RN anti-ship missiles

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
cyrilranch
Member
Posts: 96
Joined: 01 May 2015, 11:36
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by cyrilranch »

End of the day,the submarine fleet will still need a long range anti surface misslie system, if it roaming around across the world.
So it could be a French or US sub launch system bought in small numbers.

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Lord Jim »

If we want the simplest solution to which system to purchase for the Interim SSM requirement then the Boeing upgrade of the Block I Harpoon to Block II is the best answer in my opinion. It totally refurbishes the missiles and bring them up to the latest standard. Our existing launchers can be used with only a software update. The USN is already doing this as the NSM is not going to replace all Harpoons in the fleet anytime soon. This is by far the most cost effective option and for the set budget, it would allow more than the five sets currently planned for the Interim SSM to be made available until the FCASW is ready.

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Jdam »

Does the Block II have a land attack capability? I believe that was a requirement.

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

I understand Harpoon blk II+ (but not the blk II) has a "limited ground attack capability" relying its targeting on GPS only.

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Lord Jim »

That is so and that is the standard the USN is upgrading its Harpoon stocks to.

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2762
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by dmereifield »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:I understand Harpoon blk II+ (but not the blk II) has a "limited ground attack capability" relying its targeting on GPS only.
They used Harpoon for land attack in the movie Under Siege (yes, I know Smith's fictional). I saw the movie again recently (yes it's terrible, but it's classic) and it struck me as odd that they used Harpoon for land attack when they had Tomahawks available. Is there any factual rationale for this or is it just a mistake by the writers? Sorry to take things of course to fiction but it bugged me and I'm interested to know why they did that with the movie...

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1411
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by tomuk »

Lord Jim wrote:Our existing launchers can be used with only a software update.
Is this true? Footage I've seen shows the consoles looking very old fashioned. Aren't ours Block 1C?

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Timmymagic »

Lord Jim wrote:If we want the simplest solution to which system to purchase for the Interim SSM requirement then the Boeing upgrade of the Block I Harpoon to Block II is the best answer in my opinion.
IIRC the RN's Harpoon are that old that the upgrade would cost as much as new build. I believe the USN upgraded missiles that were far newer production.

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by RichardIC »

Lord Jim wrote:If we want the simplest solution to which system to purchase for the Interim SSM requirement then the Boeing upgrade of the Block I Harpoon to Block II is the best answer in my opinion. It totally refurbishes the missiles and bring them up to the latest standard. Our existing launchers can be used with only a software update. The USN is already doing this as the NSM is not going to replace all Harpoons in the fleet anytime soon. This is by far the most cost effective option and for the set budget, it would allow more than the five sets currently planned for the Interim SSM to be made available until the FCASW is ready.
Timmymagic wrote:IIRC the RN's Harpoon are that old that the upgrade would cost as much as new build. I believe the USN upgraded missiles that were far newer production.
My understanding too. The RN Harpoons are past being upgraded. They're time-expired and you either replace or go without.

You're talking about missiles that are contemporaries of the Happy Mondays.

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Ron5 »

dmereifield wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:I understand Harpoon blk II+ (but not the blk II) has a "limited ground attack capability" relying its targeting on GPS only.
They used Harpoon for land attack in the movie Under Siege (yes, I know Smith's fictional). I saw the movie again recently (yes it's terrible, but it's classic) and it struck me as odd that they used Harpoon for land attack when they had Tomahawks available. Is there any factual rationale for this or is it just a mistake by the writers? Sorry to take things of course to fiction but it bugged me and I'm interested to know why they did that with the movie...
I just remember the one scene from that movie ;)

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Scimitar54 »

16” ASW splashdown? :thumbup:

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2762
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by dmereifield »

Ron5 wrote:
dmereifield wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:I understand Harpoon blk II+ (but not the blk II) has a "limited ground attack capability" relying its targeting on GPS only.
They used Harpoon for land attack in the movie Under Siege (yes, I know Smith's fictional). I saw the movie again recently (yes it's terrible, but it's classic) and it struck me as odd that they used Harpoon for land attack when they had Tomahawks available. Is there any factual rationale for this or is it just a mistake by the writers? Sorry to take things of course to fiction but it bugged me and I'm interested to know why they did that with the movie...
I just remember the one scene from that movie ;)
No idea what you're referring to, obviously...

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1411
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by tomuk »

Commander Krill in Drag?

User avatar
ETH
Member
Posts: 71
Joined: 08 Apr 2021, 23:28
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by ETH »

Jdam wrote:Does the Block II have a land attack capability? I believe that was a requirement.
Specifically a ‘terrain following maritime land attack capability’ which technically makes Harpoon block ll+ exempt from the competition.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

ETH wrote:
Jdam wrote:Does the Block II have a land attack capability? I believe that was a requirement.
Specifically a ‘terrain following maritime land attack capability’ which technically makes Harpoon block ll+ exempt from the competition.
Sounds like NSM, then?
- which, for the most parts of it, is the JSM

Which then, the JSM, will be integrated with the F-35
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)

User avatar
ETH
Member
Posts: 71
Joined: 08 Apr 2021, 23:28
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by ETH »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
ETH wrote:
Jdam wrote:Does the Block II have a land attack capability? I believe that was a requirement.
Specifically a ‘terrain following maritime land attack capability’ which technically makes Harpoon block ll+ exempt from the competition.
Sounds like NSM, then?
- which, for the most parts of it, is the JSM

Which then, the JSM, will be integrated with the F-35
NSM, RBS15 and LRASM are the three contenders currently. Of the three I believe NSM is the most likely (with, like you mentioned, commonality with a JSM buy for the F35s).

If the aforementioned terrain-following requirement is dropped (not a requirement that was expected with Tomahawk still having a fair amount of time left with the Royal Navy) then Harpoon block ll+ is an extremely likely choice (commonality, training etc.).

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

ETH wrote: If the aforementioned terrain-following requirement is dropped (not a requirement that was expected with Tomahawk still having a fair amount of time left with the Royal Navy)
We bought all 45 of Tomahawks (who knows if we have bought more; a handful of them have been fired since)
... so removing any rqrmnt just bcz we have Tomahawk would not be sound
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)

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 Harpoon blkII+ has a GPS and a simple micro-computer, terrain following trajectory is very easy. Of course, not "tracking" the terrain itself, just flying on the pre-programed trajectory. Yes there are limitations, but anyway, Harpoon blkII+'s land attack is guided by GPS, so no problem.

Missile unit cost is very cheap in Harpoon blkII+. TLAM follows. I understand NSM and RBS50 are a bit more expensive. As "interim ASM", cheap and in-number will form a good hi-lo mix with future FCASW. I mean, even if FCASW comes in, the simple and stupid (JDAM-level) simple Harpoon blkII+ will NOT need to be disbanded?

As such, I think RN need to buy 19 or 24 set of them, so the ALL escorts can carry "SSM with 2ndary (= limited) land-attack capability"

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: I understand NSM and RBS50 are a bit more expensive. As "interim ASM", cheap and in-number will form a good hi-lo mix with future FCASW.
Let's think about it; why are we only getting 5 sets?

The singleton mode of deploying as marine security policing presence (or call it trip-wire, if the Oppo has serious intentions):
- the older Harpoon could not be launched in the busy SLOCs/ pinchpoints as it could not differentiate well enough between targets

Be it the Gulf (then the targets would be ships; or the paw-paw would turn into war-war, by firing onto land targets), or
the Bab el-Mandep (where trying to close the narrows for shipping would perhaps be done by 'deniable' land units and launchers)
... this,
I think is why we can't take another 'holiday'.
Not many holidays around here lately, anyway.

Much later, yes: "a good hi-lo mix with future FCASW".
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)

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Lord Jim »

A Hi/Low mix would make a lot of sense especially if both could also be air launched or even sub launched. Going down that route a fully agree that upgrading existing stocks of buying new Harpoon Blk II+ would be the way to go for the Interim Missile, but if the cost are as low as some sources state compared to the competition the why stop at five for the initial buy, make sure there are enough for any T-25, T-23, T-31 and T-26 deployed operationally. So probably more like eight or nine sets, plus reloads for each, for a total of 144 missiles plus launching systems for the T-31 with the T-26 getting T-23 hand me downs, say six or seven sets to have a couple spare. Larger and more expensive possibly but the Royal Navy cannot afford to gap this capability, and plans to have more ships deployed than now.

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Tempest414 »

For me I don't understand what the thinking is NSM is coming into the US fleet in numbers and with a cost of about 20 million pounds for a set of 8 plus launchers and a fire control system we should be looking to buy 12 sets at a cost of 240 million 6 each for T-45 and T -23 and then add more sets for T-31 until we have 18 which would end up on T-45 , T-31 and T-32 giving all classes a OTH strike capability both at sea and on land

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Tempest414 wrote:giving all classes a OTH strike capability both at sea and on land
IMO the land attack capability is of paramount importance.

Unless operating inside an exclusion-zone as part a serious conflict I can't see RN firing a Harpoon type ASuW weapon from a vessel mounted launcher.

Having a VLS or canister launched ASuW capability gives enemy commanders something else to think about but realistically they will be used primarily to attack land targets if they are ever used at all.

Anthony58
Member
Posts: 64
Joined: 14 Feb 2021, 19:23
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Anthony58 »

There is room for the interim system on Type 26, might have to move something elsewhere.

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Ron5 »

Poiuytrewq wrote:as part a serious conflict
I'm pretty sure the RN equips itself for such a task :D

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Anthony58 wrote:There is room for the interim system on Type 26, might have to move something elsewhere.
T26 is very large. Finding a place for 8 Harpoon blk.II+ will be surely doable (or even easy). For example, see the Canadian version. At least, this is not a big issue.

Post Reply