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.
jonas
Member
Posts: 800
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:20

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby jonas » 22 Aug 2019, 11:03

In regards to xav's above post where does this leave the T26 missile fit. Even if the Anglo/French FCAS goes ahead it looks like T26 will have nothing in it's Mk41 silos for a while unless they extend this project to include it.

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... ct-notice/

User avatar
xav
Senior Member
Posts: 1291
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 22:48

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby xav » 22 Aug 2019, 11:06

^ Haha you beat me to it this time :clap:

UK MoD Further Details Interim Anti-Ship Missile Need Through Contract Notice
Image
In a recent announcement, the UK Ministry of Defence Torpedoes, Tomahawk and Harpoon (TTH) Project Team further detailed its requirement to implement an interim surface to surface guided weapon to replace the existing Harpoon missile.

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... ct-notice/


Must have OTH anti-ship capability and a terrain-following precision maritime land attack capability.

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1589
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby Tempest414 » 22 Aug 2019, 11:27

for me I have always said RBS-15 with its 300 km land attack capability would be a good option for Type 45 and 31

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2032
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
Location: United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby dmereifield » 22 Aug 2019, 11:35

The article states that only 5 sets (for 5 ASW T23) are to be purchased...is that correct?

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2590
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby RetroSicotte » 22 Aug 2019, 11:57

dmereifield wrote:The article states that only 5 sets (for 5 ASW T23) are to be purchased...is that correct?

Would be a move deserving of harsh criticism if true. Going from 19 AShM capable vessels to only 5 would be effectively a 75% reduction in the UK's AShM capability.

Massive cut.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3470
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 22 Aug 2019, 12:10

From naval news;
... The potential contract will be for 4 years, with the potential of option years to follow (up to 9 more years)....

This MIGHT mean, 5 systems for 5 of the 8 T23ASW as the first contract, and 9+ systems with the optional 9-more year contracts? If it is 14 systems (although I agree it is guess work), can fill T45 and T23ASW/T26 (but not for T31e). :wtf:

If 5+14, all escorts can have it.

By the way, I do not care if it is LRASM, or NSM or RBS Mk.4. Each has its own merit/demerit but, for me, no big difference. (of course, better capability option is more expensive option, which directly means "less number of missiles can be purchased").

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3963
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby Lord Jim » 22 Aug 2019, 13:37

So does five sets equate to a maximum of 40 actual missiles with each platform having up to a possible eight depending on the weapon chosen. The LRASM does have a container launch systems but it is very bulky.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3470
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 22 Aug 2019, 13:46

Sorry from wiki:
- LRASM range 200+ nm, warhead 450 kg, weight 2000 kg (with booster)
- NSM range 100+ nm, warhead 125 kg, weight 410 kg
- RBS 15 Mk.4 162+ nm, warhead 200 kg, weight 800 kg (with booster?)

[EDIT] reference
- Harpoon Blk.1D range 150 nm, warhead 220 kg, weight 691 kg (with booster) (current missile)

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1674
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby Poiuytrewq » 22 Aug 2019, 16:00

RetroSicotte wrote:
dmereifield wrote:The article states that only 5 sets (for 5 ASW T23) are to be purchased...is that correct?

Would be a move deserving of harsh criticism if true. Going from 19 AShM capable vessels to only 5 would be effectively a 75% reduction in the UK's AShM capability.

Massive cut.
Is this not just an admission of what some here have been discussing for some time. In effect that the number of Tier1 ASW escorts is going to drop to 6 plus 2 permanently assigned to conduct TAPS. As the TAPS vessels don't require an anti-ship or land attack capability and one of the six 'escorts' is likely to be in refit or maybe even extended readiness at any one time then 5 sets would be sufficient.

It could also be an admission that the T23 GP's followed by the the T31's are not going to routinely carry ASM'S apart from what their Wildcats can provide. The T45's will ordinarily deploy as part of the CSG or LitM so a decision has been taken that they don't need ASM'S either as the T23 ASW's will take care of the Anti Surface and Land Attack requirement. So much for adding the Mk41's to increase effectiveness and lethality.

I hope I'm wrong but I wouldn't be surprised at all if this turns out to be current planning.

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2590
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby RetroSicotte » 22 Aug 2019, 16:18

I mean, it's pretty clear what the GP one is doing. They're trying to make the T23GP less potent so when the cripplingly under-equipped T31 replaces it they can claim in parliament soundbites that it's like for like.

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2396
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby abc123 » 22 Aug 2019, 16:43

But ASMs are useless, who needs them? :lolno:

What's next, buying torpedos for T26? 8-)
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…

Jdam
Member
Posts: 306
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:26
Location: United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby Jdam » 22 Aug 2019, 17:21

Do the LRASM and NSM have a land attack capability? I think I remember something about LRASM having the ability but not the software and isn't JSM the multi role (land attack/navel strike?) version of the NSM?

I really hope we are planning on using them on multiply platforms, it would be nice to have the same missile launched from land and air maybe the RAF and Navy could use the same stockpile. The issue is nothing seems to be the right fit for all platforms, its either one or the other.

Still nice to know the requirement hasn't been forgotten about in all the shake ups and asking for a land attack ability is a good shout.

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2032
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
Location: United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby dmereifield » 22 Aug 2019, 18:23

Could it be (trying to look on the bright side) that its 5 sets because they will be handed down to then T31s after the T23 ASW are replaced by the T26. We'd then have 8 land attack/ASM capable T26 (with future anglo/French missile via Mk41) and 5 T31 with the canisterised land attack/ASM? So all 13 FF would have land attack/ASM.

The T45's presumably go without because they'll pretty much always be tied to the carriers and the carrier group will have a couple of FF with it and the carrier airwing to provide the land attack/ASM punch

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1674
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby Poiuytrewq » 22 Aug 2019, 19:43

dmereifield wrote:trying to look on the bright side....
Love that positive thinking. I very much hope you are right and that I am completely wrong.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1740
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby Caribbean » 22 Aug 2019, 23:29

dmereifield wrote:Could it be (trying to look on the bright side) that its 5 sets because they will be handed down to then T31s after the T23 ASW are replaced by the T26

Well, I supose the "delivery of the first (of 5) missile systems in 2023" does co-incide with the planned delivery of the last of 5 T31s, so maybe there is a slim hope that that is in their minds. More can always be ordered later if needed. Decisions as to what to put on T26 don't have to be made for some years yet, but with Mk41 VLS, they will probably be able to select from a wider choice, if the Anglo-French project doesn't look like delivering on time.

Basically, a fair amount of "hedging their bets" going on
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2032
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
Location: United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby dmereifield » 23 Aug 2019, 00:50

Caribbean wrote:
dmereifield wrote:Could it be (trying to look on the bright side) that its 5 sets because they will be handed down to then T31s after the T23 ASW are replaced by the T26

Well, I supose the "delivery of the first (of 5) missile systems in 2023" does co-incide with the planned delivery of the last of 5 T31s, so maybe there is a slim hope that that is in their minds. More can always be ordered later if needed. Decisions as to what to put on T26 don't have to be made for some years yet, but with Mk41 VLS, they will probably be able to select from a wider choice, if the Anglo-French project doesn't look like delivering on time.

Basically, a fair amount of "hedging their bets" going on


Yes but enduring the costs of introducing a new weapons system only for 5 sets seems stupid, surely the incremental costs after the fixed implementation costs to purchase an additional 3-5 sets would be minimal; the business case would write itself

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3470
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 23 Aug 2019, 02:18

Anglo-French ASM will not meet T26 commission. As it is technically challenging, nothing wrong even if it delayed for a few years. (I can be 100% sure it will delay. Only issue is, how long? :D )

So this interim ASM is,
- the sole ASM for RN, from ~2025-2035 or longer,
- and anyway serve RN until ~2045

At the same time, RN lack money, and also think not much heavily about ASM.

If we are happy to (almost) kill the Anglo-French ASM (drain resources = money out of the program), LRASM looks attractive.

If not, the cheapest solution will be the best, so that we could buy “10-11 sets” of systems, with the cost which can buy only 5 sets of LRASM, (for example if the cost doubles).

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1589
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby Tempest414 » 23 Aug 2019, 08:11

we need to remember that any new missile will come from the 13 billion pound missile budget

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2396
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby abc123 » 23 Aug 2019, 09:21

https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/more-d ... p-missile/

Nice and optimistic article from the StRN

RBS-15 seems as a nice missile. OTOH, NSM is in USN service, so maybe a few pounds could be saved?
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
cockneyjock1974
Member
Posts: 536
Joined: 01 May 2015, 09:43
Location: United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby cockneyjock1974 » 23 Aug 2019, 11:29

And JSM is compatible with the P8 so is Harpoon. Pound for pound surely most of the infrastructure (ship wise) is already in place for the updated Harpoons. It certainly is on the P8. To me it’s a no brainer, unless it’s horrifically expensive to procure.

Timmymagic
Senior Member
Posts: 1552
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Location: United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby Timmymagic » 23 Aug 2019, 11:46

Jdam wrote:Do the LRASM and NSM have a land attack capability? I think I remember something about LRASM having the ability but not the software and isn't JSM the multi role (land attack/navel strike?) version of the NSM?


Yes both do. In fact its very hard to actually buy a modern anti-ship missile that doesn't have a land attack capability.

But its all relative. Most will use GPS with terrain contour matching algorithms in their nav software. Both LRASM and NSM have IR sensors so may also be able to use these in the terminal phase.

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2396
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby abc123 » 23 Aug 2019, 12:36

cockneyjock1974 wrote:And JSM is compatible with the P8 so is Harpoon. Pound for pound surely most of the infrastructure (ship wise) is already in place for the updated Harpoons. It certainly is on the P8. To me it’s a no brainer, unless it’s horrifically expensive to procure.


Agreed, but Harpoons don't have ( AFAIK ) land attack capability?
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: 3963
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby Lord Jim » 23 Aug 2019, 13:40

Which AShM are the Norwegians hanging from their P-8s?

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3470
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 23 Aug 2019, 14:13

cockneyjock1974 wrote:And JSM is compatible with the P8 so is Harpoon. Pound for pound surely most of the infrastructure (ship wise) is already in place for the updated Harpoons. It certainly is on the P8. To me it’s a no brainer, unless it’s horrifically expensive to procure.
Not sure if Harpoon Blk II+ can meat the "terrain-following precision maritime land attack capability" requirements, but if so, I totally agree it is a good replacement for Harpoon Blk.1D now in use in RN.

By the way, JSM and NSM are family missiles (not the same). P-8, F35 can both carry JSM, but not NSM, while USN is going with NSM on their LCS ships.

If Harpoon Blk.II+ cannot be selected, I think NSM will be the best solution. This is simply because, with 200M GBP, RN will be able to buy largest amount of control kits and missiles. May be even ~10 sets with more than 100 missiles. If so, it can arm not only 5 of the 8 T23ASWs, but also the 6 T45s.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1599
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby Jake1992 » 23 Aug 2019, 14:26

What launch system can the NSM be fired from ? Is it just canister or Mk41 as well ? As the T26s won’t have canisters.


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests