The UK has revived plans to purchase an anti-ship missile to fill the gap between Harpoon going out of service and a new system being developed.

Defence Secretary Ben Wallace told a meeting of the Defence Committee today that there is a plan to introduce an anti-ship missile between Haproon leaving service and the the Future Cruise/AntiShip Weapon entering service.

“To replace Harpoon there is an interim plan. I don’t know if I can add to the details of that yet because I’m not even sure if it’s been put out to a tender but there is absolutely a plan.”

The interim anti-ship missile will fill the gap between Harpoon retiring and the ‘Future Cruise/AntiShip Weapon’ entering service.

The story starts back in 2019 when the Ministry of Defence notified bidders of its intention to purchase an interim anti-ship missile as current Harpoon stocks reach end of life and a replacement not being due until 2030. The Ministry of Defence issued a Prior Information Notice (PIN) for a “Next Generation Surface Ship Guided Weapon (SSGW)” to equip Royal Navy vessels. The notice was as follows:

The Authority has a possible future requirement to procure a next generation ship launched anti-ship weapon system for use within training and operational roles with the Royal Navy. First delivery of the ship installed equipment would be required by December 2022 and first delivery of missiles would be required by December 2023. Manufacture and delivery of the weapon system to be delivered in Financial Year 2023/2024.”

I reported back in September last year that progress on the interim missile project appeared to be slowing down, subsequently… the project was cancelled.

First Sea Lord Admiral Tony Radakin spoke of the decision at the Defence Select Committee last year.

“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 project is now being restarted.

What is the Future Cruise/AntiShip Weapon?

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. However, in September 2021 the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding to progress the project was postponed by France in response to the AUKUS pact which saw Australia cancel the acquisition of French-designed conventional submarines in favour of nuclear submarines based on United States and UK technology.

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.

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. He also works for the NHS. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
349 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
John Williams
John Williams
1 month ago

As the covert war with Russia worsens, expect a lot of this type of buying!

Expect another P-8 Poseidon buy.

Steve
Steve
1 month ago
Reply to  John Williams

With what money?

ETH
ETH
1 month ago
Reply to  Steve

The defence budget

Steve
Steve
1 month ago
Reply to  ETH

I come back with what money, the defense budget is fully over allocated, significant extra cash would be required to buy any new capability without first dropping something else.

Last edited 1 month ago by Steve
John Williams
John Williams
1 month ago
Reply to  Steve

What was the Reichsmark worth in 1945?, What was the Confederate Dollar worth in 1865?

You get the idea, lose a war and your currency is worth nothing.

The UK pound is backed by nothing, just fiat currency. The UK pound should drop very fast if NATO loses a major war with Russia.

Cameron
Cameron
1 month ago
Reply to  John Williams

How on earth would NATO lose a conventional war with Russia? What exactly would Russia fight with? Their army is nearly exhausted, and if it were not for their artillery, they would not be winning in Ukraine right now.

OldSchool
OldSchool
1 month ago
Reply to  John Williams

Err….the UK pound is backed by nothing? Economics tells otherwise. I think you might be getting confused with Bitcoin or such perhaps??

Matt C
Matt C
1 month ago
Reply to  OldSchool

Economics tells that the dollar, pound, and yes, bitcoin, is backed mainly by its users’ belief in its value as an accepted medium of exchange.

John Williams
John Williams
1 month ago
Reply to  Matt C

Yes, this is correct

OldSchool
OldSchool
1 month ago
Reply to  Matt C

The GBP is backed by national production ( of goods and services). Unlike bitcoin et al which is backed up by pretty much nothing except speclation on higher future returns.

Peter tattersll
Peter tattersll
1 month ago
Reply to  OldSchool

Correct ..

Jonathan
Jonathan
1 month ago
Reply to  OldSchool

Totally why I will never in invest in crypto, there is a very good chance it will turn out to be a tulip bulb bubble.

Steve
Steve
1 month ago
Reply to  OldSchool

Not really, the GDP is based on trust in the UK government paying it’s debt and overall belief in how the economy will be managed going forward Vs the other currency (currency has no value in itself, it has a value Vs another currency). If we default on our debt then the currency would plummet hard. Its like a company that those bankrupt, it’s assets are worth pennies in the dollar Vs it’s worth as a going concern.

Last edited 1 month ago by Steve
grizzler
grizzler
1 month ago
Reply to  Matt C

Bitcoin & crypto currency in general is more backed by anarchists , business men , and criminals that want to see financial control and governance wrestled from the banks and given to them to do as they want …its backed by nothing tangible whatsoever.

Jonathan
Jonathan
1 month ago
Reply to  Matt C

Well to be honest the pound and dollar are backed by a promise from the respective national banks and so governments, there value is based on the perception of the credit worthiness of the national government authoring the currency. Bit coin and other crypto currencies have no such promise of value and the intrinsic value is based only on perception, where as national currency has a value based on the perceived value of the fungible asset as well as the perceived strength of the promise. In effect crypto currency is a modern tulip bulb as there is no promise behind… Read more »

Steve
Steve
1 month ago
Reply to  Matt C

That applies to anything. If your trading one good be it gold, cash, electronic dollar with another good say food/water/etc, the value of each is based on how much the seller wants for it which will be based on their individual needs for the other good. Neither has any inbuilt value.

John Williams
John Williams
1 month ago
Reply to  OldSchool

No, I am not confused, Gordon Brown sold off about half of the UK gold reserves.

Bing
Bing
1 month ago
Reply to  John Williams

Please explain how NATO loses a war with Russia in the near future, and how you think FIAT currencies work because they do not just randomly collapse on whims.

John Williams
John Williams
1 month ago
Reply to  Bing

One word Panic, panic will cause the fiat currencies to collapse. Europe will have its new world order, dominated by Russia.

Meirion X
Meirion X
1 month ago
Reply to  John Williams

Britain left the Gold Standard in 1931. The U.S.A also left the Gold Standard in 1971. Having bank vaults full of gold is totally unnecessary, in the modern scheme of economics. Yes some countries keep reserves of gold as part of their foreign exchange reserves as well as foreign currencies. But it would have to be sold first and converted into Dollars to use as settlement of payment. Example, if you were to retire to Australia and buy a house there, UK £s would have to be converted into Australian Dollars held in a bank in Australia on behalf of… Read more »

Last edited 1 month ago by Meirion X
Tommo
Tommo
1 month ago
Reply to  Meirion X

One thing when the whiff of War is in the air the price of Gold and other precious metals rises a solid investment when economic uncertainties arise

Martin
Martin
1 month ago
Reply to  Tommo

You might have noticed, gold prices have been collapsing.

Tommo
Tommo
1 month ago
Reply to  Martin

Bulls and Bears Doves and Hawks ,if it seems that the threat of War Iis becoming more likely for the West then as in the last century Gold and precious will undoubtedly rise The Bears Horde the Doves flyaway

izzy
izzy
1 month ago
Reply to  John Williams

Having a gold reserve is not the same as a gold standard.

NATO is not fighting Russia, and has no wish to fight Russia. It is sending aid, training and intelligence to a client state engaged in war, much as Russia did in Vietnam War or the US and Russia did in the Arab-Israeli conflicts.

Were NATO to fight seriously, the addition of fresh troops and massive air and naval forces would cause Russia to lose in Ukraine without biochemical and nuclear weapons, triggering a similar response, causing global catastrophe for all sides.

grizzler
grizzler
1 month ago
Reply to  John Williams

at the lowest price for many years and went in large with the Euro I believe?
I wouldnt use Gordon Brown as an indicator of clever financial strategum?

Tommo
Tommo
1 month ago
Reply to  John Williams

👍correct on that count John that was one reason that in 2010 the treasury was near on empty not overflowing with wealth

Martin
Martin
1 month ago
Reply to  John Williams

Ah the old classic argument used by those who know SFA about monetary policy, sir we salute you 😂

David A
David A
1 month ago
Reply to  John Williams

A Fiat currency only has value based on the goods that support that currency. In the case of Russia, that is mostly oil and gas. Over time, the Ruble will be worth less against world currencies as the demand for Russian oil and gas recedes. Your biggest market, Germany has every intention of finding alternatives which means Russia will find it harder to support the Ruble. Before you tell me that the Ruble has gone back to its pre-war value; this is because Putin has been artificially supporting it for the last couple of months. This is unsustainable.

Mr Bell
Mr Bell
1 month ago
Reply to  OldSchool

This guys an imbecile. He’s sprouting utter tosh from the basement of the Kremlin whilst his handler walks about behind him with a gun to his head.

izzy
izzy
1 month ago
Reply to  John Williams

Actually, if the war stays conventional the UK pound will rise. While Germany and even France are vulnerable to the unstoppable armies of Russia, the British, safe on their island (Russia still lacks significant amphibious forces) prove a haven for European capital, creating a sort of Brexit-in-Reverse as European oligarchs flee there.

Mr Bell
Mr Bell
1 month ago
Reply to  izzy

The Russian military cant even defeat Ukraine. There is literally zero chance they cant threaten territorial integrity of Germany or France. They would be stopped in rapid order within about 20-30 miles of entering Poland.

Tommo
Tommo
1 month ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

Unless Belarus, get too play with Putins gift of Nukes another unstable self obsessed Dictator

David
David
1 month ago
Reply to  izzy

Unstoppable armies of Russia? Really?

Tams
Tams
1 month ago
Reply to  izzy

Haha, what projection from you. It’s the other way around mate, though NATO have no plans to invade Russia.

And you done goofed by criticising your sock puppet account. Go back to your vodka and borscht.

izzy
izzy
1 month ago
Reply to  Tams

Apparently, my gentle satire of John William’s pro-Russia position did not come through. My apologies. For my actual opinion, see the other post on the thread (“NATO is not fighting… were it to do so, Russia would lose…”)

Mr Bell
Mr Bell
1 month ago
Reply to  John Williams

Hahaha why would NATO lose a war vs the imbeciles in charge of Russia’s armed forces. I think NATO would utterly flatten Russia with conventional forces in very quick order. The Russians cant even defeat the Ukrainians. Imagine what a division of US heavy armour or a joint British, Canadian unit would do to the Russian army.
Russia’s airforce would last about 3 days in any war vs NATO.
Putin knows this thars why he and his twat arsed foreign minister keep threatening nuclear armageddon. Its the only weapon they have that stands any chance of holding NATO back.

David A
David A
1 month ago
Reply to  John Williams

I think you are wasting your time peddling BS here. A lot of people here are military professionals who can see how pathetic and ‘third world’ Russias military is. Russia has been humiliated in Ukraine. Before February, Russian conventional forces were considered something to avoid, after February, Russias military is now considered incompetent, weak and leaderless. I doubt anyone here thinks Russia would last a few weeks against NATO. Putin has turned his (your) country into an international laughing stock!

John Williams
John Williams
1 month ago
Reply to  David A

In 1941 the British Military thought the same thing against the Japanese. How did that work out?

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
1 month ago
Reply to  John Williams

Japan surrenders in 1945 and hold onto nothing it gained in the previous years. What’s your point?

David John Bevan
David John Bevan
1 month ago
Reply to  Monkey spanker

Well the bit between December 1941 and August 1945 had a few unpleasant moments which we’d probably be advised to learn from. Assuming your enemy is inferior and then sheltering behind a paper shield is what losers do.

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
1 month ago

Yeah but what he was saying is Britain underestimated the Japanese in 1941 and look how that turned out as some kind reference to russias war in Ukraine. Where the only equal reference would be how Britain viewed the Japanese 140 odd days after they stuck. I it really bears little resemblance to the ukraine conflict as at that time Britain was dealing with more than just the Japanese in the Far East. Comparing the 2nd world war to Russias invasion of Ukraine is silly. When the new artillery hunting drone is ready that will turn the tide on Russian… Read more »

David A
David A
1 month ago
Reply to  John Williams

Well, in 1941; how much contact had the British military with the Japanese? = nil. At this stage: how much military contact has Ukraine with Russia = lots. Therefore your point is mute. Ukraine (alone) has humiliated the Russians. Please don’t use the normal Putin bot nonsense of “we are fighting NATO as well as Ukraine”, because it is simply BS. Even the Nazi’s and Italians didn’t use that excuse for North Africa when Britain was supplied by the USA and others.

hogstable@hotmail.com
1 month ago
Reply to  John Williams

Because Japan hadn’t proved itself to be poor in its operations

Peter tattersll
Peter tattersll
1 month ago
Reply to  John Williams

Behave pal give your head a wobble Russian troll

John Williams
John Williams
1 month ago

I am not a Russian troll, but I do know that underestimating an enemy’s strength has led to many defeats. Ask the commander of the Force Z, British air forces in Malaya were insufficient to provide air cover to Force Z. Poor pre-war forecasts of Japanese intentions caused the deferment of air reinforcement, and by the time war was likely it was impossible to provide sufficient reinforcement in time. Phillips also failed to make full use of intelligence resources. As a result, he grossly underestimated the scale of attack, and believed that the majority of enemy attack aircraft would be level… Read more »

Klonkie
Klonkie
1 month ago
Reply to  John Williams

Good points you post here John. Quality, timely and accurate intel is as relevant today as it was in Hannibal’s time. I do think though the situation in Malaya was doomed to failure from the start.

In particular, the RAF had circa 50% of the planned combat strength and the quality of the aircraft level much to be desired (the Buffalo fighter and Wildebeest bi plane torpedo bomber).

Important to note that in Dec ’41,the Far East was only fourth on the armament priority list, after the UK, Middle East and Russia.

Jonathan
Jonathan
1 month ago
Reply to  Steve

Whatever politicians like to say this is the 5/6th most wealthy nation in the world, we have a lot of money, what HMG buys or does not buy is more based on political dogma and public wish than any lack of money….HS2 Money could buy a whole fleet.

Rob N
Rob N
1 month ago
Reply to  John Williams

I doubt we will get any more P8…. they would not be the highest priority.

TheBatsman'sHoldingTheBowler'sWilley
TheBatsman'sHoldingTheBowler'sWilley
1 month ago
Reply to  Rob N

How about we look at Airlander airships? Airlander is a UK company and an airship like the Airlander 10 has long range, long endurance and a pretty large payload. They’d be ideal to take out ships using long-range stand-off missiles fired from beyond the range of ships’ SAM systems (e.g. LRASM, JSM, Japanese Type 17 missile, even possibly Tomahawk Block Va if an air-launched variant is developed). Plus unlike Poseidons, airships could operate from pretty much anywhere (and especially if amphibious variants were developed), making them far harder to take out on the ground than Poseidons (and other aircraft that… Read more »

Last edited 1 month ago by TheBatsman'sHoldingTheBowler'sWilley
TheBatsman'sHoldingTheBowler'sWilley
TheBatsman'sHoldingTheBowler'sWilley
28 days ago

Correction, Airlander is the name of the airship, it’s made by HAV (Hybrid Air Vehicles).

Sean
Sean
1 month ago

Well good news if it has been, hopefully additional funding is being provided for this rather than coming from existing budget. An example of MoD responding to recent events in Ukraine presumably?

Ron Stateside
Ron Stateside
1 month ago
Reply to  Sean

The 2.5% of GDP budget increase will take a long time to ramp up so hopefully this is one of the first drops in the bucket. Harpoon Block II or Naval Strike Missile is my guess. I wonder which one is more effective at this point in time . . .

Sean
Sean
1 month ago
Reply to  Ron Stateside

Both would be very effective against against Russian vessels judging by the losses of the Black Sea Fleet.

I’d drop the “interim” tag as once the FC/ASW is available for the T26/ T45, the “interim” missile can be moved to the T31s. Keep FC/ASW as the premier missile for the top-tier combatants and use the “interim” to give the second-tier combatants an anti-ship missile.

Rob Young
Rob Young
1 month ago
Reply to  Sean

That would make a great deal of sense.

taffybadger
taffybadger
1 month ago
Reply to  Rob Young

Anything making sense in the MoD is its own death sentence!

ChariotRider
ChariotRider
1 month ago
Reply to  taffybadger

You beat me to it..!

CR

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
1 month ago
Reply to  Sean

Yes I have never thought this logic was rocket science, whatever comes out of FC/ASW it is unlikely it would be fitted to more than a selection of ships so yes these move to those that won’t get it as and when let alone if it ever arrives.

Paul.P
Paul.P
1 month ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

Yep, false choice fallacy.

Martin
Martin
1 month ago
Reply to  Sean

Agree it makes a lot of sense to have an interim capability for t45 and t23 that can be ported across to T31 and T32 in future while T26 and hopefully T45 carry FC/ASW. This plan makes so much sense there is no chance of the MOD adopting it 😀

Sean
Sean
1 month ago
Reply to  Martin

I’ve never worked public sector but I suspect the MoD is no different to any public sector organisation. Some good talented and dedicated people, but highly bureaucratic and staffed with ‘lifers’ incapable of getting a job elsewhere who end up in management. I’ve seen that in a couple of former public sector companies that have been privatised but, because of their market dominant or monopolistic positions, they haven’t had to reform themselves.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 month ago
Reply to  Sean

Those bureaucratic lifers are at the lower ranks of the Civil Service, not the higher ranks.

lee1
lee1
1 month ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Not from my experience. They make it all the way to the top. On Government agency I worked for had 13 directors for an agency of 230 workers. Yep that is a director for every 17 workers… There were also more managers than there were non-managers… Bonus time came around (Pay increases were not a thing at that agency) and all the workers and management got a fixed £200 bonus. The First level of 6 directors got £15000 the next level of 6 directors got £25000 and the top director got £35000… They were totally useless and wasted £45 million… Read more »

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 month ago
Reply to  lee1

Wow! that agency was run very differently from MoD areas. I worked at DLO Andover as an army officer (Major) in 2002-3 and employed some four C2s, one Grade D and an AA in my Team. Not everyone got an annual bonus and that was very modest, but I recall it being more than £200. The more senior civil servants were moved around reasonably frequently but not as frequently as serving army officers – and I am really quite sure that not all of them got a bonus – there was some sort of unofficial quota at play. There was… Read more »

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
1 month ago
Reply to  Martin

Nicely said Martin. Hope this gets added to all RN T23/T45s not just to 3 ships. This underarming mentality is downright stupid as is all the time, resource and money wasting. Hope Mr Wallace pushes this along along with all the other good stuff needed for the UK forces. C’mon 🇬🇧!

TheBatsman'sHoldingTheBowler'sWilley
TheBatsman'sHoldingTheBowler'sWilley
1 month ago
Reply to  Martin

I don’t really understand this line of reasoning. Harpoons and NSMs have woeful range for the open ocean.

T23s and T45s require long-range anti-ship missiles. At the very least LRASM. Better still the Japanese Type 17 or Tomahawk Block Va.

Type 31s with NSMs in the Persian Gulf, fine. But T23s/T45s/T26s in the open ocean with NSMs? Woefully inadequate.

Ron
Ron
1 month ago
Reply to  Sean

My thoughts as well, buy enough sets so that they could be used in the future on the T31. However there could be a small issue of the command and control systems. The T23/26 and T45 uses a command management system from BAE whilst the T31 will use the system from Thales. So any interim missile would need to be compatable to both command and control systems. One issue that could be a problem is with the FC/ASW will it fit into the SYLVER A-50 of the T45, I have noticed that the French have on some of their ships… Read more »

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
1 month ago
Reply to  Ron

If T45 gets Ceptor in its proposed location where would IAShM go? The Harpoon canisters went exactly over where the Mk41 silo was to go……

Meirion X
Meirion X
1 month ago

The proposed CAMM silos is filling the space of MK 41 on T45.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
1 month ago
Reply to  Meirion X

Hence my comment of, “where will it go?”

DaveyB
DaveyB
1 month ago

Thought the Harpoons went between the bridge and the Sylver cells? From images released so far CAMM has been placed between the rear of the Mk8 4.5” and the forward end of the Sylver cells protective screen.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
1 month ago
Reply to  DaveyB

Yes, indeed the Harpoons went above the Mk41 FFBNW space.

The last proposal for Ceptor was in the top of the Mk41 space. There have been a few variations on the theme floating about.

Thing with Ceptor is that it is light and short so it isn’t a metacentric issue or needing multi deck penetrations so there are a large number of places to fit it: particularly if the warhead is above deck in an extended protective enclosure.

Jon
Jon
1 month ago

On frigates. The T45s are too unipurpose anyway, and I wouldn’t bother with an anti-surface weapon on them. Let the frigates (and subs) do anti-surface/ship. When the T83s come along, maybe that’ll be a different story.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
1 month ago
Reply to  Jon

That slightly missed the point.

The Russians and Chinese have lots of ships and subs.

So lots of munitions are required which require slots as you can’t reload.

If you are supporting marines ashore then lots of Cruise/Harpoon type stuff is needed as we seem to have given up on NGS or be depending on helicopters and drones and maybe F35B.

Jon
Jon
1 month ago

I agree on your point, but would the Type 45s be part of a littoral response group? We only have six and if there’s a peer war, I’d expect them to prioritize T45s for the carrier groups and remaining well away from land.

That’s why I said let the frigates get in closer and provide the missile support. Type 26s are a better all-round ship and have a 5″ gun which could, if pushed, do NGS. But I’d want scads of CAMM-ER on the Type 31s too, which can also provide some OTH support.

DaveyB
DaveyB
1 month ago
Reply to  Jon

That’s a massive presumption. What about when the ship is in transit or has been tasked with say patrolling the Gulf of Hormuz? The ship needs a lethal offensive punch not only for deterrence. But also as a means to respond in kind. The other assumption is, why wouldn’t you have the best air defence ship protecting a littoral group?

TheBatsman'sHoldingTheBowler'sWilley
TheBatsman'sHoldingTheBowler'sWilley
1 month ago
Reply to  Jon

“if there’s a peer war”

If there’s a peer war the RN isn’t going to last long. We have very little defence in depth or redundancy. The only survivable assets we have are the Astutes and we don’t have enough of them.

“Type 26s are a better all-round ship and have a 5″ gun which could, if pushed, do NGS.”

You want to use highly expensive T26s for NGS? That’s utterly insane. They wouldn’t last long.

Last edited 1 month ago by TheBatsman'sHoldingTheBowler'sWilley
Mr Bell
Mr Bell
1 month ago
Reply to  Ron

250 million should cover purchase of at least 150 NSM. Even with a generous 100 million spend on servicing costs integration and hardware. I think 150 missiles would cover entirety of type 45 and 23 fleet for now and then allow a trickle down to type 31 and 32s when they enter service.

TheBatsman'sHoldingTheBowler'sWilley
TheBatsman'sHoldingTheBowler'sWilley
1 month ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

What use are NSMs out in the open ocean with a paltry range of about 200km? The fact that our government thinks fitting NSMs to our ships is even worth considering boggles my mind.

Jonathan
Jonathan
26 days ago

Since ships cannot generally find each other unless they are about 20 miles away (and radiating) 200miles is more range than a ship will ever need. The idea of ships firing antiship missiles at each other from 200miles away is red storm rising type fantasy. The 200 mile range is really there for land attack against fixed know targets.

TheBatsman'sHoldingTheBowler'sWilley
TheBatsman'sHoldingTheBowler'sWilley
24 days ago
Reply to  Jonathan

“Since ships cannot generally find each other unless they are about 20 miles away…”

What a bizarre claim. If that were true then all anti-ship missiles would only have a range of about 20 miles, yet that’s clearly not the case. Tomahawk Block Va has a range of 1,000 miles (approx 1,600km) and is currently the longest-ranged western anti-ship missile I’m aware of.

Jonathan
Jonathan
23 days ago

It’s not bizarre it physics, the world is not flat and emissions do not go around corners ( they do curve a bit) so a ship cannot see another ship over the radar horizon. That is why the kill chain is immensely challenging and why ships sling missiles at each other from hundreds of miles away is a fantasy.

Paul T
Paul T
1 month ago
Reply to  Ron

With the benefit of hindsight i think the T45’s should have been fitted with the SYLVER A70 VLS at build – even if never used to their potential it would have future proofed them for the use of any upgraded Aster 30 variants and given them the option of using NdCM for Land Attack,a capability they will now likely never have.

TheBatsman'sHoldingTheBowler'sWilley
TheBatsman'sHoldingTheBowler'sWilley
1 month ago
Reply to  Paul T

With the benefit of hindsight, I think the T45s shouldn’t have been built at all. Horribly noisy from what I’ve read, so total sub magnets (unlike the T26s). Plus all the propulsion issues that are taking years to fix and still no anti-ballistic missile capability or a decent modern CIWS.

Plus MdCN has far from impressive range.

Andrew Deacon
Andrew Deacon
1 month ago
Reply to  Sean

I’d bet the type 45’s will never see mk41s , much more likely for type 31s , existing ships will get an interim solution to see them through their lives.

Dern
Dern
1 month ago
Reply to  Andrew Deacon

Also, since the CAMM launchers have gone into the Mk41 slot, it would require a u-turn for the Darings.

DaveyB
DaveyB
1 month ago
Reply to  Dern

I have yet to see any confirmation that the Mk41 position is going to be used by the new CAMM array. The only information I’ve read is that the CAMM arrays are being fitted in front of the existing Sylver launchers.

Dern
Dern
1 month ago
Reply to  DaveyB

“In front of existing Sylver Launchers” is the Mk41 position, currently it’s a big void with a gym at the bottom of it, with CAMM fitted it’ll be a gym with a much lower ceiling.

https://www.navylookout.com/royal-navys-type-45-destroyers-reaching-their-full-potential-with-addition-of-sea-ceptor-missiles/

DaveyB
DaveyB
1 month ago
Reply to  Dern

Like I intimated, it won’t use the Mk41’s space, but sit on top of it. Which still leaves a space in front of the bridge for a set of cannister launched anti-ship missiles, as per the Harpoons when fitted.

Dern
Dern
1 month ago
Reply to  DaveyB

You’re mis-understanding: It is using the Mk41’s space, the only difference is that because the CAMM system is shorter than the Mk41 system the lowest parts of the space will still be available for a gym.

I never said anything about cannister launched Harpoons or ISSGW’s not being able to be fitted; simply that as long as the CAMM upgrade is going ahead you can’t add Mk41, as they’d sit in the same spot, so please don’t change the goalposts.

DaveyB
DaveyB
1 month ago
Reply to  Dern

Sorry bud, didn’t think I was?

Dern
Dern
1 month ago
Reply to  DaveyB

Didn’t think you where what?

David
David
1 month ago
Reply to  Andrew Deacon

Absolutely Andrew and I doubt severely if the T45s will ever see any kind of AshM fitted – VLS, canister launched or otherwise. I just don’t see it.

Rob N
Rob N
1 month ago
Reply to  David

The T45s could mount 16 Harpoon sized missiles in the existing deck location just before the superstructure. I think a good upgrade would be MSN missile. I suspect that only frigates will get the interim missile. The T45 does not need MK41 VLS to do its air defence job. However fitting MK41 VLS and packing it with Sea Ceptor quad packed would be a more flexible approach.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
1 month ago
Reply to  Rob N

I don’t think CAMM needs to be in MK41s, it has its own ExLS vls if that’s what you mean?

Meirion X
Meirion X
1 month ago
Reply to  Rob N

Sea Ceptor individual cells are only a fraction of the cost of Mk 41 cells.

Geoff Roach
Geoff Roach
1 month ago
Reply to  Rob N

Bae’s adaptable deck launcher will fit almost anywhere.

TheBatsman'sHoldingTheBowler'sWilley
TheBatsman'sHoldingTheBowler'sWilley
1 month ago
Reply to  Rob N

The NSM has woeful range out in the open ocean. It’s a missile designed for the littorals. T45s need something far longer ranged. Fitting the NSM-HL to Merlins, if possible, would be far better than fitting NSMs to any of our ships. And fitting anti-ship/land-attack missiles to our Poseidons would also make a lot of sense. Plus why don’t our Astutes carry anti-ship missiles?

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
1 month ago
Reply to  Andrew Deacon

Hi Andrew, yes, what an under ultilised space this is. The T45 designers obviously had the foresight to include it in. How much more formidable a T45 with MK41, quad CAMM (down the sides), Aster and even cannister AShMs would be. I know it’s all a lot of money, but it surely would be well spent to maximise these six ships capabilities post PIP and the T83s are a very long way off. I believe down here the RAN are upping their three AAW Hobart’s with Tomahawk, NSM, SM2/6 and LSRAM is in the mix. Keep hoping for the best… Read more »

David
David
1 month ago
Reply to  Andrew Deacon

The engine issues mean 2 x 6 tonne diesel generators are being swapped for 3 x 10 tonne generators and enough fuel to sustain full diesel propulsion
I suspect weight margin for 2 x 14 tonne strike length Mk41 has long gone

Mr Bell
Mr Bell
1 month ago
Reply to  David

Doubt that. The type 45s at 7200 tonnes were designed to have a “wide margin” meaning a hull form that is large enough to accomodate a 10-25% increase in top weight to allow upgrades during service life. So should be plenty of capacity for any additional weapons and sensors they want to fit.
Thats the beauty of having larger surface combatants and why type 31, 26 and 32 are all the right ahips for the future.

TheBatsman'sHoldingTheBowler'sWilley
TheBatsman'sHoldingTheBowler'sWilley
1 month ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

“Thats the beauty of having larger surface combatants and why type 31, 26 and 32 are all the right ahips for the future.” All surface vessels are ridiculously vulnerable to anti-ship missiles, torpedoes and mines. Why are we still building them? Plus a French and UK SSBN collided a while back: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Vanguard_and_Le_Triomphant_submarine_collision It seems to me that passive sonar is no longer up to the job of detecting the quietest of subs. We need a totally new way of going about things. But the MIC loves its expensive projects that make everyone involved filthy rich using taxpayers’ money even if… Read more »

Last edited 1 month ago by TheBatsman'sHoldingTheBowler'sWilley
Jonathan
Jonathan
28 days ago

The simple truth is ships are still the only way to have presence and influence, autonomous vessels can support them and become part of their systems but cannot replace them. How do you stop a pirate with a sub or keep a shipping lane open from a boat swarm or protect against air attack or undertake amphibious activity, protect amphibious groups ect. Subs are very good at interdiction, destruction of other ships, strike and intel gathering on the coast, but sod all use for all the other navel activities.

TheBatsman'sHoldingTheBowler'sWilley
TheBatsman'sHoldingTheBowler'sWilley
26 days ago
Reply to  Jonathan

“The simple truth is ships are still the only way to have presence and influence” As I said, it seems to me that passive sonar is no longer up to the job of detecting the quietest (and newest) of subs. Whether that’s diesel-electric AIP subs or SSNs. Therefore I can’t see surface ships surviving long at all against subs in a peer conflict. In a war against Russia or China I’d expect ships to be sunk in vast numbers (and vast numbers is something the RN doesn’t have anyway). Plus that’s just subs. Anti-ship missiles fired from land, aircraft and… Read more »

Last edited 26 days ago by TheBatsman'sHoldingTheBowler'sWilley
Jonathan
Jonathan
26 days ago

The simple answer is that one ship is very vulnerable which is way you have a task force with integrated ASW and AAW. The other answer is the kill chain. Weapons with a range of 100s of miles are lovely but the sea is vast and ships are actually really hard to find. Most people forget the sea is not flat and a ship 15 ish miles from you is completely hidden radar can no more see over the horizon than you can. Ships at war will not radiate in the EM which as if your radiating the opposition’s will… Read more »

TheBatsman'sHoldingTheBowler'sWilley
TheBatsman'sHoldingTheBowler'sWilley
24 days ago
Reply to  Jonathan

“The simple answer is that one ship is very vulnerable which is way you have a task force with integrated ASW” You’re ignoring the point I made about the effectiveness of passive sonar. Maybe western subs and ASW ships will be able to detect Russian and Chinese subs for the time being, but as time goes by they’ll build quieter subs. Well Russia might struggle with the sanctions for the time being, but China certainly will (and maybe Russia will buy new Chinese subs). Will passive sonar be able to detect these new quieter subs? The collision of HMS Vanguard… Read more »

Jonathan
Jonathan
1 month ago
Reply to  Andrew Deacon

Agree I don’t really see the need for MK41s for the T45, it can fulfil its Escort function with Aster and CAMM. Far better to have the Mk 41s on the T31 to turn them into a great surface warfare, strike assets so that no one knows what it’s carrying. That’s why US Burke’s make such good deterrents/geopolitical tools as no one knows if it’s carrying a load of tomahawks and that’s what makes them such a threat. Since our T31s are going to be forward based, having MK41 silos with some tomahawks will mean nations will have to think… Read more »

TheBatsman'sHoldingTheBowler'sWilley
TheBatsman'sHoldingTheBowler'sWilley
1 month ago
Reply to  Jonathan

I don’t understand your comment. The Type 31 is primarily designed to deal with FACs and FIACs when escorting commercial vessels, probably in the Persian Gulf mainly. Will T31s ever form part of a UK carrier group? I highly doubt it.

David
David
1 month ago
Reply to  Sean

Two questions:
1) Is there going to be a canister launched version of FC/ASW?
2) If so, will the Type 45 get it? I haven’t read or seen anything to indicate that it will (I think everyone agrees it should but…). Focus seems to be T26 only.

Steve
Steve
1 month ago
Reply to  Sean

By the time the FC/ASW is ready and ordered, the t31/t26 will probably be out of service.

TheBatsman'sHoldingTheBowler'sWilley
TheBatsman'sHoldingTheBowler'sWilley
1 month ago
Reply to  Sean

What will the range of the FC/ASW variants be though?

Will a subsonic stealthy variant outrange LRASM? If not, why bother building it in the first place?

What range will a hypersonic variant have? Will it be long ranged enough (and fast enough) to take out DF-21 and DF-26 launchers enabling a carrier to stay safely out of range?

If a subsonic variant with the ability to accelerate to say Mach 3/4 in its terminal phase is built, again what will its range be?

Last edited 1 month ago by TheBatsman'sHoldingTheBowler'sWilley
johan
johan
1 month ago
Reply to  Ron Stateside

Would bet its which needs the less amount of additional works to the Lauch platform. otherwise, they will be entering when the future is due.

Watcherzero
Watcherzero
1 month ago
Reply to  Ron Stateside

The 2.5% of GDP budget increase will indeed take a long time to ramp up because as it stands we are going to go from 2.2% back below 2% again by 2025.

Steve
Steve
1 month ago
Reply to  Watcherzero

I haven’t read anything about it being ramped up, just that by 2030 it will be 2.5%. there doesn’t seem to be a plan on how that will actually happen, at least not that I have seen. We are assuming a gradual increase but could just be another one of boris empty promises like the extra hospitals that were never actually planned or budgeted or crucially built.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 month ago
Reply to  Watcherzero

There is a perception that there is a ramp up. HMG may not do this and just go for 2.5% in 2030, to save money in the period 2022-2029.

Mark B
Mark B
1 month ago
Reply to  Ron Stateside

That increase might just fall back given the current political turmoil.

ChariotRider
ChariotRider
1 month ago
Reply to  Ron Stateside

If our support to Ukriane is included in the spend figures, and the BBC reported that some in government were already doing this, then UK defence spending is already up to 2.3% of GDP.

However, if the war was to end tomorrow the MoD would have a serious issue trying to swallow the extra cash (nice problem to have!).

Hopefully this represents some additional money for defence and represents a relatively ‘easy’ spend as much o fthe work has already been doing and will still be up to date at least technically.

Cheers CR

John Hartley
John Hartley
1 month ago

It will be interesting to see what happens. Will it be LRASM for RAF P-8? or 8x above deck missiles for T-45?

GlynH
GlynH
1 month ago
Reply to  John Hartley

If it is interim then simply getting the latest harpoon would do fine. P-8s, T-23s & T-45s.

Robert
Robert
1 month ago
Reply to  GlynH

I agree the latest harpoon would be far easier to install as we have the launchers, easier to integrate update training etc. A brand new system would take time to bring on line, time we don’t have

Andy a
Andy a
1 month ago
Reply to  Robert

Think the latest harpoon even has land attack ?

Paul.P
Paul.P
1 month ago
Reply to  Andy a

I think so: GPS but not terrain following. I think some of the Block II variants may also have in-flight retargeting but I can’t find any info on that.

DaveyB
DaveyB
1 month ago
Reply to  Paul.P

Block 2+ includes a one-way data-link for target updates or retargeting. So if the seeker locks on to a decoy, the operator won’t see what it has locked onto, unless they are following it using radar or a EO device. Which then places them at risk from air defences.

Paul.P
Paul.P
1 month ago
Reply to  DaveyB

Thx. Makes Sea Venom look very smart. Shorter range of course, and small warhead.

DaveyB
DaveyB
1 month ago
Reply to  Paul.P

Sea Venom uses a high resolution infrared sensor, possible as good or better than NSM’s. This allows it to not only recognize its target, but aim for a specific spot. Harpoon uses an active radar, which is likely an upper X band or lower Ku-band radar. Just like the majority of active guided anti-ship missiles, it will aim for the largest signal return. It hasn’t the processing power to map out a target. So it won’t recognize a vertical launch missile magazine for example. But it can be made to differentiate between the ship and the waterline and then dive… Read more »

Paul.P
Paul.P
1 month ago
Reply to  DaveyB

My understanding is that Sea Venom is manually guided, its I/R image being triangulated to the operator who stays below the radar horizon. So if it does not emit a radar signal and being small it will be difficult for CIWS to deal with.
I/R seekers and short wavelength radar seem to be the way to go.
I’d be interested to know about the imaging technology used in the IAI missiles like Gabriel. I think these may be using pixel pattern matching against a pre-loaded target image,…like facial recognition.

DaveyB
DaveyB
1 month ago
Reply to  Paul.P

The Sea Venom has lots of options. It can be command line of sight operated (CLOS). Where the operator gives continuous targeting updates which are relayed by the 2-way datalink. This is to help it target a specific threat within a group or a specific area on a ship. However, the missile can also be completely autonomous. Where it is uploaded with a target profile and it flies off and hunts for it. I think for the UK in particular IR target recognition kicked off with Storm Shadow. I believe this was one of the very first systems that used… Read more »

TheBatsman'sHoldingTheBowler'sWilley
TheBatsman'sHoldingTheBowler'sWilley
1 month ago
Reply to  GlynH

“If it is interim then simply getting the latest harpoon would do fine.”

Not as far as our ships are concerned it wouldn’t, since Harpoon lacks range as a ship-launched missile out in the open ocean. Our ships need something FAR longer ranged.

As an air-launched missile though, Harpoon may be OK, but I’d far prefer LRASM or JSM.

Plus why don’t our Astutes carry anti-ship missiles?

TheBatsman'sHoldingTheBowler'sWilley
TheBatsman'sHoldingTheBowler'sWilley
1 month ago
Reply to  John Hartley

If it were up to me I’d buy LRASMs for both the Poseidons and the T45s tomorrow. That would instantly make the RN far more effective and survivable than it currently is. Plus why don’t the Astutes carry anti-ship missiles?

farouk
farouk
1 month ago

I’ve always subscribed to the view that the reason why the RN/MOD dropped the initial trawl for an interim Anti-ship missile,(last November) is that they feared that MPs would question the spend towards the Future Cruise/Anti-Ship Weapon when they already had a working anti-ship missile and as is always the case for a large number of Military projects it’s Map to Grid. So this will be very interesting to watch.

Last edited 1 month ago by farouk
Nicholas
Nicholas
1 month ago
Reply to  farouk

Will Mrs. Miggins be putting and appearance in sometime soon?

Jonathan
Jonathan
1 month ago
Reply to  farouk

I agree, that’s the problem around what to go for, if it’s a short term interim option an upgrade to harpoon would be a pragmatic option.. but If it means it’s life would then be dragged out to the late 2030s it becomes a problem so maybe NSM, but then you have a fully modern missile so what would be the need to change it out in anything less that a 20 year life cycle ( bread now losses your cake tomorrow, but are you willing go hungry for a day).

farouk
farouk
1 month ago

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.

I’m pretty sure (Please correct me if I am wrong) I read somewhere that the British version of  the Future Cruise/Anti-Ship Weapon will be subsonic and the French version supersonic

DaveyB
DaveyB
1 month ago
Reply to  farouk

About a year ago, you could say that was true. Today, there are more voices for either a hypersonic missile or a sub-sonic cruising missile with a terminal supersonic dash. This is based upon a recent French Naval exercise. That showed supersonic missiles performing better than subsonic. However, none of the subsonic missiles used were stealthy, which was what the RN were interested in.

Last edited 1 month ago by DaveyB
Netking
Netking
1 month ago
Reply to  DaveyB

I read that article as well. I think it gives a good idea of how lethal modern naval engagements will be. The one thing to keep in mind however is the French bias against anything stealthy as they seem to be behind in this field and tend to minimize it’s effectiveness. We see an example of this again in this same exercise as they claimed that stealth offered no advantages to anti ship missiles.

Steve
Steve
1 month ago
Reply to  Netking

What we don’t know is if stealth actually works or not. It’s entirely possible that the French are right and stealth isn’t effective enough to be worth while. Equally possible that they are covering for their lack of expertise in the field. We will only ever find out if there is as war. What we do know is Russia is holding back it’s stealth fighters, we assume because they don’t want to demonstrate either way their capability, which would indicate uncertainty that they will actually perform. We also know Serbia managed to shoot down an American stealth fighter, although the… Read more »

ETH
ETH
1 month ago
Reply to  Steve

Whilst we, the public, may not have a good understanding, you can bet the US and co do. They have F35s to test and the US alone has conducted countless air defence exercises against an all manner of threats to assess what is effective and what isn’t. Russia claims to have used the SU57 operationally over Ukraine, although it’s not fair to say they’re holding back seeing as there are less than 10 operational aircraft. The F117 shoot down was one incident (with errors induced by complacency) out of what, hundreds of sorties? That’s an excellent attrition rate if you… Read more »

Netking
Netking
1 month ago
Reply to  Steve

“What we don’t know is if stealth actually works or not” I’m afraid anyone still holding that view has fallen prey to Russian propaganda even though the Russians themselves have been desperately trying to produce a stealth fighter, a stealthy drone and stealth cruise missiles themselves. Do you really think the US or the Chinese and every other military with the knowledge and the finance to support a stealth program would invest countless billions in a technology that they don’t know if it works or not? This is no longer theoretical stuff at this stage. Everyone who can produce a… Read more »

DaveyB
DaveyB
1 month ago
Reply to  Steve

Right. Your whole pretext is inaccurate. Stealth worked in 1991 and still did in 2003 against what was supposed to be an air defence network that could rival Russia’s. The properties of radio waves and how they interact with materials has been researched since the 1940’s. With papers released to the public and others that have not. Radar stealth is a known quantity, which works. It is an undisputed fact, unless science has been wrong for the last 80 years? Yes, Serbia did shoot down a F117 with a an old SA3 missile, in fact they also damaged a second… Read more »

Steve
Steve
1 month ago
Reply to  DaveyB

All this is based on official statements on capability of stealth, during which no US planes stealth or otherwise have been shot down. Reality is no one really knows. Can’t know if stealth is effective unless you have an equal scenario with a non stealth shot down and a stealth not, which would only happen in a war.

I did mention the Balkan war shoot down was highly loaded in the favour of the attacker.

Unless you have experience tracking the things which miltiary radar, at which point I stand corrected, then it’s all guess work.

DaveyB
DaveyB
1 month ago
Reply to  Steve

I must admit I do have insider information on this. I have to be circumspect with what or how I answer. As a sort of counter, I could suggest that the Red Flag exercises are good indicator on how stealth works. Red Flag is still the closest aircraft come to actually shooting at each other. It mimics everything up to missile release. Where live missiles are replaced with target acquisition ones. This is one of the very few occasions that F35s and F22s fly without the additional radar reflectors (Luneburg lenses) fitted. These aircraft are pitted against the the very… Read more »

Netking
Netking
1 month ago
Reply to  Steve

It’s really not guess work at this point. I think maybe the issue is people’s idea of what stealth is. Stealth is a combination of shaping, materials, ew, tactics etc. Stealth doesn’t mean an aircraft is invisible, it really should be viewed as delayed detection. Detection is delayed so much that by the time a radar operator is able to detect a stealth aircraft for example, it probably is way too late as most likely it has already launched it’s weapon and if you are the target you most likely only have a few seconds to live.

DaveyB
DaveyB
1 month ago
Reply to  Netking

Agreed

Joe16
Joe16
1 month ago
Reply to  DaveyB

Thanks for the reminder- I couldn’t recall where I’d read that RN interest in the “fast/very fast” side of things had come from. I see that thinking in the re-opening of this competition: If there’s more interest in going fast, then it’ll take longer to develop and the capability gap may become untenable. Do you think there’s still long-term appretite for a stealthy subsonic missile, as you emphasised at the end of your post there? Perhaps our subsonic+stealthy requirements can be filled by an existing weapon- NSM for instance? I think LRASM is just too expensive per round. Or, if… Read more »

DaveyB
DaveyB
1 month ago
Reply to  Joe16

It will depend on what they define as very fast, i.e. high supersonic or hypersonic. Supersonic will be the quicker in to service and cheaper of the two. But both systems will have constraints on how they are employed, due to their fuel burn at low altitudes, if they still want to keep the element of surprise. The increased fuel burn will seriously affect the achievable range. Which will then dictate the missile’s flight profile. On the face of it, a missile that can cruise subsonic and has a terminal supersonic attack, sounds like a good thing. It can’t be… Read more »

Joe16
Joe16
1 month ago
Reply to  DaveyB

I didn’t realise it was so complicated! I like the idea of the ramjet- it would help that MBDA can leverage their Meteor work for it too. You mentioned that French exercise a few posts back, and I went looking. I could only find a verbal summary of its findings from a French Admiral, but apparently the report states that exercise Polaris proves that the subsonic AShM solution is no good- and that the stealth doesn’t work. He then goes on to blame the RN’s preference for this type of weapon for delays in the FC/ASW programme, obviously. I think… Read more »

DaveyB
DaveyB
1 month ago
Reply to  Joe16

I’ve yet to see any credible evidence to show Storm Shadow/Scalp cannot penetrate built up air defenses. The Indian report is based on evidence supplied by Russia. Who provided parts of missiles as evidence of them being shot down. These parts could just as easily have been found at the target impact sites. It’s funny how Russia/Syria claimed to have shot down lots of Storm Shadow/Scalp but only a few Tomahawks? Which flies in the face of what the US, UK and France stated. Tomahawk is longer ranged and flies slower, it also uses a long tubular airframe. Which makes… Read more »

Joe16
Joe16
1 month ago
Reply to  DaveyB

So I had a bit of a wider read- apparently the problems the French experienced were primarily with the ship launched MdCN version; they failed to launch, which has been put down to not having enough time to fully commission the integration between the missile system and the shipboard CMS. Apparently the FREMMs involved were brand new and had been pulled from exercises straight into the Syria op, so they weren’t FOC. There’s no indication that any of the MdCN, SCALP or Storm Shadow were intercepted by Syrian/Russian air defences. It is interesting that the quote from the French admiral… Read more »

TheBatsman'sHoldingTheBowler'sWilley
TheBatsman'sHoldingTheBowler'sWilley
1 month ago
Reply to  DaveyB

“Today, there are more voices for either a hypersonic missile”

Range?

“or a sub-sonic cruising missile with a terminal supersonic dash”

Range?

DaveyB
DaveyB
28 days ago

It will depend on the size of the missile, as the performance will be dictated by the volume of fuel carried. If you consider something the size of an air lunched Harpoon, which is 3.8m long. About a 1/4 of the length, is used to house fuel to power the turbojet. Which gives it a published range of about 120 nautical miles at a relatively high subsonic speed. To give Harpoon a supersonic terminal dash. It will will have to hold back some of the fuel, specifically to use in an afterburner. Which means its range will be shorter. But… Read more »

TheBatsman'sHoldingTheBowler'sWilley
TheBatsman'sHoldingTheBowler'sWilley
26 days ago
Reply to  DaveyB

“It will depend on the size of the missile, as the performance will be dictated by the volume of fuel carried.” Obviously. My point was that I’m yet to find any references to the range of FC/ASW online. It seems like a very woolly project to me. I’ve read that there will be (a) a stealthy, long-ranged, subsonic missile for land attack and (b) a supersonic, highly manoeuvrable anti-ship missile. But I can’t find the ranges for either variant. (a) We already have Storm Shadow, so why are we reinventing the wheel? If we want a longer ranged version of… Read more »

Last edited 26 days ago by TheBatsman'sHoldingTheBowler'sWilley
Jon
Jon
1 month ago
Reply to  farouk

You did read that, but that’s so last year (maybe the year before). Plans changed. After the AUKUS ding-dong the French went silent and refused to even shrug in our general direction or spit garlic at our feet. A few months went by and by the start of this year the agreement was that the two countries would advance two missile concepts, a long-range, low-observable subsonic missile; and a highly manoeuvrable, high supersonic missile. But nothing was said about what would actually be developed much less who would buy what. These were still just “assessment options”. As Janes put it.… Read more »

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
1 month ago
Reply to  Jon

So even if it works out best scenario is we will have hypersonic missiles by the early thirties ( unless we buy off the shelf) how does that make us world leaders some ten years behind some, at least a few years behind the US at best and probably actually getting them when most others are acquiring them too. ,

Steve
Steve
1 month ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

Our policticans keep saying we are world leaders in various things, and reality is we aren’t in any of them. Its just a good slogan, same with global britian, no substance behind the slogan but sounds good.

Last edited 1 month ago by Steve
Esteban
Esteban
1 month ago
Reply to  Steve

I really don’t understand the world leading rhetoric all the time from the politicians.

Ukvoter
Ukvoter
1 month ago
Reply to  Steve

What rubbish. We are world class in lots of areas. Stop believing the media who hate this country. Just off the top of my head Education Oxford, Cambridge, legal services, Mgt Consulting and accounting PwC, EY, KPMG, Music (just name the top UK bands in history eg Beatles, Rolling Stones, Queen, Bowie etc..) Film, Acting and books (550m Harry Potter Books alone, Lord of the Rings, Etc..), Insurance services especially maritime (Lloyd’s of London), Medical research and pharmaceutical AZ, GSK) Technology ARM, Imagination Technology, we. Are one of 3 countries in the world with a trillion dollar Tech industry), Banking… Read more »

Steve
Steve
1 month ago
Reply to  Ukvoter

I never said we didn’t have world class stuff, what I said is the government keeps saying we have world beating/leading and that isn’t true outside a few exceptions. For example Barclays/HSBC, seriously big but barely make the top 5 in the world. Don’t think Barclays does. London’s / Lloyds are no longer world leading insurance markets, it’s still top 3 but been a while since being top. Music, all the bands are you mention are decades old, because all our music studios got taken over by foreign companies and now the music centre is in the US, which makes… Read more »

Last edited 1 month ago by Steve
Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 month ago
Reply to  Ukvoter

Bravo!

Martin
Martin
1 month ago
Reply to  Jon

I think there is very little chance FC/ASW will be hypersonic. We have signed up for development with AUKUS for hypersonic weapon and I doubt we will want two.

Jon
Jon
1 month ago
Reply to  Martin

Good point, but I’d expect France will push for it anyway, wouldn’t you? And we haven’t committed to buying hypersonic weapons from the AUKUS program. We might be more interested in the counter-weapons. However, having two possible routes makes a refreshing change.

Martin
Martin
1 month ago
Reply to  Jon

I’m sure the French would want it however FC/ASW was started long before the current hypersonic hype and seems to be looking more at Mach 3 than Mach 5. Also everything that we have seen so far on hypersonic is more hype than practical weapon and seems unlikely that they have much in the way of terminal guidance. I don’t think that’s the kind of weapon the UK or France would want for such an important requirement.

Rob N
Rob N
1 month ago
Reply to  Martin

You are wrong about Hypersonic missiles – there real value is to prosecute targets quickly so that they cannot move out of an area before the attack missile can locate the targets. The slower the missile the more area there is to search by the missile. It is all about fast reaction. Hypersonic missiles slow at low level to say M3 so the can use their sensors. The problem with subsonic missiles is that they give far too much time for modern SAM systems to engage them. With improving radars stealth is going to become less effective. I cannot see… Read more »

TheBatsman'sHoldingTheBowler'sWilley
TheBatsman'sHoldingTheBowler'sWilley
1 month ago
Reply to  Rob N

So if speed is the issue why not just have an extensive network of airships? Either manned or unmanned. Or both.

They could fire anti-ship missiles from beyond the range of ships’ SAM systems as well as from beyond the range of carrier-based aircraft.

Airships could also fire long-range anti-radiation missiles from beyond the range of S-400 and other SAM systems.

Why spend ridiculous amounts of money on long-range hypersonic missiles when airships could fire far cheaper ordnance and achieve the same results?

Last edited 1 month ago by TheBatsman'sHoldingTheBowler'sWilley
Quentin D63
Quentin D63
1 month ago
Reply to  Martin

FC/ASW…Flippin’ Coming As Some Wait…😆

TheBatsman'sHoldingTheBowler'sWilley
TheBatsman'sHoldingTheBowler'sWilley
1 month ago
Reply to  Martin

Why do we even need hypersonic missiles? If we had an extensive network of airships we could fire ordnance at whatever we wanted far faster than any hypersonic missile.

Martin
Martin
1 month ago
Reply to  farouk

It might end up being two weapons, the UK is said to be more interested in long range stealthy while France wants supersonic/hypersonic shorter range. Originally LRASM was two weapons A and B however only A the subsonic version got built.

Bulkhead
Bulkhead
1 month ago

Ummm wait and see time😎

DMJ
DMJ
1 month ago
Reply to  Bulkhead

Due to the effect of inflation!

Sooty
Sooty
1 month ago

Could it be that even our politicians have realised that capability holidays are not the way forward?

Something Different
Something Different
1 month ago

I couldn’t possibly think why this decision has been reversed…

dan
dan
1 month ago

The sinking of Russia’s flag ship in the Black Sea proves that even less modern ASM are effective against Russian defenses so no need to spend a ton of money on something new and fancy. Just give your ships a legacy system like the Harpoon right now.

Rob Young
Rob Young
1 month ago
Reply to  dan

Yes, effective against Russian defences NOW… but what about tomorrow, and what about Chinese defences?

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
1 month ago
Reply to  Rob Young

I guess that will have to wait for the new missiles rather than interim and hope in the meantime their capabilities don’t progress too quickly. Whatever their land air defence might be it seems their seaborne abilities are far from truly effective and hopefully with the slow progress of build and modification and priorities elsewhere, that will remain so for some time ahead.

Tim
Tim
1 month ago
Reply to  Rob Young

If we have to fight China we won’t be doing it without SSN’s, and they will target the higher value and better defended targets. So yes it’ll be good to have a new fancy ASM but the newest Harpoon or the existing NSM (plus JSM for F35/Typhoon) is better than FFBNW, so we should just get on with ordering that and not turn this into another arduous procurement mess up.

TheBatsman'sHoldingTheBowler'sWilley
TheBatsman'sHoldingTheBowler'sWilley
1 month ago
Reply to  Tim

If we (i.e. the UK) were to go to war with China, how long do you think our surface vessels would last? My prediction? Not long at all. We have very little defence in depth and very little redundancy.

As for our Astutes, we don’t have many of them. They’re the most survivable assets we have imo, but a handful of Astutes can only achieve so much.

Plus they don’t have anti-ship missiles, Torbuster or IDAS, all of which would make them more effective and survivable than they are at present. (And yes I know IDAS is currently under development.)

Last edited 1 month ago by TheBatsman'sHoldingTheBowler'sWilley
Martin
Martin
1 month ago
Reply to  dan

I agree not much chance of Russia or China shooting down Harpoon reliably any time soon. Harpoon Blk II would be fine.

ETH
ETH
1 month ago
Reply to  Martin

China is leagues ahead of Russia in technology. Experience, maybe not, but that hasn’t seemed to have benefitted the Russian navy much in some instances anyways.

AlexS
AlexS
1 month ago
Reply to  dan

Proves nothing. The Russian flagship had weapons and radars from 80’s. It certainly should have done better, but the reason we don’t know. radars turned of or not in anti missile mode, captain with too much vodka etc etc. but lets not build a narrative from one data point.

dan
dan
1 month ago

Britain also needs an anti radiation missile right now. They should have never given up that capability and depended solely on America to fill that need. Buy some of the brand new longer range HARMS that the US is now putting in their F-35s, Super Hornets, ect.

Martin
Martin
1 month ago
Reply to  dan

SPEAR 3 will perform the mission and it will probably be far better with internal carriage of F35B.

TheBatsman'sHoldingTheBowler'sWilley
TheBatsman'sHoldingTheBowler'sWilley
1 month ago
Reply to  Martin

Will SPEAR 3 have anti-radiation capability?

Daniel
Daniel
1 month ago
Reply to  dan

I agree that ALARM should never have been retired, hopefully Spear EW will be procured to fill this role.

Bob.
Bob.
1 month ago
Reply to  dan

Spot on, an anti radiation missile is a no brainer. It’s a huge gap in our capability.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
1 month ago
Reply to  Bob.

So Rivet sends the coordinates and a GPS device is dispatched to kill it?

The point is more to hit the command and control than the dish/array?

I don’t get the enthusiasm for radar seeking missiles – it isn’t the emission source you want to hit…..unless you want very short term supresssion?

Bob
Bob
1 month ago

If I were flying a strike and was lit up by a targeting radar, I would want someone covering me with a “short term” solution.

In the Iraq war the mere presence of US Weasels often caused the Iraqi air defence to switch off their targeting radars.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
1 month ago
Reply to  Bob

True but things have moved on.

Firing a radiation seeking missile will just temporarily knock out a radar site as all you take out is the rotor or array.

If you want to take it out properly a GPS guided munitions is needed onto the command and control unit.

DaveyB
DaveyB
1 month ago

Taking out the power set is another option, especially on Russian networked systems. However, if it’s a mobile system like. Buk, Tor etc, a kinetic hit on the radar will likely either do other damage to the system as well or just kill it through brute force.

DaveyB
DaveyB
1 month ago

Especially when a lot of systems can be operated passively.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
1 month ago
Reply to  DaveyB

That is the other thing really.

There might not be many emissions to seek!

Hence why seeking the more subtle signs of radars/comms/general EM/other things might suit over watch platforms and then send something in for the kill to a known spot?

Rather the point of fused data……

TheBatsman'sHoldingTheBowler'sWilley
TheBatsman'sHoldingTheBowler'sWilley
1 month ago
Reply to  dan

AARGM and AARGM-ER would be sensible purchases, although it would be even better if we could develop our own equivalents. And especially an anti-radiation missile that the F-35B can carry internally.

David Lloyd
David Lloyd
1 month ago

So we have already blown £95m on the Future Cruise/Anti–Ship Weapon – which the French have put on hold because they are miffed about ARKUS.

Wallace seems confused, apparently there is a “plan” but he can’t remember the details…..

“To replace Harpoon there is an interim plan. I don’t know if I can add to the details of that yet because I’m not even sure if it’s been put out to a tender but there is absolutely a plan.”

Apparently Wallace is being touted as a replacement PM, once Johnsonski has been deposed. Good grief.

John Clark
John Clark
1 month ago
Reply to  David Lloyd

I have to say David, if the French pull the pin on this, we have to warn them that all future cooperation on advanced military projects with them will cease. They can get as pissed as they like about AUKUS agreements, but we don’t throw our toys out of the pram when Rafael wins over Typhoon in a sales competition. It’s especially taking the piss, when they froze us out of the new Franco German Gen6 fighter prior to Submarine deal anyway! They are becoming unreliable defence industrial partners and we can’t afford to keep chucking money away and being… Read more »

David Lloyd
David Lloyd
1 month ago
Reply to  John Clark

John, even if the French proceed with FC/ASW it will be too late. The US Navy – and a lot of posters here – belive an interim solution is required.

The initial assesment on the NSM has been done, it can discriminate it’s OTH target, can be updated in flight, can engage land targets and has a terminal maneuvering capability.

If Boeing had proceeded with the Harpoon Block II+ upgrade I would probably go for that, as the infrastructure ashore and the ship mountings are already there. But they didnt.

TheBatsman'sHoldingTheBowler'sWilley
TheBatsman'sHoldingTheBowler'sWilley
1 month ago
Reply to  David Lloyd

“The US Navy – and a lot of posters here – belive an interim solution is required.” Of course an interim solution is required since UK Harpoon is coming to the end of its life, but a GOOD solution is required. The NSM isn’t a good solution out in the open ocean as it seriously lacks range. It’s a littoral missile, not a missile designed for the open ocean. What the RN needs is any of the following (or ideally all of them): LRASMs (fired from ships and/or P-8 Poseidons) (a sub-launched variant of the LRASM would be ideal) Tomahawk… Read more »

Last edited 1 month ago by TheBatsman'sHoldingTheBowler'sWilley
taffybadger
taffybadger
1 month ago
Reply to  John Clark

Even Germany is miffed with France over 6G fighter plans, France wants the bulk of the industrial work whilst demanding equal funding. I wouldn’t be surprised if Germany walked out on France.

OldSchool
OldSchool
1 month ago
Reply to  taffybadger

I’ll be praying for it!

Sick and tired of France’s attitude. But it’s always eveyone elses fault….

John Clark
John Clark
1 month ago
Reply to  OldSchool

So very sad isn’t it. On paper and in an ideal world, the UK and France could do great things together. We both have high end defence industrial bases.

They are just impossible to work with unfortunately.

Gavin Gordon
Gavin Gordon
1 month ago

Baldrick often had a plan.

Jon
Jon
1 month ago

The bells rang out, and there was rejoicing throughout the navy.

Den
Den
1 month ago

Why not get the latest harpoon missel most countries have them so buy enough missels to fill the gap as harpoon have done their job over the years but as usual the goverment complicates things all the time in the long run looking a lot of money I thought the people in charge we’re suppose to be educated from posh and expensive collages

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
1 month ago
Reply to  Den

That’s the problem they get taught to keep the riffraff under control and profit from doing so not to actually do anything of use for the Country. Bit like Spain after getting enormously rich on Gold and then spending 200 years just prioritising keeping out out of the hands of the people and each other while the ship was effectively sinking.

TheBatsman'sHoldingTheBowler'sWilley
TheBatsman'sHoldingTheBowler'sWilley
1 month ago
Reply to  Den

“harpoon have done their job over the years”

What job? When has a Harpoon ever destroyed an enemy ship?

JamesD
JamesD
1 month ago

Government looks like it’s about to go tits up so let’s hope plans hold

Gunbuster
Gunbuster
1 month ago

Harpoon upgrade is the way forward. K.I.S.S The logistical support is already in place in Ammo Depots, HMS Collingwood for training maintainers and operators, CLS from Babcock for shipboard systems and actual maintainers are in place. All the mounts and wiring are in place onboard ships. The deck mountings and bulkhead penetrations are there. More importantly the safety cases for the weapon exists so that helps massively. No new safety drills, accident drills, firefighting arrangements, RATTAM measures, ship system interaction issues . Don’t reinvent the wheel for what is likely to be a short term fitted system. Keep the costs… Read more »

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
1 month ago
Reply to  Gunbuster

I agree.

It makes sense if it is the latest version with the enhanced onboard sensors and guidance with the comms link.

Shelley
Shelley
1 month ago
Reply to  Gunbuster

Good post, Gunbuster, And good to see a consensus of common sense ruling on this one. As GlynnH said earlier, ‘Harpoon will do fine.’ And there’s nothing wrong with ‘doing fine’ for the interim. T-45s 3 – 6 and most T-23s have deck launchers already fitted.Sometimes quick ‘n’ cheap can be best. The last thing we want is opening up the hulls for new VLS’s for NSM or whatever.

I just hope the Navy doesn’t want the old interim plan back (5 competitive tenders), ie. the very best, while the Treasury will want the very cheapest.

John Hartley
John Hartley
1 month ago
Reply to  Shelley

Cheapest is the Turkish Atmaca, which was designed to be a simple straightforward replacement for Harpoon.

John Hartley
John Hartley
1 month ago
Reply to  John Hartley

Atmaca will also have the Kara land attack variant.

Gavin Gordon
Gavin Gordon
1 month ago
Reply to  Gunbuster

Very cogently put. Though Wallace’s statement opens with ‘To replace Harpoon, there is an interim plan’. So does not at first sight look like that’s the thinking. On the subject of Harpoon, though, I recall a good few years ago, before any talk of upgrades, watching a Royal Navy sponsored film at Portsmouth Navy Days wherein a Type 23 was tasked with defeating shore-based renegades for some reason. In that, it used a Harpoon to destroy their camp, which both puzzled and surprised me since I was unaware of any land attack role promulgated then, i.e. could not square possible… Read more »

OkamsRazor
OkamsRazor
1 month ago
Reply to  Gavin Gordon

A missile does not differentiate between a “land” target and a “sea” target. The target is either in motion or stationary.

ETH
ETH
1 month ago
Reply to  Gavin Gordon

Land-attack through GPS guidance only, no autonomous target identification or selection once over land.

Gavin Gordon
Gavin Gordon
1 month ago
Reply to  ETH

👍

Gunbuster
Gunbuster
1 month ago
Reply to  Gavin Gordon

“Air Support…Air Support” .was one of the cringe worthy lines in that film…I Sat through it picking he’s in the weapon systems use with my son. He wasn’t impressed but at the time was only 10! (He’s now 30)

Gavin Gordon
Gavin Gordon
1 month ago
Reply to  Gunbuster

Well, time flies unerringly on, that’s for sure. Cheers

Andy P
Andy P
1 month ago
Reply to  Gavin Gordon

As for the woolly term “replacement” the. MOD might be boxing clever here (I know, I know….) and know what they want but trying to make sure they don’t tip their hat and get the most bang for their buck.

Gavin Gordon
Gavin Gordon
1 month ago
Reply to  Andy P

Yeh, it’s wait and see. Not long, or there won’t be anybody in Cabinet to make a decision evidently!

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
1 month ago
Reply to  Gunbuster

I 2nd that fun buster. Stick with harpoon. I would imagine it would be easier and perhaps cheaper than any other option. If it’s a fixed budget as was floated before then maybe more sets of harpoon could be bought or it’s just saves money taking 5 sets. My view is that any frigate/destroyer deploying should have the harpoon launchers on deck. Even if some are empty.

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
1 month ago
Reply to  Monkey spanker

HahaHaha funbuster. The worst person to go out with. Silly auto correct.

Gunbuster
Gunbuster
1 month ago
Reply to  Monkey spanker

😂

Andy P
Andy P
1 month ago
Reply to  Monkey spanker

I think someone might have a new nickname.

Steve M
Steve M
1 month ago

NSM/JSM is only choice really, NSM all ready in service and has Land Attack as well, not sure if JSM will fit F-35b internally but even under wing is step up to Paveway if doing ASuW.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
1 month ago
Reply to  Steve M

Even a choice of two is likely to take all their wit to decide what side of the coin represents what missile. It will probably take a number of committees and cost millions in legal advice to work even that out. Oh and then they have to organise accessing the coin and what coin is best suited for the job, not to mention if it’s best of three.

Stu
Stu
1 month ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

😄 Oh, you must work in Gov procurement then?!

Deep32
Deep32
1 month ago
Reply to  Steve M

It appears that JSM is about 14″ too long to fit into F35b internal bomb bay due to its configuration, whereas it fits internally on the A & C variants.

Steve M
Steve M
1 month ago
Reply to  Deep32

Thanks, i thought that was case but even giving F-35b ability to carry 2 underwing would give a stand off attack for both land and sea

TheBatsman'sHoldingTheBowler'sWilley
TheBatsman'sHoldingTheBowler'sWilley
1 month ago
Reply to  Deep32

So a variant that WILL fit inside the F-35B needs to be developed. I mean it’s not rocket science. The F-35B would benefit greatly from a JSM variant it can carry internally. It would also benefit from a variant of the AARGM-ER it can carry internally.

Last edited 1 month ago by TheBatsman'sHoldingTheBowler'sWilley
Deep32
Deep32
29 days ago

Not entirely sure that it merits spending all that extra just to redesign it to fit internally?
Anti radiation missile, different issue, which might well be addressed with Spear 3 EW variant, albeit in a smaller missile than the one you mentioned.

TheBatsman'sHoldingTheBowler'sWilley
TheBatsman'sHoldingTheBowler'sWilley
28 days ago
Reply to  Deep32

“Not entirely sure that it merits spending all that extra just to redesign it to fit internally?”

Why not? It seems silly to have a stealth jet and then carry ordnance externally, which compromises its stealth.

“Anti radiation missile, different issue, which might well be addressed with Spear 3 EW variant, albeit in a smaller missile than the one you mentioned.”

I thought SPEAR EW was going to be a spoofer/jammer like MALD/MALD-J, not an anti-radiation missile?

Last edited 28 days ago by TheBatsman'sHoldingTheBowler'sWilley
Stu
Stu
1 month ago
Reply to  Steve M

Whilst I like the look of LRASM, I don’t like the price tag. It could be worth it though… But I think you’re right. NSM was integrated into the LCS in around 18 months for the USN so their team have pedigree to make it happen quickly. Plus Norway & US use it so theres the potential for a common stockpile to share Not a deciding factor but; If we’re equipping the F35 with a common missile (which I think has benefits), albeit the NSM has additional bits over JSM for launch etc., importantly the integration work into F35 and… Read more »

TheBatsman'sHoldingTheBowler'sWilley
TheBatsman'sHoldingTheBowler'sWilley
1 month ago
Reply to  Stu

“Whilst I like the look of LRASM, I don’t like the price tag.” A missile that costs about $4 million to take out a ship that costs FAR FAR more? I don’t get where you’re coming from. An LRASM could take out a warship such as a corvette, frigate, destroyer or cruiser. Also LRASM could probably mission-kill an aircraft carrier, even if it couldn’t sink it. “NSM was integrated into the LCS in around 18 months for the USN so their team have pedigree to make it happen quickly.” The NSM is useful in littoral environments. It’s pretty much useless… Read more »

Last edited 1 month ago by TheBatsman'sHoldingTheBowler'sWilley
stu
stu
28 days ago

“I don’t get where you’re coming from.” – $4M is cheap to take out a $500M warship, I agree. But NSM is $1.8M (thereabouts) so we get twice as many for the same money. I’m guessing we’re going to have a fixed budget for this (i.e. the £250M we originally earmarked before scrapping the idea in Nov ’21) from which we have to take out integration costs (bolting to ship, cable runs, control module etc.) for which Lockheed are never cheap. Lockheed are yet to mount them on any ships outside of a Mk41 so, we’re looking at their cannister… Read more »

TheBatsman'sHoldingTheBowler'sWilley
TheBatsman'sHoldingTheBowler'sWilley
28 days ago
Reply to  stu

“$4M is cheap to take out a $500M warship, I agree.” Well not exactly cheap, but certainly worth the expense to take out a high-end warship (which could well cost far more than $500 million). “But NSM is $1.8M (thereabouts) so we get twice as many for the same money.” But the NSM is much shorter ranged than LRASM, so having more of them is of no benefit at all when up against ships carrying Kalibr and YJ-18 anti-ship missiles for example. And in any case, my preference as far as a ship-launched AShM is concerned would be the Japanese… Read more »

Last edited 28 days ago by TheBatsman'sHoldingTheBowler'sWilley
Stu
Stu
27 days ago

Crikey, that’s a lot to unpack. Please don’t think I’m being rude if my answers are short. Just trying to be concise: “NSM outranged” – good point. The only counter to this is IF any foe can’t find our ships till we get in range. This may be possible until we think of a peer-to-peer conflict where it becomes very unlikley. I think I agree with you – we need the range. “Type 17” – you talk a lot about this & understand your enthusiasm. BUT, the current Type-12 is only slightly better than Harpoon. The big killer for all… Read more »

Last edited 27 days ago by Stu
TheBatsman'sHoldingTheBowler'sWilley
TheBatsman'sHoldingTheBowler'sWilley
25 days ago
Reply to  Stu

“Crikey, that’s a lot to unpack. Please don’t think I’m being rude if my answers are short. Just trying to be concise” Well your answers aren’t short, but I do go on a lot, but only because it annoys me so much that our supposedly high-end warships are currently so bad in terms of both offence and defence. I actually think there are FAR better alternatives to warships in many scenarios, but since we have them and are obviously going to use them no matter what, we should make them as effective and survivable as possible, otherwise we might as… Read more »

Stu
Stu
22 days ago

“Aster 30 Block 1NT are no-brainers” – Agreed “replace Phalanx with a modern CIWS like Thales RAPIDFire.” – Agreed. 40mm gives more range & could replace both Phalanx & 30mm. ““where is the money going to come from?” seriously annoy me.” and “the budget argument anyway.” – Defence spending takes a back-seat to NHS, Welfare and a host of other things in the minds of politicians. We ‘could’ afford much more but at a cost most of the public would not tolerate. We have a budget for the MoD & they must do what they can with what they have.… Read more »

TheBatsman'sHoldingTheBowler'sWilley
TheBatsman'sHoldingTheBowler'sWilley
21 days ago
Reply to  Stu

I forgot to say, I posted my first reply to you and because it took a while to get approved I thought it hadn’t been approved and so I posted it a second time. But I made quite a few edits the second time, so my second reply to you contains quite a bit of stuff that isn’t in the first reply. At first glance they look like duplicate replies, but there’s stuff in the second reply that isn’t in the first. I’d be interested to know what you think of the issues I raised in the second reply that… Read more »

Last edited 21 days ago by TheBatsman'sHoldingTheBowler'sWilley
Stu
Stu
21 days ago

I did reply to both as I could see some differences. I’ll answer here for ease. “better alternatives to high-end surface ships” – Ships provide persistence, area air defence, can’t win a war without boots on ground & subs/air can’t do it all. Ships also give diplomatic benefits. ‘buy some SSK’ – Agreed. Would like many more SSN but for speed of getting them in service, SSK would suit many jobs. “B-2s?” – I wouldn’t want them. Old and increasingly maintenance heavy. Why not buy fresh B-21’s if you want a strategic/long range bomber? As for converting them to tankers,… Read more »

TheBatsman'sHoldingTheBowler'sWilley
TheBatsman'sHoldingTheBowler'sWilley
18 days ago
Reply to  Stu

The more I think about it, the more I think that in a war against any country other than Russia or China then Type 212s with IDAS and Skjold corvettes with NSMs would be plenty good enough (although a long-range stealthy ISTAR UAV for the Skjolds would make sense). They’d make a great combo. We could afford a very large number of Skjolds and a decent number of Type 212s since they’re far cheaper than SSNs. As for a possible future Russian invasion of Europe in say a couple of decades, then it seems to me that high-end ships aren’t… Read more »

Stu
Stu
18 days ago

Mate, before we start redesigning the UK military, we need to decide what we want to be capable of. Become neutral (like Ireland), support NATO, or Power Projection are the three main choices. Which choice we make (as a nation) kind of shapes what we’re going to need.   Russia & Europe is a NATO issue. We’ll never fight them alone unless something radical happens. China & Taiwan is a Taiwan issue. Again, IF we got involved, it wouldn’t be alone.   So, “Europe-wide multi-layered IADS” “Fighter jets that don’t need a runway” “Anti-tank ditches” are not a UK-only problem.… Read more »

Last edited 18 days ago by Stu
TheBatsman'sHoldingTheBowler'sWilley
TheBatsman'sHoldingTheBowler'sWilley
17 days ago
Reply to  Stu

“Mate, before we start redesigning the UK military, we need to decide what we want to be capable of.” We need to be able to deal with whatever challenges present themselves, both current and future ones. And we also need to be able to adapt very quickly to new threats, which means we need a totally new way of going about design, procurement and manufacturing. We need equipment and weapons that can be designed and manufactured very quickly, that can be built in large numbers, that can be quickly replaced if lost, that can be quickly modified to meet new… Read more »

Last edited 17 days ago by TheBatsman'sHoldingTheBowler'sWilley
Stu
Stu
15 days ago

“Adapt very quickly to threats” – the point of “decide what we want to be capable of” is to avoid the wooly catch all statements used in SDSR. i.e. I want to be capable of deploying, anywhere in the world, an armoured Division with associated air assets & sustain them indefinitely. I want to be able to deploy a carrier with zero notice anywhere on the planet with a minimum 32 fighter aircraft & associated support assets (frigates, Destroyer, Sub, helicopters etc.). Both these clear statements deliver clear associated requirements to make them happen – e.g. to sustain 1 Div,… Read more »

TheBatsman'sHoldingTheBowler'sWilley
TheBatsman'sHoldingTheBowler'sWilley
10 days ago
Reply to  Stu

“I want to be capable of deploying, anywhere in the world, an armoured Division with associated air assets & sustain them indefinitely.” For such a large number of troops we’d presumably need a lot more amphibious ships than we currently do. And more tankers and replenishment ships as well. “I want to be able to deploy a carrier with zero notice anywhere on the planet with a minimum 32 fighter aircraft & associated support assets (frigates, Destroyer, Sub, helicopters etc.)” For us to have 32 F-35Bs available for the QE at any one time we’d need far more than that… Read more »

Stu
Stu
8 days ago

“For such a large number of troops we’d presumably need a lot more amphibious ships than we currently do. And more tankers and replenishment ships as well.” – Yes. You see how my simple “capability” decision naturally dictates the numbers of actual kit we need. Good eh.   “For us to have 32 F-35Bs available for the QE at any one time we’d need far more than that number. About 2 or 3 times as many.” – Nope. They only deploy when a carrier does so when the carrier is in for maintenance, training, refit, so are the jets. I… Read more »

TheBatsman'sHoldingTheBowler'sWilley
TheBatsman'sHoldingTheBowler'sWilley
7 days ago
Reply to  Stu

““For such a large number of troops we’d presumably need a lot more amphibious ships than we currently do. And more tankers and replenishment ships as well.” – Yes. You see how my simple “capability” decision naturally dictates the numbers of actual kit we need. Good eh.”” What does “good eh” mean in this context? I don’t know what you mean or what point you’re making. ““For us to have 32 F-35Bs available for the QE at any one time we’d need far more than that number. About 2 or 3 times as many.” – Nope. They only deploy when… Read more »

Stu
Stu
7 days ago

““What does “good eh” mean in this context?” – It means ‘deciding what capability you want can then be used to define what assets we require & that that is a good thing, don’t you agree?’ “Aren’t these two unrelated issues?” – No. When carriers are in for long term maintenance, the jets go in for long term maintenance. Look into how the USA field their air-wings. “You’re contradicting yourself now.” – no I’m not. You just don’t understand. ‘I want to be capable of’, and ‘happy to have as routine’ are two different things. “Source for those figures?” –… Read more »

TheBatsman'sHoldingTheBowler'sWilley
TheBatsman'sHoldingTheBowler'sWilley
2 days ago
Reply to  Stu

““You’re contradicting yourself now.” – no I’m not.” Yes, you are. You said you wanted a MINIMUM of 32 F-35Bs on a carrier. ““Source for those figures?” – Wikipedia? Look it up for yourself.” Which specific Wikipedia page(s)? You made a claim, so the burden of proof is on you to back it up, not for me to go trawling through Wikipedia pages for something that backs up your claim. Give me a link or links. You claimed ““1.2 – 1.5 times as many would do it (based on US and French numbers).” Give me a link that gives those… Read more »

Last edited 2 days ago by TheBatsman'sHoldingTheBowler'sWilley
Stu
Stu
4 hours ago

Not responding to everything. Better things to do. Going to point out a few things though: “You said you wanted a MINIMUM of 32 F-35Bs on a carrier.” – nope. What I actually said was “I want to be able to deploy a carrier with zero notice anywhere on the planet with a minimum 32”. Key word being “ABLE”… can deploy with less if they want. But in time of war, I want to be ‘able’ to send 32. It’s called ‘nuance’. “You made a claim, so the burden of proof is on you to back it up” – this… Read more »

TheBatsman'sHoldingTheBowler'sWilley
TheBatsman'sHoldingTheBowler'sWilley
14 days ago
Reply to  Stu

“We’re getting WAY off topic here” Well off topic as far as adding anti-ship missiles to our ships is concerned, yeah, but the discussion evolved to cover adding anti-ship missiles to other assets, which is a totally related topic. And I think we broadly agree on this issue, although we may disgree a bit in some cases as to which missiles make the most sense for which assets. But we both agree that anti-ship missiles make sense, not just for ships, but for other assets as well. My preference is Type 17s for Poseidons and Type 45s*, JSMs for Typhoons… Read more »

Stu
Stu
13 days ago

Think we broadly agree too. Missiles – NSM-HL & SL. T17 or LRASM for P8 & Ships. Don’t know enough about T17 to give an educated answer but range & warhead seem great. F35 – LRASM (can still fire well outside SAM range of ships so external is fine for me).   Where it appears I haven’t addressed stuff previously posted, it’s usually as I don’t want to argue OR, as this conversation has split over multiple reply strings, may have been lost. e.g. Airships – I’m not educated enough on them. Do think they’re VERY slow and vulnerable.  … Read more »

TheBatsman'sHoldingTheBowler'sWilley
TheBatsman'sHoldingTheBowler'sWilley
24 days ago
Reply to  Stu

“Crikey, that’s a lot to unpack. Please don’t think I’m being rude if my answers are short. Just trying to be concise” Well your answers aren’t short, but I do go on a bit, but only because it annoys me so much that our supposedly high-end warships are currently so bad both offensively and defensively as far as a peer war is concerned. That said, would western and NATO countries (and their allies) ever fight Russia or China directly anyway? We’re not doing that in Ukraine because of the potential nuclear risk, instead we’re arming Ukraine, so maybe the best… Read more »

Last edited 24 days ago by TheBatsman'sHoldingTheBowler'sWilley
Stu
Stu
22 days ago

“would western and NATO countries (and their allies) ever fight Russia or China directly anyway?” – God I hope not. If we openly say we would “never” be willing to, what stops them steam-rolling across half the planet? If we say we’ll “Never”, why get any new weapons as we’ll “never” use them. We have to be ready, willing and able to fight and defeat some nations to make sure they can be deterred from becoming hostile. “far better alternatives to high-end warships” – I see your point but if you look across the spectrum of war-fighting; How do subs… Read more »

TheBatsman'sHoldingTheBowler'sWilley
TheBatsman'sHoldingTheBowler'sWilley
20 days ago
Reply to  Stu

““would western and NATO countries (and their allies) ever fight Russia or China directly anyway?” – God I hope not.” Same here. It would cause vast amounts of death and destruction on both sides, even if nukes aren’t used. You ever seen the film “Threads”? Absolutely terrifying. I doubt a Russian invasion of Europe will be possible for a decade or two, possibly longer depending on how long the dual-use sanctions remain in place. That said, in case Russia ever gets to the point in the future where an invasion of Europe is possible, then we need to be prepared.… Read more »

Last edited 20 days ago by TheBatsman'sHoldingTheBowler'sWilley
Stu
Stu
18 days ago

We’re getting WAY off topic here bud. “Threads” – no, but I know enough to understand. WW2 Germany – yep. Militarily impressive. Myriad of reasons but put simply, in 39-43 they were fighting a different type of war that few knew how to deal with. “would the west and its allies ever directly fight China?” – we have to be willing to. To make sure we don’t & keep some sort of balance. It’s like if all NATO leaders said ‘we’ll never launch a nuke’ – what would stop someone nuking us all tomorrow without fear of repercussions? “Considering the… Read more »

Nicholas
Nicholas
1 month ago

Good work Mr. Wallace.

Jonathan
Jonathan
1 month ago

Another interesting little result from the increase in defence spending, along with keeping our ship borne role 3 medical treatment (Argus). For me the focus should be on its land attack capability as well as ability to operate in congested seas. I really hope we see an air launched anti shipping option as that’s probably more important than having heavy weight anti ship missiles on escorts.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 month ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Exactly. All the enthusiasm for a missile unlikely to be used if we cannot find a target OTH from an escort without potentially risking that vessel.

Just update Harpoon and get ASM on the jets.

Jonathan
Jonathan
1 month ago

Yes Indeed , to be honest I think they would be better off pushing along spear 3 into service and stick that on our escorts for an anti shipping missile. It’s clever, swarming has an EW option and has a range that’s practical. You could also put a lot on each escort which is important, also if you mess up and hit a cruise ship or holiday camp (yes harpoon did actually manage to take out a holiday camp by accident) with a couple of spear threes your only going to cause a mission/ mobility kill and not loss the… Read more »

TheBatsman'sHoldingTheBowler'sWilley
TheBatsman'sHoldingTheBowler'sWilley
1 month ago
Reply to  Jonathan

What the UK seriously needs is a good multi-layered IADS to deal with all sorts of incoming ordnance. We need loads of the following systems: Sky Sabre SAMP/T David’s Sling Iron Dome Iron Beam MANTIS-NBS Laser weapons (both chemical lasers and solid-state lasers*) Microwave weapons Railguns EW systems Decoys Satellite-based defences *Such weapons fitted to airships operating in the stratosphere where there’s little weather or wind would be far more effective than ground-based equivalent systems. There’s a European air defence system currently under development called TWISTER which should be able to take out several missile types that current systems can’t,… Read more »

Last edited 1 month ago by TheBatsman'sHoldingTheBowler'sWilley
TheBatsman'sHoldingTheBowler'sWilley
TheBatsman'sHoldingTheBowler'sWilley
1 month ago

If by the jets you mean the F-35Bs, then that’s not enough. Not at all.

TheBatsman'sHoldingTheBowler'sWilley
TheBatsman'sHoldingTheBowler'sWilley
1 month ago
Reply to  Jonathan

“I really hope we see an air launched anti shipping option as that’s probably more important than having heavy weight anti ship missiles on escorts.”

I totally agree.

We need to equip our Poseidons with very long-range anti-ship and land-attack missiles.

Also, why the hell don’t our Astutes carry anti-ship missiles?

Andrew D
Andrew D
1 month ago

Don’t hang about with the French ,let’s get on with it Harpoon Block 11 or NSM till were ready for hypersonic missile system .Think it maybe a good idea if we go it alone as the the French government like playing games 🤔

Jonathan
Jonathan
1 month ago
Reply to  Andrew D

NSM is probably the better option, more modern clever missile that can fit into a mk41 launcher as well as having an air launched variant coming along for F35.

Andrew D
Andrew D
1 month ago
Reply to  Jonathan

👍

Stu
Stu
1 month ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Also cannister launched so can fit to ships without Mk41. 👍

Paul.P
Paul.P
1 month ago

Buy some Block II Harpoons from Australia?

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
1 month ago
Reply to  Paul.P

We might needy them down here before I NSM/LSRAMs turn up!

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
1 month ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

*I… the

Paul.P
Paul.P
1 month ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

Yeh, bird in the hand…

Geoffi
Geoffi
1 month ago

Make yer bloomin’ minds up…

Steve
Steve
1 month ago

There is a plan, but they haven’t put out to tender, so havent decided what they want or if it is affordable or even time frame. Good plan.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
1 month ago
Reply to  Steve

So much dithering. Is it so difficult an issue? Hope Mr Wallace can get a sensible consensus and effective solution acted on soon and tick it off the list.

Newelly
Newelly
1 month ago

Caveat again, im a a civvy, if it’s a reborn project based on what is hastily needed now, surely just get the latest Harpoon that will most likely easily integrate into existing systems, must be the quickest and cheapest thing to do. F35 – just get an off the shelf option, what ever will work the quickest. If decisions like this are being turned around this quickly there must be an urgent worry! Maybe I’m just ignorant, just do what makes sense and what can be done quick. Spend the dosh, get it done if it isn’t there when it’s… Read more »

David Steeper
David Steeper
1 month ago

All this is up in the air right now with the shenanigans in the tory party. Candidates are going to have other things on their minds than running their Depts. Promises are going to be flying like confetti. Tax cuts. More for this more for that we’ll see where defence figures in it all. Plus the small matter of who gets the top job. Wallace would be good but Mordaunt would be better.

Andrew D
Andrew D
1 month ago
Reply to  David Steeper

Who knows remember seeing Jeremy hunt intview not long before Boris got the job he was all for a bigger RN ,no idea how he feels about Army and RAF mind 🤔

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 month ago
Reply to  Andrew D

He was for a bigger MoD budget I don’t recall reading he had any service preference.

Andrew D
Andrew D
1 month ago

Do you think he could be up for the job,what’s your opinion if Boris walks the plank Daniele ?

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 month ago
Reply to  Andrew D

I don’t know much of him other than he wasn’t popular when he was HS.
I like Mourdant myself.

Jonathan
Jonathan
1 month ago

To be honest the reason jeremy Hunt was not a popular minister of state for health was that he was totally focused on improvement in safety over what the medical profession wanted. It was always the Drs that really did not like hunt as he would not let them get way with their usual “it’s our way or no way”. He made a massive difference in hospitals on a Saturday and as a health professional who’s been focused and managing risk and safety in healthcare I actually respect the man a lot. I did once call him the devil himself… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 month ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Thanks, I was hoping you’d comment. Ok, so not a bad sort then, that is good to hear.

Jonathan
Jonathan
1 month ago

Yes he is one of the few politicians of all sides that I would be happy to vote for as prime minister, I think he’s able to make unpopular decisions if it’s in the public interests as well as a person who is clearly there to make a difference and not just for the power and prestige.

David Steeper
David Steeper
1 month ago
Reply to  Andrew D

Polls out yesterday showed he had no chance in any final round. I know polls ! Maybe it’ll be an outsider but on current info it seems to be between Wallace and Mordaunt. Army v Navy who else would I pick but Mordaunt plus she’s better looking if i’m allowed to think that 😍😍

Stc
Stc
1 month ago
Reply to  David Steeper

😱😱😱

Jon
Jon
1 month ago
Reply to  David Steeper

I’d want Wallace. Truss is too shallow, Mordaunt too untested, Hunt too yesterday and Patel way way too much. Maybe Tugendhat for Def Sec?

David Steeper
David Steeper
1 month ago
Reply to  Jon

Tugendhat doesn’t impress me for Def Sec. The next Def Sec needs to get a grip on Procurement not just land systems but the issues are the most acute there. They’ll need to introduce responsibilty for programmes. Uniformed and non uniformed people given responsibilty for a particular programme or at least a specific defined part of it. That way anyone who flips up will be easily identified and face the consequences. I think that will solve most of our problems with procurement but the Military and Civil Service will fight it to the death and they know how to fight… Read more »

Expat
Expat
1 month ago

Tomahawk now has an AntiShip variant I guess if we’d had a plan Storm Shadow could have been upgraded in the same way.

Last edited 1 month ago by Expat
Expat
Expat
1 month ago
Reply to  Expat

It does appear research was done in 2002 to launch from Slyver tubes.

Andrew D
Andrew D
1 month ago
Reply to  Expat

Sounds interesting

Esteban
Esteban
1 month ago
Reply to  Expat

Tomahawk had an anti-ship mode 30 years ago…. The Americans just stopped using it.

Stc
Stc
1 month ago

Tell me please I misunderstood” 5 sets to serve 3 ships “! Imagine your in a platoon of soldiers in the Ukraine and there is only five of you have rifles, what do the other 7 do make rude gestures to the Russians ? All the frigates and the 6 destroyers at least should have effective anti ship missile. I have also read that the carriers cannot have missiles for protection, too dangerous. But the US have defence missiles on carriers and as far as I am aware without mishap. Do you think the MOD just say that because they… Read more »

Gunbuster
Gunbuster
1 month ago