RN anti-ship missiles

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3196
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 5 times
Been liked: 25 times
France

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Tempest414 »

abc123 wrote: 30 Dec 2021, 09:31
Tempest414 wrote: 30 Dec 2021, 06:01 We could buy a 100 Naval Storm Shadow from the French plus 16 sets of NSM to cover off anti ship and long range strike
Not without money. :think:

Come on people, the UK has no money to buy cheap subsonic missiles like NSMs and it definitly will not have the money to buy expencive super/hypersonic ones, you have to accept that the RN is done with ASMs for good.
I glove slap you sir for being rude to my navy ;)

SD67
Member
Posts: 382
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
Has liked: 4 times
Been liked: 7 times
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by SD67 »

abc123 wrote: 30 Dec 2021, 09:31
Tempest414 wrote: 30 Dec 2021, 06:01 We could buy a 100 Naval Storm Shadow from the French plus 16 sets of NSM to cover off anti ship and long range strike
Not without money. :think:

Come on people, the UK has no money to buy cheap subsonic missiles like NSMs and it definitly will not have the money to buy expencive super/hypersonic ones, you have to accept that the RN is done with ASMs for good.
I doubt it. I think the question is timing. T31 and T26 are not going to hit the water for a while, why would you want to rush out now and invest in an interim capability - what platform would you put it on? Probably best to sit back and see how FCASW matures. If there's a sharp deterioration then Harpoon 2 small purchase could likely be arranged quite quickly.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2358
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 5 times
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Caribbean »

A further point is that if, as the Navy seem to be hinting, they have decided to move all platforms to CAMM/ Mk41 VLS, why would you want a non-VL interim missile? If FCASW is certified for both Mk41 and Sylver, then it could be used on all the planned and existing RN ships, including the T45. If T31 also gains a few Mk41, then it has no need of any deck-launched missiles in the future.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 4277
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Has liked: 24 times
Been liked: 31 times
Japan

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

SD67 wrote: 30 Dec 2021, 13:29
abc123 wrote: 30 Dec 2021, 09:31Not without money. :think:

Come on people, the UK has no money to buy cheap subsonic missiles like NSMs and it definitly will not have the money to buy expencive super/hypersonic ones, you have to accept that the RN is done with ASMs for good.
I doubt it. I think the question is timing. T31 and T26 are not going to hit the water for a while, why would you want to rush out now and invest in an interim capability - what platform would you put it on? Probably best to sit back and see how FCASW matures. If there's a sharp deterioration then Harpoon 2 small purchase could likely be arranged quite quickly.
I have another view.

1: Harpoon goes out in 2023. FC/ASW comes in 2028 on plan but highly probable to see a few years of delays. And, true "Gap" is between "the last Harpoon going out" and "the last new ASM coming in, not the first". As such, RN is highly likely to see 15-20 years Gap in ASM capability. In 2010s, it might be OK. But, now the need for long range ASMs is rising around the globe. Lack of ASM capability in 2020s and 2030s will be much bigger problem than that in 2010s.

2: How much money do RN need to add ASM capability in short time frame?
- Adding 11-sets of NSM will cost £400M or so (if £200M can buy 5 sets of it. Surely cheaper than double, because initial cost is always there).
- Introducing FC/ASW on T26 will not cost additional money, because it must be already budgeted in the complex weapon program.
- Introducing SM-6 Blk IB as a hyper-sonic ASM in small numbers (say 70 units, 8 each for 8 T26s + initial) will cost £700M (assuming initial cost £140M + £8M/unit, guesstimate)

With this £1.1B, RN will be able to equip all 6 T45 and 5 T31 with NSM, and 8 T26 with FC/ASW and SM-6 Blk IB combined. Big money? Yes and no.

The program budget for 5 T32 is not known yet, but is shall be somewhere around £2Bn = the same to T31 (note £1.25B figure is just a fraction of the program cost. See NAO report). I am happy to cancel T32 to buy these ASMs. Even £900M remains.

Then, let's buy
- 4 MCLSV, a PSV 3000-4000t for MCM support. Can be slow and merchant vessel hull (~£500M in total)
- add 12more CAMM to T31 to make it 24 (may be £150M or so?)
- add ASW capability to the 3 SWEEP autonomous mine sweeping systems from Atlas Electric UK. = ARCIMS USVs. (not sure, may be less than £100M). The 3 SWEEP system will be delivered in late 2022, an year from now. see https://des.mod.uk/autonomous-minesweep ... rmeasures/
- Add a few more SkyGuardian UAVs (in addition to 16 already ordered for RAF) with ASW kits (remaining £150M)

Five T32 is just a pipe dream. It will just hollow the RN. From where the armaments/equipments are coming? From where the crew is coming? (note RN is still short of crew albeit COVID19-caused high retention. What will happen after COVID?). By canceling T32, many issues can be solved.

But, as T32 is NOT even budgeted yet, this is also a pipe dream. Actually, I am simply fearing that I-SSGW and many other equipments are facing cut to enable the "5 T32".

RN was struggling to keep "19 escort saga" in 2010s, which hollowed the navy. Very bad days with very low number of escorts crewed, and very low number of sea going days even for those "crewed" escorts. Also, there are many claims that ammunition stock is less than minimum, spare parts are less than minimum (causing canibalizing) and engineers less than minimum (causing many ship at shore base, even if crewed).

When CVF comes and the budget increased a little, and RN regained some confidence, the first thing RN did is deciding to disband two T23s, accepting 17 escort fleet.

There are many assets more important than T32s, and ASM is surely among them. World trend, it is?

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 4277
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Has liked: 24 times
Been liked: 31 times
Japan

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Caribbean wrote: 30 Dec 2021, 14:19 A further point is that if, as the Navy seem to be hinting, they have decided to move all platforms to CAMM/ Mk41 VLS, why would you want a non-VL interim missile? If FCASW is certified for both Mk41 and Sylver, then it could be used on all the planned and existing RN ships, including the T45. If T31 also gains a few Mk41, then it has no need of any deck-launched missiles in the future.
No need to "VL" NSMs. It can be easily located on top of the hull. RN escort now are so large that adding 8 NSM will see no problem. "All-FC/ASW ASM" plan is no problem if we forget the big gap. But, the 15-20 years gap is there.

And, of course, if 15-20 years gap is acceptable, there is not need for FC/ASW at all. A weapon what can be NOT fielded for 15-20 years mean the weapon is needless. Let's use that precious money elsewhere (e.g. more F35Bs, one more T26, and BMD on T45?).

SD67
Member
Posts: 382
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
Has liked: 4 times
Been liked: 7 times
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by SD67 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 30 Dec 2021, 14:21
SD67 wrote: 30 Dec 2021, 13:29
abc123 wrote: 30 Dec 2021, 09:31Not without money. :think:

Come on people, the UK has no money to buy cheap subsonic missiles like NSMs and it definitly will not have the money to buy expencive super/hypersonic ones, you have to accept that the RN is done with ASMs for good.
I doubt it. I think the question is timing. T31 and T26 are not going to hit the water for a while, why would you want to rush out now and invest in an interim capability - what platform would you put it on? Probably best to sit back and see how FCASW matures. If there's a sharp deterioration then Harpoon 2 small purchase could likely be arranged quite quickly.
I have another view.

1: Harpoon goes out in 2023. FC/ASW comes in 2028 on plan but highly probable to see a few years of delays. And, true "Gap" is between "the last Harpoon going out" and "the last new ASM coming in, not the first". As such, RN is highly likely to see 15-20 years Gap in ASM capability. In 2010s, it might be OK. But, now the need for long range ASMs is rising around the globe. Lack of ASM capability in 2020s and 2030s will be much bigger problem than that in 2010s.

2: How much money do RN need to add ASM capability in short time frame?
- Adding 11-sets of NSM will cost £400M or so (if £200M can buy 5 sets of it. Surely cheaper than double, because initial cost is always there).
- Introducing FC/ASW on T26 will not cost additional money, because it must be already budgeted in the complex weapon program.
- Introducing SM-6 Blk IB as a hyper-sonic ASM in small numbers (say 70 units, 8 each for 8 T26s + initial) will cost £700M (assuming initial cost £140M + £8M/unit, guesstimate)

With this £1.1B, RN will be able to equip all 6 T45 and 5 T31 with NSM, and 8 T26 with FC/ASW and SM-6 Blk IB combined. Big money? Yes and no.

The program budget for 5 T32 is not known yet, but is shall be somewhere around £2Bn = the same to T31 (note £1.25B figure is just a fraction of the program cost. See NAO report). I am happy to cancel T32 to buy these ASMs. Even £900M remains.

Then, let's buy
- 4 MCLSV, a PSV 3000-4000t for MCM support. Can be slow and merchant vessel hull (~£500M in total)
- add 12more CAMM to T31 to make it 24 (may be £150M or so?)
- add ASW capability to the 3 SWEEP autonomous mine sweeping systems from Atlas Electric UK. = ARCIMS USVs. (not sure, may be less than £100M). The 3 SWEEP system will be delivered in late 2022, an year from now. see https://des.mod.uk/autonomous-minesweep ... rmeasures/
- Add a few more SkyGuardian UAVs (in addition to 16 already ordered for RAF) with ASW kits (remaining £150M)

Five T32 is just a pipe dream. It will just hollow the RN. From where the armaments/equipments are coming? From where the crew is coming? (note RN is still short of crew albeit COVID19-caused high retention. What will happen after COVID?). By canceling T32, many issues can be solved.

But, as T32 is NOT even budgeted yet, this is also a pipe dream. Actually, I am simply fearing that I-SSGW and many other equipments are facing cut to enable the "5 T32".

RN was struggling to keep "19 escort saga" in 2010s, which hollowed the navy. Very bad days with very low number of escorts crewed, and very low number of sea going days even for those "crewed" escorts. Also, there are many claims that ammunition stock is less than minimum, spare parts are less than minimum (causing canibalizing) and engineers less than minimum (causing many ship at shore base, even if crewed).

When CVF comes and the budget increased a little, and RN regained some confidence, the first thing RN did is deciding to disband two T23s, accepting 17 escort fleet.

There are many assets more important than T32s, and ASM is surely among them. World trend, it is?
Very interesting and proposal Donald. Personally I think mixing up MCM and Frigate is a mistake

"Then, let's buy
- 4 MCLSV, a PSV 3000-4000t for MCM support. Can be slow and merchant vessel hull (~£500M in total)
- add 12more CAMM to T31 to make it 24 (may be £150M or so?)
- add ASW capability to the 3 SWEEP autonomous mine sweeping systems from Atlas Electric UK. = ARCIMS USVs. (not sure, may be less than £100M). The 3 SWEEP system will be delivered in late 2022, an year from now. see https://des.mod.uk/autonomous-minesweep ... rmeasures/
- Add a few more SkyGuardian UAVs (in addition to 16 already ordered for RAF) with ASW kits (remaining £150M)"

Actually it would be much cheaper than above as there's no way a PSV type mothership would cost that much, you can pick them up for 10million each with plenty of life, it's a buyer's market. https://commercial.apolloduck.com/boats ... upply-ship

In terms of the "UK has no money to buy cheap subsonic missiles like NSMs and it definitely will not have the money to buy expensive super/hypersonic ones", I don't necessarily agree there. Depends on timing. We have right now this massive logjam called "Successor" which is distorting the budget. Unfortunately it's difficult to build half a SSBN, CASD is already at minimum. By the md 2030s the problem should have worked itself out. 2 Billion for T32 is less than one year's Successor spend.

The Navy have been pretty good at playing the long game so far, the Field of Dreams philosophy - "Build it and They Will Come" ("they" being more armament) :-)

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 2341
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 5 times
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Timmymagic »

Tempest414 wrote: 30 Dec 2021, 06:01 We could buy a 100 Naval Storm Shadow from the French plus 16 sets of NSM to cover off anti ship and long range strike
It would be dramatically cheaper to buy Tomahawk than MdCN. Far more so in fact.

wargame_insomniac
Member
Posts: 141
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
Has liked: 82 times
Been liked: 4 times
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by wargame_insomniac »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 30 Dec 2021, 14:21 I have another view.

1: Harpoon goes out in 2023. FC/ASW comes in 2028 on plan but highly probable to see a few years of delays. And, true "Gap" is between "the last Harpoon going out" and "the last new ASM coming in, not the first". As such, RN is highly likely to see 15-20 years Gap in ASM capability. In 2010s, it might be OK. But, now the need for long range ASMs is rising around the globe. Lack of ASM capability in 2020s and 2030s will be much bigger problem than that in 2010s.

2: How much money do RN need to add ASM capability in short time frame?
- Adding 11-sets of NSM will cost £400M or so (if £200M can buy 5 sets of it. Surely cheaper than double, because initial cost is always there).
- Introducing FC/ASW on T26 will not cost additional money, because it must be already budgeted in the complex weapon program.
- Introducing SM-6 Blk IB as a hyper-sonic ASM in small numbers (say 70 units, 8 each for 8 T26s + initial) will cost £700M (assuming initial cost £140M + £8M/unit, guesstimate)

With this £1.1B, RN will be able to equip all 6 T45 and 5 T31 with NSM, and 8 T26 with FC/ASW and SM-6 Blk IB combined. Big money? Yes and no.

The program budget for 5 T32 is not known yet, but is shall be somewhere around £2Bn = the same to T31 (note £1.25B figure is just a fraction of the program cost. See NAO report). I am happy to cancel T32 to buy these ASMs. Even £900M remains.

Then, let's buy
- 4 MCLSV, a PSV 3000-4000t for MCM support. Can be slow and merchant vessel hull (~£500M in total)
- add 12more CAMM to T31 to make it 24 (may be £150M or so?)
- add ASW capability to the 3 SWEEP autonomous mine sweeping systems from Atlas Electric UK. = ARCIMS USVs. (not sure, may be less than £100M). The 3 SWEEP system will be delivered in late 2022, an year from now. see https://des.mod.uk/autonomous-minesweep ... rmeasures/
- Add a few more SkyGuardian UAVs (in addition to 16 already ordered for RAF) with ASW kits (remaining £150M)

Five T32 is just a pipe dream. It will just hollow the RN. From where the armaments/equipments are coming? From where the crew is coming? (note RN is still short of crew albeit COVID19-caused high retention. What will happen after COVID?). By canceling T32, many issues can be solved.

But, as T32 is NOT even budgeted yet, this is also a pipe dream. Actually, I am simply fearing that I-SSGW and many other equipments are facing cut to enable the "5 T32".

RN was struggling to keep "19 escort saga" in 2010s, which hollowed the navy. Very bad days with very low number of escorts crewed, and very low number of sea going days even for those "crewed" escorts. Also, there are many claims that ammunition stock is less than minimum, spare parts are less than minimum (causing canibalizing) and engineers less than minimum (causing many ship at shore base, even if crewed).

When CVF comes and the budget increased a little, and RN regained some confidence, the first thing RN did is deciding to disband two T23s, accepting 17 escort fleet.

There are many assets more important than T32s, and ASM is surely among them. World trend, it is?
Given that House of Commons Defence Committee is argiung that we need MORE escorts and not less, it seems risky to simply ditch the idea of 5*T32, at least until we have greater clarification as to what their role and equipment will be.

But lets just or a minute focus on the 6*T45, 8*T26 & 5*T31, that is 19 escorts. You had noted that:
"Adding 11-sets of NSM will cost £400M or so (if £200M can buy 5 sets of it. Surely cheaper than double, because initial cost is always there)".

So presumably then 19 sets would cost in the region of £700M - £750M? That would make far more sense from a logistics view and also spreading the ASM capability across as many hulls as possible.

What would be the benefits of using SM-6 Blk IB as a hyper-sonic ASM? I am presuming range and the harder difficulty to interception dues to the speed??

Re disbanding the two T23's, I had thought they were both due to have their LIFEX refits? i.e. they would nt be available for many months due to that. So I thought the argument by skipping the LIFEX, and running these two ships harder for the remaining service, that we would have actually got more hulls at sea in the short term as well as saving the £100M cost of LIFEX?

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3196
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 5 times
Been liked: 25 times
France

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Tempest414 »

Timmymagic wrote: 30 Dec 2021, 15:32
Tempest414 wrote: 30 Dec 2021, 06:01 We could buy a 100 Naval Storm Shadow from the French plus 16 sets of NSM to cover off anti ship and long range strike
It would be dramatically cheaper to buy Tomahawk than MdCN. Far more so in fact.
I agree that buying more Tomahawks would be cheaper but in the context of supporting MBDA and keeping the French happy if this is even possible buying Storm Shadow Naval could work we may even be able to convert some in stock missiles

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3196
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 5 times
Been liked: 25 times
France

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Tempest414 »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 30 Dec 2021, 16:21
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 30 Dec 2021, 14:21 I have another view.

1: Harpoon goes out in 2023. FC/ASW comes in 2028 on plan but highly probable to see a few years of delays. And, true "Gap" is between "the last Harpoon going out" and "the last new ASM coming in, not the first". As such, RN is highly likely to see 15-20 years Gap in ASM capability. In 2010s, it might be OK. But, now the need for long range ASMs is rising around the globe. Lack of ASM capability in 2020s and 2030s will be much bigger problem than that in 2010s.

2: How much money do RN need to add ASM capability in short time frame?
- Adding 11-sets of NSM will cost £400M or so (if £200M can buy 5 sets of it. Surely cheaper than double, because initial cost is always there).
- Introducing FC/ASW on T26 will not cost additional money, because it must be already budgeted in the complex weapon program.
- Introducing SM-6 Blk IB as a hyper-sonic ASM in small numbers (say 70 units, 8 each for 8 T26s + initial) will cost £700M (assuming initial cost £140M + £8M/unit, guesstimate)

With this £1.1B, RN will be able to equip all 6 T45 and 5 T31 with NSM, and 8 T26 with FC/ASW and SM-6 Blk IB combined. Big money? Yes and no.

The program budget for 5 T32 is not known yet, but is shall be somewhere around £2Bn = the same to T31 (note £1.25B figure is just a fraction of the program cost. See NAO report). I am happy to cancel T32 to buy these ASMs. Even £900M remains.

Then, let's buy
- 4 MCLSV, a PSV 3000-4000t for MCM support. Can be slow and merchant vessel hull (~£500M in total)
- add 12more CAMM to T31 to make it 24 (may be £150M or so?)
- add ASW capability to the 3 SWEEP autonomous mine sweeping systems from Atlas Electric UK. = ARCIMS USVs. (not sure, may be less than £100M). The 3 SWEEP system will be delivered in late 2022, an year from now. see https://des.mod.uk/autonomous-minesweep ... rmeasures/
- Add a few more SkyGuardian UAVs (in addition to 16 already ordered for RAF) with ASW kits (remaining £150M)

Five T32 is just a pipe dream. It will just hollow the RN. From where the armaments/equipments are coming? From where the crew is coming? (note RN is still short of crew albeit COVID19-caused high retention. What will happen after COVID?). By canceling T32, many issues can be solved.

But, as T32 is NOT even budgeted yet, this is also a pipe dream. Actually, I am simply fearing that I-SSGW and many other equipments are facing cut to enable the "5 T32".

RN was struggling to keep "19 escort saga" in 2010s, which hollowed the navy. Very bad days with very low number of escorts crewed, and very low number of sea going days even for those "crewed" escorts. Also, there are many claims that ammunition stock is less than minimum, spare parts are less than minimum (causing canibalizing) and engineers less than minimum (causing many ship at shore base, even if crewed).

When CVF comes and the budget increased a little, and RN regained some confidence, the first thing RN did is deciding to disband two T23s, accepting 17 escort fleet.

There are many assets more important than T32s, and ASM is surely among them. World trend, it is?
Given that House of Commons Defence Committee is argiung that we need MORE escorts and not less, it seems risky to simply ditch the idea of 5*T32, at least until we have greater clarification as to what their role and equipment will be.

But lets just or a minute focus on the 6*T45, 8*T26 & 5*T31, that is 19 escorts. You had noted that:
"Adding 11-sets of NSM will cost £400M or so (if £200M can buy 5 sets of it. Surely cheaper than double, because initial cost is always there)".

So presumably then 19 sets would cost in the region of £700M - £750M? That would make far more sense from a logistics view and also spreading the ASM capability across as many hulls as possible.

What would be the benefits of using SM-6 Blk IB as a hyper-sonic ASM? I am presuming range and the harder difficulty to interception dues to the speed??

Re disbanding the two T23's, I had thought they were both due to have their LIFEX refits? i.e. they would nt be available for many months due to that. So I thought the argument by skipping the LIFEX, and running these two ships harder for the remaining service, that we would have actually got more hulls at sea in the short term as well as saving the £100M cost of LIFEX?
It could of been a good thing for T-45 if we had fitted the 16 Mk-41's and quad packed CAMM into 16 A50 vls allowing a load out of 32 x Aster 30 , 64 x CAMM and 16 SM-6 Blk 1B

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6428
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 14 times
Been liked: 54 times
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Lord Jim »

I must admit I didn't realise that the SM-6 Blk IB was a hypersonic weapon or at least near one in performance. It does still have a small warhead, the Harpoons is nearly for times larger! The other hypersonic weapons being developed for the USN or at least planned are aimed at replacing the Tomahawk in both its land attack and anti ship duties at a much greater range but none of those being designed will fit in a Mk41, meaning the USN will eventually have to fit a new VLS on future warships to accommodate them.

If the RN is determined to wait for a hypersonic weapon, it will effectively kill of the FCASW programme, as the French really want a replacement for their Exocet first and foremost and would most likely be happy to go it alone with the aim of selling it to existing Exocet customers being the only competitor to US weapon manufactured in Western Europe. If the RN then purchased the SM-6 Blk IB the RAF would have to look to the US for a Storm Shadow replacement, or develop a Storm Shadow Mk2, the latter opening some interesting possibilities.

However if the T-31 and T-26 do not enter service with a respectable AShM then the RN's Escorts and even its Carrier Group, lose their deterrent value as in the majority of cases as any opponent will know that its Escorts can only reach out offensively with wither its Wildcat helicopter or Naval Gun Fire! Both of these are simply non viable against anything larger then an FAC as anything larger, even modern corvettes, usually mount both anti air and anti ship missiles these days.

If the money originally allocated for the interim AShM purchase has already been spent elsewhere, the RN is going to have to look at fining funding elsewhere, or at the very least the MoD as a whole will have to. Leaving the FCASW sooner rather than later may be one route, as at least this is funded I believe to continue its development. If nothing is done the RN will become a Paper Tiger and a soggy one at that.

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 2341
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 5 times
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Timmymagic »

Tempest414 wrote: 30 Dec 2021, 17:00 I agree that buying more Tomahawks would be cheaper but in the context of supporting MBDA and keeping the French happy if this is even possible buying Storm Shadow Naval could work we may even be able to convert some in stock missiles
MdCN is to all intents and purposes a new missile, completely different size and shape to Storm Shadow/SCALP. It shares a lot of components but thats it.
Lord Jim wrote: 30 Dec 2021, 20:44 I must admit I didn't realise that the SM-6 Blk IB was a hypersonic weapon or at least near one in performance.
It is for part of its range...but not all of it, when the rocket motor has run out its going to coasting and losing speed same as any other solid rocket motor powered missile. The USN is using the SM-6 as the basis of a 'fast' missile as it is what it has in stock. In the timeframes the RN would be looking at its not the right choice by any stretch of the imagination.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 4277
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Has liked: 24 times
Been liked: 31 times
Japan

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

wargame_insomniac wrote: 30 Dec 2021, 16:21
2: How much money do RN need to add ASM capability in short time frame?
- Adding 11-sets of NSM will cost £400M or so (if £200M can buy 5 sets of it. Surely cheaper than double, because initial cost is always there).
- Introducing FC/ASW on T26 will not cost additional money, because it must be already budgeted in the complex weapon program.
- Introducing SM-6 Blk IB as a hyper-sonic ASM in small numbers (say 70 units, 8 each for 8 T26s + initial) will cost £700M (assuming initial cost £140M + £8M/unit, guesstimate)

With this £1.1B, RN will be able to equip all 6 T45 and 5 T31 with NSM, and 8 T26 with FC/ASW and SM-6 Blk IB combined. Big money? Yes and no.

The program budget for 5 T32 is not known yet, but is shall be somewhere around £2Bn = the same to T31 (note £1.25B figure is just a fraction of the program cost. See NAO report). I am happy to cancel T32 to buy these ASMs. Even £900M remains.

Then, let's buy
- 4 MCLSV, a PSV 3000-4000t for MCM support. Can be slow and merchant vessel hull (~£500M in total)
- add 12more CAMM to T31 to make it 24 (may be £150M or so?)
- add ASW capability to the 3 SWEEP autonomous mine sweeping systems from Atlas Electric UK. = ARCIMS USVs. (not sure, may be less than £100M). The 3 SWEEP system will be delivered in late 2022, an year from now.
- Add a few more SkyGuardian UAVs (in addition to 16 already ordered for RAF) with ASW kits (remaining £150M)

Five T32 is just a pipe dream. It will just hollow the RN. From where the armaments/equipments are coming? From where the crew is coming? (note RN is still short of crew albeit COVID19-caused high retention. What will happen after COVID?). By canceling T32, many issues can be solved.
Given that House of Commons Defence Committee is argiung that we need MORE escorts and not less, it seems risky to simply ditch the idea of 5*T32, at least until we have greater clarification as to what their role and equipment will be.
Defense Committee will not define the role. They are not specialist Navy staff. They just say, "more risk is there, so more ship is needed". Identifying risk is politician's task, so its OK. How to handle the risk need professional to assess it.

But, if really more hull is needed (they say, more hull "including escorts"),
1: spec-down the MCLSV to used PSV-based hull. (See RNZN Manawanui for example, 5700t FLD large ship with deep diving capability, for NZ$147M = £75M. MCLSV can be smaller hull with simpler equipment, so I agree £40-50M/unit is feasible): Then "~£500M in total" can be "~£200M in total" to save ~£300M.
2: Stop the "more CAMM option" for T31 (£150M saved)
3: Adding the last ~£150M (for "more SkyGuardian"),
then we have £600M. Let's buy 2 more T31. This is "more escorts". Or, how about 6 more River B2 (or 5 more up-armed River B2+). This is "more hulls". :D
But lets just or a minute focus on the 6*T45, 8*T26 & 5*T31, that is 19 escorts. You had noted that:
"Adding 11-sets of NSM will cost £400M or so (if £200M can buy 5 sets of it. Surely cheaper than double, because initial cost is always there)".
So presumably then 19 sets would cost in the region of £700M - £750M? That would make far more sense from a logistics view and also spreading the ASM capability across as many hulls as possible.
Understand your point. But, I think FC/ASW is needed for political reason. However, FC/ASW will never be cheap option, so combining with 11-escorts with cheapish ASM (NSM) with 8-escorts of high-level ASM (FC/ASW) may work (of course, need commonality with RAF Stormshadow replacement, to make it (relatively) cheaper).
What would be the benefits of using SM-6 Blk IB as a hyper-sonic ASM? I am presuming range and the harder difficulty to interception dues to the speed??
For saying "RN has long-range hyper-sonic ASM". With only 64 kg warhead, SM6Blk1B will not destroy any air-field, nor underground HQ, nor sink a CV. But, it can destroy radars, kill a few precious bombers, and disable CV or any escorts for months. As hypersonic missile needs very short time, near future small-satellite network or a single scan of SAR radar of stealthy drones, can make a big effect. The enemy needs to prepare for it. It is a big big burden for sure.
Re disbanding the two T23's, I had thought they were both due to have their LIFEX refits? i.e. they would nt be available for many months due to that. So I thought the argument by skipping the LIFEX, and running these two ships harder for the remaining service, that we would have actually got more hulls at sea in the short term as well as saving the £100M cost of LIFEX?
No objection. My only point is, why not RN did it a few years ago? Sell HMS Argile and Lancaster to Chili or Brazil to gain money, and focus LIFEX on newer T23 hulls? Even when Argile had LIFEX, RN was keeping two escorts in extended readiness because of lack of man power. Selling them would have had no impact on RN escort availability. The same argument now RN says (and as you describe) for the two T23s to go now.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 2937
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Has liked: 31 times
Been liked: 26 times
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Repulse »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 31 Dec 2021, 04:09 But, if really more hull is needed (they say, more hull "including escorts")
And in a world of limited funds and competing priorities, both within the defence budget and more broadly with the fallout of COVID and commitment to the NHS / levelling up, this “IF” is the key question.

It’s easy for the defence select committee to argue for more ships, I guess it’s their job, but it would have been better for them to give a view on what should be prioritised within a limited budget.

There are ways to increase modestly the budget (or effectiveness of the budget) available for new ships - namely selling or retiring older ships early, giving suppliers such as BAE certainty on orders to allow them to invest in efficiencies and being brutally focused on killing projects early that aren’t delivering; but we are talking about 10%.

So to make a significant difference my view remains is to be laser focused on the realistic scope of each standing commitment and the platform requirements for each task, this means for me better use of lower end platforms for forward constabulary/presence tasks and more war fighting kit for the “stick”(e.g. CSGs/SSNs).
”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
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3196
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 5 times
Been liked: 25 times
France

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Tempest414 »

Timmymagic wrote: 30 Dec 2021, 22:33
Tempest414 wrote: 30 Dec 2021, 17:00 I agree that buying more Tomahawks would be cheaper but in the context of supporting MBDA and keeping the French happy if this is even possible buying Storm Shadow Naval could work we may even be able to convert some in stock missiles
MdCN is to all intents and purposes a new missile, completely different size and shape to Storm Shadow/SCALP. It shares a lot of components but thats it.
Lord Jim wrote: 30 Dec 2021, 20:44 I must admit I didn't realise that the SM-6 Blk IB was a hypersonic weapon or at least near one in performance.
It is for part of its range...but not all of it, when the rocket motor has run out its going to coasting and losing speed same as any other solid rocket motor powered missile. The USN is using the SM-6 as the basis of a 'fast' missile as it is what it has in stock. In the timeframes the RN would be looking at its not the right choice by any stretch of the imagination.
I am happy with your above statement however MdCN is a working in service long range strike weapon that the RN could buy and would keep both MBDA and the French happy so if we were to buy say 80 MdCN and 12 sets of NSM the RN would have a medium range and long range strike weapon and the French would be less jumpy over the future weapon program

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 2341
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 5 times
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Timmymagic »

Tempest414 wrote: 31 Dec 2021, 10:29 I am happy with your above statement however MdCN is a working in service long range strike weapon that the RN could buy and would keep both MBDA and the French happy so if we were to buy say 80 MdCN and 12 sets of NSM the RN would have a medium range and long range strike weapon and the French would be less jumpy over the future weapon program
MdCN would be >$4m per missile (probably more than $5m at the moment). Tomahawk Block V is currently c$1.5m. Thats around 1/3rd of the cost, and its integration and entry to service for the RN would be immeasurably easier (and cheaper) as we already use it. The Block V also has greater number of target sets than MdCN, including moving targets at sea....

How much is keeping the French 'happy' actually worth? How about they keep us happy for once..

I would actually buy NSM and JSM though. 5 sets of NSM for ships (probably c40 missiles tops and 50/60 JSM for F-35 would be very nice...

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3196
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 5 times
Been liked: 25 times
France

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Tempest414 »

Timmymagic wrote: 31 Dec 2021, 10:59
Tempest414 wrote: 31 Dec 2021, 10:29 I am happy with your above statement however MdCN is a working in service long range strike weapon that the RN could buy and would keep both MBDA and the French happy so if we were to buy say 80 MdCN and 12 sets of NSM the RN would have a medium range and long range strike weapon and the French would be less jumpy over the future weapon program
MdCN would be >$4m per missile (probably more than $5m at the moment). Tomahawk Block V is currently c$1.5m. Thats around 1/3rd of the cost, and its integration and entry to service for the RN would be immeasurably easier (and cheaper) as we already use it. The Block V also has greater number of target sets than MdCN, including moving targets at sea....

How much is keeping the French 'happy' actually worth? How about they keep us happy for once..

I would actually buy NSM and JSM though. 5 sets of NSM for ships (probably c40 missiles tops and 50/60 JSM for F-35 would be very nice...
This is the big question in terms of the future naval strike weapon

As you said MdCN shares many parts with storm shadow parts made in the UK do we turn our back on that to buy US

for the record I would have been happy to have fitted the 16 Mk-41 to T45 and filled them with Tomahawk Blk V and then fitted NSM to T-31 & 32

As for the french keeping us happy they think they do it to much just the same as we think we do them

SD67
Member
Posts: 382
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
Has liked: 4 times
Been liked: 7 times
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by SD67 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 30 Dec 2021, 14:21

1: Harpoon goes out in 2023. FC/ASW comes in 2028 on plan but highly probable to see a few years of delays. And, true "Gap" is between "the last Harpoon going out" and "the last new ASM coming in, not the first". As such, RN is highly likely to see 15-20 years Gap in ASM capability.
On closer reading of the linked article it suggests the gap is not so big.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/type-26 ... -missiles/

Key points
- Concept phase completed, including initial design activity
- "Key Review" successfully completed
- What sounds like Main gate scheduled for 2024
- UK spend to date is 95 million.

Sounds to me like the project has been sped up so they've decided to shelve the interim capability. ( or maybe the threat of an interim capability encouraged the team to pull its collective finger out) 200 million GBP spend to date should buy more than a few powerpoints.

This is a formal response by the Minister of Defence Procurement to a parliamentary question, if it's just wishful thinking then someone's in deep doo doo

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 4277
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Has liked: 24 times
Been liked: 31 times
Japan

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

SD67 wrote: 31 Dec 2021, 13:27... Key points
- Concept phase completed, including initial design activity
- "Key Review" successfully completed
- What sounds like Main gate scheduled for 2024
- UK spend to date is 95 million.

Sounds to me like the project has been sped up so they've decided to shelve the interim capability. ( or maybe the threat of an interim capability encouraged the team to pull its collective finger out) 200 million GBP spend to date should buy more than a few powerpoints.

This is a formal response by the Minister of Defence Procurement to a parliamentary question, if it's just wishful thinking then someone's in deep doo doo
Thanks. I've read it. For me, it looks the same to "FSSS be there by 2025" or "T31 be there by 2023 = the first T23 going out", "I-SSGW be fielded by 2023", Astutes, T23LIFEX, T45 PIP... The story continues. These were all also official comment. :thumbup:

In general, common sense prevails than official announcement, at least in schedule point of view.

At the beginning of T31 program, many here stated that "impossible", and the T31 entry is now planned to be 2027. Quite reasonable schedule, I think. The announced "2023" was a lie from its start.

Of course, there are possibilities that FC/ASW prototype is already flying but not yet announced. Or, FC/ASW might be less sophisticated than we think now. For example, just replacing the seeker and control electronics of existing StormShadow, or ASMP?

SD67
Member
Posts: 382
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
Has liked: 4 times
Been liked: 7 times
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by SD67 »

I was thinking maybe with a "One MBDA" approach they could be leveraging some of the tech that's been developed for Spear 3, Meteor etc hence the acceleration. Though your cynicism is probably warranted :-)

NickC
Senior Member
Posts: 1000
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 0
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by NickC »

The US Army developing the 500+ km PrSM, Precision Strike Missile, a replacement for the 300 km ATACMS (Army TACtical Missile System) developed back in the '80's following Trump's pull out from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) prohibits the US and Russia from possessing, producing, or deploying medium-range, ground-launched cruise missiles, with a range of between 500 kilometers and 5,500 kilometers.

Lockheed competed with and Raytheon for the contract, Lockheed won with new version of the 24" dia ? ATACMS that could be still fired from HIMARS. Raytheon had claimed their PrSM missile was thinner and sleeker and able to increase the loadout to two per pod, doubling the number able to be carried by M270 MLRS and M142 HIMARS ATACMS launchers, so my presumption the Raytheon missile was based on the 21" rocket motors developed for the SM-3 IIA/SM-6 IB. After the test firing trials Raytheon withdrew from the competition and have seen no hint of what the technical problems were with the Raytheon missiles that caused them to withdraw.

In a Navy context Mk41 VLS cell max dia missile it can fit is 21", you would have to use the near unique Mk57 VLS cells fitted only in the cancelled Zumwalts for the 24" dia PrSM. US Army targeting $1.5 million per PrSM missile, but US Army are also developing a follow-on variant with new seeker specifically developed for anti-ship mission with maneuverable warhead, IOC ~2025 for use in the Pacific, shades of the Chinese DF-21 the worlds first ant-ship ballistic missile.

Ballistic vs hypersonic missiles, it would appear hypersonic missiles with their new unproven tech glide bodies an order of magnitude more expensive than ballistic missiles, re earlier post when quoted the DoD estimated cost of the US Army / USN 34.5" dia (too large even for MK57 VLS) 2,800 km hypersonic missile at ~$100 million each, so question what's driving Radakin's thinking for taking the very, very expensive option of hypersonic missiles.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 4277
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Has liked: 24 times
Been liked: 31 times
Japan

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

NickC wrote: 31 Dec 2021, 15:30...
Ballistic vs hypersonic missiles, it would appear hypersonic missiles with their new unproven tech glide bodies an order of magnitude more expensive than ballistic missiles, re earlier post when quoted the DoD estimated cost of the US Army / USN 34.5" dia (too large even for MK57 VLS) 2,800 km hypersonic missile at ~$100 million each, so question what's driving Radakin's thinking for taking the very, very expensive option of hypersonic missiles.
That's why I thought he was talking about SM-6 Blk1B, as a Hypersonic missile within Mk.41 VLS.

I agree full-spec hypersonic missile is very very expensive and not affordable for RN. At $100M/unit (even more), it is like "shooting" a single F16V each time. :D

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1282
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Has liked: 16 times
Been liked: 20 times
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Scimitar54 »

Possible delivery vehicle for a future Tactical Nuke ? :mrgreen:

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2795
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by abc123 »

Tempest414 wrote: 30 Dec 2021, 11:07
abc123 wrote: 30 Dec 2021, 09:31
Tempest414 wrote: 30 Dec 2021, 06:01 We could buy a 100 Naval Storm Shadow from the French plus 16 sets of NSM to cover off anti ship and long range strike
Not without money. :think:

Come on people, the UK has no money to buy cheap subsonic missiles like NSMs and it definitly will not have the money to buy expencive super/hypersonic ones, you have to accept that the RN is done with ASMs for good.
I glove slap you sir for being rude to my navy ;)
HMG is being rude to RN, not me. :think:
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…

Gtal
Member
Posts: 66
Joined: 31 Dec 2018, 19:55
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
Germany

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Gtal »

The US are quite a bit behind on hypersonics for sure, and in missile tech generally the russians are clearly superior to anyone, because that's what they focused on to defend themselves against a qualitative and quantitative far superior US military machine.

IMO this is honestly the most awesome thing I have ever seen:


Post Reply