RN anti-ship missiles

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
ETH
Member
Posts: 56
Joined: 08 Apr 2021, 23:28
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by ETH »

Repulse wrote: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.
100%. The available weapons suite is crippling the British F35 fleet right now (and for the foreseeable future). SPEAR 3 is only a step in the right direction and really is the bare minimum in terms of range you’d want from a stand-off missile against a credible threat.

A large anti-ship and land-attack cruise missile is sorely needed.

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by SD67 »

https://www.navylookout.com/royal-navy- ... ore-2030s/

"It was clear from the words of the outgoing First Sea Lord that the RN has almost certainly decided not to purchase an Interim Surface to Surface Guided Weapon (I-SSGW) to replace the already obsolete Harpoon Block 1C which will go out of service in 2023. “ISSGW has been paused” said Radakin. The navy is more interested in hypersonic missiles with much longer range. "

I thought Radakin was smarter than this. Yet more jam tomorrow. Something like JSM / NSM would give us a real practical capability forthe next decade or so as the new technologies mature.

User avatar
ETH
Member
Posts: 56
Joined: 08 Apr 2021, 23:28
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by ETH »

Not to mention hypersonics are not the missiles to answer all problems…

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by abc123 »

Lord Jim wrote: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.
The UK has become like Italy in WW2. Not expecting that HM Armed Forces will really have to fight any real conflict and that the Main Ally (US/Germany) will have to do any real heavy lifting, while they will have to just feign contribution and will make grandstanding for domestic purposes.
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…

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Ron5 »

ETH wrote:Not to mention hypersonics are not the missiles to answer all problems…
I can't help but wonder if Radakin misspoke and meant supersonic, not hypersonic.

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by SD67 »

I was thinking that, maybe good progress on FCASW makes the interim solution irrelevant, (trying to be optimistic here)

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

I'm wondering the other way round.

1st SL said "hypersonic" and "Mk.41 VLS".

In comparison, I looked for the design of SM-6 Block 1B (see https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/2 ... gher-speed).
In short,
- SM-6 Block 1B is the largest missile which can fit within Mk.41 VLS strike length.
- SM-6 Block 1B is designated more as hyper-sonic anti-surface weapons than for AAW. (see the bottom figure)
- It is also planed to be ready around, possibly ~2027 or so?

Very good match. Too good. Even if FC/ASW go to hyper-sonic option, there is zero chance such high speed missile be ready by 2028. Also, it will be too similar to SM-6 block 1B.

Then, is 1st SL proposing to go for SM-6 block 1B, and get rid of the "super-sonic" ASM version of FC/ASW?

Image

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Lord Jim »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Then, is 1st SL proposing to go for SM-6 block 1B, and get rid of the "super-sonic" ASM version of FC/ASW?
If that is the case, then the Anglo/French programme is dead. Their priority seems to be a supersonic replacement to Exocet and the possible export sales that could also bring. The RAF want a stealthy sub sonic missile as its storm shadow replacement, but again the French want a supersonic weapon to replace SCALP. That would certainly open the door for the UK to buy American for both the RN and RAF, but would it be just one new missile or two, one as a "Silver Bullet", and another more widely used but still effective. Either option is going to involve some pretty expensive weapon systems with little UK content, unless a US company offers to set up a European production site.

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Ron5 »

Have difficulty getting my head around the idea of an SM-6 on a Type 31 frigate :?

How would the T31 know which direction to shoot them?

By the way, is the SM-6 hypersonic? I thought not.

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by SD67 »

Lord Jim wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:Then, is 1st SL proposing to go for SM-6 block 1B, and get rid of the "super-sonic" ASM version of FC/ASW?
If that is the case, then the Anglo/French programme is dead. Their priority seems to be a supersonic replacement to Exocet and the possible export sales that could also bring. The RAF want a stealthy sub sonic missile as its storm shadow replacement, but again the French want a supersonic weapon to replace SCALP. That would certainly open the door for the UK to buy American for both the RN and RAF, but would it be just one new missile or two, one as a "Silver Bullet", and another more widely used but still effective. Either option is going to involve some pretty expensive weapon systems with little UK content, unless a US company offers to set up a European production site.
If FCASW is dead then how long will the MBDA survive as an anglo- french outfit? There’s nothing else we partner with France on. In a perfect world we’d have a missile conglomerate mirroring the Project Tempest partnership, Meteor Brimstone CAMM, SPEAR3, take in Japan as a partner, the French can go off and do their own thing.

tomuk
Member
Posts: 334
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by tomuk »

Ron5 wrote:Have difficulty getting my head around the idea of an SM-6 on a Type 31 frigate :?

How would the T31 know which direction to shoot them?

By the way, is the SM-6 hypersonic? I thought not.
The SM6 block 1B will have a larger booster, 21in vs 13in ?, plus other upgrades to make it hypersonic.

Why can't T31 see the target? It has a "4D" NS110 radar plus SATCOM and Link for off ship target data.

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

tomuk wrote:
Ron5 wrote:Have difficulty getting my head around the idea of an SM-6 on a Type 31 frigate :?
...
By the way, is the SM-6 hypersonic? I thought not.
The SM6 block 1B will have a larger booster, 21in vs 13in ?, plus other upgrades to make it hypersonic.
Exactly. Difference between SM-6 Blk1A vs SM-6 Blk1B resembles that of SeaSparrow vs ESSM.

SM-6 Blk1A is a 13.5' darts on 21' booster.

SM-6 Blk1B is a 21' darts on 21' booster. As such, the dart's "volume" is more than twice larger, and its top speed is said to be of Mach 5 or more.
How would the T31 know which direction to shoot them?
Why can't T31 see the target? It has a "4D" NS110 radar plus SATCOM and Link for off ship target data.
SM-6 Blk1B's range is like 500 km. And it is primary for anti-surface, not anti-air (may be capable of AAW, but the primary design aim is to make it an anti-surface hyper sonic missile).

As "horizon from 10 km altitude" is ~500 km, everything is well below the horizon from a surface ship. Regardless of it being T26 or T31 or T45, they need independent queing. And, SM-6 is designed to be "remote targetted" = in design.

Very promising asset, I think.

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Jensy »

Ron5 wrote:Have difficulty getting my head around the idea of an SM-6 on a Type 31 frigate :?
Raytheon have had some interesting proposals for the Venturer Class :D before.

Exhumed from the heady, carefree days of December 2016:
GibMariner wrote:I thought today was 01/12 not 01/04...

BMD option touted for UK frigate
Raytheon has called on the Royal Navy to consider adopting its SM-3 short- to intermediate-range ballistic missile defence (BMD) system, on its future Type 31 frigate.

No official requirement for this exists, and the Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) released in November 2015 did not indicate that a sea-based ballistic missile defence system would be required, so Raytheon is looking towards the next SDSR to address this capability gap.

Andy Rhodes, business development lead for missile systems at Raytheon, told an industry technology day on 29 November that the UK MoD should consider this in its 2020 SDSR, which could pave way for integration on the Type 31 by 2023-24.

The vessel is expected to carry the Mark 41 vertical launching system, which can fire Raytheon’s SM-3 interceptor, Rhodes told Shephard. Current planning could also see MBDA’s Sea Ceptor used and there is an aspiration to operate the Raytheon Tomahawk missile from the frigate, he says.

However, industry sources have observed that the role of the frigate is yet to be determined, and at best it is designed to be an affordable and agile vessel. A BMD-capable SM-3 would increase costs.

https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/defe ... k-frigate/
Ron5 wrote:
ETH wrote:Not to mention hypersonics are not the missiles to answer all problems…
I can't help but wonder if Radakin misspoke and meant supersonic, not hypersonic.
Thought the same about Xavier's MBDA walkabout at DSEI. He describes (1:01) the 'sportier' of the two FC/ASW as being hypersonic.



With both being reliable sources, it might well be we're underestimating the capability of FC/ASW. If this is the case then the RAF appear to be betting on the wrong horse. Storm Shadow development could perhaps meet any requirement for a big, stealth bunker killer.

Still a little taken back by the idea that a 'long-ish' range hypersonic missile could fit into A-70 or MK41 cells but I'm not a rocket scientist...

tomuk
Member
Posts: 334
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by tomuk »

Jensy wrote: Still a little taken back by the idea that a 'long-ish' range hypersonic missile could fit into A-70 or MK41 cells but I'm not a rocket scientist...
Well if it had a ducted rocket like meteor you would get greater range for the same amount of propellent.

J. Tattersall

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by J. Tattersall »

tomuk wrote:Well if it had a ducted rocket like meteor you would get greater range for the same amount of propellent.
Well you're right in that you don't have to carry your own oxygen with you, compare air breathing SPEAR 3 versus similarly sized solid fuel BRIMSTONE.

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Ron5 »

tomuk wrote:
Ron5 wrote:Have difficulty getting my head around the idea of an SM-6 on a Type 31 frigate :?

How would the T31 know which direction to shoot them?

By the way, is the SM-6 hypersonic? I thought not.
The SM6 block 1B will have a larger booster, 21in vs 13in ?, plus other upgrades to make it hypersonic.
Thanks.
tomuk wrote:Why can't T31 see the target? It has a "4D" NS110 radar plus SATCOM and Link for off ship target data.
Sure, that'll do it :lol:

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Ron5 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
tomuk wrote:
Ron5 wrote:Have difficulty getting my head around the idea of an SM-6 on a Type 31 frigate :?
...
By the way, is the SM-6 hypersonic? I thought not.
The SM6 block 1B will have a larger booster, 21in vs 13in ?, plus other upgrades to make it hypersonic.
Exactly. Difference between SM-6 Blk1A vs SM-6 Blk1B resembles that of SeaSparrow vs ESSM.

SM-6 Blk1A is a 13.5' darts on 21' booster.

SM-6 Blk1B is a 21' darts on 21' booster. As such, the dart's "volume" is more than twice larger, and its top speed is said to be of Mach 5 or more.
How would the T31 know which direction to shoot them?
Why can't T31 see the target? It has a "4D" NS110 radar plus SATCOM and Link for off ship target data.
SM-6 Blk1B's range is like 500 km. And it is primary for anti-surface, not anti-air (may be capable of AAW, but the primary design aim is to make it an anti-surface hyper sonic missile).

As "horizon from 10 km altitude" is ~500 km, everything is well below the horizon from a surface ship. Regardless of it being T26 or T31 or T45, they need independent queing. And, SM-6 is designed to be "remote targetted" = in design.

Very promising asset, I think.
Thanks again and ..

.. Type 31 skepticism again :(

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Lord Jim »

Maybe the T-31 could evolve into a anti surface platform, complimenting the T-26(ASW) and T-45/83(AAW). Not to say the latter two types should not also have a AShM capability, but there is room on the T-31 to mount a significant number of capable AShMs which would also have a land attack capability. This is important for the Royal Navy moving forward as NGFS is going to be less and less viable due to the threat of shore based AShMs from even developing nations, so Missiles are likely to be used in the role. More expensive per shop obviously, but each shot should hit its target at least.

tomuk
Member
Posts: 334
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by tomuk »

Ron5 wrote:
tomuk wrote:
tomuk wrote:Why can't T31 see the target? It has a "4D" NS110 radar plus SATCOM and Link for off ship target data.
Sure, that'll do it :lol:
Please explain how an Arleigh Burke would see the target then?

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Ron5 »

tomuk wrote:
Ron5 wrote:
tomuk wrote:
tomuk wrote:Why can't T31 see the target? It has a "4D" NS110 radar plus SATCOM and Link for off ship target data.
Sure, that'll do it :lol:
Please explain how an Arleigh Burke would see the target then?
You really think the Type 31's will have the same level of kit as the Arleigh Burkes??? Yikes.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3031
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Tempest414 »

If type 31 got a 8 cell Mk-41 could we fit say 16 Spear 3 in them they could have a range of 100 + km also as up thread given sea venom has a bigger body than spear 3 could we take the jet and fit it to Sea venom to give it a 100+ km range yes they are light weapons but would be better an nothing until we get the next SSGW

tomuk
Member
Posts: 334
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by tomuk »

Ron5 wrote:
tomuk wrote:
Ron5 wrote:
tomuk wrote:
tomuk wrote:Why can't T31 see the target? It has a "4D" NS110 radar plus SATCOM and Link for off ship target data.
Sure, that'll do it :lol:
Please explain how an Arleigh Burke would see the target then?
You really think the Type 31's will have the same level of kit as the Arleigh Burkes??? Yikes.
What the hell are you on about? When have I said that T31 would have the same level of kit as an AB?

The question remains how would an Arleigh Burke see the target?

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Lord Jim »

Ships do not just rely on their onboard sensors to see where things are in the world around them. Then networking of naval and air platforms is only going to grow in the coming years and land forces will also be hooked up especially or the littoral domain. Modern AShMs only have to be pointed in the general direction of their target, and they will find their way there. Having "Man in the loop", capability or a level of AI will prevent friendly fire or collateral damage. This is essential when you are engaging an enemy hundreds of miles away. THis will be how an Arleigh Burke sees and engages an enemy.

tomuk
Member
Posts: 334
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by tomuk »

Lord Jim wrote:Ships do not just rely on their onboard sensors to see where things are in the world around them. Then networking of naval and air platforms is only going to grow in the coming years and land forces will also be hooked up especially or the littoral domain. Modern AShMs only have to be pointed in the general direction of their target, and they will find their way there. Having "Man in the loop", capability or a level of AI will prevent friendly fire or collateral damage. This is essential when you are engaging an enemy hundreds of miles away. THis will be how an Arleigh Burke sees and engages an enemy.
And how would that be any different for a Royal Navy vessel?

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

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by abc123 »

Tempest414 wrote:If type 31 got a 8 cell Mk-41 could we fit say 16 Spear 3 in them they could have a range of 100 + km also as up thread given sea venom has a bigger body than spear 3 could we take the jet and fit it to Sea venom to give it a 100+ km range yes they are light weapons but would be better an nothing until we get the next SSGW
I sincerely doubt that VL Spear. 3 would have a 100 km range. Maybe rather 30-40 km...
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…

Post Reply