Future cruise/anti-ship missiles

Contains threads on Joint Service equipment of the past, present and future.
abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2899
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

Re: Future cruise/anti-ship missiles

Post by abc123 »

Tbenz wrote:Whilst some of the arguments made in this forum for cancelling I-SSGW in favour of FCASW seem logical and rational, it is hard to ignore the fact that every other navy in the world is procuring current generation SSM such as NSM for their warships.

If we had a greater number of SSN and/or a greater number of F35 equipped with JSM/LRASM or similar, it might be justifiable.

I don’t see howf this decision squares with Boris Johnson’s stated goal of Britain becoming the foremost naval power in Europe.
Meh, that's easy, just say: The RN is smart, all else are stoopid. That allways goes well.
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…

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5625
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Future cruise/anti-ship missiles

Post by SW1 »

https://breakingdefense.com/2022/11/uk- ... e-in-mind/

LONDON — Even as it continues development on a future high-end cruise missile, the UK Ministry of Defence is pursuing the design of a more affordable precision munition for the F-35B and ”generation-after-next” platforms including UAVs, with a top official revealing details for the first time this month.

The Defence Science Technology Laboratory (Dstl) has launched a study on the future viability of a Medium Range Utility Strike Weapon (MRUSW) supported by an industrial consortium featuring MBDA, Thales and Raytheon, with the goal of investigating the art of the possible for MRUSW with particular focus on affordability and minimal integration onboard air frames, according to Dstl officials. The effort, known formally as the “WSRF 0058 Utility Air Strike Weapon Concept Study,” is scheduled to report its findings in Q3/Q4 2023.

Addressing delegates Nov. 17 at the Royal Aeronautical Society’s ”Weapons for the Generation After Next Platform” conference in London, Dstl’s Jonathan Burnage described the MRUSW as an additional capability to SPEAR (Selected Precision Effects at Range) Capability 5 — a long-range replacement for the in-service, low-observable air-launched Storm Shadow cruise missile.

MRUSW is a capacity gap rather than a capability gap,” Burnage urged before suggesting the munition will be a “cheap, high combat mass weapon” to complement, rather than replace, SPEAR Cap 5. “This would enable the UK to attack a wide range of fixed targets with [a] limited number of aircraft,” he said before suggesting MRUSW could also be considered a “substitute” weapon in “less demanding situations.”

It’s clear the MoD is looking at other systems as it works on this design phase. In his comments, Burnage referenced the Nov. 9 American deployment of palletized Joint-Air-to-Surface Standoff Missiles from an MC-130J Commando II at the Andoya Space Range, Norway — but questioned whether the RAF’s A400M could support a similar capability with Storm Shadow cruise missiles. Such a concept, he said, would provide “a lot of combat mass” but at great expense.
These users liked the author SW1 for the post (total 2):
TimmymagicRon5

Phil Sayers
Member
Posts: 363
Joined: 03 May 2015, 13:56

Re: Future cruise/anti-ship missiles

Post by Phil Sayers »

It seems to me a fairly niche demand. Up to circa 80 miles range the requirement (unless it needs a much bigger warhead) is going to be covered by SPEAR 3 anyway and, while there certainly could be quite a few targets that could be hit at beyond that range using a cheaper weapon than FCASW, is it really cost effective to develop / introduce an entirely new weapon system just for that eventuality? Methinks that trying to enhance the range and punch of SPEAR 3 combined with placing large orders for FCASW to drive the unit cost down would likely be a better move but I look forward to being proven wrong if / when concepts for this start being unveiled....

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

Re: Future cruise/anti-ship missiles

Post by Timmymagic »

Phil Sayers wrote: 28 Nov 2022, 15:57 It seems to me a fairly niche demand. Up to circa 80 miles range the requirement (unless it needs a much bigger warhead) is going to be covered by SPEAR 3 anyway and, while there certainly could be quite a few targets that could be hit at beyond that range using a cheaper weapon than FCASW, is it really cost effective to develop / introduce an entirely new weapon system just for that eventuality? Methinks that trying to enhance the range and punch of SPEAR 3 combined with placing large orders for FCASW to drive the unit cost down would likely be a better move but I look forward to being proven wrong if / when concepts for this start being unveiled....
This seems to be an SDB1 equivalent. 8 cheap munitions per F-35B internally with hard target penetration capability. RAF have woken up to the fact that all their air to ground munitions are expensive and we have limited stockpile depth...we have no SDB1, APKWS or JDAM equivalent...we can't afford to sling Spear, Storm Shadow, FCASW or even Paveway IV at every target. We need something really cheap...

Which means a concept I've banged on about for an age....SpearSimple.

There are 3 Spear missiles in development at present: Spear, Spear-EW and SpearGlide (basically Spear without the jet engine and fuel, but larger warhead in the space freed up, a direct SDB2 competitor). All share the exact same body shape and overall mass, and CoG. To round out the range we need a 'SpearSimple'. An SDB1 competitor. Basically the same as SpearGlide only without the expensive MMW seeker, GPS/INS only...with the modularity to have a data link or SAL seeker if required (and cheap) and a BROACH style warhead or hard penetration body inside the mold line..

Easy to integrate to F-35 or any platform that will take Spear. Increases our munitions holdings dramatically due to price and makes the Spear 'family' an enticing option for exports...
These users liked the author Timmymagic for the post (total 4):
Phil Sayerswargame_insomniacPhil Rserge750

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1403
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Future cruise/anti-ship missiles

Post by tomuk »



Update from above from George not exactly sure of his source but this was echoed by the Deputy CDS* at Def Comm today plus it is running later than previously forecast, difficulties partly down to dealing with the French was what I implied from a slightly mumbled answer. NSM to be around for a while and Mk41 to be left bare.

*Deputy CDS attempted a more robust approach then CAS at his last appearance. Didn't go the full "You can't handle the truth" but was testy with the over excitable Francois. Dep CDS was left asking "Are you saying I'm trying to mislead you?".

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

Re: Future cruise/anti-ship missiles

Post by Timmymagic »

tomuk wrote: 22 Feb 2023, 01:52 Update from above from George not exactly sure of his source
From 2022. It was announced widely at the time. Was there any clue as to the delay mentioned by the Deputy?

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1292
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Future cruise/anti-ship missiles

Post by RunningStrong »

Timmymagic wrote: 28 Nov 2022, 16:06 [..we have no SDB1, APKWS or JDAM equivalent...we can't afford to sling Spear, Storm Shadow, FCASW or even Paveway IV at every target. We need something really cheap...
Why isn't the answer Brimstone II?

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

Re: Future cruise/anti-ship missiles

Post by Timmymagic »

RunningStrong wrote: 22 Feb 2023, 10:05
Timmymagic wrote: 28 Nov 2022, 16:06 [..we have no SDB1, APKWS or JDAM equivalent...we can't afford to sling Spear, Storm Shadow, FCASW or even Paveway IV at every target. We need something really cheap...
Why isn't the answer Brimstone II?
Because Brimstone 2 or 3A/B is still an £80,000+ missile...with a very small warhead, reliant on semi-active laser guidance or a recognisable target via its MMW seeker. It's not really a comparable weapon to SDB1 for example. SDB1 price was around £20,000 at the time Brimstone was £80,000...with a far, far bigger bang (16-62kg warhead on SDB1 vs 6kg on Brimstone) and hard target capability.

For comparison...

Spear will cost >£200,000 per unit...reportedly a lot more than that
SpearGlide at least £150,000....could be even more
Storm Shadow cost £790,000 over 10 years ago...
FCASW? You won't get change from £1m...you might not get change from £2m....
Paveway IV - Last price seen was >£75,000

In comparison the US has SDB1, JDAM and APKWS....all of which come in around the £30,000 mark. That seems to be as low as you can get an air launched precision guided munition price to with sensible engineering and large purchases from hot production lines.

I'd argue one of the lessons from any war, let alone Ukraine, is that you need some 'mass'. You need some stores that don't cost the earth.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5625
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Future cruise/anti-ship missiles

Post by SW1 »

https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/d ... 42308b883d

Defence committee meeting in question
These users liked the author SW1 for the post:
Timmymagic

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1292
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Future cruise/anti-ship missiles

Post by RunningStrong »

Timmymagic wrote: 22 Feb 2023, 10:51 Because Brimstone 2 or 3A/B is still an £80,000+ missile...with a very small warhead, reliant on semi-active laser guidance or a recognisable target via its MMW seeker.

It's not really a comparable weapon to SDB1 for example. SDB1 price was around £20,000 at the time Brimstone was £80,000...with a far, far bigger bang (16-62kg warhead on SDB1 vs 6kg on Brimstone) and hard target capability.
The gap decreases when you consider the far, far larger quantities that SDB is purchased by the UK, and that it doesn't employ the same salvo capability.

I'm all for a cheaper missile, but I believe that can be done by using the existing Brimstone architecture if necessary and taking capability out if that's what we need.
Timmymagic wrote: 22 Feb 2023, 10:51 In comparison the US has SDB1, JDAM and APKWS....all of which come in around the £30,000 mark. That seems to be as low as you can get an air launched precision guided munition price to with sensible engineering and large purchases from hot production lines.
Is the unit cost of JDAM and APKWS inclusive of the existing munitions?

The issue then is very much integration costs on top. Which if we're talking about 'mass' of weaponry further steers us to a common NATO solution or US solution. Which in threatens to wipe out UK design and manufacturing capability.

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

Re: Future cruise/anti-ship missiles

Post by Timmymagic »

RunningStrong wrote: 22 Feb 2023, 11:19 The gap decreases when you consider the far, far larger quantities that SDB is purchased by the UK, and that it doesn't employ the same salvo capability.
You can 'salvo' fire SDB1. But it is a very different munition to Brimstone. it does not have the same target sets (there is a tiny overlap on fixed positions requiring low collateral strikes, in that context both have their own advantages/disadvantages)
RunningStrong wrote: 22 Feb 2023, 11:19 I'm all for a cheaper missile, but I believe that can be done by using the existing Brimstone architecture if necessary and taking capability out if that's what we need.
Neither SDB1 or Brimstone are comparable. Totally different munitions. Different target sets, different effects on targets. The nearest munition to SDB1 we have is Paveway IV. That is what it should be compared against.
RunningStrong wrote: 22 Feb 2023, 11:19 Is the unit cost of JDAM and APKWS inclusive of the existing munitions?
Not sure what you mean. The unit cost is what the US and FMS customers have paid in recent years.
RunningStrong wrote: 22 Feb 2023, 11:19 The issue then is very much integration costs on top.
JDAM is already integrated on F-35 and Typhoon. SDB1 on F-35. But I'm not advocating a buy of SDB1, that niche looks like it will potentially be covered by MRUSW if purchased. MRUSW in a SpearSimple guise is a very sensible weapon in terms of sovereignty and industrial capability + exports.

JDAM would be a very sensible purchase for the UK however. Just 1,000 x GBU-32 (the 1,000lb variant) could be purchased for £50m with all necessary training and documentation etc. That would give us a bomb with twice the power of Paveway IV on F-35B, a cheaper munition for Typhoon. By all means we could ask Raytheon, BAE or MBDA if they could compete with a UK developed munition. But its unlikely they could come close as the huge orders placed by the US, long production runs etc. have driven down the cost to as low as it will feasibly go. It would do zero harm to UK design and industrial capability as we don't compete in that space at present...it would increase the UK's guided bomb holdings by at least 10%, probably closer to 20% in a matter of months...
These users liked the author Timmymagic for the post:
Ron5

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5514
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Future cruise/anti-ship missiles

Post by Tempest414 »

What would be the cost to the UK Canada and Australia to ask LM to look into if PrSM could be launched from MK-41 this could give all three a 500km ballistic missile capability which as new weapon come on line to replace them could handed over to the Army

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1403
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Future cruise/anti-ship missiles

Post by tomuk »

Timmymagic wrote: 22 Feb 2023, 09:30
tomuk wrote: 22 Feb 2023, 01:52 Update from above from George not exactly sure of his source
From 2022.
oops misread the date :roll:
It was announced widely at the time. Was there any clue as to the delay mentioned by the Deputy?
It was one red project of many the committee were reviewing, they were running through them requesting a detailed written response so their wasn't much detail. The delay seemed to be due to the 'confusion' around choosing which solution or going for two to cover the ASuW and FC elements and as I said an impression of dealing with the French. Not sure if the usual workshare jostling or maybe the wider UK\EU diplomatic situation.
These users liked the author tomuk for the post:
S M H

Jdam
Member
Posts: 918
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:26
United Kingdom

Re: Future cruise/anti-ship missiles

Post by Jdam »

So we are getting a storm shadow replacement and an exocet replacement.

A bit disappointing as I was hoping for a dual mode weapon with land attached and anti ship capabilities, I like the idea of dual use weapons just means you could load all 24 cells with the same type of missiles and have the flexibility to do a couple of things but I think this was expected when we started hearing about a supersonic and Sub sonic missile a while ago.

Also wast it not meant to be hyper sonic missile?

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5625
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Future cruise/anti-ship missiles

Post by SW1 »

Jdam wrote: 22 Feb 2023, 17:07 So we are getting a storm shadow replacement and an exocet replacement.

A bit disappointing as I was hoping for a dual mode weapon with land attached and anti ship capabilities, I like the idea of dual use weapons just means you could load all 24 cells with the same type of missiles and have the flexibility to do a couple of things but I think this was expected when we started hearing about a supersonic and Sub sonic missile a while ago.

Also wast it not meant to be hyper sonic missile?
You’re assuming the weapons won’t be dual use.

One will be subsonic one will be high speed.

I suspect one will be significantly more expensive than the other

Jdam
Member
Posts: 918
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:26
United Kingdom

Re: Future cruise/anti-ship missiles

Post by Jdam »

Just going by what the tweet said.
A stealthy subsonic land attack missile and a supersonic, highly maneuverable anti-ship missile
It will be interesting to see what we can launch them from.

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

Re: Future cruise/anti-ship missiles

Post by Timmymagic »

Jdam wrote: 22 Feb 2023, 17:07 So we are getting a storm shadow replacement and an exocet replacement.

A bit disappointing as I was hoping for a dual mode weapon with land attached and anti ship capabilities, I like the idea of dual use weapons just means you could load all 24 cells with the same type of missiles and have the flexibility to do a couple of things but I think this was expected when we started hearing about a supersonic and Sub sonic missile a while ago.

Also wast it not meant to be hyper sonic missile?
There will be different variants and capabilities. It remains to be seen if these are 2 missiles which have multiple targeting methods or 2 missile bodies with different seekers, warheads etc. available for different, discrete roles. Suspect there will be a land attack capability in all missiles, but perhaps simpler in those whose main role is anti-ship.

- Stealthy Subsonic - Primarily land attack but will have anti-ship capability. LRASM for example has anti-ship and land attack. JASSM-XR will have both if current developments succeed.

- Supersonic - Anti ship, land attack...AND...air to air...France wants it to be an ultra long range air to air missile as well that is capable of engaging enablers like AWACS and AAR at extreme range i.e. 400 miles. The French are also going to use it as an anti-radar munition, presumably against strategic assets like S-400 or long range surveillance radars. This missile was always described as Supersonic, not hypersonic.

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

Re: Future cruise/anti-ship missiles

Post by Timmymagic »

Jdam wrote: 22 Feb 2023, 17:24 It will be interesting to see what we can launch them from.
French requirement is for air launch, surface launch from Sylver and sub-sea launch from encapsulated missiles.

By the sounds of it the UK will want Mk.41 launch as well.

Whether or not canisters are involved will be interesting.

For once it would make sense for a manufacturer to actually do all of those and then let countries buy it off the shelf.

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1403
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Future cruise/anti-ship missiles

Post by tomuk »

From today's Franco-British summit:
In the field of armament cooperation, France and the United Kingdom will advance key projects to develop their future complex weapons systems. They commit to concrete steps forward regarding the further advancement of the Future Cruise and Anti-Ship Weapon (FCAS/W) programme to avoid capability gaps. In particular, they commit to deliver a future cruise capability in 2030.
These users liked the author tomuk for the post:
Jensy

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7227
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Future cruise/anti-ship missiles

Post by Ron5 »

tomuk wrote: 10 Mar 2023, 23:19 to avoid capability gaps
Bit late for that.
These users liked the author Ron5 for the post:
serge750

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

Re: Future cruise/anti-ship missiles

Post by Timmymagic »

Italy has now decided to join FCASW...

https://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-fi ... 66793.html
These users liked the author Timmymagic for the post (total 3):
serge750Ron5Ian Hall

Jdam
Member
Posts: 918
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:26
United Kingdom

Re: Future cruise/anti-ship missiles

Post by Jdam »



I wonder if the future cruise (Low observable, subsonic) is going to be a product improved storm shadow. :think: I cant see how else they will get it in service by 2028.

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

Re: Future cruise/anti-ship missiles

Post by Timmymagic »

Jdam wrote: 18 Oct 2023, 11:53 I wonder if the future cruise (Low observable, subsonic) is going to be a product improved storm shadow. I cant see how else they will get it in service by 2028.
In short no. It may lean on the Storm Shadow MLU work and components in terms of the new datalink, GPS denied navigation and other minor improvements. But it will be far longer ranged, will require a new seeker just purely down to obsolescence issues, will probably require a turbofan rather than Storm Shadows turbojet for efficiency (the TDI-J85 is well placed). The requirements around stealth shaping will also be far beyond Storm Shadow. It may use the Broach warhead again, but I suspect may have an improved fuse. Hopefully a more modular approach to the design and warhead in particular will be taken.

Basically some minor components will definitely be from the parts bin, but to get the performance that UK in particular will want will mean wholesale improvements across aero, guidance, seeker, propulsion etc.
These users liked the author Timmymagic for the post (total 2):
Jdamnew guy

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

Re: Future cruise/anti-ship missiles

Post by Timmymagic »

Interesting snippet in post 2 from the Italians.

Land attack FCASW is expected in 2028. The anti-ship variant is not expected until 2034.

How this plays out is anyones guess...Land Attack must mean the subsonic, stealthy version.

But what do they mean by anti-ship? Do they mean purely the supersonic missile for anti-ship? Or could it mean either version with a longer time required due to sensor development etc?

Type 26 could enter service initially without anti-shipping capability....unless the Italian chart really refers to the variant of the missile i.e. subsonic or supersonic.

These users liked the author Timmymagic for the post:
new guy

Online
wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1133
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Future cruise/anti-ship missiles

Post by wargame_insomniac »

I guess Land Attack Cruise Missiles are simpler in that their target does nt move!! :)
Be interesting to see how this now 3-way development of the two missiles works out.

Post Reply