RN anti-ship missiles

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Lord Jim »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:then, it will negate the need of "super sonic" version of FC/ASW, enabling UK to focus on long-range cruise / agile sea-skimmer version, which will be more relevant for "double use" for land attack (= Storm Shadow replacements)
That may make the UK happy but certainly not the French, who are the ones wanting a supersonic weapon system. Such a move could finish FC/ASW as a joint project.

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Timmymagic »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Are there effective defense measure against hypersonic missile in cheap? If so, why an anti-ship ballistic missile is an issue? PrSM is exactly an anti-ship ballistic missile.
A high supersonic high diver is actually the threat that Aegis was designed to deal with 40 years ago...Patriot was shooting down ballistic missiles 30 years ago and the state of the art has only increased from then..

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Timmymagic »

Lord Jim wrote:That may make the UK happy but certainly not the French, who are the ones wanting a supersonic weapon system. Such a move could finish FC/ASW as a joint project.
This is the actual problem at present. Both sides want different things....I think the UK is right. A stealthy, subsonic, long range (1000 mile+), terrain following, high payload missile is actually far more likely to be used than a Supersonic, medium range (500 mile), lower payload missile.

Just have a look at how many Tomahawk, SCALP/Storm Shadow, MdCN missile the UK and France have fired in combat compared to the number of Exocet/Harpoon...(which for the unaware is Zero). The 'Supersonic Cruiser' concept has some uses (the ability to be used at extreme range air targets for example, a real niche capability) but they're far outweighed by the Subsonic design.

Personally I think the French aim is to have an anti-ship missile to sell abroad, rather than a decent land attack missile to actually use themselves...it remains to be seen if the circle can be squared...

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Timmymagic wrote:A high supersonic high diver is actually the threat that Aegis was designed to deal with 40 years ago...Patriot was shooting down ballistic missiles 30 years ago and the state of the art has only increased from then..
If it kept to be a "dull" Mach 5 ballistic weapon, yes, "relatively" target to kill. Surely not easy, but a "good target" for high-end AAW destroyers.

But, adding maneuver capability is not difficult.

Also, PrSM is aiming at longer range, 1500 km or longer, which means Mach 7 or even higher speed. If it reaches Mach 7-10, it is equivalent to DF-21 anti-ship ballistic missiles. Not an easy target.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Ron5 »

Timmymagic wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:That may make the UK happy but certainly not the French, who are the ones wanting a supersonic weapon system. Such a move could finish FC/ASW as a joint project.
This is the actual problem at present. Both sides want different things....I think the UK is right. A stealthy, subsonic, long range (1000 mile+), terrain following, high payload missile is actually far more likely to be used than a Supersonic, medium range (500 mile), lower payload missile.

Just have a look at how many Tomahawk, SCALP/Storm Shadow, MdCN missile the UK and France have fired in combat compared to the number of Exocet/Harpoon...(which for the unaware is Zero). The 'Supersonic Cruiser' concept has some uses (the ability to be used at extreme range air targets for example, a real niche capability) but they're far outweighed by the Subsonic design.

Personally I think the French aim is to have an anti-ship missile to sell abroad, rather than a decent land attack missile to actually use themselves...it remains to be seen if the circle can be squared...
Maybe I'm reading this wrong but "no Exocet's fired in combat" ???

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Timmymagic »

Ron5 wrote:Maybe I'm reading this wrong but "no Exocet's fired in combat" ???
UK and France have never fired a heavy weight Anti ship missile in combat ever, from air, submarines, land or ships. Despite many thousands of Martel, Exocet, Sea Eagle, Sub-Harpoon and Harpoon having been in the inventory over the years.

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Timmymagic »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:But, adding maneuver capability is not difficult.
It is difficult and very expensive. The Pershing II was the first to combine manoevering and an RF sensor in one package. That was aimed at stationary targets however. To manoeuvre in such a way to not mask the sensor or make it more susceptible to countermeasures against a moving target (like a ship) is no mean feat...

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Timmymagic wrote:It is difficult and very expensive. The Pershing II was the first to combine manoevering and an RF sensor in one package. That was aimed at stationary targets however. To manoeuvre in such a way to not mask the sensor or make it more susceptible to countermeasures against a moving target (like a ship) is no mean feat...
Exactly. ALL hypersonic missiles will be deadly expensive. Also, super-sonic ASM will be expensive. Long-range stealthy but highly agile cruise missile will be also expensive. But, speed is always very very expensive measure, so

Hypersonic missile (Mach 7-10) >> Super sonic missile (Mach 3) > stealthy-agile cruise missile >> TLAM > Harpoon.

This is the reason why RN T26 do not need to think how to "fill" their 24-cell VLSs with hypersonic nor super sonic missiles. Shooting two or three hypersonic missile against a frigate may not even pay. Just use it for HVU. And, for sure, there are no "dozens of HVU". Only one or two.

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Timmymagic »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Hypersonic missile (Mach 7-10) >> Super sonic missile (Mach 3) > stealthy-agile cruise missile >> TLAM > Harpoon.
If you're talking cost and survivability only I'd put Harpoon ahead of TLAM. It's more expensive, plus is more likely to get a hit against an enemy vessel as it performs terminal manoeuvres to evade defences.

Enigmatically
Member
Posts: 345
Joined: 04 May 2015, 19:00

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Enigmatically »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: Hypersonic missile (Mach 7-10) >> Super sonic missile (Mach 3) > stealthy-agile cruise missile >> TLAM > Harpoon.
A completely obvious hypothesis, but not necessarily true.
There is of course no real world evidence to support it.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Enigmatically wrote:A completely obvious hypothesis, but not necessarily true.
There is of course no real world evidence to support it.
Really? Of course, if you order 1000 of TLAM, each missile will be cheaper than NSM. This is engineering truth.

As such, relying on USA for hypersonic something = the most expensive and small numbered stuff, is logical. At the same time, building "UK own" missiles on cheaper (not meaning less useful) and "can be built in number" assets (like subsonic stealth-but-agile missile) is logical.

This is what I said.

# Actually, I think ordering TLAM Blk5 NOW as an interim land attack missile (with anti-ship option) "to save the day", will be a very good choice. It is undoubtedly cheap, thanks to it being relatively simple and ordered in numerous order.

Enigmatically
Member
Posts: 345
Joined: 04 May 2015, 19:00

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Enigmatically »

Donald, perhaps I misunderstood, I thought you were implying hypersonic missiles were necessarily much better than supersonic missiles which were better than than stealth cruise missiles

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Lord Jim »

I just wish they would get on and order the Interim AShM they were talking about. Having the Carrier Group sail without some ships having Harpoon, or appearing not to have is criminal and doesn't give the right message. They might be on Fort Victoria to be installed later we don't know though. They also need to be available to the ASW T-23s especially as they are retiring two of the GPs earlier then planned. Same goes for the T-45 as well.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Ron5 »

They don't need no stinking missiles, they got Sea Lightnings!! :lol:

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by NickC »

A view of the USN anti-ship missile options


seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1779
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Australia

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by seaspear »

Can though an opposing peer force monitor from satellite stealthy subsonic missiles by their thermal image?

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by abc123 »

seaspear wrote:Can though an opposing peer force monitor from satellite stealthy subsonic missiles by their thermal image?
Maybe in a James Bond movie. :think: :think:
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…

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1779
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Australia

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by seaspear »

Perhaps James Bond is closer than you think
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/201 ... -airliner/
Twenty-odd years ago I was able to view an intelligence agency satellite picture that showed an acquired capability of another country it had lots of detail and resolution

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by abc123 »

seaspear wrote:Perhaps James Bond is closer than you think
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/201 ... -airliner/
Twenty-odd years ago I was able to view an intelligence agency satellite picture that showed an acquired capability of another country it had lots of detail and resolution
Appologies. I misunderstood you, I thought that you were speaking about classical EO recconaisance sattelittes. :wave:
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…

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Caribbean »

abc123 wrote:
seaspear wrote:Can though an opposing peer force monitor from satellite stealthy subsonic missiles by their thermal image?
Maybe in a James Bond movie. :think: :think:
I'm pretty sure I've read about satellites able to detect the microscopic changes in ocean surface temperature caused by a submarine passing at depth, so I would have thought detecting a missile launch was easy-peasy (to use a technical term :D ). As always, the issue is getting that information to wherever it can be made use of in a relevant time frame.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Lord Jim »

Wasn't that in the Spy who loved me. :D

User avatar
Pseudo
Senior Member
Posts: 1732
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 21:37
Tuvalu

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Pseudo »

Caribbean wrote:
abc123 wrote:
seaspear wrote:Can though an opposing peer force monitor from satellite stealthy subsonic missiles by their thermal image?
Maybe in a James Bond movie. :think: :think:
I'm pretty sure I've read about satellites able to detect the microscopic changes in ocean surface temperature caused by a submarine passing at depth, so I would have thought detecting a missile launch was easy-peasy (to use a technical term :D ). As always, the issue is getting that information to wherever it can be made use of in a relevant time frame.
Isn't the problem not necessarily a satellite's capabilities but it looking at the right place at the right time? As in a satellite might very well be able to detect and track a stealthy subsonic AShM, but it can only do so if it's focused on it.

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1779
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Australia

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by seaspear »

I don't know if there is an operational procedure for ships to go dark prior to entering conflict by turning off their A.I.S you could expect that the thermal launch plume of missiles could be detected if a satellite was positioned in the right place
this article suggests that certainly, China has a good grasp of the use of satellites for military purposes
https://eurasiantimes.com/chinas-latest ... -us-india/

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Caribbean »

Pseudo wrote:Isn't the problem not necessarily a satellite's capabilities but it looking at the right place at the right time?
At the individual satellite level, I'm sure that's a big issue, governed by sensor sensitivity, field of view, etc. I'm pretty sure that a satellite trying to detect (say) a 0.01 degree C rise (or less) caused by a submarine several hundred metres down is not going to be able to monitor the entire visible planetary surface - it's going to have to focus on a much smaller area. I guess that you address that by ) having large numbers of satellites, to cover more ground and b) improving your chances by being clever about where to look (e.g known submarine ports, choke points etc, etc.)

Of course, to detect missile launches, the signatures are far more obvious, so less sensitive sensors looking at much wider areas will work.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by abc123 »

It isn't the same thing to discover an ICBM launch and a cruise missile launch... Plus, you need to know where to look and also, you would need a lot of sattelites.
Also, if sattelittes are able to discover submerged submarines, then nobody would build subs anymore, right?
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…

Post Reply