RN anti-ship missiles

[jcs1959]

SD67 I think you will find Daring is in major refit (had Shaman fitted etc) see pictures posted earlier by SKB if I remember righty, she was in the dock next to Duncan where the new gantry crane was fitted.

[Tempest414]

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

Also at this time the talk is of 5 sets for the 8 T-23 ASW so 10 sets for 11 would be better I guess

[donald_of_tokyo]

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 note the the USN has Mk.41, Mk.56 and Mk.57, all with substantial overlap.
Who needs commonality anyhow!

Other than VLS, having a launcher dedicated for each missile system is common. VLS does give flexibility, but that's just it. I do not think RN shall unify all VLS.

# In my opinion, it should have been done ~20 years ago, selecting Mk.41 for T45 and UK pay for Aster30/15 integration cost to Mk.41. It will significantly increase the Aster30/15 sales chance, as well, making it cheaper.

1: T45
Its A50 VLS is not strike length (A70), their VLS shall be just considered as "for Aster-30/15". T45 is NOT carrying "too much" Aster-30/15 missiles, keeping its 48-cell A50 VLS is good.
--> It is only when we start thinking of what to add, a question "which type of VLS" shall be selected.

2: T26
It is not intended to carry Aster-30/15, so having Mk.41 is good. Only drawback is that, RN will need to pay for integration cost of FC/ASW into Mk.41. But, if they did, the FC/ASW will be the sole land attack missile integrated into both Mk.41 and Sylver VLSs, which will significantly improve its export success probability.

Adoption Mk.41 is good in "negative sense" that, even if FC/ASW see "divorce", RN will not be short of land attack missile candidates. As we know, LRASM seeker is (partly) produced in UK. Very good "backup" solution, I think (or I'm afraid).

3: Interim ASM
Anyway, having a dedicated box-launcher for Interim ASM is not a problem. Crane handling will be even easier than installing missile into VLSs = can be reloaded in any small port.

I propose we shall NOT think of integrating Interim ASM into any VLS.

VLS is there to "provide flexibility", not "to limit it". If "using a certain VLS" becomes a limiting factor, we shall just forget about it, especially in case of Interim ASM.

[seaspear]

So I take it developing a long range hypersonic missile for the R.N is out of the question

[SD67]

SD67 I think you will find Daring is in major refit (had Shaman fitted etc) see pictures posted earlier by SKB if I remember righty, she was in the dock next to Duncan where the new gantry crane was fitted.

OK thanks for the info. Only point I was making is that units can be moved around if needed.

[SD67]

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 note the the USN has Mk.41, Mk.56 and Mk.57, all with substantial overlap.
Who needs commonality anyhow!

Other than VLS, having a launcher dedicated for each missile system is common. VLS does give flexibility, but that's just it. I do not think RN shall unify all VLS.

# In my opinion, it should have been done ~20 years ago, selecting Mk.41 for T45 and UK pay for Aster30/15 integration cost to Mk.41. It will significantly increase the Aster30/15 sales chance, as well, making it cheaper.

1: T45
Its A50 VLS is not strike length (A70), their VLS shall be just considered as "for Aster-30/15". T45 is NOT carrying "too much" Aster-30/15 missiles, keeping its 48-cell A50 VLS is good.
--> It is only when we start thinking of what to add, a question "which type of VLS" shall be selected.

2: T26
It is not intended to carry Aster-30/15, so having Mk.41 is good. Only drawback is that, RN will need to pay for integration cost of FC/ASW into Mk.41. But, if they did, the FC/ASW will be the sole land attack missile integrated into both Mk.41 and Sylver VLSs, which will significantly improve its export success probability.

Adoption Mk.41 is good in "negative sense" that, even if FC/ASW see "divorce", RN will not be short of land attack missile candidates. As we know, LRASM seeker is (partly) produced in UK. Very good "backup" solution, I think (or I'm afraid).

3: Interim ASM
Anyway, having a dedicated box-launcher for Interim ASM is not a problem. Crane handling will be even easier than installing missile into VLSs = can be reloaded in any small port.

I propose we shall NOT think of integrating Interim ASM into any VLS.

VLS is there to "provide flexibility", not "to limit it". If "using a certain VLS" becomes a limiting factor, we shall just forget about it, especially in case of Interim ASM.

Totally agree - we should bite the bullet and pay for the Integration the payoff will be the additional export opportunities. If Type 4X is T26-based it will likely be a Mk41 platform so it's going to need to be done at some stage, and we should keep the interim solution box launched. The Mk41 silos on T26 can be filled with CAMM or CAAM-ER or ASROC.

[NickC]

So I take it developing a long range hypersonic missile for the R.N is out of the question

Anglo-French FC/ASW, according to NavalNews, a French website, there appears to a dichotomy between the British and French staff requirements, British wanting a stealthy sub-sonic missile (LRASM type) whilst French a supersonic missile (BrahMos type) which leading towards two different missiles, doesn't auger well for the future of the missile, either making it expensive or maybe even increasing the possibility of cancellation.
Full article
From <https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... rd-brexit/>

Whereas the USN moving forward with Tomahawk V, MST. Maritime Strike Tomahawk, with its new seeker, comms and navigation systems able to receive mid-course updates for targeting and electronic hardening to counter jamming more effectively.

The Tomahawk being a turbojet sub-sonic missile is long range, more than 1,000 miles and V designed to operate if necessary without GPS. "It’s cheap" you can afford to lose some to the enemy defensive capabilities, USN at shorter ranges will be able to coordinate Tomahawk attacks with the Mach 3.5 SM-6 in its surface attack mode and the NSM's

Looking to the future, 2030'ish would expect USN have a ramjet/scramjet AShM sized to be launched from Mk41 VLS cells (similar in concept to the French FC/ASW?)., eg October " [US] Navy Hires Boeing To Develop A Very Fast And Long-Range Strike Missile Demonstrator" for the F-18 SH, don't know max payload of F-18 single store point, but expect it to be same as the LRASM, 2,500 lbs, so could fit a Mk41.

From <https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2020/ ... ould-know/>

Would the RN consider the Tomahawk V as part of its interim AShM as part of a split buy with perhaps the NSM, the pluses for Tomahawk is compatibility with USN, updating the Tomahawk IV's to V's for the Astute class and use in the T26 Mk41 VLS cells.

[ArmChairCivvy]

will be able to coordinate Tomahawk attacks with the Mach 3.5 SM-6 in its surface attack mode

now I start to see the wisdom of using such an expensive missile as part of the mix

updating the Tomahawk IV's to V's for the Astute class

unfortunately, as the main customer is going VLS also subsurface, it has been announced that the wrapper for launch thru torp tubes will no longer be in production
- wonder if A. any missile upgrades continue to be feasible, and
- B. how long we can make due with the stock we possess (which, it has been made out, is not huge)

[Lord Jim]

Well that should be the impetus for transferring the Tomahawk launching role to the T-26 as stocks of TT launched weapons run down or reach the end of their shelf lives. Carrying a mix of land attack and Anti-ship versions would provide some interesting capabilities, or is the Block V dual use?

[ArmChairCivvy]

that should be the impetus for transferring the Tomahawk launching role to the T-26

Yes and no, as with that launch platform the OpFor could better anticipate when/ from where there might be Tomahawks heading their way
- 50 or so of them did not have much effect on the Syrian airbase as it was necessary to forewarn, and thereby avoid getting dead Russians as part of that 'warning' shot

[seaspear]

Would an f35b not carrying a large anti-ship missile co-ordinate the targetting by a large missile of hostile ships at a long distance , the sm-6 has a 64-kilo explosive charge the block v Tomahawk a 450-kilo charge , there is Spear 111 missile designed to fit inside the f35b bay but has a smaller charge and range than Tomahawk v , its likely to be more desirable to engage ships or targets that are not within the range of ones own ships which is why the U.S.N looked to redeveloping the Tomahawk to be able to engage ships that carried missiles with a longer range than those carried by the U.S.N

[NickC]

updating the Tomahawk IV's to V's for the Astute class

unfortunately, as the main customer is going VLS also subsurface, it has been announced that the wrapper for launch thru torp tubes will no longer be in production
- wonder if A. any missile upgrades continue to be feasible, and
- B. how long we can make due with the stock we possess (which, it has been made out, is not huge)

The USN will be upgrading all its IV's to V's, III's to be retired

https://news.usni.org/2020/01/22/entire ... to-block-v

[Timmymagic]

- B. how long we can make due with the stock we possess (which, it has been made out, is not huge)

UK stock of TLAM hovers around c65 missiles.

[Lord Jim]

If the French have their way there will be a submarine launched FCASW, replacing their SM39 Exocet. This would allow the Astutes and their successors to still have a submerged land attack capability, but in the meantime installing Tomahawk on the T-26 would provide a good interim solution.

Is it just me but we seem to be looking for a lot of interim solution at the moment?

[Jdam]

In all the talk of an interim solution for the RN Tomahawk never really came up. Is the block V Tomahawk really any good as an anti ship weapon?

[ArmChairCivvy]

Is the block V Tomahawk really any good as an anti ship weapon?

If you have a satellite over the right part of the right ocean, for targeting, then yes

[seaspear]

satellite or f35b perhaps

[BlueD954]

In all the talk of an interim solution for the RN Tomahawk never really came up. Is the block V Tomahawk really any good as an anti ship weapon?

Specially the Block Va not sure if the UK has purchased it.

[seaspear]

This article provides more detail to the block v Tomahawk
https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2020/ ... ould-know/
This article provides arguments for a balanced approach in the design and acquisition of missiles and the role definitions they need to meet I would suggest it would be the same for the R.N
https://warontherocks.com/2020/11/how-f ... ff-strike/
There has been the suggestion of a ramjet attached to the Tomahawk being under consideration

[Old RN]

I may be seen as a bit radical but...
1. Make installation of 4-8 Sea Venom (surface launched) a standard fit on all RN warships (down to River B2),
2. Make installation of LMM/Martlet on all DS30 mounts (like Sea Cat was in the 1960s/70s)
3. Establish a SAG defined ship class (not T45/T26 as they are tied to carrier AAW/ASW?), possibly T32/32, with a LRASM or Bramhos equivilant? (like the Batch 2 Counties were seen in the late 1970s)

[SD67]

So I take it developing a long range hypersonic missile for the R.N is out of the question

Anglo-French FC/ASW, according to NavalNews, a French website, there appears to a dichotomy between the British and French staff requirements, British wanting a stealthy sub-sonic missile (LRASM type) whilst French a supersonic missile (BrahMos type) which leading towards two different missiles, doesn't auger well for the future of the missile, either making it expensive or maybe even increasing the possibility of cancellation.
Full article
From <https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... rd-brexit/>

Whereas the USN moving forward with Tomahawk V, MST. Maritime Strike Tomahawk, with its new seeker, comms and navigation systems able to receive mid-course updates for targeting and electronic hardening to counter jamming more effectively.

The Tomahawk being a turbojet sub-sonic missile is long range, more than 1,000 miles and V designed to operate if necessary without GPS. "It’s cheap" you can afford to lose some to the enemy defensive capabilities, USN at shorter ranges will be able to coordinate Tomahawk attacks with the Mach 3.5 SM-6 in its surface attack mode and the NSM's

Looking to the future, 2030'ish would expect USN have a ramjet/scramjet AShM sized to be launched from Mk41 VLS cells (similar in concept to the French FC/ASW?)., eg October " [US] Navy Hires Boeing To Develop A Very Fast And Long-Range Strike Missile Demonstrator" for the F-18 SH, don't know max payload of F-18 single store point, but expect it to be same as the LRASM, 2,500 lbs, so could fit a Mk41.

From <https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2020/ ... ould-know/>

Would the RN consider the Tomahawk V as part of its interim AShM as part of a split buy with perhaps the NSM, the pluses for Tomahawk is compatibility with USN, updating the Tomahawk IV's to V's for the Astute class and use in the T26 Mk41 VLS cells.

I hate to say it but as a lay observer I think the French are right. In the West we have plenty of subsonic options. TLAM and Storm Shadow plus LRASM as an option. Why develop yet another to perform basically the same function. A supersonic Brahmos type would be a unique offering and worth the development risk IMHO.

[seaspear]

When Brahmos is mentioned its worth noting that a Brahmos 11 is close to being exported to the Philippines and Vietnam
https://www.defenseworld.net/news/27721 ... 9yCxNgzaUk
Perhaps the R.N should consider its purchase

[Timmymagic]

I hate to say it but as a lay observer I think the French are right. In the West we have plenty of subsonic options. TLAM and Storm Shadow plus LRASM as an option. Why develop yet another to perform basically the same function. A supersonic Brahmos type would be a unique offering and worth the development risk IMHO.

I'd say the exact opposite. FC/ASW's main purpose is to replace Storm Shadow/SCALP. A long range cruise missile is what is required. And that means stealthy, subsonic.

Ask yourself this question...How many Storm Shadow/SCALP have been fired in combat by UK and French forces vs. Heavyweight Anti-Ship Missiles....?

The bundling in of the anti-ship missile requirement is a convenient one, but might not be the best idea. It makes sense for MBDA as their principal anti-ship missile (Exocet) for sales is clearly long in the tooth. They desperately (and quite rightly) want to retain sales and market share.

But also what is more effective? A stealthy, long range AShM like LRASM or a supersonic, shorter range missile like Sunburn/Brahmos. I know which one I'd rather face....the one that sneaks up on you is far more dangerous...

TLAM is long in the tooth as well. You have to question how survivable it would be against a competent enemy. Its not stealthy, its not that fast, it doesn't do terminal manoeuvres and doesn't fly that low. Will that really penetrate a PLAN task forces defences? The Japanese and Australians are buying JSM and LRASM....

[ArmChairCivvy]

main purpose is to replace Storm Shadow/SCALP. A long range cruise missile is what is required. And that means stealthy, subsonic.

Playing Devil's Advocate, let's do a Turkey (of the 400-series missile fame) and buy Brahmos:
The ship launched version is heavier (3000 kg) than the air-launched version, while the mass of the Scalp missile is only 1300 kg.
Brahmos approaches at four times (Mach 3.7) the speed, over a v similar range.
May be for that reason (burning thru so much fuel) Brahmos delivers a warhead of only half of the size of the current Scalp... but delivers it with plenty of kinetic energy to go with it

If the OpFor has look-down AEW capabilities (that's what Japan has their smaller AEW planes, the normally carrier-based 'D's for: to detect cruise missiles). So is stealth that good, when the radar is looking at the cross section from above , rather than head-on?
- speed is what it is

[Timmymagic]

SCALP and Storm Shadow have far longer ranges.
And you wont need radar to pick up a Brahmos. It will be so hot every IR sensor in 30 miles will pick it up as it broaches the horizon. A srealthy sea skimmer though you might not see until impact.