RN anti-ship missiles

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Caribbean »

abc123 wrote:Also, if sattelittes are able to discover submerged submarines, then nobody would build subs anymore, right?
The technology to detect submarines is said to exist, but has its limitations. As always, it a competition between building stealthier submarines and better sensors.

I suspect that any orbiting platform would also be looking for salinity changes (gotta get rid of all that generated fresh water somehow) and evidence of submarines wake (minute sea level changes as water is displaced upwards by a submarine moving below the surface).

Agreed that ICBM launches are different from Cruise missile launches, but the heat generated by both are probably at least five orders of magnitude greater than the temperature changes generated by a submarine underwater (>1000 C vs 0.01C ), so relatively easy to monitor for over a large area, then zoom in for detail when something is detected
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 »

Caribbean wrote:
abc123 wrote:Also, if sattelittes are able to discover submerged submarines, then nobody would build subs anymore, right?
The technology to detect submarines is said to exist, but has its limitations. As always, it a competition between building stealthier submarines and better sensors.

I suspect that any orbiting platform would also be looking for salinity changes (gotta get rid of all that generated fresh water somehow) and evidence of submarines wake (minute sea level changes as water is displaced upwards by a submarine moving below the surface).

Agreed that ICBM launches are different from Cruise missile launches, but the heat generated by both are probably at least five orders of magnitude greater than the temperature changes generated by a submarine underwater (>1000 C vs 0.01C ), so relatively easy to monitor for over a large area, then zoom in for detail when something is detected
I think that sattelitte discovery of submarines is, like the lasers, "a weapon of future and allways will be". I remember as a kid I read about that ( and that was 30-40 years ago ), and still, subs are still here, alive and kicking...
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…

User avatar
Old RN
Member
Posts: 226
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:39
South Africa

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Old RN »

Given the announcement of a 2028 in-service date for the new Anglo-French antiship missile this could explain the requirement for 5 sets of the interim antiship missile, as well as the support periods. It would seem that the intention is to transfer them to the 5 T31s at their first maintenance periods (2029-32?). This would be when the T26s are taking over as CSG escorts with their new antiship missiles?

JohnM
Donator
Posts: 155
Joined: 15 Apr 2020, 19:39
United States of America

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by JohnM »

Old RN wrote:Given the announcement of a 2028 in-service date for the new Anglo-French antiship missile this could explain the requirement for 5 sets of the interim antiship missile, as well as the support periods. It would seem that the intention is to transfer them to the 5 T31s at their first maintenance periods (2029-32?). This would be when the T26s are taking over as CSG escorts with their new antiship missiles?
That’s my take as well… another big question is which AShM the T45s will get, if any… I believe the MN will have a canister launched version of FC/ASW, so that could be used on the T45s and, eventually, T32s…

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by RichardIC »

This is the first time we have had a firm answer on what is intended to go in the VLS on the Type 26 alongside a proper in-service date so is very welcome news.

Schedule looks tight but that may be eternal cynic in me.

Image

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Lord Jim »

Although this talks mainly about the MBDA Perseus concept, the capabilities mentioned, if included in the FCASW would make it a very formidable weapon system though probably a costly one. Economies of scale with its adoptions by the Air Forces and Navies of both France and the UK as well as exports given a compatibility with the Mk41 may help keep said costs down. As a replacement for the TLAM as well as providing a stand off capability for the Astutes will be a game changer for these boats and a land based system would be a very good A2/AD weapon system. So a promising set of capabilities, lets see if it actually get into service first though.

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Ron5 »

Perseus was a video put together to create some buzz at a Paris airshow. It did that. There's zero evidence that I am aware of, that it was anything more despite the comments in the NL article.

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by RichardIC »

There really should be a ban on posting clips from garbage YouTube click-bait channels.

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Lord Jim »

Pull your neck in, it was used to see if there was any correlation between what was put forward with Perseus and what we know of the progress made and capabilities laid out for the FCASW Programme. Read things carefully before being high and mighty or should we discuss a ban on people make snide of the cuff remarks instead. :lolno:

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:Pull your neck in, it was used to see if there was any correlation between what was put forward with Perseus and what we know of the progress made and capabilities laid out for the FCASW Programme. Read things carefully before being high
See you’ve posted another on the carrier thread with fake content.

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Lord Jim »

What are you talking about now? I haven't post such a video on the Carrier thread.

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:What are you talking about now? I haven't post such a video on the carrier thread
A tenner says you have.

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Lord Jim »

I do not bet money so a "Gentleman's". Show me where in the past week where I have done so please. The last video I posted on the Carrier thread was of QE operating RAF and USMC F-35s as part of the current deployment, with no commentary. I hardly think that falls into the category I am being accused of.

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:I do not bet money so a "Gentlemans". Show me where in the past week where I have done so please.
I have. On the carrier thread.

And don't come back with some argument about it being real footage. It's three year old footage posted in the context of an event that happened last week and is therefore misleading and fake.

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Lord Jim »

So you are saying that the footage wad from the certification trails held off the coast of teh USA last year. Fair enough, as I said I didn't claim it was new footage and there was no commentary to say when it was filmed, I just enjoyed watching the F-35s take off and land on the QE. And the first few seconds are of Carrier Task Force 21 before it cuts to the older footage.

Anyhow I found the details of BAe's Perseus proposal interesting, and it showed what FCASW could incorporate as it is still in the either the Assessment or Design phase, so we have little or no knowledge of what it may become, just rumour and few facts.

Defiance
Donator
Posts: 870
Joined: 07 Oct 2015, 20:52
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Defiance »

Lord Jim wrote: Anyhow I found the details of BAe's Perseus proposal interesting, and it showed what FCASW could incorporate as it is still in the either the Assessment or Design phase, so we have little or no knowledge of what it may become, just rumour and few facts.
MBDA concept, not BAE proposal. Might seem a bit pedantic but there is a proper difference between a concept and a proposal, especially at this early stage

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by SD67 »

Summing up what has been publicly confirmed

FCASW on T26 from 2028
Sea Venom on Wildcat from 2022
CAMM on T45 from ?? (Mid decade?)
I-SSGW on T23-ASW from 2023 maybe? Then transferred to T31 2030 ish?
Meteor and Spear 3 on F35 around 2025

Taken as a whole that's a pretty significant capability uplift. Plus follow on buy of F35s later in the decade, final Astutes being delivered. Glass is half full from where I'm sitting

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:So you are saying that the footage wad from the certification trails held off the coast of teh USA last year. Fair enough, as I said I didn't claim it was new footage and there was no commentary to say when it was filmed
It was taken during Westlant 2018. And it was used in a video entitled Royal Navy Aircraft Carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth Enters Middle East.

So it's creating a false narrative. Nothing sinister terribly sinister in this one but the fact they did rules it out as a valid channel.

YouTube is awash with channels that take other people's content, without permission, and re-edit either to fit their narrative or make money out of content that isn't their own.

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Ron5 »

SD67 wrote:Summing up what has been publicly confirmed

FCASW on T26 from 2028
Sea Venom on Wildcat from 2022
CAMM on T45 from ?? (Mid decade?)
I-SSGW on T23-ASW from 2023 maybe? Then transferred to T31 2030 ish?
Meteor and Spear 3 on F35 around 2025

Taken as a whole that's a pretty significant capability uplift. Plus follow on buy of F35s later in the decade, final Astutes being delivered. Glass is half full from where I'm sitting
Hopefully meteor on f-35 is solid. Some think it's at risk.

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Lord Jim »

I would personally like to see a few more sets of I-SSGW to allow deployed T-45s to also carry them, with the required updates to the CMS and so on. We would not be talking big money here, but I cannot stop thinking that NOT having a visible AShM on our warships, as has happened on HMS Defender detracts from any deterrent capability. In fact I am still trying to find out any info as to why HMS Defender is not carrying Harpoon or have I missed something? Has it been decided by the RN not to install the weapon on the T-45s anymore? Are our holdings of Harpoon rapidly becoming Life ex. so there are not enough to go round? Does seem strange when other navies are now installing up to sixteen AShMs on almost any vessel that floats we think it is an optional extra, a bit like having a seaf defence SAM system on a Carrier.

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by tomuk »

In reality, particularly in the 1C version, Harpoon is a pretty limited capability, we know that and our adversaries know that therefore even if we spent the money on keeping a larger pool available and fitting them to Defender there would be no benefit in deterrence.

Instead we have seen the big play of the deployment of Martlet and Sea Venom on Wildcat. Persnally I think the RN/MOD should have bit the bullet sooner and binned Harpoon and bought some NSM pending FCASW.

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by abc123 »

tomuk wrote:In reality, particularly in the 1C version, Harpoon is a pretty limited capability, we know that and our adversaries know that therefore even if we spent the money on keeping a larger pool available and fitting them to Defender there would be no benefit in deterrence.

Instead we have seen the big play of the deployment of Martlet and Sea Venom on Wildcat. Persnally I think the RN/MOD should have bit the bullet sooner and binned Harpoon and bought some NSM pending FCASW.
If Harpoons are limited than Martlet and SV are at least doubly limited. If anything because of missiles range and availability and time of reaction of helicopters.

But yes, they should have bought NSMs and end this agony.
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…

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by RichardIC »

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.

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Ron5 »

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:

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Lord Jim »

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.

Post Reply