RN anti-ship missiles

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Timmymagic »

ArmChairCivvy wrote: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
Buy was around 65 and replenishment of fired missiles has taken place at least twice now to maintain stockpile.

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Ron5 wrote:
Poiuytrewq wrote:as part a serious conflict
I'm pretty sure the RN equips itself for such a task
True but the point I am trying to make (badly as usual) is that a land attack capability should not be seen as a secondary requirement.

It is much more likely to be used in a land attack role as opposed to a surface to surface engagement.

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Jdam »

I don't think anyone will argue with getting more bang for our buck but I would say we already for Tomahawk for dedicated land attacked. Now I agree with getting a missile that is dual purpose and can attack land targets, that is what I want from this purchase. The point that we will most likely use it against land targets is also totally rational but ultimately we are buying it for the anti ship role and I just think it shouldn't sacrifice any of the missiles anti ship capability to do it even if it means going for something that is less capable in the land attack role.

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by RichardIC »



Sea Serpent is the Gabriel V.

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Tempest414 »

Always good to have a new player anyone know the cost per unit of this

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by RichardIC »

Rest of the thread:

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Timmymagic »

So it looks like the following are in the mix (or could be):

- Kongsberg NSM - A lot of peoples favourite, comparatively cheap, increasing user base, stealthy with land attack
- Saab RBS15 (Mk.3 or Mk.4 'Gungnir' though?) - Mk.4 has entered service so presumably would be offered, Germany went for Mk.3.
- IAI Gabriel 5 (Sea Serpent) - In service with Israel, Singapore and ordered by Finland. Looks cheaper than Harpoon...'stealth' launchers that may utilise existing Harpoon kit.
- MBDA Exocet MM40 Block 3 - A real outsider, limited land attack capability
- MBDA Teseo Mk2/E - MBDA haven't pushed this surprisingly as I'd rate it higher than Exocet, very new...
- Boeing Harpoon II+ - Got to be a favourite as re-uses a lot of existing kit, big user base, not that much of a leap forward though..
- Lockheed Martin LRASM - Real outsider, incredibly expensive, probably not available in canisters by 2023, or even produced by then given existing US orders, also crosses too far over into FCASW territory. Easily the most capable system however...

Have I missed any?

Personally I think its now between RBS.15 (but only if Mk.4 is offered and its not expensive as rumoured), NSM, Sea Serpent (but only if the rumours of low cost are true) and Harpoon II+ in that order....previously I'd have had Harpoon in top spot...

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Timmymagic »

Tempest414 wrote:Always good to have a new player anyone know the cost per unit of this
We don't know if its like for like (but it won't be far off) but Corporal Frisk reported that the IAI bid that won the Finnish contract was c40% cheaper than the Boeing price for Harpoon II+. RBS.15 is also apparently cheap (but I must say I'm not fully sure if thats the Mk.3 or new Mk.4).

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by NickC »

@Timmymagic - Re IAI Gabriel V, not much known, but worth a read of Corporal Fisk comments, "A further look at the Gabriel 5" JULY 2018, Finland's Navy procuring Gabriel V for its upgrade to the Hamina-class fast attack craft and the new 114m/3,900t Pohjanmaa class, Squadron 2020 programme. The Israeli missile was selected in preference to the other bidders with Harpoon, NSM, Exocet and RBS15.

Corporal Fisk speculates Gabriel might have externally same dimensions as the Harpoon so as to fit the "current logistics chain, including storage containers and possibly the launchers themselves", the Israelis had operated Harpoon in the past. The other main conclusion he draws is that Gabriel V was substantially less expensive than the other missiles.

From <https://corporalfrisk.com/2018/07/16/a- ... gabriel-5/>

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by ETH »

My understanding is that a terrain-following maritime land-attack capability was one of the requirements of I-SSGW, does Gabriel V have this capability?

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by abc123 »

Timmymagic wrote: RBS.15 is also apparently cheap (but I must say I'm not fully sure if thats the Mk.3 or new Mk.4).
Not so sure, the Poles paid 110 mil. euros for 36 Mk3 missiles.
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 »

ETH wrote:My understanding is that a terrain-following maritime land-attack capability was one of the requirements of I-SSGW, does Gabriel V have this capability?
Yes.
https://www.iai.co.il/p/sea-serpent

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Tempest414 »

If we were to put this on a Type 45 along with quad packed CAMM in 16 cells it would be perfect in the role of protecting the LRG out to 100 km's and offering land attack out to 200 km's in support of raiding parties given this and looking forward to Type 32 this could be a good fit if type 32 was to be fitted with

1 x 5"
2 x 40mm
64 x CAMM
8 to 16 x I-SSGW

This would allow land attack out to 200+ KM's , NGFS out to 90+ km's ( with Vulcano rounds) and local area defence of the group with CAMM and 40mm

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by ETH »

RichardIC wrote:
ETH wrote:My understanding is that a terrain-following maritime land-attack capability was one of the requirements of I-SSGW, does Gabriel V have this capability?
Yes.
https://www.iai.co.il/p/sea-serpent
Not sure where this says anything about terrain-following?

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by ETH »

Tempest414 wrote:If we were to put this on a Type 45 along with quad packed CAMM in 16 cells it would be perfect in the role of protecting the LRG out to 100 km's and offering land attack out to 200 km's in support of raiding parties given this and looking forward to Type 32 this could be a good fit if type 32 was to be fitted with

1 x 5"
2 x 40mm
64 x CAMM
8 to 16 x I-SSGW

This would allow land attack out to 200+ KM's , NGFS out to 90+ km's ( with Vulcano rounds) and local area defence of the group with CAMM and 40mm
Why not also fit Aster at that point? The Italians will on their PPA frigates.

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Timmymagic »

ETH wrote:Not sure where this says anything about terrain-following?
It doesn't.
It's worthwhile noting that there are different methods of terrain following. There is radar based terrain following, optical scene matching (like TERPROM or TERCOM), radar based DSMAC or even a more basic terrain following using map data and GPS. The key thing is to what degree the RN wants that terrain following to perform...will it have to work to a certain altitude level at higher speeds?, in a GPS denied environment? How far will it need to perform that aspect of flight etc....

And for some of the missiles the manufacturers are being very cagey about stating that. You can sometimes read in to what their statements mean though. For example Sea Venom can do land attack, but only on 'coastal' targets. In other words its going straight in and does not have the ability to clear terrain features. Kongsberg has stated that NSM does do terrain following (which given the sensor must mean TERCOM or TERPROM). All of the missiles will have INS, GPS and radar height altimeters. It's only really the main sensor that they differ in. Optical for NSM and LRASM, both of which are capable of terrain following. As for the radar equipped missiles it will very much depend on the capabilities of the sensor and the modes that it can be used for. Personally I'd be inclined to think that RBS.15 Mk.4 was capable of terrain following due to the operational environment and launch modes that it was specifically designed for. Its unlikely that Exocet has that capability.

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

ETH wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:If we were to put this on a Type 45 along with quad packed CAMM in 16 cells it would be perfect in the role of protecting the LRG out to 100 km's and offering land attack out to 200 km's in support of raiding parties given this and looking forward to Type 32 this could be a good fit if type 32 was to be fitted with

1 x 5"
2 x 40mm
64 x CAMM
8 to 16 x I-SSGW

This would allow land attack out to 200+ KM's , NGFS out to 90+ km's ( with Vulcano rounds) and local area defence of the group with CAMM and 40mm
Why not also fit Aster at that point? The Italians will on their PPA frigates.
What software will handle Aster? May be we need to modify Sea Ceptor system to include Aster 30, in that case. Sea Ceptor II system, with 8 Aster 30 Blk1NT and 32-64 CAMM will be interesting to see.

However, I prefer to up-arm T45 and T26, add P8 and P7, before arming T32 well.

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Lord Jim »

Ideally we need to start thinking about fitting more than eight AShMs to a platform. Against peer opponents it will not be one shot, one kill, but a need to saturate an opponents defences. This is also going to be a problem for the F-35Bs using SPEAR 3 in the AShM role as they will need to succeed in achieving multiple hits to defeat a larger Escort, requiring therefore an even larger volley to achieve this.

Range is also going to be an issue as will target detection and identification. Do we need a UAV capable of providing both these capabilities and mid course guidance updates? FC/ASW should solve all these issues but until it reaches service in the 2030s we are going to need to be creative if we are not to be outgunned figuratively speaking.

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Timmymagic »

Timmymagic wrote:Kongsberg has stated that NSM does do terrain following (which given the sensor must mean TERCOM or TERPROM).
Just checked Kongsberg say...

"terrain following through advanced mission planning"...which could mean using maps, radar alt and GPS....would have thought if it was using TERPROM or TERCOM that they would have made a big deal of it.

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Caribbean »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:What software will handle Aster?
Well - CAMM's control software is said to be approximately 70% PAAMS software, so I suspect that the difference is largely down to removing the Aster physics and control package and replacing it with CAMM's. Integrating full PAAMS with CAMM might not be too difficult
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by ETH »

Come to think of it there may be an issue with establishing data links with an Aster missile in flight. The Type 45s use SAMPSON for Aster, whereas the Type 23s use separate antennas (Platform Data Link Terminal) to communicate with CAMM as opposed to using ARTISAN. Not sure why that is.

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 SAMPSON has independent array (on the side?) for communicating with Aster?
If so, no difference. I forgot if the CAMM and Aster uses the same radio-band for the data-link. If not, independent array is needed. If yes, software update may solve it.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by shark bait »

ETH wrote:Not sure why that is.
Because CAMM has designed to be totally senor agnostic. They can take any radar, any control system, and plug in the CAMM data link and it will work. The integration is all software defined.

We can see this in practice looking at the Army and Navy air defence systems. The only common element is the missile and the data link.
@LandSharkUK

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Tempest414 »

I would love to see MBDA develop CAMM cells in a shipping container with a single data link fitted to a River B2 just to show it done it could lead to sales

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Timmymagic »

Tempest414 wrote:I would love to see MBDA develop CAMM cells in a shipping container with a single data link fitted to a River B2 just to show it done it could lead to sales
You could just park a Land Ceptor unit on the back...the unit comes off the MAN truck and can rest on legs and be lashed down. But..... I don't think the River B.2 actually has a radar that can provide altitude...the Terma Scanter 4100 is a 2D radar...thats not going to help much in a missile engagement.

Post Reply