UK Defence Forum

News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.

RN anti-ship missiles

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2082
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15

RN anti-ship missiles

Postby abc123 » 16 Sep 2017, 15:44

So, it seems that the RN will retain their Harpoon missiles post 2018, at least until 2020, and maybe even longer.

http://www.janes.com/article/74044/dsei ... retirement

A little bit of reason... :o

So, a thread for all future RN surface ship-launched ( Sub-Harpoons are retired long ago :? :( ) anti-ship missiles...
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 1840
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
Location: United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby dmereifield » 16 Sep 2017, 17:28

Some good news for a change....

Aethulwulf
Member
Posts: 827
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby Aethulwulf » 16 Sep 2017, 18:04

I suspect the RN will try to keep them in service long enough until it is clear which system the US is going to pick to their replace their Harpoons.

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2082
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby abc123 » 16 Sep 2017, 18:16

dmereifield wrote:Some good news for a change....


Indeed.
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

Little J
Member
Posts: 549
Joined: 02 May 2015, 14:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby Little J » 16 Sep 2017, 20:08

Went to museum at RAF Cosford the other day, it was a little embarrassing walking around the missiles on display - with their info sheets claiming still in service... Last update 2006!

Opinion3
Member
Posts: 344
Joined: 06 May 2015, 23:01

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby Opinion3 » 16 Sep 2017, 21:27

In some ways I thought our missile strategy was fairly sensible ............ until you consider actual integration of weapons and timings

User avatar
Halidon
Member
Posts: 491
Joined: 12 May 2015, 01:34
Location: United States of America

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby Halidon » 16 Sep 2017, 22:16

Aethulwulf wrote:I suspect the RN will try to keep them in service long enough until it is clear which system the US is going to pick to their replace their Harpoons.

Heh, at this point it I'd be pretty surprised if the long-term Harpoon replacement is settled by 2020-ish. But "interim" solutions sometimes end up sticking around a long time and this would place the RN in good position to tack orders onto a program like LRASM.

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3490
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby Ron5 » 17 Sep 2017, 00:30

It will be an MBDA missile. Isn't that what the complex weapons deal is all about?

Timmymagic
Senior Member
Posts: 1239
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Location: United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby Timmymagic » 17 Sep 2017, 01:11

Ron5 wrote:It will be an MBDA missile. Isn't that what the complex weapons deal is all about?


In theory yes, but Perseus is little more than a research effort at the moment (one that I hope would continue) and isn't planned to deliver anything until 2030. But its worth remembering that LRASM won't deliver what we want until 2025 at the earliest either. Given that Harpoon 1C isn't seen as that credible at the moment it would make sense to take the easy course of action and purchase a very limited number of Harpoon II to see us through the 10 year (at best gap). Given the timings and the benefit to the UK I'm no longer in favour of an LRASM buy.

It's the same with the NSM/JSM. It would be perfect if there was a version that combined both sets of characteristics. We could have made a small buy for the shipborne role, before re-roling them to F-35, Typhoon and P-8 when Perseus arrived and restoring another capability that has gone.

Apart from that the field is rather bare. Otomat is cleared for Typhoon but is long in the tooth, as is Exocet and RBS.15 (even with their new versions). XASM-3 would be great, but probably eye wateringly expensive and single role. It's lucky the RN has Sea Venom to look forward to, but if we don't make investments in off-board targeting like UAV's any heavyweight missile is likely to remain unused and unuseable.

In retrospect the decision to not (at least initially) develop Storm Shadow as a multi-platform weapon was a mistake. It would have made a monster of an anti ship missile, if it had retained land attack capability it would have been a massive capability increase.

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1733
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby Repulse » 17 Sep 2017, 08:17

Interesting that the article explicitly mentioned the T23, not the T45 (maybe behind the paywall?). Makes sense not to spend the cash on the T23 if all efforts are focused on getting rid of them, but unless the RN is sticking to its single role AAW/ASW ship (that's gotta change?) then maybe the T45s will get the MK41 VLS?
"For get this quite clear, every time we have to decide between Europe and the open sea, it is always the open sea we shall choose." - Winston Churchill

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 17 Sep 2017, 08:18

Halidon wrote:settled by 2020-ish.


Settled yes, but not introduced. In the meanwhile we can give Spear(3) the JSM treatment, i.e. a VLS version?

Opinion3
Member
Posts: 344
Joined: 06 May 2015, 23:01

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby Opinion3 » 17 Sep 2017, 08:43

This use of gapping does appear to be very high risk. Integration, and ensuring that someone is prepared to sell you the desperately needed weapons at short notice ........ are these in hand do you think?

indeid
Member
Posts: 270
Joined: 21 May 2015, 20:46

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby indeid » 17 Sep 2017, 08:52

Repulse wrote:Interesting that the article explicitly mentioned the T23, not the T45 (maybe behind the paywall?). Makes sense not to spend the cash on the T23 if all efforts are focused on getting rid of them, but unless the RN is sticking to its single role AAW/ASW ship (that's gotta change?) then maybe the T45s will get the MK41 VLS?


I can't see the money being available for anything but maintaining existing capability of T45 in terms of AAW. If we are also looking at the escort fleet literally being that, escorts in a Carrier Battle Group, I think I'd want the limited numbers of T45 to stick to AAW. Look to BMD if cash can be scrapped together for any improvements.

AAW is challenging enough, and needs certain positioning tactics which often take you away from ASW/ASuW requirements. Let the T26 take care of those battles.

Ideally I agree, you'd want everything multi role, I'm just not sure we can do that. Just making sure the missions are covered seems to be a stretch at the moment!

james k
Member
Posts: 357
Joined: 31 Aug 2017, 16:51
Location: United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby james k » 17 Sep 2017, 09:50

The RN managed to get something past the accountants at the Treasury? I'm both surprised and pleased. That doesn't happen often.

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1733
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby Repulse » 17 Sep 2017, 09:56

james k wrote:The RN managed to get something past the accountants at the Treasury? I'm both surprised and pleased. That doesn't happen often.


What did it cost? A lower T31e budget or a few F35Bs...
"For get this quite clear, every time we have to decide between Europe and the open sea, it is always the open sea we shall choose." - Winston Churchill

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 17 Sep 2017, 10:05

Repulse wrote:What did it cost?

May be someone just noted down the expiry dates and they go out in that order? I.e cost nothing

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 17 Sep 2017, 10:08

Sea Venom has only just been accepted; a few years' bridge to building up sufficient stock?

Though the SV is for littoral and Harpoon for clear high seas, but there is some cross over (too many total holidays lately)

indeid
Member
Posts: 270
Joined: 21 May 2015, 20:46

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby indeid » 17 Sep 2017, 10:12

james k wrote:The RN managed to get something past the accountants at the Treasury? I'm both surprised and pleased. That doesn't happen often.


If it's just a funding extending support contracts and any training then chances are come from within the RN delegated budget. Maybe they ran a sponsored bake at NCHQ.

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4599
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Location: United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby marktigger » 17 Sep 2017, 14:05

Martlet or LMM on a ds30 mount could add capability to some vessels for close in defence

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3051
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby Lord Jim » 17 Sep 2017, 15:41

I cannot see a replacement for Harpoon entering service until the first T-26 enters service. Keeping a limited number of Harpoon available until then should not break the bank, we only need a maximum of 48 available for the number of ships available at any one time. We could probably borrow that from the USN of other NATO countries though we might need the odd software upgrade to operate the more recent versions.

james k
Member
Posts: 357
Joined: 31 Aug 2017, 16:51
Location: United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby james k » 17 Sep 2017, 16:44

It could have cost a few expensive arm chairs, not replacing office furniture that is still perfectly good, perhaps the shelving units in the store may need to last a bit longer. How about SHAEF? perhaps each establishment will have to make do with just one Health & Safety & Fire committee rather than two or three. Perhaps instead of printing and reprinting standing orders, H&S and other nonsense for every building on every establishment they can place it on Dii, that alone would save more than a a few quid. How about big savings and get rid of the CIS geek, that every establishment has, who believes that the whole defence budget is there simply for him to buy new kit and experiment with? Don't get me started on Joint Defence Industry and Military Trials Teams, there just a financial black hole. Perhaps those things are where the cash can be saved?

Repulse wrote:
james k wrote:The RN managed to get something past the accountants at the Treasury? I'm both surprised and pleased. That doesn't happen often.


What did it cost? A lower T31e budget or a few F35Bs...

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4599
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Location: United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby marktigger » 17 Sep 2017, 17:13

how adaptable would systems like Javelin or Gil Spike be to counter swarm type attacks?

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3490
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby Ron5 » 17 Sep 2017, 18:18

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Sea Venom has only just been accepted; a few years' bridge to building up sufficient stock?


Don't think so. Still a few years away.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 17 Sep 2017, 20:24

Ron5 wrote:
ArmChairCivvy wrote:Sea Venom has only just been accepted; a few years' bridge to building up sufficient stock?


Don't think so. Still a few years away.


IOC 2019
vs.
senior RN sources told Jane’s the sea-skimming GWS 60/Harpoon Block 1C missiles would remain in service at least until 2020. “There is work ongoing to look at options for longer extension "
= is that longer extension (option; at what extra cost) just for insurance?

A year in between the two dates sounds like building a reasonable stockpile, rather than just having a couple for show

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3490
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby Ron5 » 18 Sep 2017, 00:37

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Ron5 wrote:
ArmChairCivvy wrote:Sea Venom has only just been accepted; a few years' bridge to building up sufficient stock?


Don't think so. Still a few years away.


IOC 2019
vs.
senior RN sources told Jane’s the sea-skimming GWS 60/Harpoon Block 1C missiles would remain in service at least until 2020. “There is work ongoing to look at options for longer extension "
= is that longer extension (option; at what extra cost) just for insurance?

A year in between the two dates sounds like building a reasonable stockpile, rather than just having a couple for show


I was commenting on your assertion that Sea Venom had been accepted into service. I don't think it has.


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests