By the end of the decade, Britain and France will both field a stealthy subsonic land attack missile and a supersonic, highly manoeuvrable anti-ship missile.

The United Kingdom and France recently confirmed the launch of the preparation works for the Future Cruise/Anti-Ship Weapon (FC/ASW) programme, after the signature of a government agreement and associated contracts by the French Direction générale de l’armement (DGA) and the British Defence Equipment & Support (DE&S).

The ‘Future Cruise/Anti–Ship Weapon’ project was originally believed to be producing one missile able to strike ships and land targets but has now become two distinct missiles.

Eric Beranger, CEO of MBDA said:

“The FC/ASW programme is an example of the value of the ‘One MBDA’ integrated model. By combining technology, industrial capacity and funding across borders, we can deliver unique and advanced sovereign capabilities. Following the conclusion of the FC/ASW Concept Phase, the confirmation of the launch of these preparation works testifies the renewed confidence of our two countries towards MBDA.

The project will take advantage from our sustained French/UK Centres of Excellence. This reinforcement of MBDA’s portfolio of deep strike and anti-ship systems will allow MBDA to offer to our armed forces, whose satisfaction is our priority, a cutting-edge solution fitted to their requirements and adapted to all existing or future operational needs.”

According to a statement from MBDA:

“These preparation works will focus on the co-ordinated development of a programme of next generation deep strike and heavy anti-ship weapons. It will assess two complementary missile concepts, expected to be fielded at the end of the decade: a subsonic low observable concept and a supersonic, highly manoeuvrable concept.

These concepts are to meet the requirements of France and the UK and will provide a game changing capability to overcome land-based and maritime threats, hardened targets and air defence systems, at very long ranges and in increasingly contested battlespace environments.”

What is the Future Cruise/Anti–Ship Weapon for?

The FC/ASW aims to replace Storm Shadow/SCALP air-launched cruise missile in operational service in the UK and France as well as Exocet anti-ship missile in France and Harpoon anti-ship missile in the UK.

In November the First Sea Lord, Admiral Tony Radakin, told the House of Commons Select Defence Committee that options for FC/ASW were still “being looked at” including potential hypersonic weapons.

“The path that we as a Navy want to go down is absolutely that—longer-range missiles from ships with land attack. To Mr Francois’s point earlier about whether that is in the programme, it is in the programme with money that has been allocated for the future cruise anti-ship weapon, but we are only on the cusp of an assessment phase with the French. We have not delineated that it is going to be weapon X, but we have the budget line that supports that approach.

The exciting thing for the Navy is that the more substantial money is in the longer-term line, with the ambition around the future cruise anti-ship weapon and the French partnership. That has got the money in the line, but I agree with you that if we are operating at the hypersonic level, there is a debate as to whether that is at the back end of this decade or the early 2030s.”

It was also stated recently by Minister for Defence Procurement Jeremy Quin that the total spend to date on Future Cruise/Anti-Ship Weapon and associated activities by the Ministry of Defence is £95 million.

What about now?

The interim anti-ship missile would have filled the gap between Harpoon retiring and the ‘Future Cruise/Anti–Ship Weapon’ entering service.

UK stops interim anti-ship missile project

I reported back in September that progress on the interim missile appeared to be slowing down, now we know why. First Sea Lord Admiral Tony Radakin said at a recent session of the Defence Select Committee.

“Harpoon is going out of service in 2023. We have a capability conversation: do we bring in a relatively modest surface-to-surface weapon—it does not have a very long range and it is not hypersonic—and, if so, how much does it cost? It might be as much as £250 million, just to allow us to have five sets for three ships. When would that be able to come in? It looks like the earliest would be 2026 or 2027.

We have paused what we call the interim surface-to-surface guided weapon programme to force us to say: we accept that there will be a gap as Harpoon comes to the end of its life, but we should reach out to hypersonic weapons and weapons that have plus-1,000 km range. Do we do that with our international partners? That is when you start to look at the future”

The Royal Navy want to gap this capability in the shorter term in order to afford a better solution in the longer term.

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

41 COMMENTS

  1. Will the land attack missile be air launched, sea launched or both? If it can’t be launched from the sea (Mk41) or from F35B that’s not good news for UK Forces.

    Similarly, will the anti ship missile, which will obviously be ship launched, also be compatible with any RAF aircraft?

    • We’ve got an air luanch missle already but can’t integrate on to F35bs untill 2030 by the way reports are stating how long integration is taking in the Spear 3 missle. It’s lightweight but 1 aircraft carrying 8 missles can easily neutralise a medium combatant by taking out it’s command and control sensors. Come 2030 the RN is going to be a very different porcupine.

      • Yes, roll on the introduction of Spear 3, but I’m thinking more of the RN and F35B’s ability to strike land targets at range Mark. It appears that the new land attack missile will have a range of 1000km plus, but will the UK be able to deploy it from frigates and carriers?

    • Given the small number of counties that have fitted the Syler VLS making the new missile(s) incompatible with Mk41 would limits it sales potential massively: as that is the main installed launcher base.

  2. I’m pretty certain that if we found ourselves in a shooting war, we’d find a way to integrate new weapons a damn sight faster than the 4-5 years they’re talking about for the now cancelled interim ASM.

      • Yes, indeed it did.

        However, things were not fully tested and some things were a bit disappointing: to put it politely.

        Nothing is really plug and play. Modern CMS do have software modules that can be added quickly. However, with differing radars and ship variables these need to be programmed in.

        So the old problem of connecting things up fast to a main central system goes away. The interfaces used to be a total nightmare and caused loads of problems. Now it is all ethernet or full fibre optic.

        Then there are physical deconfliction arcs, so you don’t fire a missile that tracks off through your own radar mast etc. Then you need to deconflict in terms of CIWS and threat warning systems to make sure that you don’t pick up your own lunch and an incoming. OK Doppler shift gives you that but close in fast moving things that are emerging from inside the main radar envelope do give weird effects.

      • I was in ICL at that time and we diverted IT equipment from other customers to the RAF so that they had terminal systems for their new locations. But we were only able to do it as it was standard gear straight off a volume production line going into an already operational environment. Not quite the situation where software development is involved.

    • It’s amazing the speed new toys find themselves being fitted to warships and fast jet’s when the need arises. I remember the upgrades fitted to the Tornado F3 for the Gulf War. Equipment that was due to be fitted to the aircraft over a 3 year get ‘well programme’ suddenly happened in less than 4 weeks.

    • Yeah 4-5 months. The whole integration business is a red tape job for the boys. Believe me. Look at Stingray not available on the P8’s. Tell me what the problem is? If it can be dropped from a Wildcat why not Poseidon? Barnes Wallis s/b our model.

      • Weapons integration is very complex. But when we are facing a crisis, then the Pandoras box is opened, and the money is suddenly available.

      • Perhaps it is red tape and jobs for the boys, or partly so.

        But in a crisis, anything the might possibly work is seriously considered, if not grasped at. Risks are assessed and if a missile isn’t likely to blow the launch platform up or cause friendly fire, then it’s good to go even if several of may never find their targets.

        That and a crisis brings attention to things that were previously lost amongst a sea of demands.

  3. Good news its moving ahead but reads as if the stealthy cruise land attack missle may only be for only air launch in UK Service ?

    Will the anti ship version be both air and surface launched?

    Its not clear what intentions are.

    • I have the same questions Pete. If the land attack missile can’t be launched from Mk41 on T26 (and maybe T31), then that’s a big missed opportunity – and the Mk41s will likely be filled with the anti ship missiles which are unlikely to ever be used.

      Likewise, if the anti ship missile can’t be carried by P8A or other RAF aircraft that will be a big missed opportunity.

      • It would be extremely surprising if the anti ship missile could not be carried by P8A. The issue with F35B is the size of the weapons bays, so it may not be able to carry the missile, but I would also be very surprised if tempest can’t carry the anti ship missile

  4. So are the harpoons out of shelf life or is it a contractual date? If shelf life couldn’t we just keep them installed with a robust inspection and routine test firing of stock until completely depleted that way at least we would still have a weapon to fire in absolute defensive emergency or is the risk to high? Having nothing for 7+ years is a long time.

    • The issue is that the version we have is essential a dumb missile.

      This does not comply with the Rule of Engagement. RoI required that the target is checked and verified.

      We fire it in the general direction and it then locks onto what it then finds.

      The trouble is that it could well be a cruise liner rather than and Russian cruiser and then you loose the war of public opinion pretty fast. Of course the Russian have no such scruples and would just claim, in the reverse case, that the cruise liner was in fact an aircraft carrier…….post truth facts and all that.

      Newer versions of Harpoon are much more sophisticated. Precisely how sophisticated is open to debate but there are strong hints on Israeli defence sites but the Harpoon upgrade was done using Israeli technology in collaboration with Boeing.

      • If that’s the case then keeping for a few more years won’t matter. The ROI now will still be the same the day after they take it out of service, so if that’s the case it should be removed ASAP. Having the weapon fitted though keeps the enemies 80km away or risk being fired on.

        • With on this Mark, why the RNs Harpoons haven’t just been upgraded with “kits” prior, considering all the hardware and software is likely still on the T23/T45s seems a wasted opportunity. But, maybe (someone here can tell us that) the RNs are really a bit too old in the tooth for any further life extension to cover any gap.
          I see down here in Sydney that the RAN Anzac frigates still have Harpoons, nothing on the Hobart AAW Destroyers yet and the RAN T26 images/models all still seem to still show Harpoons. ADL/MK41 TLAMs v5 anyone?

  5. Nelson will be turning in his grave! At a time of heightened tensions the RN Top Brass want to leave our escorts with just guns to rely on for the next 8 years……you really couldn’t make this up!

    • Indeed.

      SPEAR 3, Meteor AAM, interim AS missile, Ajax, Type 26 build, all delayed or cancelled. COVID has been very convenient for the MoD as it gives them something to blame for the delays, whilst casually forgetting that this has been their standard for years, well before COVID. And this is before all the ‘fitted for but not with’ baloney, which really, of course is ‘we just don’t want to spend the money’. Still, at least we’re getting a brand new Royal Yacht (for £200 million).

    • Yes I agree its like having tanks without ammunition. Oh Wait! Likely we will be in a shooting war in six months or less. We need to get serious and forget the odd bn here and there.

  6. And what does the Navy do in the time between Harpoon goes out of service and these come into service. Fire harsh words at the enemy?

  8. So….

    Two different types of missiles?
    Both fully developed and tested?
    Both in full scale production?
    Fully integrated to various launch platforms?
    And all by the end of the decade too?

    Hmmm….. yeah right, not holding my breath.

  9. Hi folks hope all is well.
    Good news, as long as the French don’t pull out, then I suppose we carry on alone.
    My concern is what are we going to use in the interim period? Is it possible to buy off the shelf from the US.
    Can any of you experts inform me please.
    Cheers
    George

    • Do you have any idea as to the launch platforms for the two different missiles, e.g. can the land attack missile fit in mk41.

  10. What’s the betting we buy one version and the French by the other?

    OK perhaps I am being a bit overly pessimistic here, but it would be nice to know what platforms these weapons will be integrated onto. My wish list is as follows:-

    Air
    F35 can carry weapons on under wing hard points at the cost of stealth and flight performance (extra drag), nevertheless I think this is a must for carrier strike going forward.

    Also, I would hope we will be able to integrate both of these weapons into the systems and bomb bay of the P8 (along with Stingray torpedos or the new light weight torpedo).

    Typhoon would be nice, but I suspect not as that platform will be getting long in the tooth by the end of the decade and its age will be a heaven sent excuse for the Treasury to block that move. By then we should have a better idea of the new UAV’s and Tempest…

    Unlikely we would integrate a heavy weight missile onto helicopters due to payload issues.

    Surface
    Naval platforms should include anything with MK41 or Sylver VLS, so T26 and possibly T45 at the expense of a small number of Asters (assuming the VLS can be loaded out with significantly different weapons). If T31 / T32 get Mk41 VLS they should be included as well.

    I would also like to see the Army get some serious precision deep fires capability. If the cruise missile version can be fired from a surface ship then it should not be beyond the wit of man to package the system up, with any necessary mods, and mount it on trucks. The Russians manage to fit their big SAM’s on to ships and trucks so why not us? Ooops, nearly forgot MoD…

    Sub-Surface
    The cruise missile version at least must be slated for sub launch, but I would hope our subs get the anti-shipping variant as well. That would give the Astutes serious carrier killing capability – given the Chinese carrier programme that is going to be important for the UK and the west in general.

    Well I think I have just added a couple of £billion to the integration costs 😃

    Cheers CR

  11. To be marketable it needs to fit in Mk41 and Sylver so that potential French strop should be ironed out hopefully.
    The French SSN launch a capsules version of Scalp, so hopefully the land attack version could be a Tomahawk replacement for the RN SSN if funded..
    Harpoon and Exocet can also be launched from subs, a hypersonic missile from an SSN with a 300 km range or more would be nice. But unclear if this is funded.
    The hypersonic missile looks narrow, so potentially multiple rounds per VLS? Or would we see a Type 26 with 16 land attack and 8 anti ship hypersonic missile
    Will the hypersonic have secondary land attack options over shorter ranges/littoral to target coastal air defences etc

  12. Id suggest if R+D have developed something that is workable and can do the job now get ut into production asap.
    I think we are going to need these weapons sooner than the end of the decade. Hell we are likely going to need them before the end of this year.

    • We urgently need something the F35’s can carry. We’ll need to sink enemy ships within weeks if you ask me. This lack of urgency worries me greatly. I’m sure we can get this done in 24 months if we put our backs into it as long as the French don’t work to rule and take long lunch breaks.

  13. Lots of talk in this article about subsonic stealth and supersonic but nothing about the buzz word of the moment ‘hypersonic’? I suppose, until a requirement for a hypersonic missile is properly thrashed out … responses to RFPs are evaluated to fine tune a requirement into something that is potentially deliverable, inter-operability requirements defined, training and support packages thoufht through then we won’t see a formal requirement from the MOD, let alone any substantial investment into its development and working concept/prototype? I’m think in terms of MBDA, Leonardo …. a European solution etc

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here