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 »

So when take in what has been said what could Type 45 look like if we went to town on weapons without cutting the ship up

1) add the 16 Mk-41 cells
2) replace the 30mm and Phalanx with 40mm + 3P
3) replace Harpoon with NSM
4) quad pack CAMM into A50 VLS
5) buy a shock of SM-6 Blk 1B and Tomahawk Blk-V
6 replace the Mk-8 gun with a 127mm

these could allow Type 45 to carry 1 x 127mm , 4 x 40mm , 32 x Aster 30 , 64 x CAMM , 8 x SM-6 Blk-1B , 8 x Tomahawk V , 8 x NSM

in simple terms a very good gun fit , 96 x Air defence missiles , 16 x Mid and long range ship & land attack missiles and 8 x Hypersonic anti ship missiles

Dobbo
Member
Posts: 41
Joined: 08 Apr 2021, 07:41
Has liked: 2 times
Been liked: 2 times
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Dobbo »

I suspect what this illustrates is that the RN is much more likely to want to pursue future weapons systems fits that are based on US rather than European.

This may not be apparent until the T83 but I think the points in this thread draw out many of the issues that are likely to lead to that conclusion and decision.

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 »

Further thoughts on Radakin's decision to forgo current gen anti-ship missile in preference to delaying and developing an all new hypersonic missile.

The Russian Tsirkon (3M22) is a ~ 8 to 12m? hypersonic missile maneuvering anti-ship missile, scramjet powered (vs the US Army/USN hypersonic land attack missile with use of a solid rocket booster and glide body), and claimed to reach a speeds of Mach 8/9 and fly at an altitude of 30-40 km where the range and speed increase due to low air resistance, max range quoted as ~400km. Warhead estimated as 300-400 kg, fired from the Russian newer universal vertical launchers 3S14 fitted on both its warships and submarines plus Bastion mobile coastal system, can be either fitted as either VLS or inclined deck container. Dec 14, Russian Northern Fleet is the first to get storage and maintenance facility for Tsirkon missiles in priority over their Baltic, Black Sea and Pacific fleets.

So would a ramjet/scramjet powered hypersonic missile be an order of magnitude less expensive than a solid rocket booster plus glide body, have no specs of the size of the Russian 3S14 launcher but impression its larger than a Mk41 and take much heavier missiles so assume RN missile will not be able to match the Tsirkon range of 400km? Hypersonic speed is usually defined as Mach 5 plus, NASA states ramjet propelled vehicles operate from about Mach 3 to Mach 6, scramjets envisioned to operate at speeds up to at least Mach 15, though ground tests of scramjet have shown potential, but to date no flight tests have surpassed the Mach 9.6 scramjet X-43A in flight. Another consideration is the rule of thumb that kinetic energy quadruple when speed doubles, so would appear you could build a Mach 5/6 hypersonic missile with a ramjet, avoiding the expense and complications of a scramjet, begs the question does any UK research establishment or company have the knowhow/expertise to build a Mach 5 ramjet for a hypersonic missile, last use remember of a UK ramjet was for Bloodhound from the 1950's.
PS Wikipedia X-43 - A winged booster rocket with the X-43 placed on top, called a "stack", was drop launched from a Boeing B-52 Stratofortress. After the booster rocket (a modified first stage of the Pegasus rocket) brought the stack to the target speed and altitude, it was discarded, and the X-43 flew free using its own engine, a scramjet.
The first plane in the series, the X-43A, was a single-use vehicle, of which three were built. The first X-43A was destroyed after malfunctioning in flight in 2001. Each of the other two flew successfully in 2004, setting speed records, with the scramjets operating for approximately 10 seconds followed by 10-minute glides and intentional crashes into the ocean.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

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 »

Dobbo wrote: 01 Jan 2022, 13:09 I suspect what this illustrates is that the RN is much more likely to want to pursue future weapons systems fits that are based on US rather than European.

This may not be apparent until the T83 but I think the points in this thread draw out many of the issues that are likely to lead to that conclusion and decision.
If you think that RN is most likely to serve in a combined task force, even if we are supplying the core of a CSG it is likely to be with allied escorts, then worth considering who that is likely to be with.

Other than obvious option of USA, if in North Atlantic likely to be with Canada or maybe Norway if reinforcing North Flank, in Med likely to be France or maybe Italy, in Pacific most likely to be Australia / Singapore / Malaysia or maybe France / Netherlands / New Zealand. i.e. either fellow NATO members or under Five Power Defence Arrangement.

So before considering navies such as Japan or South Korea, most of them likely to be using US missiles apart from France / Italy. So it would help if we moved towards fitting Mk41 VLS and chose missiles that were at least compatible with Mk41 VLS.

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 »

Tempest414 wrote: 01 Jan 2022, 11:49 So when take in what has been said what could Type 45 look like if we went to town on weapons without cutting the ship up

1) add the 16 Mk-41 cells
2) replace the 30mm and Phalanx with 40mm + 3P
3) replace Harpoon with NSM
4) quad pack CAMM into A50 VLS
5) buy a shock of SM-6 Blk 1B and Tomahawk Blk-V
6 replace the Mk-8 gun with a 127mm

these could allow Type 45 to carry 1 x 127mm , 4 x 40mm , 32 x Aster 30 , 64 x CAMM , 8 x SM-6 Blk-1B , 8 x Tomahawk V , 8 x NSM

in simple terms a very good gun fit , 96 x Air defence missiles , 16 x Mid and long range ship & land attack missiles and 8 x Hypersonic anti ship missiles
Well you have maybe 5 years to persuade MoD to do the above rather than the intended 2026 refit for addition of a 24 cell silo of CAMM.....

Of course it would be easier knowing the likely financial purchase and upkeep cost of all the above *6 T45 ships, plus any additionl crew required. But it does sound good and would make the T45's closer to the all-rounder abilities of the Arleigh Burke, albeit still focussed towards AAW in both cases.

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 »

In a more radical chain of thought regarding the T-45 I would replace the Mk8 with a full capability 57mm. and replace the helicopter hanger with between six and eight eight cell Mk41 VLS, retaining the flight deck though. The Harpoons would be replaced by at least eight NSM though I would retain Phalanx as CAMM would be used as the main point defence missile filling two of the Mk41s with 64 weapons. The Radar and CMS would be upgraded to provide ABM capability and a co-operative engagement system would be fitted. Additional EO and IR sensors would be fitted to cover high angles of attack that will be required to deal with ballistic threats. This would give the modified T-45 a missile compliment of 48 Aster-30, 64 CAMM and 48 other missiles. Tomahawk and SM-6 Blk 1B would be a good starting point and would boost the vessels anti ship and land attack capabilities. Both the Aster and SM-6 would contribute to the ABM capability though the former would need to be ungraded.

Losing the Helicopter would be a shock for the RN but is the T-45s are in future only operated either as part of the Carrier Group or partnered with another escort or RFA this will not be a problem. A I said this is a radical idea but would be possible if very unlikely.

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 »

Lord Jim wrote: 01 Jan 2022, 18:34 In a more radical chain of thought regarding the T-45 I would replace the Mk8 with a full capability 57mm. and replace the helicopter hanger with between six and eight eight cell Mk41 VLS, retaining the flight deck though. The Harpoons would be replaced by at least eight NSM though I would retain Phalanx as CAMM would be used as the main point defence missile filling two of the Mk41s with 64 weapons. The Radar and CMS would be upgraded to provide ABM capability and a co-operative engagement system would be fitted. Additional EO and IR sensors would be fitted to cover high angles of attack that will be required to deal with ballistic threats. This would give the modified T-45 a missile compliment of 48 Aster-30, 64 CAMM and 48 other missiles. Tomahawk and SM-6 Blk 1B would be a good starting point and would boost the vessels anti ship and land attack capabilities. Both the Aster and SM-6 would contribute to the ABM capability though the former would need to be ungraded.

Losing the Helicopter would be a shock for the RN but is the T-45s are in future only operated either as part of the Carrier Group or partnered with another escort or RFA this will not be a problem. A I said this is a radical idea but would be possible if very unlikely.
Wow. Truly radical for this point in time. It might be that by the time the T83 get launched sometime after 2037, when hopefully the advancements in UAV/USV/USuV will mean that we don't need pilotted helicopters.

Anyway would the T45's have enough power for all that, even after PIP Improvements??!!
:)

JohnM
Donator
Posts: 109
Joined: 15 Apr 2020, 19:39
Has liked: 2 times
Been liked: 7 times
United States of America

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by JohnM »

I'd be happy if they just put 8 NSM-class canister-launched SSMs in the T45s and T31s and then FC/ASW in the T26s and T32s… nice hi-lo mix of SSMs…

serge750
Member
Posts: 841
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34
Has liked: 18 times
Been liked: 3 times

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by serge750 »

As the T45 will be getting CAMM near the asters, along Lord jim's idea, omit the hanger ( keeping the flight deck ) & use the space for a few Mk 41 silo's for whatever weapons are needed including anti ship missiles, wouldn't want to spend to much money on them as they are halfway through their life & the mk 41 silo's could be transferred to other ships after they have left service, since we seem to be going down the mk41 route ... :thumbup:

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 »

Unless any additional desired changes can be effected within the existing timeframes for PIP or CAMM insertion, they are not a good idea for the T45s. Lack of availability due to the length of both PIP and CAMM insertion, together with insufficient T45s in the Fleet anyway, mean that this proposal is a non-starter. With the increasing chronological age of the vessels, the value of further periods of modification is even less sensible.

Depending on the AShM chosen the best course of action is to fit sufficient Mk41 (or other relevant) VLS Silos to ALL RN escort vessels to enable the fit out of missiles to fit the deployment, giving maximum flexibility. :mrgreen:

Dahedd
Member
Posts: 613
Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:18
Has liked: 16 times
Been liked: 1 time

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Dahedd »

A type 45 as described by Lord Jim would be a nasty dedicated carrier escort, losing the Wildcat wouldnt be much of an issue given the air assets on the carrier. Fabulous idea but it'll never happen.

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 »

Scimitar54 wrote: 02 Jan 2022, 02:48 Unless any additional desired changes can be effected within the existing timeframes for PIP or CAMM insertion, they are not a good idea for the T45s. Lack of availability due to the length of both PIP and CAMM insertion, together with insufficient T45s in the Fleet anyway, mean that this proposal is a non-starter. With the increasing chronological age of the vessels, the value of further periods of modification is even less sensible.

Depending on the AShM chosen the best course of action is to fit sufficient Mk41 (or other relevant) VLS Silos to ALL RN escort vessels to enable the fit out of missiles to fit the deployment, giving maximum flexibility. :mrgreen:
I agree - I doubt there is much appetite to invest big in T45 at this stage. PIP and quad packed CAMM will be it (what happened to CEC?). In a perfect world new technologies for T83 would be tried out and de-risked onT45 but power generation might be an issue!

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2556
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 4 times
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by dmereifield »

SD67 wrote: 02 Jan 2022, 11:26
Scimitar54 wrote: 02 Jan 2022, 02:48 Unless any additional desired changes can be effected within the existing timeframes for PIP or CAMM insertion, they are not a good idea for the T45s. Lack of availability due to the length of both PIP and CAMM insertion, together with insufficient T45s in the Fleet anyway, mean that this proposal is a non-starter. With the increasing chronological age of the vessels, the value of further periods of modification is even less sensible.

Depending on the AShM chosen the best course of action is to fit sufficient Mk41 (or other relevant) VLS Silos to ALL RN escort vessels to enable the fit out of missiles to fit the deployment, giving maximum flexibility. :mrgreen:
I agree - I doubt there is much appetite to invest big in T45 at this stage. PIP and quad packed CAMM will be it (what happened to CEC?). In a perfect world new technologies for T83 would be tried out and de-risked onT45 but power generation might be an issue!
Quad packed CAMM might not even be on the cards, won't we see more mushrooms instead?

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 thought that was the way they were being installed, 4x6 "Mushroom" cells where the Mk41s were at one stage going to be, between the two rows of Sylver VLS, or at least that is where I thought they were. Anyway maybe my "Radical" T-45 could be where the T-83 might start from, who knows. If the T-26 and other Escorts are able to launch the SM-6 from their Mk41 vls to compliment their CAMM inventory, the T-83 being dedicated as a Carrier Escort could use the substantial space taken up by a hanger for additional VLS and/or AShM canisters. But all of this is dependant on the RN actually getting a new AShM in service or are they going to be repeatedly looking for he next great thing and never actually place an order whilst still spending money or assessing what is available and trying to develop a weapon. Interim, FCASW, Hypersonics, could match the Army's Marathon to get from Tracer to Ajax with nothing entering service until the latter part of the 2030s or later. I hope not.

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 »

Lord Jim wrote: 03 Jan 2022, 01:27 I thought that was the way they were being installed, 4x6 "Mushroom" cells where the Mk41s were at one stage going to be, between the two rows of Sylver VLS, or at least that is where I thought they were. Anyway maybe my "Radical" T-45 could be where the T-83 might start from, who knows. If the T-26 and other Escorts are able to launch the SM-6 from their Mk41 vls to compliment their CAMM inventory, the T-83 being dedicated as a Carrier Escort could use the substantial space taken up by a hanger for additional VLS and/or AShM canisters. But all of this is dependant on the RN actually getting a new AShM in service or are they going to be repeatedly looking for he next great thing and never actually place an order whilst still spending money or assessing what is available and trying to develop a weapon. Interim, FCASW, Hypersonics, could match the Army's Marathon to get from Tracer to Ajax with nothing entering service until the latter part of the 2030s or later. I hope not.
Tempest414 wrote: 01 Jan 2022, 11:49 So when take in what has been said what could Type 45 look like if we went to town on weapons without cutting the ship up

1) add the 16 Mk-41 cells
2) replace the 30mm and Phalanx with 40mm + 3P
3) replace Harpoon with NSM
4) quad pack CAMM into A50 VLS
5) buy a shock of SM-6 Blk 1B and Tomahawk Blk-V
6 replace the Mk-8 gun with a 127mm

these could allow Type 45 to carry 1 x 127mm , 4 x 40mm , 32 x Aster 30 , 64 x CAMM , 8 x SM-6 Blk-1B , 8 x Tomahawk V , 8 x NSM

in simple terms a very good gun fit , 96 x Air defence missiles , 16 x Mid and long range ship & land attack missiles and 8 x Hypersonic anti ship missiles
Both interesting points. So, to avoid "Interim, FCASW, Hypersonics, could match the Army's Marathon to get from Tracer to Ajax with nothing entering service...", and to make Tempest414-san's proposal "a bit more affordable", I shall propose to modify T45 with

modest upgrade T45 plan
1) add the 16 Mk-41 cells
2) N/A
3) locate the 24-CAMM system on place of Harpoon SSM
4) fill all 48 A50VLS with Aster 30 (better be NT)
5) buy a stock of SM-6 Blk 1B to fill the Mk.41 VLS (but not TLAM)
6) replace the Mk-8 gun with a 57mm gun with 3P+ALaMo (to reduce top weight)

Basic idea here is to adopt SM6 Blk 1B as a
- "mini-hypersonic ASM" and
- "BMD" missile, as well as
- "very-long-range SAM" ("snipe" patrol aircrafts/AWACS, at high (10 km) altitude near the horizon (~450 km afar)).
So it covers BOTH "add BMD to T45" and "replace Harpoon SSM" issues.

As item-3 is just the "CAMM for T45" project (just with different location of the canister), it is cost-free.

So, the added cost needed will be item-1, item-5, and item-6. Among them, item-6 will be cheap, and item-1 and 5 combined will be expensive (VLS will be not so expensive, but its just a box. You need front-end electric boxes, new software integrated into T45 CMS, adding SM-6 specific data-link antenna, in addition to buying a few dozens of ~£4M/unit expensive SM-6 Blk 1B).

Still not easy from budget point of view, but it does address several key points of capability-vacancy in RN. Harpoon SSM replacement, hyper-sonic SSM (mini), and BMD. It can also be "fielded" by 2027 or so. SM-6 Blk1B can also be installed in T26's Mk.41VLS, to pretend "she has SSM", until the (highly-probably delaying) FC/ASW. :D

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 »

Again this would be a good starting point for the T-83 with maybe the Sylver VLS being replaced by six more Mk41 VLS.

But I still do not like this idea of gapping a crucial capability for at least ten years, and that is hoping FCASW is still to provide the lower tier AShM capability followed by some sort of Hypersonic weapon. Until then, once Harpoon is retired a RN Warship when being challenged by a hostile vessel, will not be able to threaten the latter and so have to rely on its defensive loadout whilst it retires to a safer location.

The fact that the RN has not had to use a ship fired AShM since their introduction is not a really sound basis to work from. Other nations have used them during that time, and the proliferation of advanced weapons continues a pace. You do not judge a Navy on how good its defences are , though that seems to be our way of doing so.

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 »

Lord Jim wrote: 04 Jan 2022, 14:46 Again this would be a good starting point for the T-83 with maybe the Sylver VLS being replaced by six more Mk41 VLS.

But I still do not like this idea of gapping a crucial capability for at least ten years, and that is hoping FCASW is still to provide the lower tier AShM capability followed by some sort of Hypersonic weapon. Until then, once Harpoon is retired a RN Warship when being challenged by a hostile vessel, will not be able to threaten the latter and so have to rely on its defensive loadout whilst it retires to a safer location.

The fact that the RN has not had to use a ship fired AShM since their introduction is not a really sound basis to work from. Other nations have used them during that time, and the proliferation of advanced weapons continues a pace. You do not judge a Navy on how good its defences are , though that seems to be our way of doing so.
Share your concern. Then, cancel I-SSGW (which is now paused), and just upgrade Harpoon to Blk II+ (new missile, as the old one might be too old to be upgraded).

The Harpoon Block II+ provides a rapid-capability enhancement for the Navy that includes a new GPS guidance kit, reliability and survivability of the weapon, a new data link interface that enables in-flight updates, improved target selectivity, an abort option and enhanced resistance to electronic countermeasures. (ref: https://www.navy.mil/Resources/Fact-Fil ... n-missile/)

Although clearly NOT meeting the I-SSGW requirement, I think it is not a bad option.

RN do not need to buy it in number, maybe ~50 (new? or upgrade?) missiles and ~8 launch systems upgrade are enough (say, 4 each for 8 systems, + spare). Anyway, RN has only ~12 escorts fully manned, and not all of them needs SSM. It will not cost much, somewhere around ~£100M (guesstimate).

To make this happen, FC/ASW program might be pushed back by 5 years or so (from cost point of view), but this interim capability will enable it.
These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post:
wargame_insomniac

Jdam
Member
Posts: 497
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:26
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 2 times
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Jdam »

Lord Jim wrote: 04 Jan 2022, 14:46
The fact that the RN has not had to use a ship fired AShM since their introduction is not a really sound basis to work from. Other nations have used them during that time, and the proliferation of advanced weapons continues a pace. You do not judge a Navy on how good its defences are , though that seems to be our way of doing so.
That is why I favor something with dual capability for our interm solution, if its anti ship and has land attached it would be a good cover till the FC/ASW. I would be surprised if we went 10 years without launching another cruise missile at something or someone.

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: 04 Jan 2022, 15:41 Share your concern. Then, cancel I-SSGW (which is now paused), and just upgrade Harpoon to Blk II+ (new missile, as the old one might be too old to be upgraded).

The Harpoon Block II+ provides a rapid-capability enhancement for the Navy that includes a new GPS guidance kit, reliability and survivability of the weapon, a new data link interface that enables in-flight updates, improved target selectivity, an abort option and enhanced resistance to electronic countermeasures. (ref: https://www.navy.mil/Resources/Fact-Fil ... n-missile/)

Although clearly NOT meeting the I-SSGW requirement, I think it is not a bad option.

RN do not need to buy it in number, maybe ~50 (new? or upgrade?) missiles and ~8 launch systems upgrade are enough (say, 4 each for 8 systems, + spare). Anyway, RN has only ~12 escorts fully manned, and not all of them needs SSM. It will not cost much, somewhere around ~£100M (guesstimate).

To make this happen, FC/ASW program might be pushed back by 5 years or so (from cost point of view), but this interim capability will enable it.
Upgrading the T45's to have Harpoon Block II+ Canisters sounds sensible and is what the USN is doing to their Arleigh Burke's. Interesting that USN is choosing to use Kongsberg's NSM in VLS launchers for their LCS and new Frigates.

I found this article comparing NSM to Harpoon Block II+:
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... -missiles/

It looks as if Harpoon II+ has longer range and bigger warhead, whilst NSM is cheaper and can be fitted in Mk41 VLS. Ir would be good if each RN escort had one or other to have some over the horizon Anti-Ship capability.

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 »

All renderings show that both LCS classes and Constellation class will have canister launched NSM

as for Harpoon blk 11 I would be happy with 10 sets spilt between T-45 and T-31

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 »

NSM is much more sophisticated weapon than Harpoon. It has much better guidance (imaging and identifying the target) with 2-way datalink enabling "man-in-the-loop abort" or "change target" options. There is no plan for VL-type NSM nor JSM (JSM had some rumor, but I see no update), so it is canister missile (on which I see no problem. Modern RN escorts are so large that locating NSM canister is very easy).

Harpoon has just a simple radar (not good at identifying the target). BlkII+ (Q-4) has a data-link so that "abort" is enabled. It is also GPS-guided if used for land-attack, do not have any other means to guide (its radar is not effective on ground targets, in many cases). Of course, GPS is a jam-tolerant version (to some extent).

So the merit of the latter is "easier introduction", because RN has Harpoon, and all other navies are updating their Harpoon to BlkII and/or BlkII+ standard. Must be relatively cheap and fast, but less efficient. (may be not good against modern escorts, but good enough against many of the lower tier navies).

Anyway, the first FC/ASW are said to come in 2027 (I guess will be around 2030), but this date is NOT important. What is important is when the last FC/ASW comes in. At the earliest, it is 2036 or 37 (when the last T26 comes in). At the latest, it will be around 2050 (when the last T45 decommissions, which must be only 2-4 year before the first T26 decommissions for "continuous complex-ship building".

So the I-SSGW has a life as long as 15 years at the shortest, and 25+ years at the longest. Long enough to invest, to my understanding. (but RN is to "pause" the program...)
These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post (total 2):
Lord Jimwargame_insomniac

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 »

Based on past programmes, whatever results from the FCASW programme is going to be expensive and regardless of how many the RN end up buying the RAF is certain to by sufficient to replace its inventory of Storm Shadow Missiles. The way things are the MoD may see the RAF's purchase as the priority given how it and HMG like to use airpower as a way of supporting our allies without getting our hands dirty so to speak.

The RN will need to run a contest when FCASW is ready, to make sure the RN is getting the best weapon for the Job. If the RAF purchase it this should be seen as separate, as any missile they purchase will be supported mainly by industry with little done in house, so little infrastructure will be needed or built. Therefore there will be very little to be gained by the RN operating the same weapon instead of an alternative. IF the RN can get a weapon that is as effective or more so but cheaper it should consider this as we will certainly need more then one set per Warship and future vessels may need to carry twelve or sixteen missiles instead of the eight sometimes carried now. This means we should be looking at a purchase of between 250 and 300 Missiles. This number will increase if their land attack role is utilised on a regular basis as numbers will need to be replenished.

To this we will need to add the cost of acquiring a Hyper Sonic weapon, as the RN wishes to, which will certainly be just as expensive as the FCASW if not more. If the RN was to change its mind and proceed with the interim missile, we would get a weapon that is up to date and most likely has plenty of growth potential remaining. We could also have such a weapon in service before 2025. If that weapon were then put against the FCASW when it is ready, as I believe it should be, the RN will be able to make a considered choice. We would still be a purchasing partner in the programme as the RAF will still by FCASW, but the Nay will have options.

My preference would be for the RN to make an initial purchase of NSM now for entry into service no later then 2025. I would then make yearly purchases to being our inventory up to the level needed to coincide with the entry into service of the T-26 and T31. Both could carry at least eight weapon in their canisters and more if they are able to use their Mk41s, assuming the T-31 ends up with these. Of course other AShMs other then FCASW and NSM should compete for the follow orders post 2025, but whatever is chosen the RN will still be operating a viable weapon system whish could remain in service and compliment the new weapons purchased. A T-26 having eight NSM in canisters and a further eight weapons in its Mk41 would be a very capable surface combatant.
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post (total 2):
wargame_insomniacJensy

Dahedd
Member
Posts: 613
Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:18
Has liked: 16 times
Been liked: 1 time

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Dahedd »

Thinking about Lord Jims hypothetical T45 refit.

Hows about:-
1. smaller 57mm gun up front as on T31.
2. Mk41 launcher in front of current set up where i believe it was always intended fitted with SM-8 & Asroc.
3. Full load of Aster30 in the current silo.
4. Ditch the hanger as Jim suggested. If air asset is a must then have a dog house with a rotary UAV.
5. Utilise space where larger hanger was as a "mushroom farm" or ideally max out on CAMM.
6. Retain full size landing pad to allow for replenishment & lilypadding/refueling.

It'll never happen but I was pondering It while walking the hounds.

User avatar
Jensy
Member
Posts: 578
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
Has liked: 35 times
Been liked: 4 times
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Jensy »

Lord Jim wrote: 05 Jan 2022, 17:08 The RN will need to run a contest when FCASW is ready, to make sure the RN is getting the best weapon for the Job.
As amusing as this might be for the likely French reaction, the diplomatic fallout would be huge. France will take any hesitancy as blood in the water and snap up as much workshare as they can get away with.

On top of which, the RAF seem keen on a slow stealthy missile. Should the RN come across as shaky then the balance will swing against the UK side. As you say above the RAF might be given priority due to numbers and if they're not happy then the programme is doomed.

If by some small mercy FC/ASW actually gets into production, and we're still an equal partner, then there's not going to be a whiff of open competition. Though I'm sure a 'Plan B' will be dropped into conversation whenever negotiations go sideways.

Does anyone know if the French are developing a box launcher?

JohnM
Donator
Posts: 109
Joined: 15 Apr 2020, 19:39
Has liked: 2 times
Been liked: 7 times
United States of America

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by JohnM »

As far as I understand it, the AShM version of FC/ASW is supposed to be box-launched and the LR land attack version will be VLS-launched. The French have a relatively recent LR land attack cruise missile and they don’t want to spend any more of their (relatively few) VLS cells on the anti-ship version, so they're looking at 1-1 replacement of Exocet in canister launchers… I read it somewhere, don’t ask me where (it may have been in Navy Lookout when they were still Save the Royal Navy)... if true, the RN could eventually use the Mk-41 on the T26s for the land attack version and place the AShM in boxed launchers somewhere else, like the Australians and Canadians will do...
These users liked the author JohnM for the post:
Jensy

Post Reply