RN anti-ship missiles

[Ron5]

Plus-2. UK must pay for "Mk.41 integration/certification" effort, which may take 2 years or so. Can you believe it will be "at the same time" as for Sylver 70 VLS? I do not think so.

Lockheed might do this for free. Just like they qualified CAMM. It's not that much of an effort.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Plus-2. UK must pay for "Mk.41 integration/certification" effort, which may take 2 years or so. Can you believe it will be "at the same time" as for Sylver 70 VLS? I do not think so.

Lockheed might do this for free. Just like they qualified CAMM. It's not that much of an effort.

For what? LM is producing LRASM. No incentive to introduce FC/ASW into Mk.41 by their own money.

It is very different from CAMM. Rival is ESSM, which is made by Raytheon.

[Phil Sayers]

Plus-2. UK must pay for "Mk.41 integration/certification" effort, which may take 2 years or so. Can you believe it will be "at the same time" as for Sylver 70 VLS? I do not think so.

Lockheed might do this for free. Just like they qualified CAMM. It's not that much of an effort.

Would they do that for a direct competitor to their own LRASM missile? I guess they would if they think it would result in selling more Mk41 silos to customers who would not otherwise buy, or be allowed to buy, LRASM but I think they would do a lot of market forecasting / discussion with the US govt before being comfortable with integrating a direct competitor to their own product for free.

[tomuk]

Plus-2. UK must pay for "Mk.41 integration/certification" effort, which may take 2 years or so. Can you believe it will be "at the same time" as for Sylver 70 VLS? I do not think so.

Is it going in Sylver 70 or 50 because only the six French ASW FREMM have A70 all other Sylver equipped vessels only have A50. Would the Italians want box launchers like their existing Teseo missiles?

[SW1]

Interesting thought on stand alone box launchers, that maybe more useful than it being integrated into a vertical launch system.

[Anthony58]

Eight box launchers, allows eight other missiles type on the Mk. 41's, useful if you have only 32 cells, like tactical Tomahawk Mk.5 (which could be replaced by hypersonic missiles), the rest medium range/anti-ballistic/anti-hypersonic glide surface to air missiles. The later would need upgraded radar.

[Ron5]

Plus-2. UK must pay for "Mk.41 integration/certification" effort, which may take 2 years or so. Can you believe it will be "at the same time" as for Sylver 70 VLS? I do not think so.

Lockheed might do this for free. Just like they qualified CAMM. It's not that much of an effort.

For what? LM is producing LRASM. No incentive to introduce FC/ASW into Mk.41 by their own money.

It is very different from CAMM. Rival is ESSM, which is made by Raytheon.

That's not the motivation.

[jonas]

Is someone actually pulling their fingers out :-

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?i ... g191014.q0

[tomuk]

Is someone actually pulling their fingers out :-

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?i ... g191014.q0

Possibly but it only really confirms what they have assumed in the plan not what the reality on the ground ship or shop floor / lab of the factory is.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Just to note. The 2028 date is in relation to the Supersonic missile, not the stealthy subsonic missile, which should arrive in 2030.

[Jdam]

The discussion on this needs to be split up (in general, not here) it was OK to call it FC/ASW programme when we thought 1 missile was replacing both but now that its 2 missiles (Supersonic/Subsonic) I feel its confuses things (maybe even on purpose) about what to expect and when.

Also considering the Spear 3 missile and the JSM have not appeared yet (I believe both were to be test fired by now) I don't hold out much hope for a Supersonic anti ship missile by 2028. These systems just take time.

[serge750]

Perhaps to avoid confusion we should call the royal navy supersonic missile - RNSSM - & the stealth subsonic version - RNSSM

[new guy]

The discussion on this needs to be split up (in general, not here) it was OK to call it FC/ASW programme when we thought 1 missile was replacing both but now that its 2 missiles (Supersonic/Subsonic) I feel its confuses things (maybe even on purpose) about what to expect and when.

Also considering the Spear 3 missile and the JSM have not appeared yet (I believe both were to be test fired by now) I don't hold out much hope for a Supersonic anti ship missile by 2028. These systems just take time.

FCASW is the programme. Just refer to them as supersonic and subsonic. It's not actually clear if we will buy both...or at least in the same roles i.e. supersonic anti-ship for RN and air launched subsonic, stealthy for RAF...

Spear (not Spear 3, thats the programme) and JSM have both been test fired...both in 2016...

Integration on a ship is immeasurably easier than on an aircraft. Don't expect to see either FCASW missile on F-35 this side of 2032 at the earliest though...

[pko100]

Is someone actually pulling their fingers out :-

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?i ... g191014.q0

Possibly but it only really confirms what they have assumed in the plan not what the reality on the ground ship or shop floor / lab of the factory is.

PASE is the term used to define capability delivery (whether IOC, ISD or FOC) prior to approval of these dates in the Full Business Case ( in old speak - Main Gate Approval). Hence it is only a vague target for the future, associated with a rough spending profile with often little formal analysis to support it. It is often chosen to say what senior management want it to be. When the programme achieves the Full Business Case approval, then ISD dates etc begin to be cast in stone but will also include an updated set of assumptions and inclusion of agreed risks. Therefore I expect this date to move to the right in the coming months.

I have little confidence that this complex programme can be delivered in this timeframe unless all the system components are already very mature and system integration in a synthetic or similar environment has already started to qualify hardware and software performance. It could be that MBDA Italy are bringing some of the missing elements into this programme and hence reducing risk and timings of the programme. Does anyone know of proven European hypersonic engine technology ?

[Timmymagic]

Does anyone know of proven European hypersonic engine technology ?

It's supersonic not hypersonic.

[new guy]

Some good artwork of both FCASW missiles here...post 219 and 220

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/thread ... ost-602358

[pko100]

Does anyone know of proven European hypersonic engine technology ?

It's supersonic not hypersonic.

Thanks for the correction, too much talk of hypersonic this and that these days.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Thanks for the correction, too much talk of hypersonic this and that these days.

What make it more complicated is, hypersonic-missile is just high-supersonic in its final phase = within the dense air.

This is relatively well known issue, but only became famous after Patriot SAM shot-down Russian hyper-sonic missiles.

To my understanding, hyper-sonic vs super-sonic is about its mid-cruise phase speed. I think terminal speed must be specified independently. Like "hi-hi-lo" argument for missile range (launched in high-sky, cruise in high-sky, but desend to low-altitude before hit), "hi/hyS-lo/SS" (hyper-sonic in cruise in high altitude, and super-sonic in low-altitude before hit) ?

[Timmymagic]

Thanks for the correction, too much talk of hypersonic this and that these days.

What make it more complicated is, hypersonic-missile is just high-supersonic in its final phase = within the dense air.

This is relatively well known issue, but only became famous after Patriot SAM shot-down Russian hyper-sonic missiles.

To my understanding, hyper-sonic vs super-sonic is about its mid-cruise phase speed. I think terminal speed must be specified independently. Like "hi-hi-lo" argument for missile range (launched in high-sky, cruise in high-sky, but desend to low-altitude before hit), "hi/hyS-lo/SS" (hyper-sonic in cruise in high altitude, and super-sonic in low-altitude before hit) ?

There's also the question of how different is a m4.5 missile from a m5.5...

How 'hypersonic' are these missiles....

Hypersonic boost glide is a far more serious threat than a missile that is just fast...

[Jackstar]

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news ... r-uas-role

[serge750]

Does anybody have any update on the NSM being fitted to the T23's ? wasnt the first set being fitted to HMS Somerset .....thanks

[Ian Hall]

[xav]

Update with Kongsberg on the NSM program at DSEI:

[Jackstar]

Martlet & Sea Venom on Wildcat.
The RN now have a comprehensive suite of anti ship missiles.

[new guy]

Martlet & Sea Venom on Wildcat.
The RN now have a comprehensive suite of anti ship missiles.

I wouldn't say that.