RN anti-ship missiles

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Online
Jdam
Member
Posts: 621
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:26
Has liked: 13 times
Been liked: 64 times
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Jdam »



Vertical and canister launched for LRASM now possible, 6 minute onward.

Online
Jdam
Member
Posts: 621
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:26
Has liked: 13 times
Been liked: 64 times
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Jdam »

https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/in ... rettyPhoto
A new bespoke booster for LRASM-SL, which Lockheed Martin is developing with Thales Australia, may help solve that problem by reducing weight and shedding excess capability. Currently, MK-114 boosters are jettisoned prior to flame out during LRASM-SL launches, something that the new booster will not do. If the development program is successful, Naval News understands that Thales Australia may build examples of the bespoke booster for other LRASM-SL customers.
Interesting to know the work needed for the missile and the mk41
These users liked the author Jdam for the post:
donald_of_tokyo

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7105
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 237 times
Been liked: 278 times
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Lord Jim »

I wonder. could the new booster also be allied to the VL-ASROC, from which the original LRASM booster was taken, and would it improve the VL-ASROC's performance if it could be?

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 4443
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Has liked: 112 times
Been liked: 130 times
Japan

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Lord Jim wrote: 22 May 2022, 01:12 I wonder. could the new booster also be allied to the VL-ASROC, from which the original LRASM booster was taken, and would it improve the VL-ASROC's performance if it could be?
May be not, basically. For LRASM, Australia needs "smaller" booster, because the ANZAC class top weight restriction is so tight. While we are all looking for longer range for VL-ASROC.

But, RUM-139C VL-ASROC range is as long as 22 km. Is it really NOT enough? For a 50 knot heavy torpedo to travel 22 km, it takes 14 minutes long. If the reaction time (subsonic flight needs ~1 minute to reach 22 km distance), what you need is terminal control. This can be added, if needed.

And, if super-sonic is needed, how about Japanese type-07 VL-ASROC? It is super sonic, with a range of ~30 km. Its warhead is Type-12 torpedo 320 kg, which is heavier than Stingray 267 kg and US Mk.54 276 kg. Another UK-Japan collaboration? :D
These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post (total 3):
GarethDavies1Lord Jimserge750

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7105
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 237 times
Been liked: 278 times
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Lord Jim »

I am all in favour of that, even having the latest super sonic Japanese AShM as a fall back if FC/ASW fails.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 4443
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Has liked: 112 times
Been liked: 130 times
Japan

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Sea Venom looks very small. It is only 120 kg in weight. Sea Squa was 145 kg, and 4 of them were carried on Lynx (which has 12% less max-take-off weight than Wildcat).

Can we add some booster to Sea Venom or enlarge the booster, or add small booster and replace the current booster with a jet, to improve its range to, say, 100 km, within 145 kg? If possible, it will make up
- a 30 kg warhead
- Robust two-way RF data link for in-flight monitoring and mid-course guidance updates (real time video imagery and missile status)
- R seeker with advanced image processing and self-guidance
if with 100 km rage, looks not so bad?

For comparison,
- Sea Squa 30 kg
- SM6 blk1B 64 kg (sometimes used for anti-ship)
- Penguin ASM warhead 120 (or 130) kg
- Exocet 165 kg
- Harpoon 221 kg

These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post (total 2):
Poiuytrewqleonard

User avatar
ETH
Member
Posts: 69
Joined: 08 Apr 2021, 23:28
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 9 times
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by ETH »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 27 May 2022, 15:29 Sea Venom looks very small. It is only 120 kg in weight. Sea Squa was 145 kg, and 4 of them were carried on Lynx (which has 12% less max-take-off weight than Wildcat).

Can we add some booster to Sea Venom or enlarge the booster, or add small booster and replace the current booster with a jet, to improve its range to, say, 100 km, within 145 kg?
But why?? There's no need. SV is meant to work in conjunction with the find and fix (and datalink) range of the Wildcat for FAC defence. Not as an over the horizon strike weapon. IF that's what you're after, an enlarged SV would just be a weird compromise.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 4443
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Has liked: 112 times
Been liked: 130 times
Japan

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

ETH wrote: 27 May 2022, 15:44But why?? There's no need. SV is meant to work in conjunction with the find and fix (and datalink) range of the Wildcat for FAC defence. Not as an over the horizon strike weapon. IF that's what you're after, an enlarged SV would just be a weird compromise.
Thanks. I'm afraid FC/ASW will be VERY expensive weapon. They sometimes say, (hyper) hi-supersonic, which is VERY expensive. Subsonic stealth version will be cheaper, but even LRASM is very expensive, and FC/ASW subsonic version, if as capable as LRASM, will be more expensive, simply because of less nubmer to be procured.

Using it against corvette or even light frigate will be a waste of money. But, modern corvette/light-frigate are going to get long-range AAW missiles, to out-range Wildcats. Thus, longer range, I propose.

leonard
Member
Posts: 114
Joined: 21 May 2016, 17:52
Has liked: 36 times
Been liked: 39 times
Italy

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by leonard »

If the Royal Navy would to take the road of the most capable of the anti-ship missile systems and not take shortcuts for reasons of costs this is the example to follow

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 2235
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Has liked: 35 times
Been liked: 60 times
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Actually I think Donald’s canister launched Sea Venom-ER has a lot of merit if technically feasible.

MBDA aready lists Sea Venom as having “Options exist for surface to surface variants”.

Giving the T31 the option of embarking up to 16 canister launched dual use anti-ship/land attack missiles with a 30kg warhead and a 100+km range would be a game changer, especially if the cost was within sensible limits.
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post (total 3):
wargame_insomniacdonald_of_tokyoJensy

User avatar
Jensy
Member
Posts: 645
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
Has liked: 131 times
Been liked: 39 times
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Jensy »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 27 May 2022, 18:57 Actually I think Donald’s canister launched Sea Venom-ER has a lot of merit if technically feasible.

MBDA aready lists Sea Venom as having “Options exist for surface to surface variants”.

Giving the T31 the option of embarking up to 16 canister launched dual use anti-ship/land attack missiles with a 30kg warhead and a 100+km range would be a game changer, especially if the cost was within sensible limits.
Likewise. For countering fast attack craft this seems far more measured than using a multimillion pound heavy ASuW missile.

I'd also be very interested in hearing more about the potential of CAMM, or derivatives, to hit surface targets.

User avatar
ETH
Member
Posts: 69
Joined: 08 Apr 2021, 23:28
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 9 times
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by ETH »

Jensy wrote: 27 May 2022, 22:30
Poiuytrewq wrote: 27 May 2022, 18:57 Actually I think Donald’s canister launched Sea Venom-ER has a lot of merit if technically feasible.

MBDA aready lists Sea Venom as having “Options exist for surface to surface variants”.

Giving the T31 the option of embarking up to 16 canister launched dual use anti-ship/land attack missiles with a 30kg warhead and a 100+km range would be a game changer, especially if the cost was within sensible limits.
Likewise. For countering fast attack craft this seems far more measured than using a multimillion pound heavy ASuW missile.

I'd also be very interested in hearing more about the potential of CAMM, or derivatives, to hit surface targets.
Surface launch is definitely more feasible. CAMM has already been tested for an anti-surface role now.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 4443
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Has liked: 112 times
Been liked: 130 times
Japan

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

ETH wrote: 27 May 2022, 23:20 Surface launch is definitely more feasible. CAMM has already been tested for an anti-surface role now.
Yes. CAMM is good against boats, but not against corvettes or light frigates (its warhead is tiny). CAMM does not have sophisticated IR imaging with "self analyzing" capability SeaVenom has.

But, some MAY think CAMM + FC/ASW is enough. Merit of Sea Venom is, RN will be operating it from Wildcats (hopefully want to add it to Merlin) anyway. Similar maintenance, same software, same data link, will make the logistics relaxed.
These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post:
zanahoria

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7105
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 237 times
Been liked: 278 times
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Lord Jim »

I doubt MBDA would develop a Sea Venom-ER unless contracted to do so as they already hae a number or weapons in that category I believe start with Exocet. I am not happy with the range of Sea Venom I must admit as it like Martlet is limited to engaging AC and smaller less well equipped corvettes. Anything larger is likely to be equipped with an air defence systems that would threaten a Wildcat before it can launch. It does give the Wildcat a fire and forget capability which is far superior to the semi active Sea Skua though. The reason it concerns me is the current lack of offensive firepower on out ships could lead to the Wildcat being tasked with engaging targets Sea Venom was not designed to engage.

I also do not think we will be able to afford to put all our eggs in one basket when it comes to FC/ASW. It will be our gold plated heavy hitter so to speak bit I do think we need an intermediate AShM to compliment it.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 4443
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Has liked: 112 times
Been liked: 130 times
Japan

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

I agree UK need to invest by themselves, of Sea Venom ER is wanted. Overlap with similar weapon is not a problem for MBDA. For example, CAMM directly overlaps with SeaMICA. No problem, Sea MICA is budgeted by France, and CAMM by UK.

Good thing about Sea Venom ER than NSM is, it has little overlap with FC/ASW. SeaVenom does have overlap with SPEAR3, which I understand means sea launched SPEAR3 will not be ordered from RN, because Sea Venom is already there. Sea Squa was a good export success. Let's hope Sea Venom does so again, which will enable UK to think investing more on Sea Venom.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7105
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 237 times
Been liked: 278 times
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Lord Jim »

Mind you having twelve to sixteen SPEAR 3, canister or rail launched, on a T-31/32 would be useful.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 4443
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Has liked: 112 times
Been liked: 130 times
Japan

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Lord Jim wrote: 28 May 2022, 13:07 Mind you having twelve to sixteen SPEAR 3, canister or rail launched, on a T-31/32 would be useful.
Yes, and as SPEAR3 is very similar to Sea Venom in its class (at least against boats/corvettes, Sea Venom will be surely superior), it is Either/Or, not BOTH. And, ALL RN escorts already carry SeaVenom for their Wildcat. Introducing canister launched SeaVenom will be significantly cheaper than SPEAR3.

Anyway, I admit "canister launched SeaVenom ER" is still in the fantasy area...

Online
Jdam
Member
Posts: 621
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:26
Has liked: 13 times
Been liked: 64 times
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Jdam »

If the anti ship capability of Sea Ceptor is any good wouldn't that be better than SPEAR 3, Sea Venom or similar for any small targets? I am just thinking of 48 Sea Ceptor cells for anti air and smallish crafts (2 uses, one missile) and save the room for a large canister launched missile for the big targets (LRASM for example)

Dont get me wrong I would love to add all sorts to the Type 31, I am just thinking at the most cost effective approach that would be able to handle more threats.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 4443
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Has liked: 112 times
Been liked: 130 times
Japan

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Jdam wrote: 28 May 2022, 13:54 If the anti ship capability of Sea Ceptor is any good wouldn't that be better than SPEAR 3, Sea Venom or similar for any small targets? I am just thinking of 48 Sea Ceptor cells for anti air and smallish crafts (2 uses, one missile) and save the room for a large canister launched missile for the big targets (LRASM for example)

Dont get me wrong I would love to add all sorts to the Type 31, I am just thinking at the most cost effective approach that would be able to handle more threats.
Reasonable comment, I agree. The point is, hi-end missile boats, corvettes, or light-frigates, many have some AAW capability (like Barak or VL MICA2, both with longer range than SeaVenom). Shooting FC/ASW to these assets will be one choice. But, SeaVenom with a bit increased range can handle them, much much cheaper. (I am very very concern about FC/ASW cost. See LRASM cost. FC/ASW cost will surely exceed it)

Its 30kg warhead is NOT small. If all four SeaVenom hist the corvette in four points, the corvette will be totally disabled. Note that SeaVenom has a capability to selectively dive into CIC, bridge, mast bottom and main engine room, using its IR imaging analysis capability.

But, still debatable, I agree.

jonas
Senior Member
Posts: 1033
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:20
Has liked: 6 times
Been liked: 28 times
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by jonas »


Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3523
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 28 times
Been liked: 147 times
France

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Tempest414 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 28 May 2022, 14:01
Jdam wrote: 28 May 2022, 13:54 If the anti ship capability of Sea Ceptor is any good wouldn't that be better than SPEAR 3, Sea Venom or similar for any small targets? I am just thinking of 48 Sea Ceptor cells for anti air and smallish crafts (2 uses, one missile) and save the room for a large canister launched missile for the big targets (LRASM for example)

Dont get me wrong I would love to add all sorts to the Type 31, I am just thinking at the most cost effective approach that would be able to handle more threats.
Reasonable comment, I agree. The point is, hi-end missile boats, corvettes, or light-frigates, many have some AAW capability (like Barak or VL MICA2, both with longer range than SeaVenom). Shooting FC/ASW to these assets will be one choice. But, SeaVenom with a bit increased range can handle them, much much cheaper. (I am very very concern about FC/ASW cost. See LRASM cost. FC/ASW cost will surely exceed it)

Its 30kg warhead is NOT small. If all four SeaVenom hist the corvette in four points, the corvette will be totally disabled. Note that SeaVenom has a capability to selectively dive into CIC, bridge, mast bottom and main engine room, using its IR imaging analysis capability.

But, still debatable, I agree.
If we take the point view that HMS Sheffield was sunk by a 760 kg missile at subsonic speed that did not explode then what could a 450 kg Aster 30 going high supersonic do

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7105
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 237 times
Been liked: 278 times
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Lord Jim »

I am more concerned about the large numbers of supersonic AShMs our potential adversaries have already. NATO to my knowledge has none in this category except for a few SAMs that have an anti-ship secondary capability. We will be lucky to see FCASW enter service before 2030 , and even then I doubt it will be purchased in the number needed, which will most likely push up the unit price.

Threat level are rising in the present yet the Powers that be are still clinging to aspiration that may bear fruit ten plus years from now. WE just have to hope nothing happens before then or we will be screwed or hiding behind the skirts of the USN!
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post:
wargame_insomniac

GarethDavies1
Member
Posts: 41
Joined: 26 May 2021, 11:45
Has liked: 7 times
Been liked: 11 times
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by GarethDavies1 »

Totally agree, its a complete disgrace that we have a Government that would rather purchase a new Yacht than anti ship missiles for our surface fleet. All down to choices at the end of the day.

Online
SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 3268
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Has liked: 87 times
Been liked: 196 times
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by SW1 »

Lord Jim wrote: 23 Jun 2022, 12:31 I am more concerned about the large numbers of supersonic AShMs our potential adversaries have already. NATO to my knowledge has none in this category except for a few SAMs that have an anti-ship secondary capability. We will be lucky to see FCASW enter service before 2030 , and even then I doubt it will be purchased in the number needed, which will most likely push up the unit price.

Threat level are rising in the present yet the Powers that be are still clinging to aspiration that may bear fruit ten plus years from now. WE just have to hope nothing happens before then or we will be screwed or hiding behind the skirts of the USN!
NATOs adversary fleet is configured differently to NATOs. NATO operates large surface vessels Russia much less so, so the counter maybe different too

tomuk
Member
Posts: 414
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
Has liked: 2 times
Been liked: 32 times
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by tomuk »

Whatevers happening with FCASW we need both an interim and a longer term lower end weapon. We should just buy some NSM plus you could get some good PR and dress it up as friendly defence coop with Norway and Australia maybe throw in a couple of extra P8s too.

Post Reply