Future cruise/anti-ship missiles

Contains threads on Joint Service equipment of the past, present and future.
Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6329
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Future cruise/anti-ship missiles

Post by Ron5 »

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 and minor modification to the launchers if any. Why we are waiting until at least 2025 is just stupid plain and simple.
Budgeting.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2335
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Future cruise/anti-ship missiles

Post by Caribbean »

So - a quick refurb of the boiler then?
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Online
Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6251
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Future cruise/anti-ship missiles

Post by Lord Jim »

Could we borrow a few latest spec. Harpoons from the USN and just to the work needed to use them instead I wonder?

J. Tattersall

Re: Future cruise/anti-ship missiles

Post by J. Tattersall »

Lord Jim wrote:Could we borrow a few latest spec. Harpoons from the USN and just to the work needed to use them instead I wonder?
Most procurement cases have a 'do minimum' option, which is what I think your alluding to here. The fact though that UK has embarked on an interim capability, as opposed to an upgrade, leads one to think that, for whatever reason, they assess this is either not viable or that it needs to be tested against other market options.

Online
Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6251
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Future cruise/anti-ship missiles

Post by Lord Jim »

I think the latter is the more likely, possibly because the MoD has already been criticised for simply choosing the go with a US option as a sole source too often on the recent past.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6329
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Future cruise/anti-ship missiles

Post by Ron5 »

J. Tattersall wrote:Most (UK) procurement cases have a 'do minimum' option
No shit Sherlock.

J. Tattersall

Re: Future cruise/anti-ship missiles

Post by J. Tattersall »

Ron5 wrote:
J. Tattersall wrote:Most (UK) procurement cases have a 'do minimum' option
No shit Sherlock.
Can't be 100% sure but something tells me you might have missed the point. So here's something to enlighten you:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... evaluation

No need to thank me BTW.

Online
Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6251
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Future cruise/anti-ship missiles

Post by Lord Jim »

Sort of the same plan as to have the option to bring certain repair facilities back under RAF control if it became apparent the privatised sites were not delivering what was agreed and well as sticking to the agreed pricing. Problem was the way things were done there was no way the decision could be reversed as teh Treasury hade already taken the savings from the MoD as soon as the contract was signed. Sure they follow the guidelines but totally disregarded the context in which they were written.

As we used to say you can cancel anything with the stroke of a pen but it takes years to correct any mistakes.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6329
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Future cruise/anti-ship missiles

Post by Ron5 »

J. Tattersall wrote:
Ron5 wrote:
J. Tattersall wrote:Most (UK) procurement cases have a 'do minimum' option
No shit Sherlock.
Can't be 100% sure but something tells me you might have missed the point. So here's something to enlighten you:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... evaluation

No need to thank me BTW.
Military: please sir, we need a new ship/vehicle/aircraft/gun/missile because the ones we have are obsolete

Civil Service: the ones you have still float/move/fly/fire, let's do the minimum and not get you anything new. Next.

War. Servicemen wounded and die because of obsolete equipment

Expensive UOR's acquire stop gaps

War ends. Stop gaps discarded.

Military: please sir, we need a new ship/vehicle/aircraft/gun/missile because the ones we have are obsolete

.....

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2786
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15

Re: Future cruise/anti-ship missiles

Post by abc123 »

So it seems that Harpoons will not be replaced any time soon. Disgrace.

https://www.navylookout.com/royal-navy- ... ore-2030s/

Another cut. Will anything remain?
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…

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2331
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

Re: Future cruise/anti-ship missiles

Post by bobp »

abc123 wrote:Another cut. Will anything remain?
Yes they spent the savings on a new National Flagship

Online
Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6251
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Future cruise/anti-ship missiles

Post by Lord Jim »

abc123 wrote:So it seems that Harpoons will not be replaced any time soon. Disgrace.

https://www.navylookout.com/royal-navy- ... ore-2030s/

Another cut. Will anything remain?
So like the Army the Navy is taking a ten year long holiday from warfighting, not being able to confront anything beyond pirates. FC/ASW is not going to see the light of day until the first half of the 2030s at the earliest if at all. Yet another example of Service Chiefs looking too far into the future and not meeting current capability requirements. Yes we should invest in the future but ignoring the present is asking for a good slapping by someone.

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2786
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15

Re: Future cruise/anti-ship missiles

Post by abc123 »

Lord Jim wrote:
abc123 wrote:So it seems that Harpoons will not be replaced any time soon. Disgrace.

https://www.navylookout.com/royal-navy- ... ore-2030s/

Another cut. Will anything remain?
So like the Army the Navy is taking a ten year long holiday from warfighting, not being able to confront anything beyond pirates. FC/ASW is not going to see the light of day until the first half of the 2030s at the earliest if at all. Yet another example of Service Chiefs looking too far into the future and not meeting current capability requirements. Yes we should invest in the future but ignoring the present is asking for a good slapping by someone.

Good news for Russia, China and Iran.
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…

tomuk
Member
Posts: 335
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Future cruise/anti-ship missiles

Post by tomuk »

Lord Jim wrote:
So like the Army the Navy is taking a ten year long holiday from warfighting, not being able to confront anything beyond pirates.
Come on that is a bit of an exaggeration. We will still have Harpoon until 2024? We will have Helicopter launched Martlet , Sea Venom and Stingray. In a war scenario its likely to be CSG lead so there will be other air launched capabilities and not forgetting sub launched Spearfish.
Additionally there's always some UORs to fall back on.

If FACSW is going to be as sophisticated as suggested there would still be room for a lower end weapon such as NSM anyway and I would be buying some box launched ones now to fit on T31 and T45. T23 can stick with Harpoon.

But as always the real issue is money. If only it was politically acceptable to allocate some more and the MOD was able to stop wasting so much of it.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 2822
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Future cruise/anti-ship missiles

Post by Repulse »

tomuk wrote:In a war scenario its likely to be CSG lead so there will be other air launched capabilities and not forgetting sub launched Spearfish.
The ramifications that the RN (above surface) warfighting capability will be solely around a CSG is still being learnt. Below surface it's still the SSN, but even that will evolve over the next decade with the introduction of the XLUUV. Put on top of that, the fact that the RAF is starting to consider again anti-ship capabilities such as fitting Harpoon missiles to the Poseidon a/c and the decision not to go with the an interim solution and gap starts to make more sense.

If the real longer term aim is to have hypersonic ASMs which can dual role land and naval strike that is the balance.

What I would like to see however, is a review into what it would take to integrate Martlet and Sea Venom into the Merlin, and also an acceleration of integration of these into ship based launchers and unmanned platforms including next generation "Mad Foxs".

ASMs on warships in the CSG in my view are all about keeping enemy units at arms length, so the more platforms in the CSG you can use for this the better.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2786
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15

Re: Future cruise/anti-ship missiles

Post by abc123 »

tomuk wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:
So like the Army the Navy is taking a ten year long holiday from warfighting, not being able to confront anything beyond pirates.
Come on that is a bit of an exaggeration.
Just a bit.
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: 2786
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15

Re: Future cruise/anti-ship missiles

Post by abc123 »

tomuk wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:
So like the Army the Navy is taking a ten year long holiday from warfighting, not being able to confront anything beyond pirates.
. We will still have Harpoon until 2024? We will have Helicopter launched Martlet , Sea Venom and Stingray. .
2024 is just 2 years away.
Martlet and Sea Venom are exactly counter-piracy and MAYBE counter-swarm-of-Iranian-boats weapons. Stingray isn't really a weapon for anti-surface warfare.

Man would have thought that a country with 3100 bln. USD GDP could somehow scrap a 100-200 mil. USD to get a few dozen normal ASMs like NSMs or whatever?
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…

Jdam
Member
Posts: 483
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:26
United Kingdom

Re: Future cruise/anti-ship missiles

Post by Jdam »

I said in a previous thread that getting nothing for the intern solution was a possibility :(

If everything was fine with the French and the Future cruise/anti-ship missiles didn't suffer the usual delays and problems all military projects seem to go through how long of a gap are we looking at 7-8 years?

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Future cruise/anti-ship missiles

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote:So like the Army the Navy is taking a ten year long holiday from warfighting
That's back to the 20's, but otherwise we are back to the 70's... a subject matter for other threads, though.
abc123 wrote:2024 is just 2 years away.
Martlet and Sea Venom are exactly counter-piracy and MAYBE counter-swarm-of-Iranian-boats weapons. Stingray isn't really a weapon for anti-surface warfare.
Sea Venom is not bad, but also the point made is not bad ;) >
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Online
Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6251
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Future cruise/anti-ship missiles

Post by Lord Jim »

WIth the Royal Navy seeming to unilaterally mover the capability goal posts for the FC/ASW programme, i cannot see any weapon(S) actually entering service until the mid 2030s at the earliest. France was only after a supersonic weapon, with the RAF wanting a stealthier sub-sonic variety. Now the Head of the Navy and soon to be CDS has stated the Royal Navy is looking for a "Hyper" Sonic weapon that can fit in a Mk41 vls. Another case of looking far into the future and not paying attention to the present I believe.

Sea Venom should be a very good weapon in the role it has been design for. As already pointed out, its range is its greatest short coming if one tired to use it as an interim Harpoon replacement. To launch the weapon you would be well inside the defensive envelope of the target, so there is a good chance you would already be engaged before you got a chance to launch. Think of it this way could a ship of Helicopter armed with Sea Venom engage an Arleigh Burke Destroyer? China and Russia, possibly, are deploying vessels with air defence weapon systems of a similar capability to these vessels and have very effective close in defence on top of their very effective Aegis type missile systems. They also have very long range, cutting edge AShMs to hit back with. Somehow Sea Venom just will not cut it in the big leagues, without a major upgrade that would involve turning it into a new weapon.

So the Royal Navy is saving £500M by not pursuing the I-SSGW and is placing its money on a weapon system that has not even got of the starting blocks. For anti surface warfare it will have to, for at least a decade, rely on the heavyweight torpedoes from its seven Astutes and its F-35s using SPEAR 3 to kill a vessel by a thousand cuts. The latter of course is dependant on not being the victim of the enemies own AShMs from their legacy sub sonic weapons to their large Hypersonic ones beginning to enter service.

So of coarse the Royal Navy will do its duty if ordered to, but hundreds of years of tradition and excellence are no good at stopping a large enemy AShM unfortunately.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Future cruise/anti-ship missiles

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote: Somehow Sea Venom just will not cut it in the big leagues, without a major upgrade that would involve turning it into a new weapon.
As you point out, it has its place in the arsenal (which, to a large part, is currently missing). Designed for a replay of sinking most of Iraq's navy in one day... with a decent land-attack capability added.
Lord Jim wrote:F-35s using SPEAR 3 to kill a vessel by a thousand cuts.
Quite a good turn of phrase; if the other parts of the arsenal were there, the role of 'blinding' the enemy's sensors as the first step in sinking 'it', is - again - a role that the weapon (and its stealthy launch platform) is ideally suited for.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Tbenz
Junior Member
Posts: 6
Joined: 25 Feb 2017, 17:47
United Kingdom

Re: Future cruise/anti-ship missiles

Post by Tbenz »

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.

That said, I have sympathy for Radakin as I believe he is simply trying to make the best of a bad situation. The need to replace Harpoon has been there for years and as with so many projects, the can has been well and truly kicked down the road.

What is however truly amazing is that we can find £250 million to fund a so-called national flagship, whilst our warships do not have a credible SSM and most likely won’t for a decade.

I don’t see how this decision squares with Boris Johnson’s stated goal of Britain becoming the foremost naval power in Europe.

Defiance
Donator
Posts: 749
Joined: 07 Oct 2015, 20:52
United Kingdom

Re: Future cruise/anti-ship missiles

Post by Defiance »

Tbenz wrote: I don’t see how this decision squares with Boris Johnson’s stated goal of Britain becoming the foremost naval power in Europe.
Style over substance, always has been with him. If it can make a splash in the news with some glossy pics then that'll always take priority.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Future cruise/anti-ship missiles

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Tbenz wrote: I don’t see how this decision squares with Boris Johnson’s stated goal of Britain becoming the foremost naval power in Europe.
Otherwise the 'flagship' would have remained to be ... a leased airliner. Has no 'signalling' effect as to our return to naval power.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Online
Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6251
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Future cruise/anti-ship missiles

Post by Lord Jim »

How many MK41s are their going to be on our new "Flagship"? The fact that the MoD seems to be picking up the bulk of the cost really gets me. Considering its main role the DTI should be carrying the can for this one.

Post Reply