RN anti-ship missiles

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 2300
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Timmymagic »

Meriv9 wrote:So the only good ones left that stuck to programs and teams are us ?
The UK has definitely had its share of abandoning programmes. But, certainly in recent years, has a habit of bouncing out of them for very good reasons (TRIGAT, Horizon), at a very early stage or when the programme can continue without us (usually after a colossal expenditure of taxpayers money...e.g. Boxer). When it comes to sticking with problematic programmes, emoliating other partners etc, and staying into the end we've got a pretty good reputation (see A400, Meteor and Typhoon). Sometimes thats been to our cost...(CTA 40mm, PAAMS).

We tend to leave the really disastrous cancellations/programmatic cock-ups for when we're working on our own...

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 2300
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Timmymagic »

BB85 wrote: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.
I think they'll be back in the room pretty quickly.

FCASW is not just important for the forces (the RAF and FAF need a new long range strike capability to replace SS/SCALP). But its also pretty crucial to their larger, follow on, combat air programmes (FCAS and Tempest). For MBDA it keeps some factories humming, and, crucially, refreshes their rather aging heavyweight line-up. You only have to look at their website to see why....Air Dominance, Battlefield Engagement and GBAD have modern, successful systems all over the place...then you come to Maritime Superiority (with the SAM and Combat Systems removed). Great at the low end, very, very modern (although admittedly not with massive sales yet, but some are repurposed land or air systems). Some exquisite, expensive systems that have limited export potential.....then a mass of legacy Anti-Ship missiles that have had multiple updates, but that can't hide their age...that used to sell well, with massive export potential.

MARITIME BRIMSTONE - Small
MMP/SEA LAUNCHED - V. Small
SEA VENOM-ANL - Small
MDCN-NCM - Very expensive, limited market
MILAS - Limited market, actually pretty good
EXOCET AM39
EXOCET SM39
EXOCET MM40 BLOCK 3
EXOCET MOBILE COASTAL
MARTE ER
MARTE MK2/N
MARTE MK2/S
MCDS: MOBILE COASTAL DEFENCE SYSTEM u Uses MARTE MK2/N
OTOMAT MK2 BLOCK IV
TESEO MK2/E

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Meriv9 »

Timmymagic wrote:
Meriv9 wrote:So the only good ones left that stuck to programs and teams are us ?
The UK has definitely had its share of abandoning programmes. But, certainly in recent years, has a habit of bouncing out of them for very good reasons (TRIGAT, Horizon), at a very early stage or when the programme can continue without us (usually after a colossal expenditure of taxpayers money...e.g. Boxer). When it comes to sticking with problematic programmes, emoliating other partners etc, and staying into the end we've got a pretty good reputation (see A400, Meteor and Typhoon). Sometimes thats been to our cost...(CTA 40mm, PAAMS).

We tend to leave the really disastrous cancellations/programmatic cock-ups for when we're working on our own...
I was refering to "us" Italians ;) but yeah what you wrote is also perceived by us, between FRA/GER, UK is surely way better partner than them.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6315
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Ron5 »

Timmymagic wrote:
Meriv9 wrote:So the only good ones left that stuck to programs and teams are us ?
The UK has definitely had its share of abandoning programmes. But, certainly in recent years, has a habit of bouncing out of them for very good reasons (TRIGAT, Horizon), at a very early stage or when the programme can continue without us (usually after a colossal expenditure of taxpayers money...e.g. Boxer). When it comes to sticking with problematic programmes, emoliating other partners etc, and staying into the end we've got a pretty good reputation (see A400, Meteor and Typhoon). Sometimes thats been to our cost...(CTA 40mm, PAAMS).

We tend to leave the really disastrous cancellations/programmatic cock-ups for when we're working on our own...
That wasn't my point.

My point is that France and Germany have a nasty habit of joining programs and leaving after they've extracted technical know how from their "partners" enabling them to go it alone. The two biggest examples in my mind are Eurofighter and the american-german/anglo-german tank programs. The first lead to Rafale, the second to Leopard. There are plenty of others.

The UK didn't leave Boxer to go build a better UK version using German technology. And neither did it leave Horizon to build a UK missile system.

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 2300
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Timmymagic »

Ron5 wrote:And neither did it leave Horizon to build a UK missile system.
We left Horizon to build Type 45. We retained PAAMS, but personally, I think we got a bit of a raw deal there on industrial involvement..

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6315
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Ron5 »

Timmymagic wrote:
Ron5 wrote:And neither did it leave Horizon to build a UK missile system.
We left Horizon to build Type 45. We retained PAAMS, but personally, I think we got a bit of a raw deal there on industrial involvement..
France stiffed the UK on price. I seem to remember 165 million per ship set excluding R&D.

BB85
Member
Posts: 76
Joined: 09 Sep 2021, 20:17
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by BB85 »

Paams is still an excellent system, but considering we where by far the largest initial customer how did we end up with no industrial participation. Wasn't it all an Mbda product? The UK got completely screwed over on the T45/horizon/European frigate program.

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 2300
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Timmymagic »

BB85 wrote:Paams is still an excellent system, but considering we where by far the largest initial customer how did we end up with no industrial participation. Wasn't it all an Mbda product? The UK got completely screwed over on the T45/horizon/European frigate program.
PAAMS started as a Franco-Italian project.But when the UK joined with a larger requirement we should have driven a very hard bargain. The disparity between sizes of the respective national programme and control was why the UK left Horizon.

Enigmatically
Member
Posts: 297
Joined: 04 May 2015, 19:00

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Enigmatically »

Timmymagic wrote: The disparity between sizes of the respective national programme and control was why the UK left Horizon.
Yes and no. The reasons we left Horizon are a lot more entertaining than that.
Sadly I cannot say what happened on here.

But T45 ended up much better as a result

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6241
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Lord Jim »

Mind you if the original FREMM programme was taken into account with the Horizon workshare it came out about right. I think both France and Italy were to purchase twelve each, plus the four Horizons. Weren't the La Fayette's also supposed to receive Sylver VLS as well at one point. Anyhoo we ended up with a pretty good T-42 replacement, not enough of them but they will do the job until the T-83 comes along.

I just wish the MoD would pull its finger out and order either the latest Harpoon or NSM so that either manufacture can meet the in service deadline.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 4181
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Sad. Worrying that I-SSGW might not take shape, and RN will "happily" go with capability holiday.

FCASW in 2028? No way... Even if they did, it is the first block of them with minimum stock of missiles, leaving almost all of the RN fleet without SSGW capability other than SeaVenom (and LMM).

P.S. Hoping for silver bullet, accepting gap is, for me, irresponsive attitude. Fingers crossed no war happen in the gap. But, if crossing finger is accepted, FCASW can easily be late for a decade, as well. You can just cross your fingers for "just a few more years", and then "just another few more years". Try it three times, you see a gap as long as a decade.

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?i ... 20.51889.h

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6315
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Ron5 »

Enigmatically wrote:But T45 ended up much better as a result
Power system didn't.

jonas
Member
Posts: 974
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:20
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by jonas »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Sad. Worrying that I-SSGW might not take shape, and RN will "happily" go with capability holiday.

FCASW in 2028? No way... Even if they did, it is the first block of them with minimum stock of missiles, leaving almost all of the RN fleet without SSGW capability other than SeaVenom (and LMM).

P.S. Hoping for silver bullet, accepting gap is, for me, irresponsive attitude. Fingers crossed no war happen in the gap. But, if crossing finger is accepted, FCASW can easily be late for a decade, as well. You can just cross your fingers for "just a few more years", and then "just another few more years". Try it three times, you see a gap as long as a decade.

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?i ... 20.51889.h
Parliamentary written answers 23rd Sept 2021

https://questions-statements.parliament ... 9-20/51889

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6241
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Lord Jim »

Again they need to stop prevaricating and get on with things. There are more than enough mature weapon systems out there that could be rapidly integrated onto the ASW T-23s, the money is there, or should be given the announcement in the Review. My vote is still for the NSM, with the sub launched version being developed by Norway and German following. I then see the FCASW complimenting the NSM in RN service, providing a silver bullet for difficult targets

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Meriv9 »

Lord Jim wrote:Mind you if the original FREMM programme was taken into account with the Horizon workshare it came out about right. I think both France and Italy were to purchase twelve each, plus the four Horizons. Weren't the La Fayette's also supposed to receive Sylver VLS as well at one point. Anyhoo we ended up with a pretty good T-42 replacement, not enough of them but they will do the job until the T-83 comes along.

I just wish the MoD would pull its finger out and order either the latest Harpoon or NSM so that either manufacture can meet the in service deadline.
Just in case the French if i remember correctly negotiated for 17 and ended up with "just" 10.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6315
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Ron5 »

Lord Jim wrote:Again they need to stop prevaricating and get on with things. There are more than enough mature weapon systems out there that could be rapidly integrated onto the ASW T-23s, the money is there, or should be given the announcement in the Review. My vote is still for the NSM, with the sub launched version being developed by Norway and German following. I then see the FCASW complimenting the NSM in RN service, providing a silver bullet for difficult targets
I suspect the delays originate someplace else.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6241
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Lord Jim »

Well there is a blockage somewhere and the MoD needs to get a Plumber in to clear it.

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by abc123 »

Lack of money?
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…

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 2300
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Timmymagic »

Lord Jim wrote:My vote is still for the NSM, with the sub launched version being developed by Norway and German following. I then see the FCASW complimenting the NSM in RN service, providing a silver bullet for difficult targets
Technically the NSM-SL is a encapsulated JSM rather than NSM. Still no real news on it I'm afraid. Kongsberg did some preliminary work with NAMMO (thrust vectoring booster) and Babcock (encapsulated torpedo body) a long time ago, but they're still waiting for someone to pay for it...same with NSM launched from helicopter, same with JSM on Typhoon/P-8 etc. etc.

If I was Kongsberg/Norway I'd be tempted to offer a 'hail mary' within the cost envelope of I-SSGW (£200m)...5 ship sets of missiles and a few spares (say... 50 missiles tops) will come in well, well under £100m. Add in an optional batch of JSM for F-35B on top....maybe even offer to work with the UK on integrating JSM (in conjunction with Australia) and Stingray (which Norway uses) on a joint programme for P-8...lot of UK capability issues sorted in 1 move.

And thats before we get on to the potential of NSM-SL..

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6315
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Ron5 »

Navy Lookout says there an inter department war over competing budgets that's holding it up.

NickC
Member
Posts: 971
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by NickC »

NavalNews - DSEI 2021 day 4: MBDA missiles (including showing both options of the FCASW, sub-sonic and hypersonic, also the Exocet MM40 Block 3c and mentions its fitted with an advanced Korean seeker, which surprised me), TKMS XLUUV, MSI Defence Seahawk (30mm Bushmaster, awarded USN contract for the Mk38 Mod 4, previous Mod MK38s used the 25mm Bushmaster, Northrop Grumman developing a proximity fuzed projectile for the 30mm) and lastly the Sea Serpent anti-ship missile which IAI promoting strongly for the I-SSGW contract, a re-named Gabriel V?, quotes range as 290 km, ~150 nm and at low level, 'compatible' with Harpoon launchers on T23s, IAI won the contract for the Finnish Navy with the Gabriel V, suggested at a very competitive price.


NickC
Member
Posts: 971
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by NickC »

Correction to above post, the 30mm Northrop Grumman Bushmaster airburst round is not proximity fuzed.

"The 30-mm × 173-mm airburst cartridge will feature a contact set fuze design with three operational fuze modes: Programmable Airburst, Point Detonation and Point Detonation with Delay. The initial contract will fund the completion of the Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) phase and final qualification by the Army."

From <http://www.dmitryshulgin.com/2020/07/13 ... mmunition/

BB85
Member
Posts: 76
Joined: 09 Sep 2021, 20:17
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by BB85 »

Ron5 wrote:Navy Lookout says there an inter department war over competing budgets that's holding it up.
Ron5 wrote: That wouldn't surprise me at all. Why can ministers not just make a bloody decision they are bloody useless

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6241
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Lord Jim »

No one wants to take the responsibility for signing off the contract for fear of repercussions down the line to their careers. They want someone else to do it, or tell them to do so, taking on the responsivity. If there was the will they could have a contract in place before the end of the month. All the required data is out there, and most of the manufacturers have their bids prepared and are ready to go. Raytheon got NSM onto the LCS in eighteen months form being selected as the weapon systems for that vessel and future USN ships. There is no reason we could not have the I-SSGW on the five T-23s in question by the end of 2023, beginning of 2024.

Jdam
Member
Posts: 482
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:26
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Jdam »

Interesting thoughts by Gab on twitter:
It is either not going to happen, or it is going to become a larger and less interim affair
The first one seems a lot more likely than the 2nd one, but to generate some discussion a larger and less interim affair surely will never happen especially with recent toys out of the pram reaction by a certain party

Post Reply