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 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Actually, if combined with Scanter 4100 2D radar, it will be a very attractive choice for export, as well.
You'll need a radar with height finding capability to use Sea Ceptor...

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by NickC »

Timmymagic wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:Actually, if combined with Scanter 4100 2D radar, it will be a very attractive choice for export, as well.
You'll need a radar with height finding capability to use Sea Ceptor...
One step up from the purely surface surveillance radar eg Scanter, with air surveillance capabilities, for example the Saab Sea Giraffe 1X, an AESA 3D radar with a system weight of ~ 650 lbs / 295 kg , low power and with no forced cooling requirement, the lightweight making 1X suitable for the smaller patrol ships.

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Timmymagic wrote:You'll need a radar with height finding capability to use Sea Ceptor...
Yes. But, sensor agnostic CAMM can also use ElectroOptical sensor to do it? River B2 does have EO sensor. If 2D radar + EO sensor works for CAMM, the containerized CAMM will be much more attractive? Stabilized-EO sensors are used more frequently these days.

On the other hand, 3D radars a also used even in missile boats, and OPVs these days. In this case, adding CAMM will be very easy.

In this case, CAMM rival will be the SeaRAM. Not needing to add a 3D radar, and capable of using relatively simple EO sensor, will make CAMM very attractive. But, only if the cost is "not so higher than" SeaRAM. As SeaRAM is so-so expensive, there might be some chance?

BUT, can Terma Scanter 4100 2D radar detect sea-skimming missile? If not, something like SeaJirafe or alike will be anyway needed, as you said.

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:can Terma Scanter 4100 2D radar detect sea-skimming missile
According to Scanter, it can. The 4100 uses a single emitter, but divides it into two beam, each with it's own receiver, one for surface search and one for higher altitude search (up to 30,000 feet). I suspect it sees a sea-skimmer as a very fast surface target and identifies it that way :)

Also, to be pedantic, a 2D radar CAN be used to determine altitude, though less effectively than a multi-beam 3D radar. The two techniques that I've seen are a) determining the phase difference in the signal received by the top and the bottom edges of the receiver dish and b) measuring the time difference between the arrival of the direct reflection of the signal from the target and a signal that is reflected off the target and arrives via reflection off the surface in front of the radar. I haven't even attempted to understand the maths involved (my brain refused at the first fence), so I'll have to accept that it works! I'm not saying that the Scanter 4100 can do it, just that it is possible. Civilian 2D ATC radars, of course, determne altitude by interrogating the aircraft's transponder - not something that can be relied on in combat!

If 3D was really needed, then an upgrade to the Scanter 4600 series would probably be relatively inexpensive
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by NickC »

Lockheed and the Thales Australia have reached agreement to develop a surface launched variant of the LRASM, LRASM-SL, PR 22nd April. Thales Australia will be supplying a new rocket booster (not using the Tomahawk Aerojet Rocketdyne Mk135 solid fuel booster).

From <https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... h-variant/>

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by NickC »

USN 21st April awarded Boeing $73 million contract for integration of the LRASM on the P-8A, Boeing previously integrated LRASM on the F/A-18 E/F, achieved EOC, early operational capability, Jan 2020

From <https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... -p-8a-mpa/>

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Jdam »

Does surface launch mean adapting it for launch from the M41?

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by JohnM »

Jdam wrote:Does surface launch mean adapting it for launch from the M41?
Yes. Apparently, they’re essentially going to develop a new booster... the proof-of-concept tests with the VLA boosters may have shown they need more power to get the optimal launch out of the silo...

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by NickC »

The Italian FC/ASW

MBDA Italia following on from their Otomat's and Teseo's released some details of the new Teseo Mk2/E(volved) anti-ship sea skimming missile, understood the contract was signed November 2020, will last 6/7 year for Phase 1 (R&D and trials) to the tune of 198 million euros, 150 million euros funded, overall budget €406.5 million, including the logistic support for the first decade, planned to be fitted to the next generation Italian destroyer (DDX).

Its a completely new missile, speculated ~ 5m length composite airframe, pics show a stealth shaped forward inverted trapezoidal-shaped section with midsection X-arranged foldable fixed-wings while the aft a trapezoidal section and four rear moving actuator controlled foldable surfaces, a ventral inlet for a low bypass turbofan of undisclosed type. Will have a rear end launch rocket booster which makes possible a future variant for launch from a VLS cell.

Weight quoted at 700kg post launch (without the booster), range >350km/190nm, high sub-sonic speed with high-G terminal manoeuvrability and semi-piercing/high explosive insensitive warhead ~ 200 kg with impact and proximity fuses.

Designed to operate in the difficult littoral environment, navigation INS/GPS with a two-way data link for updated targeting relying on military sat comms, a weak point as GPS and/or sat comms could be jammed or satellites taken out. The short range seekers, RF and EO, to incorporate anti-jamming capabilities and with an advanced adaptive radar altimeter. Its mission planning system will be fast and programmed with space and time waypoints, allowing mission parameters to be modified during flight and offer control of multiply missiles for coordinated attacks on ships with simultaneous time on target (STOT) capability, which will complicate attacked ships self defence and increase probability of successful hits by the Teseo Mk2/E.

The seeker is a state-of-the-art but conventional short range RF terminal seeker with ECCM expect to be Ku-band, mention of a study but not full funding for a new gen AESA seeker, with AESA antenna by Leonardo and MBDA Italia providing the digital back end, if funded would be offered as an option for the FC/ASW . The EO sensor mentioned a semi-active laser for use in with third parties for land and littoral targets.

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Defiance »

Janes is reporting Sea Venom and Martlet have been issued a limited 'release to service' order prior to IOC declaration (intended by the end of the year) and they are able to be used operationally as part of CSG21.

In the full article, it's stated Sea Venom hasn't completed RN firing trials however it has been decided that sufficient launch data generated during firings in the Med by MBDA exists to give confidence for it to be signed off for this deployment.

Interesting little snippet. I thought Sea Venom wasn't going to make it.

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news ... -for-csg21

cyrilranch
Member
Posts: 96
Joined: 01 May 2015, 11:36
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by cyrilranch »

I have notice that nearly all the current pictures of ship's deployed on CSD21 have not got their Harpoon Tubes fitted,is there a reason for this?

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Jdam »

cyrilranch wrote:I have notice that nearly all the current pictures of ship's deployed on CSD21 have not got their Harpoon Tubes fitted,is there a reason for this?
I was wondering this myself, only 1 out of 4 of our escorts i believe have Harpoon.

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by abc123 »

Jdam wrote:
cyrilranch wrote:I have notice that nearly all the current pictures of ship's deployed on CSD21 have not got their Harpoon Tubes fitted,is there a reason for this?
I was wondering this myself, only 1 out of 4 of our escorts i believe have Harpoon.
:thumbdown: :crazy:
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…

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Lord Jim »

If someone made the decision not to fit Harpoon to appear less threatening, nobody told the Americans or the Dutch. Hopefully they may pick up set as they head east.

andrew98
Member
Posts: 197
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:28
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by andrew98 »

Any chance they could fit them in Bahrain on the way out?

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Timmymagic »

andrew98 wrote:Any chance they could fit them in Bahrain on the way out?
Very unlikely. Why bother going to the effort of prepping and testing the munitions in the UK, having the personnel and equipment to load them here, then not bothering and leaving it to more ad hoc and costly arrangements elsewhere.

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Ron5 »

HMS Defender in Istanbul from from Navy Lookout ..

Image

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by NickC »

Lockheed developing the new Precision Strike Missile, PrSM, one of US Army's six top priorities, to replace the 80's 3,700 lbs ballistic ATACMS, max range of 190 miles, 13' length and 24" dia. launched from a M270 tracked vehicle, 2 missiles or the wheeled M142, 1 missile, (M270 and M142 better known for firing the GMLRS), UK never purchased ATACMSs

PrSM in May trials achieved 400km ~250 mile range, designed to achieve 499km, but following the demise of the Intermediate Nuclear Force Treaty US Army looking to extend the range.

What is of interest is the US Army in their FY2022 budget requesting $188 million in R&D funding to integrate the BAE Inc LRASM seeker into the PrSM to give the US Army a short range DF-21/26 anti-ship missile capability presumably to use in the Pacific against the Chinese Navy aircraft carriers etc.

The problem with all BVLOS anti-ship missiles is as always targeting, first having the ISR capability to find target ships position in the fog of war so as not waste one of your limited number missiles on a decoy or friendly ship etc and then by the time the missile arrives the target ship may have steamed many miles or changed course beyond the capability of the anti-ship missiles seeker limited search range. Secondly and specifically in relation to the PrSM the thought of installing it on a ship is its 24" dia or larger, too large in diameter to fit in Mk41 VLS cell with its max dia of ~20", the Mk57 VLS cells fitted to Zumwalts may be OK, you could envisage T26 batch II ships with Mk57 VLS cells with the 500km+ PrSM :angel:

From <https://www.defensenews.com/land/2021/0 ... g-in-fy22/>

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Interesting missile it is.

It will fly with a speed of Mach 5 (ATCAMS is Mach 3), so it is also a hypersonic missile.

On its launcher, how about just using the MLRS canister? Moving out of Mk.41 for larger diameter Mk.57 means the VLS will be almost always too large for most of the missiles it carries. Also, PrSM missile will be surely expensive, which means the VLS will be almost always filled with something else (or even nothing). Until many of the Mk 41 VLS in US Navy DDGs be replaced with Mk.57, I do not think walking out of Mk.41 is a good choice.

Also, for example, when FC-ASW comes out, who will pay for the launcher integration verification? For sells reason, integration into Mk.41 is must. Additionally integrating it on Mk.56, not sure MOD will pay. They even NOT payed for integrating Aster on Mk 41, CAMM on ExLS nor CAMM on Mk.41. (CAMM ExLS integration is a private venture of LM, and Canada will be paying for it).

ref: https://www.inceptivemind.com/lockheed- ... ile/10793/

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Ron5 »

This is an army missile that may be modified for shooting from shore at warships.

So WTF is all the discussion about VLS and on a RN thread?

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Lord Jim »

The USMC have also proved you can accurately fire missiles from a HIMARS on a moving ship to target on shore, both moving and stationary, on shore at greater ranges than current guns.

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Ron5 wrote:This is an army missile that may be modified for shooting from shore at warships.
So WTF is all the discussion about VLS and on a RN thread?
Lord Jim wrote:The USMC have also proved you can accurately fire missiles from a HIMARS on a moving ship to target on shore, both moving and stationary, on shore at greater ranges than current guns.
Because, I think,
- with LRASM's seeker added, PrSM "could" be used as an Anti-Ship hypersonic missile
- then, it will negate the need of "super sonic" version of FC/ASW, enabling UK to focus on long-range cruise / agile sea-skimmer version, which will be more relevant for "double use" for land attack (= Storm Shadow replacements)

Any hyper-sonic or super-sonic missiles will be very expensive, especially with longer range. In other words, PrSM will be "precious" missiles only used against HVU.
The "stealth/slow" FC/ASW version will compete with LRASM. But, I understand StormShadow itself is intended to do so, and therefore it is not an issue.
Against Corvette/Missile-craft, SeaVenom and/or I-SSGW will do.
Against fast boat swarm, LMM and/or 57/40 mm 3P will do.

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Ron5 »

As far as I am aware there is zero effort going on to fit this missile into any kind of VLS for shipborne use. Nor will there be, the missile is unsuitable.

Speculation that it will become a RN weapon is therefore totally absurd.

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Timmymagic »

Ron5 wrote:As far as I am aware there is zero effort going on to fit this missile into any kind of VLS for shipborne use. Nor will there be, the missile is unsuitable.

Speculation that it will become a RN weapon is therefore totally absurd.
It would also make a terrible anti-ship missile as against any capable opponent it would be comparatively easy to shoot down...detected on radar for an age, and a straight shot for any anti missile system

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Timmymagic wrote:
Ron5 wrote:As far as I am aware there is zero effort going on to fit this missile into any kind of VLS for shipborne use. Nor will there be, the missile is unsuitable.

Speculation that it will become a RN weapon is therefore totally absurd.
It would also make a terrible anti-ship missile as against any capable opponent it would be comparatively easy to shoot down...detected on radar for an age, and a straight shot for any anti missile system
Are there effective defense measure against hypersonic missile in cheap? If so, why an anti-ship ballistic missile is an issue? PrSM is exactly an anti-ship ballistic missile.

Post Reply