com/en/Air/Weapon_Systems/Ground_Based_Air_Defence_Missile_Systems/BAMSE_Ground_Based_Missile_System/In_use/
Posts: 1,348
By: Mercurius - 24th September 2007 at 17:30
As part of an a series of austere defence budget measures proposed by the Swedish government on 21 September, the planned deployment next year of the RBS 23 SAM system has been cancelled, and Sweden is expected to pull out of the proposed Multi-Role Combat Missile programme.
According to the story in Jane’s Defence Weekly, other casualties of the cuts include the proposed successor to the Visby class corvettes, and the TMS (torpedo, mine, sensor) modular underwater platform.
There is no mention of any cuts to the Gripen or Meteor programmes.
Mercurius Cantabrigiensis