RN anti-ship missiles

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
wargame_insomniac
Member
Posts: 396
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
Has liked: 519 times
Been liked: 59 times
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by wargame_insomniac »

GarethDavies1 wrote: 11 Apr 2022, 09:59 Would LMM/Starstreak be a better alternative to Phalanx?
I wondered similar question before re SeaRAM. With modern Anti-Ship missiles being supersonic or even hypersonic, I worry that Phalanx CIWS is slowly losing it's effectiveness as last defence layer.

Even if Phalanx hits the incoming missile then due to Phalanx's short range, then fragments of faster missiles will travel further and could still potentially damage the ship.....

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1433
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Has liked: 67 times
Been liked: 89 times
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Scimitar54 »

When the USN starts to remove them from their CVNs, that will be the time that the game (for Phalanx) will be up, but not a moment before then. Perhaps you are suggesting a return to Goalkeeper! :mrgreen:

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7111
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 238 times
Been liked: 281 times
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Lord Jim »

Starstreak/LMM would not be a good replacement for Phalanx without significant upgrades to its targeting and guidance systems. The former are currently laser guided, and illuminating an incoming Mach 3+ missile with a laser designator that isn't linked in with the ships radar and CMS is basically impossible. Phalanx has both an in built radar and effective EO sensors, whilst RAM used a very effective IR seeker after being given the heads up by the Ships radar and CMS.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1250
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Has liked: 2 times
Been liked: 31 times
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by mr.fred »

Lord Jim wrote: 11 Apr 2022, 20:54 Starstreak/LMM would not be a good replacement for Phalanx without significant upgrades to its targeting and guidance systems. The former are currently laser guided, and illuminating an incoming Mach 3+ missile with a laser designator that isn't linked in with the ships radar and CMS is basically impossible. Phalanx has both an in built radar and effective EO sensors, whilst RAM used a very effective IR seeker after being given the heads up by the Ships radar and CMS.
Starstreak/LLM are not laser guided that needs to illuminate a target, they’re beam riders.

If you did want to use a laser guided missile like Hellfire against an incoming missile against a fairly featureless background you wouldn’t need to put an accurate spot on the incoming missile, you just scan the laser over a wide arc and the missile, being closer than anything else by a wide margin, will essentially be highlighted. Kind of like how a radar works, just a somewhat higher frequency.

But Starstreak/Martlet don’t work that way, they fly down a laser projected from the fire control, be that on- or off-mount.

Probably wouldn’t be precise or heavy enough to down an incoming missile though.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7111
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 238 times
Been liked: 281 times
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Lord Jim »

We are talking semantics here. What are the differences between a missile that rides a laser beams(s) and one that homes in on a laser pointed at a target, I am genuinely interested?

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 4446
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Has liked: 114 times
Been liked: 132 times
Japan

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Beam riders MUST follow straight trajectory between FCS and the target. Semi-active laser homing does not need to do so.

If you look at the movie of LMM Martlet and Star Streak shot, as well as OTO 76 mm STRALES rounds, you can see these missile is following straight trajectory. It is not easy to handle side-way moving targets (Modern SSM do maneuver side-way).

This is why RAM has IR-imaging for terminal guidance, I guess.
These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post:
Lord Jim

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1098
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
Has liked: 2 times
Been liked: 14 times
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by NickC »

My understanding CIWS Starstreak uses a SACLOS guidance system, Semi-Automatic Command to Line Of Sight, the operator has to continually point an optically stabilized sight at the target aided by an automatic target tracking lock on while the missile is in flight, the aiming unit projects two encoded laser beams onto the target creating a grid pattern with the central aiming point, the laser beam sensors on the rear of three darts calculating the relative positions until impact.

At such a short distance ~7 km Starstreak and high Mach ~3.5 expect it to average ~Mach 2 for max ~7 km, looking at 5 to 10 seconds for the operator to hold on target before impact.

Pros the encoded low power laser beam difficult to jam compared to IR MANPADS fire and forget when helicopters/aircraft fitted with DIRCM, disadvantage if fired from built up area or in trees you could lose LOS with need to continually hold laser on target, other thoughts?
These users liked the author NickC for the post:
Lord Jim

Garrincha123
Junior Member
Posts: 1
Joined: 23 Apr 2022, 20:59
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0
United States of America

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Garrincha123 »

Hello,Could someone tell me how many launcher vehicles carrying CAMM-ER missiles make up a battery,or division?I can deduce from photos on the internet that each launcher vehicle carry’s 8xmissiles each.Is this correct as well?I would also like to know of the differences between the land system in use between the British Army and the Italian Army.Thank you!

User avatar
ETH
Member
Posts: 69
Joined: 08 Apr 2021, 23:28
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 9 times
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by ETH »

Garrincha123 wrote: 23 Apr 2022, 21:03 Hello,Could someone tell me how many launcher vehicles carrying CAMM-ER missiles make up a battery,or division?I can deduce from photos on the internet that each launcher vehicle carry’s 8xmissiles each.Is this correct as well?I would also like to know of the differences between the land system in use between the British Army and the Italian Army.Thank you!
I couldn't tell you how many make up a battery or division. Although yes, it is 8 missiles per launcher vehicle. The difference between the British and Italian Army systems is that the Italian Army will use CAMM-ER (Extended Range), which uses a new Italian rocket booster to extend the range of the missile. The British Army, for now, uses the standard CAMM. CAMM-ER will be known as Albatross NG in Italy and is yet to enter service.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7111
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 238 times
Been liked: 281 times
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Lord Jim »

Each Launch Vehicle can carry up to twelve Sky Sabre missiles compared to the eight ER variants. Going by similar systems each Battery should contain one Radar platform, one Control platform and between three and four Launch platforms, all based on the same MAN HX Truck chassis. All of this is relatively easy to find in the Public domain if you would like to check it.

User avatar
ETH
Member
Posts: 69
Joined: 08 Apr 2021, 23:28
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 9 times
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by ETH »

Lord Jim wrote: 25 Apr 2022, 01:55 Each Launch Vehicle can carry up to twelve Sky Sabre missiles compared to the eight ER variants. Going by similar systems each Battery should contain one Radar platform, one Control platform and between three and four Launch platforms, all based on the same MAN HX Truck chassis. All of this is relatively easy to find in the Public domain if you would like to check it.
They may be able to carry 12 CAMMs, although for the British Army it will just be 8 per vehicle.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7111
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 238 times
Been liked: 281 times
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Lord Jim »

The launcher can hold up to twelve Sky Sabre missiles so the British Army can load them as required. If we adopted Albatross-NG though, each launch vehicle could then hold up to six Sky Sabre and four Albatross-NG for example.

leonard
Member
Posts: 116
Joined: 21 May 2016, 17:52
Has liked: 36 times
Been liked: 39 times
Italy

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by leonard »

Correct my if I am wrong but wasn't this one of the two Israel's anti-ship missile entry in the now cancelled Royal Navy interim Anti-ship program the ather I think was the Gabriel V.

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1098
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
Has liked: 2 times
Been liked: 14 times
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by NickC »

My impression Gabriel is an Israeli rip off the Harpoon, further developed and better suited to Israeli requirements.
Blue Spear - Wikipedia "In 2020, Israel's IAI and Singapore's ST Engineering started a 50/50 joint venture company called Proteus Advanced Systems to develop, produce and market a derivative of the Gabriel V called the Blue Spear missile system." Presume the Sea Serpent IAI offered to meet the cancelled RN SSGW requirement is a wholly IAI variant of the Blue Spear.

PS This month, India successfully flight tested the Mach 2.8 BrahMos extended range version launched from a Su-30 Mk1 fighter. "The range of the missile was originally capped at 290 km as per obligations of the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR)"

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/ ... 407651.ece
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
These users liked the author NickC for the post:
leonard

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7111
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 238 times
Been liked: 281 times
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Lord Jim »

I wouldn't call it a rip off. Gabriel entered service with the Israeli navy in the early 1970s whilst the USN was still developing Harpoon and in the interim was using a modified Standard SM-1 optimised for anti ship operations. It was used very effectively in the 1973 war sinking numerous Egyptian and Syrian Missile Boats that were themselves armed with Russian Stryx AShMs.

Correcting a typo it is the SU-30 MKI with "I" standing for India I believe.

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 2546
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Has liked: 53 times
Been liked: 145 times
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Timmymagic »

leonard wrote: 14 May 2022, 14:40 Correct my if I am wrong but wasn't this one of the two Israel's anti-ship missile entry in the now cancelled Royal Navy interim Anti-ship program the ather I think was the Gabriel V.
Yes, as NickC notes though its essentially Gabriel V, but IAI marketing it themselves. It might have slightly more capability at land attack.

I suspect the UK may have had some involvement in the Estonian offer to transfer a battery to Ukraine...

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1098
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
Has liked: 2 times
Been liked: 14 times
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by NickC »

Lord Jim wrote: 15 May 2022, 20:09 I wouldn't call it a rip off. Gabriel entered service with the Israeli navy in the early 1970s whilst the USN was still developing Harpoon and in the interim was using a modified Standard SM-1 optimised for anti ship operations. It was used very effectively in the 1973 war sinking numerous Egyptian and Syrian Missile Boats that were themselves armed with Russian Stryx AShMs.

Correcting a typo it is the SU-30 MKI with "I" standing for India I believe.
Thanks for your note on the Su-30 MkI (India)

What prompted my comment re the Gabriel was the Corporal Frisk Finish blog that notes that Gabriel V "Comparison between non-ER RGM-84 Harpoon (cyan) and ANAM/Gabriel V (dark blue). Notably the ANAM has the engine slightly more forward, but otherwise the two match surprisingly closely both when looking at internal compartments and external features // and almost "impossible to externally differentiate from the Harpoon"

To be noted Finland purchased Gabriel V's for its four Pohjanmaa Class 3.900t 'Corvettes', Gabriel V ~ 40 % cheaper than Boeing bid with Harpoon.

PS I rate Corporal Frisk's blog, writes some well researched articles.

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

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7111
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 238 times
Been liked: 281 times
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Lord Jim »

Gabriel V and its derivatives ae true 5th generation AShMs. it has multiple guidance modes and can be fully networked allowing guidance to be handed off to others. It is designed specifically for congested waterways as well as have a decent land attack capability. As usual the Israelis have taken an off shore weapon and then developed a similar but superior weapons system. They have also done this to ATGWs such as TOW and AAMs like Sidewinder.

AS proposed it would have made a good interim AShM for the Royal Navy and a good alternative to weapons like the NSM and Rb-15 Mk4, all of which are superior to the latest version of Harpoon, in my opinion anyway.
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post:
donald_of_tokyo

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7111
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 238 times
Been liked: 281 times
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Lord Jim »

Looking at Xav's latest video, he discusses the Lockheed Martin LRASM and how it is being adopted by the RAAF for its Super Hornets. Interesting though that is, what is more so id the version of the LRASM that can be fired from a "Strike" length MK41 VLS, initially using the same booster as VL-ASROC. Also shown was a canister launched version which could be quad mounted like the Harpoon for ships that do not have a MK41. If LM can do this for its LRASM, MBDA should be able to something similar with the LRASM either for the MK41 or Sylver or canister, or all of the above. LRASM will be its greatest rival if it is taken as part of its family of stand off weapons. WE need to buy enough though if the programme delivers. Australia is already buying 200 LRASM just for its F-18E/F/G, so we need to be buying at least double that if FCASW is to serve with both the Royal Nav and Royal Air Force!

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 2546
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Has liked: 53 times
Been liked: 145 times
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Timmymagic »

Lord Jim wrote: 16 May 2022, 19:42 If LM can do this for its LRASM, MBDA should be able to something similar with the LRASM either for the MK41 or Sylver or canister, or all of the above. LRASM will be its greatest rival if it is taken as part of its family of stand off weapons.
MBDA have stated that FCASW will be integrated to mk.41 and Sylver launchers so no worries in that regard. I wouldn't worry too much about canisters though (although MBDA have mentioned that as well). Anything important enough to get FCASW will have VL. What FCASW needs to be from day 1 or very soon after launch is VL compatible, Sub-launch compatible, land launched and air launched. Getting all that out there straight away would open the market up.

We need to avoid LRASM entirely as that would cause political issues for FCASW...

Incidentally the reports over Blue Spear AShM from Estonia to Ukraine appear to be incorrect. Estonia apparently haven't received their land batteries yet and its been denied all round. It appears to be a rumour like the UK Harpoon's...
These users liked the author Timmymagic for the post:
SD67

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1098
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
Has liked: 2 times
Been liked: 14 times
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by NickC »

Would note USN funded integration of the LRASM on the F-18 SH and declared EOC, Early Operational Capability Dec 2019, Australia planning to purchase LRSAM's for its F-18's. Thales Australia is currently developing a booster to enable the LRASM to be launched from Mk41 VLS cell in cooperation with Lockheed.

Australia also purchasing the Kongsberg JSM for its F-35A's which will incorporate the BAE Australia Passive Radio Frequency Sensors in addition to its standard passive IR seeker.

PS IIRC Norway made it a condition of their F-35A buy that the JSM would integrated on delivery (F-35B Spear 3 2029?), JSM too long to fit in F-35B short weapons bay.

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 2546
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Has liked: 53 times
Been liked: 145 times
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Timmymagic »

NickC wrote: 17 May 2022, 11:07
PS IIRC Norway made it a condition of their F-35A buy that the SM would integrated on delivery (F-35B Spear 3 2029?), JSM too long to fit in F-35B short weapons bay.
They got stiffed like everyone else I'm afraid....JSM is still not integrated, it has been carried and drop tested by F-35A....but the Norwegian's I believe have now got all of their F-35A in service....last date on JSM operational date on F-35A (and its not clear if it is being integrated onto external and F-35B uses at the same time) was to be c2024...but that was before the recent pushback on Block IV. I suspect its more like 25/26 now.

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1098
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
Has liked: 2 times
Been liked: 14 times
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by NickC »

Timmymagic wrote: 17 May 2022, 13:16
NickC wrote: 17 May 2022, 11:07
PS IIRC Norway made it a condition of their F-35A buy that the SM would integrated on delivery (F-35B Spear 3 2029?), JSM too long to fit in F-35B short weapons bay.
They got stiffed like everyone else I'm afraid....JSM is still not integrated, it has been carried and drop tested by F-35A....but the Norwegian's I believe have now got all of their F-35A in service....last date on JSM operational date on F-35A (and its not clear if it is being integrated onto external and F-35B uses at the same time) was to be c2024...but that was before the recent pushback on Block IV. I suspect its more like 25/26 now.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7111
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 238 times
Been liked: 281 times
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Lord Jim »

Iseriously doubt we will ever buy enough FCASW when it is finally ready for production. We might get say eight per ship that will use it. I cannot see the T-31 receiving it unless is has an overall increase in combat capability, a cheaper canister launched weapon would probably be better. Therefore assuming the five T-32 are built, and unlike the T-45 the T-83 will carry AShMs and six ships are built we could buy as few as 160 in its VL form for the Royal Navy. I believe as a minimum we should be buying half as much again of this variant so that at least a number of reloads are available if needed, so say 250.

Dobbo
Member
Posts: 55
Joined: 08 Apr 2021, 07:41
Has liked: 16 times
Been liked: 9 times
United Kingdom

Re: RN anti-ship missiles

Post by Dobbo »

My assumption is that the lessons learned, changed geopolitical position and political pressure arising from the Ukraine war will lead to what I would describe as a proper level of investment in the existing U.K. capabilities which will reduce the prevalence of FFBNW on RN vessels.

I hope this means that each RN ship has a SSM capability (whether that is FCASW or LRASM or similar) because even if we don’t want to rely on it it means an adversary has to plan around that capability.

This should mean that (in conjunction with France and possibly OZ) we can have a sufficient war stock.

Post Reply