UK Defence Forum

abc123 wrote:I sincerely doubt that VL Spear. 3 would have a 100 km range. Maybe rather 30-40 km...

That would depend how you got it out the cell Spear has a length of 1.8 meters and CAMM has a length of 3.2 meters so if spear had a rocket fitted that got it to say 2000 ft and mach 1 it should get to 80km

Sounds like a more expensive and complicated way to do something worse than Wildcat with LMM/Sea Venom, and a significantly less effective capability than what I-SSGW was supposed to do.

Whatever we'd need to give up to fund that effort is probably more valuable than what we'd get.

tomuk wrote:And how would that be any different for a Royal Navy vessel?

We haven't got the same toys to play with and won't have for quite some time. Just look at the T-45. How long has it been in service yet there is no sign of either BMD, and co-operative engagement in any planned overhaul, just the addition of Sea Ceptor. There are also no plans for installing a AShM until at least the 2030s if at all.

Tempest414 wrote:

abc123 wrote:I sincerely doubt that VL Spear. 3 would have a 100 km range. Maybe rather 30-40 km...

That would depend how you got it out the cell Spear has a length of 1.8 meters and CAMM has a length of 3.2 meters so if spear had a rocket fitted that got it to say 2000 ft and mach 1 it should get to 80km

IF.
Simpler and cheaper just to buy some damn ASMs.

I still strongly believe we need an interim AShM for the T-23s and T-45s regardless of the wish for gold plated hypersonic weapons. They are not likely to be mounted on any RN Ships until the mid-late 2030s, as no work has really been done on any programme for such a weapon, that we are involved in. Without a modern AShM an opponent can simply stay out of 30mm range and do what it wants. For any of our escorts to deter someone they are going to have to get very close, which would greatly reduce the reaction time available if there were any surprises. Yes we will have a Wildcat available, I hope, but if someone was planning anything untoward against a singleton RN Warship they would take that into account. Against a peer warship the Wildcat would be vulnerable to its SAM capability so where would that leave our Warship. Having to ALWAYs operate with an ally so we have some protection and offensive clout does not show the RN in a good light, and none of our Escorts can be called a top tier platform without one.

Honest question - if there was a surface threat to the CSG what is the possibility of a ASM being used versus a SSN / F35B / Wildcat strike?

I’m not trying to say we don’t need ASMs and definitely there is a need for a ASM/Land Attack long term missile - but am just asking where we should focus our interim funds.

Repulse wrote:we should focus our interim funds.

What about the PODS?

Poiuytrewq wrote:What about the PODS?

Good question - though I think the priority should be within the "increasing lethality" bucket - not sure PODs are the answer, a containerized ASM is an interesting option, but non of the current escorts are set up for it.

Personally I'd be looking at some extension to the SSNs, speeding up weapons integration on the F35B or even adding missiles to the Merlin. All have value in the longer term.

Repulse wrote:.. our interim funds

Already got spent on something else would be my guess.

Wildcat is in no way comparable to having AShMs on board a Warship. Against anything other than FACs of lighter Corvettes the Wildcat is very vulnerable to the weapons fit of the opposing Warship. At best it can engage the Wildcat at the same tine the latter can engage the enemy, worst case the Wildcat is engaged and destroyed before it can even fire.

The Warhead size of both Martlet and Sea Venom are also an issue. With luck they may get a mission kill on the target, but a single Wildcat is going to have difficulty hitting a target with decent aid defence and short range protection. In fact even the loadout of eight AShMs is insufficient these days, or so many Navies now believe. Like with many things these days, the mass of any attack is becoming more important as defensive measures improve.

The F-35s on the CSG are also lacking the mass to be able to effectively engage a naval target of any size. Even when SPEAR 3 is in service, how many F-35s with the CSG be able to allocate to a strike as well as maintaining a CAP over the CSG? Our best anti ship weapon by fay are our SSNs, but these are too few in number and also lack any anti ship weapon systems beyond their Spearfish Torpedoes.

Together with many Capability Gaps or Capabilities lacking Capacity, our Armed Forces are reaping the results of over three decades of underinvestment in defence because numerous highly paid Think Tanks and Consultants told the Governments of the time, that there was never going to be a non elective State on State war, or at least highly unlikely, and even in that remote possibility we could depend on the US and our other Allies to defend us. We could therefore spend money on things that get MPs and Governments elected instead.

Repulse wrote:Honest question - if there was a surface threat to the CSG what is the possibility of a ASM being used versus a SSN / F35B / Wildcat strike?

IMO we can't keep relying on SSNs to do so much. We have precious few boats available and, while very capable, they can only do so many tasks concurrently. I'd want my SSNs taking the fight to the enemy, engaging enemy subs and prosecuting HVTs rather than hanging about the CSG in case they need to blow up a frigate that's wandered too close.

Now we know there are not going to be an interim missile the 1st priority should be the upkeep of the submarines Tom's & then as a matter of urgency intergrate a anti-ship missile onto the CBG F35b as a emergency measure

The RAF Poseidons are speculated to be getting Harpoon - is that still a reality?

https://www.raf.mod.uk/news/articles/ne ... irst-time/

Well how long has the P-8 been in RAF service and how much has happened regarding their weapon loadouts? Have we actually received any Mk54 Torpedoes or are we relying on USN Stocks? Is this another part of the Equipment Plan that has gone "Quiet"?

Lord Jim wrote:

tomuk wrote:And how would that be any different for a Royal Navy vessel?

We haven't got the same toys to play with and won't have for quite some time. Just look at the T-45. How long has it been in service yet there is no sign of either BMD, and co-operative engagement in any planned overhaul, just the addition of Sea Ceptor. There are also no plans for installing a AShM until at least the 2030s if at all.

Current and future UK surface combatants are/will be equipped with Link 16 terminals which is more than enough to receive targeting data adequate to fire an anti-ship missile on. Particular now when the missiles have such advanced seekers and target identification/classification capabilities (in particular the passive seekers on the NSM and LRASM and millimetric wave seeker on SPEAR3).

And to add - submarines and their torpedos cannot make up for a lack of anti-ship missiles. Whilst the Astute class are deadly hunter-killers in their own right they’re useless if operating hundreds of miles away in complete silence with no communication with the fleet and the enemy ship in need of sinking is on a completely different bearing.

Anti-ship missiles have speed and rapid deployment on their side - they can be fired and reach the target almost immediately after detecting it. And that’s not to mention they don’t have to avoid enemy ASW assets.

ETH wrote: Anti-ship missiles have speed and rapid deployment on their side - they can be fired and reach the target almost immediately after detecting it.

Absolutely, and save for the Pershing-copy PLAN carrier killer, they tend to be stealthy sea-skimmers, meaning that only detection from above will give enough warning time for effective defences
- ever wondered why Japan has two types of AEW a/c; the normally carrier based Hawkeye is flown from land to improve this type of coverage (be the targets ships, or also on land)

Future ASBM (anti ship ballistic missiles), mention Italians looking at one for their new destroyer.

The US Army developing the Lockheed PrSM, Precision Strike Missile, as replacement for the 1980's ~300 km MGM-140 ATACMS, Army Tactical Missile System, fired from the HIMARS, M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket System.

PrSM test fired to 500 km/270 nm and talk of max range of 700/800 km, what of interest from navy viewpoint is that US Army incorporating a new government designed multimode seeker to target ships and other moving targets, seeker trailed in aircraft last year, aiming to begin incorporating the multimode seeker into the PrSM by the year end.

US Army plan for PrSM in service 2023 and 2025 with the multimode seeker.

Assuming the PrSM same dia as the ATACMS 24" possible it could be fired from a Mk57, too big for a Mk41

PS Reported that Pentagon estimating the cost of the US Army/Navy hypersonic missile with its two stage 34.5" dia boosters as $106 million each and putting strong pressure on industry to bring the cost down, if true don't see that particular hypersonic missile will be affordable by RN.

NickC wrote:…PrSM test fired to 500 km/270 nm and talk of max range of 700/800 km, what of interest from navy viewpoint is that US Army incorporating a new government designed multimode seeker to target ships and other moving targets, seeker trailed in aircraft last year, aiming to begin incorporating the multimode seeker into the PrSM by the year end.…
PS Reported that Pentagon estimating the cost of the US Army/Navy hypersonic missile with its two stage 34.5" dia boosters as $106 million each and putting strong pressure on industry to bring the cost down, if true don't see that particular hypersonic missile will be affordable by RN.

Very reasonable cost. Speed and range and big warhead is VERY expensive. Going hypersonic is as such.

The reason I think I-SSGW adoption is anyway reasonable. Subsonic with modest range, it will be much cheaper. There is no way carrying as much as 16 hypersonic missile in every escort. But, carrying 16 I-SSGW is doable.

ETH wrote:

Lord Jim wrote:

tomuk wrote:And how would that be any different for a Royal Navy vessel?

We haven't got the same toys to play with and won't have for quite some time. Just look at the T-45. How long has it been in service yet there is no sign of either BMD, and co-operative engagement in any planned overhaul, just the addition of Sea Ceptor. There are also no plans for installing a AShM until at least the 2030s if at all.

Current and future UK surface combatants are/will be equipped with Link 16 terminals which is more than enough to receive targeting data adequate to fire an anti-ship missile on. Particular now when the missiles have such advanced seekers and target identification/classification capabilities (in particular the passive seekers on the NSM and LRASM and millimetric wave seeker on SPEAR3).

What about the other end of the data link? Will that have sat coms to pass the target data (maybe I'm wrong but I think link 16 is line of sight unless carried by a satellite link) ? And will, what ever that is, be deployable from a type 31?

Hopefully the answer is yes, a Wildcat. If not ....

Link 16 is line of sight at around 1Mhz
Link 11/22 is for beyond line of sight in HF and UHF bands
There is also JREAP and SIMPLE to allow for forwarding over SATCOM and IP networks.
There is an ongoing Maritime Multi Links Programme to consolidate/upgrade to a common fit the various current systems fitted across the RN fleet.

I wonder if we will use ship launched and recoverable UAVs to provide targeting data and allow mid course guidance?

A certain 'round-the-world' airframe can stay up v high and provide coverage for the MTF for weeks (and relay satellite images without the need for a roundtrip via a ground station)
- better than NEO-satellites that you will need many of, and this one you can even send 'up' the thread vector

Lord Jim wrote:I wonder if we will use ship launched and recoverable UAVs to provide targeting data and allow mid course guidance?

Always the problem of targeting OTH missiles, how do you know its not friendly ship, remember 1988 when the USS Vincennes shot down Iranian airliner, an Airbus A300 with the loss of 290 lives.

If the target ship at say 100nm range you would need your UAV to be at an altitude of approx 8,000 feet and if using radar, don't think the target ship ESM would have difficulty in spotting the UAV radar, (ESM range approx double that of radar as the signal doesn't to go there and back). Once the target ship concentrated its radar on that particular bearing and UAV targeted would not think enemy equivalent of Aster 30/SM-6 missiles have problems taking out the UAV.

PS Only yesterday a Russian anti-satellite missile targeted one of their own satellites creating a debris field, US complained it endangered the international space station.

Targeting OTH anti-ship missiles possible but not without many difficulties with either UAVs, aircraft or satellites.

tomuk wrote:Link 16 is line of sight at around 1Mhz
Link 11/22 is for beyond line of sight in HF and UHF bands
There is also JREAP and SIMPLE to allow for forwarding over SATCOM and IP networks.
There is an ongoing Maritime Multi Links Programme to consolidate/upgrade to a common fit the various current systems fitted across the RN fleet.

There's also a Near-Vertical Incidence Skywave system in use on the Type 45s for shorter-range OTH communications