RN anti-ship missiles

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6286
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Ron5 »

RichardIC wrote:
Ron5 wrote:Oh no, not the "never used it in the past so don't need it now" argument.
Can you point to where I said we don't need it now? What I said was land attack would be a nice option.

Read the actual words.
See the :D :D :D

Means that it's a joke.

First thing that goes when you turn to the left is a sense of humor :D

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2327
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Caribbean »

JohnM wrote:shop-launched
Eminently suitable for our "nation of shop-keepers"
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

JohnM
Donator
Posts: 90
Joined: 15 Apr 2020, 19:39
United States of America

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by JohnM »

Caribbean wrote:
JohnM wrote:shop-launched
Eminently suitable for our "nation of shop-keepers"
You have to love autocorrect... lol

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6286
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Ron5 »

JohnM wrote:The problem I see with FCASW is that the RN and the MN have different requirements.

The MN doesn’t need a long range land attack missile, because MdCN entered service recently, so they’re done until 2040 at least. They need to replace Exocet with a canister-launched FCASW and have decided they want it to be supersonic (Mach 2-3).

The RN, on the other hand needs both a long range land and maritime strike missile and prefers stealth and subsonic, I.e., something like a JASSM-XR or a modern-day equivalent of the Maritime Strike Tomahawk. Furthermore, it needs to be VL-launched from a strike length MK-41…

Given these different requirements, there’s actually talk of two different missiles being spawned by the FCASW program… we’ll see, but I’m not super optimistic…
It's been said that the RN would prefer the faster version and its the RAF that wants the longer ranged stealth. If that's correct, it's really the Frogs & Squids vs the Crabs.

JohnM
Donator
Posts: 90
Joined: 15 Apr 2020, 19:39
United States of America

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by JohnM »

Ron5 wrote:
JohnM wrote:The problem I see with FCASW is that the RN and the MN have different requirements.

The MN doesn’t need a long range land attack missile, because MdCN entered service recently, so they’re done until 2040 at least. They need to replace Exocet with a canister-launched FCASW and have decided they want it to be supersonic (Mach 2-3).

The RN, on the other hand needs both a long range land and maritime strike missile and prefers stealth and subsonic, I.e., something like a JASSM-XR or a modern-day equivalent of the Maritime Strike Tomahawk. Furthermore, it needs to be VL-launched from a strike length MK-41…

Given these different requirements, there’s actually talk of two different missiles being spawned by the FCASW program… we’ll see, but I’m not super optimistic…
It's been said that the RN would prefer the faster version and its the RAF that wants the longer ranged stealth. If that's correct, it's really the Frogs & Squids vs the Crabs.
I was not aware of that, thanks.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6286
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Ron5 »

From Shepherd News ..
DSEI 2021: Raytheon pitches Naval Strike Missile as RN Harpoon replacement

15th September 2021 - 13:15 GMT | by Harry Lye in London

Raytheon is betting that quick integration and an existing production could help it net success if the UK decides to procure a Harpoon replacement.

Raytheon is proposing the Naval Strike Missile (NSM) to replace the UK's rapidly ageing Harpoon anti-ship missile system; however, the programme has stalled in the past year with the RN undecided on whether to proceed with an interim solution or focus funding on other projects such as the MBDA Future Cruise/Anti-Ship Weapon (FC/ASW).

Raytheon business development executive Geraint Evans told Shephard that an RN decision on whether to procure a replacement for the Harpoon could come by the end of this month.

Six companies initially responded to the MoD's first request for information on a Harpoon replacement in 2019 and later selected five companies – including Raytheon – from those responses.

Money for procurement has been set aside; however, questions of how best to allocate funding has stalled the effort.

Evans said that any Raytheon bid for a formal contract would factor in the UK social value model, adding that 10% of the missile is already built in the country.

Raytheon would also look to build and integrate launch systems required to fit the Naval Strike Missile to Duke-class Type 23 frigates.

The missile would also offer commonality with the USN and USMC that have both selected the missile.

Raytheon Missiles & Defense naval air missiles requirements and capabilities associate director Gilbert Nelson told Shephard that quick integration benefits NSM, citing the 15 months between USN contract award and deployment on a Littoral Combat Ship.

Currently, the UK requirement is only for a missile to equip its Type 23 frigates. However, Canada recently acquired the Naval Strike Missile for its Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) – a derivative of the UK's City-class Type 26 frigate. This could make future integration onto the Type 26 if required easier.

The current RN requirement is for five NSM shipsets to equip seven towed-array Type 23s.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 4173
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

seven towed-array Type 23s
?? 8 ?

Jdam
Member
Posts: 480
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:26
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Jdam »

Interesting article, I wonder how much of it is wishful thinking/sales tactics by Raytheon and how much is actually true but what ever it is there is a lot to unpack from such a small article.
the programme has stalled in the past year with the RN undecided on whether to proceed with an interim solution or focus funding on other projects such as the MBDA Future Cruise/Anti-Ship Weapon (FC/ASW).
We kind of guess that but is that the first time we have seen it in print?
adding that 10% of the missile is already built in the country.
I didn't know that I wonder if the JSM is the same. Not going to hurt their chances.
Quick integration benefits NSM, citing the 15 months between USN contract award and deployment on a Littoral Combat Ship.
So Jan 2023 if all goes well, how does that line up with the Harpoon in service life extension and the FC/ASW program?
Currently, the UK requirement is only for a missile to equip its Type 23 frigates. However, Canada recently acquired the Naval Strike Missile for its Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) – a derivative of the UK's City-class Type 26 frigate. This could make future integration onto the Type 26 if required easier
Was this boxed launched? If so the ability to put it on the 26 and 31 once again wont hurt the missiles chances.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6286
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Ron5 »

I believe these are the correct answers though could be wrong ..

Yes
Agree
Well
Yes

JohnM
Donator
Posts: 90
Joined: 15 Apr 2020, 19:39
United States of America

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by JohnM »

I would change that last one to “Maybe”… easy integration into T26 could be seen by the French as a possible threat to FC/ASW and, as such, by politically DoA…

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6209
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Lord Jim »

Whilst the gold plated FCASW seems to offer a state of teh art weapon system, it is going to be costly initially if only the French and us order it. The French will go ahead regardless, hoping to follow the success of Exocet, but remember what happened to the Franco/German ANS Supersonic Anti-Ship Missile that was being developed in the 1980/90s. That has vanished without a trace. The market for highly capable AShMs is already being serviced by a multitude of cutting edge weapon systems. If cost is an issue for both the RN and RAF then the FCASW might not really be the weapon for either service. The NSM could well be the right choice for the RN, possibly complimented by a limited number of LRASMs, whilst the JSM or JSM-ER could fulfil the RAFs needs, as a cheaper cost per missile than FCASW can achieve.

JohnM
Donator
Posts: 90
Joined: 15 Apr 2020, 19:39
United States of America

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by JohnM »


User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 2152
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Poiuytrewq »

JohnM wrote:Uuuups! LRASM and JASSM-XR anyone?
Highly unlikely.

The French were always going blow their top when AUKUS was revealed but they will settle down again in time.

The question I would be asking is how much more business does the French Government want to lose?

Cancelling joint programmes like this would be the height of stupidity. Pushing the UK further away would be a strategic mistake of monumental proportions.

JohnM
Donator
Posts: 90
Joined: 15 Apr 2020, 19:39
United States of America

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by JohnM »

I was being facetious... :roll: Although no one else in Europe is really backing them on AUKUS, so I wouldn't put it totally beyond the realm of possibility that given the differences in requirements between the MN and RN they decided to go it alone...

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 2152
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Poiuytrewq »

JohnM wrote:...no one else in Europe is really backing them on AUKUS,
The response from other European leaders and the EU itself regarding AUKUS has been noticeably muted.

The reality is the other European leaders really don't care about the outcome of a French Submarine contract. What they do care about is trade and security so if the French Gov push too hard solidarity will rapidly evaporate.

The punishment beating of the Brexit negotiations is over now (or at least it should be) so Europe have a big decision to make....keep the UK close or push it further away.

Either way, allowing the UK to slip the net and get away will haunt the EU for decades to come.
I wouldn't put it totally beyond the realm of possibility that given the differences in requirements between the MN and RN they decided to go it alone...
A split outcome for this programme has always been on the cards.

The big question remains....Will the UK go it alone if RN and MN can't agree. Time will tell.

User avatar
Jensy
Member
Posts: 548
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Jensy »

Poiuytrewq wrote:The question I would be asking is how much more business does the French Government want to lose?

Cancelling joint programmes like this would be the height of stupidity. Pushing the UK further away would be a strategic mistake of monumental proportions.
You have to ask why the French Ambassador to London was never withdrawn.

As much as the French diplomatic class might like to pretend it was a multidimensional slight to our delicate British egos, the reality is that they (now at least) have much more to lose from our bilateral relationship than either of the others.

Our defence industries are deeply intertwined and the potential fallout from an emotionally led escalation could be catastrophic for both sides.

Delaying the interim ASM capability might be connected to keeping things on an even keel.

(Do submarines have keels...? :problem: )

BB85
Member
Posts: 67
Joined: 09 Sep 2021, 20:17
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by BB85 »

It's not like the French don't have a long and repeated history of pulling out of joint defense programmes when it doesn't fit their national interests. As others have said Germany and Sweden where both openly pushing Australia to cancel in favour of their AIP subs. The only ones giving the French the time of day are the left wing media who despise anything that looks the slightest bit anglophile.
They get on like effective deplomacy is being a dormat for your allies.
The French walking away from the future replacement for storm shadow, sea scalp etc would he moronic when the UK is the only European partner willing to order in sufficient quantities to offset costs and there will be so much legal red tape I'm not even sure the French could develop a sovereign replacement without starting from scratch.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 2807
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Repulse »

My view is that we need to stop talking about France as it is probably making them worse in their behavior - if we have concerns about French reliability as a partner both in procurement and also in defence pacts then we should do something about it. There is a lot of benefit working with the French, but it has to be based on mutual interests - France will follow its, so if it's a win-win situation then it's all noise and should be ignored.
”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

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6286
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Ron5 »

Poiuytrewq wrote:Will the UK go it alone if RN and MN can't agree.
Word is that they do agree and that it's the RAF that thinks differently.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6286
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Ron5 »

BB85 wrote:It's not like the French don't have a long and repeated history of pulling out of joint defense programmes when it doesn't fit their national interests.
.... when they've extracted all useful information from their partners.

Germans are pretty good at that too.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3022
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Tempest414 »

Ron5 wrote:
BB85 wrote:It's not like the French don't have a long and repeated history of pulling out of joint defense programmes when it doesn't fit their national interests.
.... when they've extracted all useful information from their partners.

Germans are pretty good at that too.
As are the US and the UK everyone is at it

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6286
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Ron5 »

Tempest414 wrote:
Ron5 wrote:
BB85 wrote:It's not like the French don't have a long and repeated history of pulling out of joint defense programmes when it doesn't fit their national interests.
.... when they've extracted all useful information from their partners.

Germans are pretty good at that too.
As are the US and the UK everyone is at it
Name an example involving the US or UK.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3022
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Tempest414 »

oh come on there fucking hundreds of them and you fucking know it

Meriv9
Member
Posts: 115
Joined: 05 Feb 2016, 00:19
Italy

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Meriv9 »

So the only good ones left that stuck to programs and teams are us ? :D

EDit: P.s. today a French online newspaper wrote (probably invented) that there are some italian congresspersons that after the AUKUS want to leave the Tempest in solidarity to the french....

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1230
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Scimitar54 »

Perhaps they would prefer Russian MIGs instead ? :crazy:

Post Reply