UK Defence Forum

SW1 wrote:What procurement gap? Is there not an mdba program for a harpoon replacement with France currently with funding?

there may not be a Procurement gap but there will be a F-in great capability gap if I-SSGW is not dropped into the fleet and given we now have two carriers to protect I see it as a must

Yet again piss poor management if we wanted a weapon to replace Harpoon we should have fucking got on with it

Tempest414 wrote:Yet again piss poor management if we wanted a weapon to replace Harpoon we should have fucking got on with it

I thought we had got on with it, namely I-SSGW followed by FCASW.

I think I-SSGW delivers were originally to begin this year.

Maybe we needed an intern solution for our intern solution

J. Tattersall wrote:

Tempest414 wrote:Yet again piss poor management if we wanted a weapon to replace Harpoon we should have fucking got on with it

I thought we had got on with it, namely I-SSGW followed by FCASW.

But we haven't though. Harpoon 1C is already outdated, FCASW is going to be at least another ten years, I-SSGW is already delayed and we are paying babcocks extra money to extended the contract on Harpoon 1C for little capability.

J. Tattersall wrote:

Tempest414 wrote:Yet again piss poor management if we wanted a weapon to replace Harpoon we should have fucking got on with it

I thought we had got on with it, namely I-SSGW followed by FCASW.

Harpoon was on the capability cliff 10 years ago had we gone for navel SCALP then with a view to development of FCASW that would be one thing but we did nothing and now we are looking around for a gap filler

Tempest414 wrote:Harpoon was on the capability cliff 10 years ago had we gone for navel SCALP then

How would SCALP Navale help? It's a land attack cruise missile not an antiship missile like Harpoon.

As said harpoon was falling off the capability cliff maybe as far back as 2008 the french went for navel SCALP in 2006 had we joined development then for a navel strike version we could have had it in 2015 plus development of FCASW could have been push on

But the point more over is that we knew harpoon was a dying donkey as far back as 2010 and we have allow a gap to form meaning we need to fill it

SW1 wrote:

Ron5 wrote:

SW1 wrote:The absolutely last thing we should be doing is thinking of again bringing in multi different anti ship missiles from multiple companies.

NSM family are very capable and modern but how does it fit in with our complex weapons programs, would we be able to develop variants not yet developed in the UK could we add uk warheads or sensors at some point if we wish and can we integrate it onto air land and sea assets in the uk and can it be manufactured in the uk.

You must work in the MoD: start with an off the shelf purchase to fill a procurement gap then overload with requirements forcing the price up to astronomical levels before the inevitable cancellation.

What procurement gap? Is there not an mdba program for a harpoon replacement with France currently with funding?

Is NSM integrated on type 23,31,45,26 already? If it isn’t then it isn’t off the shelf an integration contract will be required also handling and logistics.

If your buying something as modern and as capable as the nsm then it isn’t an interim solution it’s the solution so you better consider what a road map for its development looks like and how you plan to ensure National supply of a consumable.

Huh? The procurement gap between Harpoon going out of service and its designated successor coming onto the scene in the 2030's. The gap that the MoD/RN use in their description of this interim program.

There's a gap because the UK is all its infinite wisdom, decided that collaboration with the French was the only way to go and the French didn't need the new missile as quickly. And as always, any collaboration with the French is on their terms.

J. Tattersall wrote:

Tempest414 wrote:Yet again piss poor management if we wanted a weapon to replace Harpoon we should have fucking got on with it

I thought we had got on with it, namely I-SSGW followed by FCASW.

The "I" in "I-SSGW" stands for interim. In everyday language, that means the MoD effed up its planning. Could really be FU-SSGW"

To be fair, the USN did pretty much the same thing but is throwing money at the problem in a most un-British way.

The NSM and Rb-15 would be great weapons to adopt but given the space available we could possibly only install four of either in the position currently used by Harpoon. That is simply not enough, eight is the minimum with most navies now installing up to eighteen.

Giving the I-SSGW a land attack capability should be seen as a nice to have rather than a essential capability. We primarily need a weapon system to allow our Escorts to deter and possibly attack enemy medium and large surface combatants.

We are expecting FCASW to be in service in less than ten years and I-SSGW should only have a service life of around five or six years. WE should go with the simplest option, be willing to accept compromises against our wish list, and get on with it. The latest Harpoon or even Exocet should be the easiest to install, and retain a meaningful number of weapons per ship. Both are effective weapons. Maybe adopting Exocet would help with the FCASW discussions regarding its capabilities and configuration.

Unless the RN and RAF decide on a common set of capabilities for FCASW, I doubt we are going to end up with one weapon system across the board. I can see the RAF going with the US for its ASuW weapon and FCASW for its Storm Shadow replacement. The RN is in a trickier position. A sub sonic FCASW would be in direct competition with the US LRASW, which will by then probably be a cheaper option. IF the sub launched FCASW is delayed it will be in competition with the USNs new weapons system to replace both the recently reintroduced ASuW Tomahawk and Sub-Harpoon.

For the RN the main selling point for FCASW should be if it is supersonic, as that would give it a capability few western weapons have with the exception of the Hypersonic weapons the US is developing. Whilst there seems to be a preoccupation with littoral combat, the RN will still have to operate an blue water environment, so this also needs to be taken into account. In fact for littoral warfare it might be better for the RN to look to a ship launched Venom variant to compliment the helicopter launched version. Adopting the Martlet for addition to our 30mm weapon station should also be looked at in this environment, it has been trials and seem to work so it should be a low cost option..

Lord Jim wrote:The NSM and Rb-15 would be great weapons to adopt but given the space available we could possibly only install four of either in the position currently used by Harpoon.

Nansen class frigate with 16.8m beam handles 8 NSM on much smaller place compared to T23's Harppon (16.1m beam). So, 8 NSM can be easily carried on T23 and T45 (not to say T31 and T26). NSM and/or LRASM is NOT in the same league as Harpoon. So, maybe 8 will work.

see "https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... 016%29.JPG"

...WE should go with the simplest option, be willing to accept compromises against our wish list, and get on with it. The latest Harpoon or even Exocet should be the easiest to install, and retain a meaningful number of weapons per ship.

The Harpoon elk 2+ will save the "decade or two", until fully replaced by FCASW, I agree. Low capability, low kill probability, but can do both anti-ship and anti-land in low-end warfare. Not bad, I think?

For the RN the main selling point for FCASW should be if it is supersonic, as that would give it a capability few western weapons have with the exception of the Hypersonic weapons the US is developing.

I shall point our ASM-3 series of Japan ... But, understand your point.

By the way, supersonic means less range if with similar warhead, or much much smaller warhead with the same range. Flying supersonic costs a lot. It's just like asking for a 40 knot frigate = you need to compromise weapons kits to do it (see LCS).

In fact for littoral warfare it might be better for the RN to look to a ship launched Venom variant to compliment the helicopter launched version.

Good point. With 30 kg warhead, it may not sink enemy warship. But, if with good imaging seeker and AI system, it may hit the radar, CIC, or main engine section, to "mission kill" enemy warship. That's one option. BUT, it does not work for I-SSGW, because developing a ship-launched SeaVenom with range extended to, at least, 100 km or so, may need a few years. If UK go this way, there will be a capability gap.

# By the way, let's imagine 32-sets (two sets of 16-cell launcher) of SeaVenom Mk.2 (30kg warhead, high-G maneuver, aim-at-critical-point capability, with 2-way data-link) carried on T23 and T45. Will be nice to see.

Lord Jim wrote:Giving the I-SSGW a land attack capability should be seen as a nice to have rather than a essential capability.

Because we've fired an SSM from an escort at a ship never. It would have been a nice option against a land target in the Falklands, Gulf 1 & 2, Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Libya, Syria.

RichardIC wrote:

Lord Jim wrote:Giving the I-SSGW a land attack capability should be seen as a nice to have rather than a essential capability.

Because we've fired an SSM from an escort at a ship never. It would have been a nice option against a land target in the Falklands, Gulf 1 & 2, Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Libya, Syria.

Oh no, not the "never used it in the past so don't need it now" argument.

"Don't need no Dreadnoughts, never had them before"

"Don't need no submarines, never had them before"

"Don't need no missiles, never had them before"

"Don't need no cyber, never had it before"

donald_of_tokyo wrote:NSM and/or LRASM is NOT in the same league as Harpoon. So, maybe 8 will work.

LRASM? It's the same length as Harpoon but each missile weighs 3 times as much....

Ron5 wrote:Oh no, not the "never used it in the past so don't need it now" argument.

Can you point to where I said we don't need it now? What I said was land attack would be a nice option.

Read the actual words.

Timmymagic wrote:

donald_of_tokyo wrote:NSM and/or LRASM is NOT in the same league as Harpoon. So, maybe 8 will work.

LRASM? It's the same length as Harpoon but each missile weighs 3 times as much....

Sorry, I was not clear.

NSM, LRASM and SeaVenom (although differ in its size) are in new generation with sophisticated and intelligent guidance, good maneuver and 2-way datalink. Harpoon has very simple seeker and good INS, while blk2+ has been partly improved with jam-harden GPS and 2-way datalink. But, their generation differs.

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Nansen class frigate with 16.8m beam handles 8 NSM on much smaller place compared to T23's Harppon (16.1m beam). So, 8 NSM can be easily carried on T23 and T45 (not to say T31 and T26). NSM and/or LRASM is NOT in the same league as Harpoon. So, maybe 8 will work.

It wasn't the beam I was worried about but the space between the superstructure and the Mk8. If there is space for eight NSM for example the great, but the launch boxes for these are quite bulky. I suppose a similar installation to what the USN has done on the LCS might work.

donald_of_tokyo wrote:By the way, supersonic means less range if with similar warhead, or much much smaller warhead with the same range. Flying supersonic costs a lot. It's just like asking for a 40 knot frigate = you need to compromise weapons kits to do it (see LCS).

This is where the French requirement really conflicts with the UK one. To maintain the range of the FCASW and be supersonic will mean a large missile if it is to retain an effective warhead as well. But we also want to to fit in our Mk41s and the French in their Sylver VLS as well as their Torpedo tubes. It will be interesting to see how the programme develops, we should be seeing actual mock ups and test rounds soon if the 2028 in service date is to be met.

The problem I see with FCASW is that the RN and the MN have different requirements.

The MN doesn’t need a long range land attack missile, because MdCN entered service recently, so they’re done until 2040 at least. They need to replace Exocet with a canister-launched FCASW and have decided they want it to be supersonic (Mach 2-3).

The RN, on the other hand needs both a long range land and maritime strike missile and prefers stealth and subsonic, I.e., something like a JASSM-XR or a modern-day equivalent of the Maritime Strike Tomahawk. Furthermore, it needs to be VL-launched from a strike length MK-41…

Given these different requirements, there’s actually talk of two different missiles being spawned by the FCASW program… we’ll see, but I’m not super optimistic…

Lord Jim wrote:

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Nansen class frigate with 16.8m beam handles 8 NSM on much smaller place compared to T23's Harppon (16.1m beam). So, 8 NSM can be easily carried on T23 and T45 (not to say T31 and T26). NSM and/or LRASM is NOT in the same league as Harpoon. So, maybe 8 will work.

It wasn't the beam I was worried about but the space between the superstructure and the Mk8. If there is space for eight NSM for example the great, but the launch boxes for these are quite bulky. I suppose a similar installation to what the USN has done on the LCS might work.

Nothing to worry. If it is 8 NSM, it easily fits in current Harpoon location. How they locate 8 NSMs in Nansen class frigate is much smaller than current T23 Harpoon foottage (if the beam is as wide as ~16 m). Even though the launcher is a bit fatter, it is shorter and thus aligned, not shifted.

Ron5 wrote:

RichardIC wrote:

Lord Jim wrote:Giving the I-SSGW a land attack capability should be seen as a nice to have rather than a essential capability.

Because we've fired an SSM from an escort at a ship never. It would have been a nice option against a land target in the Falklands, Gulf 1 & 2, Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Libya, Syria.

Oh no, not the "never used it in the past so don't need it now" argument.

"Don't need no Dreadnoughts, never had them before"

"Don't need no submarines, never had them before"

"Don't need no missiles, never had them before"

"Don't need no cyber, never had it before"

X

FWIW I’ve been told the decision has finally been made, just (obviously) can’t say what yet.

JohnM wrote:The problem I see with FCASW is that the RN and the MN have different requirements.

The MN doesn’t need a long range land attack missile, because MdCN entered service recently, so they’re done until 2040 at least. They need to replace Exocet with a canister-launched FCASW and have decided they want it to be supersonic (Mach 2-3).

The RN, on the other hand needs both a long range land and maritime strike missile and prefers stealth and subsonic, I.e., something like a JASSM-XR or a modern-day equivalent of the Maritime Strike Tomahawk. Furthermore, it needs to be VL-launched from a strike length MK-41…

Given these different requirements, there’s actually talk of two different missiles being spawned by the FCASW program… we’ll see, but I’m not super optimistic…

The differing requirements have been an issue for a few years now and no resolution noted yet. Whatever happens one side will be disappointed, which always leaves a project in jeopardy. Personally, I also cannot believe anyone is actually buying the 2028 In Service Date for FCASW. For a missile whose mode of operation, size, propulsion etc have yet to be agreed, let alone built, tested and flown its not in the realms of possibility. The only way 2028 is achieved is if an existing missile, like Storm Shadow, was used as a base and adapted. Even then it would be cutting it close.

Although replacing Exocet, both for domestic and, crucially, export sales is a key driver for MBDA and the French (and there is an element of keeping up with the joneses there as some nations who buy large amounts of arms like speed...), one of the other main concerns for them is replacing SCALP. FCASW isn't just about shipboard launch...I do wonder if the French Air Force and Marine Nationale air wing have the same desire for extreme speed (but far less range and stealth) as French proponents of a surface launched missile have.... Their requirements are much more likely to involve stealth and range.

Timmymagic wrote:

JohnM wrote:The problem I see with FCASW is that the RN and the MN have different requirements.

The MN doesn’t need a long range land attack missile, because MdCN entered service recently, so they’re done until 2040 at least. They need to replace Exocet with a canister-launched FCASW and have decided they want it to be supersonic (Mach 2-3).

The RN, on the other hand needs both a long range land and maritime strike missile and prefers stealth and subsonic, I.e., something like a JASSM-XR or a modern-day equivalent of the Maritime Strike Tomahawk. Furthermore, it needs to be VL-launched from a strike length MK-41…

Given these different requirements, there’s actually talk of two different missiles being spawned by the FCASW program… we’ll see, but I’m not super optimistic…

The differing requirements have been an issue for a few years now and no resolution noted yet. Whatever happens one side will be disappointed, which always leaves a project in jeopardy. Personally, I also cannot believe anyone is actually buying the 2028 In Service Date for FCASW. For a missile whose mode of operation, size, propulsion etc have yet to be agreed, let alone built, tested and flown its not in the realms of possibility. The only way 2028 is achieved is if an existing missile, like Storm Shadow, was used as a base and adapted. Even then it would be cutting it close.

Although replacing Exocet, both for domestic and, crucially, export sales is a key driver for MBDA and the French (and there is an element of keeping up with the joneses there as some nations who buy large amounts of arms like speed...), one of the other main concerns for them is replacing SCALP. FCASW isn't just about shipboard launch...I do wonder if the French Air Force and Marine Nationale air wing have the same desire for extreme speed (but far less range and stealth) as French proponents of a surface launched missile have.... Their requirements are much more likely to involve stealth and range.

Totally agree on the air and possibly land versions… it’s in naval shop-launched version I have doubts about… I don’t see how they’ll reconcile both requirements…

The French will most likely be happy to go it alone and build a supersonic weapon, and we will probably go shopping to see what is available in the rest of the world to meet our various needs. At least that could be one outcome that is possible. Instead the development funding can be moved to other projects, well what there is in the current ten year plan.