Future cruise/anti-ship missiles

Contains threads on Joint Service equipment of the past, present and future.

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 748
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Future cruise/anti-ship missiles

Post by RunningStrong »

Why is Storm Shadow (or the French Naval version) unsuitable for this requirement?

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 2293
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Future cruise/anti-ship missiles

Post by Timmymagic »

RunningStrong wrote:Why is Storm Shadow (or the French Naval version) unsuitable for this requirement?
Needs a re-life, but its a good question. The UK is after a long range, stealthy, subsonic missile (admittedly the French want a medium range supersonic missile for other reasons). Why not an updated Storm Shadow (its already stealthy, if the RAF want it fully fuelled it has the range).The engine is still good. Just a new sensor required etc.

User avatar
Pseudo
Senior Member
Posts: 1727
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 21:37
Tuvalu

Re: Future cruise/anti-ship missiles

Post by Pseudo »

Timmymagic wrote:
RunningStrong wrote:Why is Storm Shadow (or the French Naval version) unsuitable for this requirement?
Needs a re-life, but its a good question. The UK is after a long range, stealthy, subsonic missile (admittedly the French want a medium range supersonic missile for other reasons). Why not an updated Storm Shadow (its already stealthy, if the RAF want it fully fuelled it has the range).The engine is still good. Just a new sensor required etc.
I'd have thought that the French MdCN version would make a decent platform for a long-range surface launched anti-ship missile. The additional avionics would add to the weight, but that could be compensated for with a smaller warhead, 450kg seems like total overkill for an AShM.

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 2293
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Future cruise/anti-ship missiles

Post by Timmymagic »

Pseudo wrote:I'd have thought that the French MdCN version would make a decent platform for a long-range surface launched anti-ship missile.
Not sure how stealthy it is, it abandons most of the shaping that Storm Shadow has.

User avatar
Pseudo
Senior Member
Posts: 1727
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 21:37
Tuvalu

Re: Future cruise/anti-ship missiles

Post by Pseudo »

Timmymagic wrote:
Pseudo wrote:I'd have thought that the French MdCN version would make a decent platform for a long-range surface launched anti-ship missile.
Not sure how stealthy it is, it abandons most of the shaping that Storm Shadow has.
I didn't realise that. In that case, I'd have thought that Storm Shadow with a booster would make a decent platform for a long-range surface launched anti-ship missile.

J. Tattersall

Re: Future cruise/anti-ship missiles

Post by J. Tattersall »

Pseudo wrote:
Timmymagic wrote:
Pseudo wrote:I'd have thought that the French MdCN version would make a decent platform for a long-range surface launched anti-ship missile.
Not sure how stealthy it is, it abandons most of the shaping that Storm Shadow has.
I didn't realise that. In that case, I'd have thought that Storm Shadow with a booster would make a decent platform for a long-range surface launched anti-ship missile.
MdCN based on Storm Shadow/ Apache missile technology which its in turn 30 years old. So yes you could make a long range ship missile out of it but expect it to rapidly loose effectiveness against near future threats.

User avatar
whitelancer
Member
Posts: 585
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
United Kingdom

Re: Future cruise/anti-ship missiles

Post by whitelancer »

No mention of it being fitted to T45, T32, F35, Tempest, or Poseidon.

Wouldn't that help its "business case"?

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 2293
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Future cruise/anti-ship missiles

Post by Timmymagic »

J. Tattersall wrote:MdCN based on Storm Shadow/ Apache missile technology which its in turn 30 years old. So yes you could make a long range ship missile out of it but expect it to rapidly loose effectiveness against near future threats.
To all intents and purposes it was a new missile. The jet engines used haven't significantly changed and the guidance and sensors were new.
It's as modern as a TLAM Blk.V, which shares little with the original TLAM.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6205
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Future cruise/anti-ship missiles

Post by Lord Jim »

I wonder if they are working on some sort of variable propulsion system for the missile, air breathing of coarse. It would be able to cruise a substantial distance, meeting the RN's desire for long range, or transit at a much higher velocity for anti ship work, or any combination in between. Obviously this would add cost but would this be outweighed by the flexibility granted?

User avatar
Pseudo
Senior Member
Posts: 1727
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 21:37
Tuvalu

Re: Future cruise/anti-ship missiles

Post by Pseudo »

Lord Jim wrote:I wonder if they are working on some sort of variable propulsion system for the missile, air breathing of coarse. It would be able to cruise a substantial distance, meeting the RN's desire for long range, or transit at a much higher velocity for anti ship work, or any combination in between. Obviously this would add cost but would this be outweighed by the flexibility granted?
I read something ages ago and I've forgot where that talked about the feasibility of an anti-ship missile that cruised at subsonic speeds to extend its range and then accelerated to high-supersonic or hypersonic speeds as it approached the target.

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 2293
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Future cruise/anti-ship missiles

Post by Timmymagic »

Lord Jim wrote:I wonder if they are working on some sort of variable propulsion system for the missile, air breathing of coarse. It would be able to cruise a substantial distance, meeting the RN's desire for long range, or transit at a much higher velocity for anti ship work, or any combination in between. Obviously this would add cost but would this be outweighed by the flexibility granted?
Only images seen to date have been the 2 MBDA concepts. Neither does this. My money is on the Subsonic, stealthy, long range cruiser. The 2 top images here are the presumed FCASW shapes...

Image

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6273
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Future cruise/anti-ship missiles

Post by Ron5 »

Higher resolution ..

Image

J. Tattersall

Re: Future cruise/anti-ship missiles

Post by J. Tattersall »

Well I'm guessing they're some who'll be wanting it put on the Batch 2 Rivers.

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15

Re: Future cruise/anti-ship missiles

Post by abc123 »

About that future hypersonic missile- a pie in the sky IMHO. RN/RAF needs something they can use today, not in 10+ years, two governments, five Defence Reviews and three France/EU cooperation changes away ...
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…

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 2293
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Future cruise/anti-ship missiles

Post by Timmymagic »

abc123 wrote:About that future hypersonic missile- a pie in the sky
FYI - The MBDA concept for speed is described as 'high supersonic' rather than 'hypersonic'. That means they're aiming for less than M5.0. The technical challenges are therefore dramatically simpler.

This is also backed up by the fact that the French are looking at another totally new design, potentially hypersonic, to replace the ASMP-A missile. If FCASW was hypersonic they'd be using the same missile...

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6273
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Future cruise/anti-ship missiles

Post by Ron5 »

Timmymagic wrote:
abc123 wrote:About that future hypersonic missile- a pie in the sky
FYI - The MBDA concept for speed is described as 'high supersonic' rather than 'hypersonic'. That means they're aiming for less than M5.0. The technical challenges are therefore dramatically simpler.

This is also backed up by the fact that the French are looking at another totally new design, potentially hypersonic, to replace the ASMP-A missile. If FCASW was hypersonic they'd be using the same missile...
The stub wings in the picture I would think give a clue that its a) supersonic and b) designed to follow nap of the earth to target i.e a cruise missile.

I assume it's possible that it could be subsonic until close then accelerate?

J. Tattersall

Re: Future cruise/anti-ship missiles

Post by J. Tattersall »

abc123 wrote:RN/RAF needs something they can use today
But surely they've two things they can use today, TLAM and Stormshadow.

...and they do seem to use them.

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15

Re: Future cruise/anti-ship missiles

Post by abc123 »

J. Tattersall wrote:
abc123 wrote:RN/RAF needs something they can use today
But surely they've two things they can use today, TLAM and Stormshadow.

...and they do seem to use them.
I meant against ships and from ships and aircrafts.
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…

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15

Re: Future cruise/anti-ship missiles

Post by abc123 »

Ron5 wrote:
Timmymagic wrote:
abc123 wrote:About that future hypersonic missile- a pie in the sky
FYI - The MBDA concept for speed is described as 'high supersonic' rather than 'hypersonic'. That means they're aiming for less than M5.0. The technical challenges are therefore dramatically simpler.

This is also backed up by the fact that the French are looking at another totally new design, potentially hypersonic, to replace the ASMP-A missile. If FCASW was hypersonic they'd be using the same missile...
The stub wings in the picture I would think give a clue that its a) supersonic and b) designed to follow nap of the earth to target i.e a cruise missile.

I assume it's possible that it could be subsonic until close then accelerate?
Nevere mind that, hyper or high supersonic, problems are political nature, not technical.
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…

J. Tattersall

Re: Future cruise/anti-ship missiles

Post by J. Tattersall »

abc123 wrote:
J. Tattersall wrote:
abc123 wrote:RN/RAF needs something they can use today
But surely they've two things they can use today, TLAM and Stormshadow.

...and they do seem to use them.
I meant against ships and from ships and aircrafts.
But Surely they have Harpoon for that, and soon interim SSM.

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15

Re: Future cruise/anti-ship missiles

Post by abc123 »

J. Tattersall wrote:
abc123 wrote:
J. Tattersall wrote:
abc123 wrote:RN/RAF needs something they can use today
But surely they've two things they can use today, TLAM and Stormshadow.

...and they do seem to use them.
I meant against ships and from ships and aircrafts.
But Surely they have Harpoon for that, and soon interim SSM.
Do they have? Not so sure about that, or at least the RN seems able to generate just one set at the time... For about 7-8 ships at Sea.

Yes, interim missile is coming for about 3-4 years allready, and nobody really knows when she will, if ever.. I mean, they need 3-4 years to buy a few sets of simple SSMs, it isn't Death Star...

Plus, F-35s and P-8 are still not armed with ASMs, and probably never will be.
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…

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6273
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Future cruise/anti-ship missiles

Post by Ron5 »

J. Tattersall wrote:
abc123 wrote:
J. Tattersall wrote:
abc123 wrote:RN/RAF needs something they can use today
But surely they've two things they can use today, TLAM and Stormshadow.

...and they do seem to use them.
I meant against ships and from ships and aircrafts.
But Surely they have Harpoon for that, and soon interim SSM.
Spoken as a true civil servant.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6205
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Future cruise/anti-ship missiles

Post by Lord Jim »

If we went for the latest Harpoon variant as the Interim AShM I am pretty sure it could be in service with the fleet by the endo of the year, as the T-23 would really only need a software update and minor modification to the launchers if any. Why we are waiting until at least 2025 is just stupid plain and simple.

tomuk
Member
Posts: 334
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Future cruise/anti-ship missiles

Post by tomuk »

Lord Jim wrote:If we went for the latest Harpoon variant as the Interim AShM I am pretty sure it could be in service with the fleet by the endo of the year, as the T-23 would really only need a software update.
Jim
Have you seen the consoles for Harpoon they look like they are powered by steam and valves. I don't think a software update will cut it.

Post Reply