RN anti-ship missiles

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Lord Jim »

Mind you the interim AShM is only intended to cover the seven year gap from the retirement of the RN's Harpoon Block 1C and the introduction of the planned Anglo/French FC/ASW weapon system, so a small limited buy does actually make sense.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Lord Jim wrote:Mind you the interim AShM is only intended to cover the seven year gap from the retirement of the RN's Harpoon Block 1C and the introduction of the planned Anglo/French FC/ASW weapon system, so a small limited buy does actually make sense.
Uhm, understand your point, but do not think it is a good idea.

1: FCASW missile is PLANNED to enter service in 2030. But, how much will it take to manufacture them, retrofit them on vessels, and be fielded in number?

- If it is "only in VLS", RN will need big modification program on both T45 and T31e. --> more than 10 years will be needed.
- (As I think VLS option is the priority) even if canister option comes in, can it come at the same time as VLS version? Not surprised to see 3-5 years delay. And anyway production takes time. --> 10 years?

2: FCASW is considered to be technically advanced. Expecting delay in its development is very natural, I think. Expecting NO DELAY is, irresponsible.

As item-1/2 in total, I expect the gap shall be 15-20 years, not 7 years. (And anyway T23 will continue to operate the interim AShM until 2036.)

3: Even though the gap can be short (say, 10-15 years, (but not 7 years)), at that time period RN will only have 5 ships with ASM?

It could be YES, if RN consider SeaVenom on Wildcat (for both 6 T45 and 5 T31) is the primary ASM. But in this case, my question will be, "if so, why we need expensive FCASW? Adding SeaVenom on Merlin will be much more cheap/easy". --> FCASW will lose rationale, I guess.

If not (I think so), gap is real gap. In this case, if RN leave it as small as 5 sets, it means FCASW carried on only 5 ships are enough. In other words, only 5 of 8 T26 will get FCASW.

This is why I push to buy 8-11 sets of interim AShM now. More than 8, means RN needs ASM other than SeaVenom (= for 8 T23AW). Less than 11, means at least T26 will be equipped with FCASW.

Just my wish, though.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Lord Jim »

How much do we actually know about FCASW? I know it is to be both air and sea launched and possibly ground if the intermediate treaty isn't rehashed, and it is supposed to be both high speed and long range with some level of stealth. But what is the method of launch? VLS? Do the French want to replace the SCALP on their ship with it so therefore it will be launched form the Sylver VLS? What about the Mk41, are we funding such work? Will there be a submarine launched version to replace the SM-39 on French Submarines? Would we be looking at adopting such a variant. There are a long list of questions, do we have any definite answers?

User avatar
Pseudo
Senior Member
Posts: 1732
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 21:37
Tuvalu

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Pseudo »

Lord Jim wrote:How much do we actually know about FCASW? I know it is to be both air and sea launched and possibly ground if the intermediate treaty isn't rehashed,
As far as I'm aware the INF treaty is a bilateral treaty between the US and Russia and doesn't restrict the development of intermediate-range nuclear missiles by either the UK or France.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Lord Jim »

Yes it was but any successor will have to cover other nations to be of any use.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Pseudo wrote: the INF treaty is a bilateral treaty between the US and Russia and doesn't restrict the development of intermediate-range nuclear missiles by either the UK or France.
Nor China, so LJ's comment is accurate (and all of this is the real reason for why there was no real effort for salvaging the INF).
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Simon82
Member
Posts: 129
Joined: 27 May 2015, 20:35

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Simon82 »

I do wonder if FCASW will ever appear in an affordable and usable form or whether the Royal Navy might be better piggybacking on the US Navy LRASM programme. Although not such an advanced missile as the FCASW promises to be it will be ordered in larger numbers and the US will continue to invest to keep it relevant, plus it is Mk-41 compatible, has a box launcher option* and may possibly be fitted to the F-35 one day**.

* The British might be the launch customer for this option, but it’s still lower risk and cost than the FCASW programme.

** The US Navy are initially using the LRASM only on the F/A-18 E/F, but it may also be applied to the F-35C in the future. Yes, it would have to be an externally carried ordinance, but due to the shorter weapons bay on the U.K.‘s F-35Bs so would every other anti-ship missile currently available. Perhaps it might even replace Harpoon on the USN P-8s in due course.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Lord Jim »

FCASW is trying to be a wonder weapon and affordability could become an issue down the road. I do think they should split the requirements into on to replace Storm Shadow and is kin and another to replace Exocet and Harpoon. If everything works and they can get the weapon system to do everything as advertised for a reasonable price it will be great, but I have concerns as to whether it will.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by SW1 »

I were going away from a joint development with the French then I see little point looking past the Norwegian offering of nsm.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Lord Jim wrote:. If everything works and they can get the weapon system to do everything as advertised for a reasonable price it will be great, but I have concerns as to whether it will.
Will it even make it past Brexit?

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Timmymagic »

Lord Jim wrote:FCASW is trying to be a wonder weapon and affordability could become an issue down the road. I do think they should split the requirements into on to replace Storm Shadow and is kin and another to replace Exocet and Harpoon.
This has de facto already happened. MBDA displayed their concept for FCASW at Le Bourget. It's no longer Perseus, but is instead 2 different missiles. One is a subsonic, stealthy Storm Shadow replacement. The other is a supersonic, multi-use heavyweight weapon. Smart move by MBDA, but is possibly also a necessity as I don't think the users requirements could have been made by 1 weapon (stealthy and supersonic don't really mix...). But at the same time they've opened up the target set (the supersonic missile could be used against aerial targets such as AWACS and AAR at very long range).
I'm guessing MBDA will be looking at similar interfaces, shared sensors across the missiles to retain some commonality and reduce costs. If they're also packaged in the same sized tubes it could make it very interesting.





What would be ideal would be if the UK and France funded some sensible additions to the programme from the start. Make both Sylver, Mk.41 and canister launched from the get go, don't wait for funding or a customer. Make both torpedo tube launched for subs (neither Astute or Suffren have VL tubes). And qualify both from aerial platforms (F-35, P-8, Typhoon, Gripen and Rafale). And have a ground launched version in the works...

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Timmymagic »

Poiuytrewq wrote:Will it even make it past Brexit?
Yes. It has to. Both the RAF and AdA need to replace Storm Shadow/Scalp. And its this or US weapons.
But MBDA needs a replacement for Exocet as well, which has been a money spinner for decades. They've got the helo based ASM market covered with Sea Venom, but the rest of their line-up (Exocet, Teseo/Otomat, Sea Killer/Marte) are long in the tooth. More and more nations are making AShM's, and they need to be able to compete in that market and have a leading product when old customers come shopping because someone else will.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Lord Jim »

I know that a number of ideas were shown at Paris but none were actually what is being worked on as FCASW, but rather other proposals for other weapon systems.

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Timmymagic »

Lord Jim wrote:I know that a number of ideas were shown at Paris but none were actually what is being worked on as FCASW, but rather other proposals for other weapon systems.
I don't think these are. Don't forget FCASW concept phase passed its initial review, I suspect the 2 concepts shown were showing the clear direction of travel. And lets face it they make sense, both from an MBDA product catalogue sense and from the users perspective. We're not going to get the range and stealthiness required from a purely supersonic missile. The only truly conceptual items on the MBDA stand were the simplest, the 2 Remote Carriers. Which were clearly aimed at SCAF and Tempest. MBDA aren't going to make 2 supersonic heavyweight missiles, but they need at least 1.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Lord Jim »

Just been going over what was said, and these are simply proposals to show off what could be developed if there was a need, and or customer. It does mention that the technology would have some bearing on the FCASW programme which appears to be a single platform for now at least. Europe should get to market before the US with the next generation of weapon systems and if FCASW enters service with the capabilities advertised it should drum up substantial sales if the company is allowed to actually sell to say the Gulf states.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Tempest414 »

Nice peace from Naval news on day 1 show casing I-SSGW contenders

User avatar
xav
Senior Member
Posts: 1626
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 22:48

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by xav »

Here it is:



Day 1 at DSEI 2019, the defense exhibition held in London, UK.
Our day 1 naval news coverage at the show includes:

=====================

Anti-ship missiles: The UK MoD issued a requirement to implement an interim surface to surface guided weapon (I-SSGW) to replace the existing Harpoon missile onboard Royal Navy ships. In this context we interviewed some exhibitors about their proposals.

0:42 - Raytheon Naval Strike Missile
2:12 - Saab RBS 15 Mk3 and Mk4
2:59 - MBDA future missile concepts and FCASW
3:55 - Lockheed Martin LRASM
5:06 - Roketsan ATMACA
5:30 - SubSea Craft Lifts Veil on VICTA-class Diver Delivery Unit
Tried my best...
Raytheon more than eager to talk... Saab a little less... MBDA nope (will offer Exocet eventough it doesnt fully answers the requirement but didn't want to talk on camera, and didn't to discuss FCASW on camera either), LRASM couldn't discuss anything in regards to the UK... And the Turkish missile not in the running. Boeing : nowhere to be seen

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by RetroSicotte »

Excellent work Xav, thanks for the update.

User avatar
xav
Senior Member
Posts: 1626
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 22:48

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by xav »

MBDA’s ANL / Sea Venom Missile Aces First Qualification Test Firing
Image
The French ministry of armed forces announced that MBDA's ANL / Sea Venom light anti-ship missile successfully passed its first qualification test firing on February 20th. The test was conducted by DGA teams.
...
The scenario of this test was a long-range engagement with the missile flying at very low then medium altitude and the automatic acquisition of the target in the middle of the flight (Lock On After Launch – LOAL). It enabled the innovative capacity of the “man in the loop” mode to be implemented for the first time. Helicopter personnel, on board of which the image of the target observed by the missile’s seeker was transmitted, were able to modify the point of impact on the target.
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... st-firing/

User avatar
RichardIC
Senior Member
Posts: 1371
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by RichardIC »


User avatar
Jensy
Senior Member
Posts: 1061
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Jensy »

RichardIC wrote:
The Exocet is a suprise. Thought there was some talk of it not meeting the original specifications.

All seem good options so I'd say good value and flexibility of integration will be key.

Often wonder if we made a huge mistake not investing in an upgraded Sea Eagle with GPS guidance. All the other 70/80s anti-ship throwbacks seem to have evolved with the times.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Jensy wrote:we made a huge mistake not investing in an upgraded Sea Eagle with GPS guidance. All the other 70/80s anti-ship throwbacks seem to have evolved with the times.
Top
We had to have (cough-cough) NFS; just like we had to have the T45 extended bubble (reaching over land... as we well know from San Carlos Bay, even the most powerful radar cannot see through the mountains, and therefore the ' protection bubble' is not quite the same over land as it is for the other, seaward half of that bubble).

- the RN making these arguments is, logically, backed up the need to have something of 'standard' for all surface combatants
- though they would carry these 'of standard' weapon systems in different combos, depending on the allocated role
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Jensy wrote:we made a huge mistake not investing in an upgraded Sea Eagle with GPS guidance. All the other 70/80s anti-ship throwbacks seem to have evolved with the times.
Top
We had to have (cough-cough) NFS; just like we had to have the T45 extended bubble (reaching over land... as we well know from San Carlos Bay, even the most powerful radar cannot see through the mountains, and therefore the ' protection bubble' is not quite the same over land as it is for the other, seaward half of that bubble).

- the RN making these arguments is, logically, backed up the need to have something of 'standard' for all surface combatants
- though they would carry these 'of standard' weapon systems in different combos, depending on the allocated role
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

The internet dropping... so I got ahead of myself?
- apologies for the double
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by SW1 »

Does a pick from that list give us a steer of long term thinking? For example if the pick Exocet is that more linking us to a common replacement with the french as we align timeframes or would selection of say NSM suggest interim maybe become permanent.

Post Reply