MBDA has announced the successful test launch of its new Teseo MK2/E anti-ship missile system, conducted in partnership with the Italian Navy as part of a multi-year development programme.
This first firing of the evolved missile took place on 14 October, marking a milestone in enhancing the anti-ship capabilities of the Teseo missile family, also known internationally as OTOMAT, according to a press release.
The test aimed to validate critical new components in the Teseo MK2/E, particularly its updated airframe and propulsion systems. Preliminary wind tunnel tests had indicated promising results, which were confirmed during the live firing. These developments pave the way for final qualification of the missile’s design, with full validation expected to be completed next year.
The Teseo MK2/E introduces several advancements over previous models. Equipped with an Active Electronically Scanned Antenna (AESA) RF seeker, the system is capable of responding faster to threats and supports enhanced mission planning with the integration of a satellite data link. This combination, say the builders, enables the missile to engage both sea and land targets at significantly greater distances, adding a level of flexibility not seen in earlier systems. With this extended range, the missile aims to increase crew safety by enabling operations from a safer distance while offering the potential for deep-strike capabilities against fortified or mobile land targets.
The Teseo MK2/E was developed in close collaboration with the Italian Navy and will be integrated into several of its platforms, including the new PPA multi-purpose combat ships and upcoming DDX destroyers. In addition, MBDA plans to equip the missile system on the FREMM EVO frigates and offer it to international customers.
The collaboration with the Italian Navy on the AESA seeker also opens avenues for Italy’s involvement in the FC/ASW (Future Cruise/Anti-Ship Weapon) programme alongside the UK and France.
In a statement included in the press release, Giovanni Soccodato, Executive Group Director of Sales and Business Development and Managing Director of MBDA Italia, commented on the successful test: “This first test of the Teseo MK2/E demonstrates the validity of the project, confirms our development roadmap, and presents a cutting-edge naval defence product capable of countering the most sophisticated threats. It also underlines once again how working in synergy with the customer brings results that perfectly meet their requirements.”
Soccodato further highlighted the strategic benefits of the missile’s advanced technology, noting its capacity to “allow our country to participate in the FC/ASW programme in collaboration with France and UK, contributing high added-value support and significant technological content.”
At the UK Defence Journal, we aim to deliver accurate and timely news on defence matters. We rely on the support of readers like you to maintain our independence and high-quality journalism. Please consider making a one-off donation to help us continue our work. Click here to donate. Thank you for your support!
Did anyone else read that as Tesco missle?
To me, it bought Tessio, the Godfather character, to mind and I wondered if there should be a Clemenza missile to go with it.
Me too, just waiting for Sainsbury’s to bring out their version, but knowing the UK we’ll end up with the Aldi version.
With very suspicious similar packaging.
The Lidl version would probably be better and cheaper?
Inventory levels would be iffy with poor availability at time…
Similar branding obvs.
If they were as good as Aldi Yorkshire Puddings in dripping I’d say you would be 100% correct sir.
Not sure it would ever get through the Check-out.
How many Nectar points do you get for buying one?
Yes. Tesco range.
First thing I thought, glad to see I wasn’t alone.
Extra special
Me too. I wonder if it’s available for a discounted price for Clubcard members.
Every little helps.
Yep 🙂
Guilty. Interesting, new airframe, new propulsion and new seeker I’m surprised they didn’t change the name too, perhaps Waitrose didn’t appeal enough.
First model was 180km range missile first employed in Lupo 1978 frigates.
Btw it seems the FREMM EVO and PPA EVO – 2 will be bought to replace the 2 being sold to Indonesian Navy will have a specific anti drone AESA radar besides the dual band radars.. I found interesting that Italian Navy sees the need for that.
A S-band radar using lots of signal processing can detect very small drones. The caveat with that though, is that it uses up a large amount of your available signal processing resource time. Meaning you won’t have anything significant for other potential threats. I do have concerns for both the T26 and T31 due to the allocation of processing resources, as they will both only have one primary radar to do all the tasks.
Having multiple radars doing specific tasks does help spread the signal processing resource load. For example the T45 using the S1850M for long range and volume searching. Whilst Sampson does threat validation and tracking. The downside is that you need lots of space for separate systems and all their accessories, such as power supplies, cabling etc.
To me with today’s drone threat, it would make sense to include either a X-band or Ku-band radar. To search for and track the smaller drone threats. This radar could also be used as the tracking guidance for any auto-cannons.
From naval news
Th EVO will have C-band Kronos Quad and the same (4) number of antennas for the X-band Kronos StarFire. This will have ABM search capability for 600km range Ball. missiles and 1300km range Ball. missile tracking if handed over from other assets.
For anti drone Fincantieri OMEGA 360 or Leonardo Tactical Multi Mission Radar (TMMR).
Omega 360 is an interesting radar said to be a “ubiquitous radar”
EVO is shaping up to be a really nice ship.
Yeah, but still limited number of missiles. It seems it will have A50 Sylver for 16 Aster B1 NT and 16 A70NG VLS for next surface to surface missiles or the long range ABM.
It seems for some reason Italian Navy still don’t want CAMM-ER to increase the numbers which i found strange.
I think Artisan 300 on the T26 is supposed to be able to track >1000 objects at once and communicate with a number of missiles in flight at the same time. Even if the Scanters and Sharpeyes are useless (and with the posibility of sensor fusion, I not 100% sure that’s true anymore), the EO/IR trackers should still come into play for gunnery and close range work.
T26s are not AAW focused and are primarily doing self-protection. When they are in a group (CSG or LSG), we should have developed the capability to allow radars from any ship in the group or even aircraft to feed targetting data to the frigate, and the frigates will be able to fire and if necessary hand off in-flight communications to a different ship that’s less pressed or more capable. I don’t think another radar here would be a top priority for me even though it would provide resillience.
I think the T31s, which will be forward deployed, would really benefit from a second 3D radar to allow them to work independently as second tier AAW frigates (assuming the Mk41 VLS doesn’t get axed in the SDR). There’s a version of NS100 that incorporates an integrated Scout X-band radar in the same footprint. I think that would solve the multi-systems, cabinets, etc, issues. However, I can’t tell if it’s sufficiently 3D for counter UAV.
We are still some way off looking at the programme of T31 capability inserts, and there’s scope to upgrade. I wonder if we go down that AAW route whether NS100 might not be long enough range and adding an even shorter-range X-Band would be moving in the wrong direction. Perhaps NS100 should end up being the shorter range radar, and something more powerful like the NS200 should take over the longer range work. Not as much of a quick fix or as cheap a solution as you are proposing, I realise.
NS100 is akin to an early Artisan, whereas the NS200 would be a better choice. Thales have also developed fixed flat panel arrays built on the fundamentals of NS100/200. Though I don’t believe these incorporate the additional X-band arrays.
My gripe with the EO/IR turrets, is that when it’s chucking it down or snowing. The detection capability is degraded depending on how heavy the downpour is. Which for operating in the Atlantic is not great. So radar has to be relied upon.
I believe the Polish A140 (T31) are getting two primary radars. But then they are more air defence oriented. The original Iver Huitfeldt’s have two primary radars. The APAR and the SMART-L. Plus they have two dedicated X-band fire control radars for the guns.
The issue for both the T26 and T31 is that with Mk41 comes the benefit of longer ranged surface to air weapons, such as CAMM-MR. But to maximize that potential. You will need a dedicated volume search radar. As you can then separate the search and tracking requirements.
For me the easier upgrade option. For both classes of ship would be to add the SMART-L/S1850M radar and keep the Artisan/NS100. The next step would be four fixed X-band AESA panels. Which would be used for controlling the guns. As well as helping search for and track very small RCS threats/drones. Even something like Leonardo’s Osprey 50 would be sufficient.
Mmme
Well you can feed the raw data to a number of different rows of blade servers and process each row differently….for a different desired optimal performance?
I doubt processing is a real barrier if GPU’s are utilised.
The issue is surely more with how the bean forming and steering works to track the individual targets? That is where I see the bottleneck being.
That is somewhat the point of ubiquitous radar. Always seeing permanently in 360º and continuous tracking that make possible to id the targets and discriminate from birds to drones.
Beam-forming to be honest is the easy bit, though when you’re doing multi-beam transmitting and receiving. Signal processing resource time does get more complicated. As the transmitted beams are no longer tight and narrow. But have a more diverging beam, thus picking up more clutter and interference.
If we take BAe’s Artisan as an example. I won’t go into the weeds with the radar’s performance or capabilities. However, it is repudiated to be able to track 1000 objects. What BAe don’t tell is what is the make up of these objects. Are they moving, what is their radar cross section, how far apart are they separated, what are the environmental and topological conditions. I’m pretty certain that the 1000 objects is tested under perfect conditions.
A blade farm has gone a long way to solve signal processing issues and capabilities. What is possible today was not 15 years ago. It also makes it easier to upgrade the radar. A lot more performance can be attained through signal processing and better software than developing newer transmitter-receiver modules (TRMs) on AESA radar.
But, the big problem is still how to filter the raw data, whilst trying to keep a minuscule signal return from a suspected target. Yes you can use various algorithms to help process the data. However when the signal is so small and hidden within interference and clutter. There’s a very good chance the filtering will smooth out the signal and loose it.
Signal processing looks for repetitive patterns, velocity changes, Doppler patterns etc. so when a returned signal from a small slow moving drone, that has a very low radar cross section and is flying just above the sea, with say hills behind it. Makes for a very difficult target to not only find but also track. To make it worse, the drone could be part of an intelligent swarm. Where they are converging onto the ship from multiple directions.
This type of threat scenario will use up a huge amount of signal processing resources. A much higher frequency radar operating in the Ku-band (12-18GHz) will help. As the wavelength is 2.5cm to 1.67cm. So will get better returns off small metal objects within the drone. Plus it will be easier to filter out interference and clutter.
Every little helps. Aldi can build one a Lidl bit cheaper though!
And package it to look like the original, so they benefit from no product advertising requirements.
Groan 🙂
Aside from the lack of stealth, this seems like quite a good missile- roughly on par with the newer Harpoon and Exocet models. I did wonder if it might be a good fit for interim RN AShM before we got NSM. Will be interesting to see what they bring to FC/ASW with that seeker.
What I would like to get is the rocket-launched lightweight torpedo that the Italian navy use; much better range than ASROC, and makes way more sense than the torpedo tubes currently found on T23s.
That rocket is a good bit of kit for us. It is basically a specialist one use drone to drop a light ASW torpedo. The one it is designed around is slightly bigger than Stingray in every dimension so should be adaptable.
From what I understand their version of Asroc was only produced in tiny numbers and is all but decommissioned
I am not sure it is decommissioned but it was indeed in tiny numbers and not being build anymore albeit still being promoted in MBDA website. It uses the OTOMAT mk2 missile and MU90 torpedo
Yes, something I should have said but you noted it: I’d want it to launch Stingray!
The only thing is, I think it’s cannister-launched instead of VLS, but that’s not too much of a problem as far as I’m concerned.
Yes it uses the “crushed” Otomat Canisters
Every little helps!!!!! 🤣😂