Future cruise/anti-ship missiles
Future cruise/anti-ship missiles
Commons written answers 8th july 2021:-
https://questions-statements.parliament ... 7-05/27034
https://questions-statements.parliament ... 7-05/27035
https://questions-statements.parliament ... 7-05/27033
https://questions-statements.parliament ... 7-05/27036
https://questions-statements.parliament ... 7-05/27034
https://questions-statements.parliament ... 7-05/27035
https://questions-statements.parliament ... 7-05/27033
https://questions-statements.parliament ... 7-05/27036
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1173
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
- Has liked: 49 times
- Been liked: 63 times
Re: Future cruise/anti-ship missiles
Why is Storm Shadow (or the French Naval version) unsuitable for this requirement?
-
- Donator
- Posts: 2934
- Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
- Has liked: 105 times
- Been liked: 403 times
Re: Future cruise/anti-ship missiles
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.RunningStrong wrote:Why is Storm Shadow (or the French Naval version) unsuitable for this requirement?
Re: Future cruise/anti-ship missiles
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 wrote: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.RunningStrong wrote:Why is Storm Shadow (or the French Naval version) unsuitable for this requirement?
-
- Donator
- Posts: 2934
- Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
- Has liked: 105 times
- Been liked: 403 times
Re: Future cruise/anti-ship missiles
Not sure how stealthy it is, it abandons most of the shaping that Storm Shadow has.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.
Re: Future cruise/anti-ship missiles
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.Timmymagic wrote:Not sure how stealthy it is, it abandons most of the shaping that Storm Shadow has.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.
Re: Future cruise/anti-ship missiles
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.Pseudo wrote: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.Timmymagic wrote:Not sure how stealthy it is, it abandons most of the shaping that Storm Shadow has.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.
- whitelancer
- Member
- Posts: 615
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
- Has liked: 8 times
- Been liked: 7 times
Re: Future cruise/anti-ship missiles
No mention of it being fitted to T45, T32, F35, Tempest, or Poseidon.
Wouldn't that help its "business case"?
Wouldn't that help its "business case"?
-
- Donator
- Posts: 2934
- Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
- Has liked: 105 times
- Been liked: 403 times
Re: Future cruise/anti-ship missiles
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.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.
It's as modern as a TLAM Blk.V, which shares little with the original TLAM.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 7313
- Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
- Has liked: 329 times
- Been liked: 366 times
Re: Future cruise/anti-ship missiles
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?
Re: Future cruise/anti-ship missiles
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.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?
-
- Donator
- Posts: 2934
- Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
- Has liked: 105 times
- Been liked: 403 times
Re: Future cruise/anti-ship missiles
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...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?

Re: Future cruise/anti-ship missiles
Well I'm guessing they're some who'll be wanting it put on the Batch 2 Rivers.
Re: Future cruise/anti-ship missiles
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…
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…
-
- Donator
- Posts: 2934
- Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
- Has liked: 105 times
- Been liked: 403 times
Re: Future cruise/anti-ship missiles
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.abc123 wrote:About that future hypersonic missile- a pie in the sky
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...
Re: Future cruise/anti-ship missiles
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.Timmymagic wrote: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.abc123 wrote:About that future hypersonic missile- a pie in the sky
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...
I assume it's possible that it could be subsonic until close then accelerate?
Re: Future cruise/anti-ship missiles
But surely they've two things they can use today, TLAM and Stormshadow.abc123 wrote:RN/RAF needs something they can use today
...and they do seem to use them.
Re: Future cruise/anti-ship missiles
I meant against ships and from ships and aircrafts.J. Tattersall wrote:But surely they've two things they can use today, TLAM and Stormshadow.abc123 wrote:RN/RAF needs something they can use today
...and they do seem to use them.
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…
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…
Re: Future cruise/anti-ship missiles
Nevere mind that, hyper or high supersonic, problems are political nature, not technical.Ron5 wrote: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.Timmymagic wrote: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.abc123 wrote:About that future hypersonic missile- a pie in the sky
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...
I assume it's possible that it could be subsonic until close then accelerate?
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…
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…
Re: Future cruise/anti-ship missiles
But Surely they have Harpoon for that, and soon interim SSM.abc123 wrote:I meant against ships and from ships and aircrafts.J. Tattersall wrote:But surely they've two things they can use today, TLAM and Stormshadow.abc123 wrote:RN/RAF needs something they can use today
...and they do seem to use them.
Re: Future cruise/anti-ship missiles
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.J. Tattersall wrote:But Surely they have Harpoon for that, and soon interim SSM.abc123 wrote:I meant against ships and from ships and aircrafts.J. Tattersall wrote:But surely they've two things they can use today, TLAM and Stormshadow.abc123 wrote:RN/RAF needs something they can use today
...and they do seem to use them.
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…
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…
Re: Future cruise/anti-ship missiles
Spoken as a true civil servant.J. Tattersall wrote:But Surely they have Harpoon for that, and soon interim SSM.abc123 wrote:I meant against ships and from ships and aircrafts.J. Tattersall wrote:But surely they've two things they can use today, TLAM and Stormshadow.abc123 wrote:RN/RAF needs something they can use today
...and they do seem to use them.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 7313
- Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
- Has liked: 329 times
- Been liked: 366 times
Re: Future cruise/anti-ship missiles
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.
Re: Future cruise/anti-ship missiles
JimLord 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.
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.