RN anti-ship missiles

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
KiwiMuzz
Member
Posts: 58
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 06:20
New Zealand

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by KiwiMuzz »

Lord Jim wrote:It has got to worry Royal Navy Ship's Captains that they cannot shoot back against anything beyond visual range, except with Sea Ceptor witch would have limited effect against anything bigger than a speedboat.

What's the 4.5 like in the anti-ship role? No guided rounds, but plenty of them...

KiwiMuzz
Member
Posts: 58
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 06:20
New Zealand

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by KiwiMuzz »

Haha - just trying to remember the last time I was a "Junior" anything! :lol:

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by abc123 »

Ron5 wrote:
RichardIC wrote:Not a priority seemingly.

I-SSGW delay vexes bidders, puts pressure on delivery

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news ... n-delivery

More than two years after first advertising its requirement for a stopgap anti-ship missile to replace the soon-to-retire Harpoon Block 1C, the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) has still to formally invite bids from industry.

The delay in kicking off the GBP200 million (USD278 million) Interim Surface-to-Surface Guided Weapon (I-SSGW) competition has caused frustration among the potential candidates, while at the same time narrowing the window for delivery of the new long-range anti-surface warfare (ASuW) capability ahead of the December 2023 out-of-service date (OSD) for Harpoon and the associated GWS60 ship system. Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI), Raytheon, and Saab are all expected to vie for the contract.

Failure to procure a new missile in time would leave the Royal Navy (RN) without a heavyweight ASuW weapon. Harpoon is nominally fitted to the RN's 13 Type 23 frigates and three out of its six Type 45 destroyers: however, no Type 45 has recently deployed with Harpoon and not all Type 23s are currently deploying with the system.

In March 2019 the MoD's Defence Equipment and Support (DE&S) organisation released a prior information notice (PIN) stating its intention to acquire a ship-launched over-the-horizon precision anti-ship capability with an additional terrain-following precision maritime land attack capability. It added that the I-SSGW capability would be fitted to five Type 23 (towed array) frigates capable of concurrent anti-submarine warfare and ASuW operations as part of the UK's Maritime Task Group.
Uh oh, seemingly frees up enough for the yacht :mrgreen:
Priorityes are priorityes.
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…

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Ron5 »

Martlet with the CSG ...

Image

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Lord Jim »

Well at least we can annoy an enemy warship! :D

KiwiMuzz
Member
Posts: 58
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 06:20
New Zealand

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by KiwiMuzz »

Lord Jim wrote:Well at least we can annoy an enemy warship! :D
I can't help thinking that giving the Martlet warhead an airburst function could be pretty handy. A salvo of ten detonating among the aerials and an antennae of a major warship would surely have a good chance of achieving a mission kill.

J. Tattersall

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by J. Tattersall »

From Navy Lookout
Contenders for the Royal Navy’s interim anti-ship missile requirement

https://www.navylookout.com/contenders- ... quirement/ According to article the requirements effectively rule out MBDA Exocet MM40 Block III and Boeing Harpoon Block II+.

Jdam
Member
Posts: 922
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:26
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Jdam »

Is LRASM really an option? I suspect we will need it to be canister-launched and I don't know how developed the canister-launched version is as no one else has adopted it. If it requires extra time and money it kind of defeats the point of intern solution.

Part of me still thinks we wont buy anything.

User avatar
RichardIC
Senior Member
Posts: 1371
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by RichardIC »

Jdam wrote:Is LRASM really an option? I suspect we will need it to be canister-launched and I don't know how developed the canister-launched version is as no one else has adopted it.
I think you're right for the reasons you've identified and there's no way it could be ready in the required timescale. It's also three times the weight of Harpoon and probably wouldn't fit the space available.

Oh, and cost.

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Ron5 »

Jdam wrote:Is LRASM really an option? I suspect we will need it to be canister-launched and I don't know how developed the canister-launched version is as no one else has adopted it. If it requires extra time and money it kind of defeats the point of intern solution.

Part of me still thinks we wont buy anything.
Maybe they need to money to fix Ajax ..

Image

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Tempest414 »

For me just buy ten sets of NSM fit 5 to the type 23's and 5 to the type 31's and as the 23's go fit them to type 32 with FCASW being fitted to type 26 and type 82

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Lord Jim »

I can see them taking the easiest route and buying five sets of the latest Harpoon, updating the software on the T-23s and doing any necessary work on the launchers. Has to be the cheapest option by far. Anything else might be seen as putting the Anglo/French project at risk or at least threatening its budget.

User avatar
Jensy
Senior Member
Posts: 1061
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Jensy »

Curious what the current status of the Saab RBS-15 IV is. Seemed a little too early in development but with the glacial pace of the programme maybe an option after all.

Also provides a good value option plus closer future ties with a Tempest partner. Reduced risk of overlapping with FCASW's high end capabilities too (high speed or stealth).

The range figures for Sea Serpent/Gabriel V seem very conservative assuming it's the same basic missile.

As Navy Lookout mentions, another OTS purchase from the US is not going to go down well with some segments in parliament, especially at the moment.

Jdam
Member
Posts: 922
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:26
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Jdam »

Isn't Harpoon out of the running as it does not have a land attack capability? The benefit of Harpoon is we might be able to use them on our P-8s.

I've said above that part of me think with every month that goes by and we don't get something the chances are we wont buy anything. With some though behind it I guess the NSM is the best compromise, canister-launched, hopefully wont upset the FC/ASW program and we are buying it off a nation that buy torpedoes off us (maybe we can cooperated to incorporate the missile on a few things.)

I guess that might be the problem, there are no clear winners all have pros and cons.

KiwiMuzz
Member
Posts: 58
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 06:20
New Zealand

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by KiwiMuzz »

Jdam wrote:Isn't Harpoon out of the running as it does not have a land attack capability? The benefit of Harpoon is we might be able to use them on our P-8s.

I've said above that part of me think with every month that goes by and we don't get something the chances are we wont buy anything. With some though behind it I guess the NSM is the best compromise, canister-launched, hopefully wont upset the FC/ASW program and we are buying it off a nation that buy torpedoes off us (maybe we can cooperated to incorporate the missile on a few things.)

I guess that might be the problem, there are no clear winners all have pros and cons.
Indeed. I fear that sometime before the end of next year, we will be informed that this capability will be taking a lovely holiday (and by God's Holy Trousers I HATE that expression), pending the arrival of tomorrow's much anticipated, and inevitably delayed / cut back, jam.

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

If I-SSGW is to be "banned", I hope it to be "reduced" to just Harpoon blk II+. It is very cheap, can do land-attack (although very basic), has commonality with P-8, used by many allies (US, Canada, Australia, Japan, ....).

see
https://www.boeing.ca/products-and-serv ... ck-ii.page

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by NickC »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:If I-SSGW is to be "banned", I hope it to be "reduced" to just Harpoon blk II+. It is very cheap, can do land-attack (although very basic), has commonality with P-8, used by many allies (US, Canada, Australia, Japan, ....).

see
https://www.boeing.ca/products-and-serv ... ck-ii.page
My objection to the old gen Harpoon Blk II is that it has been sold to third world countries eg Egypt, and so no doubt its active seeker characteristics widely known and making easy to decoy/jam. As compromised a high probability it will ineffective if ever needed to be used in action.

PS USN contracted Boeing in April for integration of the LRASM on the P-8A, so would appear that in the future USN will be replacing the Harpoon with the LRASM on the P-8A.

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

NickC wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:If I-SSGW is to be "banned", I hope it to be "reduced" to just Harpoon blk II+. It is very cheap, can do land-attack (although very basic), has commonality with P-8, used by many allies (US, Canada, Australia, Japan, ....).

see
https://www.boeing.ca/products-and-serv ... ck-ii.page
My objection to the old gen Harpoon Blk II is that it has been sold to third world countries eg Egypt, and so no doubt its active seeker characteristics widely known and making easy to decoy/jam. As compromised a high probability it will ineffective if ever needed to be used in action.

PS USN contracted Boeing in April for integration of the LRASM on the P-8A, so would appear that in the future USN will be replacing the Harpoon with the LRASM on the P-8A.
No big objection. I am just saying, "if banning I-SSGW". Harpoon elk 2+ will be used as a low end asset. At high end, something carried on F35B (JSM, SPEAR3 (and StormShadow?)) and a small number of FCASW on a small number of T26, and SSN's TLAM, will be there. As FCASW canister version be introduced in the next-next step. say, around 2030-32?, Harpoon blk2+ will be replaced by it. Not proposing to use it in late 2030s.

"If nothing, better be with Harpoon blk2+". If there were I-SSGW remaining, no place for Harpoon. This is my point.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Tempest414 »

NickC wrote:PS USN contracted Boeing in April for integration of the LRASM on the P-8A, so would appear that in the future USN will be replacing the Harpoon with the LRASM on the P-8A.
The US navy is also going NSM in big way fitting it to on is LCS's and new Frigates . For me it should be a pony race between NSM and RBS-15/IV with the winner ending up on our tier 2 frigates

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Lord Jim »

AS an interim weapon system, Harpoon Block II should be the default choice for the Royal Navy. Money is tight and it is a far simpler purchase than any of the more capable systems as well as cheaper. We have put the future of out ASuW and Land Attack capabilities with the FCASW, which if it delivers what is promised, will be a formidable weapon equipping aircraft surface ships and even submarines. I have to assume though that it will also be an expensive weapon, and given out past history of procurement, we may not purchase it in all its versions.

For example we may decide that if the American LRASM is slightly cheaper we will actually purchase this for our surface vessels as it is compatible with the Mk41 VLS leaving the FCASW purely as an air launched weapon, mainly replacing Storm Shadow. If the Norwegians and Germans develop a submarine launched version of the NSM we might choose that for our Astute and follow on SSNs. What has swayed me in this direction is the recent decision not to equip our Apache Guardians with Brimstone but rather the new American missile.

Commonality does not seem to be a prime driver for the MoD but rather cost, and of course there is also the possibility that the FCASW programme becomes mired in the conflict of which capabilities the UK and France want the new missile to have and whether they are compatible in a single weapon.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by SW1 »

The absolutely last thing we should be doing is thinking of again bringing in multi different anti ship missiles from multiple companies.

NSM family are very capable and modern but how does it fit in with our complex weapons programs, would we be able to develop variants not yet developed in the UK could we add uk warheads or sensors at some point if we wish and can we integrate it onto air land and sea assets in the uk and can it be manufactured in the uk.

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Lord Jim »

We shouldn't be but there is precedence.

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Ron5 »

SW1 wrote:The absolutely last thing we should be doing is thinking of again bringing in multi different anti ship missiles from multiple companies.

NSM family are very capable and modern but how does it fit in with our complex weapons programs, would we be able to develop variants not yet developed in the UK could we add uk warheads or sensors at some point if we wish and can we integrate it onto air land and sea assets in the uk and can it be manufactured in the uk.
You must work in the MoD: start with an off the shelf purchase to fill a procurement gap then overload with requirements forcing the price up to astronomical levels before the inevitable cancellation.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by SW1 »

Ron5 wrote:
SW1 wrote:The absolutely last thing we should be doing is thinking of again bringing in multi different anti ship missiles from multiple companies.

NSM family are very capable and modern but how does it fit in with our complex weapons programs, would we be able to develop variants not yet developed in the UK could we add uk warheads or sensors at some point if we wish and can we integrate it onto air land and sea assets in the uk and can it be manufactured in the uk.
You must work in the MoD: start with an off the shelf purchase to fill a procurement gap then overload with requirements forcing the price up to astronomical levels before the inevitable cancellation.
What procurement gap? Is there not an mdba program for a harpoon replacement with France currently with funding?

Is NSM integrated on type 23,31,45,26 already? If it isn’t then it isn’t off the shelf an integration contract will be required also handling and logistics.

If your buying something as modern and as capable as the nsm then it isn’t an interim solution it’s the solution so you better consider what a road map for its development looks like and how you plan to ensure National supply of a consumable.

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by NickC »

NSM integration on T23, 26, 31,45, its fire and forget missile, would it not be possible to weld the deck launchers to the deck after making appropriate space that can take the structural load, connect to power source, load missiles, load the controlling Kongsberg stand alone software on laptop and take the target co-ordinates from ship's CIC and press the red button, I'm sure Kongsberg's software and comms would be encrypted.

Post Reply