UK Defence Forum

I was looking the FY2022 US budget document (https://www.secnav.navy.mil/fmc/fmb/Doc ... N_Book.pdf)
and
NSM missile is getting cheaper, looks like. Reasonable, considering they were in initial state of production in FY2020 and 2021.

See around (Volume 1).... SSMs:
Tomahawk 60 unit / $124.513M = $2.1M/unit
LRASM 48 units / $161.212M = $3.4M/unit
NSM 34 units / $59.331M = $1.7M/unit

Of course, those numbers shall be handled with care. What is included, what is not? Is is the first year procurement or after good production run has been done?

But, in short, on anti-ship (capable) missiles,
- Tomahawk is very cheap, but not as cheap as the value when it was mass-produced.
- NSM is getting cheaper, already ~3/4 of the value of FY2021 (*1)
- LRASM cost is slightly rising (at FY2021 it was $3.1M/unit for 43 units, and FY2022 cost is ~10% higher)

For me, NSM looks "good". Interestingly, NSM is already cheaper than ESSM. (see below)

*1: This number is shown in wiki, making a negative impression of NSM being expensive. Yes it is expensive, but its a half of LRASM.

donald_of_tokyo wrote: ↑26 Dec 2021, 03:57 I was looking the FY2022 US budget document (https://www.secnav.navy.mil/fmc/fmb/Doc ... N_Book.pdf)
and
NSM missile is getting cheaper, looks like. Reasonable, considering they were in initial state of production in FY2020 and 2021.

See around (Volume 1).... SSMs:
Tomahawk 60 unit / $124.513M = $2.1M/unit
LRASM 48 units / $161.212M = $3.4M/unit
NSM 34 units / $59.331M = $1.7M/unit

Of course, those numbers shall be handled with care. What is included, what is not? Is is the first year procurement or after good production run has been done?

But, in short, on anti-ship (capable) missiles,
- Tomahawk is very cheap, but not as cheap as the value when it was mass-produced.
- NSM is getting cheaper, already ~3/4 of the value of FY2021 (*1)
- LRASM cost is slightly rising (at FY2021 it was $3.1M/unit for 43 units, and FY2022 cost is ~10% higher)

For me, NSM looks "good". Interestingly, NSM is already cheaper than ESSM. (see below)

*1: This number is shown in wiki, making a negative impression of NSM being expensive. Yes it is expensive, but its a half of LRASM.

I know the NSM has been recently fitted to USN LCS to give them a significant ASuW punch. Is NSM considered a light ASM in tems of range and payload? Can it fit in any of the VLS launchers? I ask because I have seen it used i separate deck mounted canisters.

wargame_insomniac wrote: ↑26 Dec 2021, 16:24

donald_of_tokyo wrote: ↑26 Dec 2021, 03:57 I was looking the FY2022 US budget document (https://www.secnav.navy.mil/fmc/fmb/Doc ... N_Book.pdf)
and
NSM missile is getting cheaper, looks like. Reasonable, considering they were in initial state of production in FY2020 and 2021.

See around (Volume 1).... SSMs:
Tomahawk 60 unit / $124.513M = $2.1M/unit
LRASM 48 units / $161.212M = $3.4M/unit
NSM 34 units / $59.331M = $1.7M/unit

Of course, those numbers shall be handled with care. What is included, what is not? Is is the first year procurement or after good production run has been done?

But, in short, on anti-ship (capable) missiles,
- Tomahawk is very cheap, but not as cheap as the value when it was mass-produced.
- NSM is getting cheaper, already ~3/4 of the value of FY2021 (*1)
- LRASM cost is slightly rising (at FY2021 it was $3.1M/unit for 43 units, and FY2022 cost is ~10% higher)

For me, NSM looks "good". Interestingly, NSM is already cheaper than ESSM. (see below)

*1: This number is shown in wiki, making a negative impression of NSM being expensive. Yes it is expensive, but its a half of LRASM.

I know the NSM has been recently fitted to USN LCS to give them a significant ASuW punch. Is NSM considered a light ASM in tems of range and payload? Can it fit in any of the VLS launchers? I ask because I have seen it used i separate deck mounted canisters.

For me it is more a mid range missile that is capable of 180 km's and carries a 125kg war head it can be used for surface and land attack at this time it canister launched

And for me we should be looking to fit them to our T-45's and T-31's

wargame_insomniac wrote: ↑26 Dec 2021, 16:24

donald_of_tokyo wrote: ↑26 Dec 2021, 03:57 I was looking the FY2022 US budget document (https://www.secnav.navy.mil/fmc/fmb/Doc ... N_Book.pdf)
and
NSM missile is getting cheaper, looks like. Reasonable, considering they were in initial state of production in FY2020 and 2021.

See around (Volume 1).... SSMs:
Tomahawk 60 unit / $124.513M = $2.1M/unit
LRASM 48 units / $161.212M = $3.4M/unit
NSM 34 units / $59.331M = $1.7M/unit

Of course, those numbers shall be handled with care. What is included, what is not? Is is the first year procurement or after good production run has been done?

But, in short, on anti-ship (capable) missiles,
- Tomahawk is very cheap, but not as cheap as the value when it was mass-produced.
- NSM is getting cheaper, already ~3/4 of the value of FY2021 (*1)
- LRASM cost is slightly rising (at FY2021 it was $3.1M/unit for 43 units, and FY2022 cost is ~10% higher)

For me, NSM looks "good". Interestingly, NSM is already cheaper than ESSM. (see below)

*1: This number is shown in wiki, making a negative impression of NSM being expensive. Yes it is expensive, but its a half of LRASM.

I know the NSM has been recently fitted to USN LCS to give them a significant ASuW punch. Is NSM considered a light ASM in tems of range and payload? Can it fit in any of the VLS launchers? I ask because I have seen it used i separate deck mounted canisters.

For me it is more a mid range missile that is capable of 180 km's and carries a 125kg war head it can be used for surface and land attack at this time it canister launched

And for me we should be looking to fit them to our T-45's and T-31's

Just noticed this article released today:

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

“The Planning Assumption for Service Entry for Future Cruise /Anti-Ship Weapon on the T26 Frigate and Typhoon aircraft is 2027 and 2030 respectively.”

I am a bit confused as I was under the impression that timescales for FCASW were slipping back into potentially the 2030's, hence the possibility of looking at NSM as an interim measure. But I am not sure how reliable a response to a written Parliamentary question would be?

Isn't NSM range 500km if it isn't sea skimming? Or does it need to be air launched to hit that range. At less than $2mm each it is certainly worth stock piling them.
Any future mach 4 plus missiles will be so expensive we will only order a handful. Their land attack capability is arguably more useful than their anti ship role.

wargame_insomniac wrote: ↑26 Dec 2021, 18:22 Just noticed this article released today:

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

“The Planning Assumption for Service Entry for Future Cruise /Anti-Ship Weapon on the T26 Frigate and Typhoon aircraft is 2027 and 2030 respectively.”

I am a bit confused as I was under the impression that timescales for FCASW were slipping back into potentially the 2030's, hence the possibility of looking at NSM as an interim measure. But I am not sure how reliable a response to a written Parliamentary question would be?

Have we signed any agreements for this yet? Did this get pushed back when France had their hissy fit, if that is the case wont that effect the in service date?

The Royal Navy appear to have decided to bypass a modern AShM and go straight to a "Hypersonic" weapon in the 2030s which is a bit strange as the planned FCASW is only supersonic, at least that is what has been mentioned by the new CDS. I do not know whether he got confused between Hyper and Supersonic, which I doubt as he repeatedly mentioned the former in front of the Defence Select Committee.

To me what is really concerning is that in order to maintain the equipment plan with the agree funding, programmes are still being stretched out longer and longer, meaning timescales for proposed new items are now automatically set far longer than would be needed. It helps the MoD and Government as they can say that this ir that programme is fully funded, they just omit that it will take ten years instead if five.

These long lead times where a post cold war luxury designed to keep people in jobs and prop up the defense industry while our military capability was slowly hollowed out and shaped to fight insurgency wars. I would like to think politicians have opened the their eyes to see what has happened in Ukraine, Hong Kong and soon Taiwan and realised China and Russia see the west as soft and unable to mount a conventional war certainly in Europe.

Regarding the future ASM we need a budget option and hyper sonic. If NSM is less than $2m per missile it's crazy not to purchase 80 to 100 of them especially with their land attack capability. Isn't their range 500km when not sea skimming.

NSM is only capable of 500+ km's if air lunched maybe if set HI/LO it mite make 260 km from a ship running the last say 70km low

As said for me we should be buying and fitting NSM to Type 45/31/32 with the new Hypersonic missile being fitted to the Type 26/ SSN's

wargame_insomniac wrote: ↑26 Dec 2021, 18:22 “The Planning Assumption for Service Entry for Future Cruise /Anti-Ship Weapon on the T26 Frigate and Typhoon aircraft is 2027 and 2030 respectively.”

I am a bit confused as I was under the impression that timescales for FCASW were slipping back into potentially the 2030's, hence the possibility of looking at NSM as an interim measure. But I am not sure how reliable a response to a written Parliamentary question would be?

I think its wishful thinking. There is no chance of a missile that has not even had its basic configuration and performance defined and agreed, let alone even started construction as a prototype arriving in service in 6 years time. The only way you could deliver to that timeline is if you were taking existing components and putting them together as a mashup. An entirely new, sophisticated weapon is just not credible.

Timmymagic wrote: ↑28 Dec 2021, 10:13

wargame_insomniac wrote: ↑26 Dec 2021, 18:22 “The Planning Assumption for Service Entry for Future Cruise /Anti-Ship Weapon on the T26 Frigate and Typhoon aircraft is 2027 and 2030 respectively.”

I am a bit confused as I was under the impression that timescales for FCASW were slipping back into potentially the 2030's, hence the possibility of looking at NSM as an interim measure. But I am not sure how reliable a response to a written Parliamentary question would be?

I think its wishful thinking. There is no chance of a missile that has not even had its basic configuration and performance defined and agreed, let alone even started construction as a prototype arriving in service in 6 years time. The only way you could deliver to that timeline is if you were taking existing components and putting them together as a mashup. An entirely new, sophisticated weapon is just not credible.

And on top of this we will buy small numbers so we need NSM or RBS-4 for the rest of the fleet as said planning should be to have the new missile fitted to SSN's , Type 26 and F-35, Tempest , P-8's with the rest of the fleet T-45 , T-31 and T-32 getting NSM

Tempest414 wrote: ↑28 Dec 2021, 10:51

Timmymagic wrote: ↑28 Dec 2021, 10:13

wargame_insomniac wrote: ↑26 Dec 2021, 18:22 “The Planning Assumption for Service Entry for Future Cruise /Anti-Ship Weapon on the T26 Frigate and Typhoon aircraft is 2027 and 2030 respectively.”

I am a bit confused as I was under the impression that timescales for FCASW were slipping back into potentially the 2030's, hence the possibility of looking at NSM as an interim measure. But I am not sure how reliable a response to a written Parliamentary question would be?

I think its wishful thinking. There is no chance of a missile that has not even had its basic configuration and performance defined and agreed, let alone even started construction as a prototype arriving in service in 6 years time. The only way you could deliver to that timeline is if you were taking existing components and putting them together as a mashup. An entirely new, sophisticated weapon is just not credible.

And on top of this we will buy small numbers so we need NSM or RBS-4 for the rest of the fleet as said planning should be to have the new missile fitted to SSN's , Type 26 and F-35, Tempest , P-8's with the rest of the fleet T-45 , T-31 and T-32 getting NSM

That’s just an easy way to kill any chances of economy of scale with FC/ASW. I could understand the Type 31s/F35s which may need a smaller missile but the whole idea of FC/ASW is that it replaces Harpoon and Storm Shadow fleet wide.

FCASW will be the lower tier missile if the "Dreamer" in the Royal Navy have their way, FCASW is only supersonic if that, whereas the Navy Chiefs want a hypersonic weapon. They also want both to be compatible with both the Mk41 and Sylver VLS, yet the ship launched hypersonic missile being developed needs a substantially larger silo. So where is the hypersonic weapon coming form and how is it going to meet its mid 2030s timeline when FCASW may also be delivered after this time.

The Royal Navy needs to pull its head out of the clouds and its finger out of its a### and simply purchase an current AShM, which are substantially more capable than the Harpoon they would replace, and be affordable to have sufficient beyond one set per ship. We must purchase enough for continues use in a conflict. The same must also apply to our stocks of CAMM and any other consumables.

I think that you should have said “the MoD needs to …………….” and not the RN.

ETH wrote: ↑28 Dec 2021, 18:12

Tempest414 wrote: ↑28 Dec 2021, 10:51

Timmymagic wrote: ↑28 Dec 2021, 10:13

wargame_insomniac wrote: ↑26 Dec 2021, 18:22 “The Planning Assumption for Service Entry for Future Cruise /Anti-Ship Weapon on the T26 Frigate and Typhoon aircraft is 2027 and 2030 respectively.”

I am a bit confused as I was under the impression that timescales for FCASW were slipping back into potentially the 2030's, hence the possibility of looking at NSM as an interim measure. But I am not sure how reliable a response to a written Parliamentary question would be?

I think its wishful thinking. There is no chance of a missile that has not even had its basic configuration and performance defined and agreed, let alone even started construction as a prototype arriving in service in 6 years time. The only way you could deliver to that timeline is if you were taking existing components and putting them together as a mashup. An entirely new, sophisticated weapon is just not credible.

And on top of this we will buy small numbers so we need NSM or RBS-4 for the rest of the fleet as said planning should be to have the new missile fitted to SSN's , Type 26 and F-35, Tempest , P-8's with the rest of the fleet T-45 , T-31 and T-32 getting NSM

That’s just an easy way to kill any chances of economy of scale with FC/ASW. I could understand the Type 31s/F35s which may need a smaller missile but the whole idea of FC/ASW is that it replaces Harpoon and Storm Shadow fleet wide.

And it could in time there is little or no chances of FC/ASW being fitted to T-45 so for me as said fit NSM to T-45 / T-31 & T-32 FC/ASW could be fitted to T-26 & T-83 as they come into serves

Lord Jim wrote: ↑28 Dec 2021, 21:07 FCASW will be the lower tier missile if the "Dreamer" in the Royal Navy have their way, FCASW is only supersonic if that, whereas the Navy Chiefs want a hypersonic weapon. They also want both to be compatible with both the Mk41 and Sylver VLS, yet the ship launched hypersonic missile being developed needs a substantially larger silo. So where is the hypersonic weapon coming form and how is it going to meet its mid 2030s timeline when FCASW may also be delivered after this time.

The Royal Navy needs to pull its head out of the clouds and its finger out of its a### and simply purchase an current AShM, which are substantially more capable than the Harpoon they would replace, and be affordable to have sufficient beyond one set per ship. We must purchase enough for continues use in a conflict. The same must also apply to our stocks of CAMM and any other consumables.

I actually think Radakin was being fairly smart. The 2 FCASW options were subsonic, long range and stealthy, this was favoured by the UK for both RN and RAF and the other option was high supersonic, mid-range and not particularly stealthy, as favoured by the French. The impasse over the selection of missile design has been there for years now, and (at least from the outside and publically available reports) appears to be no closer to resolution. What I think Radakin was trying to do was signal to the French that we should go with the UK's preferred, subsonic stealthy option for now but then also, possibly, jointly develop a hypersonic missile beyond that. Essentially he was saying the state of the art appears to have moved beyong the supersonic option that was being investigated (whch was m3.0). The French also have a hypersonic missile under development for the ASMP-A replacement (the ASN4G) and hypersonic boost glide developments...it might make sense for one or other of those to be joint...both nations need to move into the hypersonic space to remain competitive, can't leave it just to the Russians, US and Chinese. But we also need range...

Lord Jim wrote: ↑28 Dec 2021, 21:07 FCASW will be the lower tier missile if the "Dreamer" in the Royal Navy have their way, FCASW is only supersonic if that, whereas the Navy Chiefs want a hypersonic weapon. They also want both to be compatible with both the Mk41 and Sylver VLS, yet the ship launched hypersonic missile being developed needs a substantially larger silo. So where is the hypersonic weapon coming form and how is it going to meet its mid 2030s timeline when FCASW may also be delivered after this time.

The Royal Navy needs to pull its head out of the clouds and its finger out of its a### and simply purchase an current AShM, which are substantially more capable than the Harpoon they would replace, and be affordable to have sufficient beyond one set per ship. We must purchase enough for continues use in a conflict. The same must also apply to our stocks of CAMM and any other consumables.

A good example of "Ship-launched hypersonic SSM" is SM-6 Blk-IB. To achieve "hyper-sonic" speed, it has larger radius and filling the Mk41 strike silo. Not sure how "hypersonic" it is, but by definition is shall be > Mach 5. But, its warhead is 64 kg. (As SM-6 Blk-IB is also designed to be an interceptor against hypersonic missile, it shall be agile. If we accept it being less agile, may be the warhead can be a bit larger, say 100 kg?).

As Radkin was saying about Mk.41 VLS, I think this is the class of the hypersonic missile achievable.

donald_of_tokyo wrote: ↑29 Dec 2021, 11:59

Lord Jim wrote: ↑28 Dec 2021, 21:07 FCASW will be the lower tier missile if the "Dreamer" in the Royal Navy have their way, FCASW is only supersonic if that, whereas the Navy Chiefs want a hypersonic weapon. They also want both to be compatible with both the Mk41 and Sylver VLS, yet the ship launched hypersonic missile being developed needs a substantially larger silo. So where is the hypersonic weapon coming form and how is it going to meet its mid 2030s timeline when FCASW may also be delivered after this time.

The Royal Navy needs to pull its head out of the clouds and its finger out of its a### and simply purchase an current AShM, which are substantially more capable than the Harpoon they would replace, and be affordable to have sufficient beyond one set per ship. We must purchase enough for continues use in a conflict. The same must also apply to our stocks of CAMM and any other consumables.

A good example of "Ship-launched hypersonic SSM" is SM-6 Blk-IB. To achieve "hyper-sonic" speed, it has larger radius and filling the Mk41 strike silo. Not sure how "hypersonic" it is, but by definition is shall be > Mach 5. But, its warhead is 64 kg. (As SM-6 Blk-IB is also designed to be an interceptor against hypersonic missile, it shall be agile. If we accept it being less agile, may be the warhead can be a bit larger, say 100 kg?).

As Radkin was saying about Mk.41 VLS, I think this is the class of the hypersonic missile achievable.

Radkin's hypersonic missile, it might be achievable but which likely to be unaffordable, based on the costs of the joint US Army/US Navy hypersonic missile, a larger missile as would not fit into in a Mk41 and with a range of ~1,700 mile estimated at ~$100 million each.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... llion-each

What might be affordable is the ~Mach 3 BrahMos, India setting up 80 acre manufacturing centre to produce 80 to 100 per annum in two/three years time.

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... -per-year/

NickC wrote: ↑29 Dec 2021, 16:29As Radkin was saying about Mk.41 VLS

NickC wrote: ↑29 Dec 2021, 16:29US Army/US Navy hypersonic missile, a larger missile as would not fit into in a Mk41

Is it just me, or does anyone else see the relevance failure?

I think hypersonic missile technology is being way oversold in where it is in the tech readiness scale and even further away for anything close to sea skimming. The ones claimed to be fielded are really ballistic missiles in all but name.

If we’re waiting for that it maybe a very long wait.

SW1 wrote: ↑29 Dec 2021, 18:13 I think hypersonic missile technology is being way oversold in where it is in the tech readiness scale and even further away for anything close to sea skimming. The ones claimed to be fielded are really ballistic missiles in all but name.

If we’re waiting for that it maybe a very long wait.

I agree it should take looooong time to field a hyersonic FC/ASW. But, as Radkin stated "hypersonic ASM" and "T31 with Mk.41 VLS" very closely, I guess they are related and hence reminded the SM-6 Blk-1B.

Note SM-6 Blk-1B is stated primarily as Anti-Surface Missile in USN document, not anti-air (although anti-air capable). Hypersonic missile is surely very expensive by its nature. Speed is very very very expensive, and if added with long range it becomes a monster (a matter of physics, not politics). SM-6 Blk-1B is smallish (with 64 kg small warhead), and likely to be mass produced (as USN (and army?) is using it), it will be the only affordable option for RN if anything hypersonic is needed, considering the RN escorts' size and MOD's budget, I think. SM-6 Blk-1B will be ready and fielded before 2027, as well, before HMS Glasgow (T26 hull-1) enters service.

In this case, at least from UK, FC/ASW can be focussed on sub-sonic/stealthy long range cruise missile. As speed is very expensive, sub-sonic means larger warhead with longer range.

Note the "long range sub-sonic/stealthy long range cruise missile" will be expensive than LRASM ($3.4M/unit). SM-6 Blk-1B is already a largish missile and cannot be cheap (although smallish and "cheapish" as a hypersonic missile. Guess it will cost $8-10M/unit). This means, filling T26's Mk.41 VLS and/or T31's (possible) Mk.41 VLS is already very expensive. Those ASMs could be expensive than most of the missile-equipped fast boats. (for these targets, RN has SeaVenom).

At least in theory, I think this plan works?

Another plan I can ALSO think is, NSM as I-SSGW (at least 19-sets), and FC/ASW hypersonic version coming in late 2030s.

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

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.

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.