A new report from the Council on Geostrategy calls for the Royal Navy to prioritise the development of longer-range anti-ship weapons and advanced missile defence systems to maintain its ability to project power and deter adversaries.
The report, authored by Dr Emma Salisbury, stresses that without these upgrades, the Royal Navy risks being left vulnerable in an increasingly contested global environment.
The report highlights the urgent need to extend the range of current anti-ship missiles, stating:
“The development of longer-range and more survivable anti-ship weapons is crucial in ensuring that the Royal Navy can project power and deter potential adversaries. Current anti-ship missiles must be enhanced to extend their range, allowing for standoff engagement against enemy vessels while minimising exposure to counter-fire.”
The report also highlights the importance of ensuring that these weapons are designed with survivability in mind. “Ensuring these weapons are designed with survivability in mind—whether through stealth features or advanced guidance systems—will significantly increase their effectiveness in contested environments.”
In addition to offensive capabilities, the report warns that traditional defence systems are increasingly inadequate against the rise of hypersonic and ballistic missile threats.
“The Royal Navy must invest in advanced missile defence technologies capable of countering these high-speed threats. Systems that can detect, track, and intercept missiles at various altitudes and speeds are essential to protecting fleet assets.”
The report recommends a layered defensive architecture, combining long-range interceptors with close-in weapon systems (CIWS), such as Phalanx, to create a comprehensive shield over naval operations. The integration of Laser Directed Energy Weapons (LDEW) is also proposed as a cost-effective and versatile solution for addressing a range of threats, including drones and missiles.
For more detailed analysis and recommendations, the full report can be accessed here.
That has been evident for over two decades. Probably indicates a fundamental understanding that navies are strategic facilitators. Take the Merlin helicopter for instance. In Gulf War 1 USN helicopters without missiles but with radar queued RN helicopters with missiles but no radar on to targets. The USN then goes about to buy missiles for its helicopters. The RN then brings into service a new helicopter with a good radar and then doesn’t buy missiles. It was probably cost that caused that but I don’t think anycase was made for missiles. The Italian navy did outfit their Merlins with Marte.… Read more »
Yes “Steel is cheap and air is free”, which is why the T45 was built with the spare space for 2 MK41 VLS right next to the Sylver ones. Which is now going to be filled with an additional 24 Sea Ceptor missiles. The T45 is a dedicated AAW Destroyer and not tasked for Long Range Land Attack, it will have 8 NSM fitted.
Thank you for thoughts.
Obviously I am talking about what the RN should have done not what they did.
The RN has few platforms it cannot afford specialist ones. This is something the RN identified back in the 1950’s.
Well that’s nice to know, we will just scrap our ASW Frigates, AAW Destroyers, Aircraft carriers, SSNs and SSBNs.
Strangely the mighty USN is going back to specialist ships such as ASW. And the specialist AAW T45 did quite nicely in the Gulf.
The USN destroyer force is now, and will be for decades to come, primarily based around the DDG-51 type destroyer – ships that field a significant general purpose capability. With the RN escort force reduced to the pitiful state we see now a situation where a specialist AAW ship can be faced with a sudden and critical ASW tasking – and vica versa – can not only be easily foreseen but looks almost inevitable. Therefore, our Type 26 class should in principle I think look a lot more like their (more capable) RAN and RCN cousins than they do alas.… Read more »
The RN decided that specialist ships (one for FD, one for AA, one for ASW) was a bad idea back in the late in 1950’s as the right mix of ships could never be guaranteed to be available at the point. Technology allowed all those roles to be placed in one hull hence T12(I) These were still the days when frigates were supposed to escort merchant ships and destroyers escorted HVU’s. So it should be noted that County class carried Type 170 search and Type 184 targeting sonar sets. When T42 came along it carried Type 2050 / 2016 ASW… Read more »
If it identified in 1950’s it failed its policy.
T26 , T45 , T31 are all three a failure as multi propose ships.
Errr….
Lynx, which was firing the missiles (Sea Skua) had the excellent Seaspray radar….it needed to as Sea Skua was a semi-active radar homing missile…
The USN Seahawk were just used as additional search assets…
Merlin is a dedicated ASW helo….but if push came to shove we could attach laser guided rockets in pods to it if we really, really needed anti surface capability as it has been trialled with it…
Sorry I forgot re Lynx. But my point re USN and Penguin still stands.
But as for you point re Merlin no sorry. That is just you asserting your belief from your internet browsing.
Italians have Marte in Merlin
Was it Del Boy that said, ” statment of the bleedin obvious”?
Although it’s not specifically Navy, FC/ASW is a new long-range anti-ship weapon that will be used by them. So is the advice to accelerate it, or is this just ticking the box of what’s already in the pipeline?
I don’t get the comment about current anti-ship missiles being enhanced, unless it means by adding to them. The current missiles are Martlet and NSM. I can’t see Martlet enhancement as critical. NSM needs to proliferate across the fleet as it stands, rather than worry about enhancement. Sea Venom and FC/ASW will, I hope, fill out the capability.
Just as an afterthought, the Tomahawks could be upgraded to become anti-ship. I think they are seen as a purely land-strike capability, and I’m not sure that should change.
Yes. Anti-ship is now the preserve of the very complex and very high speed missile. All a TLAM or cruise missile would be is a way of attriting opfor’s kinetic defence if EW hadn’t dealt with the threat.
A ship needs to carry 48/50 at least. It needs to a bombardment weapon. Imagine a hypothetical British CBG approaching an enemy coast with 100+ TLAM. It would be a different proposition.
FC/ASW in its anti-ship guise should arrive in 2034…
But….at present that appears to be the supersonic variant. Whilst fast I doubt it will have substantially more range than NSM has.
It’s very unclear if the other FC/ASW missile, the subsonic stealthy long range version that we are buying for land attack will have an anti-ship variant (i.e. like JASSM and LRASM).
I’ve said it for years, the RN with 19 escort vessels should have multi mission ships. Type 26 with 32 vls upfront and get rid of the useless mission bay for 64 strike vls. Stick a Sampson on it and u have the best destroyer in the world. ASW? No problem. AAW no proble.. Firepower? Not a bloody problem. Build 24 of them and that’s the surface fleet. 8 at sea 24/7 globally. If u want patrol vessels like the rivers then fine, but our only war ship would be the type 26 destroyer. Commanality, interchangability, training cost, parts cost.… Read more »
What useless mission bay? The one that can provide these capabilities? Extra helicopter, UAVs and USVs for anti-submarine warfare. USVs, UUVs and command centres for mine countermeasures. Hovercraft, raiding craft and RIBS for the marines. Humanitarian aid and hovercraft for disaster relief. And do all of that with minimal port infrastructure? A ship can never be a top AAW and ASW combatant at the same time. The manoeuvres and positioning simply doesn’t overlap. Therefore during a single deployment a ship will only ever be doing a single role, because if it is ever realistically under threat from both a war… Read more »
Extra helicopter? try to operate 2 helicopters when one have to pass trough the other…
T26 (RN version) is a lost opportunity, it should have side by side hangars and Aster class missiles with fixed panels radars for longe range AAW interception. it would not have the the 2 radars of T45 but it would have been good multi propose vessels with great capability.