RN anti-ship missiles

[Pseudo]

“Stealth” isn’t binary, people.

That's pretty much my point. If the only thing compromising the aircraft's stealth characteristics are the pylons the weapons are held on and not the weapons themselves, then how much have the aircraft's stealth characteristics really been compromised?

[Ron5]

ASW Merlins will be on the carriers or on a T26. The need for them to carry antiship missiles is a big fat zero.

As for JSM and NSM, two different missiles that folks are discussing as if they were the same. They are not.

[Lord Jim]

Yep, as an interim lets have five set of NSM for the T-23 then T-31 and say forty eight LRASM for the T-26 allowing for four sets of eight to be installed routinely, with two sets in reserve ashore.

[Timmymagic]

Kongsberg only claim >100nm range for 917 lbs JSM and if carried externally on F-35B will seriously degrade its stealth capabilities.

That's a Lo-Lo-Lo flight profile. Hi-Hi-Lo is 300 miles. At those ranges it doesn't really matter about increasing your RCS marginally, you're either below their radar horizon down low or you're outside of their weapons engagement range.

Have not seen any mention of USAF, Marines or Navy integrating LRASM with F-35.

Integration with F-35 and P-8 has now been confirmed, its expected to be operational around 2027.

I'm probably thinking about this too simplistically, but isn't JSM a low-RCS missile in which case you're mostly talking about to pylons being the main thing compromising the stealth characteristics?

Yes in the main. But a 'stealthy' missile hanging on a stealthy pylon on a stealthy aircraft could actually give a large radar return based on the interaction between the missile and airframe's RCS if you were unlucky.

[RichardIC]

Yep, as an interim lets have five set of NSM for the T-23 then T-31 and say forty eight LRASM for the T-26 allowing for four sets of eight to be installed routinely, with two sets in reserve ashore.

That would make the RN the only user of LRASM as a ship-launched system. Is it still in active development by Boeing? How much developmental costs would the the UK need to pick up? When would it be ready for deployment?

[Timmymagic]

Yep, as an interim lets have five set of NSM for the T-23 then T-31 and say forty eight LRASM for the T-26 allowing for four sets of eight to be installed routinely, with two sets in reserve ashore.

That would make the RN the only user of LRASM as a ship-launched system. Is it still in active development by Boeing? How much developmental costs would the the UK need to pick up? When would it be ready for deployment?

There are no users of LRASM at sea, because its not completed its trials yet. Essentially its not for sale yet.

But we shouldn't buy LRASM for 1 very good reason. It won't be available for the UK until 2028. Thats far too close to FC/ASW. Buying it would encourage someone to cancel that programme.

[NickC]

Yep, as an interim lets have five set of NSM for the T-23 then T-31 and say forty eight LRASM for the T-26 allowing for four sets of eight to be installed routinely, with two sets in reserve ashore.

That would make the RN the only user of LRASM as a ship-launched system. Is it still in active development by Boeing? How much developmental costs would the the UK need to pick up? When would it be ready for deployment?

There are no users of LRASM at sea, because its not completed its trials yet. Essentially its not for sale yet.

But we shouldn't buy LRASM for 1 very good reason. It won't be available for the UK until 2028. Thats far too close to FC/ASW. Buying it would encourage someone to cancel that programme.

As understand USN has no plan to install LRASM on ships. Its a Lockheed missile, not Boeing, and the company funded a launch from a Mk41 VLS cell with a Mk114 booster as used on ASROC back in 2013.

USN is funding the subsonic non-stealthy Tomahawk Block V Maritime Strike Tomahawk (MST), with its new seeker able to hit moving maritime targets using assistance of mid course guidance from third parties eg satellites, planned IOC 2023, one big advantage of Tomahawk over the LRASM is its much cheaper.

The LRASM lost the USN contract to equip LCS with AShMs, the NSM is more than two an a half times lighter than a LRASM, both LCS classes have very, very limited weapons payload capability, as a consequence the new USN Constellation class frigates will also fit the NSM

Not to say if RN ponied up the cash Lockheed would qualify ship launched LRASM either from deck launchers or Mk41 VLS cells, thinking of how RN funded the first BAE Inc Mk45 5" with new automated loading magazine for the T26.

USS Chafee (DDG 90) 1st December launches first operational test of the Tomahawk Block V

[Lord Jim]

Issue is FCASW could end up being more expensive than the LRASW.

[Pseudo]

Issue is FCASW could end up being more expensive than the LRASW.

Assuming that FC/ASW is a high-supersonic/low-hypersonic missile then I'd expect that it will be.

[Jensy]

I feel we need to prioritise the 'interim' nature of this programme with a focus on affordability, fast entry to service and strengthening partnerships with our peer allies. Looking to NSM, Exocet and RBS-15 (depending on whether we can get it quick enough). Stick it on our GP frigates and possibly T45.

Otherwise we should kill off the FC/ASW before we get into the more expensive phases and risk another failed Anglo-French defence industry romance.

We are set to be the only country that operates both the MK41 and Sylver VLS. Curiously both can be adapted to fire Sea Ceptor but we've chosen MBDA's modified Sea Wolf tubes for T26/31 instead.

At present we have nothing to fire from MK41 that requires such long tubes, and T45 is fitted with the mid-size A50 Sylver cells, meaning it can't take SCALP/Storm Shadow (and possibly other future AAW/ABM Aster derivatives). No doubt there are many perfectly acceptable justifications for this state of affairs, especially the need to make Type 26 'export friendly', however it's the Navy paying the price of a wasted capability and the rest of us funding it.

Were it possible, I'd rather double down on Sylver for everything and lock into joint programmes with the MBDA gang moving forward. Something like:

T45 - 16x A70 + Existing 48x A50
T31 - 16-32x A50
T26 - 24x A70 + 24-32x A50

Limited buys of Exocet for T45/31 and SCALP for T26 in the meantime and (inspired by the S.Korean ASRoc equivalent), perhaps even integrate that fancy new BAE torpedo concept with a modified Aster 30 booster and try to sell it to France and Italy...

However, I really can't see an easy way out from where we are, either unless we replace MK41 on T26, or wait till T45 OSD.

[Ron5]

Sylver was a mistake by the RN. An expensive system with very small number of missiles qualified to use it (that, by the way, does not include Ceptor). Clearly Mk 41 is the way to go for the future. As evidenced by T26.

[donald_of_tokyo]

I feel we need to prioritise the 'interim' nature of this programme with a focus on affordability, fast entry to service and strengthening partnerships with our peer allies. Looking to NSM, Exocet and RBS-15 (depending on whether we can get it quick enough). Stick it on our GP frigates and possibly T45.

Otherwise we should kill off the FC/ASW before we get into the more expensive phases and risk another failed Anglo-French defence industry romance.

Why not Harpoon Blk II+?

Anyway, the "survivability" of FC/ASW program depends on its capability. None of these candidates are super sonic. None of these candidates have "very long range" to beat Stormshadow nor TLAM. If FC/ASW become "similar" to NSM, then it will be a problem.

Personally, I think RN was aiming at "LMM", "SeaVenom" and "FC/ASW" combo. In this case, FC/ASW is similar to TLAM with anti-ship mode. As such, I think the most reasonable interim ASM is Harpoon blk II+, because it will not break the initial aim.

But, FC/ASW will only "finish development" around 2030, and RN will need until ~2040 to mount the final-set of systems onboard their escorts (see how slowly LRASM is going on). Thus, introducing at least 14-sets of interim ASM, say, NSM, RBS-15 or Harpoon blk II+, will be "good".

Say, initially for 8 T23s and 6 T45s and then 8 T26 and 6 T45.
And after FC/ASW introduction into T26, ship them on T31/32s.

If it be NSM/Harpoon blk II+, overlap with FC/ASW is minimal.

Were it possible, I'd rather double down on Sylver for everything and lock into joint programmes with the MBDA gang moving forward. Something like:....

I prefer Mk.41.

[NickC]

My concern about Harpoon is that it has been sold widely around world, eg 2016 Egyptian 2016 contract for Block IIs, and assume nearly all navies eg Russia has close ties with Egypt, now have the intel/knowledge and necessary EW kit to jam Harpoon's RF seeker.

[SD67]

I’d bet on JSM, box launched. Modern available now and too small to pose a threat to FCASW.

If FCASW is being touted as a Storm Shadow / Scalp replacement then it’s probably too big to fit on T31/T32, hence on that platform at least this won’t be an interim purchase.

T26 mk41 silos could carry a mix of TLAM and an ASROC type system.

[SD67]

We are set to be the only country that operates both the MK41 and Sylver VLS. Curiously both can be adapted to fire Sea Ceptor but we've chosen MBDA's modified Sea Wolf tubes for T26/31 instead.

At present we have nothing to fire from MK41 that requires such long tubes, and T45 is fitted with the mid-size A50 Sylver cells, meaning it can't take SCALP/Storm Shadow (and possibly other future AAW/ABM Aster derivatives).

Were it possible, I'd rather double down on Sylver for everything and lock into joint programmes with the MBDA gang moving forward. Something like:

T45 - 16x A70 + Existing 48x A50
T31 - 16-32x A50
T26 - 24x A70 + 24-32x A50

Limited buys of Exocet for T45/31 and SCALP for T26 in the meantime and (inspired by the S.Korean ASRoc equivalent), perhaps even integrate that fancy new BAE torpedo concept with a modified Aster 30 booster and try to sell it to France and Italy...

However, I really can't see an easy way out from where we are, either unless we replace MK41 on T26, or wait till T45 OSD.

Sylver is a dead end, even in Europe. It’s only France and (for now) Italy. Germany and Spain both build around mk41. MBDA future products will all be Mk41 compatible. In terms of what will T26 ship in their silos well ideally TLAM and ASROC, IMHO

[Jensy]

I see my Sylver appreciation post went down like a lead balloon! All good points made but still no silver bullet to solve our triple VLS conundrum.

Sylver was a mistake by the RN.

I don't dispute that at all. When the UK left the Horizon programme, we should have probably ditched the Sylver aspect of PAAMS too and either integrated Aster with MK41 or gone with a different missile. However we are where we are.

Also fair point on Sea Ceptor, should have specified that CAMM-ER is being integrated for dual packing in Italian Navy service, rather than the vanilla CAMM.

I prefer Mk.41.

On balance so do I. However I'm unconvinced by the current selection of weapons to fire from it, and doubt that the MoD would be going on a Dollar shopping spree for US made weapons with the current currency exchange rate.

Sylver is a dead end, even in Europe. It’s only France and (for now) Italy. Germany and Spain both build around mk41. MBDA future products will all be Mk41 compatible. In terms of what will T26 ship in their silos well ideally TLAM and ASROC, IMHO

You might well be right but Italy still seems to building an awful lot of ships with Sylver cells (Trieste, PPA and those new AAW destroyers are described as 'Horizon follow ons', which would be surprising to see with MK41). Spain is an Aegis user and Germany is not a navy we should be in any rush to copy.

Either way we're talking about integration with the other two largest navies on our continent whom we share MBDA with. If Sylver 'is' a dead end, we're partially responsible for that state of affairs.

In terms of A43/A50, I'd note that the Saudi and Singapore navies have 128 and 288 192 cells worth respectively, Qatar and Malaysia are joining the club. For better or worse, all four are nations we have close defence ties to.

I've been hearing about Aster integration with MK41 for decades. If it were that easy, surely there would be a business case for MBDA to at least carry out initial trials? As everyone points out, there plenty of MK41 users (at least for the AAW VLS).

TLAM is a great weapon and has been for many decades, how much longer that's going to last against peer adversaries is to be seen. ASROC is also far from new, uses an American made torpedo (I know we're buying them for P-8 but the Poseidons won't be flying off the Type 26 flight deck) and has about half the range of the Korean equivalent I referenced up-pape.

As an aside, I find it interesting that the RoK Navy has gone with their own VLS for firing larger projectiles, as well as MK41. Perhaps there is a need for two standards after all?

[ArmChairCivvy]

In terms of A50, I'd note that the Saudi and Singapore navies have 128 and 288 cells worth respectively, Qatar and Malaysia are joining the club. For better or worse, all four are nations we have close defence ties to.

That's a good collection, and evidence for the fact that RN's presence EoS is supported in those areas of critical SLOCs (and more broadly in the geography) also by more local allies and not just the 'Quad' navies for 'major occasions'.
- so if we stick with 5 'interim' sets of anti-ship missiles and, say, only one of those sets (at a time) will be EoS, it does not mean that the trip wire presence is there only to be sunk on Day 1

[BlueD954]

In terms of A50, I'd note that the Saudi and Singapore navies have 128 and 288 cells worth respectively, Qatar and Malaysia are joining the club. For better or worse, all four are nations we have close defence ties to.

That's a good collection, and evidence for the fact that RN's presence EoS is supported in those areas of critical SLOCs (and more broadly in the geography) also by more local allies and not just the 'Quad' navies for 'major occasions'.
- so if we stick with 5 'interim' sets of anti-ship missiles and, say, only one of those sets (at a time) will be EoS, it does not mean that the trip wire presence is there only to be sunk on Day 1

Singapore navy has 128 cells in total not in one frigate and VLS cells only for ASTER

https://www.mindef.gov.sg/oms/navy/care ... igate.html

[Tempest414]

If the 200 million set aside still stands for I-SSGW then for me I would still go for 10 sets of NSM fitted to Type 45 & type 31 giving both classes a OTH anti ship / land attack capability. Type 45 with 16 of its A-50 VLS fitted for quad packed CAMM and NSM would give it the ability to carry 32 Aster-30NT + 64 CAMM + 8 NSM giving great defences to the carrier group. Plus type 31 fitted with 24 CAMM + 8 NSM allows it to be a good global patrol frigate

[Scimitar54]

How do you propose to fit 10 x sets of NSM to 11 Ships.

[SD67]

Isn’t HMS Daring a Harbour Training ship for the foreseeable future?

[Tempest414]

How do you propose to fit 10 x sets of NSM to 11 Ships.

in any order you wish 6 & 4 or 5 & 5 . We could at a push get 11 sets out of 200 million

[Ron5]

How do you propose to fit 10 x sets of NSM to 11 Ships.

Same as Harpoons: allocated and fitted out of a shared pool when the ship is going on a deployment that needs them. Easy peasy.

[Ron5]

I see my Sylver appreciation post went down like a lead balloon! All good points made but still no silver bullet to solve our triple VLS conundrum.

I'm not sure there's total agreement that there's a "conundrum" in the first place either

[Jensy]

I see my Sylver appreciation post went down like a lead balloon! All good points made but still no silver bullet to solve our triple VLS conundrum.

I'm not sure there's total agreement that there's a "conundrum" in the first place either

Clearly. Perhaps three is a magic number?

I note the the USN has Mk.41, Mk.56 and Mk.57, all with substantial overlap.

Who needs commonality anyhow!