The First Sea Lord has said that the Royal Navy is aiming to become “a global leader in hypersonic weapons”.
The following is an excerpt from a speech given by First Sea Lord Admiral Sir Ben Key in Rosyth, February 10th 2020.
“At the steel cutting for HMS Venturer back in September, on this site, the Defence Secretary said it was not so much a milestone in the life of a single ship, as a glimpse of the future of our Fleet. It’s a future where we are setting ourselves a challenge to become a global leader in hypersonic weapons. A future where we’ll become more adaptive in how we use our platforms, high end war fighting, command and control, floating embassies for the United Nations. Highly lethal, highly reassuring and highly adaptable.
It’s where we will blend crewed and uncrewed systems, operating both F35 and drones from the same flight deck. A future where the Royal Marine Commandos will operate from our Multi role support ships, and ashore in small groups delivering training and support to teams afloat in the Littoral Response Groups and also delivering in a different way special support to maritime operations. And it’s a future where we will regain and retain operational advantage in the underwater domain.
So I have a call to arms for you in industry. I want you to feel as invested in this as we are, not because of your share price. Not because of the wonderful manufacturing facilities that allows you to create, but because you recognise you are integral to the success of a Global, Modern, and Ready Royal Navy.”
For more on Royal Navy plans to acquire new missiles, I recommend you check out the following article from defence analyst ‘NavyLookout, a great source of in-depth information.
Royal Navy rows back on plans to acquire new anti-ship missiles before 2030s
What are hypersonic missiles?
According to this description, hypersonic weapons are normally defined as fast, low-flying, and highly manoeuvrable weapons designed to be too quick and agile for traditional missile defence systems to detect in time.
“Unlike ballistic missiles, hypersonic weapons don’t follow a predetermined, arched trajectory and can manoeuvre on the way to their destination, according to the Congressional Research Service. The term ‘hypersonic’ describes any speed faster than five times that of sound, which is roughly 760 miles (1,220 kilometres) per hour at sea level, meaning these weapons can travel at least 3,800 miles per hour.
At hypersonic speeds, the air molecules around the flight vehicle start to change, breaking apart or gaining a charge in a process called ionization. This subjects the hypersonic vehicle to “tremendous” stresses as it pushes through the atmosphere, according to a 2018 U.S. Army paper.”
China, the U.S., and Russia have some level of hypersonic capability and several other countries are investigating the technology, including India, Japan, Australia, France, Germany and North Korea.
This is obviously the next big thing in missile development let’s hope we can keep ahead of the curve?
Keep ahead of the curve ? We already behind it.
But the CC intends to get ahead of the curve and that is what matters.
To be fair we already have missiles that fly and 4 times the speed of sound to pump it up to 5x shouldn’t be much of a problem
Exactly. Not ‘leading’…..laggards trying to catch up.
Other than some claims from China and Russia, do we actually know if their hypersonic missiles are really near operational capability?
It’s no reason to be complacent, which we have somewhat been. But they are being taken seriously now, which is the most important thing.
The much vaunted Chinese one missed a stationary target by 24 miles
If only the budgets matched the talk and ambition.
Trying to Do this stuff on the cheap is a waste of time.
There is a substantial uplift in the budget for R&D and for the FC/ASW allocated. I’m not sure where this comment is coming from.
I agree. 24 escorts by 2030? A lot of hot air coming from the FSL.
Not if Russia invades Ukraine. NATO budgets will increase substantially on the back of an invasion. The UK will have to weigh up social needs against priority military programmes, in other words, we will be back to ‘Cold War’ priorities. Europe can no longer take a laid-back approach to defence and endless dependability on US support. At some stage, ‘Trumpisum attitudes’ will gain popularity against endless public spending on foreign defence regardless of strategic necessity. Global Britain is not going to die if Boris leaves office, that objective has wide support from many powerful organisations. 24 escorts are feasible if turbocharged on the back of Russian adventurism.
I’m no Trump supporter, but arguably from our point of view Biden is no better leaving Afghanistan without consulting allies was sticking two fingers up to us. That’s emboldened Putin’s confidence in the Ukraine and Bidens decision as probably indirectly led to it.
The trouble with Biden is he’s too old for the job and is bored stiff with the peripherals of office, hence letting off wind in front of royalty and making ill judged comments under his breath. In truth, he’s a political plughole until the next presidential campaign. In the meantime, Putin and China will make hay, you can bet on that. As for Afghanistan, he was totally miss informed and ill-advised and his actions were purely based on blind panic.
That wasn’t really Biden’s fault. Trump was the one who brokered that terrible deal with the Taliban with an even sooner, completely unrealistic deadline. And Trump then did next to nothing to start preparing to try and meet it.
Don’t blame trump, that’s shifty propaganda from the anti trump establishment to try and spin their dogs dinner pull out. Trump shouldn’t have brokered any deal but it was what he ran on, but what he did broker had conditions that needed to be complied with. It was Biden or his handlers who decided not to hold the Taliban to these. Trump moved the embassay…and the world didn’t end. He killed Soleimanni and nothing happened. The Taliban knew what they were getting with Trump, they saw his track record and knew he would hold them to account. Biden could’ve pressed them but he chose not to, I think for personal reasons and back channel negotiations with Iran. His team is basically Obama Mk2 and they had aligned themselves with Iran over Saudi. But that’s just my hunch.
Perhaps we should blame the Afghan people for not Standing up to the minority Taliban. It is their country but they did not fight for their country.
Whoever replaces Johnson from whichever party ‘Global Britain’ will be dead.
No David….NO!
I’m with you 100% don’t worry but the silence from other politicos on the subject has been deafening. Hopefully i’m being pessimistic but …
In my opinion Global Britain is an external diversion. What is really happening is internal; the issue that our constitution is past its use by date. We are becoming ungovernable. Hence the trends towards authoritarianism.
When Elizabeth II passes we will see major changes to the Union between England and Scotland, to the constitutional status of NI, a slimming down of the Lords which may finally become an elected chamber; the repeal of the Act of Succession and rebuilding of constructive relations with the EU. The NI Protocol is the driver. Voters will not accept the economic consequences of triggering Article 16. I have been a Bojo fan but he is a pathological liar as the NI unionists have finally realised. We could see a united Ireland sooner than people think.
Hmm. Having lived in countries where there’s 100s of thousands ok UK citizens working I don’t see how global Britain is a diversion. British people are global many of us have lived and worked outside the UK and millions more will do in the future. All Boris has done is give it a label but global Britain was there before we left the EU and predated Boris.
Expats are the record of events: the living memory of empire. The UK is a nation coming to terms with its past, warts and all; like a person in bereavement. Psychologists tell us there are several stages to bereavement; guilt, anger, depression, forgiveness followed hopefully by acceptance, personal growth and new beginnings. People often try for new beginnings before they have become reconciled to the past. Then you have to pause and take a step back before going on. We joined the EU before we had finished grieving for the loss of empire. Wokeness is a negative response to mistakes like slavery. The correct response is contrition, forgiveness and resolve to do better.
The wounds to our national psyche go back a long way, to the civil war and beyond to the reformation. Healing will take a while. We made mistakes, but who doesn’t? We can take pride in the abolition of slavery and in replacing the Moghul governance in India by Western democracy; and many other things.
I think you over complicate things. I was an ecoat because my skills are in demand by foreign companies. That’s what global Britain is about providing goods and services that are in demand. I personally have zero guilt about Britain’s past. I wasn’t a live at the time and cannot be held to account for something I had no part in. Britain’s just one of the long list of countries that’s had empires, Mongolia, Turkey Italy etc have all had a go at it, appears to me for centuries it was just something people aspired to do.
It’s always possible I am overcomplicating the situation. The UK will never again be the workshop of the world. But it might aspire thanks to its language and education system to be a leading provider of technical services and consulting. What is nonsense is the notion that trade deals with the likes of Australia can compensate for the trade drop off with the EU. It takes a lot of legs of lamb to pay for a submarine.
For what it’s worth I would have preferred to stay.in Europe but that’s now history, we now need to make the best of what we have and play to our strengths.
Yeh. As they say, we are where we are. Or as my grandmother would have said, you’ve made your bed so you have to lie in it ..
An interesting observation Paul.P, however, the UK is now freer than EU members to trade where it wishes, hence the ‘Global.’
To be honest Maurice I’ve never really understood the ‘freedom to trade’ argument. Being EU members didn’t and doesn’t stop France and Germany trouncing us in exports to India, China and the ME. It’s simple; you have to make good quality things that the emerging economies want to buy: Rafales, Mercedes, frigates, submarines, Airbuses. We have been using the EU as an excuse.
I don’t think so David, I think that no matter what the U.K. is so globally entrenched any Leader who is not an incompetent loon will keep that program going.
to be honest Britain has Always been global, it was one of our major areas of stress being part of the EU. We alway had far wider geopolitical agendas that did not sit will in the EU.
Your less cynical about politicians than I am. In Labour there are 3 main clues as to how they view this. First they’re overwhelmingly remain and however ridiculous it is for so many reasons they hope we’ll rejoin. For that reason they’ll prioritise europe. Second pacifism or anti-west sentiment is a huge part of their party see AUKUS. Third is common to both parties ‘Global Britain’ is a Johnson idea not theirs so they have no reason to support it. The Cons would do the same if Labour came up with it. For the Conservatives it depends on the circumstances of Johnsons departure. Right now any replacement will want to disassociate themselves from him as much as possible and when you add the budget deficit it’s even more likely. The only way it might stick as a cross party policy is if Johnson leaves as a success or it has time to prove itself as a success. If Starmer or whoever replaces Johnson in the Cons makes a big speach endorsing it i’ll put my hands up but it hasn’t happenned so far.
I’m not so sure the budgets with recent increases are far off where they need to be. The issue for me is more about avoiding the squandering of multi billions on projects that go nowhere. Effectiveness and Value is they key.
And BJs boastful comment about the UK becoming “foremost naval power” in Europe. A bit less talk and a bit more action please! Stay modest and get on with it and sooner than later! More missiles on ships, more helicopters, and more subs.
24 escorts lol That’s way too low to be taken serious! Even during Blair peace time years we had more escorts . The goal for 2030 should be 30 escorts armed to the teeth! And for each carrier 30 functional jets plus drones. We must build mini electronic attack subs and have a fleet of 20 subs in total including trident . This is a realistic tangible goal if if the corrupt politicians of Westminster are taking defence seriously, it requires just 2.7 percent of GDP budget
Is it April First already?
Not only can we not afford to upgrade our Harpoon missiles, we can’t afford to purchase something to cover the gap until the ethereal Future Cruise/Anti-Ship Weapon Comes on line and let’s be honest at the next election the Tories will be gone and whoever gets in
labour
liberals
Greens
will cut all military funding as they have all said they will do, it will make the cuts Labour carried out during the 60s as child’s play.
Points well made. The 1SL is sadly having to pick up the pieces his predecessors have left. What are the immediate options till the ethereal weapon turns up? Do the RN/ MOD have the moral strength to admit they’ve been negligent and buy some equipment based on UOR.
The University of Reading is a centre of excellence for weaponry? Who woulda thought it. Or is it Urgent Operational Requirement is that the right guess for those of us not very Acronym savvy.
Sorry, yes Urgent Operational Requirement.
You forgot the chuckle brothers. The SNP.
Aah I know that one 🥳
👍
Can we just try forget them please they give me indigestion.
😀
Alas its now Chuckle Brother To me to me to me David
😭😭
The decision on ISSGM seems to be driven by capability not budget. Radakin said the issue was that ISSGM was not very capable, we need hypersonics and the budget might be better spent fitting Mk 41 VLS to Type 31s.
Just had a news post pop up in my Google feed refering to the vls load out on the new Aussie Hunter class. As you can see Type 31 is stated as having 24 vls……
Does this journalist know something we don’t?
https://www.navalreview.ca/2021/11/some-comments-on-csc-armaments-aussie-comparisons/
Oh my god reading that was deja vu. More missiles or bigger missiles or more bigger missiles. Why not buy American their kit looks so much cooler on my fav computer game. Not a single mention of the fact the 26 will be by a vast margin the finest ASW ship on the planet. Not because of how many VLS but how quiet it will be and in comparison the Burkes sound like a wheelbarrow full of nuts and bolts being pulled along a cobbled street.
Hi David,
Good point. Whilst VLS is an important issue the T26b is primarily an ASW platform and hence needs to be quiet.
The extra equipment required to achieve the kind of acoustic signature that we are talking about comes with a weight and financial cost, but is very well worth it given the increased capability and numbers of Russian and Chinese submarines.
Cheers CR
Thanks CR. It seems lazy to constantly judge a warship on the size and number of it’s guns and missiles. Warfare at the top tier on land and particularly sea or air is vastly more complex than that. If guns and missiles alone decided warfare then the Soviet Navy was the most powerfull fleet on earth for most of the cold war. When in reality in any conflict they were floating coffins.
The Aussies have moved forward with the Hunter spec, and it looks like it’ll be 25% heavier than the Type 26. That’s cramming everything they can think of in. That’s what I call extra weight and financial cost. Making the T26 as quiet as possible, priceless.
“Making the T26 as quiet as possible, priceless.” Especially in the Arctic / North Atlantic.
Cheers CR
Most of that extra weight is down to their choice of radar I read somewhere on here I believe.
Excellent at ASW yes. But enemies have a very unsporting habit of attacking the blind-sides we’re negligent enough to give them on a plate. Still greatly lacking when faced with an enemy escort surface attack. They get a free gift of shooting all their AShMs off at us before we’re ever close enough to engage with the main gun or close ranged light/v light missiles via a Wildcat heli. Apart from the fact ASW escorts are far more likely to operate Merlin ASW helis with zero surface missile capability & even a Wildcat would be hard pressed to get close enough through a SAM range to use those light missiles.
On current plans the in service dates for 26 and LRASM are 2027 and 2030. Concurrent would be better but 3 years is not too bad.
I’m guessing you meant FCASW?
No I teleported into the future and saw LM would win the contract ! Sorry yeah gotta love acronyms.
Planning to reduce a sixteen-ship capability to zero for at least three years, then building it back to a one-ship capability is pretty bad.
In 2027 only HMS Glasgow is expected to have the ability to host FC/ASW (the Sylvers on Type 45s are expected to be too small, and they should be full of Asters anyway). Glasgow can’t be always available. The ability to continuously field at least one surface ship with FC/ASW should come around 2030 when we plan to have three operational Type 26s. That’s a seven or eight year gap.
We plan to have equipped half the number of ships that could field Harpoon after a fourteen year gap.
There are no plans to ever equip a similar number of surface platforms that can currently host Harpoon, but I’d be surprised if in the 2040s the Type 83 can’t do so, bringing us close after maybe twenty to twenty five years.
Ministers acting like that’s a three-year gap, that’s pretty bad too.
Yes but it’s been a very long time since we’ve had all 23’s deployed with Harpoon. No argument there’s a capability gap and very far from ideal but we are where we are. The 1SL has taken the decision to spend his budget on the future ideal. That’s his call and agree or disagree you have to respect him for it.
The money that had been earmarked in the budget for the interim missiles isn’t going to the FC/ASW.
Where has it been allocated ?
I think with the low numbers we have the T26s are going to be spending all their time escorting carriers or amphibious groups. If they are with a carrier no surface threat will get close and thy need to be entirely focused on ASW work. I personally would like to see the T31s get some top end ASuW capability so they could be off hunting surface contacts while the T26s get on with what they will be brilliant at.
Too late for the T31s. Top end ASW capability demands all the machinery is installed on noise reducing mountings which needs to be designed in from the start of the build. I do agree we need more dedicated ASW escorts though & would like to see the T31s capabilities enhanced. We need escorts, not half baked patrol vessels. More T26s or building it into T32s or 83swould help. Like to see Wildcats given better ASW capability & Merlins AShW missles to. Good T31s have space to enable upgrading but on HMGs/MODs record I don’t hold much hope.
Couldn’t agree more. They could double up on land attack, supporting littoral attacks on less-than peer enemies. They are big enough to take Tomahawk V, so they could have a full spread of short, medium and long range ASuW weaponry.
But we can dream on. Maybe the Type 32s.
Love the wheelbarrow analogy 😂😂😂👍
😀👍
Haha a wheel barrow full of nuts and bolts being pulled along a cobbled street. Hilarious
😀👍
“Not a single mention of the fact the 26 will be by a vast margin the finest ASW ship on the planet. “
It would be wise to wait until these ships are actually operational before making such bold predictions.
To be honest if the type 26 lost its MK41s I don’t think it would be a big issue. Personally I think we should put the MK41s on the type 31 and turn it into a really focused surface warfare/strike platform and keep the T26s focused on the ASW work escorting our key power projection assets ( the carriers and amphibious groups).
I understand what your saying but I like the flexibilty the Mk41 gives them.They’re going to be still in service 40 years from now and what that environment will look like is very hard to predict.
Oh yes personally I think we should have MK41s on all our escorts as it gives flexibility, but knowing how penny pinching the treasury is if it was one or other I would prioritise the T31s.
There is that. It’s outside the Defence website sphere but something to pay attention to is what’s happening to the Govt budget deficit. Right now things are looking positive but thanks to Covid it’s a very big deal. If that changes it’s likely the Treasury will start looking for cuts to planned budgets in Defence and everywhere else.
Hi Mark,
Thanks for the link, interesting article.
Apart from the 24 vls for the T31 I was also interested in the 6x ExLS aft of the funnel on the CSC and that the RCN intendes to quad pack CAMM missiles into them. That is something I have been saying the RN should seriously look at as it will make better use of the space available.
Cheers CR
Single cell VLS for CAMM, are far cheaper than ExLS cells.
Hi Meirion X,
I am aware of the cost issue, although I would point that for the same missile load out the cost would need to be just 25% of the ExLS cells. I would also caution that purchase cost alone is not a good indicator of total cost through the life time of the kit and the ships may be rearmed mid-life as the T23’s have.
Also, I am not sure whether the single cell VLS for CAMM is set up for SPEAR 3, for example. I had a similar conversion with Gunbuster sometime ago and if I remember correctly he suggested that some work would need to be done, although it would not be a huge expense and could be carried during normal maintenance cycles.
All that is needed for ExLS to fire diffferent cold launch weapons is for the silo control units (one unit per 3 launchers) to be reprogrammed to talk to the loaded missile. This apparently can be done as part of the loading routine.
Is the CAMM controller programmeable?
All in all I think the MoD RN is storing up extra cost down the line as well as limiting the total potential firepower of the fleet.
Nevertheless, the new system is a step up from where we are.
Cheers CR
I don’t understand where the ExLS saves space over the mushroom farm. The missiles are the same diameter. The canisters are common, with the MBDA cannister and launch management system used inside the ExLS. It seems quad packing means taking advatantage of having a silo that’s over 4 times the size in the first place.
It seems to me that the ExLS uses extra components, so how much smaller can a 24 cell installation end up?
There’s a nice photo of the 32 cell mushroom farm here (Navy Lookout). For size comparison the canister for CAMM is 0.275 x 0.275, so less than 1 foot each way. I’d guess a 24 cell installation would be maybe 2 x 2 m, allowing for an outward-facing cant. If anyone knows the actual dimensions, that would be useful.
I can’t find the dimensions of a ExLS cell, but we know it uses Mk41 equivalent hatches. Those are much bigger in reality than the CGI and little models suggest. An 4 x 2 cell module is 135 x103 inches, so a 6 x 2 equivalent would be 2.5 x 2.5 m.
I might be wrong, but a two 3-cell ExLS installation (24 CAMM) might take up more space, not less. Here’s a photo of Mk 41 in an Arleigh-Burke (thanks to ukarmedforcescommentary).
I tried an earlier response to this which disappeared, probably unapproved because I included a photo. So I’ll just summarize.
Surely quad packing doesn’t save space. It just uses silos that are more than four times the size in the first place. ExLS uses Mk41 equivalent hatches, and an 8-cell Mk 41 module is 2.6m by 3.4m.
Looking at photos of the 32 cell mushroom farm on a Type 23, with each canister 0.275 x 0.275 m it doesn’t look more than the Mk 41, although I can’t find official dimensions.
Edited to Add:
I found a photo with the T23 mushroom farm and people. And it now looks far bigger than the size I first thought. Maybe even twice the size!
Hi Jon,
The spaces between any VLS are about below decks maintenance. If you bare that in mind when comparing photos you can see why I think the MK41 / ExLS silos take up else deck space.
However, my concern about the unique specialist mushroom farm VLS is that it is unique and therefore quite likely to limit future mid-life upgrades a smay turn out to have higher maintenance costs as it ages. The arguement will be, “is it worth putting an entirely new VLS on a ship that is half way through its life?”
By the time the arguement is over the ships will be close to their OSD and obsolete – so a good excuse to cut them early. How often have seen these types of arguement / excuse used to justify cuts in the past. So why set the RN up for future expense and cuts?
The mushroom farm is a great example of short term thinking which I fear will come back and bite us.
Just saying. Seen it all before.
Cheers CR
Using the Mushroom Farm on the Type 23 as a reference for VLS space efficiency is a bit of a Red Herring – the old Sea Wolf Tubes were simply kept as is and inserts used to house the CAAM Missiles.Look on the pic on your link where one is being loaded into a Tube,Square Pegs into Round Holes spring to mind.There are surely better options to maximise space looking at the CAAM Round size.
No I think that is what is listed on Wiki – but nothing is confirmed.
Hi Mark, i think it just means 24 CAMM, that’s all. The T23 above says 32 CAMM. Hope they can squeeze at least 2 MK41s on the T31/32s plus the 24 CAMM. We’ll have to wait and see.
I firmly believe that it was driven by the need to find money for the National Flagship from navy’s current budget, because Boris wanted it in the water by 2025 (although that was so last year, he’s probably forgotten all about it by now).
Having anti-surface missiles that could be moved to the Type 31s and would have lasted us 30 years would have been far better than nothing, and I don’t believe Mk 41s will go onto the Type 31 (any more than they went on to the Type 45) without a substantial overall lift in defence spending.
I would love to know what, if anything the services spend on non core items, like Public Relations, Human Resources, Environmental project, Health and Safety, Social projects? I bet the money could be found if spending was only allowed for war fighting purposes.
Wow health and safety is a non core item, glad I don’t work for you. Your not per chase related to admiral Beaty are you?
Ok ok maybe I went a bit to far with the Health and safety thing 🙂 but you get the gist.
But what is the current generation of missiles are like gloster Gladiators compared to Spitfires. Do we want to go into the Battle of Britain with a full complement of Gladiators or Spitfires? 30 years may be their shelf life, but not much use if they cannot penetrate enemy defences.
Not all our enemies are peers or near peers, and not all defences state of the art. There’s a place for cheaper systems.
I’d rather send a warship to sea with NSM and Sea Serpent than a 4.5″ gun. All it takes is for 1 to get through, whilst most defences haven’t been tested for real.
Now we know why Boris wanted NFS built, to hold parties offshore!
Around the same price ($200m) as a giant LNG carrier ship, built in South Korea. I know which one is of more use to most ordinary Brits.
I’m sure NSM & Sea Serpent have a better AsUW capability than a 4.5″ Gun and Sea Ceptor combo? I get the gold plated solution, but ignoring the current capability gap is negligent. Am I missing something?
I suppose you may be missing the fact that ship launched anti-ship missiles have a very poor record – aircraft and submarines sink ships, there are very few examples of ship launched successes, and all of them in littoral waters. Very long ranged weapons are another matter, so rather than ISSGM, Block V Tomahawk would be useful, or air lauched weapons for carrier strike.
Though our aircraft have zero dedicated anti ship capability…
And the handful of subs we have will need to be in 4 places at once…
Excellent common sense reply. You’ll get shit for talking like that on this site by many. You are a welcome breath of fresh air. 👍
I’d tend to agree.
It is more the inability to have any decent land attack.
The other powerful thing with a VLS is that it can have a mixture of unknowns in it too.
So keeping your opposite numbers guessing is very powerful as it widens the range of strategies that need to be considered and decreases certainty of outcomes.
Nice to have the choice! As I’ve stated recently and in the past, the NSM/JSM would be the ideal solution for us as it can be fitted to Typhoon aircraft F-35B external carriage possibly?, Ships and land-based in the short term.
Tomahawk Block V would clearly be an added bonus.
“Between Tomahawk Block V, the SM-6 and the NSM, the Navy has a collection of attack weapons that they are happy with,” he said, adding that a long-running effort to develop a next-generation land-attack weapon has lost some of its urgency.
“What’s happening in parallel is in the development of hypersonic missiles that are a smaller form factor than the boost-glide weapons that are coming to maturity now,” Clark said. “And if they can get it down to being able to fit in [the Mark 41], then that could provide the Navy a next-generation capability that is more survivable and has a shorter time of flight.”
https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2020/12/14/the-us-navy-has-an-upgraded-tomahawk-heres-5-things-you-should-know/
I thought I’d add this in for the benefit of one clown on here who still thinks finding a target at sea is like finding a needle in a haystack as posted once again in the past week.
8 Jul 2021
“Vessels that turn into “ghost ships” by switching off their signals so they cannot be tracked as they commit “nefarious” acts in the high seas will be located using radar from military satellites under government plans.”
JSM Anti-Ship And Land-Attack Missile Successfully Tested From F-35A
“The JSM, JSOW-ER and AARGM-ER are set to become the internal bay compliant Stand-Off weapon options on Blk 4 F-35A and C variants.”
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2021/03/jsm-anti-ship-and-land-attack-missile-successfully-tested-from-f-35a/
Ah, the copy and paste kid returns. Good to see the F35 progressing well in Norwegian service. And yet again your lack of real world experience is somewhat short of the mark. So glad you have wasted valuable hours this weekend frantically Google searching weblinks to try and somehow prove you have a tiny clue about how any this stuff works. Gold star for you. ✨️
😂 you is a bad man, bad man!
The 1st Sea Lord himself could re-brief Nigel, and he would still argue the toss with him if he couldn’t provide a weblink 😆 He just looks for websites that mirror his own narrow minded views, and thinks they are facts. He forgets the Internet is a wash with a mis-information and political BS, especially when it comes to defence projects.
Agreed mate, anyone can find anything good on the internet to pretty much confirm anything you want it to! It is however about research and subject matter knowledge not repeated useless links!!!! Cheers Rob.
Good to see you back mate 👍
Thanks 👍
Ah, look what the cat dragged in!
You’re back.
Good.
🐈 😆🤬👍 cheers mate!
Let me have my Sunday lunch, Nigel, and then I’ll explain why satellite tracking of warships isn’t what you think it is.
It’s important to see the UK is looking to implement this technology so we can make the most of future long-range missiles like Tomahawk Block V or Perseus.
The new satellite system, dubbed Project Oberon, will allow Royal Navy commanders to pinpoint any ship anywhere on earth no matter what its AIS beacon is reporting – or even if it’s switched off altogether.
The system should be online in the next few years, although Dstl declined to comment on specific timescales at this stage.
https://theworldnews.net/gb-news/hi-tech-military-satellites-to-track-illegal-ghost-ships-running-riot-at-sea
“Currently, British forces do not have the benefit of a sovereign Earth observation system. They must rely on commercial imagery or data supplied by allies.”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-49664409
So now you have realised satellite tracking of warships isn’t really an everyday thing by sharing the above link. Warships running at 20knots can cover up to 500 miles a day. Satellites also move. The basic problem is that the ocean is vast, and ships are small. Satellite resolution imagery has a very small field of view. Cloud cover and satellite flight paths also complicate things further. Size of search area versus image resolution. EMCON deception and low observable designs also make life difficult. Switching off AIS transponders and going electronically silent can still make warships difficult to find, especially when it doesn’t want to be found. I was sat on-board HMS Illustrious back in 2010 during a Joint Warrior exercise. The carrier remained undetected for 7 days. sat in familiar waters off the North West coast of Scotland. The red air threat sent out to sink us was made up of F15E strike Eagles, Rafales, and Hawks. And they didn’t get a sniff for 7 whole day’s. Now technology marches on. But naval warfare is a very tricky business, and it is nothing like how it’s made to look in films and TV shows.
Switching off AIS is an option. Its much more useful to spoof your AIS transmission into another unit.
LPDs pretending to be a car ferry?
T23 being a fishing trawler?
Look at the CSG21 reporting. Some RN units where alongside and the AIS showed them elsewhere. That was because you can spoof your AIS reports.
Even today I can look at AIS info online and work out that the ship that is reported on AIS isnt physically there its somewhere else.
It’s clever stuff. I guess it’s also why Russian Bear bombers switch off ADS-B transponders when heading our way. Even though they have large radar signatures, they can be tricky to find and are a danger to civilian traffic. Keep commenting, mate; this site needs experienced people like you. 👍
A few issues with that article.
1. It’s from the daily star
2. It doesn’t state world wide real time coverage. It will use SAR as its detector and to quote the article:
The data Oberon sends back will require specialist analysis to interpret, but unlike photographic images will be effective through thick cloud and at night.
While useful I’m not sure of its targeting ability for a 1000 mile anti ship missile engagement.
I’m more than prepared to be surprised when it’s up and running
I think that clown you are referring to is GB, who states the problems of finding and killing a warship/carrier at sea! Ah GB, full career in the RN, weapons specialist, numerous warships served, to include type 22 bit of covert, and who still works on platforms in the Middle East….mmmmmmm I think most of us will stick with GBs explanations and experience thanks.
I prefer to stick with mine as it’s based on facts, not fiction or opinion, and no I wasn’t referring to GB.
Why do you think the USA has developed a 1000m+ ship killing missile Tomahawk V a/b to counter the threats from both Russia and China whose ships will be travelling at speed? from close range?
Answer, they can track them from military satellites and have been able to do so for some time.
Now the UK is doing the very same thing but it appears better.
“Oberon will use a technology called synthetic aperture radar. If the satellite were stationary in space, it would need to be have a huge antenna – maybe up to two or three miles across – to be able to spot something as small as a boat amid the vastness of the world’s oceans.
But by using very raid pings from a number of small satellites moving at high speeds – up to 16,000 mph – it’s possible to use high-tech processing to create the effect of a much bigger antenna.
The data Oberon sends back will require specialist analysis to interpret, but unlike photographic images will be effective through thick cloud and at night.
The satellites will also have sensors to pin-point the sources of radio transmissions.
The development of Oberon is said to be progressing well, with Dstl already working alongside Airbus Defence and Space, and Oxford Space Systems to design the craft and its pioneering antenna.
Colin Paynter, the managing director of Airbus Defence and Space UK predicts the system will provide “a new world-class surveillance capability for the Ministry of Defence, helping to protect our armed forces across the world.”
“Raytheon’s Tomahawk Block V, when fully realized in its Block Va and Block Vb varieties, will be expected to hit surface ships at Tomahawk ranges – in excess of 1,000 miles – with the integration of a new seeker.
It also will integrate a new warhead that will have a broader range of capabilities, including greater penetrating power.
The missile has been able to stay at the $1 million price range, which is on the low end for missiles. Raytheon’s supersonic SM-6 can reach speeds of Mach 3.5 – with future iterations believed to be capable of reaching hypersonic speeds – but cost more than four times as much per shot and have less range. That’s the Tomahawk’s key differentiator, said Jerry Hendrix, a retired Navy captain and analyst with Telemus Group.
Tomahawk’s range is especially important in the Asia-Pacific, where China’s rocket force has extraordinary reach with its DF-26 and DF-21 missiles, with ranges of 2,490 and 1,335 miles respectively, according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
The missiles are destined not just for the VLS launchers of surface ships but also on attack submarines. Read more here:
https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2020/12/14/the-us-navy-has-an-upgraded-tomahawk-heres-5-things-you-should-know/
What do you think the US military has?
“As an intelligence source noted, Google’s shipping data faces important limits. “It’s not the ships you can see, but the ships you can’t see that matter,” this source said.”
https://breakingdefense.com/2012/05/google-satellites-can-track-every-ship-at-sea-including-us-na/
This is a Western system. Not Russian or Chinese, and it isn’t in service yet.
So am I picking this up correctly that there to be a large number of satellites that cover the whole globe all of that time that will track ships in real time and pass that data in real time to the military ships with the missiles? It sounds expensive. Obviously the higher the satellite is the more area it can see but at a lower resolution.
So it would have to have wide area search abilities god enough to detect ships anywhere around the globe. An ability to get a close enough look to correctly identify said ships and pass the info over in real time.
Can the satellite continue to scan a wide area and track a ship at identifying degree of resolution? In fact it would have to be multiple ships at once.
If possible it sounds fantastic but I have my doubts of its real time world wide coverage anywhere anytime.
I’ll stick to GBs as it’s based on subject matter experience, training, qualifications and time in post. I will leave the internet trawling to you Nigel, thanks for the response anyway. Cheers mate.
Ok The new version of Tomahawk ( A or B) has a 1000 mile range. However it is to reintroduce a capability that the USN got rid of decades ago when it removed anti ship tomahawks from the inventory. Now they have dual hatted the Type A Block Vs with the capability to do land attack and anti ship.
The 1000 mile range is the land attack range…you wont attack a ship blind at that range because when the missile arrives , assuming a 600mph flight speed (ish) and a target doing 20 odd knots the ship wont be at the aim point and could be anywhere within an area of 1300 sq miles. The seaker head simply wont see a target or if it does it may not be the one you want.
You will require mid course guidance from an outside asset such as a Helo, Aircraft or Drone. Satellite update is a possibility but they fly in predictable well known orbits and if you know what you are doing you can stay out of the footprint. The real time 5 Eyes Int updates to ships are invaluable in this as the info from ALL sources ( Space tracking, ESM, Sat, radar,aircraft and ship reporting, visual reporting etc) is merged into a comprehensive Int picture showing everything around you for thousands of miles.
The Tomahawk V gives the AB Flight 2 onwards anti ship capability in addition to the ruinously expensive SM6 ( Flight 2 onwards dont have Harpoon but do have Helos, unlike Flight 1 ABs).
Very interesting stuff, thank you for sharing.
Re “The seaker head simply wont see a target or if it does it may not be the one you want.”
“LRASM technology will reduce dependence on ISR platforms, network links, and GPS navigation in aggressive electronic warfare environments.
This advanced guidance operation means the weapon can use gross target cueing data to find and destroy its pre-defined target in denied environments.
Precision lethality against surface and land targets ensures the system will become an important addition to the US Navy warfighter’s arsenal. LRASM provides range, survivability, and lethality that no other current system provides.
Armed with a penetrator and blast fragmentation warhead, LRASM employs precision routing and guidance, day or night in all weather conditions.
The missile employs a multi-modal sensor suite, weapon data link, and enhanced digital anti-jam Global Positioning System to detect and destroy specific targets within a group of numerous ships at sea.”
https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/products/long-range-anti-ship-missile.html
“Block Va essentially turns the cruise missile into an anti-ship missile.
Also known as Maritime Strike Tomahawk, Block Va adds a seeker kit, including sensor, giving it the ability to strike moving targets at sea at ranges in excess of 1,000 miles.”
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a34979788/new-block-v-tomahawk-cruise-missile/
Nice copy and paste of the sales brochure. I’d listen to GB.
Missiles and torpedoes sink ships. The launch platform is a function of geography, asset inventory, missile range and circumstances. Would suggest there hasn’t been a peer conflict in recent decades against which the utility of surface launched AshM could be determined.
Latest Russian ashm have a range greater than the F35!.Some have range greater than F35 and Spear 3 combined.
The UK F35 has nothing today, or for the best 7 years, with which it could attack a peer warship that has any form of modern air defence.
The UK simply doesn’t have enough SSN with which to manage the sub surface or surface threat in a widespread peer conflict.
Many observer’s and commentators on this site proclaim that hypersonic missiles cannot yet hit a moving target. If that is the case then options such as NSM etc would offer relatively effective solutions. I suspect that in all circumstances a stealth NSM will be relatively effective compared to the heat signature of current hypersonics. Personal view would be if the Russian’s can create effective long range hypersonic a2a missiles operating in high speed 3d environments then i fail to see how they couldn’t readily generate hypersonic marine strike missiles.
“I suppose you may be missing the fact that ship launched anti-ship missiles have a very poor record”
What? The naval battles between Israel and Arabs should have put that to rest 50 years ago.
Next Italian Teseo SSM evolution on Otomat will have an AESA radar
Clearly you have not heard of Op Praying Mantis – both sides chucking AShMs at each other to no effect – aircraft did the damage. In the Gulf War, despite Saddam having lots of missile-armed FACs they were all taken out by a few Lynx with Sea Skuas. In the Falklands no-one could get close enough to use ship launched Exocet – it was aircraft and subs that got into firing positions. Yes a few successes in littoral Eastern Med for Israelis and Egyptians against WW2 destroyers, corvettes and FACs – but that is it. AShMs are loved by armchair Admitrals like battleships – becuase of the big boom – but with no real understranding that surface ships are best used to defend task forces and subs and aircraft sink ships. Useful for coastal defence in the Baltic, Gulf, Med or Black Sea – but blue water navies need either air launched or very long range AShM missiles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Praying_Mantis
You could do to share this comment with about 95% of the guys who use this site. The lack of understanding about Naval warfare is staggering. The amount that think it is a national disgrace, and the RN is somehow a 3rd rate navy because every warship isn’t fitted with the latest laser death ray anti ship missile of doom. Regardless of how many times we explain why AShM missiles have predominantly stayed firmly sat in weapon launchers looking nice over the decades going unused.
New version of Storm Shadow in testing (Spear Cap 4) https://www.ukdefencenews.co.uk/2022/02/storm-shadow-spear-cap-4-a-day-in-the-life-of-a-weapons-trial/
HimJames, Does this SS missile also have an anti-ship capability or is it just land attack?
I agree with him on that, some of the proposed ISSGM candidates were not much better in range speed and warhead size than current harpoons. I really hope the type 31s get those 24 mk 41s
Madness. What sort of argument is an ISSGM not very capable as a basis for justifying no, zero, zilch capability. There’s surely tech on current AShMs to defeat SAMs, radar, countermeasures, CIWS or why else do every other navy use them? It is the greatest betrayal to let our ships deploy lacking such a basic & essential weapon.
As I keep saying: post ‘82 the analysis was laser focus on stuff that really works and is state of the art.
There is a danger that by buying a missile that is current tech and pretty decent at defeating ship defences, in the eyes of those that set the budget , they will ask “why bother with this expensive FCASW system?”
That is what the French allegedly complained about, seeing the funding dry up. They have a point. One success of the tie in has been a pretty decent set of complex weapons options.
Upgraded Typhoon could do much of the promise of a Tempest to a point.
I think it’s a case of new tech ( defensive) dictating how relevant a system will be by 2030.
Those 20 foot boxes mounted on an arleigh burke pack high power Aesa jammers. Directed energy weapons are already being trialled .
All those will soon make an interim sea serpent, upgraded Harpoon, or NSM less effective , and the other side will have them.
Speed and FCASW might be worth the gap, otherwise in 15 years we are stuck with old tech and no homegrown industry who could do it
It appears we are already putting systems into place that will allow the RN to engage ships at a greater distance and make very good use of Tomahawk Block V or Perseus as I posted above in this thread.
“The new satellite system, dubbed Project Oberon, will allow Royal Navy commanders to pinpoint any ship anywhere on earth no matter what its AIS beacon is reporting – or even if it’s switched off altogether.
The system should be online in the next few years, although Dstl declined to comment on specific timescales at this stage.”
https://theworldnews.net/gb-news/hi-tech-military-satellites-to-track-illegal-ghost-ships-running-riot-at-sea
DSTL’s Muff says that, if fully developed, Project Oberon could provide the UK with a suite of radio frequency (RF) sensing capabilities thanks to British strengths in signals processing and computing, allowing the UK to “leap-frog the capabilities of other nations whilst developing confidence in defence space capabilities.”
https://spacewatch.global/2018/12/british-military-space-uks-dstl-puts-out-tender-for-project-oberon-sar-satellite/
Because surface ships trundle around at 30mph, so getting a ship into a firing position from which they can safely extract themselves is much more difficult than for an aircraft or a sub.
(a) Don’t be so sure the Tories will be gone, there’s a reason why they’re the most successful democratic political party.
(b) Should Russia attack Ukraine it will be difficult for anyone in U.K. politics to justify defence cuts – except for the traitorous SNP.
Hi Farouk, I have to say I’m starting to get a bit more belief that Starmer is more of a statesman and does understand the need to defend the nation. On Ukraine he has been very clear that he supports everything the British Goverment is doing and maintains a firm stance of support.
I could never have voted for Corbyn as I firmly believed he was a danger to the future security of this nation and although I’m a passionate envorimentalist ( if we can’t live in balance with our environment we will all die, it’s a simple biological truth based on the science of complex living systems) I can’t vote for the green party as I simply believe there defence policy is not based on any reasonable understand of geopolitical history ( not defending yourself does not prevent wars, they encourage them).
starma on the other hand, has clearly said he is a full supporter of NATO, would support art 5 and go to war for an alliance member and said he would use nuclear weapons in response to a nuclear attack ( I can remember any other political leader ever being that clear). I do think the man is above political dogma and a rationalist who believes in our nation.
I know your more right wing and I’m more left, which is fine as I think there is a time and a place for a conservative government as there is for a labour one ( both parties need kicking out of power after a while to get refreshed and be kept honest). Our nations problem was Corbin creates a Labour Party that could not be voted for or let into power ( even by a labour voter like me) I do think/ hope starma has turned that around so I can again vote for my political belief and not because I thought I was my duty to keep one man out of power.
As always, a balanced comment.
I hope you’re right, as I’m terrified of the Labour party being anywhere near running defence or this nations geopolitics. I read the membership has already voted against AUKUS? How do the Parliamentary LP square that away with the membership?
And how soon is Starmer stabbed in the back by the left side of the party. They have not gone away, just lurking in the background.
Hi Daniele, Yes I know what you mean and that really worries me as well, Labour had to do a lot of work to get the radical left out of the party in the 80s ( look at the damage they did in the 70s).
labours roots are as a workers party ( reasonably socially conservative that supports equality of opportunity and social justice) not a communist party that wants to rip up the fabric of our society. Every time it forgets that our politics tends to suffer ( If there is no strong opposition the party in power always ends up loosing its marbles a bit in the end).
Corbin and the left are protesters not statesmen I’m hoping that the Labour Party can exercise them and the conservatives can sort out their own idiocy so be get an election with a choice of two well put together Choices for the executive ( democracy becomes a joke otherwise). I’m at the point that I’m less worried about which party makes up the next government and more about having two strong choices ( bring back, thatcher, Blair, brown and Major, whatever their faults I always thought of them as actual leaders).
Again, I can only agree.
Well, with Jonathan, that makes two of us Daniele 😉
Labour have probably lost quite a few red wall seats at the next election – northern voters will shy away from anyone connected with remain, and the Cons will hammer Sir K Starmer, however, I feel some of the middle income voters will switch if he advocates clear policies on Europe that mean working with Europe, not rejoining – rejoining will happen in 25 years at the earliest, if ever.
The death of the current Monarch may also impact the Con vote as my true blue Cumberland farmer’s daughter mother has a visceral hatred for Camilla and Charles can do one as well – the party of Country and Defence is becoming a bit of an empty vessel.
And, to mop your fevered brow, there are more than Jonathan and myself who believe in Defence – our potential candidates will be keelhauled in Barrow if they spout any Corbyn claptrap.
Consider me mopped, and good to hear David. When the membership support it I will feel happier. As it is, rejecting AUKUS almost as an ideological choice does not fill me with hope.
Traditional Labour voters can support defence, does not mean the party or membership will.
Morning Daniele,Jonathan, David. I think we are all broadly in the same camp. My roots are Conservative light. My Dad was an old fashioned Tory who said a Labour Government meant poverty! As for PM’s, they are all flawed but I could live with Thatcher, Blair, Brown Cameron. Starmer is Ok-notice how he displays the Union Jack on the podium when speaking-big thumbs up for that! I agree with Jonathan re the Greens- I am a passionate conservationist but the Greens are too far to the left and bonkers wing. With regard to Hypersonic Missiles, the pace of change is breathtaking and forward planning for defence must be a nightmare for even the clearest of thinkers. On the face of it, large naval assets are at huge risk from these weapons so where to from here for Carriers?
Another hot and sticky day in Durban-32 degrees and humid. Off to the beachfront for a cycle
Cheers Gents!
I was in the Oxfam shop in Guildford (before covid). The volunteer staff were talking loudly, ex public sector middle managers on gold plated pensions. One said they were at a local Labour Party meeting & there was not one single working class person there. The Labour Party has abandoned its industrial roots. It is now dominated by public sector overpaid non job types obsessed with woke virtue signalling.
Ha, I know it well. There are two. The charity shop or charity book shop?
Book shop. All those £30-40 new books I can’t afford, I get a year later in Oxfam for £3-4.
😁 I dropped 4 bags worth last week.
If one was “Rise & Kill First” by Ronen Bergman, I’ve just started reading it. £14-99 new, I got it for £2-50 in Oxfam.
Check out on Twitter latest tweets from “Young Labour” The usual Stop the War lot who are anti western, ignore all Russian aggression, and are now bashing Starmer for supporting NATO.
Exactly why even with a supposed moderate at the helm of the Parliamentary Labour Party beneath the membership and young labour are the usual extremists completely at odds with the average Labour voter and Starmers official position.
“labours roots are as a workers party ( reasonably socially conservative that supports equality of opportunity and social justice) not a communist party that wants to rip up the fabric of our society.”
This has become another problem that divides the Labour party, at least for me. Back when the Labour movement started, pretty much everyone who could, worked. It was easy to define the ‘lower class’ as ‘working class’. That’s not really the case any more and Labour are caught between trying to represent the ‘working class’ AND the new ‘lower class’ (to keep the terminology simple). Arguably they’ve ignored the ‘working class’ and its bit them or the arse.
Anyway, back to the really fast missiles…. yes please. 😉
Labour representing the working class and fast missiles for the RN “these are a few of my favourite things” as Mary P would say.
Starmer is starting to look and sound like the part but we’ll need to see if there are enough Labour politicians to round out the team. The Labour party are lumbered with the Labour party members. A disproportionate number being ‘activists’ and wanting to be pandered to. This means the parliamentary Labour party have to pander to them instead of pandering to the voters. This has led to the rise of Corbyn in the past which turned a lot of Labour voters off while causing a lot of the Labour party members to fill they Y’s with ‘love wee’. Cue a huge Tory majority.
My fear is that an increase in Labour’s share of the vote will lead to new demands from the activist element which will damage the ‘New Improved Shiny Centre Left’ Labour. Whatever your political views, its not healthy (as Jonathan says) to have a government in power for too long, they run out of ideas and end up going after single mum’s or whatever. 🙄I think we’re pretty much there again…..
Yes that’s the problem. I do wonder if we need to start thinking about some form of primary type election for party leaders. I’m just not sure that having a small clic of party members ( who are generally either further left or right that the general population) are the correct people to select the two individuals who are put up as our choice of prime minister. Maybe it’s time that the Parliamentary parties voted on say 4 candidates for leader to put up for the general public to have its say on and the public decide which will make the best challenger ( I know it’s a lot of elections but democracies come with a cost and suffrage is a duty as much as a right). There is no way we would have had the rise of Corbin to mess up our democratic processes and it would weed out future threats as well.
This would be a good idea. Sure, it would lead to parties in many ways becoming much-of-a-muchness, but would that really be a bad thing?
I t(ink it would still produce some interesting candidates after all Boris J was a popular figure. But what it would do is remove those individuals with very iffy ideas, so Corbin would not have got through the process and any future Proto communist or proto fascist would almost always not get support.it would add in a little extra protect to democracy, which is always good.
I think politics has become more blurred then this, the old idea that the right with the Conservatives will be good for the military and the left with Labour will be bad has become difficult to predict.
Yes the labour party has that Anti war faction that can become more vocal depending on the leader but there has been considerable capabilities lost under the Conservatives, Osborne would have loved to cut at least one of the carriers if the contracts had allowed.
Ideologies are not set in stone like they once were for example no one would have expected 70 years high tax levels from a Conservatives government.
Agreed. I don’t claim the Tories are the party of defence, I just think the other lot would be even worse. The cuts since 1991 would make interesting reading to see who cut most.
We’ve only had terrible options over the years for who to govern us. I think Ed Miliband (the wrong brother) was the closest to decent in terms of defence.
But I’m interested to know why you are so against Labour now that Corbyn has been ejected? It’s been the Conservatives that have dogged our armed forces with defence cuts for a decade now and left us with huge capability gaps.
Starmer is mentally stable; a clear thinker who thinks before he opens his mouth; he has integrity, gravitas, a backbone; he doesn’t wear rose coloured spectacles….why would anyone vote for him? People prefer politicians who tell them everything will be a bed of roses.
Does he have the ability to listen to all sides first and the courage needed to force through carefully thought-out policies? Competent and fair is such a rare combination in a politician that I’ll only believe it when I see it.
Boris is lazy and reasonably clever, and he doesn’t seem to give a stuff about what others think. I don’t like him, but I admit it’s a more effective combination than I’d have given him credit for a few years ago. I never expected him to last this long.
Voters are a mixed bunch and I don’t think they prefer politicians who lie. Some do, sure. Some don’t. There’s a level of endless optimism before the latest great white hope turns into the latest great white shark. We’d all want Starmer to be different. Time will tell.
Bringing this back to UKDJ topicality, whatever the outcome of the Ukrainian scare/invasion/disaster, we will have to see how leading politicians and parties factor it into their thinking on defence spending. If at all.
Spending on defence and the wasteful performance of MOD procurement are the canary in the coal mine. The UK has a cultural problem defending itself in a wider sense. We should be aiming for as near as we can get to self sufficiency in food, energy and key technologies and skills not entering into global ‘trade deals’ for cheap imports which result in dependence on long environmentally absurd and vulnerable supply lines and which incentivise our suppliers to trash their own resources.
Charity begins at home.
Can’t agree more, nations stand and fall on the strengths of the whole, economic, industrial, Infrastructure, access to raw materials and markets for products, political will, the populations will, health of the population, infrastructure as well as the strength of the a armed forces.
Nations fall if any one area is week as an example:
Imperial India was a world class superpower and had the greatest economic output in the world. Due to the failures of will of the ruling classes it became the imperial possession of a nation it dwarfed.
The french third republic on paper should have eaten the third reich alive. But it’s people could not stand it or really wanted to fight for it.
The Soviet Union could have stomped all over the west militarily from 1945 to the 1980s it’s leaders were focused and its population believed. In the end it’s economic faults killed it.
Japan had utter Will and a population that would almost all have been willing to die for the honour of their nation. But almost no access to needed raw materials killed it, the same with Germany in the end.
That was Hitler’s thinking and look where it got Germany!
The UK has to trade, we lack the space and natural resources to do everything ourselves. What we should do however, is ensure that we retain a capability in those areas which are key to national security.
A bit far, mate.
We absolutely should be looking to be as self-sufficient as possible. With the expectation that we never will be and will need to trade, but you need to aim high.
The trade we do do should first and foremost be with others who share most of beliefs in values; most importantly in democracy, but also most pressingly in protecting the global environment.
Well, I think you may be conflating an obsession with racial purity with a legitimate sense of community. The Irish recently realised they are importing potatoes; no kidding. We are behaving as if global trade is the answer to all our ills. It isn’t . First priority is to put your own house in order.
Would need a mighty swing vote to loose the next election. I wouldn’t be so sure.
To be honest at present I have no idea where our political parties will be next week let alone in two years.
Yes, very true. I think Starmer is bringing some credibility back to Labour, being a centre-left party. And isn’t afraid to talk about defence. I met that Lisa Nandy at work two weeks ago, she was nice, very easy to talk to. Then again, politicians are always nice visiting companies.
Yes I do think labour are getting somewhere. You can tell how far they have come as Diane Abbott has come out and accused starma of being a war monger, which will do wonders for his credibility.
We can’t even afford to make full use of, or development of Brimstone so yes this all seems like the usual big talk over reality to fool or up the confidence of the gullible or just less informed.
If Labour get in we will probably join with Russia and they will send us weapons with crews…!
Sorry rob that’s ridiculous. That’s like calling a conservative a facist, it lowers the standard of discussion.
I can’t see it Farouk, just remember Labour needs to turn over an enormous Tory majority, at the moment they have a thoughtful, bright leader, but not a lot behind him.
They just criticise from the opposition benches, no real alternative policies same old looney left elements in the shadows, waiting to take back control and many won’t have forgotten or forgiven their stance on Brexit either.
The Tories have the opposite issue, a leader that’s now a liability, but a party body with a lot of talent behind them…
I would imagine they will go into the next election with a new leader and win, but with a much reduced majority.
“we can’t afford to purchase something to cover the gap until the ethereal Future Cruise/Anti-Ship Weapon Comes on line”
I wonder if he can justify it now!
“It was clear from the words of the outgoing First Sea Lord that the RN has almost certainly decided not to purchase an Interim Surface to Surface Guided Weapon (I-SSGW) to replace the already obsolete Harpoon Block 1C which will go out of service in 2023. “ISSGW has been paused” said Radakin.
The navy is more interested in hypersonic missiles with much longer range. The “sticking plaster” approach of spending £250M for 5 sets of missiles to equip just 3 ships is hard to justify and surprisingly he suggested it could be 2027 before ISSGW could have been fitted. The original request for proposals from industry called for missile deliveries between 2023-4.
With several manufacturers ready to offer solutions, this would appear to be over-stating a modest integration task and the addition of weapon canisters to a few frigates.
The RN is clearly betting big on the FCASW project, although US options are always being “looked at”. The FCASW is still in the concept phase and may not deliver a viable anti-ship or land-attack missile, hypersonic or otherwise until the early 2030s.
To compound the inability to kill ships, the Defence Procurement Minister, Jeremy Quin implied that integration of SPEAR-3 on F-35 has slipped by another 4 years at will not achieve FOC until 2028.”
https://www.navylookout.com/royal-navy-rows-back-on-plans-to-acquire-new-anti-ship-missiles-before-2030s/
Hi Nigel, depending on hypersonics is going to be very expensive ship kill/LA option everytime. Beyond the range of RN gunnery, martlet, venom, subs/torpedos, MPAs, you would think there would be a need for a mud-tier Sea Brimstone-Harpoon-ER type AShm/LAM, even utilising TLAM v5 before jumping up to hypersonics? I will say that in reality “I know absolutely nothing” on this, just observing from afar.
I’ve just posted this in another thread.
Something I’d be in favour of for the RAF, a very useful addition to our arsenal.
“Outfitting cargo aircraft with a palletized standoff-weapons capability also promises to be far cheaper than fielding additional bombers, making this an even more attractive concept at a time when budgets are stretched.
“These Rapid Dragon deployments represent the first end-to-end demonstration of a palletized strike mission, from rolling missile pallets onto an aircraft to in-flight missile release,” said Scott Callaway, Lockheed Martin Advanced Strike Programs director, of the tests at White Sands.
“They are a big step toward showing the feasibility of the palletized munitions concept and the ability of mobility aircraft to augment the strike capacity of tactical fighters and strategic bombers.”
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/42469/our-best-look-yet-at-rapid-dragon-cargo-plane-launched-stealth-cruise-missiles-in-action
With Starmer in charge, I doubt there would be any significant, if any cuts to defence spending. Nor do I think the Liberal Democrats (as a junior coalition partner) would cut it.
The Greens have no chance. If they somehow end up a kingmaker, they can be easily shut up with some environmental policies. Their supporters would not forgive their party if they passed up action on the environment just to follow some of their batty defence ‘policy’.
Where have they said this? Holding them all to account is another matter. But can you really see the liberal democrats or Green party getting elected?
The two party state is a weakness of US democracy now. The founding fathers always envisaged independents. I’m against career politicians to. Surely to be an MP, someone should have had a real job before going straight into politics.
But if you think Conservatives are somehow strong on defence and their record stands them apart, I think you start to believe your own press. The truth is, the record of all is horrific. Alongside the waste and mismagment industry and personnel.
https://www.defencesynergia.co.uk/labour-party-defence-policy-speech-by-john-healey-given-at-rusi-26th-february-2021/
The Turkish Atmaca missile could be a cheap, quick Harpoon replacement. Half the price of Harpoon & the way the Turkish Lira is diving, could end up even cheaper. The Turks designed it to be simple to swap out old Harpoon & replace with Atmaca.
Looking around I dont see anything wrong with where we are going. Our energy policy makes more sense than others. Another Euro project dominated by France. No thanks.
We should also focus on developing ways to defeat hypersonic weapons, as they will increasingly be fielded by near-peer adversaries to deter and limit our and our allies ability to project power.
“So I have a call to arms for you in industry. I want you to feel as invested in this as we are, not because of your share price. Not because of the wonderful manufacturing facilities that allows you to create, but because you recognise you are integral to the success of a Global, Modern, and Ready Royal Navy.”
This all sounds a bit Commandant Lassard doesn’t it. Basically, bollox.
We have ‘gapped’ so much capability that its hard to take this guff seriously. Hopefully our gaps aren’t going to be exposed in the next week or two when it starts to get ‘pwoppa nawty’ in Ukraine.
Indeed I can seriously see Russian ships and aircraft really pushing the limits of our territory and very even possibly into them on occasion or just sitting in the Channel or off of Faslane and who knows where else displaying our relative helplessness to prevent it or daring us to which no doubt will provoke Corbyn and co to come out to claim one/both of its pointless having a defence at all or the threat by having one just provokes peace loving Russia who otherwise would leave us all in peaceful bliss. This is increasingly becoming a cross between Bond and Dr Strangelove.
Spot on Andy.
The speech is two years old for a start. I don’t even know why it’s an article today.
After all previous promises this feel like just talk, let’s see some actual budget spent and proof of testing. Talking about something that may happen in 8 years time is just that. It starting to feel like mod notices about amazing tech we will use is a bit like all those Russian propaganda articles about new carriers etc with “amazing” capabilities. Maybe I’m just too cynical on a Sat morning 🙂
I think you are right to feel it’s acceptable to be relatively defenceless in the present circumstance while talking about supreme capabilities in or near a decade away appears rather delusional. But if it’s all about trying to promote ‘global Britain’ then I get that promises that never come to pass take presidence over reality.
Will we tag on to the Americans and Australian development or go European?
You need to get with the program James; we are an independent, global coastal state who controls our own borders; well except for the Russian navy cruising off Faslane.
Japan it is then with the Pacific tilt as there will be no huge land battles in Europe again….
The RN must have best of breed hypersonic missiles if it is to remain a tier 1 blue water navy. Simple as that.
Or at least a peer level missile.
I am sure that with careful planning and budgeting that we have long come to expect from the MoD that fully half our surface will be fitted for but not with our world leading hypersonic missile system by at least 2047. Meanwhile our armed forces will have to enjoy another capability holiday.
Only the likes of Russia, China, N Korea, Iran enjoy our capability holidays. Why are we handing so many own goals to every potential enemy? We undermine our own security & risk the lives of our servicemen. Completely incompetent leadership, all smoke, no substance.
I usually try to see the positives, and in time we and others will no doubt develop these weapons.
But what pie in the sky! It cannot always be about tomorrow, we need uplifts now. And not just the £16 odd billion uplift where much will go to fill in black holes or go into fat cats pockets for future weapons that may never arrive, or space, or cyber.
This sort of talk is the same nonsense as the CGS wanting the army to be able to fight “in war at its most feral” while lacking in firepower across the board and sending troops on diversity training last week.
Are there no Q&A sessions after these grand speeches where a few realities can be pointed out by anyone who knows a thing or two?
RM FCF – he did not mention what the RM will use to get ashore or what firepower they will have. Details.
Lets have an announcement of a genuine expansion, now, not tomorrow which never arrives before the next bite of the carrot.
As it is, this is no better than a politician grandstanding.
Am I in sceptical mode today??🤔
Hi Daniele, I think the FSL has just completed a media course, how to speak without saying anything. I loved the bit about industry not in it for the Share Price. Get real, they are only in it for share price and profit, that is the purpose of being in business. A little deluded I thought.
It’s a legal requirement for the directors of publicly quoted companies to think about the share price and profits. It’s less explicit than it used to be, but the long term increase in a company’s value is the usual way to view the success of the company.
Hi Jon, I’m totally ok with that, I don’t see the point of the first sea lord preaching ideals to businesses that they are not going to get on board with. If he truest believes what he is saying, he puts the navy at a disadvantage when dealing with business. Partnership sure, but backed up with a robust contract where the customer gets what they want for an agreed price.
An appeal to patriotism …it might work. You never know…
It would work on me, but I know nothing about designing missiles 😳
Just a tad mate.
Hi Daniellle – as i have mentioned here several times, nothing will change until the MoD is disbanded and we get some competent and accountable project managers in.
It looks to many people today that the Russian STAVKA is running things here. Tennis anybody??
Did you see BJ’s speech from Moscow yesterday were he was accused of propping up the Ukraine government by sending 600 SF to the country apparently an artical in the Daily Mail had mentioned 600 SF helping to train the Ukrainian army. He stated that we have only just over 100 personnel in the Ukraine at the moment but the Russians must have had a big smile on there faces as they know we would find it hard to put into the feild 600 SF personnel.
We would yes, but I myself don’t want them too big anyway.
600 SF?! Who do the D Mail think are “SF”? I must check myself. 😀
And one of the reasons for the UKSFSG was to remove that role from T1 SF. Now joined by rangers and SFAB.
“600 SF” ! 😂
I think your right, I’m not sure our leaders have really accepted that the geopolitical picture is looking like we will be in some form of very significant peer conflict with a decade if not sooner. They are still focusing on what great capabilities we will have in a decade, but seem to unable to grasp the concept that there are at least three flash points that could lead to a peer on peer war a couple that could lead to a war with a close peer and a number of areas that could suck resources like a sponge. We are even in a situation where we have two many Europeans three trigger points that could involve nuclear exchanges ( Iran/Israel and India/Pakistani India/China).
looking at were we are going I think there needs to be a major refocus on Delivery now or soon and balance in order: what can be delivered now ( 0-2 years) what can be delivered in a reasonable timescale ( 2-6 years) then everything else.
for the shot term 0-2 years:
1) lethality and survivability of the escort fleet that we can bring into service quickly, but will have a lot of life going forward: so we should be up arming with systems that can then be moved to newer ships as they become operational: that’s more sea ceptors on all Major escorts ( quad packing where we can). Spear three (Sea spear) on all Major escorts. Purchase of a clever deck launched anti ship missile ( that can then be moved to the T31s).
2) ASW capability: get some dipping sonar on some of the wildcat flights, put some of these on some rivers 2 with temp hangers to beef up the ASW for local waters ( North Sea). May be even consider putting some sea ceptors on the rivers two ( I know it defeats the object of cheap constabulary).
3) Air, we need spear three As soo. As possible as well as an air launched Heavyweight anti ship missile. I really don’t think we should be gapping our early warning system and need to keep running the old until the new is inservice.
4) Army. Get all our present armour upgraded as quickly as possible and buy off the shelf. Sort out artillery and get the meduim rotor ordered from an off the self design.
5)Push anything building type 26/31 ect as fast as it can go ( just need to spend the money).
6) push forward air defences for for the British isles as well as ABMs.
Again, agree with that list, which is achievable and not breaking the bank, if only the blasted Treasury would wake up and fund, as their drip feed slows so much to a crawl.
Point 6 especially. Nigel mentioned a conversation with me from many years ago on here concerning home AD. I was more accepting of the MoD/HMG position of the lack of need of home defence SAM systems then. I’ve totally revised my position now, with Russia’s missile capabilities it is folly to keep reducing our basing footprint then proudly talking of “centres of excellence” ( what spin claptrap! ) where all assets are in one place.
JinMK mentioned this as “points of failure” Yes, he is right.
Yes, especially as there is a lot of speculation that Russia has changed how it’s planning to operate its sub force as more of a safe set of missile arsenals with which to attack NATO basis. As they have refitted their older SNNs they have turned them into missile boats. The thought is they are not going to contest the Atlantic, just stay as close to home as possible while attacking NATO ports and airfields.
considering the only way to neutralise the U.K. as a strategic threat is to eliminate our navel ports and millitary airfields you would think we would now be ensuring there is no way to do that. If we wanted we could even set up a sea viper set system on the south coast which would give cover to at least all our south coast navel ports and airfields like Yeovilton.
CAMM would be useful second layer and we should be getting a lot more deployed.
But I also think we need to think about a couple of THAAD batteries as well.
A lot of this I would have never considered reasonable a year ago. But I now think we need to assume a peer war with Russia ( or China) within a few years needs to be a 25 on the National risk register ( 5 for likely hood, 50% or greater chance and a 5 for impact ( catastrophe loss of life, infrastructure and resources).
I also now think we ( the whole western world ) also need to consider the possible of a general world war within a decade ( Im not saying it’s likely, but two years ago I would not have considered it). It would now be mistake to think that the west’s geopolitical adversaries could not act in concert ( Russia opening a conflict in Europe at the same time as China opens one in the South China Sea and Iran closes off key shipping lanes, with much of South America acting with China).
I think we have now hit that point the world did in the mid 1930s when everyone realised what was coming.
Agree with all Jonathan. The speach is just fiddling while Rome burns.
So – translation of that speech would be : “Please do some R&D on this on your own because we can’t afford to pay you do any”
We ‘aim’ to be a leader but don’t have any actual projects…
Is this a bit of Shakespearean Elizabeth 1st addressing her troops at Dartford raising their hackles talking up the future but knowing if the Armada ever actually made it to shore the defenders are all dead ducks, so in a way nothing to lose. Or is Dads Army a better comparison, don’t worry about your pitchforks today you will all have deadly Lee Enfield, Brens or Stens in the future…. just a pity it’s after the invasion is already decided mind.
Shhh-Don’t blow his cover!
A tad socialist but I make the point, yet again (sorry), that the UK or CANZUK needs to have a specific national agency (not the MoD) tasked with nurturing key strategic resources and capabilities such as this, and not then sell them for export. Else we will always wind up in these situations with our panties down and facing decades to play catch-up if at all.
First thing would be to ensure Arm is relisted in London and not NY.
Sorry Sean, genuine question, I’m not being funny. Who are Arm?
UK chip designers: their chips go in most of the phones on the planet.
Thank you Terence, appreciate it
Started out as a part of Acorn designing chips on BBC Micros, then grew a little.
Ok, Acorn I know. I used an Archimedes At school, in the computer Lab, when I was a kid 🙂
The Archimedes was powered by the very first Arm RISC chips.
Arm are a chip-design consultancy based in Cambridge U.K.
Their designs power over 90% of all smartphones and tablets, the new Apple M1 chips, and Amazon’s Graviton chip. Theresa May foolishly let Japan’s SoftBank buy up Apple, now SoftBank is trying to offload it due to losses in other parts of its business.
Arm is a strategic technology asset.
Thank you Sean. No likely pathway back to UK ownership then?
Was previously listed on LSE, SoftBank is talking of listing Arm on NYSE instead now that the purchase by Nvidia has fallen through. There’s talk of putting pressure on SoftBank to relist on LSE – eg former head of MI6 was recommending this.
Unless UK investors or the British government stump up? No.
And unfortunately Arm is worth a lot more now. Partly due to market growth, but largely due to the slump the market took upon Brexit (which is what allowed Softbank to snatch them up).
Yep (Sean).
What other country would allow all its key strategic industries and resources to be sold off?
For example the North Sea gas resource, which is a case in point at the moment. We had the opportunity, Like Norway, back in the day to set up a Sovereign Wealth fund to benefit from ongoing sales, but we did not do it.
Worse still I believe we allowed interconnector pipes to the European mainland to be built and allowed this key strategic resource to be frittered away to the point where we then had to import gas through the same interconnectors.
I’m all for green energy but surely we need an energy framework for the UK that licences and severely limits the amount of gas sold into the world market to conserve the resource. There is plenty left in the sea, we could at least cushion UK consumers and industry until we develop more green energy and fusion.
ARM is (GMD) another example of a key asset allowed to be overseas owned like too at many other companies in the UK defence sector. There is almost a systematic hoovering up of these assets. We wind up not being able to produce our own new MBTs and suddenly of course there is a world crises where we may actually need….you guessed it.: some MBTs.
ARRRGH!
Actually most western democracies allow this, just look at all the USA defence companies that BAE has hoovered up. But there does needs to be greater strategic oversight in the U.K. to prevent the debacles of Arm and Chobham reoccurring.
Norway’s sovereign wealth fund was in created from the interconnects it built. Natural resources aren’t going to be extracted if they can’t be freely bought and sold in the open market, private industry won’t make the investment. The U.K. made two major energy blunders;
• failing to initiate the building of new nuclear plants soon enough
• leading the charge into building electricity power stations powered by gas.
This is why we’ll see a rise in electricity because of hike in gas prices. Ultimately we need to end gas use completely, its burning releases CO2 and we’ve already burnt so much that we’re now an importer.
(Thank goodness we can buy gas from Norway, otherwise we would be dependent, like Germany, on Russia interconnectors.)
Sheffield Forgemasters is a small light in the darkness. Maybe HMG is starting to understand that some parts of the economy are essential for National Security. Yes it’s a small step but it’s the first one in a very, very long time.
I agree Sean with your points about the blunders, and yes we must end use of gas ASAP. I’m just trying to make the point that we must learn from the past and introduce a mind-set that protects the UKs strategic interest. For North Sea Gas (& oil) I believe the UK already licences companies to extract and sell. I think it should increase the costs of those licences and set a framework whereby the vast bulk of it is sold only into the UK domestic market for obvious reasons – this includes especially any new extraction in order to gap until renewables and fusion comes on-stream..
As we’re a net importer of gas now I would be surprised if we export any at all.
Oil is more complex as there are different types of oil, so even countries that are oil exporters often need to import a different oil type – of the products of its refinement. Even after we stop using oil as fuel, we’ll need to extract and refine it for all the by-products we get from it, from plastics through to pharmaceuticals.
Yes. Many peeps don’t realise where plastic comes from.
There is both gas and oil still in the North Sea. We could extract this to stabilise and protect the UK consumer and industry whilst we await renewables/fusion.
For example there is “heavy” oil (presumably and gas in the Bentley Field, but the commercial sector could not fund it (bloomin’ Xcite Energy saga). If the UK Gov for strategic reasons wanted to get at it then it could. I’m just saying we then need to protect who it went to i.e. only the UK.
I suspect long-term oil reserves will be given a strategic classification and reserved for military use. The conversion of military assets; tanks, jets, warships, to green alternatives will probably be after the rest of the economy had been greened. As for the exhausted wells, there’s a possibility of using them for carbon capture stores.
To be honest despite the mystique making hypersonic missiles probably isn’t that difficult as someone stated a while back the Russians have technically fielded them for decades. Some missiles we produce or about to operate not too far short of the technical point at which that term is employed and sensors can certainly be progressed to cope. It’s the other aspects I feel that are part of the package often deciphered from the term in the modern environment that are the real barriers. Gliding bodies, hypersonic manoeuvrability and operating them at and from the edge of the atmosphere incorporating re entry. Fact is much of that is not going to be part of the plan I’m sure even if such speeches are happy to allow us to perceive that’s what he is talking about. Any high end stuff of that nature I’m sure certainly in the early stages if it arrives at all will be US originated, you just have to look at the cost and difficulties they are having with it all.
In reality I reckon there will be (mostly) joint programs looking into and/or pushing through development of super fast versions of relatively traditional missiles (probably using much of existing missiles where possible) with I suspect some clever tricks added so as to not compromise range, size or targeting too much or create new levels of wide ranging complexity but can be presented as ‘world leading’. Hybrid motors might be part of that so speed can be higher or lower depending upon what part of its trajectory it’s on while easing the need for complex materials/aerodynamics. That sort of theme would allow us to belatedly join the hypersonic party, even express in part aspects that are ‘class leading’ or ‘unmatched’ (like we can with Brimstone) but don’t involve all the heavy duty capabilities that others boast of their wider arsenal of hypersonics.
Agreed, you don’t really need hypersonic for ship to ship missiles as it’s unlikely you’ll be engaging an enemy combatant thousands of miles away. Really hypersonic missiles are an alternative to ballistic missiles, which are predominantly land-based and used for land-attack; with the exception of that Chinese anti-carrier missile.
Evening from Sydney…. One things that really bugs me about all this is, okay, hypersonics for the MK41 VLS’ on theT26/31/32/83…well what about something for the current T23/45s of today and right now! They’re all practically naked! Why is their no sense of urgency on this? And seriously, £250m, that’s bugger all compared to what’s been squandered else where. I sure hope the RN can fight with fresh air and our subs are all in the right place at the right time.
Surely, if hypersonics are a way off and can’t be cannister launched anyway (or can they?) then upgraded Harpoons, NSM or Sea Brimstone E-ER wouldn’t break the bank. And
enough for one round (at least please) for all our T23/45s just for some extra fire-power.
Off to bed now and let’s for cool heads over Ukraine.
Totally agree with upgrading Harpoon, or just a further life extension, if the manufacturer won’t do it for a decent price, let’s get a third party in to do it. It’s not as if we need to worry about the warranty.
With what financing it? A couple of coppers and a round pound found at the back of the sofa?
Hi Mike, you are right it would have to be funded with scrapings, but with the total defense budget at approximately 55 billion. I’m sure there is some of non core defense spending that could be repurposed. I said early in this thread, what does the services and MOD spend on PR, HR and so on, perhaps a small reallocation is possible.
If we can’t fund our security we have no future.
I’m not convinced it’s a good idea to have your standard go to anti ship/land attack weapon hypersonic. Rather like ballastic missiles they’re gonna make people very jumpy , very quick decisions will need to be made. They may end up being a very expensive but unusable weapon. Yes sure we should have them if nothing else for the deterrent effect but they shouldn’t be the standard go to weapon imho.
They’ve been dismissing hypersonic missiles for years that targetting isn’t possible yet. Suddenly we must have them, when others already have them. Why now are we going for that bandwagon when we don’t have replacements for our model T Fords about to go to the scrapyard?
Can we do the simple things right first, before talking about ambitions that are years away and require funding levels we don’t have? What about buying a new anti ship missile off the shelf first? Besides, the Russians went hypersonic cause they want to target US carrier strike groups and they haven’t got carriers themselves and their stealth technology is not up to scratch. Much better to acquire some LRASMs now.
Good point. IIRC the FC/ ASW project had two threads; a French requirement for a hypersonic missile and a UK requirement for a subsonic long range missile. Radakin seems to have got behind the French vision. Not sure where that leaves us with the subsonic requirement. Maybe we can just buy LRASM.
Totally agree. But the funding has been withdrawn for the interim ASM
I thought LRASM was better than interim. Maybe I got that wrong.
Very much this!
LRASM or NSM seem blindingly obvious.
For Typhoon and F35. Without delay. Are they cleared for them?
I’m cooler about the need for ship launched ASM, as I support the idea that fast jets and subs are the shop killers, not other ships. Nice to have, yes, but air launched at range from QEC or land bases must be the priority.
Add the P8 fleet to the list for ASM
America is having trouble figuring it out and some British innovation is needed. We learn from each other and we share technology. If we didn’t, the UK would never have had our nuke subs and weapons in place in the 70s. In many ways we are where we are militarily due to a lot of American innovation.
Hi Rob,
The US have long appreciated the UK’s contribution as we tend to be able to fill in gaps they have. That’s not to say they relied on UK input, but I think it certain helped them along as we tend to look at things differently which is often what is needed.
You are right to say that we have got a great deal out of the relationship.
Cheers CR
Absolutely true. And we appreciate the US and everything they’ve done for UK. Obviously it’s not “charity” but sometimes it does feel like that! Many people are completely unaware that the US Marshall plan benefited the UK first and foremost (UK got more money than any country) and then our WWII adversaries, who all got less. Thanks and thanks to all Americans – you really are our cousins even if we are a bit of a dysfunctional family sometimes 🙂
True unfortunately we spent our Marshall plan money on Malaya and Korea wars.
And propping up Sterling or so I read. Was not spent on helping the impoverished post WWII Britons.
Pretty much and it is never mentioned in any history books even today. Makes you wonder why.
Very curious indeed.
I mean, the US did steal a lot of innovations and designs from the UK.
Thankfully we are allies.
We traded submarine technology, especially in the area of noise reduction. Of course there was VTOL tech. With the Harriers. What we got in return from US could be argued was far more valuable. US Sub Nuclear reactor designs – far advanced than our own domestic designs, Polaris and lots of nuclear weapons tech. such as WE.177 design (one of my areas BTW…the underlying design was based on US w59 which the UK gained as part of the skybolt program).
Trident and all the design and fire control around Trident, not to mention all the assistance provided at Kings Bay.
It’s a big list and lucky for us, mostly in UK favour. We don’t like to say it too often but we owe the US a lot and not just in military tech.
All true. I’d suggest being plugged into the UKUSA agreement ( 5 eyes )is even more important. Even as a junior partner to NSA, gives us capability far beyond our means where the anglosphere nations co operate and exchange data.
Yes. We get a lot of benefit and knowledge from this relationship. BTW that is why it is called “special,” which I know can induce a gag response for some people, but it is special because…no one else gets this kind of access. No one. We are blessed to have this. OK maybe Australia will soon with Nuke subs but by and large no one else get this much intel and technology sharing.
It’s only the usual suspects that gag, we both know the importance of it and so do politicians when they get into power and their eyes are opened by just what they can access.
Probably remain reason that Corbyn simply HAD to be defeated, given their views on America and the SR.
The damage to British intelligence would have been immeasurable.
Completely agree.
And looking at Twitter today they’re at it again. Young Labour denouncing Starmer for supporting NATO. Brainwashed.
NATO has helped keep the peace, why would anyone want it gone? Only a communist would want NATO gone and the UK and others isolated, facing down Russia alone.
A global leader in hypersonic weapons dont make me laugh We havnt even built one let alone tested one the following countries have looked into the tech India, Japan, Australia, France, Germany and North Korea And dont even get me started on type 31 1 x Bofors 57 Mk3 and a couple of 40mm guns just a bit more than a River Class all the rest fitted for but not with AGAIN. And they hope to use these to replace Type 23 Frigates. Well they only got until Wednesday next week to get all these launched they will be good against the Slava class 16 x SSN 12 and a 130mm gun
Why, is NATO going to war with Russia Wednesday?
Anyone would think Ukraine was a NATO nation!
Biden certainly thinks Putin is going to toll the dice.
I’ll see you
1. Ukrainian invasion
2. Suwalki Gap closure
3. Possible non-lethal bio attack on Adazi and paratroop take down of Riga.
4. Kaliningrad interception of NATO air / naval forces out to 500km.
Game over. Gather around the table or go nuke.
Your turn.
No he wouldn’t dare touch NATO.
I’m not sure. Why does Biden think it will go kinectic with Russia?
Take Riga and the gap and NATO can do nothing. Endex.
We can fluster and bluster but other than nuke, we don’t have the ability to retake and NATO is a busted flush. Great game of chess at the moment, and the Russians are masters.
I haven’t seen anything to suggest Biden thinks Putin will attack a NATO state. My guess is the reinforcement by US and others is sending a political message. If it was anything more it would be on a far greater scale.
No he would not yet, but China and Russia together could.
Agreed.
1/ Limited Ukrainian invasion, that is areas required to get water for the Crimea. Very possible. If the Field Hospitals are confirmed as having moved up then probably inevitable as I’d read they were not yet present.
2,3,4 not for me. Kalingrad to me is made to be some mythical fortress, as much as it was hyped up by the Germans when it was Konigsberg.
I don’t think Russia will go anywhere near NATO nations this time. Also we are not going to risk a war for Ukraine, so it all depends on if Putin thinks Ukraine is to hard to swallow and if the west’s economic response will be to damaging.
whatever happens ( invasion or not) Russia NATO relations are going to be in the toilet and either Russia will be looking for its next conquest ( Baltic states ) and think NATO is weak or hold onto an even bigger NATO Grudge.
what really worries is what comes next, we now have three strategically placed nations that hold a very significant beef with the west, one Asian Pacific super power, one large regional European power ( that has a handy land border with a lot of Europeans states as well as a direct border with its ally) finally you have a Middle Eastern regonal power, well placed to cut sea lanes.
Putin said in a recent interview that Russia is no match for nato. He was talking about collective defence, article 5 etc. Then he went on to talk about Russia nuclear forces modernisation etc
That’s Putin playing to his home audience as well as unaligned countries ( look at the big bad NATO).
Its true that NATO has overwhelming military force, but it has major structural weakness that Putin will likely seek to use and that’s where a conflict could ignite.
There you have it. We, NATO, have threatened him with unsurpassed sanctions.
Break NATO – Suwalki Gap / Riga which NATO have admitted could not be retaken easily and he can present at a negotiating table and call the odds. Point of caution, Riga is 54% Russian, Daugavpils, the second city has an even higher % of Russians.
I don’t know, go for broke moment with an unreported 20k Desant troops at Psov… game over.
Hi Barry I think it will be a bit less in your face, a direct conflict would play to the strength of NATO, which is overwhelming military strength and probability mitigate its key weakness which is disunity of purpose.
if I was Putin I would play to my strengths and NATO weakness. Key NATO weakness are:
1) general disunity of purpose, each nation has its own agenda and different needs.
2) the energy dependence of some of its states, and Russia ability to destroy or massively damage a number of Russian gas dependent countries.
3) The ethnic russian populations in some states and potential clashes between ethnic groups, states reaction to Russian enthic populations
5) some states that could be manipulated to be seen as an aggressor very easily (Turkey).
russian strengths include:
1) willingness and expertise in playing these sub military interventions ( they will murder and insight violence.
2) the ability to mass resources across a wide front without incurring the same costs as NATO countries ( it’s expensive for the U.K, US ex to deploy forces to Eastern Europe).
3) a growing strategic alliance with China
4) a market for its main exports that are not Western nation dependent ( it could sell all its excess gas and food to China/India)
5) complete food and energy independence.
So I think he will push against NATO weakness creating an ongoing set of crisis points that exploit NATO disunity as well as build that strategic Alliance with China to a point where they may be acting in geopolitical concert.
Hi Jonathan. Thank you for a very thoughtful reply.
Jonathan has made a really thoughtful and interesting contribution.
However, the original premise was based on:
1. He’s backed into the corner formed by Russian public opinion and weltering Western Sanctions.
It’s been acknowledged, NATO can not easily retake Rīga – so many obstacles.
Germany is not fussed if Russia takes Rīga – keynote speakers at conferences.
Calling Endex after Russian annexation of Riga, allows the Franco-German pact to push for settlement.
Malleting some turban wearing, flip flop stylee peasants had a negative ezercise outcome, how is the Sahel going for France? British leadership in tatters and there will be the Czech and Hungarians with fleety feet to boot. It’s a gamble but where some 13 NATO countries in financial hoc to the Chinese – who gain from NATO be torn asunder, this is a great game of RISK or chess..
And it’s a game of chess.
However, I revert to Jonathan.
And the truly scary think is we have no idea which way Russia ( and China) will go. We will just be reacting and that is not a great position to be in.
2) Putin isn’t stupid, he knows this would result in all our war with NATO. Anything less would be an existential crisis for NATO in failing to uphold Article 5. The ONLY way Putin could hope to survive would be through an equally binding military pact with China.
3) Wooul be against international law, resulting in war crimes being levelled at Putin and Russia and it being sanctioneded by non-western nations too.
I would like to draw something positive from this rather flowery speech.
The RN appears to have come out firmly in favour of a hypersonic missile capability. This is good news for FC/ASW programme as there was initially a lot of talk about the French wanting a hypersonic missile and the RN wanting a sub / super sonic missile. This was threatening to cause delays but now appears to have been put to bed.
Hopefully that means that despite all the high level issues between the UK and France it appears that the working relationship around the Lancaster House agreement is still working behind the scenes which is the best opportunity if the much needed SSM capability is not delayed.
So yeh lots of blah blah, but there could well be good stuff going on behind the scenes, for example, the relationship between Team Compex Weapons and MBDA.
Cheers CR
It will be interesting to see if they have a deck-mounted launcher as well as Mk 41/Sylver.
Good to have a decision. I think we were still thinking of fighting the Iraq or Afghan wars. Ever since building the Maginot Line the French have often thought ahead better than us to give them their due. Now where are those battlecruiser blueprints?
One gets the impression that the British Defense establishment and politicians have decided that since the UK has chosen to no longer expend the funds to remain a global military power that it must hide that fact from its citizens by giving speeches totally devoid of reality and instead provide a mirage world in which Britannia still rules the waves.
The UK’s defense budget for 2022 is £ 54.4 billion. Of that £47.1 is actually for defense. £5.5 billion is foreign aid and £ 1.2 billion is R&D. Where are the funds coming from for hypersonic missile research?
Why don’t you think R/D spending counts as Defence spending ? Do you know of any country that doesn’t include it as part of it’s defence budget ?
‘Highly lethal’
There is certainly a long way to go from where we are now to ‘Highly lethal’ One of the problems of being so far behind is that when you get to where you want to be lots of other navies will have moved on.
‘And it’s a future where we will regain and retain operational advantage in the underwater domain.’ Whilst very true in some ways how great can the advantage be with so few boats in the water?
What also has to be remembered is that looking, identifying and tracking targets is more important to this chap than having the tools to engage.
Global leader? , sorry but the Russians and Chinese have already claimed that title In regards to development and deployment of hypersonic missiles. We need to get something viable designed , tested and produced within the next 5 years or risk falling even further behind.
Only too often over the years have we heard that the UK is aiming to be Global Leader in some new defence-related technologies. However, all these aspirations seem to come to nothing as, whilst producing some fascinating innovations, British industry always fails in the field of selling to the World.
Don’t hypersonic have huge issues with being able to have targeting systems which can deal with the kinetic heat? Aren’t we better with stealthy munitions then doing a me too with the Russians and Chinese on Hypersonics?
Agreed. If the targets moving and with forseeable technology they’re useless.
Agreed, great for land attack but useless against ships.
Well that’s a great sounding sound bite.
Papers over the reality that we don’t yet have any proper sub-sonic AShM for primary armament of our escorts apart from obsolete 1980s marks of Harpoon which is due to be retired entirely without replacement next year, a unique travesty no other navy has copied.
Our Anglo-French project, Perseus, to develop & deliver the next generation AShM for the RN isn’t likely to produce the goods until the 2030s.
This is a disgrace. “World leading” is taking the Mick.
An off the shelf interim(Plenty of choice from loads of countries producing their own AShMs) was mooted & then scrapped.
Head in the sand doesn’t even begin to cover it. Especially as we could now be on the verge of a major European war & our aged Frigate force is scheduled to be replaced at a pace & time scale any self respecting snail would be ashamed of.
The CSIS is streaming an interview with Ben Key next Wednesday evening. I wonder if he’ll have anything substantive to say.
Do we have the funding to become a world leader in hypersonic weapons?
I expect we have the expertise, as do most western nations, but unless we back that up with money, we’ll never get past the concept phase.
We do have one of the largest defence budgets in the world, but we don’t seem to get as much out of it as other nations do. I guess our defence budget includes things like pensions, which can’t actualy be used for defence?
World leading does seem to be the bollox bingo saying of the British establishment at present.
“…floating embassies for the United Nations” – Does anyone else think this is a worrying think for a First Sea Lord to say, i.e. more or less demonstrating being 50 years out of date with regards to geopolitics? The UN is supposed to be a balanced organisation, we’d be happy to see Russian, or Chinese naval vessels being nominated as ‘floating embassies’ for the UN, would we? And they’d have the right to feel the same way….the days of the Korean war and the wonderful successes of ONUC are quite a long way in the past.
Yes maybe floating embassies for the U.K.NATO and family of liberal democracies would have been better wording.
Waaay too late to the table I’m afraid
Another great article that really should have been saved for April 1st….
Maybe a slightly mad question but do the Aster family have any anti ship capability? Aren’t they already capable of Mach 4.5?
Good question. Surely not beyond the wit of man?
I would agree with a previous statement regarding air launched missiles as the best ship killing option, but if a (for instance) a Type 31 finds itself in a threatening situation, without Ashm it has nothing to counter any aggressive action with, to keep other ships even just at arms length. Granted any fancy long range missile would need targeting info, but a bank of Spear3 or Sea Spear sitting on deck would be a relatively easy cheap(ish) option as a long arm?
AA
Well it does have its main gun plus its Sea Ceptors which have an anti-ship capability now. But a new anti-ship/ land-attack missile can’t come soon enough.
Just like the “built for but not with” will this be a case of “aiming for but not actually achieving”?
Can anyone name sovereign UK hypersonic missile programme that compares with those in progress in Russia and China?
Other than the FC/ASW which is joint with France, I remember the RAF announced that they wanted a hypersonic air to air missile but I am unsure as to what it’s called or how the programme is progressing.
Hypersonic weapons are not “low flying”!
Always good to see this news reaching the public domain. In short, increase the defence budget now.
Fate of Ukraine ‘about the security of the whole of Europe’By Deborah Haynes, security and defence editor
Political leaders, with only short-term targets because of the need to win votes in the next election cycle, have been warned since the end of the Cold War about the risk of shrinking their militaries.
But because an existential threat was not imminent, investment went elsewhere at the expense of armies, navies and air forces.
This should not be over-stated because the United States still has the most powerful armed forces on the planet.
But one look at Britain’s hollowed out defences illustrates the point.
There are around 40,000 less service personnel today than barely a decade ago – and the UK has the most capable military among all European NATO allies along with France.
It is not just about military strength it is also about a willingness to fight rather than seek compromise – appeasement – when challenged.
On Ukraine, western allies have no appetite to do the one thing that might make President Putin think twice – fly NATO combat troops to Ukraine ready to defend the country even though it is not a member of the alliance.
Such a move would be an incredibly high-risk step that would raise far more quickly the risk of triggering World War Three should Russia attack regardless.
But the fate of Ukraine is about more than what happens to one country.
It is about the security of the whole of Europe.
https://news.sky.com/story/boris-johnson-news-live-prime-minister-heads-to-europe-for-talks-with-nato-allies-as-police-continue-downing-street-parties-probe-12514080
Deborah Haynes is one of the few defence journalists who actually speaks out loud about cuts. Long may she continue.
Indeed, Sky news is beginning to shine a light on just how weak our defence capabilities actually are to the general public, and to some degree so is Putin.
A twenty-year lack of investment appears to be coming home to roost!
It’s a really bad time to be having another major capability gap! Developing the FACSW hypersonic missile in just 5 years is fantasy, the much simpler and sub-sonic Sea Venom took about 8 years! Buying a few dozen Harpoon Block II missiles as I-SSGW, with a 10-year service life, seems the prudent approach. If the RAF also purchased a few for its P-8A’s, the support costs would reduce. Harpoon II is obviously not the latest and greatest, but it’s a huge advance on nothing.
Hi Richard, if things go south quickly all the Harpoon launchers still seems to be on most of the T23/45s. Not sure if the latest Harpoon also has Land Attack ability.
It will be interesting to see if the FC/ASW comes multiple versions, for Mk41, other VLS, Cannister, air, sub launched. The French won’t have MK41 and will the T23/45s be able to retrofitted? And in the meantime we’ll have to utilise what we have. Nothing like a potential or actual conflict to hasten things so we hope the top bods know what they’re doing with their time and supply management.