RN anti-ship missiles

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1779
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Australia

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by seaspear »

It is over simplifying to just suggest that all missiles are guided by satellites providing gps co-ordinates , there are a number of different systems in use for reference points for the navigation systems of missiles e.g. celestial reference points for icbm,s , that the current Red Flag games are being conducted in a large GPS denial zone shows a practical and realistic appreciation

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

NickC wrote:"ALL THE OTHER NATIONS CANNOT do it"
North Korea can and does.
Interesting. Not only civilian, but also military GPS signals? But, anyway, Harpoon has INS. Maybe JDAM will see some problem, though.
China has the tech, knowhow, facilities, AI, money and political will if it so wishes to make hundreds of cube sats into tiny pieces of debris.
I do not think so. Satellite killing missile is much much expensive than cube-sats. If China can provide 100-200 such missiles, USA can easily provide a thousand of cube-sats, if needed. I'm saying the technological difficulty differs a lot between satellite killing missiles vs simply looking-down cube-sats. The difference may amount more than an order of magnitude.
Please provide thoughts/sources for statement that "warships location will be found quite easily" as at moment it is not easy.
Cube-sat and drones, coupled with AIs, as I say.

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1779
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Australia

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by seaspear »

There are some interesting articles on DARPA and its progress into replacement of satellite based gps

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

seaspear wrote:progress into replacement of satellite based gps
RT keeps us informed on such: "British MoD works on 'quantum compass' technology to replace GPS ...
https://www.rt.com/uk/159256-uk-defense-gps-compass/

May 15, 2014 - A “quantum compass” might replace the US's widely-used GPS, first in military and then on smartphones. The British Ministry of Defense is investing millions of pounds into the “earth-based” technology, which they hope may become an alternative to space-based GPS on board nuclear submarines..."

But the above is, by now, "old hat":


China’s quantum satellite achieves ‘spooky action’ at record distance

By Gabriel Popkin Jun. 15, 2017 , 2:00 PM (https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/06)

Quantum entanglement—physics at its strangest—has moved out of this world and into space. In a study that shows China's growing mastery of both the quantum world and space science, a team of physicists reports that it sent eerily intertwined quantum particles from a satellite to ground stations separated by 1200 kilometers, smashing the previous world record. The result is a stepping stone to ultrasecure communication networks and, eventually, a space-based quantum internet.
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)

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1779
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Australia

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by seaspear »

DARPA has demonstrated some interesting wok with micro navigation chips

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Caribbean »

seaspear wrote:some interesting wok
Dammit - not the Chinese again! ;)
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by NickC »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
NickC wrote:"ALL THE OTHER NATIONS CANNOT do it"
North Korea can and does.
Interesting. Not only civilian, but also military GPS signals? But, anyway, Harpoon has INS. Maybe JDAM will see some problem, though.
China has the tech, knowhow, facilities, AI, money and political will if it so wishes to make hundreds of cube sats into tiny pieces of debris.
I do not think so. Satellite killing missile is much much expensive than cube-sats. If China can provide 100-200 such missiles, USA can easily provide a thousand of cube-sats, if needed. I'm saying the technological difficulty differs a lot between satellite killing missiles vs simply looking-down cube-sats. The difference may amount more than an order of magnitude.
Please provide thoughts/sources for statement that "warships location will be found quite easily" as at moment it is not easy.
Cube-sat and drones, coupled with AIs, as I say.
Chinese recent paper from China's Air Force Engineering University discussing establishing an orbital station with a high-powered pulsed laser could make a dent in the thousands of items of space debris in low earth orbit, could be just as easily target thousands of cube satellites. Laser beam in space is not degraded as on earth by the atmosphere.

Chinese (as has Russia) have a long history of targeting their own satellites dating back to 2007, using a kinetic warhead they destroyed a large weather satellite at an altitude of 530 miles creating a large amount of debris.

The US GPS satellites are big, nearly a ton in weight, expensive, few in number at ~24, the new GPS OCX ground control system alone costing $6 billion, so it would be a win win situation for the Chinese to take them out with missiles.

Last week France’s joint space commander said the country’s satellites in orbit have been approached for inspection by foreign governments.

“Apart from development of directed-energy weapons capable of degrading the performance of our capabilities, the mastery of technology for rendezvous in space allows the close approach of space assets of other countries in full orbit,” Air Force Gen. Jean-Pascal Breton said. “Several of our satellites have been approached in this way by objects of satellite-inspection class.”

From <https://www.defensenews.com/space/2018/ ... commander/>

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

NickC wrote:objects of satellite-inspection class
?

Interesting if specialist vehicles are put up there. One could expect (?) the manoeuvring from one target to the next to take quite some time, in order not to expend all the energy (in whatever form) onboard

Btw, it was only a couple of years ago when the Chinese (Pershing lookalike) carrier killer was "dismissed" based on the difficulty of targeting at distance
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)

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

The laser satellite is future story. And, in future it will be killed by SM3 or GBM or its successor at the "second" day = a day after the laser-sat kills GPS-sat and "known" cube-sats. Do you know there are "millions" of orbiting "something" up there? Shooting all of them is just impossible.

After the laser-sat was killed, US (and also China) can launch hundreds of cube-sats, along with several hundreds of decoys, into orbit (soft-kill, so to say). There will be a Kessler syndrome there, but cube-sat is small, and anyway their orbital life is short, so not a big problem.

Thus, GPS-sat may be lost quite soon, in pear2pear war, I agree. But, because it is future story, another INS-like new system will be there. This is also why I think Harpoon block II+ is nice for RN, because it is clearly a stop gap, and we can wait for new INS-like system to be realized and adopted on new ASMs.

Also, spy-cube-sats cannot be extinct, not because it cannot be killed, but because it can easily revive.

Thanks.

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by NickC »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:The laser satellite is future story. And, in future it will be killed by SM3 or GBM or its successor at the "second" day = a day after the laser-sat kills GPS-sat and "known" cube-sats. Do you know there are "millions" of orbiting "something" up there? Shooting all of them is just impossible.

After the laser-sat was killed, US (and also China) can launch hundreds of cube-sats, along with several hundreds of decoys, into orbit (soft-kill, so to say). There will be a Kessler syndrome there, but cube-sat is small, and anyway their orbital life is short, so not a big problem.

Thus, GPS-sat may be lost quite soon, in pear2pear war, I agree. But, because it is future story, another INS-like new system will be there. This is also why I think Harpoon block II+ is nice for RN, because it is clearly a stop gap, and we can wait for new INS-like system to be realized and adopted on new ASMs.

Also, spy-cube-sats cannot be extinct, not because it cannot be killed, but because it can easily revive.

Thanks.
Thought it very unlikely that US will its SM-3s or GBM to attack laser satellites as they have so few and will be reserved for BMD

As mentioned the US has sold the Harpoon Block II to Egypt so do not think that both Chinese and Russians have full technical specs of its active radar if not the actual hardware. Buying the old generation Harpoons for RN is just a token gesture as they would be totally ineffective against a peer enemy, at least spend limited budget on the new generation NSM as are Germany, Poland and Australia (and favourite for USN contract for the LCS, Boeing withdrew from bidding with Harpoon). The current GPS can be easily jammed and spoofed, newer GPS military band understand will be harder to jam, expect new generation of jammers to counter. Left with the problem is how do you target an AShM at 100 nm, satellites are not capable of real time targeting, by the time AShM arrives in target area enemy ship will have moved, the limited range of the AShM small homing head search radar/IR/ESM at sea level will require it climb to search exposing itself to attack. No easy answers.

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

NickC wrote:Left with the problem is how do you target an AShM at 100 nm, satellites are not capable of real time targeting, by the time AShM arrives in target area enemy ship will have moved, the limited range of the AShM small homing head search radar/IR/ESM at sea level will require it climb to search exposing itself to attack. No easy answers.
On this issue, I understand Russian missile does share information. One missile in high altitude to search the enemy ship, and then transfer the data to other missiles. With modern 2-way datalink, any new ASMs (even including Harpoon Block II+ (not Block II)), JSM, LRASM can do it.

I have no objection introducing NSM for RN. My point is just avoid gapping ASM. I just think adding Harpoon Block II+ is cheaper than newly introducing NSM. If not enough money, I shall propose Harpoon Block II+. If more money, NSM. LRASM is not yet ready for ship-born, so we may need ~10 years to save. In this sense, Harpoon Block II+ will be netter than NSM. If we think it is not a stop-gap but a replacement, NSM will be better.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by shark bait »

On the topic above (space), the UK has no access to space, we are very weak in that domain.

NickC wrote:by the time AShM arrives in target area enemy ship will have moved
Perhaps why LRASM has long loiter times with autonomous search functions?
@LandSharkUK

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

shark bait wrote:(space), the UK has no access to space, we are very weak in that domain.
Does Skynet PFI not run to 2021/22? The replacement (thanks to the new NAO format, we know v little about it) is called Future Non-line of Sight... and, no, it is not a long-ranged anti-tank missile).
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
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by shark bait »

Its owned by airbus, and launched on a french vehicle. The UK is entirely dependent on others for space access, which is a growing issue.
@LandSharkUK

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by NickC »

Re. The debate on the Harpoon and its dependence on GPS and active radar making its effectiveness very problematical at best.

Further to to the USAF Red Flag exercise operating in a GPS jammed environment now comes news of the U.S. Army 30th Jan. award of $8 million contract to BAES Inc for precision guidance kits to fit its 155mm shells that will allow rounds to operate in a GPS denied environment. Operating in a GPS jammed environment is becoming increasingly important, especially as the U.S. Army examines how it might go up against an adversary with capabilities similar to its own.

The kits will provide 155mm artillery munitions with the capability to make in-flight course corrections that contribute to strike accuracy and greater range.

From <https://www.defensenews.com/land/2018/0 ... ironments/>

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

NickC wrote:Re. The debate on the Harpoon and its dependence on GPS and active radar making its effectiveness very problematical at best.
Does Harpoon Blk II+ lacks INS their initial version had? Active radar is problematic, I agree, that is why I am proposing it as a stop-gap. Looking at RN's (low) attitude to ASM, "cheap" and "easy to purchase" might be the key. If not, ASM can be gapped. Looking at the current "budget gap", it could be important. Note I am never negating NSM nor LRASM. I really hope RN gets it. I just do think Harpoon BII+ is not totally useless yet.
the U.S. Army 30th Jan. award of $8 million contract to BAES Inc for precision guidance kits to fit its 155mm shells that will allow rounds to operate in a GPS denied environment.
Really good thing. GPS will be jammed anyhow, so alternative is important.

On the SM3 and GBM to "kill" laser sat, I think they will. The laser sat, if realized, will be the top-ranked risk on BMD. BMS need com-sat, needs early-warning sat. All relying on space. Thus, the laser sat will be surely the top priority one.

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1779
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Australia

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by seaspear »

China is reported to have 68 military satellites the U.K 7, America 123 , Russia 74 , who has the most over the Pacific area could be interesting and at what altitude to be in range of a ship launched missile and what other methods are considered practical or known to counter satellite surveillance could start another thread

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Lord Jim »

Sea Venom's entry into service has been delayed at least a further year, to the end of 2021 at the earliest due to unforeseen technical issues according to Jane's.

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

NickC wrote:Operating in a GPS jammed environment is becoming increasingly important, especially as the U.S. Army examines how it might go up against an adversary with capabilities similar to its own
The first GPS III satellite (6 more have already been manufactured) is being launched as we 'speak'
- with them come the "military only" M-signal, designed to add robustness
- there is two kinds of jamming: spoofing (shift the location info) and flooding over, at the same frequency. The former can now be dealt with, but I have no info about improvements re: the latter
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)

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Lord Jim »

China is developing an major active and passive anti-satellite capability to disrupt US and other possible opponents networks. It has realised this is a vulnerability the US and allies have with our heavy dependency on satellites.

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by NickC »

December

1) Sea Venom has successfully carried out its third development firing in the Mediterranean.

2) USN funding Raytheon with additional $32.6M for the Kongsberg NSM

2) LRASM, LM has declared Early Operational Capability milestone on USAF B-1B bomber

3) The USN targeting 6 year R&D and 2025 for the deployment their new offensive hypersonic strike missile, boost and with hypersonic glide body developed as part of the Conventional Prompt Strike program for use in the USN surface/submarine fleet, looks like a replacement for Tomahawk.

The Anglo-French MBDA Future Cruise / Anti-Ship Weapon (FC/ASW) / Perseus / CVS401 planned successor to the Exocet, Harpoon, SCALP and Storm Shadow funded in March 2017 with 100M Euros for its 3 year Conceptual Phase with aim for operation 2030'ish is both anti-ship and deep strike missile, mention of ramjet propulsion.

Striking is the difference in time scale between USN hypersonic missile and the Perseus, though Perseus looks technically more challenging as two totally different missions which will no doubt make it a very expensive missile for use in the strike role compared to the USN hypersonic strike missile.

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

NickC wrote:2) LRASM, LM has declared Early Operational Capability milestone on USAF B-1B bomber
Let's revisit our F-111 project and get a squadron of B-1s - cum -loadsa LRASMs
... and take charge of the N. Atlantic, again :)

"Over there" they are talking about decommissioning the birds, all the time :(
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)

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Lord Jim »

Can be ask for some of the A-10s as well.

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Simon82 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Let's revisit our F-111 project and get a squadron of B-1s
If money was limitless two squadrons of B-21s to replace the Tornadoes would be lovely. I can see long-range global strikes becoming the norm in future decades with long-range and stealth becoming ever more desirable.

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by xav »

Small scoop here (eventhough I guess it was expected)

UK MoD Issues Notice for Interim SSGW Anti-Ship Missiles
The United Kingdom Ministry of Defense (MoD) issued a prior information notice (PIN) for a Next Generation Surface Ship Guided Weapon (SSGW) contract for the Royal Navy.

The UK MoD Weapons, Torpedoes, Tomahawk and Harpoon (TTH) Project Team issued the PIN March 8, 2019. Note that a PIN isn’t a tender but is a notice used to set out a contracting authority’s purchasing intentions. A PIN is mostly used by contracting authorities to provide suppliers with information that they are planning a procurement process and provides suppliers with as much information as possible at an early stage.
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... -missiles/

edit:
Someone on twitter said in reply to the article:
"First t26 delivered by 2023? Try 26/27...."

Really ?! it has already drifted by that much ?

Post Reply