RN anti-ship missiles

[Lord Jim]

Thanks for clearing the issue up. I did think it strange when reading the article, but the author obviously hadn't got all the facts. Thankfully there is this Forum which allow errors to be highlighted and corrected .

[Timmymagic]

Thanks for clearing the issue up. I did think it strange when reading the article, but the author obviously hadn't got all the facts. Thankfully there is this Forum which allow errors to be highlighted and corrected .

Thats not to say that the trials might not have picked something bad up...it could be that Leonardo continuing to trial it might be in an effort to solve the issue, it might be that carrying 4 missiles is something we'll rarely see in practice as it reduces range and performance to an unacceptable level.

[NickC]

I'd prefer a small buy of JSM missiles to be launched from F-35B.

That's a problem as they would have to be carried externally on the F-35B as weapon bay too short compared to the F-35A and C weapon bays where JSM can fit internally, so you lose the F-35B stealth capability, remember reading the Israeli wanting extra range for their F-35As to attack Iran and fitting external fuel tanks on wing, the fuel tank and wing pylons had to be jettisoned to restore stealth before coming in range of Iranian radars.

[ETH]

Isn't it the case that the RN only got serious about AShMs when the CV-01 programme got canned and all of a sudden they bolted Exocet to any thing that would float?

Isn't RN doctrine that the primary ship killer is the SSN, followed by carrier strike and then, a distant third, escort fired missiles?

It certainly can be. However, when you’ve only 7 submarines and a carrier air group with nothing more than gravity bombs for anti-ship, the argument falls through.

[Tempest414]

we could go for a small buy of Marte ER as it will be cleared for Merlin and typhoon and has 100+ KM range

[SW1]

There is many missiles they could chose but then there is also many many capability gaps across all of defence so you pays your money and take your pick.

If there waiting for hypersonics I think they’re away with the fairies.

[Timmymagic]

That's a problem as they would have to be carried externally on the F-35B as weapon bay too short compared to the F-35A and C weapon bays where JSM can fit internally, so you lose the F-35B stealth capability

Much as I'd love a small buy of JSM to happen (not just for anti-ship use though, useful for land attack) its not going to. But...external mounting isn't a big deal, the weapon itself is LO so even with a pylon its not going to increase RCS too much, but it also has a 300 mile range in a Hi-Hi-Lo profile so it need not be launched anywhere near to an enemies engagement range.

[jimthelad]

Doesn't Spear 4(Storm Shadow) have a MTI capability?

[Timmymagic]

Doesn't Spear 4(Storm Shadow) have a MTI capability?

No, the IR seeker for terminal guidance matches the target image to an pre-entered image. Has to be programmed before flight, can't be targeted on the fly.

[NickC]

But...external mounting isn't a big deal, the weapon itself is LO so even with a pylon its not going to increase RCS too much, but it also has a 300 mile range in a Hi-Hi-Lo profile so it need not be launched anywhere near to an enemies engagement range.

I'm sure you won't mind if i totally disagree with your conclusion based on the opposite conclusion reached on by the IAF based on their experience as the first nation to operationally use the F-35 in anger during a big attack in 2018 on Iranian forces in Syria, operating in air space covered by Russian radars. IAI say F-35 stealth would be seriously compromised by its external 425 gallon underwing tanks and pylons developed for range necessary to attack Iran directly.

Methods already exist for detecting stealth fighters, long-range infrared sensors and low bandwidth radars, though would note they have limitations, perhaps in future quantum radars if they ever move from lab to operationally deployed.

[Timmymagic]

IAI say F-35 stealth would be seriously compromised by its external 425 gallon underwing tanks and pylons developed for range necessary to attack Iran directly.

No-one is disputing that...hanging a large non-stealthy fuel tank under an F-35 is going to geneate a huge return. But a stealthy shape (like JSM) hanging under a pylon will have a far smaller return. And that radar return is not going to be picked up at 300 miles range...

The only weapons the IAF have for air to ground from F-35 are JDAM and SDB1. Both of which have ranges under 40 miles....which is a rather different situation to a 300 mile range stand off weapon.

[NickC]

IAI say F-35 stealth would be seriously compromised by its external 425 gallon underwing tanks and pylons developed for range necessary to attack Iran directly.

No-one is disputing that...hanging a large non-stealthy fuel tank under an F-35 is going to geneate a huge return. But a stealthy shape (like JSM) hanging under a pylon will have a far smaller return. And that radar return is not going to be picked up at 300 miles range...

The only weapons the IAF have for air to ground from F-35 are JDAM and SDB1. Both of which have ranges under 40 miles....which is a rather different situation to a 300 mile range stand off weapon.

Not easy to target a ship from 300 miles away and confirm its an enemy and not a friendly. Subsonic JSM would take appox half an hour to reach target point and enemy ship will have moved on, if steaming at 20 knots could be anywhere in an area of approx 80 sq nm and would have to be very, very lucky for the small JSM IR sensor in a JSM to find it.

[Defiance]

That might be true if the only support a fighter gets is a bearing and left to do the job on their own, but it isn't. They'll be briefed before flight with the best intelligence available, then they'll have even more data live from AEW&C aircraft and MPA telling them where to look.

They don't have to fire off at 300nm, just far enough away that the surface ship can't effectively fire back. If a naval SAM has a 100km range they probably won't shoot until they get within ~75km, any further than that and it's too easy for the bogey to do a 180 and fly out of range.

[Lord Jim]

So we are back to WW2 carrier ops where he who sees his opponent first wins. One would hope that with modern sensors in the air and in space and secure datalinks a weapon with a range of 300nm could be brought within the range of its multiple on board sensors which can handle terminal guidance.

[NickC]

They don't have to fire off at 300nm, just far enough away that the surface ship can't effectively fire back. If a naval SAM has a 100km range they probably won't shoot until they get within ~75km, any further than that and it's too easy for the bogey to do a 180 and fly out of range.

If firing JSM from F-35B at 300nm think very low chance of Pk, if firing from say 100 nm the stealth capability of the F-35B will be seriously compromised by its externally wing mounted JSMs making it a target for Chinese/Russian equivalents of the USN SM-6 ~>130 nm range.

So we are back to WW2 carrier ops where he who sees his opponent first wins. One would hope that with modern sensors in the air and in space and secure datalinks a weapon with a range of 300nm could be brought within the range of its multiple on board sensors which can handle terminal guidance.

The expectation with modern sensors 300nm targeting would be viable as you say, but now seeing numerous trials of missile and aircraft launched ASATs to take out satellites (US to counter the threat to its very large/expensive easily targetable reconnaissance, communications. gps etc satellites has future programmes looking to replace with large constellations of small LEO satellites).

Aircraft AAM, Chinese PL-15 and Russian R-77 said to have range of ~200 mile to take out AEW&C/MPA Hawkeye/P-8/Triton etc. USAF/USN in full development of the new longer range AIM-260 to replace the AIM-120 AMRAAM, in Europe there is the Meteor. Mention of the USAF even longer range LRAAM programme and the Chinese and Russians doing the same to extend range of AAMs

So as you say we might be back to WW2 carrier ops where he who sees his opponent first wins, nothing sure in the fog of war.

[Defiance]

If firing JSM from F-35B at 300nm think very low chance of Pk

Not if guidance is being provided by a 3rd party

if firing from say 100 nm the stealth capability of the F-35B will be seriously compromised by its externally wing mounted JSMs making it a target for Chinese/Russian equivalents of the USN SM-6 ~>130 nm range.

Not if they stay below 15,000ft - fast jet aircraft can fly pretty high and still be safe when you're talking about distances 100nm+. When China demonstrates the level of sensor-shooter capability that the USN has then that'll be a different story, but for now, it does matter.

Personally I think the capability of JSM is moot if you're talking F-35B. I'd be a lot more concerned about F-35B not having the legs to make JSM carriage worthwhile, your CSG will have to get uncomfortably close to a Chinese battlegroup.

[NickC]

If firing JSM from F-35B at 300nm think very low chance of Pk

Not if guidance is being provided by a 3rd party

What 3rd party were you thinking of?

if firing from say 100 nm the stealth capability of the F-35B will be seriously compromised by its externally wing mounted JSMs making it a target for Chinese/Russian equivalents of the USN SM-6 ~>130 nm range.

Not if they stay below 15,000ft - fast jet aircraft can fly pretty high and still be safe when you're talking about distances 100nm+. When China demonstrates the level of sensor-shooter capability that the USN has then that'll be a different story, but for now, it does matter.

Personally I think the capability of JSM is moot if you're talking F-35B. I'd be a lot more concerned about F-35B not having the legs to make JSM carriage worthwhile, your CSG will have to get uncomfortably close to a Chinese battlegroup.

As you say okay if flying below ships radar horizon, but China now has the land based four engine KJ-500 AEW&C flying and deveoping the two engine copy of the Hawkeye the KJ-600, first flight Jan last year, for their new Type 003 CATOBAR carrier.

Re your second para do agree the short range of the F-35B is a major limitation.

[Defiance]

As you say okay if flying below ships radar horizon, but China now has the land based four engine KJ-500 AEW&C flying and deveoping the two engine copy of the Hawkeye the KJ-600, first flight Jan last year, for their new Type 003 CATOBAR carrier.

Yeah, they're definitely moving forward in that regard, but that's why I caveated it with the demonstrated networked sensor-shooter capability. CEC was being publicly discussed at least as far back as the mid-90's. In 2016 the USN has used an F-35 to provide targeting data via MADL to an Aegis-ashore test facility to engage a target drone with SM-6, this has been a very expensive and technically challenging capability to stand up.

The fact that China is developing their own naval AEW platforms doesn't mean you can transpose that future across to the PLAN and consider it a fait accompli, not worthy of consideration in the short/medium term.

Their Air Force AEW aircraft are slightly irrelevant as the PLA have significantly bigger issues around service rivalries than the West. You can be confident that the PLAAF aren't working to integrate their ISR platforms to network with the PLAN and vice versa.

[NickC]

As you say okay if flying below ships radar horizon, but China now has the land based four engine KJ-500 AEW&C flying and deveoping the two engine copy of the Hawkeye the KJ-600, first flight Jan last year, for their new Type 003 CATOBAR carrier.

Yeah, they're definitely moving forward in that regard, but that's why I caveated it with the demonstrated networked sensor-shooter capability. CEC was being publicly discussed at least as far back as the mid-90's. In 2016 the USN has used an F-35 to provide targeting data via MADL to an Aegis-ashore test facility to engage a target drone with SM-6, this has been a very expensive and technically challenging capability to stand up.

The fact that China is developing their own naval AEW platforms doesn't mean you can transpose that future across to the PLAN and consider it a fait accompli, not worthy of consideration in the short/medium term.

Their Air Force AEW aircraft are slightly irrelevant as the PLA have significantly bigger issues around service rivalries than the West. You can be confident that the PLAAF aren't working to integrate their ISR platforms to network with the PLAN and vice versa.

You might well be correct but the Chinese spying and hacking of US computers has been very successful, don't think its been denied they hacked most of the data on F-35 and remember in 2018 when hacked a major contractor to the USN Naval Underwater Center, so what PLAN tech know and copied open question.

[Defiance]

You might well be correct but the Chinese spying and hacking of US computers has been very successful, don't think its been denied they hacked most of the data on F-35 and remember in 2018 when hacked a major contractor to the USN Naval Underwater Center, so what PLAN tech know and copied open question.

It's such an open question you can't really use it to justify any sort of reasonable stance or rational opinion.

[GarethDavies1]

Without any air or ship launched anti ship missiles, will a UK CSBG rely too much on the presence of an SSN? How easy is it for the Commander of the CSBG to tell the SSN commander that an enemy fleet is approaching?

[Lord Jim]

The SSNs will probably have a better understanding of who is where than the CSG based on the capabilities of each's sensors. Of course the CSG will also have easy access to data from other sources, but this must be balanced by the need for the CSG to maintain emcon to stop giving away its position.

[NickC]

"Russia has sought guarantees that neither side will deploy intermediate- or short-range missiles close enough to hit the territory of the other side. And a similar call appeared in a 5,300-word joint statement from Russia and China last week."

If Biden agreed (now think highly unlikely following the Russian invasion of Ukraine) it would stop the future deployment in 2023 of the US Army LM PrSM, Prompt Strike Missile. In full development with demonstrated range of 500 km and future 700/800 km with Spiral 3, development. PrSM initiated after Trump pulled out of the 1987 INF treaty which banned deployment of ballistic missiles with range of 310 to 3,400 miles after Russia violated the treaty.

British Army has confirmed plans to procure the PrSM as part of a wider upgrade to the Land Deep Fires programme and fitting in existing M270 MLRS launchers, would have been my choice for RN to fit in the Mk41 VLS cells for land attack especially as the later 2025 Spiral 1 includes a multimode seeker which have capability to target ships, other advantages would have the benefit of a common stockpile of missiles with the Army and relatively 'cheap' as US Army was targeting $1.5 million each for the basic PrSM, just hope the land attack FC/ASW subsonic missile and the supersonic anti-ship missile are as effective and similar cost when they arrive at the "end of the decade".

https://www.defensenews.com/congress/20 ... ployments/

[Jensy]

I've also posted the below government response in the escort thread. However the below section is more relevant to this thread.

Whichever maritime missile system is acquired through the Future Cruise/Anti-Ship Weapon (FC/ASW) programme, it will be compatible with the Mark 41 (Mk 41) vertical launch system, specifically given the intent for these weapons to be fitted to the Type 26 Frigate. The RN is exploring opportunities to fit Mk 41 launchers to other classes of ships, including Type 31, to provide commonality with partner nations, improve interoperability and simplify the inventory of maritime offensive and defensive capabilities.

Don't want to read too much into the language of civil servants (who have been known to be less than direct) but:

- There is more than one 'maritime system' being examined for FC/ASW. I can only presume this refers to the two models that MBDA has exhibited at DSEI and elsewhere.

- Mk.41 is being considered for Type 31, which we knew, and (as I note in the escort thread) possibly Type 45 too, which we had assumed would not happen since the CAMM upgrade was announced.

[Jdam]

We still don't have a weapon to go in the Mk.41 and nothing for it till 2028 (and the FC/ASW is never going to make the original time scale)