Buy was around 65 and replenishment of fired missiles has taken place at least twice now to maintain stockpile.ArmChairCivvy wrote:We bought all 45 of Tomahawks (who knows if we have bought more; a handful of them have been fired since)
... so removing any rqrmnt just bcz we have Tomahawk would not be sound
RN anti-ship missiles
-
- Donator
- Posts: 3234
- Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Re: RN anti-ship missiles
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4068
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: RN anti-ship missiles
True but the point I am trying to make (badly as usual) is that a land attack capability should not be seen as a secondary requirement.Ron5 wrote:I'm pretty sure the RN equips itself for such a taskPoiuytrewq wrote:as part a serious conflict
It is much more likely to be used in a land attack role as opposed to a surface to surface engagement.
Re: RN anti-ship missiles
I don't think anyone will argue with getting more bang for our buck but I would say we already for Tomahawk for dedicated land attacked. Now I agree with getting a missile that is dual purpose and can attack land targets, that is what I want from this purchase. The point that we will most likely use it against land targets is also totally rational but ultimately we are buying it for the anti ship role and I just think it shouldn't sacrifice any of the missiles anti ship capability to do it even if it means going for something that is less capable in the land attack role.
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5598
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
-
- Donator
- Posts: 3234
- Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Re: RN anti-ship missiles
So it looks like the following are in the mix (or could be):
- Kongsberg NSM - A lot of peoples favourite, comparatively cheap, increasing user base, stealthy with land attack
- Saab RBS15 (Mk.3 or Mk.4 'Gungnir' though?) - Mk.4 has entered service so presumably would be offered, Germany went for Mk.3.
- IAI Gabriel 5 (Sea Serpent) - In service with Israel, Singapore and ordered by Finland. Looks cheaper than Harpoon...'stealth' launchers that may utilise existing Harpoon kit.
- MBDA Exocet MM40 Block 3 - A real outsider, limited land attack capability
- MBDA Teseo Mk2/E - MBDA haven't pushed this surprisingly as I'd rate it higher than Exocet, very new...
- Boeing Harpoon II+ - Got to be a favourite as re-uses a lot of existing kit, big user base, not that much of a leap forward though..
- Lockheed Martin LRASM - Real outsider, incredibly expensive, probably not available in canisters by 2023, or even produced by then given existing US orders, also crosses too far over into FCASW territory. Easily the most capable system however...
Have I missed any?
Personally I think its now between RBS.15 (but only if Mk.4 is offered and its not expensive as rumoured), NSM, Sea Serpent (but only if the rumours of low cost are true) and Harpoon II+ in that order....previously I'd have had Harpoon in top spot...
- Kongsberg NSM - A lot of peoples favourite, comparatively cheap, increasing user base, stealthy with land attack
- Saab RBS15 (Mk.3 or Mk.4 'Gungnir' though?) - Mk.4 has entered service so presumably would be offered, Germany went for Mk.3.
- IAI Gabriel 5 (Sea Serpent) - In service with Israel, Singapore and ordered by Finland. Looks cheaper than Harpoon...'stealth' launchers that may utilise existing Harpoon kit.
- MBDA Exocet MM40 Block 3 - A real outsider, limited land attack capability
- MBDA Teseo Mk2/E - MBDA haven't pushed this surprisingly as I'd rate it higher than Exocet, very new...
- Boeing Harpoon II+ - Got to be a favourite as re-uses a lot of existing kit, big user base, not that much of a leap forward though..
- Lockheed Martin LRASM - Real outsider, incredibly expensive, probably not available in canisters by 2023, or even produced by then given existing US orders, also crosses too far over into FCASW territory. Easily the most capable system however...
Have I missed any?
Personally I think its now between RBS.15 (but only if Mk.4 is offered and its not expensive as rumoured), NSM, Sea Serpent (but only if the rumours of low cost are true) and Harpoon II+ in that order....previously I'd have had Harpoon in top spot...
-
- Donator
- Posts: 3234
- Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Re: RN anti-ship missiles
We don't know if its like for like (but it won't be far off) but Corporal Frisk reported that the IAI bid that won the Finnish contract was c40% cheaper than the Boeing price for Harpoon II+. RBS.15 is also apparently cheap (but I must say I'm not fully sure if thats the Mk.3 or new Mk.4).Tempest414 wrote:Always good to have a new player anyone know the cost per unit of this
Re: RN anti-ship missiles
@Timmymagic - Re IAI Gabriel V, not much known, but worth a read of Corporal Fisk comments, "A further look at the Gabriel 5" JULY 2018, Finland's Navy procuring Gabriel V for its upgrade to the Hamina-class fast attack craft and the new 114m/3,900t Pohjanmaa class, Squadron 2020 programme. The Israeli missile was selected in preference to the other bidders with Harpoon, NSM, Exocet and RBS15.
Corporal Fisk speculates Gabriel might have externally same dimensions as the Harpoon so as to fit the "current logistics chain, including storage containers and possibly the launchers themselves", the Israelis had operated Harpoon in the past. The other main conclusion he draws is that Gabriel V was substantially less expensive than the other missiles.
From <https://corporalfrisk.com/2018/07/16/a- ... gabriel-5/>
Corporal Fisk speculates Gabriel might have externally same dimensions as the Harpoon so as to fit the "current logistics chain, including storage containers and possibly the launchers themselves", the Israelis had operated Harpoon in the past. The other main conclusion he draws is that Gabriel V was substantially less expensive than the other missiles.
From <https://corporalfrisk.com/2018/07/16/a- ... gabriel-5/>
Re: RN anti-ship missiles
My understanding is that a terrain-following maritime land-attack capability was one of the requirements of I-SSGW, does Gabriel V have this capability?
Re: RN anti-ship missiles
Not so sure, the Poles paid 110 mil. euros for 36 Mk3 missiles.Timmymagic wrote: RBS.15 is also apparently cheap (but I must say I'm not fully sure if thats the Mk.3 or new Mk.4).
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…
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…
Re: RN anti-ship missiles
Yes.ETH wrote:My understanding is that a terrain-following maritime land-attack capability was one of the requirements of I-SSGW, does Gabriel V have this capability?
https://www.iai.co.il/p/sea-serpent
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5598
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: RN anti-ship missiles
If we were to put this on a Type 45 along with quad packed CAMM in 16 cells it would be perfect in the role of protecting the LRG out to 100 km's and offering land attack out to 200 km's in support of raiding parties given this and looking forward to Type 32 this could be a good fit if type 32 was to be fitted with
1 x 5"
2 x 40mm
64 x CAMM
8 to 16 x I-SSGW
This would allow land attack out to 200+ KM's , NGFS out to 90+ km's ( with Vulcano rounds) and local area defence of the group with CAMM and 40mm
1 x 5"
2 x 40mm
64 x CAMM
8 to 16 x I-SSGW
This would allow land attack out to 200+ KM's , NGFS out to 90+ km's ( with Vulcano rounds) and local area defence of the group with CAMM and 40mm
Re: RN anti-ship missiles
Not sure where this says anything about terrain-following?RichardIC wrote:Yes.ETH wrote:My understanding is that a terrain-following maritime land-attack capability was one of the requirements of I-SSGW, does Gabriel V have this capability?
https://www.iai.co.il/p/sea-serpent
Re: RN anti-ship missiles
Why not also fit Aster at that point? The Italians will on their PPA frigates.Tempest414 wrote:If we were to put this on a Type 45 along with quad packed CAMM in 16 cells it would be perfect in the role of protecting the LRG out to 100 km's and offering land attack out to 200 km's in support of raiding parties given this and looking forward to Type 32 this could be a good fit if type 32 was to be fitted with
1 x 5"
2 x 40mm
64 x CAMM
8 to 16 x I-SSGW
This would allow land attack out to 200+ KM's , NGFS out to 90+ km's ( with Vulcano rounds) and local area defence of the group with CAMM and 40mm
-
- Donator
- Posts: 3234
- Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Re: RN anti-ship missiles
It doesn't.ETH wrote:Not sure where this says anything about terrain-following?
It's worthwhile noting that there are different methods of terrain following. There is radar based terrain following, optical scene matching (like TERPROM or TERCOM), radar based DSMAC or even a more basic terrain following using map data and GPS. The key thing is to what degree the RN wants that terrain following to perform...will it have to work to a certain altitude level at higher speeds?, in a GPS denied environment? How far will it need to perform that aspect of flight etc....
And for some of the missiles the manufacturers are being very cagey about stating that. You can sometimes read in to what their statements mean though. For example Sea Venom can do land attack, but only on 'coastal' targets. In other words its going straight in and does not have the ability to clear terrain features. Kongsberg has stated that NSM does do terrain following (which given the sensor must mean TERCOM or TERPROM). All of the missiles will have INS, GPS and radar height altimeters. It's only really the main sensor that they differ in. Optical for NSM and LRASM, both of which are capable of terrain following. As for the radar equipped missiles it will very much depend on the capabilities of the sensor and the modes that it can be used for. Personally I'd be inclined to think that RBS.15 Mk.4 was capable of terrain following due to the operational environment and launch modes that it was specifically designed for. Its unlikely that Exocet has that capability.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5567
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: RN anti-ship missiles
What software will handle Aster? May be we need to modify Sea Ceptor system to include Aster 30, in that case. Sea Ceptor II system, with 8 Aster 30 Blk1NT and 32-64 CAMM will be interesting to see.ETH wrote:Why not also fit Aster at that point? The Italians will on their PPA frigates.Tempest414 wrote:If we were to put this on a Type 45 along with quad packed CAMM in 16 cells it would be perfect in the role of protecting the LRG out to 100 km's and offering land attack out to 200 km's in support of raiding parties given this and looking forward to Type 32 this could be a good fit if type 32 was to be fitted with
1 x 5"
2 x 40mm
64 x CAMM
8 to 16 x I-SSGW
This would allow land attack out to 200+ KM's , NGFS out to 90+ km's ( with Vulcano rounds) and local area defence of the group with CAMM and 40mm
However, I prefer to up-arm T45 and T26, add P8 and P7, before arming T32 well.
Re: RN anti-ship missiles
Ideally we need to start thinking about fitting more than eight AShMs to a platform. Against peer opponents it will not be one shot, one kill, but a need to saturate an opponents defences. This is also going to be a problem for the F-35Bs using SPEAR 3 in the AShM role as they will need to succeed in achieving multiple hits to defeat a larger Escort, requiring therefore an even larger volley to achieve this.
Range is also going to be an issue as will target detection and identification. Do we need a UAV capable of providing both these capabilities and mid course guidance updates? FC/ASW should solve all these issues but until it reaches service in the 2030s we are going to need to be creative if we are not to be outgunned figuratively speaking.
Range is also going to be an issue as will target detection and identification. Do we need a UAV capable of providing both these capabilities and mid course guidance updates? FC/ASW should solve all these issues but until it reaches service in the 2030s we are going to need to be creative if we are not to be outgunned figuratively speaking.
-
- Donator
- Posts: 3234
- Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Re: RN anti-ship missiles
Just checked Kongsberg say...Timmymagic wrote:Kongsberg has stated that NSM does do terrain following (which given the sensor must mean TERCOM or TERPROM).
"terrain following through advanced mission planning"...which could mean using maps, radar alt and GPS....would have thought if it was using TERPROM or TERCOM that they would have made a big deal of it.
Re: RN anti-ship missiles
Well - CAMM's control software is said to be approximately 70% PAAMS software, so I suspect that the difference is largely down to removing the Aster physics and control package and replacing it with CAMM's. Integrating full PAAMS with CAMM might not be too difficultdonald_of_tokyo wrote:What software will handle Aster?
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Re: RN anti-ship missiles
Come to think of it there may be an issue with establishing data links with an Aster missile in flight. The Type 45s use SAMPSON for Aster, whereas the Type 23s use separate antennas (Platform Data Link Terminal) to communicate with CAMM as opposed to using ARTISAN. Not sure why that is.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5567
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: RN anti-ship missiles
I understand SAMPSON has independent array (on the side?) for communicating with Aster?
If so, no difference. I forgot if the CAMM and Aster uses the same radio-band for the data-link. If not, independent array is needed. If yes, software update may solve it.
If so, no difference. I forgot if the CAMM and Aster uses the same radio-band for the data-link. If not, independent array is needed. If yes, software update may solve it.
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: RN anti-ship missiles
Because CAMM has designed to be totally senor agnostic. They can take any radar, any control system, and plug in the CAMM data link and it will work. The integration is all software defined.ETH wrote:Not sure why that is.
We can see this in practice looking at the Army and Navy air defence systems. The only common element is the missile and the data link.
@LandSharkUK
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5598
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: RN anti-ship missiles
I would love to see MBDA develop CAMM cells in a shipping container with a single data link fitted to a River B2 just to show it done it could lead to sales
-
- Donator
- Posts: 3234
- Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Re: RN anti-ship missiles
You could just park a Land Ceptor unit on the back...the unit comes off the MAN truck and can rest on legs and be lashed down. But..... I don't think the River B.2 actually has a radar that can provide altitude...the Terma Scanter 4100 is a 2D radar...thats not going to help much in a missile engagement.Tempest414 wrote:I would love to see MBDA develop CAMM cells in a shipping container with a single data link fitted to a River B2 just to show it done it could lead to sales