RN anti-ship missiles

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Online
donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 4683
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Has liked: 235 times
Been liked: 242 times
Japan

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Jake1992 wrote: 22 Jul 2022, 22:09
Dobbo wrote: 22 Jul 2022, 21:27 I think the anti ship missile is the supersonic one, the subsonic one is (apparently) a much larger land attack missile. Feels ambitious to have different ones - but what do I know!
I thought the whole idea of the project was to make one missile that could do both land attack and anti ship to give that greater flexibility ie instead of have 8 anti ship and 8 land attack you’d have 16 that can be used for either role.
SW1 wrote: 22 Jul 2022, 21:58 Subsonic missiles you can at make “stealthy”
Is stealthy going to be as greater use as we think though, from what Iv read to seems speed make a missile harder to stop than stealth. We’re taking about a sub Mach 1 missile here it doesn’t really fill me with confidence.
Simple. Supersonic needs BIG resources to fly, hugely powerful engine, nearly an order of magnitude larger drag force (which typically scales as (velocity)^2, i.e. Mach 3 missile faces 11 times ((3/0.9)-2=11.11) the drag-force of a Mach 0.9 missile, if similar sized), and hence larger amount of fuel. In other words, super-sonic missile MUST have
- much smaller warhead
- AND/OR significantly shorter range
than sub-sonic ones. Just physics. We can easily compare Concord and B747.

Example is not well known in detail, but to my understanding;
- StormShadow is 1.3t, has a 450 kg warhead, with 550 km range in lo-lo profile, a high-subsonic missile
- ASM-3A of Japan is 1t, has unknown warhead (said to be less than 150 kg), with 400 km range in hi-lo profile, Mach 3.
- BrahMos-A, 2.5t, warhead 200-300 kg, with 400 km range in hi-lo profile, Mach 3.

Very different ones.

Of course, super-sonic missile is more expensive (high-power engine and super-sonic airframe is much expensive than a TNT gun powder). Hypersonic? Will be surely hugely expensive.

Jdam
Member
Posts: 716
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:26
Has liked: 23 times
Been liked: 107 times
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Jdam »

Our intern solution is going to the be the sub sonic missile we need, how is this program already getting complicated and going off course at this state. :crazy:

What we need is 1 missile that is Hypersonic and can attacked Naval/Land targets, can be vertically and air launched, go!.

Online
donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 4683
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Has liked: 235 times
Been liked: 242 times
Japan

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Jdam wrote: 23 Jul 2022, 21:27 Our intern solution is going to the be the sub sonic missile we need, how is this program already getting complicated and going off course at this state. :crazy:
NSM is medium range (~200 km) sub-sonic agile and stealthy ASM, capable of land attack, with a warhead of 125 kg. FC/ASW sub-sonic version will be a sub-sonic agile and stealthy land-attack missile with ~1000 km range and ~400 kg warhead.

If you think NSM is "similar" to FC/ASW-subsonic, you must say "SeaVenom is the same to NSM".

I do not think so.
What we need is 1 missile that is Hypersonic and can attacked Naval/Land targets, can be vertically and air launched, go!.
When will it be ready? It will be VERY expensive, how many UK will be able to buy it? How small the warhead will be? How long the range will be? It must be Mk.41 VLS compatible. To be air-launch capable, it must be less than 1.5t in weight, typically = cannot be very large missile.

Let's take a look at SM-6 Blk-1A and 1B (a Mk41 VLS capable, hyper-sonic missile, which is adopted as a land attack missile by US army, and also considered PRIMARILY as a land/surface attack missile by US navy), it has a small warhead of 60 kg, and is $4M a pop. Note SM-6 Blk-1A is already 1.5t missile, and Blk1B will be ~2t in weight.

So, you propose to design/develop something similar in capability, something surely more expensive (because of procurement number limitation), and rely solely on this missile to hit enemy HQ, ammo-stock, fuel base, and logistic stops? As a high-speed/small-warhead missile, it will good for HQ, but for fuel base and logistic stops, larger warhead will be much better. And, of course, larger warhead, long-range cruise missile is MUCH MUCH cheaper than the hypersonic land-attack missile.

I can see the reason to have both.

On the other hand, I am not sure if UK/France shall develop both by their own.

For me, subsonic-agile-stealth-long-range FC/ASW, combined with SM-6 Blk1B, will work well. France needs Exocet replacement, which is super-sonic ASM. Good. But, as it is Exocet replacement, it cannot be too large. For example, Japanese ASM-3A is 1t, 6.5m large, Mach 3, 200-400 km range (hi-lo) ASM with ~100 kg warhead. Supersonic FC/ASW will be with a similar size/range/warhead. Good. But, may not be important for RN?

wargame_insomniac
Member
Posts: 580
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
Has liked: 804 times
Been liked: 93 times
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by wargame_insomniac »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 24 Jul 2022, 04:31
Jdam wrote: 23 Jul 2022, 21:27 Our intern solution is going to the be the sub sonic missile we need, how is this program already getting complicated and going off course at this state. :crazy:
NSM is medium range (~200 km) sub-sonic agile and stealthy ASM, capable of land attack, with a warhead of 125 kg. FC/ASW sub-sonic version will be a sub-sonic agile and stealthy land-attack missile with ~1000 km range and ~400 kg warhead.

If you think NSM is "similar" to FC/ASW-subsonic, you must say "SeaVenom is the same to NSM".

I do not think so.
What we need is 1 missile that is Hypersonic and can attacked Naval/Land targets, can be vertically and air launched, go!.
When will it be ready? It will be VERY expensive, how many UK will be able to buy it? How small the warhead will be? How long the range will be? It must be Mk.41 VLS compatible. To be air-launch capable, it must be less than 1.5t in weight, typically = cannot be very large missile.

Let's take a look at SM-6 Blk-1A and 1B (a Mk41 VLS capable, hyper-sonic missile, which is adopted as a land attack missile by US army, and also considered PRIMARILY as a land/surface attack missile by US navy), it has a small warhead of 60 kg, and is $4M a pop. Note SM-6 Blk-1A is already 1.5t missile, and Blk1B will be ~2t in weight.

So, you propose to design/develop something similar in capability, something surely more expensive (because of procurement number limitation), and rely solely on this missile to hit enemy HQ, ammo-stock, fuel base, and logistic stops? As a high-speed/small-warhead missile, it will good for HQ, but for fuel base and logistic stops, larger warhead will be much better. And, of course, larger warhead, long-range cruise missile is MUCH MUCH cheaper than the hypersonic land-attack missile.

I can see the reason to have both.

On the other hand, I am not sure if UK/France shall develop both by their own.

For me, subsonic-agile-stealth-long-range FC/ASW, combined with SM-6 Blk1B, will work well. France needs Exocet replacement, which is super-sonic ASM. Good. But, as it is Exocet replacement, it cannot be too large. For example, Japanese ASM-3A is 1t, 6.5m large, Mach 3, 200-400 km range (hi-lo) ASM with ~100 kg warhead. Supersonic FC/ASW will be with a similar size/range/warhead. Good. But, may not be important for RN?
I can see the use in a couple of different Anti-Ship / Land Attack Cruise Missiles. A small number of expensive highly capable missiles for use against particularly high value target. And a larger number of cheaper less capable missiles for main volume of attacks.

We have seen in the Ukraine war that as time has gone, the Russians are having to resort to cheaper munitions including unguided bombs as they could nt afford to continue to use their much vaunted hypersonic and supersonic cruise missiles.

I believe that NSM is one of the cheaper ASM, albeit with shorter range / smaller warhead. The USN is using it on their LCS, whilst they are using the likes of Harpoon / Tomahawk / SM-6 Blk-1A on Arleigh Burkes. For RN to me it would make sense to initially use the NSM as an interim on T45 but eventually on the T31, whilst the T45/T83 and the T26 can use the FC/ASW. If both NSM / FC/ASW can use the Mk41 VLS then RN can have a mix of these two missiles on T45/T83 and the T26.

Online
donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 4683
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Has liked: 235 times
Been liked: 242 times
Japan

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

LMM and SeaVenom. The near future RN anti-ship capability main weapons. (other than NSM if they really come)

Impressive 20 LMM on Wildcat (twitter.com/RFAArgus/status/1552909382333112321)

Image

and Sea Venoms. (twitter.com/NavyLookout/status/1552924163140210689)

Image
Image

sol
Member
Posts: 188
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 45 times
Bosnia & Herzegovina

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by sol »

Royal Navy to buy the Naval Strike Missile

These users liked the author sol for the post (total 5):
Phil Sayersabc123dmereifieldserge750wargame_insomniac

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2807
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
Has liked: 14 times
Been liked: 1 time

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by abc123 »

sol wrote: 23 Nov 2022, 13:01 Royal Navy to buy the Naval Strike Missile

Thank God, it was the only logical decision. :thumbup:
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…

JohnM
Donator
Posts: 133
Joined: 15 Apr 2020, 19:39
Has liked: 15 times
Been liked: 25 times
United States of America

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by JohnM »

11 sets, as well…presumably for the 6 T45s and 5 T23s, and hopefully the latter will then migrate to the T31 as they come online… this is good, very good…

User avatar
RichardIC
Senior Member
Posts: 1292
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
Has liked: 20 times
Been liked: 55 times
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by RichardIC »

NSM initial operating capability in "a little over" 12 months.

https://www.marketscreener.com/quote/st ... -42395846/

UK and Norwegian authorities have today announced that they have agreed to
further strengthen existing defence ties. The Royal Navy will receive the Naval
Strike Missile (NSM), outfitted on Type 23 frigates and Type 45 destroyers, in a
collaboration with the Norwegian government.

The collaboration will result in more ships equipped with the highly
sophisticated Naval Strike Missiles which in turn will contribute in enhancing
the security in our common areas of interest. Replacing the Harpoon
surface-to-surface weapon, due to go out of service in 2023, the world-class
anti-ship missile will be ready for operations onboard the first Royal Navy
vessel in a little over 12 months.

"KONGSBERG is very pleased to welcome the Royal Navy as a member of the NSM
User Group. We proudly support the strengthening of defence ties between our
nations by integrating the NSM on the Royal Navy's vessels," says Executive Vice
President in Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace Øyvind Kolset.

KONGSBERG cannot provide any further comment on the potential size of this
contract.
These users liked the author RichardIC for the post (total 4):
donald_of_tokyodmereifieldRon5serge750

Online
serge750
Member
Posts: 882
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34
Has liked: 344 times
Been liked: 25 times
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by serge750 »

what the odds now of getting the JSM for the P8 & F35 fleets ? - external use
These users liked the author serge750 for the post (total 2):
wargame_insomniacRon5

wargame_insomniac
Member
Posts: 580
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
Has liked: 804 times
Been liked: 93 times
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by wargame_insomniac »

That's great news. Long term I can see it best being used as a cheaper Anti-Ship Missile on T31 and the potential T32 class frigates, who will be more likely to be in littoral waters facing mid-tier or even low-tier opposition.

In the long term I hope the FCASW will be fiited to both the T45 / T26, as this will be more modern, more expensive missile with probably faster speed and/or better stealth + longer range + larger warhead, which will be need when facing top-tier peer enemies.

Dobbo
Member
Posts: 76
Joined: 08 Apr 2021, 07:41
Has liked: 30 times
Been liked: 19 times
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Dobbo »

My expectation is that FCASW is unlikely to be fitted to T45 (I suspect it would require MK41 being fitted).

I would be surprised if it wasn’t a major part of T83 and any other vessel that has MK41 fitted - such as T31 in time - but NSM provides a likely cheaper and easier to fit alternative to what is likely to be a very expensive and very high performance weapon.

Jdam
Member
Posts: 716
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:26
Has liked: 23 times
Been liked: 107 times
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Jdam »

Dobbo wrote: 26 Nov 2022, 17:51 My expectation is that FCASW is unlikely to be fitted to T45 (I suspect it would require MK41 being fitted).

I would be surprised if it wasn’t a major part of T83 and any other vessel that has MK41 fitted - such as T31 in time - but NSM provides a likely cheaper and easier to fit alternative to what is likely to be a very expensive and very high performance weapon.
Wont it need to fit on French ships? (of do they all use the A-70?)

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6431
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Has liked: 39 times
Been liked: 32 times
United States of America

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Ron5 »

Dobbo wrote: 26 Nov 2022, 17:51 My expectation is that FCASW is unlikely to be fitted to T45 (I suspect it would require MK41 being fitted).

I would be surprised if it wasn’t a major part of T83 and any other vessel that has MK41 fitted - such as T31 in time - but NSM provides a likely cheaper and easier to fit alternative to what is likely to be a very expensive and very high performance weapon.
And my expectation is that FCASW will be cancelled. Save a ton of money for both parties.
These users liked the author Ron5 for the post (total 2):
PoiuytrewqDobbo

Phil Sayers
Member
Posts: 214
Joined: 03 May 2015, 13:56
Has liked: 34 times
Been liked: 67 times

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Phil Sayers »

You may be right but I think cruise missiles are exactly the kind of thing that both the UK and France will view as being strategically important to retain the ability to design and manufacture. The programme itself may be cancelled but, if so, I don't see either country giving up on domestically developing a replacement programme.
These users liked the author Phil Sayers for the post:
Dobbo

tomuk
Member
Posts: 553
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
Has liked: 5 times
Been liked: 93 times
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by tomuk »

Phil Sayers wrote: 26 Nov 2022, 20:13 You may be right but I think cruise missiles are exactly the kind of thing that both the UK and France will view as being strategically important to retain the ability to design and manufacture. The programme itself may be cancelled but, if so, I don't see either country giving up on domestically developing a replacement programme.
Particularly the French as there is linkage between FCASW and their ASAMP nuclear missile.

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 2723
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Has liked: 75 times
Been liked: 260 times
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Timmymagic »

serge750 wrote: 23 Nov 2022, 19:06 what the odds now of getting the JSM for the P8 & F35 fleets ? - external use
Low for both still....

JSM is not integrated on P-8. The Australians were looking at it in 2015, but since gone very quiet. They have since ordered LRASM, which will be integrated on P-8 in 2027/28. Basically unless someone funds it its not happening...

Similar story for F-35B. JSM will be integrated to F-35A. It should then in theory be easy to integrate on F-35B as the most complex systems integration will have been completed, with carry and drop tests being required for the B variant. But thats not funded...so unless someone funds that its not happening. Can't see the UK being that interested in paying, but perhaps Japan or USMC will.
These users liked the author Timmymagic for the post:
serge750

Post Reply