UK Defence Forum

News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.

RN anti-ship missiles

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2086
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
Location: United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby dmereifield » 08 Mar 2019, 11:52

xav wrote: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 ?


Great, so the RN isn't going to gap FF/DD ASM caoabilities for the best part of a decade after all! The in service date 2022/2023 obviously aligns with the extended out of service date for the Harpoon system, but also coincidently, the in service date of the T31. Could the T31 end up with ASMs after all, outside of its £250 million per ship budget? Maybe I'm getting overly excited, the PIN indicates an estimated contract of £100-200 million (excluding VAT). Is that enough to equip 6 T45s, 8 T23/26s and (up to) 5 T31s?

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1675
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby Poiuytrewq » 08 Mar 2019, 12:10

dmereifield wrote:Could the T31 end up with ASMs after all, outside of its £250 million per ship budget?
Maybe,

The PIN explains that the UK MoD has a possible future requirement to procure a next generation ship launched anti-ship weapon system for use within training and operational roles with the Royal Navy. First delivery of the ship installed equipment would be required by December 2022 and first delivery of missiles would be required by December 2023. The potential contract will be for 4 years, with the potential of option years to follow (up to 9 more years), the potential contract would cover the following activities:
Manufacture and delivery of the weapon system to be delivered in Financial Year 2023/2024.
Installation of the weapon system onto Royal Navy ships.
Provision and support of interface requirements to assist ships installation.

Provision of train the trainer courses.
Maintenance and technical support for the operational upkeep of the weapon system.

Could this this be a way to give the T31's an Anti-ship capability along with land attack capability outside the £250 unit cost?

I do hope so :thumbup:

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2602
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby RetroSicotte » 08 Mar 2019, 13:56

xav wrote: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 ?

Not so much an issue of the City class. It could be ready much sooner, but they've slowed its production for political and budget reasons.

Type 31e is allegedly to be around by 2023.

However despite everyone saying Type 31, I am more certain this will be for use on the Dukes and Darings, since 2023 matches up with their loss of Harpoon.

(Yes I am using the word class names because its friday, never liked 'type XX'. No fun!)

Online
User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5923
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby shark bait » 08 Mar 2019, 14:16

I think your right, which means canister launched, so we will probably never see this on the T26.
@LandSharkUK

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 1331
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby SW1 » 08 Mar 2019, 14:33

shark bait wrote:I think your right, which means canister launched, so we will probably never see this on the T26.


Why would that be?

Both Australia and I think Canadian graphics show canister launched anti ship missiles on there equivant type 26s.

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2602
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby RetroSicotte » 08 Mar 2019, 14:34

shark bait wrote:I think your right, which means canister launched, so we will probably never see this on the T26.

I imagine thats being held. If it turns out FC/ASW is gonna come in 2030/31/32, I imagine the budget will be happy to let them just hang around without till they get it. Same as the destroyers did.

Any further, who knows.

The Australian and Canadian versions have canisters. I don't have the pics to hand, but is there a restriction on the UK design for them?

Online
User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5923
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby shark bait » 08 Mar 2019, 14:43

The Australian and Canadian versions have canisters on the mission bay roof where the Brits put CAMM and decoys. RN could rearrange to fit canisters, but I bet they don't.
@LandSharkUK

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2602
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby RetroSicotte » 08 Mar 2019, 14:53

shark bait wrote:The Australian and Canadian versions have canisters on the mission bay roof where the Brits put CAMM and decoys. RN could rearrange to fit canisters, but I bet they don't.

Wouldn't be surprised if they don't either, just curious about the feasibility.

Given the T45 experience, one can know they're happy to let them go without.

Such a pity there's no flat out, clear option of a fully developed and in production canister+Mk41 AShM out there.

Online
User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5923
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby shark bait » 08 Mar 2019, 14:59

Don't forget air launched....

Must say the in the long run the French option is starting to look increasingly bad, the Australian's for example operate the F35, P8 and T26 so would seem a much more natural partner than the French.
@LandSharkUK

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2602
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby RetroSicotte » 08 Mar 2019, 15:20

shark bait wrote:Don't forget air launched....

Must say the in the long run the French option is starting to look increasingly bad, the Australian's for example operate the F35, P8 and T26 so would seem a much more natural partner than the French.

Would have said Japan myself, but I can see your logic. In theory France has more relation for tech (MBDA), more budget, and better offerings tech wise than Australia, but to make it compatible with F-35, Rafale/FCAS, Mk41 and A70 is concerning in how those get prioritised.

One would hope that in a fair sense the first integration focus would be Rafale/Mk41 or F-35/A70. Thats gonna be a little sticking point.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 4140
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby Lord Jim » 08 Mar 2019, 15:58

Well if we put a forth Mk42 forward like the Canadian and Australian versions of the T-26 there would be room as we wouldn't need to have Sea Ceptor amidships and/or hanger roof. have three of the Mk41 as standard length able to launch VL-ASROC (8) and Sea Ceptor (64) using ExLS, and have a single strike length Mk41 to allow TLAM (8) to be carried or additional VL-ASROC and/or Sea Ceptor. THis would also allow the possible use of any Mk41 VLS compatible AShM developed in future by the US or another nation.

It is still early days on the T-26, keep the existing design (Batch 1) for the first three and then build the remaining five to the revised design (Batch 2). The first three could then possible be modified to the Batch 2 configuration down the line.

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2602
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby RetroSicotte » 08 Mar 2019, 16:37

Lord Jim wrote:Well if we put a forth Mk42 forward like the Canadian and Australian versions of the T-26 there would be room as we wouldn't need to have Sea Ceptor amidships and/or hanger roof. have three of the Mk41 as standard length able to launch VL-ASROC (8) and Sea Ceptor (64) using ExLS, and have a single strike length Mk41 to allow TLAM (8) to be carried or additional VL-ASROC and/or Sea Ceptor. THis would also allow the possible use of any Mk41 VLS compatible AShM developed in future by the US or another nation.

It is still early days on the T-26, keep the existing design (Batch 1) for the first three and then build the remaining five to the revised design (Batch 2). The first three could then possible be modified to the Batch 2 configuration down the line.

Modifications always possible, but Ship 4 is far outwith the issue at hand. The 2027-203X period where there will be no AShM in current plans without further announcements.

Online
abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2523
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby abc123 » 08 Mar 2019, 17:05

IMHO, NSM ( and JSM ) are the way to go...

Anyway, nice to see that the RN plans to buy something after all. Big like. :thumbup: :thumbup:
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…

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1675
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby Poiuytrewq » 08 Mar 2019, 17:35

abc123 wrote:IMHO, NSM ( and JSM ) are the way to go...
They are the obvious choice and time line seems to slot in nicely too.

Extract from a Janes article July 2018, Coincidental timing?

The JSM programme now moves on to the ‘integration’ phase - integration, carriage and release trials with the RNoAF’ F-35A Lightning II platform – which is expected to continue until 2023. In the interim, Kongsberg announced on 29 June that it has signed a NOK700 million (USD85.6 million) contract with the Norwegian Defence Materiel Agency for the acquisition of a number of JSM test rounds for use with the F-35 in the integration phase...........“We anticipate an initial operational capability with [the] JSM on our F-35 from 2023 as we build up to the planned F-35 Full Operational Capability (FOC) in 2025. In order to meet this requirement we expect to award Kongsberg a production order in the 2019 timeframe,” a Norwegian Ministry of Defence (MoD) spokesperson told Jane’s .



The Saab RBS15 Gungnir also looks interesting. That 300km+ range would give the T31's a decent land attack capability and although not in the TLAM category, it would give the T31's a decent offensive option.

https://saab.com/air/weapon-systems/air ... 15-family/


Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 4093
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby Ron5 » 08 Mar 2019, 17:48

100-200 million isn't going to buy very many missiles.

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2602
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby RetroSicotte » 08 Mar 2019, 17:50

Ron5 wrote:100-200 million isn't going to buy very many missiles.

I was thinking the same. It sounds like something just to ensure they have something to avoid the NO ASHM headlines.

Not that I'm complaining about that.

It also hints at Harpoon II as almost a shoe in. Cheapest to integrate.

Jdam
Member
Posts: 314
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:26
Location: United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby Jdam » 08 Mar 2019, 18:33

Very happy to see we are at least asking for options, the 2022/23 delivery date not so much.

There is going to be a few variables and maybe even opportunities with these weapons, it will be interesting to see what we finally go with and in what configuration. Where are we going to use these? if its MK41 only that will limit it to 8 ships, canister launched rule out the Type 26's? ect.

I just have fears of the UK doing the usual and only putting it on one platform. I guess what I would like to see is something we could use on a few different platforms, Mk41, canister, maybe even extend it to the P-8's and F-35. (Guess while I'm making a fantasy list something with land attack?)

tomuk
Member
Posts: 73
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
Location: United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby tomuk » 08 Mar 2019, 21:15

Just buy Harpoon Block II+ ER from Boeing using FMS, Finland are already buying some. Plus were buying some for the P8.
We can reuse launchers, handling equipment etc, etc.

The money saved over switching to NSM/JSM/Exocet/SAAB/LRASM etc can be spent on accelerating the FC/ASW MBDA Perseus program.

Online
User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 12160
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 08 Mar 2019, 22:31

The Israeli alternative won over Harpoon II
tomuk wrote:Harpoon Block II+ ER from Boeing using FMS, Finland are already buying some

Online
User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5923
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby shark bait » 08 Mar 2019, 22:48

Ron5 wrote:100-200 million isn't going to buy very many missiles.

The RN don't use very many. So far I count zero.....

Lord Jim wrote:Well if we put a forth Mk42 forward like the Canadian and Australian versions of the T-26 there would be room as we wouldn't need to have Sea Ceptor amidships and/or hanger roof.

That is worse! That's a smaller missile capacity all bundled together for less resilience!
The RN didn't come to their configuration by accident, its better!
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
Old RN
Member
Posts: 194
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:39
Location: South Africa

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby Old RN » 09 Mar 2019, 06:25

What about a surface launched Sea Venom? :lol: :lol:

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 4140
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby Lord Jim » 09 Mar 2019, 07:50

shark bait wrote:That is worse! That's a smaller missile capacity all bundled together for less resilience!The RN didn't come to their configuration by accident, its better!


Well the missile capacity is still more than adequate with the gain of being able to easily mount whatever AShM the Navy finally settles on. The additional Mk41 add extra flexible capacity as well. As for bundling everything together, the Navy has been quite happy to do so with both the T-23 and T-45 so I do not think they believe this causes less resilience, and as to the configuration of the T-26, this appear to be forced upon the designers as it was decided to retain the "Mushroom", launchers for Sea Ceptor with are inefficient regarding space used. It would be better to use four stand alone 3 cell ExLS launch units, matching the current loadout, but the MoD has simply opted to save a small amount by retaining the existing Sea Ceptor launcher type.

Online
abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2523
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby abc123 » 09 Mar 2019, 10:13

RetroSicotte wrote:
Ron5 wrote:100-200 million isn't going to buy very many missiles.

I was thinking the same. It sounds like something just to ensure they have something to avoid the NO ASHM headlines.

Not that I'm complaining about that.

It also hints at Harpoon II as almost a shoe in. Cheapest to integrate.


Agreed. But even if they buy a flying dildo I would be happy, because the alternative is another (permanent) gap.
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…

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 4140
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby Lord Jim » 09 Mar 2019, 15:32

But didn't you hear, the RN has decided that naval gunnery can more than make up for the lack of AShM.

Jdam
Member
Posts: 314
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:26
Location: United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby Jdam » 09 Mar 2019, 15:42

tomuk wrote:Just buy Harpoon Block II+ ER from Boeing using FMS, Finland are already buying some. Plus were buying some for the P8.
We can reuse launchers, handling equipment etc, etc.

The money saved over switching to NSM/JSM/Exocet/SAAB/LRASM etc can be spent on accelerating the FC/ASW MBDA Perseus program.


How much could we reuse from existing equipment, are we talking software upgrades and minor tweak?

Also I remember us getting torpedo's for the P-8 not the missiles, with the exception of the initial launch booster from ships are both air and sea launched the same? if so not a bad idea to go for the most up to date Harpoon as an interim replacement.


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: adnan.ahmed, RB211, Repulse, shark bait and 24 guests