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
Pseudo
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 21:37
Location: Tuvalu

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby Pseudo » 10 Dec 2020, 12:49

mr.fred wrote:“Stealth” isn’t binary, people.

That's pretty much my point. If the only thing compromising the aircraft's stealth characteristics are the pylons the weapons are held on and not the weapons themselves, then how much have the aircraft's stealth characteristics really been compromised?

Online
Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 5342
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby Ron5 » 10 Dec 2020, 13:30

ASW Merlins will be on the carriers or on a T26. The need for them to carry antiship missiles is a big fat zero.

As for JSM and NSM, two different missiles that folks are discussing as if they were the same. They are not.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 5285
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby Lord Jim » 10 Dec 2020, 15:22

Yep, as an interim lets have five set of NSM for the T-23 then T-31 and say forty eight LRASM for the T-26 allowing for four sets of eight to be installed routinely, with two sets in reserve ashore.

Timmymagic
Senior Member
Posts: 2031
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Location: United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby Timmymagic » 10 Dec 2020, 17:08

NickC wrote:Kongsberg only claim >100nm range for 917 lbs JSM and if carried externally on F-35B will seriously degrade its stealth capabilities.


That's a Lo-Lo-Lo flight profile. Hi-Hi-Lo is 300 miles. At those ranges it doesn't really matter about increasing your RCS marginally, you're either below their radar horizon down low or you're outside of their weapons engagement range.

NickC wrote:Have not seen any mention of USAF, Marines or Navy integrating LRASM with F-35.


Integration with F-35 and P-8 has now been confirmed, its expected to be operational around 2027.

Pseudo wrote:I'm probably thinking about this too simplistically, but isn't JSM a low-RCS missile in which case you're mostly talking about to pylons being the main thing compromising the stealth characteristics?


Yes in the main. But a 'stealthy' missile hanging on a stealthy pylon on a stealthy aircraft could actually give a large radar return based on the interaction between the missile and airframe's RCS if you were unlucky.

User avatar
RichardIC
Senior Member
Posts: 1057
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
Location: United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby RichardIC » 10 Dec 2020, 22:01

Lord Jim wrote:Yep, as an interim lets have five set of NSM for the T-23 then T-31 and say forty eight LRASM for the T-26 allowing for four sets of eight to be installed routinely, with two sets in reserve ashore.


That would make the RN the only user of LRASM as a ship-launched system. Is it still in active development by Boeing? How much developmental costs would the the UK need to pick up? When would it be ready for deployment?

Timmymagic
Senior Member
Posts: 2031
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Location: United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby Timmymagic » 11 Dec 2020, 09:30

RichardIC wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:Yep, as an interim lets have five set of NSM for the T-23 then T-31 and say forty eight LRASM for the T-26 allowing for four sets of eight to be installed routinely, with two sets in reserve ashore.


That would make the RN the only user of LRASM as a ship-launched system. Is it still in active development by Boeing? How much developmental costs would the the UK need to pick up? When would it be ready for deployment?


There are no users of LRASM at sea, because its not completed its trials yet. Essentially its not for sale yet.

But we shouldn't buy LRASM for 1 very good reason. It won't be available for the UK until 2028. Thats far too close to FC/ASW. Buying it would encourage someone to cancel that programme.

NickC
Member
Posts: 839
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
Location: United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby NickC » 11 Dec 2020, 11:34

Timmymagic wrote:
RichardIC wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:Yep, as an interim lets have five set of NSM for the T-23 then T-31 and say forty eight LRASM for the T-26 allowing for four sets of eight to be installed routinely, with two sets in reserve ashore.


That would make the RN the only user of LRASM as a ship-launched system. Is it still in active development by Boeing? How much developmental costs would the the UK need to pick up? When would it be ready for deployment?


There are no users of LRASM at sea, because its not completed its trials yet. Essentially its not for sale yet.

But we shouldn't buy LRASM for 1 very good reason. It won't be available for the UK until 2028. Thats far too close to FC/ASW. Buying it would encourage someone to cancel that programme.


As understand USN has no plan to install LRASM on ships. Its a Lockheed missile, not Boeing, and the company funded a launch from a Mk41 VLS cell with a Mk114 booster as used on ASROC back in 2013.

USN is funding the subsonic non-stealthy Tomahawk Block V Maritime Strike Tomahawk (MST), with its new seeker able to hit moving maritime targets using assistance of mid course guidance from third parties eg satellites, planned IOC 2023, one big advantage of Tomahawk over the LRASM is its much cheaper.

The LRASM lost the USN contract to equip LCS with AShMs, the NSM is more than two an a half times lighter than a LRASM, both LCS classes have very, very limited weapons payload capability, as a consequence the new USN Constellation class frigates will also fit the NSM

Not to say if RN ponied up the cash Lockheed would qualify ship launched LRASM either from deck launchers or Mk41 VLS cells, thinking of how RN funded the first BAE Inc Mk45 5" with new automated loading magazine for the T26.

USS Chafee (DDG 90) 1st December launches first operational test of the Tomahawk Block V
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 5285
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby Lord Jim » 12 Dec 2020, 13:10

Issue is FCASW could end up being more expensive than the LRASW.

User avatar
Pseudo
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 21:37
Location: Tuvalu

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby Pseudo » 12 Dec 2020, 17:19

Lord Jim wrote:Issue is FCASW could end up being more expensive than the LRASW.

Assuming that FC/ASW is a high-supersonic/low-hypersonic missile then I'd expect that it will be.

User avatar
Jensy
Member
Posts: 444
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
Location: United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby Jensy » 13 Dec 2020, 01:54

I feel we need to prioritise the 'interim' nature of this programme with a focus on affordability, fast entry to service and strengthening partnerships with our peer allies. Looking to NSM, Exocet and RBS-15 (depending on whether we can get it quick enough). Stick it on our GP frigates and possibly T45.

Otherwise we should kill off the FC/ASW before we get into the more expensive phases and risk another failed Anglo-French defence industry romance.

We are set to be the only country that operates both the MK41 and Sylver VLS. Curiously both can be adapted to fire Sea Ceptor but we've chosen MBDA's modified Sea Wolf tubes for T26/31 instead.

At present we have nothing to fire from MK41 that requires such long tubes, and T45 is fitted with the mid-size A50 Sylver cells, meaning it can't take SCALP/Storm Shadow (and possibly other future AAW/ABM Aster derivatives). No doubt there are many perfectly acceptable justifications for this state of affairs, especially the need to make Type 26 'export friendly', however it's the Navy paying the price of a wasted capability and the rest of us funding it.

Were it possible, I'd rather double down on Sylver for everything and lock into joint programmes with the MBDA gang moving forward. Something like:

T45 - 16x A70 + Existing 48x A50
T31 - 16-32x A50
T26 - 24x A70 + 24-32x A50

Limited buys of Exocet for T45/31 and SCALP for T26 in the meantime and (inspired by the S.Korean ASRoc equivalent), perhaps even integrate that fancy new BAE torpedo concept with a modified Aster 30 booster and try to sell it to France and Italy...

However, I really can't see an easy way out from where we are, either unless we replace MK41 on T26, or wait till T45 OSD.

Online
Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 5342
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby Ron5 » 13 Dec 2020, 06:26

Sylver was a mistake by the RN. An expensive system with very small number of missiles qualified to use it (that, by the way, does not include Ceptor). Clearly Mk 41 is the way to go for the future. As evidenced by T26.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3882
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 13 Dec 2020, 08:26

Jensy wrote:I feel we need to prioritise the 'interim' nature of this programme with a focus on affordability, fast entry to service and strengthening partnerships with our peer allies. Looking to NSM, Exocet and RBS-15 (depending on whether we can get it quick enough). Stick it on our GP frigates and possibly T45.

Otherwise we should kill off the FC/ASW before we get into the more expensive phases and risk another failed Anglo-French defence industry romance.
Why not Harpoon Blk II+?

Anyway, the "survivability" of FC/ASW program depends on its capability. None of these candidates are super sonic. None of these candidates have "very long range" to beat Stormshadow nor TLAM. If FC/ASW become "similar" to NSM, then it will be a problem.

Personally, I think RN was aiming at "LMM", "SeaVenom" and "FC/ASW" combo. In this case, FC/ASW is similar to TLAM with anti-ship mode. As such, I think the most reasonable interim ASM is Harpoon blk II+, because it will not break the initial aim.

But, FC/ASW will only "finish development" around 2030, and RN will need until ~2040 to mount the final-set of systems onboard their escorts (see how slowly LRASM is going on). Thus, introducing at least 14-sets of interim ASM, say, NSM, RBS-15 or Harpoon blk II+, will be "good".

Say, initially for 8 T23s and 6 T45s and then 8 T26 and 6 T45.
And after FC/ASW introduction into T26, ship them on T31/32s.

If it be NSM/Harpoon blk II+, overlap with FC/ASW is minimal.
Were it possible, I'd rather double down on Sylver for everything and lock into joint programmes with the MBDA gang moving forward. Something like:....
I prefer Mk.41.

NickC
Member
Posts: 839
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
Location: United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby NickC » 13 Dec 2020, 13:55

My concern about Harpoon is that it has been sold widely around world, eg 2016 Egyptian 2016 contract for Block IIs, and assume nearly all navies eg Russia has close ties with Egypt, now have the intel/knowledge and necessary EW kit to jam Harpoon's RF seeker.

SD67
Member
Posts: 212
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
Location: United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby SD67 » 14 Dec 2020, 03:15

I’d bet on JSM, box launched. Modern available now and too small to pose a threat to FCASW.

If FCASW is being touted as a Storm Shadow / Scalp replacement then it’s probably too big to fit on T31/T32, hence on that platform at least this won’t be an interim purchase.

T26 mk41 silos could carry a mix of TLAM and an ASROC type system.

SD67
Member
Posts: 212
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
Location: United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby SD67 » 14 Dec 2020, 03:25

Jensy wrote:
We are set to be the only country that operates both the MK41 and Sylver VLS. Curiously both can be adapted to fire Sea Ceptor but we've chosen MBDA's modified Sea Wolf tubes for T26/31 instead.

At present we have nothing to fire from MK41 that requires such long tubes, and T45 is fitted with the mid-size A50 Sylver cells, meaning it can't take SCALP/Storm Shadow (and possibly other future AAW/ABM Aster derivatives).

Were it possible, I'd rather double down on Sylver for everything and lock into joint programmes with the MBDA gang moving forward. Something like:

T45 - 16x A70 + Existing 48x A50
T31 - 16-32x A50
T26 - 24x A70 + 24-32x A50

Limited buys of Exocet for T45/31 and SCALP for T26 in the meantime and (inspired by the S.Korean ASRoc equivalent), perhaps even integrate that fancy new BAE torpedo concept with a modified Aster 30 booster and try to sell it to France and Italy...

However, I really can't see an easy way out from where we are, either unless we replace MK41 on T26, or wait till T45 OSD.


Sylver is a dead end, even in Europe. It’s only France and (for now) Italy. Germany and Spain both build around mk41. MBDA future products will all be Mk41 compatible. In terms of what will T26 ship in their silos well ideally TLAM and ASROC, IMHO

User avatar
Jensy
Member
Posts: 444
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
Location: United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby Jensy » 15 Dec 2020, 02:05

I see my Sylver appreciation post went down like a lead balloon! All good points made but still no silver bullet to solve our triple VLS conundrum.

Ron5 wrote:Sylver was a mistake by the RN.

I don't dispute that at all. When the UK left the Horizon programme, we should have probably ditched the Sylver aspect of PAAMS too and either integrated Aster with MK41 or gone with a different missile. However we are where we are.

Also fair point on Sea Ceptor, should have specified that CAMM-ER is being integrated for dual packing in Italian Navy service, rather than the vanilla CAMM.

donald_of_tokyo wrote: I prefer Mk.41.

On balance so do I. However I'm unconvinced by the current selection of weapons to fire from it, and doubt that the MoD would be going on a Dollar shopping spree for US made weapons with the current currency exchange rate.

SD67 wrote:Sylver is a dead end, even in Europe. It’s only France and (for now) Italy. Germany and Spain both build around mk41. MBDA future products will all be Mk41 compatible. In terms of what will T26 ship in their silos well ideally TLAM and ASROC, IMHO

You might well be right but Italy still seems to building an awful lot of ships with Sylver cells (Trieste, PPA and those new AAW destroyers are described as 'Horizon follow ons', which would be surprising to see with MK41). Spain is an Aegis user and Germany is not a navy we should be in any rush to copy.

Either way we're talking about integration with the other two largest navies on our continent whom we share MBDA with. If Sylver 'is' a dead end, we're partially responsible for that state of affairs.

In terms of A43/A50, I'd note that the Saudi and Singapore navies have 128 and 288 192 cells worth respectively, Qatar and Malaysia are joining the club. For better or worse, all four are nations we have close defence ties to.

I've been hearing about Aster integration with MK41 for decades. If it were that easy, surely there would be a business case for MBDA to at least carry out initial trials? As everyone points out, there plenty of MK41 users (at least for the AAW VLS).

TLAM is a great weapon and has been for many decades, how much longer that's going to last against peer adversaries is to be seen. ASROC is also far from new, uses an American made torpedo (I know we're buying them for P-8 but the Poseidons won't be flying off the Type 26 flight deck) and has about half the range of the Korean equivalent I referenced up-pape.

As an aside, I find it interesting that the RoK Navy has gone with their own VLS for firing larger projectiles, as well as MK41. Perhaps there is a need for two standards after all?

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15376
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 15 Dec 2020, 07:14

Jensy wrote:In terms of A50, I'd note that the Saudi and Singapore navies have 128 and 288 cells worth respectively, Qatar and Malaysia are joining the club. For better or worse, all four are nations we have close defence ties to.

That's a good collection, and evidence for the fact that RN's presence EoS is supported in those areas of critical SLOCs (and more broadly in the geography) also by more local allies and not just the 'Quad' navies for 'major occasions'.
- so if we stick with 5 'interim' sets of anti-ship missiles and, say, only one of those sets (at a time) will be EoS, it does not mean that the trip wire presence is there only to be sunk on Day 1
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

BlueD954
Member
Posts: 233
Joined: 02 Oct 2020, 05:11
Location: Singapore

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby BlueD954 » 15 Dec 2020, 07:53

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Jensy wrote:In terms of A50, I'd note that the Saudi and Singapore navies have 128 and 288 cells worth respectively, Qatar and Malaysia are joining the club. For better or worse, all four are nations we have close defence ties to.

That's a good collection, and evidence for the fact that RN's presence EoS is supported in those areas of critical SLOCs (and more broadly in the geography) also by more local allies and not just the 'Quad' navies for 'major occasions'.
- so if we stick with 5 'interim' sets of anti-ship missiles and, say, only one of those sets (at a time) will be EoS, it does not mean that the trip wire presence is there only to be sunk on Day 1


Singapore navy has 128 cells in total not in one frigate and VLS cells only for ASTER

https://www.mindef.gov.sg/oms/navy/care ... igate.html

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 2528
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby Tempest414 » 15 Dec 2020, 09:59

If the 200 million set aside still stands for I-SSGW then for me I would still go for 10 sets of NSM fitted to Type 45 & type 31 giving both classes a OTH anti ship / land attack capability. Type 45 with 16 of its A-50 VLS fitted for quad packed CAMM and NSM would give it the ability to carry 32 Aster-30NT + 64 CAMM + 8 NSM giving great defences to the carrier group. Plus type 31 fitted with 24 CAMM + 8 NSM allows it to be a good global patrol frigate

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1044
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby Scimitar54 » 15 Dec 2020, 10:10

How do you propose to fit 10 x sets of NSM to 11 Ships. :?:

SD67
Member
Posts: 212
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
Location: United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby SD67 » 15 Dec 2020, 10:15

Isn’t HMS Daring a Harbour Training ship for the foreseeable future?

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 2528
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby Tempest414 » 15 Dec 2020, 12:50

Scimitar54 wrote:How do you propose to fit 10 x sets of NSM to 11 Ships. :?:


in any order you wish 6 & 4 or 5 & 5 . We could at a push get 11 sets out of 200 million

Online
Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 5342
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby Ron5 » 15 Dec 2020, 15:38

Scimitar54 wrote:How do you propose to fit 10 x sets of NSM to 11 Ships. :?:


Same as Harpoons: allocated and fitted out of a shared pool when the ship is going on a deployment that needs them. Easy peasy.

Online
Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 5342
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby Ron5 » 15 Dec 2020, 15:40

Jensy wrote:I see my Sylver appreciation post went down like a lead balloon! All good points made but still no silver bullet to solve our triple VLS conundrum.


I'm not sure there's total agreement that there's a "conundrum" in the first place either :D

User avatar
Jensy
Member
Posts: 444
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
Location: United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Postby Jensy » 15 Dec 2020, 16:57

Ron5 wrote:
Jensy wrote:I see my Sylver appreciation post went down like a lead balloon! All good points made but still no silver bullet to solve our triple VLS conundrum.


I'm not sure there's total agreement that there's a "conundrum" in the first place either :D


Clearly. Perhaps three is a magic number?

I note the the USN has Mk.41, Mk.56 and Mk.57, all with substantial overlap.

Who needs commonality anyhow!


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Phil R, Ron5 and 40 guests