Future cruise/anti-ship missiles

Contains threads on Joint Service equipment of the past, present and future.
abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2808
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
Has liked: 14 times
Been liked: 1 time

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: 3608
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Has liked: 132 times
Been liked: 318 times
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: 216
Joined: 03 May 2015, 13:56
Has liked: 35 times
Been liked: 67 times

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: 2727
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Has liked: 77 times
Been liked: 265 times
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

Post Reply