RN anti-ship missiles
-
- Retired Site Admin
- Posts: 2657
- Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Re: RN anti-ship missiles
It does sound suspiciously like Fallon and crew are just aiming to avoid the "we have no Anti-ship missile" period.
So that after they retire Harpoon after Sea Venom is in, they can point to Sea Venom and claim that is the new modern anti-ship missile to protect our ships with our rising defence budget.
Average joe won't know the difference. All they need to do is convince enough people to make it a quiet shout from people who do know.
So that after they retire Harpoon after Sea Venom is in, they can point to Sea Venom and claim that is the new modern anti-ship missile to protect our ships with our rising defence budget.
Average joe won't know the difference. All they need to do is convince enough people to make it a quiet shout from people who do know.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4640
- Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Re: RN anti-ship missiles
and with that scenario anti ship missile capability will only be available to those ships carrying wildcat something else Joe public won't know
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: RN anti-ship missiles
Well, Wildcat is there for ASuW, another thing "Joe" would not know.marktigger wrote:will only be available to those ships carrying wildcat something else Joe public won't know
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: RN anti-ship missiles
Ron5 wrote: IOC 2019
vs.
senior RN sources told Jane’s the sea-skimming GWS 60/Harpoon Block 1C missiles would remain in service at least until 2020. “There is work ongoing to look at options for longer extension "
= is that longer extension (option; at what extra cost) just for insurance?
A year in between the two dates sounds like building a reasonable stockpile, rather than just having a couple for show
I was commenting on your assertion that Sea Venom had been accepted into service
Technical acceptance (after tests) and IOC are two different things
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: RN anti-ship missiles
That's a good question, I wonder what. You never get something for nothing.Repulse wrote:What did it cost? A lower T31e budget or a few F35Bs...james k wrote:The RN managed to get something past the accountants at the Treasury? I'm both surprised and pleased. That doesn't happen often.
Re: RN anti-ship missiles
About cost of service extension, IIRC it's about 500 000-700 000 USD per missile... Now, with 13 frigates and 6 destroyers ( each with 8 missiles ) that's about 200 missiles ( with few spare missiles ). So, about 100-150 mil. USD as cost...
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
Where does it say the RN are buying new missiles?abc123 wrote:About cost of service extension, IIRC it's about 500 000-1,5 mil. USD per missile... Now, with 13 frigates and 6 destroyers ( each with 8 missiles ) that's about 200 missiles ( with few spare missiles ). So, about 100-300 mil. USD as cost...
The costs will be those related to servicing and maintaining the equipment and missiles, handling and storage facilities, engineer training and any external support contracts. It can quickly add up, especially if it is legacy hardware that you have to keep going.
If it was expected that it was going out of service then a cost saving been lost and will need replacing as well as finding the addition cash.
Re: RN anti-ship missiles
I don't see where did I say that the RN is buying the new equipment?
About the amount- 500-700 000 USD per missile isn't such insignificant amount, especially in these times of austerity...
About the amount- 500-700 000 USD per missile isn't such insignificant amount, especially in these times of austerity...
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…
-
- Member
- Posts: 96
- Joined: 01 May 2015, 11:36
Re: RN anti-ship missiles
[abc123 wrote:About cost of service extension, IIRC it's about 500 000-1,5 mil. USD per missile... Now, with 13 frigates and 6 destroyers ( each with 8 missiles ) that's about 200 missiles ( with few spare missiles ). So, about 100-300 mil. USD as cost...
At present it would be more like 48 (8 frigates and 4 destoryers) 24-72 million USD. I sure the MOD can find that much dosh ,maybe by selling the soon to be retired MHC boats/ships.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1029
- Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
Re: RN anti-ship missiles
The full article in Jane's explains that the current Harpoon service contract expires in 2018 but MOD has decided not to extend the contract and will keep them in service using in-house expertise.
Re: RN anti-ship missiles
Aethulwulf wrote:The full article in Jane's explains that the current Harpoon service contract expires in 2018 but MOD has decided not to extend the contract and will keep them in service using in-house expertise.
That might make things much cheaper...
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
Yeah, they would probably rotate them on deployed ships...cyrilranch wrote:[abc123 wrote:About cost of service extension, IIRC it's about 500 000-1,5 mil. USD per missile... Now, with 13 frigates and 6 destroyers ( each with 8 missiles ) that's about 200 missiles ( with few spare missiles ). So, about 100-300 mil. USD as cost...
At present it would be more like 48 (8 frigates and 4 destoryers) 24-72 million USD. I sure the MOD can find that much dosh ,maybe by selling the soon to be retired MHC boats/ships.
My mistake about 1,5 mil. trough, it should be somewhere about 700 000... Or more, you can never know. But with in house work, the numbers should be even lower, maybe even double lower...
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…
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: RN anti-ship missiles
This is what happens here, we accept someone's IIRC out-of-the-hat number... and run with itcyrilranch wrote: At present it would be more like 48 (8 frigates and 4 destoryers) 24-72 million USD
... that comes closer to "May be someone just noted down the expiry dates and they go out in that order?" which is what I said, before we had a little excursion into developing anti-swarm tactics:Aethulwulf wrote:service contract expires in 2018 but MOD has decided not to extend the contract and will keep them in service using in-house expertise
Harpoon; anti-swarm; errm, ASW fits in there, somewhere in the middle
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: RN anti-ship missiles
Backed by our rising defence budget blah blah blah we have decided to keep them in Service for a bit longer and hope we actually don't need to fire them blah blah. Did not Boeing offer to upgrade them?
Re: RN anti-ship missiles
I wonder if some Civil Servant somewhere is looking in to the RN using empty but capped Harpoon Canisters to place on RN ships when the cameras are out. AS long as the labels are right who would know, then it would simply be a case of hoping they weren't actually needed. So job done, the RN still has ASMs and at minimal cost.
Alternatively we could extend the process we use for Trident and use US owned missiles etc. just lease them being careful to avoid any paint scratches or dent when we return them.
Alternatively we could extend the process we use for Trident and use US owned missiles etc. just lease them being careful to avoid any paint scratches or dent when we return them.
Re: RN anti-ship missiles
Why so sure it's Civil Servants making these decisions? More likely to be someone in uniform who will get a good report out of it and be long gone from the job before the problems arise.Lord Jim wrote:I wonder if some Civil Servant somewhere is looking in to the RN using empty but capped Harpoon Canisters to place on RN ships when the cameras are out. AS long as the labels are right who would know, then it would simply be a case of hoping they weren't actually needed. So job done, the RN still has ASMs and at minimal cost.
Alternatively we could extend the process we use for Trident and use US owned missiles etc. just lease them being careful to avoid any paint scratches or dent when we return them.
-
- Member
- Posts: 363
- Joined: 09 Aug 2017, 04:00
Re: RN anti-ship missiles
Is there any contender for a replacement should they just decide to phase em out ?
-
- Member
- Posts: 273
- Joined: 19 Oct 2015, 18:29
Re: RN anti-ship missiles
While more of an 'anti-boat' missile then 'anti-ship' has there been much progress with the Thales LMM that was ordered some years back?
There was also some tests of the Brimstone from fixed ground positions for a possible naval role as well. Obviously these are far more suited to lighter OV's etc but still look interesting. And then there is the rather conspicuous lack of anti-ship missiles that can fit inside the F-35B and heavier armaments for the Lynx and Apache while they are on RN service.
There was also some tests of the Brimstone from fixed ground positions for a possible naval role as well. Obviously these are far more suited to lighter OV's etc but still look interesting. And then there is the rather conspicuous lack of anti-ship missiles that can fit inside the F-35B and heavier armaments for the Lynx and Apache while they are on RN service.
Re: RN anti-ship missiles
Whilst there is obviously a range dimension, but just wondering if you were on the receiving end which would you rather face - a large single missile, or a volley of 20+ 57mm shells spanning multiple watertight compartments?
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston
-
- Donator
- Posts: 3247
- Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Re: RN anti-ship missiles
F-35B carries PWIV and will carry Spear. Thats enough to ruin anyone's day right there.WhiteWhale wrote:nd then there is the rather conspicuous lack of anti-ship missiles that can fit inside the F-35B and heavier armaments for the Lynx and Apache while they are on RN service.
Lynx has gone. And as for Apache? Anything getting 8-16 Hellfire (or eventually Brimstone 2) is going to feel it somewhat. LMM integration on Wildcat is due 2018-2019. Only thing holding that up is money.
Re: RN anti-ship missiles
Would love more SSNs, but perhaps a mini Torpedo laden sub deployable via davits instead...Ron5 wrote:Faced with that choice, I'd chose a submarine to stand in.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: RN anti-ship missiles
Strengthen the davits? ... or float this one out of the dock, in the back:Repulse wrote:perhaps a mini Torpedo laden sub deployable via davits instead..
http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.ph ... rines.html
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: RN anti-ship missiles
I was joking, didn't mean to belittle your point.Repulse wrote:Would love more SSNs, but perhaps a mini Torpedo laden sub deployable via davits instead...Ron5 wrote:Faced with that choice, I'd chose a submarine to stand in.
Re: RN anti-ship missiles
No offense taken, just thinking out loud. We focus so much on SSMs and SSM defence, but just wondering if a modern ship could withstand a volley of shells. The main point being, how much would a main gun (or guns) with smart ammo could be a deterrence from attack for a T31e. The basis being that this would require simpler handling / maintenance and crew.Ron5 wrote:I was joking, didn't mean to belittle your point.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston