RN anti-ship missiles
Re: RN anti-ship missiles
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/
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... ct-notice/
Re: RN anti-ship missiles
^ Haha you beat me to it this time
UK MoD Further Details Interim Anti-Ship Missile Need Through Contract Notice
Must have OTH anti-ship capability and a terrain-following precision maritime land attack capability.
UK MoD Further Details Interim Anti-Ship Missile Need Through Contract Notice
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... ct-notice/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.
Must have OTH anti-ship capability and a terrain-following precision maritime land attack capability.
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5629
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: RN anti-ship missiles
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
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 2762
- Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
Re: RN anti-ship missiles
The article states that only 5 sets (for 5 ASW T23) are to be purchased...is that correct?
-
- Retired Site Admin
- Posts: 2657
- Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Re: RN anti-ship missiles
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.dmereifield wrote:The article states that only 5 sets (for 5 ASW T23) are to be purchased...is that correct?
Massive cut.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5603
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: RN anti-ship missiles
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).
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").
... 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).
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").
Re: RN anti-ship missiles
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.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5603
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: RN anti-ship missiles
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)
- 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)
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4108
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: RN anti-ship missiles
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.RetroSicotte wrote: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.dmereifield wrote:The article states that only 5 sets (for 5 ASW T23) are to be purchased...is that correct?
Massive cut.
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.
-
- Retired Site Admin
- Posts: 2657
- Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Re: RN anti-ship missiles
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.
Re: RN anti-ship missiles
But ASMs are useless, who needs them?
What's next, buying torpedos for T26?
What's next, buying torpedos for T26?
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…
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…
Re: RN anti-ship missiles
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.
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.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 2762
- Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
Re: RN anti-ship missiles
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
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
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4108
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: RN anti-ship missiles
Love that positive thinking. I very much hope you are right and that I am completely wrong.dmereifield wrote:trying to look on the bright side....
Re: RN anti-ship missiles
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.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
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
Winston Churchill
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 2762
- Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
Re: RN anti-ship missiles
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 itselfCaribbean wrote: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.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
Basically, a fair amount of "hedging their bets" going on
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5603
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: RN anti-ship missiles
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? )
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).
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: 5629
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: RN anti-ship missiles
we need to remember that any new missile will come from the 13 billion pound missile budget
Re: RN anti-ship missiles
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?
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…
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…
- cockneyjock1974
- Member
- Posts: 537
- Joined: 01 May 2015, 09:43
Re: RN anti-ship missiles
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.
-
- Donator
- Posts: 3249
- Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Re: RN anti-ship missiles
Yes both do. In fact its very hard to actually buy a modern anti-ship missile that doesn't have a land attack capability.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?
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.
Re: RN anti-ship missiles
Agreed, but Harpoons don't have ( AFAIK ) land attack capability?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.
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…
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…
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5603
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: RN anti-ship missiles
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.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.
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.
Re: RN anti-ship missiles
What launch system can the NSM be fired from ? Is it just canister or Mk41 as well ? As the T26s won’t have canisters.