Future Cruise/Anti–Ship missile project moves forward

That’s why I said “Justified if hypersonic”.

But for what they said atm, nothing sure about it…

French are already going relatively fast on hypersonic, hope its also to serve this project…
This missile is really something to see in service for UK and France.

And I hope to see them being able to be launch from old harpoon/exocet position, not only from VLS 😡

It is also good to see France and the UK still working on these projects together despite the recent political tensions between the countries.

How could a nation of 65m possibly keep up with sufficient numbers against a nation of 1.4 billion? We couldn’t.
Spear EW would form any attacking component, providing active jamming and laying spoof returns for those CIWS.
Submarines are our primary means of killing ships and there is already investment in unmanned systems which will lead to means to approach a peer naval rask force and engage.

The US Marines have launched naval strike missiles from unmanned trucks , so a 500km hypersonic antiship missile with a land launched system could well deter incursions into the SCS of elsewhere should we deploy in allied territories. You could envisage an A400M deploying it to an austere airfield. The US is planning that type of smaller, more agile deployments in tye Pacific theatre. Using SM6 as a ballistic missile along with hypersonics. We are buying precision strike missile. It won’t be long before the US sees the need for an anti ship seeker on that. So plenty of options.

. It will will air launched as well so Typhoon, F35, potentially P8 and whatever unmanned systems follow
We could never aim to fund enough escorts compared to China.

Australia is spending us$1 billion on 200 x LRASM. That is equivalent in population twrms to UK ordering 600.

It’s not just LRASM (560km range) that is being procured, but also JASSM-ER (930km), and Tomahawk (1600km) too.

The Government here in Oz has allocated many many billions of dollars for not only the three long range missiles mentioned above, but also for a whole variety of other guided missiles and weapons for the RAN, RAAF and Army too.

Plus ongoing collaboration with the US on the development of Hypersonic weapons too.

Cheers,

Cheers John. Multiple overlapping technoligical capabilities to offset lower volumes of people. Sound sound strategy

Are you reading this MOD!!

Australia has an excellent and well organised military — but it is a different military than the UK’s. For example, It doesn’t have 4 Nuclear Ballistic Missile Submarines on the books.

The UK also has Tomahawk and Storm Shadow.

I wasnt starting we would be taking on China alone only that if we can only fund a small number of hypersonic weapons and land attack cruise missles what’s the point the development cost are going to be enormous along with low production thus high cost and the yanks have put alot of money into there R&D and have yet to get a working prototype. The Chinese will have superior numbers and home advantage. Having to wait 10years + for either a fixed wing lightweight missle spear 3 on F35b yes 10years as block 4 now pushed back to 2029-30 then it has to be tested and made operational or a future non developed missle. We really are going to be toothless for quite some time except for our subs and land based fighters. Apologies I forgot we have venom and martlet on a few wildcats.

US can now launch missile from the ramp of a cargo plane. Check out project rapid dragon. We should be thinking along the same lines

We don’t have to be able to fight the entire PLAN. we need to be able to counter whatever expeditionary force China could deploy into the south/north Atlantic ect if they decided to play silly with one of our possessions that’s not covered by nato ( BAT etc) If it’s a fight in the Pacific we would be just a small part ( maybe a carrier group couple of ssns). Japan will probably be the big contributors of frigate With the us providing the carrier battle group muscle as well as the not insignificant Austrian surface fleet and possibly India ( as they are getting a wee bit worried about their bigger neighbours attitude.

“the not insignificant Austrian surface fleet”-In WW1 maybe. Made me smile. I think we should play our part in containing expansionist China. We’re far from ever trying to take on the PRC on our own, indeed there’s plenty of Allies there already far ahead keeping up collectively with the PLA. Collectively they are stronger than the PLAN.
We are a permanent member of the UN security council, relient on world trade & imports, 5th or 6th largest economy, so we do have some responsability with what goes on in the world; yet we’ve perversely allowed our forces to drastically atrophy & have bungled & dithered over so many essential replacement/upgrade programs.

Nothing like a good typo to mess with your point. I do agree we need to have a significant up lift. It’s going to take a long while as skilled people will be the limiting factor even if we could find another few frigates under the sofa.

But I think we should be planning to have a significant force increase within a decade. We should be looking at being able to support both carriers As well a amphibious force.

we really need to plan to be able to match the PLAN at an equidistant point ( we will never be able to match them in their back yard).

so that’s 4 front line F35B squadrons, 2 per carrier with second line squadrons that could be deployed in extremis ( we should be able to put 30+ fighters ( as well as 20-30 unmanned vehicles as enablers) on each carrier as an ambition. So even the 80 F35Bs should be a lower end of planned buys. That would also put up the fast jet front line squadrons to 8 so even if we are not deploying two carriers it strengthens our capabilities at home or to support an ally.

if we are running a carrier group and amphibious group we should be able to give each 2 AAW destroyers and 2-3 ASW frigates and a couple of pickets as well as keep up key deployments and support escorts for the RFA as the work.

So that’s got to be 10AAW ships, 10-ASW ships and the same again in general purpose frigates. So we should Really have a realistic plan to have a fleet of 30 escorts.

we need to really run through the new balistic missile boat build as fast as possible so we can get on with the next SSN build, which if you think about it could be close to a common design with the balistic missile boats, the missile compartment can be used as a home for autonomous vehicles as I suspect in the future the SSN with its own fleet of small autonomous vehicles will win every fight against a traditional SSN. We should be looking at that point to rebuild our SSN fleet, we need to be able to deploy 4 so that’s 12 hulls.

The RM and deployable elements of the army need to be strengthened as well as the air lift capability and amphibious capability. The army must sort its procurement of armour and we need artillery sorted as well as rotor procurement.

All in all we have to ready for a major war within 10 years, we have slept-walked into a geopolitical shitstorm that’s going to go off at some point.

Agree we are getting to a point in world affairs where we need to think more about defence spending. To me, the thing is this: We have two major potential hot war enemies: Russia and China. Russia is nearest threat and threatens Europe. China is further away. China faces a number of UK Division ‘powers’ – Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Australia… whereas Russia is faced by the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Poland. Point is, the US is the Russia/China Division power providing the major mitary component. If the UK and France start allocating resources to face China we aren’t adding a lot to the pot but risk depleting resources facing ‘our’ enemy. I don’t see all that many Japanese or Korean naval vessels facing Russia in the North Sea.

I rob the UKs problem is it’s got to think about the future areas where it may need to operate alone. We have a lot of places that we will not have any major support from Allies and we will need to be ready.

I know everyone rolls there eyes if the falklands are mentioned, but I don’t thing many people really understand the geopolitical potential of the falklands and it’s link to the British Antarctic territories or what that could mean for the future wealth of our nation.

The falklands are the DOOR and KEY to the BAT and the BAT are the most accessible bit of Antarctica, it’s got actual ground and the exploitable area is only going to increase. Global warming and a need for raw materials will at some point see the Antarctic treaty fail ( the US and China have never agreed to be held by it and do not support any other nations claims in the Antarctic). So at some point the whole south Atlantic, southern oceans and Antarctic are going to turn into the Wild West, a whole new frontier of wealth and land in a warming world and we own a ton of it. So those expeditionary forces will be fundamental as China will use and support South American nations to take it from us and the next falklands war will be a war for a control of a small island that will give you a continent sized pile or resource.

Also for us assets that could go to the Pacific are also the assets that could go to the high north, northern flank. If we have a 2 carrier battle group hanging around the northern oceans with 60 5 gen fighters you can’t take out the UKs air defence until they have gone. It’s the same with the amphibious group. The U.K. is always about our geography and geopolitical nodes of influence across the planet.

Basically the U.K. is and always has been The dagger in the back of any European dictator or potential pain for any hedgmonic power across the globe. But only if we can deploy a strong force globally ( which we can do because we don’t need to burn money on a very large static army to defend a big boarder)

Yes, agree. But… being able to project power doesn’t mean you have to make a big show of it. Our main focus should be on Europe. Re the Falklands, yes we need to be aware – but the biggest threat to the Falklands is Argentina, and frankly they will be in no condition to be a threat for a long time yet. My concern is trying to do too much. We’re not a great power any more; our contribution against China will always be very limitede.

Problem is a 500 ship fleet costs a lot of money and manpower something i question if China has enough to sustain it long term

It’s China, so manpower is no problem. The free worlds greedy exploitative capitalists have moved so much manufacturing there that money isn’t major problem. We’ve fed the beast that could eat us all. Besides, it’s still a totalitarian dictatorship, so can spend what it likes & kill any dissent.
If we want to play our part in protecting our own freedoms & stemming a domino-fall of friendly free states we must build a bigger navy & get basic capabilities back on our warships. An interim heavyweight AShM is a screaming omission no matter what spin is used to smokescreen its absence.
We also need our own anti-ballistic missile defence for the UK.

I second what you are saying about interim AshM and ABMD. We can count on more of this FFBNW rubbish sorry to say. The situation in the Ukraine may be cover for the Chinese taking Taiwan or for both. We should follow the Australians and act decisively. We cant let a ten year gap in capability fester. How much time did the USN have to prepare for 12/7/41?

“It’s China, so manpower is no problem.”
Remember China has a demographic time bomb, a lot of Chinese born in 1960/70s. Birth rates reduced later due to one child policy. So the workforce will shrink in the next decade.

Chinese local government has debt in the $4 to 8 trillion range. Chinese high speed rail has debt of $950 billion. Evergrande owes $300 billion. That is just a snapshot. If you look at other Chinese developers or Hainan Airways group or vast numbers of smaller Chinese firms, the debt levels are eye watering.

Absolutely. Everything is great just now as the Chines have a lot of new shiney kit. But that kit has to be manned, maintained, updated throughout its lifecycle. Purchase cost is only part of the bill. The US has a massive budget and doesn’t have a 500 ship navy.

Another thing to take into account is the Chinese Population, as they start demanding better health care, unemployment benefits, pensions etc. the demands on the Chinese Taxpayer will grow.

They may come up with a 500 ship fleet that would need regular refuelling that would be quite a push unless they have various friendly foreign ports around the globe wouldn’t you agree Knight 7572

China has serious demographic, health, old people funding etc, problems coming down the track before very long.

And that without the larger economic resources per pop of Western countries. And they will need to focus quite heavily on this with a lot of their resources.

Their GDP per pop is still only 25% of ours.

For a quick comparator: Median Ages in 2018 / 2020 (to give a hint at rate of short-term change) are:

China: 37.4 / 38.4
Italy: 45.5 / 46.5
USA: 38.1 / 38.5
UK: 40.5 / 40.6

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_median_age

Some Western European countries have much older populations as illustrated.

It’s not the whole question, but something we need to be aware of.

Obvs that second number has a minor component of Covid deaths skewed to older people.

Those looking at Covid deaths in China, think the real numbers are at least one million to perhaps 1.75 million.

Quite right. We should return to the two power standard immediately.

We don’t need to match China one to one! Let the US deal with that. China’s in their backyard not ours.

What we must do though is make sure that along with our European allies we can out match Russia without relying on the US.

That is a critical requirement and one that is easily achievable. If the braincell deficient politicians come out of hiding from behind their bigger friends back…

I didn’t mean to imply we would. I meant that if we’re go down the expensive hypersonic route we won’t get many missles for our bucks and how many ships we could take out with a few super expensive missles the opposition like China which will probably be a massive upto 500 ships come 10-15 time would be able to absorb those losses. So why not just go for a long range cheap easy option to fit out our a ships with 60-70 missles like the Chinese have done with the YJ18 missle derived from a Russian model. The Chinese type 055 has 64 vls forward and 48 aft has Sam,ASM and anti sub missles. Wasting time,effort and money on an hypersonic new missle system is pointless when we are such a small force there are plenty of missle already developed we can purchase now. The Italians Israeli Swedes and Norwegian and even the expensive US Lrasm. Why do we have to constantly try and develop expensive new untested weapons when we don’t have the budget or timeframe is my argument.

I agree we should be equipping our ships with the ability to engage other ships. Its the most basic of requirements of any navy.

China is not exactly in the US’s backyard. Do you have Google maps?

It’s a big backyard but one they share and one they both want to be the dominant power of. Do you not follow global politics?

There is compelling evidence that China’s economy is heavily linked to a property bubble that has already burst.. similar to the one in Japan. An economy in trouble may have problems being a superpower. Look what happened to Russia…

Yes and look how Argentina and now Russia are dealing with it….. preparing for war. We have no ASM missle planned on our ships after 2023…..and a replacement is a decade away. the best we can do is borrow other ships or bolt on’s acquired at cost and hastily fitted without adequate training.

Yes, with a demographic time bomb to follow!

“In 10years China will have a 500 strong surface fleet…”
Highly unlikely. China’s growth has slowed considerably due to economic and demographic factors.

I may have estimated a little but someone seems to think there still expanding.taken from usni news
China has the biggest maritime force on the globe with an inventory of about 355 vessels, according to a Defense Department report released Wednesday.

With 355 ships in its fleet, the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) is slated to expand its inventory to 420 ships within the next four years, the Pentagon’s annual China military report estimates. By 2030, the PLAN is expected to have 460 ships.

The 355 estimation accounts for “major surface combatants, submarines, aircraft carriers, ocean-going amphibious ships, mine warfare ships, and fleet auxiliaries,” according to the report, which covers events in 2020.

“This figure does not include 85 patrol combatants and craft that carry anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCMs). … Much of this growth will be in major surface combatants,” the report reads.

The report, which is mandated by Congress each year, describes China’s navy as having growing ambitions to operate with more versatile platforms beyond the Indo-Pacific region.

“Towards the PRC’s goal of building a ‘strong and modernized naval force,’ the PLAN is an increasingly modern and flexible force that has focused on replacing its previous generations of platforms that had limited capabilities in favor of larger, modern multi-role combatants,” the report reads. “As of 2020, the PLAN is largely composed of modern multi-role platforms featuring advanced anti-ship, anti-air, and anti-submarine weapons and sensors. The PLAN is also emphasizing maritime joint operations and joint integration within the PLA. This modernization aligns with the PRC’s growing emphasis on the maritime domain and increasing demands for the PLAN to operate at greater distances from China.”

Mark, China produces some one billion tons of Steel a year. The Uk produces somewhere about 7 million tons a year…. Ie less than 1% of what China produces. China can out produce us, or anyone with ease… so I don’t think that 60, or several hundred missiles will make a big difference… what does make a difference would be some extra SSN’s….I think we need to realise that Britannia doesn’t rule the waves, and we aren’t a superpower any more…

Nothing says you aren’t confident in your ability to defend your ship that covering it in CWIS guns.

I wonder why they will require so many?

China is developing plans for a 13,000-satellite megaconstellation
The recently approved 14th Five-year Plan for the period 2021-2026 and “long-range objectives through 2035” call for an integrated network of communications, Earth observation, and navigation satellites. 

https://spacenews.com/china-is-developing-plans-for-a-13000-satellite-communications-megaconstellation/

Is this kind of thing even legal? Are there any international laws governing of how many and what goes into space? Where and how have China managed to get the tech and finances to do all this and it all seems to be exponential! Are there any concerns about the shear scale of this by the West? Hopefully there is some counter capability to all this observation, surveillance and god know what else!

We are looking to do the same thing but on a smaller scale.

The space race is on!

https://www.iiss.org/blogs/military-balance/2022/02/uk-defence-space-strategys-orbital

Hypersonic can also be for the travel phase with a high supersonic/agile terminal phase.

Wait & see.

Its mostly false.

Missile was not involved, it was the firing system of the Sylver, from the last doc I read about that.

Because they dont had time to analyze, they give up to trying force them and another vessel was used to fire the missile.

So, stop spread all this bullshit…

Its sad and bad, but its something we can attent from complex ammunition when you dont use them often…
(So mostly for all european / small navies)

I agree. You can have a long range sub sonic cruise missile with an anti ship seeker as an option. But an Mach 2-3+ anti ship missile is more difficult to operate as a long range stealthy cruise missile. They can both do both roles but the costs and complexity goes up and it will be a compromise on both roles.
Much better to go with 2 missiles and share as much tech as possible. I do mean a lot of tech so as not to have twice the cost.
If the RN is really worried about anti ship missiles maybe a good deal on some exorcet missiles could be done when this missile is committed to by both sides.

Good thinking on all accounts there.

Agree having a 500mile+ range anti-ship missile is sort of pointless, especially with the ROE that western navy’s operate under. But a very long range land attack missile is what you want.

That’s why I prefer a great AS missile with some land strike capability on a mid range (300-500km) and not an useless frankeinstein because we want 2000km of range with all the capabilities of a subsonic + hypersonic + supersonic + supraluminic missile…

Trouble is if you leave it to La Royale and the RN they will probably Just wind each other up and end up deciding that it would be best to go for a ship based intermediate range ballistic missile with an optional factional orbital bombardment capability and a nuclear pumped laser warhead in the terminal phase.

I thought that’s what Perseus is 😀

Agreed.
Advanced missiles is proven area of successful collaboration between Britain and France. Plus, both sides want the same thing and the centres of excellence agreement within MBDA means that both nation’s industries benefit. No reason for this to fail.

Agree, ships are such complex beasts which differing national needs, make it difficult to collaborate. A missile is a simple beast ( from the point of view of what it does and that it’s easier to agree on.

Both nations do need to keep sovereign capability around these weapons systems as if you cannot produce the weapon systems for your complex warships it sort of makes Spending money keeping the shipyards and Complex warship design capability a bit pointless, so you may as well buy of the self.

One reason, is the asymmetrical load if the aircraft returns to the carrier with only one missile. And at 2,900lb it’s heavy. And It’s a very expensive munition (£790,000 a pop) to ditch into the sea. Same reason it wasn’t integrated onto the Harrier GR7/9. Another reason is, long range precision strike can be provided with TLAM from Astute SSN that is part of the carrier strike group. F35B Will be equipped with SPEAR 3 with 140km range. 8 missiles can be carried internally.

True

The TLAM limitation is that the Astute won’t have that many onboard whereas the various VLS could each have a few so sending 10’s to target could be be reality.

Say 8 in each of 2 x T26 and 6 each of T x T31 then you can have 28 missiles to throw at the other side.

An Astute might have 8-12? Less than that and the torpedo racks start to look a bit thin.

TBH £790k for a missile isn’t much these days. They were only that cheap as we ordered a big stockpile.

Granted it is heavy.

Let’s hope it becomes a reality on T26 and / or T31/2. Think Astute can carry 48 weapons; I’m not sure how many of those would be TLAM. I guess the load out can be tailored depending on the operational requirement.

It might be useful to see if either or both of these could be cannister launched and so be fitted onto the T23/T45s pending operational requirements while there is still life in them. I read somewhere that RAN are looking at a cannister version of LSRAM, TLAM for the Hobart Destroyers and also possibly TLAM for the RCN T26s.

And surely you wouldn’t want to potentially lose an Astutes stealthy strike attributes by firing missiles unnecessarily on occasion.

And very much that too.

I’ve never understood the Astute TLAM thing as the only source of land attack missiles in service.

Perhaps the F35b needs a ‘concrete bomb’ of same weight as Storm Shadow – load 1 of each into bomb bay and when/ if Storm shadow is fired you also ditch the concrete bomb. Result empty bomb bay. If not bring both babies home 😉.

Hey! Its cheaper than devloping a hypersonic missile😂.

The main reason Storm Shadow integration was cancelled was because by the time it was integrated to F-35 it would only have afew years left in service.

A pity they cancelled it in favour of Tornado.

The Harrier already had an “emergency clearance” to fire baseline Brimstone (dual-mode Brimstone is almost identical).”

“The Ministry of Defence has assessed that it would in principle be technically feasible to launch the Storm Shadow missile, which is the UK’s only air-launched cruise missile, from a number of in-service and future fixed-wing platforms other than the Tornado fast jet.

“The Harrier II Plus is capable of deploying the Sea Eagle anti-ship missile from MBDA (formerly Matra BAe Dynamics), which is a fire-and-forget sea-skimming missile also carried on the Sea Harrier, and the air-launch version of Harpoon AGM-84 surface strike missile from Boeing.”

https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/av8b-harrier-ii-plus/

“In January 2021, the U.S. Department of the Navy awarded Vertex Aerospace LLC the $123 million Contracted Maintenance, Modification, Aircrew, and Related Services (CMMARS) task order in July 2020 to provide aircraft maintenance and Contractor Logistics Support (CLS) services for the U.S. Marine Corps’ AV-8B Harrier fleet until 2029.

The AV-8B is equipped with one centerline fuselage and six wing hardpoints, along with two fuselage stations for a 25 mm GAU-12 cannon and ammunition pack. These hardpoints give it the ability to carry a total of 4,200 kg of weapons, including air-to-air, air-to-surface, and anti-ship missiles, as well as unguided and guided bombs.”

https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/focus-analysis/naval-technology/9961-av-8b-harrier-ii-attack-aircraft-will-stay-operational-with-us-marine-corps-until-2029.html

I’ll just make me point – yet again – that we could do with buying back the old SHAR IIs / AV8s for the carriers… or stick one on the back of a frigate. 😊

We need something useful that’s for sure. See my post at the bottom of this thread!

…and the Ruskie incursions in the NAtlantic, NSea, Channel, and Med would be more circumspect if there was a Harrier immediately in the vicinity coming in at low-level with at least the possibility of dishing out some bad news for the day.

It would make a lot of sense if Storm Shadow had an unpublished secondary anti-ship capability. The RAF haven’t had a heavy weight anti-ship missile since Sea Eagle. Though Nimrod was cleared for Harpoon, as is the new P8.

The Aster 30 still has a long way to go to compete with SM6, especially when it comes to maximum engagement altitude. MBDA have published that Aster 30 has a maximum engagement altitude of 65,600ft, whereas Raytheon say SM6 is more than 100,000ft for the Dual I version. The SM6-1B is get a new larger diameter rocket booster. It is this version that Raytheon have said will be capable of engaging hypersonic glide vehicles, which means greater than 150,000ft interception. Aster 30 should really be compared with the SM2 Block IIIC Active missile, where Raytheon say it has a maximum engagement height greater than 80,000ft. but a terminal speed of Mach 3.5.

In truth, MBDA are probably being a bit conservative with the Aster’s maximum engagement height. The Block 1NT is getting a host of avionic upgrades including a new higher frequency active radar. It will still be a mechanically scanned pulse-doppler radar though and not an AESA. As I believe France are looking at a “home grown” AESA for the missile, rather than using the Mitsubishi AAM-4B AESA, that Meteor is getting. MBDA have also said the booster is getting a new higher thrust fuel. So its range and acceleration will be slightly higher than a standard Aster 30. I’d place money on the missile being able to get near to Mach 5. These improvements mean it can better engage short range ballistic missiles, but also medium range ballistic missiles. There still appears to be a massive gap in high altitude capability though!

The SM6 uses the AMRAAM’s active radar, with a slightly larger planar antenna (flat plate). But it won’t have the same targeting resolution as the 1NT version of Aster, as it operates at a lower frequency (X-band vs Ka-band). Aster also has the mid-body reaction jets, thereby allowing it to get closer to erratically manoeuvring targets, where SM6 might miss.

The final stage of Aster is 2.6m long and weighs around 110kg (with fuel). SM6 based on the SM2 frame is nearly 5m long and weighs over 700kg. The SM6 warhead weighs 64kg, whilst Aster’s is around 20kg, about the same as AMRAAM’s and possibly Meteor’s (size not published).

Along with the active radar, SM6 also has a GPS module, so it can be used against fixed targets. The missile can also be used against moving ships. Where it gets course correction updates via a datalink, before the AMRAAM radar searches for and then tracks the target. In theory Aster could do the same in targeting a ship. Though the end result wont be as dramatic as a hit by the SM6. But a very high supersonic speed missile weighing around 110kg will still make a mess of an unarmoured ship of any size. The USN have been the big driver behind expanding the original SM2 capabilities that led to the SM6.

I do think we have a domestic missile that could bridge the high altitude gap. But will need a lot of investment to get it there, which is Meteor! It is a longer missile than Aster at 3.65m vs 2.6m, though slightly narrower, with a comparable weight. The big difference is the Ramjet. The existing booster that throws the missile off a Typhoon, gives it a published speed over over Mach 3.5, with the Ramjet taking over and accelerating it to Mach 4.5. Imagine what it could do with the Aster 30 booster strapped to the back of it. The combination of Ramjet and monster booster, should see it easily surpass 70,000ft, perhaps closer to 100,000ft? Though its total length of 5.93m will need the Sylver A70 VLS or the strike length Mk41 VLS.

It is fun to do a bit of informed speculation!

I like how you think, but is the atmosphere thick enough for an air breathing ramjet at that altitude…?

Yep, a Ramjet will keep working up to those altitudes. In 1961 a Bomarc B Ramjet powered surface to air missile intercepted a target drone at 100,000ft and it was still accelerating. The USAF estimated that it could have reached 131,000ft before the engine couldn’t breath anymore. NASA’s Scramjet powered X43 managed to hit Mach 9.64 at 110,000ft in 2004.

Thanks, that’s helpful.
One of the criticisms that often gets thrown out about Meteor by the USAF AIM-120D/AIM-260 club is that the ramjet limits engagement opportunities at higher operational altitudes. Those numbers there suggest that it’s good for any A2A combat engagement, as well as the lower end ABM use that you talk about.

It was politics plain and simple, plus a way to justify its not built over here, so we’re not buying it. I expect there was a lot of lobbying by the US missile manufacturers not to get it. The USAF know how good Meteor is by first hand experience from Red Flag and other exercises.

They poured scorn on a really long range air to air missile as a concept. Yet the AMRAAM replacements, the Lockheed Martin AIM-260 JTAM and Boeing LRAAM will have a similar performance to Meteor. They are quoting the JTAM with roughly twice the engagement range as the the AIM-120D which is around 100 miles and the LRAAM further still. Neither of these weapons will be using a Ramjet from my understanding, using a dual pulse rocket motor and a long burn booster respectively.

Both JTAM and Meteor will need to do long sweeping turns. As at those higher altitudes the air being thinner, there is less air for the moveable fins to bite into. In some respects the Meteor will still have the advantage if there is fuel available. As it can maintain speed/acceleration, the JTAM will be gliding and loosing speed. Thereby creating faster air passing over the fins, thus providing more lift to aid the turn.

In a similar way to LRAAM, fitting an additional external longer burn booster to Meteor will considerably lengthen its engagement range. The missile will in effect have three engines. An external one, the internal booster and the throttleable Ramjet. This combination will push the missile’s speed well above Mach 4.5. Especially if you add the parent aircraft’s launch speed and altitude into the equation.

This might be a serious consideration for attacking AEW, ISTAR and tanker aircraft hiding behind a protective fighter and SAM screen a lot more safely. With the increased length it would have to be mounted under a wing on a F35B and Typhoon. But we could be considering a range of well over 300 miles especially if it follows a ballistic path to the target. As the Ramjet will still have the efficiency advantage over a rocket, even if it uses pulsing burns.

‘ere, who are you calling a “Thick atmosphere”?

To be honest warhead size becomes a bit academic on on hypersonic missiles as the kinetic energy of something missile sized travelling at around 4000-5000mph is around the same as an intercity 125 crashing into you ( I did the maths on The energy from one of the high speed missiles the Russians claim to have and it was around the same as a train doing 125mph)

True.

So the warhead might actually have to be more to decelerate the missile or to spread the impact over a wider area?

Interesting thought that.

Otherwise the missile would just punch down through the ship and might just make a neat narrow hole.

Yes you would actually want a missile that either tumbles on impact or acts more like a hollow point. So the warhead could be more about allowing all that kinetic energy to be dumped into the ship by helping the missile body break up. That’s one of the reasons I would be really interested to see how sea captor would workS against a ship. That small warhead is not much but a 100kg missile doing 3 times the speed of sound is a lot of Kinetic energy.

Getting through the plating is pretty trivial with that sort of energy.

Issue is more how to turn the kinetic energy into predictable ship killing damage rather than a neat(ish) hole.

HESH on an Aster, anyone?

It is more about critical timing.

First blast to open up a narrow opening in the deck but preserve kinetic.

Second blast to convert kinetic to wider damage.

Good.
It costs 3 times as much as TLAM.
And its very different from Storm Shadow. Doesn’t even look close to it.

As SB says above, perhaps it does, but its not published?

That element might be deployable first.

Hard to see why the subsonic needs to be held up by the hypersonic?

Hypersonic is the new buzz word. It’s not that complicated going that fast. Big motor. We already have missiles going Mach 4+, we have ballistic missiles going Mach 20+ and have done the development decades ago.
The problem seems to come from the targeting side and deciding flight profiles etc.

Ma 4 is supersonic, not hypersonic.

Yes, not that hard to going fast, more hard to accurately guide the missile to the target.

That’s why the lone AS hypersonic capabilities at the moment can only be achieve by a combined speed:
-Travel phase in going hypersonic
-Terminal phase at supersonic/high supersonic speed with high agility from something like the pifpaf of the ASTER.

Agreed, perhaps we will see the supersonic version using a scaled up throttleable ramjet from the Meteor?

Agreed.
The flight control system on a high speed missile needs to be very very tight. Any control surface movement no matter how small will impart high G loading and move the missile a fair distance. Pifpaf gets around this somewhat by using control jets of gas to “shove” the homing head in the direction it needs to go. You still have massive G loading but no control surfaces to worry about.
In the terminal phase this system lets the missile get closer to the target in the final seconds of an engagement so that the small warhead is closer to the target meaning you dont need a bigger warhead.

No worries. If it weren’t for all the jumping to conclusions and flying off the handle, I wouldn’t get any exercise.

No Royal Navy warship that deployed chaff has been hit by an anti ship missile.

Yep. However I am arguing for a strategic element to our defence industry whereby the UK can take project lead and ownership of the IP and controls arms sales – so these things are not then used against us. 37.5% ‘aint 51%.

Not used against us “cough, cough Falklands” Type 42, Tiger cat etc” The main manufactures of missile merged for a very good reason in that there was a limited market/funds and they didn’t all want to compete with each other, hence MBDA

Thought a Blowpipe was used against the Harriers in the Falklands and some time into the conflict the lovely Frenchies released the code to land-fire the Exocets.

Yes I can see why the missile companies get together, but I am arguing for a UK (CAN/AUS) missile industry that does not export such arms. i.e. we invest in our own tech, with some assurance that it won’t be used against us in the future.

I cant see why Canada or Australia who buy most of there equipment from the USA would want to get involved in a UK missile program which would then need to be intergrated into there (US) equipment as well as footing a huge bill because the manufacture has only three customers with a limited requirements, hence a huge cost.

The T23 is a very capable warship, especially with 2087 sonar 997 Artisan radar and 32 Sea Ceptors. It’s a match for anything Russia can muster. And at no point will the Russia warship or Bear bomber have entered UK waters or UK airspace. The Bear will have been intercepted. QRA at Lossiemouth and Coningsby is manned 24/7 365. And the UK Air defence system is a very well oiled machine. Have a little faith.

I want to believe Robert, I really do, but I must admit I have zero faith in UK Gov & MoD to adequately equip our military for the threat.

More than most I am aware of how the Media can distort a story through basic editing and I’m sure there is a load more stuff that is not broadcastable for security reasons. However, just following the narrative in that particular episode the Russian spy ship was 8-miles of the coast of NI and shortly afterwards the Bear buzzed HMS Northumberland at low-level seemingly in the same vicinity – no sign of the RAF.

Northumberland herself suffered damage to her sonar when the Russian sub damaged it, and on another occasion had to return to port for repairs due simply to a leaking gland in the fwd gun that was basically flooding the ship in heavy seas.(maintenance/design issue?).

All I ask is that in the current dangerous world situation, is that the UK immediately commences a serious programme to equip our armed forces with sufficient offensive weaponry, in sufficient numbers and quality to defend the UK. No point in kidding ourselves if this is not now happening.

All warships suffer breakdowns and maintenance issues. They are extremely complex. The Russians will have exactly the same problems; things go wrong from time to time, and they will have had COVID outbreaks. One Russian vessel had very at sea for 166 days. Could you imagine how low moral will have been on that vessel? They don’t get to do nice runs ashore in Portsmouth or France; when I’m sure most onboard, would love the opportunity to do so. And that Bear WILL have been intercepted. Nothing moves towards the UK without being escorted by Typhoons. The Bears sometimes do long routes around the UK before heading home. But they never enter UK airspace. And the Typhoon is one of the most capable air superiority fighters in the world. We are well protected.

Sure Robert. Yes I understand that all ships break down. It just struck me that that the tearing of the front gun barrel rubber(?) gland was a bit of a design vulnerability in heavy seas.

The program did not show any interception of the Bear and it came all the down to do a low pass, so surely a Typhoon would have followed it down if it were there? The Bears are dropping all sorts of sniffers in the Irish Sea and this was seemingly all about protecting the approaches to Faslane and the program gave the impression that the Russian Spy Ship was 8-miles off the coast of NI.

8 miles off the coast of NI is still in international waters. And remember, it’s a TV show. And some events are made out to be more dramatic than they really are.

Sure, I understand the TV stuff Robert. BTW UK waters are at the 12 miles limit from shore and in my book NI is in the UK..

Albert. We have one of the most sophisticated and capable air defence networks with 24/7 Typhoon capability, and huge radar coverage that is networked in with the wider NATO umbrella. The RN safeguards our shores 24/7. Russia isn’t invading the UK, so I wouldn’t lose too much sleep over it. Trust the professionals Albert. We are extremely competent at this kind of work. The Russians do not see us as weak, or a soft target.Very much the opposite in fact. It’s a big game that’s been playing out for decades.

The 4.5 gun be it the Curvy original mod 0 or Kryton mod 1 does not fair well when you start headbutting big waves . The gun mantle which is the part of the turret that the barrel comes out of as the gun elevates and depresses has always leaked. A fix was done in the 90s by a Chief Tiff who designed a canvas bag arrangement that attached to the barrel and onto the turret protecting the mantel whilst also allowing movement of the barrel . He got a Herbet Lott award for it…(probably a 25 quid book token which is what I got for one of my good ideas that saved the MOD a shed load of money on a maintenance task!)

That said if you ship water over the Bow then eventually its going to come in somewhere. It can stove in a hatch or vent cover and there are a lot of covers on the focsle. You are talking hundreds of tons of water hitting stuff. Something always gives. You seal the leak or isolate it and do what you can until the weather calms down and you fix it.

As always thank you for your detailed knowledge Gunbuster – much respect in these matters. I can see that in heavy seas the forces on any barrel-to-gun mantle joint must be horrendous. So it’s canvas. Ah! Well at least its not rubber or nitrile so freezing temp and u/v exposure should not be so bad.

It just struck me that as the potential failure of this joint leads to ingestion of water into the ship, and critically its electrics, then surely some sort of fail-safe/back-up arrangement should be implemented to at lest contain it within th egun turret. In the aircraft industry, at the very least, this critical component would be “lifed” and regularly inspected?