RN anti-ship missiles

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2786
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by abc123 »

Lord Jim wrote: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.
What's so controversial about buying 100 NSMs or Harpoons?
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…

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 2818
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Repulse »

Speculating, and possibly overdoing the AUKUS connection, but could the recent agreement thrown an additional factor into the mix.

The Australians have the same "Harpoon" issue as the RN, and are going for LRASM in the longer term, and potentially using the SM-6 as interim missile to fill the gap.

https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/filli ... lian-navy/

Given that we could see joint USN/RAN/RN operations and forward basing, does it now make sense for the UK to follow this route? Commonality of supplies etc must be a big consideration when the RN is looking to operate the other side of the globe?

My understanding is that adding the 24 CAMM cells to the T45 still gives space for 16 Mk41 launchers - perhaps a better long term investment would be to spend the money here, and gap the capability on the T23?
”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

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Jdam »

Given how long it is taking us to add those 24 CAMM cells into our ships they will be out of service before the Mk41 launchers is added.

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by NickC »

If the price is the deciding factor for the I-SSGW think a strong possibility the IAI Sea Serpent will be the winner.

https://corporalfrisk.com/2018/07/16/a- ... gabriel-5/

KiwiMuzz
Member
Posts: 42
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 06:20
New Zealand

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by KiwiMuzz »

Repulse wrote:Speculating, and possibly overdoing the AUKUS connection, but could the recent agreement thrown an additional factor into the mix.

The Australians have the same "Harpoon" issue as the RN, and are going for LRASM in the longer term, and potentially using the SM-6 as interim missile to fill the gap.

https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/filli ... lian-navy/

Given that we could see joint USN/RAN/RN operations and forward basing, does it now make sense for the UK to follow this route? Commonality of supplies etc must be a big consideration when the RN is looking to operate the other side of the globe?

My understanding is that adding the 24 CAMM cells to the T45 still gives space for 16 Mk41 launchers - perhaps a better long term investment would be to spend the money here, and gap the capability on the T23?
I fear not, I believe the CAMM will use the space set aside for potential Mk41. There is still the existing Harpoon space, perhaps that may be enough room for sixteen, rather than eight, launchers.

Defiance
Donator
Posts: 747
Joined: 07 Oct 2015, 20:52
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Defiance »

KiwiMuzz wrote: I fear not, I believe the CAMM will use the space set aside for potential Mk41. There is still the existing Harpoon space, perhaps that may be enough room for sixteen, rather than eight, launchers.
You're correct - CAMM is occupying that left-over space for strike length cells. There's some discussion about this in this piece from NavyLookout. Reportedly the existing A50 cells have a void space beneath them to allow for longer cells but I don't know how real this is.

https://www.navylookout.com/royal-navys ... -missiles/

At least that drives up the probability of strike weapons making up the bulk of Type 26's cells

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Timmymagic »

Repulse wrote:The Australians have the same "Harpoon" issue as the RN, and are going for LRASM in the longer term, and potentially using the SM-6 as interim missile to fill the gap.
With the US, Norwegian's, Poland, Canada and Germany using NSM I don't think Australian supplies would even come into it. Particularly as it seems likely that the USN might be putting them on the Constellation Class. Worth noting that the Australian's are involved in the production of the RF seeker for JSM (not NSM) so its a near certainly that they will procure some for their F-35's at least (they were looking at integrating it to their P-8 as well in conjunction with Norway but that has gone quiet).
Repulse wrote:My understanding is that adding the 24 CAMM cells to the T45 still gives space for 16 Mk41 launchers - perhaps a better long term investment would be to spend the money here, and gap the capability on the T23?
The CAMM cells are going to be in the space for the 16 Mk.41 behind the 4.5 inch gun. No other suitable space for then on T45. Given the size of the preferred Mushroom farm design its unlikely there will be any space left.
Jdam wrote:Given how long it is taking us to add those 24 CAMM cells into our ships they will be out of service before the Mk41 launchers is added.
It's a real pity money couldn't be found, and timing, to install them during each ships PIP at Cammell Laird.
NickC wrote:If the price is the deciding factor for the I-SSGW think a strong possibility the IAI Sea Serpent will be the winner.
RBS.15 Mk.4 has also been reported to be cheap in comparison to other bids. According to IAI the Sea Serpent is not a 'straight' Gabriel V either. Don't discount the fact that IAI may have kept the price low for Finland as an export 'launch' customer. Its also in use with Israel and Singapore (but they really don't like to talk about that...)

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Lord Jim »

I personally would like the RN to adopt a tiered approach for its future AShMs. At the lower end we have Martlet and Sea Venom. the next level would be a weapon like NSM and then we would have a number of silver bullet AShMs like FCASW for high value/priority targets. Ideally both of the last two would also be available in a submarine launched form, to replace TLAM.

A missile like NSM has the advantage of its box launchers being easily installed in any available deck space, between the main gun and the ships superstructure on the RN's T-23 and T-45 and amidships on the T026 and T-31. FCASW should be able to be launched from a MK41 or Sylver VLS system, whichever the RN decides to run with in the future.

A T-26 for example could have eight to sixteen NSM and eight FCASW, plus whatever the Wildcat is carrying if one is embarked. In comparison a T-31 may only carry eight NSM when a mission requires it. The same would be possible if the RN adopted the RBS-15 Mk4 and/or the LRASM. Both the middle and high end weapons should also be cleared for the F-35B, Poseidon and ideally the Typhoon.

This will be a step change for teh RN's anti ship capability, but is essential moving forward, ad the RN's top brass need to get their heads in the game and realise this. The day of bolting four MM38 Exocets to an escort and believing that was sufficient are long gone and so are those of mounting eight weapons per escort rapidly becoming. Not mounting any weapons on an escort is certainly unacceptable, and one can only hope the situation with the T-31 "Police Launch" will be rectified at some point in the future.

If you have fewer warships then each has to be able to do more as have a larger weapon capacity. The alternative is to have a greater number of platforms, and this could be where the RN is heading with a combination of manned and unmanned platforms networked together.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 2818
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Repulse »

KiwiMuzz, shame I thought I had read it was in front of where the MK41s would be added. Thanks
”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

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Timmymagic »

Repulse wrote:KiwiMuzz, shame I thought I had read it was in front of where the MK41s would be added. Thanks
That would be where the Mk.8 4.5 inch gun is..

Suspect the RN will extend the enclosure around the Sylver farm to surround the CAMM installation. From what we've seen to date the RN seems to want to keep their VL protected from waves, its never been clear if that would have happened with a Mk.41 installation, it would have impacted the 4.5's firing arcs even more than avoiding firing over the VL's would have. The USN doesn't seem to be concerned about it's Mk.41 however.

Image

User avatar
Jensy
Member
Posts: 551
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Jensy »

Though no doubt now beyond the realms of possibility (at least judging by the pace of adding CAMM) I've always been rather bemused that the Flight IIA onwards AB DDGs fit 64 Mk41 cells into the space we use for 48 cells of Sylver A50. Seemingly a British quirk as other Sylver users enjoy a higher density.

Image
Image
(Above, Italian Orizzonte Class I believe)
Not that it would help much without integrating Aster with Mk41 (or adopting the SM family) but one wonders if the Type 45s could have been rationalised to 64 MK41 cells and 24 CAMM, or indeed 'gone big' with 80 Mk41 cells, and making use of ExLS for quad-packed CAMM.

Image

Pure fantasy stuff but frankly I never expected anything to replace the 'Mk41 gymnasium' in the first place.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 2818
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Repulse »

As an aside, I've read a few comments that really (anti-ship) ASMs on RN vessels should be thought of as more of a defensive measure, deterring enemy surface units getting close. The real offensive anti-ship capability should be projected at range by air units or submarines. Sort of makes sense.

Given that any real warfighting formation will be based around a CBG, perhaps we need to see the topic more in this light. Is range more important for an escort ASM, rather than speed nor warhead size? This is where a dual role ASM and SAM becomes interesting.

Land strike capability perhaps is also similar given A2/AD capabilities.

What it does show IMO is that we need more SSNs and F35Bs, and more modern weapons to be be available to them and other air assets.
”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

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by BB85 »

I have no idea why they designed T45 in a way to only accommodate 48 A50 cells in that huge missile silo. I'm pretty sure if they spaced them out better they could have squeezed a third row in to get 72 which could have been A70 for naval scalp. I think the treasury just wanted an excuse not to pay for the missiles.
Regarding the box design, I thought that was a safety feature so they can launch in an emergency if someone is on deck. I'm assuming the Americans just roast anyone on deck if they have an incoming ASW out of the blue.

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by jonas »

I wasn't aware that France had thrown more of a tantrum, and paused the FC/AS programme in retaliation for the AUKUS project :-

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/uk-stop ... e-project/

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by BB85 »

France cancelled a meeting, they certainly haven't cancelled the program as they need it as much as us. Also if they pulled out they can only pull their funding. The UK would keep going ahead with mbda

SD67
Member
Posts: 341
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by SD67 »

On the interim SSGW I’m wondering what the Navy would put them on, other than T31. HMS Glasgow is my due to be commissioned until 2027 and is probably more a candidate for the FCASW. T45 - doesn’t the CAAM mushroom farm take away the space?

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1233
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Scimitar54 »

The problem with the “Interim” solution may be as follows.

Not worth adding to T23 due to:-
a) Limited life left in the platform.
b) Reduced availability alongside (to be fitted with) as the numbers of T23 reduce, but demand for deployment is
maintained or increased.
c) Avoidable Spend.

Not worth adding to T45, as:-
a) Unlikely to benefit from their fitting, due to likely deployments.
b) Lack of sufficient available (deployable) hulls.

This then means the earliest that they could realistically be added would be to T31, by which time the “gap” until the future ASM is acquired is reduced to the point that comments b) and c) re: T23 would apply again.

Of course, if we were currently still in 2015, things would look considerably different. :mrgreen:

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Ron5 »

They'll probably add the 250 million to their list of efficiency savings.

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by jonas »

BB85 wrote:France cancelled a meeting, they certainly haven't cancelled the program as they need it as much as us. Also if they pulled out they can only pull their funding. The UK would keep going ahead with mbda
No one said it had been cancelled. The word used was paused.

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Scimitar54 wrote:The problem with the “Interim” solution may be as follows.

Not worth adding to T23 due to:-
a) Limited life left in the platform.
b) Reduced availability alongside (to be fitted with) as the numbers of T23 reduce, but demand for deployment is maintained or increased.
c) Avoidable Spend.

Not worth adding to T45, as:-
a) Unlikely to benefit from their fitting, due to likely deployments.
b) Lack of sufficient available (deployable) hulls.

This then means the earliest that they could realistically be added would be to T31, by which time the “gap” until the future ASM is acquired is reduced to the point that comments b) and c) re: T23 would apply again.

Of course, if we were currently still in 2015, things would look considerably different. :mrgreen:
Understandable, but this is very dangerous argument. It is exactly the reason E-2 Sentry AWACS is gaped.
- Limited life
- Reduced availability
- Unlikely to be needed, because UK's close ally, US, has plenty of them

Then, AWACS was happily gaped, as the first E-7 will not come into service until 2023 (or later).

But, this meant the original rationale for the asset itself became weak, and then the total order was reduced to only 3 from original 5.

If anti-ship missile has so small a rationale that it can be gaped for 4 years on paper (and if FC/ASW is selected, likely be 10 years), its number could be happily cut. None on T45, none on T31, and maybe only 5 hulls of 8 T26 (as TAPS does not need it).

If this asset is really important, RN/MOD must make it as clear as possible, as soon as possible, what is the rationale for new anti-ship missile. How many will be needed, and to be placed at what assets?

I can easily imagine that someone saying, adding JSM or even LRASM to F35B (under slung) might be of much higher priority. Cutting FC/ASW, significant money will be saved, which can be used there?

Their rationale look similarly weak. So, cutting I-SSGW now has no difference to cutting FC/ASW numbers a few yeas later.

As I do think future anti-ship and land attack missile is needed, I do NOT agree I-SSGW can be gaped.

Of course, current specific case study of I-SSGW may not be good. But, filling the gap with Harpoon BlkII is very easy. As it will take until 2036 to replace the 8 T23ASW with T26, and adding Mk.41 VLS to T31 will only commence after its delivery = after 2026 or so, and will take ~2 years for conversion, and, T45 will be there for longer period (and has no plan for Mk.41 VLS), there will be plenty of hull to carry the "vintage but upgraded" Harpoon blk II until late 2030s. It is long enough for "modifying" Harpoon system to Blk II standard, at least for the 8 systems of 8 T23 ASW (then can do to either T31 or T45, both CMS are very well integrated with the system by then).

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1233
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Scimitar54 »

I am not recommending it, just trying to understand the rationale.

Just another of the consequences of “insufficient vessels” and of moving important decisions around armament acquisitions “to the right” ! Governments SHOULD NEVER have put the defence of the country (and it’s wider interests) into such a position. :mrgreen:

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 2153
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Scimitar54 wrote:Governments SHOULD NEVER have put the defence of the country (and it’s wider interests) into such a position.
Its interesting that despite all the talk of increased budgets RN is busy cutting as much as ever.

It seems that the ink was hardly dry on the IR and the back peddling started almost immediately once all the positive headlines were in the bag.

If converting the Bay was the wrong plan why announce it? If retaining Argus is preferable to spending the money on a Bay conversion surely that was obvious during the production of the IR?

If cancelling the I-SSGW is the right thing to do why not include it in the IR? Could it be that retiring Harpoon without direct replacement was controversial and going against the positive narrative it would have risked negative headlines.

It’s beginning to look like the IR was a combination of unadulterated spin and jam tomorrow and any extra cash is going to be swallowed up by the infamous black hole.

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1233
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Scimitar54 »

If the defence budget is not big enough and programmes are driven by need, then there will always be a black hole of some description. IT IS THE EXTENT OF THE UNDERFUNDING OF DEFENCE THAT DETERMINES IT’S SIZE. :mrgreen:

KiwiMuzz
Member
Posts: 42
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 06:20
New Zealand

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by KiwiMuzz »

SD67 wrote:On the interim SSGW I’m wondering what the Navy would put them on, other than T31. HMS Glasgow is my due to be commissioned until 2027 and is probably more a candidate for the FCASW. T45 - doesn’t the CAAM mushroom farm take away the space?
The CAMM silos will go in the space previously set aside for Mk41 VLS forward of the Sylver silos. The Harpoon space will be unaffected.

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Lord Jim »

With the Royal Navy now saying it wants a Hypersonic class weapon to fulfil the FC/ASW requirement, the programme will have had to take a step back and rethink the capabilities required. Will the French stay on board or will they decide to go it alone and develop a supersonic successor to Exocet, which was their requirement form the beginning? Can we afford to develop a hypersonic FC/ASW by ourselves? TO the latter I think the answer is no, and even if it was yes the weapon would probably not be ready for service until the late 2030s.

This now puts the need for a I-SSGW into a different context as the Royal Navy will likely have a minimum of a ten year capability gap, and most likely longer than that. Arming the few F-35s we will have in a Carrier Strike Group with say the US LRASM would provide a minimum capability, but doing so increases the RCS of the F-35s increasing their vulnerability to a certain extent.

The MoD, Government and Treasury are playing a very dangerous game with this country's security and the lives of its service men and women with the increasing number of substantial capability gaps that now exist. This is especially so given the increasing tensions around the world and the fact that our Politicians want to see the UK's Armed Forces operating world wide to bolster their desire for a Global Britain. Like with so many projects and programmes, they wish to run before they can walk, spreading our assets far too thin in addition to the lack of key capabilities. Our Allies can help somewhat, like the Americans and Dutch did with CSG-21, with their ships providing the bulk of the Group's anti ship capability and two thirds of its air defence.

Moving on though, if FC/ASW actually comes to fruition, it is going to be expensive, and this will prevent our ships, the T-26, T-83 and T-32 carrying sufficient missiles to get the job done. Each ship will need to carry at least sixteen missiles each, a number even the USN agree with. You may have notices no mention of the T-23 or T-45. This is because they are likely to be out of service by the time FC/ASW enters service and in addition I cannot see such an expensive weapon system being installed on the T-31, given its role.

Yet again the MoD want to go for the Rolls Royce gold plated capability, haven't they learnt anything? Yes a few "Silver Bullets", to deal with high value well protected targets would be a nice capability to have, but we also need a weapon systems able to deal with more likely threats, and able to be used in the numbers required. The days of lobbing a few TLAMs at a target are waning quickly. We have to have capacity to match out capabilities, and in this case looking at unmanned systems simple doesn't work for obvious reasons.

Post Reply