RN anti-ship missiles

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Post Reply
abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15

RN anti-ship missiles

Post by abc123 »

So, it seems that the RN will retain their Harpoon missiles post 2018, at least until 2020, and maybe even longer.

http://www.janes.com/article/74044/dsei ... retirement

A little bit of reason... :o

So, a thread for all future RN surface ship-launched ( Sub-Harpoons are retired long ago :? :( ) anti-ship missiles...
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…

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2544
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by dmereifield »

Some good news for a change....

Aethulwulf
Senior Member
Posts: 1029
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Aethulwulf »

I suspect the RN will try to keep them in service long enough until it is clear which system the US is going to pick to their replace their Harpoons.

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by abc123 »

dmereifield wrote:Some good news for a change....
Indeed.
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…

Little J
Member
Posts: 674
Joined: 02 May 2015, 14:35
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Little J »

Went to museum at RAF Cosford the other day, it was a little embarrassing walking around the missiles on display - with their info sheets claiming still in service... Last update 2006!

Opinion3
Member
Posts: 352
Joined: 06 May 2015, 23:01

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Opinion3 »

In some ways I thought our missile strategy was fairly sensible ............ until you consider actual integration of weapons and timings

User avatar
Halidon
Member
Posts: 504
Joined: 12 May 2015, 01:34
United States of America

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Halidon »

Aethulwulf wrote:I suspect the RN will try to keep them in service long enough until it is clear which system the US is going to pick to their replace their Harpoons.
Heh, at this point it I'd be pretty surprised if the long-term Harpoon replacement is settled by 2020-ish. But "interim" solutions sometimes end up sticking around a long time and this would place the RN in good position to tack orders onto a program like LRASM.

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Ron5 »

It will be an MBDA missile. Isn't that what the complex weapons deal is all about?

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 2292
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Timmymagic »

Ron5 wrote:It will be an MBDA missile. Isn't that what the complex weapons deal is all about?
In theory yes, but Perseus is little more than a research effort at the moment (one that I hope would continue) and isn't planned to deliver anything until 2030. But its worth remembering that LRASM won't deliver what we want until 2025 at the earliest either. Given that Harpoon 1C isn't seen as that credible at the moment it would make sense to take the easy course of action and purchase a very limited number of Harpoon II to see us through the 10 year (at best gap). Given the timings and the benefit to the UK I'm no longer in favour of an LRASM buy.

It's the same with the NSM/JSM. It would be perfect if there was a version that combined both sets of characteristics. We could have made a small buy for the shipborne role, before re-roling them to F-35, Typhoon and P-8 when Perseus arrived and restoring another capability that has gone.

Apart from that the field is rather bare. Otomat is cleared for Typhoon but is long in the tooth, as is Exocet and RBS.15 (even with their new versions). XASM-3 would be great, but probably eye wateringly expensive and single role. It's lucky the RN has Sea Venom to look forward to, but if we don't make investments in off-board targeting like UAV's any heavyweight missile is likely to remain unused and unuseable.

In retrospect the decision to not (at least initially) develop Storm Shadow as a multi-platform weapon was a mistake. It would have made a monster of an anti ship missile, if it had retained land attack capability it would have been a massive capability increase.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 2806
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Repulse »

Interesting that the article explicitly mentioned the T23, not the T45 (maybe behind the paywall?). Makes sense not to spend the cash on the T23 if all efforts are focused on getting rid of them, but unless the RN is sticking to its single role AAW/ASW ship (that's gotta change?) then maybe the T45s will get the MK41 VLS?
”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

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Halidon wrote:settled by 2020-ish.
Settled yes, but not introduced. In the meanwhile we can give Spear(3) the JSM treatment, i.e. a VLS version?
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)

Opinion3
Member
Posts: 352
Joined: 06 May 2015, 23:01

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Opinion3 »

This use of gapping does appear to be very high risk. Integration, and ensuring that someone is prepared to sell you the desperately needed weapons at short notice ........ are these in hand do you think?

indeid
Member
Posts: 271
Joined: 21 May 2015, 20:46

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by indeid »

Repulse wrote:Interesting that the article explicitly mentioned the T23, not the T45 (maybe behind the paywall?). Makes sense not to spend the cash on the T23 if all efforts are focused on getting rid of them, but unless the RN is sticking to its single role AAW/ASW ship (that's gotta change?) then maybe the T45s will get the MK41 VLS?
I can't see the money being available for anything but maintaining existing capability of T45 in terms of AAW. If we are also looking at the escort fleet literally being that, escorts in a Carrier Battle Group, I think I'd want the limited numbers of T45 to stick to AAW. Look to BMD if cash can be scrapped together for any improvements.

AAW is challenging enough, and needs certain positioning tactics which often take you away from ASW/ASuW requirements. Let the T26 take care of those battles.

Ideally I agree, you'd want everything multi role, I'm just not sure we can do that. Just making sure the missions are covered seems to be a stretch at the moment!

james k
Member
Posts: 358
Joined: 31 Aug 2017, 16:51
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by james k »

The RN managed to get something past the accountants at the Treasury? I'm both surprised and pleased. That doesn't happen often.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 2806
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Repulse »

james k wrote:The RN managed to get something past the accountants at the Treasury? I'm both surprised and pleased. That doesn't happen often.
What did it cost? A lower T31e budget or a few F35Bs...
”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

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Repulse wrote:What did it cost?
May be someone just noted down the expiry dates and they go out in that order? I.e cost nothing
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)

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Sea Venom has only just been accepted; a few years' bridge to building up sufficient stock?

Though the SV is for littoral and Harpoon for clear high seas, but there is some cross over (too many total holidays lately)
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)

indeid
Member
Posts: 271
Joined: 21 May 2015, 20:46

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by indeid »

james k wrote:The RN managed to get something past the accountants at the Treasury? I'm both surprised and pleased. That doesn't happen often.
If it's just a funding extending support contracts and any training then chances are come from within the RN delegated budget. Maybe they ran a sponsored bake at NCHQ.

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4630
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by marktigger »

Martlet or LMM on a ds30 mount could add capability to some vessels for close in defence

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6196
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Lord Jim »

I cannot see a replacement for Harpoon entering service until the first T-26 enters service. Keeping a limited number of Harpoon available until then should not break the bank, we only need a maximum of 48 available for the number of ships available at any one time. We could probably borrow that from the USN of other NATO countries though we might need the odd software upgrade to operate the more recent versions.

james k
Member
Posts: 358
Joined: 31 Aug 2017, 16:51
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by james k »

It could have cost a few expensive arm chairs, not replacing office furniture that is still perfectly good, perhaps the shelving units in the store may need to last a bit longer. How about SHAEF? perhaps each establishment will have to make do with just one Health & Safety & Fire committee rather than two or three. Perhaps instead of printing and reprinting standing orders, H&S and other nonsense for every building on every establishment they can place it on Dii, that alone would save more than a a few quid. How about big savings and get rid of the CIS geek, that every establishment has, who believes that the whole defence budget is there simply for him to buy new kit and experiment with? Don't get me started on Joint Defence Industry and Military Trials Teams, there just a financial black hole. Perhaps those things are where the cash can be saved?
Repulse wrote:
james k wrote:The RN managed to get something past the accountants at the Treasury? I'm both surprised and pleased. That doesn't happen often.
What did it cost? A lower T31e budget or a few F35Bs...

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4630
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by marktigger »

how adaptable would systems like Javelin or Gil Spike be to counter swarm type attacks?

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Ron5 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Sea Venom has only just been accepted; a few years' bridge to building up sufficient stock?
Don't think so. Still a few years away.

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Ron5 wrote:
ArmChairCivvy wrote:Sea Venom has only just been accepted; a few years' bridge to building up sufficient stock?
Don't think so. Still a few years away.
IOC 2019
vs.
senior RN sources told Jane’s the sea-skimming GWS 60/Harpoon Block 1C missiles would remain in service at least until 2020. “There is work ongoing to look at options for longer extension "
= is that longer extension (option; at what extra cost) just for insurance?

A year in between the two dates sounds like building a reasonable stockpile, rather than just having a couple for show
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)

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Ron5 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Ron5 wrote:
ArmChairCivvy wrote:Sea Venom has only just been accepted; a few years' bridge to building up sufficient stock?
Don't think so. Still a few years away.
IOC 2019
vs.
senior RN sources told Jane’s the sea-skimming GWS 60/Harpoon Block 1C missiles would remain in service at least until 2020. “There is work ongoing to look at options for longer extension "
= is that longer extension (option; at what extra cost) just for insurance?

A year in between the two dates sounds like building a reasonable stockpile, rather than just having a couple for show
I was commenting on your assertion that Sea Venom had been accepted into service. I don't think it has.

Post Reply