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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby Poiuytrewq » 23 Aug 2019, 14:51

Jake1992 wrote:What launch system can the NSM be fired from ? Is it just canister or Mk41 as well ? As the T26s won’t have canisters.
My understanding is that the NSM isn't Mk41 compatible due to size but JSM could be Mk41 capable eventually (with an additional booster to increase range).

http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.ph ... l-jsm.html

Not sure how this has progressed in recent years but making the JSM Mk41 capable would seem eminently sensible.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3525
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 23 Aug 2019, 15:13

Poiuytrewq wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:What launch system can the NSM be fired from ? Is it just canister or Mk41 as well ? As the T26s won’t have canisters.
My understanding is that the NSM isn't Mk41 compatible due to size but JSM could be Mk41 capable eventually (with an additional booster to increase range).
I think there are many places we can mount NSM launchers on T26. As we all say, T26 has large growth margin, and also NSM is relatively small/light weight (NSM is as large/small as Penguin SSM). If RN decide to do it, RN will find the way.

Also, canistered NSM will be a good fit to T45. Wasting up to 16 cell Mk.41 VLS, if ever to be added, with a small ASM like NSM is not a good idea.

Online
Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1648
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby Jake1992 » 23 Aug 2019, 15:16

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
Poiuytrewq wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:What launch system can the NSM be fired from ? Is it just canister or Mk41 as well ? As the T26s won’t have canisters.
My understanding is that the NSM isn't Mk41 compatible due to size but JSM could be Mk41 capable eventually (with an additional booster to increase range).
I think there are many places we can mount NSM launchers on T26. As we all say, T26 has large growth margin, and also NSM is relatively small/light weight (NSM is as large/small as Penguin SSM). If RN decide to do it, RN will find the way.

Also, canistered NSM will be a good fit to T45. Wasting up to 16 cell Mk.41 VLS, if ever to be added, with a small ASM like NSM is not a good idea.


This is why I think we either need to buy a new AShM that is both canister and Mk41 launch or 2 different missiles due to the way our fleet is set up for the foreseeable.

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, 15:27

The thing is we’ve already got two land attack cruise missile systems (Tomahawk and Storm Shadow) not to mention Dave B with a Paveway. For me the gap we’re facing is anti ship. I will say this though, the thought of T23/T45 having a land attack capability does appeal though. Especially if we can transfer the tech onto T31’s in the future. That’ll go a long way to disproving the T31’s are nothing more than sloops/extended OPV’s.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3525
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 23 Aug 2019, 15:29

Jake1992 wrote:This is why I think we either need to buy a new AShM that is both canister and Mk41 launch or 2 different missiles due to the way our fleet is set up for the foreseeable.
Yeh.

1: LRASM
Can be carried on Mk.41 VLS, as well as canister (but RN may be the kick-off customer?). But, it is the most expensive, and anyway RN has only 200M GBP to pay, for now. Although I like it, I'm afraid this will mean, only 5 of the total RN escort fleet will have ASM capability, well within the mid-2030s, because it will quickly eat the "200M GBP" fund. Also it has a big overlap with Anglo-Franco ASM.

2: NSM
Cheap, light-weight, and can be well operated along with the Anglo-Franco ASM well beyond 2040s. The Anglo-Franco ASM will be surely very expensive (because of requiring high-speed and long range at the same time, which are contradictory requirements). Using it for high-value/well-protected enemies, and using NSM for more "normal" vessels (frigates, corvettes, and Fast Crafts) will work well.

Merit of NSM is also when it has a good logistic (maintenance parts/training) commonality with JSM, which will eventually used with F35B, and even P-8As.

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 2192
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby Repulse » 23 Aug 2019, 16:55

My view is the NSM is a slam dunk to win, going to 5 ASuW armed frigates seems worrying, but as mentioned previously it just confirms that CEPP will be the centre of RN operations not singleton deployments, so in the short term is probably manageable.

Where the real funds should be going is on offensive weapons for the SSNs, F35Bs, P8s, T45s and T26s. Would still like a mk41 VLS on the T45.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1723
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby Tempest414 » 23 Aug 2019, 17:27

I think Donald is right for me we need to buy NSM or maybe RBS-15 but we need to try and get 11 sets out of this deal to allow type 45 and then later type 31 to get a anit-ship/ land attack capability as I have said in the past a type 31 fitted with

1 x 76mm with vulcano rounds ( Allowing NGFS up to 40 km )
2 x 30mm with LMM mounts
24 x CAMM ( allowing area defence 1000 km sq around the ship i.e 25 km 360 degrees)
8 x RBS-15 / NSM ( allowing anti-ship and land attack out to 200- 280 KM )

would make type 31 a very useful ship

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby Jdam » 23 Aug 2019, 18:12

Jake1992 wrote:What launch system can the NSM be fired from ? Is it just canister or Mk41 as well ? As the T26s won’t have canisters.


I believe the benefit of the JSM over the NSM was the changes made to the missile to get it in the F-35 A/C bay means that it could fit the MK41.

cockneyjock1974 wrote:The thing is we’ve already got two land attack cruise missile systems (Tomahawk and Storm Shadow) not to mention Dave B with a Paveway. For me the gap we’re facing is anti ship. I will say this though, the thought of T23/T45 having a land attack capability does appeal though. Especially if we can transfer the tech onto T31’s in the future. That’ll go a long way to disproving the T31’s are nothing more than sloops/extended OPV’s.


Ultimately this is where we are at, we need a modern anti-ship missile.

People have made very good points about us mostly using missiles for inland strikes recently and the limited supplies of those missiles we now have. The idea of getting a lot more use out of this purchase with a dual situation weapon is very appealing, the discussion generate hear seems to lend weight to that.

I went back and forward from LRASM to NSM to Harpoon-ER, thinking about the platform and uses they could be used with but ultimately we need an anti-ship missile first and foremost that can be launched from our ships, any other benefit the missiles bring will just be a nice bonus.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1809
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby Caribbean » 23 Aug 2019, 18:27

dmereifield wrote: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

Well - this is probably what fits within the current Harpoon budget - i.e. a one-off acquisition cost (that has undoubtedly already been budgeted for and would have to be paid anyway if we updated the Harpoon to the latest version) and the same level of maintenance cost as now, plus you gain a land attack capability that the T23 didn't have before. If the T23's had had MK41 silos, then it might have been a different story. VL Spear 3 might also have provided that capability (assuming it fits into a "mushroom" tube), but that is still quite some way off, I believe.
Presumably the new Anglo-French missile will (if it wants to make export sales) fit both Mk41 and Sylver, so once both that and the T26 come online, we could move the "interim solution" (which should still be appropriate for a second tier warship) to the T31 (though maybe Spear 3 would be more suitable). By then the acquisition costs will be "sunk", the "interim solution" will be the incumbent system and the "fitting out" part of the T26 budget will be available to spend. I think the fact that 5 systems have been specified (so far, that is) signifies that they are hedging their bets on that one.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Aethulwulf
Member
Posts: 923
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby Aethulwulf » 23 Aug 2019, 21:37

https://youtu.be/jhGJ53oS1Bo

NSM in action. Although it "only" has a 125kg HE warhead, this video shows that any ship struck by the NSM will be having a bad day.

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby Lord Jim » 24 Aug 2019, 02:16

There was an article fairly recently where it was stated that the USN was concerned about the missile density available to itself compared to possible threats. This was one of the drivers behind the re introduction of the anti ship Tomahawk, to gain further range from which targets could be attacked. They also want to increase the number of AShMs carrier by individual platforms to allow for significantly heavier salvos to be fired that would overwhelm an opponent defences. This is the route both China and Russia are following, equipping their platforms with 16 or more missiles that are faster and have a longer range than say Harpoon or Exocet. Their ships also have significant defensive capabilities against AShMs, both hard and soft kill. Relying on aircraft to be the main anti ship weapon system is going to become more risky and again the density of any attack is important. As a stop gap having eight or so weapon like the NSM will give the RN a relevant Anti ship capability, but only the bare minimum. The Anglo French weapon, if delivered needs to be compact, no bigger in its launch canister than Harpoon of NSM, but ideally be able to be launched from the Mk41. The French Navy will want it capable of being fired from the Sylver VLS, which has become the standard fir on its warships. However this whole interim AShM programme does seem to be more of a box ticking exercise, so that it can be said the RN has the capability, but like so many programmes totally fails to deliver and capacity.

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 24 Aug 2019, 06:38

P.6 of this thread had the piece on helo-launched LMM trials (March), but if there has been a mention of the ship-launched trials done later (August Navy News features this), then I must have missed it. The summary of it was that
- on ships the 30mm range against swarming boats is not sufficient and launching LMMs out to six km will not impede the gun (mount) actions in any way... except for the few seconds
- and that on tupperware-boats, you can insert Marines with a tripod launcher that works equally well (until you run out of missiles, as you will be left with MG defences only)

So close in defences for vessels without Phalanx get a nice brushing up, what about the stuff for ship-to-ship encounters? Some comments:
Poiuytrewq wrote: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.
See below,as for the last sentence...

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. 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.

+
Caribbean wrote: 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.
... like JSM (VLS, a joint venture with the maker of MK41s... the other division of that company makes LRASM; hedging of bets on all sides :D )
cockneyjock1974 wrote: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
Except that JSM is (will be, when the Block4 mess gets sorted out) compatible with also F-35 though no internal-carry on Bs... and the serious fleet actions are meant to be undertaken by our MTF, built around carrier capability.

Timmymagic wrote: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.
JSM ones one further and has (will have, with funding from the Ozzies) also electro-magnetic - radiation source - homing; quite difficult for the opposing fleet to do AAW if they turn they radars off?

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 24 Aug 2019, 06:57

Lord Jim wrote: increase the number of AShMs carrier by individual platforms to allow for significantly heavier salvos to be fired that would overwhelm an opponent defences. This is the route both China and Russia are following, equipping their platforms with 16 or more missiles that are faster and have a longer range than say Harpoon or Exocet. Their ships also have significant defensive capabilities against AShMs, both hard and soft kill. Relying on aircraft to be the main anti ship weapon system is going to become more risky and again the density of any attack is important.

Quite.
This happened with A2A missiles decades ago, firing in salvos and using a mix of homing methods to overwhelm countermeasures
... our missiles are of course ' so much better than anybody else's' that WE did not bother with such
Look at where India has got with their consistent focus on the Brahmos family: Ship, sub and land-launched. The size of their Su fleet fighters allows even that launch option (whether it has only been experimented, or ordered; can't remember).
- and the speed AND the range ? As per LJ's point above

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby SW1 » 24 Aug 2019, 10:41

If you don’t go for one of the later blocks of harpoon then why bother introducing another antiship missile especially if it is sold as interim. Though we have form with multiple anti ship missiles and also now with light weight torpedoes. Short term decisions are costing more long term.

A deepening relationship with Norway, Sweden and Denmark is imo no bad thing, industry wise there good to work with and we can learn a lot from each other. If we selected the NSM/JSM and offered to provide funds to develop further could be a gd out come especially if we threw our lot in and went to equip across the board on land sea, air and sub surface. Kongsberg are known to be looking at submarine and vls versions, perhaps a penetrating warhead option may appear for a land attack version.

The one hesitation would be the complex weapons program has been a great success because there’s been a consistency in funding and weapons choice and mbda have invested accordingly. Though the messing about with the sea venom by France maybe causing alarm for future missile programs delivery schedules.

I think on balance going for N/SMJSM with possibly Raytheon industrial participation in the uk investing in both their paveway 4 and JSM long term may cover all industrial and operational concerns across all domains with few if any downsides.

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby Old RN » 24 Aug 2019, 11:34

One option that could be "out of the box" would be a surface launched Sea Venom with extended range?

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2522
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby abc123 » 24 Aug 2019, 13:10

OK, so if we have 200 mil. pounds ( say about 250 mil. USD these days ) to spend, and say average missile like RBS-15 costs say 3,5 mil. USD per unit, that's about 35 mil. USD per one ship set of missiles. For five ships, that's about 175 mil. USD. Now, with say 5 ship sets for control, that's about 15 mil. USD per ship. Yes, I know, it's a bad mathematics, but we do not have better numbers. Now, if you buy say, 5 missiles per ship, meaning 2x2 launchers, that would leave money for say 3 additional ship sets for control and maybe 12 missiles to use in 5 T31 frigates? ( applying the same 63% ratio as in T23- 5 of 8 ). Yes, 4 missiles per ship isn't much, but it's 100x more than 0 missiles, and after all, the RN don't fires these missiles every day.
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 » 24 Aug 2019, 18:43

I agree anything is better then nothing and having even five ship sets of state of the art AShMs will be a great improvement over the old Harpoons we have if they are even carried by some ships. A lot hinges of how the Anglo/French wonder weapon progresses. Even now it seems to suffer form different national priorities. May be we should concentrate that programme on its air launched version and look o the interim AShM as the future ship mounted weapon. My preference would be for the NSM to meat this need and also initially mount it on the P-8 and under the wings of the F-35Bs. The "Super Weapon" can initially replace Storm Shadow, and if affordable them=n replace the limited number of air launched NSMs at a later date. As a shipborne weapon, a lot depends on its method of storage and launch. IF it is compatible with the Mk41 then it could be seen as a replacement for the TLAM. I say this because my gut tells me the Anglo/French weapon is going to end up as an equivalent of the US LRASM and be too expensive for general usage amongst the fleet.

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 24 Aug 2019, 19:02

SW1 wrote:I think on balance going for N/SMJSM with possibly Raytheon industrial participation in the uk investing in both their paveway 4 and JSM long term may cover all industrial and operational concerns across all domains with few if any downsides.


Sounds sensible... but have not had time to read through the Ch 3 (Future) of the Parliamentary Report linked by Jonas.. the preceding paragraph to it was saying "decision time"... isn't that strong language ;) , by parliamentary standards?

User avatar
xav
Senior Member
Posts: 1325
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 22:48

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby xav » 26 Aug 2019, 15:00

Regarding NSM:
- Kongsberg has dropped its R&D / plans for VL NSM (they stopped something like 3 years ago due to lack of interest from the market... could probably be revived if things were to change)
- As of today, NSM (or JSM) is not getting integrated in the P-8. You bet that Kongsberg / the Norwegians tried... but Boeing simply doesn't want to (guess why... the only ASM available on P-8 today is...)
- JSM (like Harpoon i guess) can not fit in the weapons bay of the P-8 (they would have to go under wings)

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3525
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 26 Aug 2019, 15:46

xav wrote:Regarding NSM:
- Kongsberg has dropped its R&D / plans for VL NSM (they stopped something like 3 years ago due to lack of interest from the market... could probably be revived if things were to change)
- As of today, NSM (or JSM) is not getting integrated in the P-8. You bet that Kongsberg / the Norwegians tried... but Boeing simply doesn't want to (guess why... the only ASM available on P-8 today is...)
- JSM (like Harpoon i guess) can not fit in the weapons bay of the P-8 (they would have to go under wings)
Apart from commonality, I've read Malaysian Navy is getting 6-sets of 8-missile NSM system with $153M (April 18, 2018, NavalToday article). Do you know if this number is correct?

If true, "200M GBP" looks like large enough to buy 11-sets, to equip all 6 T45 and 5 T23ASW (for a moment, and then on 5 T31e). This will mean, NSM is not that expensive systems, so with 200M GBP total cost, there is no big issue with its logistics.

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2522
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby abc123 » 26 Aug 2019, 19:45

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
xav wrote:Regarding NSM:
- Kongsberg has dropped its R&D / plans for VL NSM (they stopped something like 3 years ago due to lack of interest from the market... could probably be revived if things were to change)
- As of today, NSM (or JSM) is not getting integrated in the P-8. You bet that Kongsberg / the Norwegians tried... but Boeing simply doesn't want to (guess why... the only ASM available on P-8 today is...)
- JSM (like Harpoon i guess) can not fit in the weapons bay of the P-8 (they would have to go under wings)
Apart from commonality, I've read Malaysian Navy is getting 6-sets of 8-missile NSM system with $153M (April 18, 2018, NavalToday article). Do you know if this number is correct?

If true, "200M GBP" looks like large enough to buy 11-sets, to equip all 6 T45 and 5 T23ASW (for a moment, and then on 5 T31e). This will mean, NSM is not that expensive systems, so with 200M GBP total cost, there is no big issue with its logistics.


Don't worry, the MOD will surely to find a way to spend 250 mil. USD and not get more than 5 sets. :shh:
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
xav
Senior Member
Posts: 1325
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 22:48

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby xav » 26 Aug 2019, 20:14

@donald_of_tokyo not sure where they got the number from. Last I talk about this topic, Kongsberg wouldn't comment on quantities to be delivered
https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/li ... -malaysia/

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3525
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 26 Aug 2019, 23:14

xav wrote:@donald_of_tokyo not sure where they got the number from. Last I talk about this topic, Kongsberg wouldn't comment on quantities to be delivered
https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/li ... -malaysia/
Thanks a lot. How many RN can buy with the 200M GBP prepared is very important factor I think, when introducing new assets.

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby Lord Jim » 27 Aug 2019, 00:39

Although no actual figures have been released, the 153M Euro order is enough to equip the six platforms Malaysia has on order, so equating that to six ship sets is a fair assumption. They like us will also be purchasing a support infra structure, though I am not aware of the level of contractor support is being offered. It should be safe to say that the £200m allocated for the RNs interim AShM should provide for at least six ship sets, or five sets plus reloads etc.

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2522
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby abc123 » 27 Aug 2019, 09:01

Lord Jim wrote: They like us will also be purchasing a support infra structure, though I am not aware of the level of contractor support is being offered. .


Many countries around the world are perfectly capable to operate ASMs for 30+ years and extend their life on their own, without breaking the bank.
It only seems as huge drama in the RN.
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…


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Gpage, Jake1992, PHamm and 15 guests