James Cartlidge, Conservative MP for South Suffolk, asked the Ministry of Defence about plans to fund the Future Cruise/Anti-Ship Weapon (FCASW) programme.
In response on 6th September 2024, Maria Eagle, Minister of State for Defence, confirmed that “investment in the Future Cruise/Anti-Ship weapon programme is continuing under an on-going assessment phase contract with MBDA.”
She also noted that this programme is “a key part of the recently agreed complex weapons Portfolio Management Agreement 2.”
The Future Cruise/Anti-Ship Weapon (FC/ASW) is a next-generation missile programme launched in 2017 by the United Kingdom and France to replace the aging Storm Shadow/SCALP cruise missiles and the Exocet and Harpoon anti-ship missiles. The programme, jointly funded by both countries, is being developed by European missile manufacturer MBDA as part of the defence collaboration outlined in the Lancaster House treaties. In 2023, Italy joined the project, further expanding its scope and resources.
The programme has undergone significant development since its inception, with an agreement for a concept phase signed in 2017. By 2019, MBDA, in cooperation with the French Defence Procurement Agency (DGA) and the British Defence Equipment and Support (DE&S), successfully completed a key review of the programme. Further progress was marked in February 2022 when the programme entered the preparation phase following agreements between French, British, and MBDA officials.
The FC/ASW programme is exploring two complementary missile concepts: a low observable subsonic cruise missile and a supersonic highly manoeuvrable missile. This approach seems to replace earlier hypersonic missile concepts such as the CVS401 Perseus, which had been considered in the initial stages of development.
The assessment phase of the programme is expected to conclude in 2024, with manufacturing slated to begin in 2025. Two distinct variants are planned: a deep-strike, land-attack missile expected to enter service in 2028, and an anti-ship variant set for delivery in 2034. This phased development aims to address both land and maritime threats with advanced, role-specific missiles for the future battlefield.
Does anyone know how long it takes to actually build, from parts to service, a weapon like this? I can’t understand how it will take 3 years from the start of manufacturing to entry into service of the missile.
Would be interested in similar statistics for aircraft, because this has a bearing on how far in advance orders have to be made.
These sorts of numbers are commonly discussed when it comes to ship design and tanks but I am curious how much they affect thinking for smaller products.
Once built it will have to undergo further testing to prove the process.
‘Start of manufacturing’ means the final design is frozen and approved for production. And this also means that a full production contract is issued for a certain number of missiles. At that point the manufacturer will be able to set up and optimise a production line, commence training of staff….and order parts from subcontractors, some of which will be long lead items. Subcontractors will also have to set up production lines, create molds, tooling, jigs etc. The scale of this activity is also dependent on the initial production order and expected run rate/delivery cycle.
Also building a line and training people for production which is different to a few highly skilled people assembling the test serials.
In the midst of that you need to start serial manufacturing and QA of all of the parts.
It’s expected to be first made available for ship launch from a Mk41 VLS, and the Sylver A70, which the Royal Navy doesn’t have. So, the first RN ship that will be able to fire the missiles will be HMS Glasgow, which won’t be operational until 2028. Even if we already had these missiles in stockpiles fifty deep, 2028 is the first time they can be operational, and then only from one ship.
Last I heard, Typhoon-launch will come in the early 2030s.
Yup, a lot of stuff has to fall into place in the right order and the right time for big programs to stay on schedule.
They might put a A70 and MK41 on a barge to test fire a production variant prior to delivery. They have done that with other, all be it, smaller weapons and launchers before.
Cheers CR
LM have a containerised MK41 that they use for just such processes, as I recall. Not a proof of launch at sea, but a first test on land is quite normal.
I was wondering if this missile can be container launched so expanding its potential launch platforms and flexibility generally, though realistically only T-45 would be a possibility. Is a potential containerised version necessarily very different to a VL version from a MK41 which would be a major factor if it were no doubt.
I’d imagine a containerised version would be very similar- I guess the trick is managing the exhaust gasses from launch, which MK41 already has sorted. The question is, can you get a large enough inventory of missiles to make buying container launchers worthwhile…?
There was a trials barge with A50 on it for Sea Viper – now, I think, scrapped.
Longbow, used for VLSW and Sea Viper development and Qualification trials was turned into razorblades several years ago
Yes, Longbow it was!
Thanks, that makes sense.
It seems a good idea to start stockpiling these as soon as we can even if we can’t use them yet.
No, that’s not a good idea. Weapons have shelf life. So, stockpiling seriously expensive and complex weapons like these before they can be used from an operational platform is a massive waste of funds. Nothing is as simple as it seems. 🙂
I can give you a bit of a hint. FCASW is going to be used by both Typhoon and Rafale. Then eventually GCAP and SCAF. Initially to supplement Storm Shadow/Scalp. But to ultimately replace it. Developing and building the missile can be done fairly quickly in 2 to 3 years normally. However, if there’s an urgent operational requirement (UOR). It can be done sooner.
In the UK, an aircraft launched missile has to be assured and certified by the MoD via the MAA, the platform authority and the weapon’s authority. That it is safe to hang from the aircraft whilst in flight and is fit for purpose.
Along the journey the missile will need EMC testing to make sure the aircraft’s radiating systems don’t interfere with the missile, but also vice versa. Then the aircraft and missile have to be flown together. Initially it will be benign flying, ie circuits. This is done to validate the aerodynamic modeling. Being followed by expanding the envelope, of how fast and how hard the aircraft can be maneuvered. Without the missile breaking or detaching from the aircraft. Once this has been done, they will then go into the firing trials.
The problem is that data gathering missiles which uses the same missile airframe and is made to match the weight and C of G. Minus the missile’s avionics, warhead and engine. These are used to measure the loads and flight data, cost a lot more than the operational missile. Plus you need an aircraft that is also fully sensored up for flight testing and data recording. It has to be available to meet the test schedule. Sadly, it doesn’t always work out, as the jet can go U/S on the day of the test. Which then requires a second one being made ready and pushes the schedule to the right.
Once the tests have been flown, the data has to be analyzed. This also takes a fair amount of time. It may need modifications to the missile. For example, the airflow under the wing causes the missile’s fins to flutter too much. So the missile will need retesting to make sure the modifications work.
This trial schedule has to also be agreed with the French. As they will also require the test missiles, unless more test missiles are made. These prioritization issues can be further exacerbated by adding another aircraft into the mix, such as Gripen. As the Swedes will also require accommodating.
In a lot of ways having a sovereign platform such as Typhoon will significantly reduce the amount of time it takes to integrate a UK/French weapon on to the aircraft. As you have more say on the integration schedule, unlike the F35.
There are two main integration stages. Which is Initial Operating Capability (IOC) and Full Operating Capability (FOC). You can get to IOC fairly quickly, which is where the aircraft can fly with the missile fitted. But it will have performance constraints. Such as it can only be released at X speed. As the aircraft/missile test program matures, with the requirement goals achieved. It will be signed off as FOC.
For example the Storm Shadow/Scalp used and fired by Ukraine’s Su-24s. Is probably only certified as IOC. But with Ukraine being at war, they will have likely penned off further testing that we would do for FOC at their own risk. So that the missile can be used earlier. Very successfully it would seem.
This whole process does take time under normal peacetime rules. But can be significantly speeded to meet a MoD UOR. Where they sign off the risk rather than industry.
That sounds like a lot of work. Have you done it before? Or are you doing it NOW…?
It seems I was wrong in my guess of the project you were working on 🧐
Oh you have no idea!
CADMID, Google it. It will be some time before it is available.
It’s not from start or manufacture…they have not designed the thing yet..they still have not finalised the concept phase or even agreed workshare between the three nations..they have to design, test and then integrate into quite a number of different ships before swinging into full manufacturing…I seriously doubt this will be operational by 2028. Infact I would lay good money that they are still testing the pre production and moving onto integration work in 2028/29…if we have a sweepstakes I’m going for 2031 as the IOC and FOC for 2034.
It is more advanced than that.
The missile is pretty much finalised by the time it has firing trials these days.
The level of computer modelling / simulation is very high.
They will already have done the static handling trials on the instrumented dummy missile.
The warhead(s) will also have been separately tested for the required level of shock resistance and inertness.
Propulsion will also have been static tested and tested for fire control resistance in the launch canister as well as in at least the two orientations as well as jinking on a centrifuge rig (certainly used to) to make sure there is no fuel starvation or uneven burn material migration at high G. Although a lot this fluid dynamic can now be quite easily modelled so the centrifuge rig tests may may now not be a thing.
The old days of firing 10’s or in the 1960’s hundreds of missiles to get data are long gone.
Equally, the days of massive lemon missiles that don’t remotely meet spec are also long gone. This is particularly true as the target/guidance packages are well developed and if well known mass and capabilities: this was the Achilles heel of the older (pre 1990’s) missiles in that the systems were always worse and heavier than desired with strange limitations.
It may look silly, but in France, people talk about launching them like on a pallet from an A400 (the anti-ship version). The concept is to be able to sink a fleet. Do people in UK think this has any chance to happen? I mean, we don’t have any bomber, A400 lack survivability, so launching a large number of cruise missile could help do the impossible…
The worry is the survivability if the A400 – lot of eggs in one basket.
However, A400 has long legs.
And a large basket…
By two distinct variants do they mean the subsonic and supersonic missles, or will each of those missles have two variants one for land attack and one for ship attack? So four missles in total?
Just two missiles, but the subsonic one is optimised for land attack and the supersonic one for anti ship.
It hasn’t been stated, but I assume both will be functional in both roles
When is a missile not a missile? Seems a pretty dopey question however, a ship, aircraft, tank, bunker isn’t bothered what missile hits it, so why are there loads of differing types?
Is it not possible to have a ‘one missile suits all’?
Not really.
Anti aircraft needs a debris fields loaded with hard solid objects that get ingested into the engines and take out the pilot. The missile will have to be at least double the cruise speed of the aircraft.
A bunker needs a big warhead with a tandem charge. No need for supersonic.
A tank needs a dual approach. Cut an opening in the hull and then inject thermite or explosive. Actually and oddly quite similar to a submarine. No need for supersonic.
Now to a certain extent you can change the behaviour of a warhead with multi point fuzing.
As with HMS Massive you could make a huge missile that can take out anything. But it would be huge and equally expensive.
When Hypersonic missiles become the norm, surely at that point, a ‘one missile fits all’ scenario will come to the fore?
Interestingly, one of the early French concepts for this missile was like that.
They wanted a high supersonic missile that had a secondary capability as a very long range BVRAAM specifically for attacking enemy AWACS and the like.
In theory it could still be done but as the other SB pointed out, the requirements for the various targets are very different.
You can try to mix two or even 3 of the roles (Spear can do ships, tanks and bunkers, but is best at ships and tanks) but a truly all purpose missile is never going to be effective in all of its roles.
Anti-ship variant is now due 10 years from now? How in God’s name did we get into this position? Currently, even though we’ve purchased 11 Set’s of NSM, only 1 Type 23 has it, all other vessels have to rely on a 4.5 inch gun, you really couldn’t make it up! We need to take our heads out of the sand and start looking to purchase another interim long range ant-ship missile, off the shelf, perhaps Tomahawk Block V
I think we should fit the NSM we have bought.
Tomahawk Block V needs Mk41 VLS of which we have precisely zero in the fleet until HMS Glasgow is commissioned in 2028(ish).
Agree, I was thinking of when we finally get the Type 26s/31s (those fitted with Mk 41 vls into service.
And…
How will you target said long range ASM.
Its difficult enough planning a 2 shot Harpoon engagement at around 60 miles distance. If you really want difficult try a 4 shot multi axis engagement!
Want to try doing that for a Block V at 1000 miles.
Even at max chat it will take nearly 4 hours to reach that distance. A target ship could have moved upwards of 100 miles from the datum aim point, in any direction in that time.
You need OHT targeting, Mid Course guidance and data link connectivity to make it work.
You must be getting bored…..
Its like i am on constant repeat!
And CAMM..that’s not a bad ASuW weapon, no ship likes being hit by something travelling at Mach3+ and weighing 100kgs…that a whole lot of energy ( that’s the same energy dump as an 8inch shell) . The U.S. have tended to use Standard missiles in the ASuW role as it’s far faster than a slow old western heavyweight Antiship missile..gets to a target 20miles away in 25 seconds not 2 minutes 25 seconds.
To be honest long range anti ship missiles are a bit top trumps..the reason they got rid of the first Antiship version of tomahawk was because they were never going to use it ( it was a last ditch end of the world nothing matters anymore type weapon)
The realistic achievable kill chain for an escort is out to the radar horizon detection limit which is in most cases about 20 miles..beyond that escorts cannot see each other to kill each other…theoretically If you have a ton of air assets, a lot of time and technical expertise that cannot be jammed you could set up a kill chain at long distance..but why the hell would you bother..your exposing all your air assets that will need to hang around finding, tracking and fixing the target, then send the information down the line to the firing platform…then have to wait around exposed for another 20-30 minutes for the long range weapon to arrive…simply load up your air assets for bear and when they find, track and fix the target they can immediately fire and run away without broadcasting or waiting around to be killed.
What we really need is
1)sea viper to hurry up ( sea skua was the most successful and deadly Antiship missile ever made)..the RN essentially destroyed the Iraq navy on their Tod using small ship flights and sea skua) small ship fight launched Antiship missiles are the most deadly of capabilities.
2) a quick anti ship missile for typhoons to fill the gap until we get the all singing thing in the mid 2030s..Marte ER..almost all the intergration works has been funded and done by the manufacturers.
3) get the NSM actually fitted to the escorts..
4) get spear three integrated onto the F35b
we really don’t need another ship based heavyweight Antiship missile…
Some might argue Exocet was a little more deadly. Sea Skua was small by comparison.
The simple question to ask yourself..how many vessels has Exocet killed vs how many has sea skua killed…sea skua has killed around 20 naval vessels..air launched Exocet 4 and land launched one mission kill.
But what Exocet does stack on top of the sea skua..is that modest ranged air launched Anti-ship missiles are by far and away the single most deadly threat and the MOD needs to make sure as soon as it possibly can that our small ship flights have them, typhoon have an Anti-ship missile and f35 gets spear 3.
Suspect Exocet killed many in the Gulf Tanker Wars. Also USS Stark. In addition to the Falklands losses. I do not think you can compare them.
It’s like sars cov 1 vs sars cov 2…..on paper sars cov 1 is profoundly more nasty to an individual with a case mortality of 10% vs the 1% case mortality of sars cov 2.but sars cov 2 is the more deadly disease.
Which is why….we keep saying it, never mind ASM on ships, put them on a fast jet as priority!
RN probably love NSM for its Land Attack feature.
What we really really need is an air launched anti ship missile for our fast jet fleet..our entire fast jet fleet is based or can be based from a number of strategically important islands that can cut or defend most of the important sealanes in and around our area of influence..waiting for this capacity until the mid 2030s is bonkers it should never have been gapped..we need to get Marte ER for typhoons as an interim to cover a decade.
Boom.
Something like the old Sea Eagle perhaps.
Yes essentially that’s what Marte is..a modern sea eagle comparator.
You got to wonder what the “experts” are thinking or doing not? Common sense amd ready now solutions here. I believe the Marte even fits on the Merlin. And the JSM for the F35B and P8s?
Yes I don’t quite understand why they don’t make a relatively cheap low risk purchase to cover their gaps…well I do know, they fear the treasury will go, look you have one now and cancel some of the future programmes.
I’d say that JSM is the obvious choice for an air launched AShM.
It has commonality with NSM that we have already bought and could fit on all of the likely launch platforms: Typhoon, F35 and P8.
It is also a significantly more capable missile than Marte because it’s bigger and stealthy rather than a non-stealth radar guided design.
Hi the the Marte would be the best option for an interim because most of the integration work has been done on the typhoon..JSM has had none done so it would be years behind.
We do actually have a long range land attack capability via our sub launched Tomahawks, but A) we only ever buy them in small numbers, and B) we seem to lack the ability to put an SSN to sea at present.
If they go onto the surface fleet the SSN can go back to being an anti sub anti ship asset rather than revealing itself if it has to strike targets inland.
I find it Shocking that the Anti Ship variant won’t be ready for another 10yrs, 2034. The development started in 2017 & The Perseus missile looked a Great all round answer to everyone’s needs, until it was cancelled. Meanwhile China & Russia have an array of Hypersonic Anti Ship missiles, ready to fire, Now. Only one Frigate has been fitted with Naval Strike Missile so far, HMS Somerset & it only has a range of 125 miles, and we’ll not get many of them.