HMS Westminster, a Wildcat helicopter and three Typhoon jets unleashed “fire and fury” at decommissioned American frigate USS Boone using an array of high-powered weaponry.

The Royal Navy and Royal Air Force put on a “formidable display of firepower with United States allies against a specially prepared ex-US Navy warship in the North Atlantic”.

The exercise, named Atlantic Thunder, was the first of its type for the Royal Navy in 18 years and took place alongside US Navy and US Air Force counterparts.

“It was a rare live test of complex weapons against a realistic target far out to sea and tested the power and accuracy of naval and air forces, giving allies real-world experience of hitting targets at sea from long range and proving the capability of several advanced warfighting and targeting techniques.”

Type 23 frigate HMS Westminster fired two Harpoon anti-ship missiles at the same time as a US P-8 Poseidon patrol aircraft launched one of its own – 660kg of high explosive striking ex-USS Boone simultaneously.

The frigate’s Wildcat helicopter quickly followed, punching Martlet air-to-surface missiles into the Boone’s hull. This was the first firing of the Fleet Air Arm’s new anti-ship weapon against a realistic target at sea – to this point Martlet had only been used against purpose-built targets.

The Wildcat’s crew stayed airborne and used the on-board laser-targeting pod to guide in a Typhoon fighter from 41 Squadron RAF to launch Paveway IV precision-guided munitions against the target. This was the first time an RAF Typhoon had dropped live ordnance onto a warship used as a maritime target, and the first time a Royal Navy helicopter had guided the Paveway IV on to its bullseye.

Commander Ed Moss-Ward, Commanding Officer of HMS Westminster, said:

“Atlantic Thunder has demonstrated that UK and US naval and air forces can work together to deliver an end-to-end kill chain against a maritime target at long range. The integration of high-end weapons, sensors and communications with our NATO allies is key to the collective war fighting capability of the Alliance demonstrated by the sinking exercise. The firings have supported the development of the Royal Navy’s targeting and weapon capabilities, and afforded opportunity to conduct realistic training to validate tactics and operating procedures.”

Lieutenant Ross Gallagher of 815 Naval Air Squadron, in command of Westminster’s Wildcat helicopter, said:

“The exercise presented a great opportunity for the Wildcat to showcase the Martlet missile system and to Laser Target Designate for Typhoon dropping Paveway IV.”

The Americans used their own multi-role SM-6 missile launched by destroyer USS Arleigh Burke, before US Air Force F-15E Eagles, assigned to 494th Fighter Squadron, guided several air-to-ground Joint Direct Attack Munitions against ex-USS Boone.

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

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

201 COMMENTS

  1. Ok, so the target was hit with Harpoon x3, Martlets, Paveway IV, SM-6 and JDAM missiles. I would have hoped it would have been immobilised and potentially sunk by any one of these weapons. Either the old frigate was exceedingly well armoured, or the weapons used are a bit lightweight.

    • As I have understood it, ships prepared for SINKEX have all watertight compartments shut and welded and all flammables removed, thereby making it harder to sink/destroy.

    • Frigates aren’t armoured at all, and ships being used for SINKEX are buttoned completely up, such that they can take an absolute pounding for the purposes of research.

      In actuality, any one of these weapons would have started fires, leaks and electrical outages which would comfortably achieve a mission kill

      • The Perry class has survived being hit by 2 ASMs in a combat situation. That’s better than the heavy cruiser from Russian that sank after being hit by 2.

      • Yep that’s the big difference it’s active internal systems and fire hazards that make a big difference. Remember Sheffield it never even listed but was effectively just a shell when we eventually sank it. I do wonder what was left internally on this frigate to represent any of that though II suspect that they were far more interested in simply using it as a target for as many weapons as possible and test those on its structural integrity so logically the former was very much minimised.

      • Yes read elsewhere they are testing it to the full ( this being part of that) to determine it’s full range of flexibility and potential targets. I guess with the improvements in tech, communication, and sensors this is the way many missiles are going.

      • And I think extremely expensive! Naval vessels may well have to carry two tier AShMs, high value, lower value. Can’t shoot these things willy nilly!

    • Understand your concern, and the constraints on realistic testing imposed by structure of SINKEX process. Would submit for consideration the proposition that the most operationally valid test of the capabilities of Harpoon class AShM in the modern era, occurred on April 13, 2022, when two RK-360MC Neptune missiles were salvoed into RFS Moskva. Would be perfectly content to recommend a similar NATO exercise to dispatch RFS Marshal Ustinov and/or Varyag, if they are still located w/in the Black Sea, but somewhat concerned that action might arouse the competitive spirit of Mad Vlad and the slobbering Orcs, on the order of initiating WW III. 🤔😳😉

      • Virtually every ship lost to ASM from Sheffield to the Moskva have been abandoned due to fire spreading to missile magazines. Rather the the effect of the explosive.

    • The ships was cleared of fuel and ammunition. In operation it would be full of them. It’s quite difficult to sink an empty metal box bit it’s easy to set one on fire that’s full of flammable liquids and bombs. Also look at Bismarck in 1941. The armour never helped a bit but having lots of water tight spaces will keep you afloat. Conversely this is also why the navy uses SSN’s as its primary anti warship tool. A torpedo can break a ships back sinking it instantly a missile can’t do that. The faster the missile the more likely it is to just pass through the ship.

      • Although you are certainly correct in your assertion that Bismark proved to be difficult to sink, actually thought that you would cite the fate of HMS Hood, the pride of the pre-war RN Home Fleet. But for one extremely unfortunate penetration of the (forward?) magazine…☹️

        • Bismarck was flooding her magazines, hard to blow up a ship with flooded powder. Hood was very unlucky, crazy underwater shell penetration from a shell not designed to go under water. If you re-plaid the battle of Denmark straight 100 times you would probably have fond Bismarck and Prinz Eugen a smouldering wreck 9 times of 10. The British had twice the firepower and POW was better protected than Bismarck. Rodney made very quick work of Bismarck later on in conjunction with KGV.

          • …and the coups de grace delivered in the form of two torpedo hits by County class heavy cruiser HMS Dorsetshire (per Wiki).

          • 😁, evidently there is a documentary entitled “The Battle of Hood and Bismarck” (2002) (2 hrs. 32 min.) that received favorable reviews.

          • A claim from the Germans in the same vein as the infantry commander who exclaimed, “Hell no, we’re not retreating; we’re advancing to the rear!” 😉

          • They did but it’s hard to tell as almost anyone down below on the ship died there. She was certainly sinking with or without scuttling charges but takes a long time to sink a ship by poking holes in it. Just look at the USS Hornet.

          • Well said on Rodney. Biggest bugbear with the film Sink the Bismarck is focus on KGV when it was Rodneys fine shooting that did most of the damage. 16inch shells helped too !

          • The “underwater” shell didn’t have to go far under. Hood’s bow wave very nearly exposed the bottom of her belt armour. An aerial photo taken on the day of the battle shows the extent of the hull exposed.

          • Yes that’s true but the German shells at that time should not have been able to plunge through water and detonate. Only France and Japan had such shells in 1941. POW was hit in the same way but the shell did not detonate. That’s why it was a very lucky shot.

          • To be fair POW was still in shake down mode and those 4 gun turrets (designed to keep her within treaty rules) were extremely troublesome early on, it wasn’t really ready to take on Bismark though one of its hits did notable damage to Bismark. As you say Rodney though quite old by that time was a completely different kettle of fish and KGV showed the potential of that class’s general design within its treaty limitations.

            Interestingly the relative difference in sinking at Jutland has been put down to not keeping the ships watertight and secure in the name of leaving ammunition hatches open to enable a superior fire rate. No fundamental difference in ship build or design affected it but one German ship stayed afloat despite the greatest number of hits in the engagement simply because it was kept sealed which I think reflects somewhat upon the ability to stay afloat inherent in this test all these years later.

          • Yes POW was not ready for action however Hood very much was and there was two county class as well plus escorting destroyers. On a normal day they should have been able to take out Bismarck task force they were just very unlucky.

          • Interesting, one can sense history rhyming if not echoing, QNLZ virtually ready for action, PWLS, not so much.

          • Thought Hood was struck by a descending shell going through the thinner top armour that was the compromise chosen for battleceuisers (benefit of the long range Bismarck’s guns had) not a below water hit?

      • “ The faster the missile the more likely it is to just pass through the ship.”

        Not if the missile has decent targeting. It will explode in the core of the ship.

        • If your missile is traveling at Mach 5 through a relatively thin aluminium or steel box filled largely with air then a missile can very easily pass through it before detonation. Happens all the time even with sub sonic ASM. Even with close in artillery from Rodney and KGV many shells went right through Bismarck with no detonation.

          • I think you need to consider the kinetic energy of a Mach 5 object. That alone, on a ship unarmoured as all modern warships are, ought to do more damage than an explosive charge

          • Ummmm

            I was talking about sophisticated weapons which do have millimetres radar and other sensors that give close to perfect timing for detonation.

            If modern missiles were popping out the other side of the hull without detonating in a SINKEX then I’d be expecting a lot of very unpleasant questions being asked.

    • Well martlets aren’t going to sink it though determining what damage they could would be very rewarding no doubt. Using paveway just shows how unprepared RN is for ship strikes, only useful against already greatly incapacitated or non well armed targets to finish them off, but hey presently we have little else sadly till much later this decade. Hopefully Putin won’t start a war eh.

      • If a conventional conflict started it would be nuclear submarines that would deal with surface vessels. But as Russia is proving to be pretty useless, we are well equipped to deal with the threats. And if you don’t have an effective kill chain. Anti ship missiles are useless. People are w bit obsessed with seeing big fancy missiles hanging off warships, yet history has proven them all to be pretty un-affective in the real world, hence why we haven’t made them a priority. We use Subs to take out larger vessels, and helicopters in the littoral. And vessel launched missiles are largely as a back up. That’s the lessons from real world operations. New weapon systems are coming, and they will provide a step change in capability, but the Russians do not have anything like the capability people liketo make out they have, which is why the Ukraine with Western weapons are keeping them at bay, and beating them. And they have lost some pretty major warships in scenario’s that have reviled how amateur they can be.

        • When your enemies have AShMs on their ships but we don’t it’s we who have the problem & lack survivability however HMG fanboys spin it. We recklessly leave our vessels, crews & interests vulnerable.

          • Its not HMG fan boy’s Frank, the RN share the same opinion. If the RN really really really wanted AshMs on our surface vessels, they could have had them, it would just have meant spending less on somthing else. Same for the RAF. But they haven’t. Because anti ship warfare is incredibly difficult, and nothing like what most people think it’s like. We have the best tools for the job, The Astute class Armed with Spearfish. And our Merlin and Wildcat fleets, and P8. And the submarine fleet along with our allies, especially the USN, would dominate any potential threats. New weapon systems are coming to combat emerging threats. But as of today, we have it covered.

          • Totally agree all major navies are committed to anti ship missiles, you can’t simply rely on a sub being in the vicinity. Fact is this capability was removed from fast jets when tornado and sea eagle retired or allowed to decay with ship borne missiles due to cost cuts in response to the collapse of the Soviet Union and China not seen as a threat back then not because such weapons aren’t useful or indeed lethal. The Russians may be incompetent and stuck with mostly outdated weapons but in a one to one they would still be the more likely to win against our ships as things stand certainly if they don’t have the few harpoons around. The Moskva not only shows Russian incompetence it also shows the value of anti ship missiles relatively crude ones at that. How else would the Ukrainians have sunk it I wonder certainly as their aircraft like ours have no air launched capacity to do so. The Chinese of course cannot be deemed as poor as the Russians in either ability or technology on their ships either.

            Indeed the Navy itself and those responsible in and around it not to mention the Airforce ( thus the use of pave way here as a make weight) generally are beginning to see the urgency of the situation, thus the new commitments to adding this capacity both on ship and in the air so it’s an increasingly small minority who still claim its not needed or that there is no real urgency, the re-instatement of the interim anti ship missile proves that. Read that NSM seems to be the favourite in this regard, indeed even stated that a contract is as good as signed, we shall see.

          • Morning Spy. A few observations.

            “Totally agree all major navies are committed to anti ship missiles”

            As is ours. Harpoon, Martlet, Venom all in service.

            “Fact is this capability was removed from fast jets when tornado and sea eagle retired “

            Agreed, and I support our fast jets having an ASM capability.
            Especially the F35s.

            “it’s an increasingly small minority who still claim its not needed”

            I don’t think posters such as Robert, myself, GB, or anyone else have ever actually said that. They do point out the problems with targeting OTH from a ship launched weapon and that other weapons are the primary tool.

            “but in a one to one they would still be the more likely to win against our ships”

            Would they? And why would we just allow that to happen by just sitting there. The key point posters seem to ignore.

            I visualize the “waky races” where the Russian ship is chasing ours while NATO ships run for their lives and other assets allow the Russian ships to do that.

            Assuming we allow them to fire before other NATO assets, from airpower to submarines, have negated them?

            Regards Russia. In what sea are these Russian ships getting ship launched ASM away within range of our ships? In the Atlantic or Norwegian sea NATO dominated areas? Or Barents or Kara Seas where our vessels in a war will not be?

            Where our ships will be in war? Their ships are bottled up by geography, GIUK, Baltic, Black Sea. When they sortie they are tracked. Our vessels ( RN ) are aware via the RMP and other intelligence, from SIGINT to ELINT provided by certain places and assets, and position accordingly. They do not position themselves in a shooting gallery for Russia to just fire away scot free, our escorts can move!

            In the Cold War the Soviets used Bear aircraft to spot for their naval aviation to launch air launched ASM. Again this assumes a relic like a Bear lasts 5 minutes. For their ships to get an OTH launch solution, is that not even more difficult without air assets we assume will be allowed to operate without interference?

            An ASM on a ship is a nice to have secondary weapon to my mind, for the reasons I tried to outline.

          • With you Frank. With so few subs available I think it’s suicidal idiocy. So easy to fix too. Complements the ships gunnery and having an attack ability is always useful. Glad the RAN down here think differently and arm their ships both with AShMs and even ship launched torpedos as a back-up. Obviously no Astute subs in the mix here but the RAN are working on updating their Collins subs and have a decent number of P-8s in service and Triton UAVs coming into service.

          • Do you think we will sail our escorts in front of the Russian vessels Frank? The Ocean is big, they have to find them first.
            Also, why are RN escorts sailing off Murmansk?

            Russian ships have to come to us, remember. Geography demands it, as their seas are choke points.

          • Hi Daniele. Who’s suggesting our warships sailing off Mumansk? You’ve lost me there. All I was saying was I think our escorts & interests are vulnerable & undermined without decent AShMs while everybody else has them.

          • Because that is where the Russian Northern fleet is located, in war that backyard of Russia is not where our ships would be, waiting to get shot at.

            When Russian ships sortie NATO, especially the UK and the US, track them. By several sources and methods.

            Do you accept that for Russian ships to actually fire these ASM they have they need to get within range of ours first?

            And ours move into positions of advantage, in co ordination with other NATO assets. They don’t sit there in a shooting gallery waiting for Russia to get a free shot off!

            If for example our ships are on ASW or convoy work out in the Atlantic do you really think a Russian ship is crossing the GIUK without being negated from all sides by US and NATO air power, nations that do have jet launched ASM that the UK lack?

            TLDR, how do Russian ships get within range and how do they target our ships in NATO dominated seas?

          • And to add, I believe the Russian Navy uses primarily airpower and submarines offensively. Their ship assets have traditionally been bastion orientated defending their seas, Black Sea, Kara, Barents.

            So where is this high seas ship vs ship missile contest where our ships are vulnerable and undermined by not having a heavy ASM on them? ( Frigates still have Harpoon of course )

            “Everybody else” as you say, is not applicable to the situation the RN finds itself and how its ships operate in a war with Russia. And everybody else do not have the constraints that Russia have.

    • You don’t need to sink a ship to put it out of action
      Just take out enough systems to take it out of the battle. These arnt 16 inch shells

  2. It’s now safely tied up at Glen Mallen, following the putting out of a minor fire, with the crew enjoying a barbecue and civic reception before casting their vote in the referendum about Russia becoming a region of Scotland.

    Sound familiar JohninMK?

    • It wasn’t hit by missiles just a small fire on board due to a sailor smoking in the wrong area. All the crew are safe enjoying dinner at the arrochar hotel🙈
      All the footage is propaganda produced by people wanting to destroy our country.

    • Hi PC, many a true word…… and responding in kind, I suspect it might be a close run vote if Russia offered to supply gas at the price Hungary are now paying, about 1/6 of the UK buy price, plus help protect Scotland’s North Sea assets. People often vote based on their wallet.

      • Not even close. Leaving aside the fact that the ‘result ‘ of the sham referenda in Ukraine was decided many months ago in Moscow, no amount of cheap gas will compensate for the destroyed housing, schools, hospitals, infrastructure etc, nor make up for the raped women, murdered citizens, abducted children, torture, detention, and theft of property by Russian soldiers. Being content with Russian shillings might please Russian quislings such as yourself, most other people have a spine and moral fibre.

      • You clearly are not informed well enough to know that Scotland is almost entirely self sufficient in energy so such an offer would be rather pointless. The advantage of large resources and a small population, so don’t count ya chickens just yet.

      • It also brings a load of other problems due to living under the sanctions imposed on Russia. Not to mention the draft.
        I’ve seen some hilarious videos of the folk called up. There’s a bus with lots of them carrying alcohol with them.
        At the camp the instructor says form 2 lines and the answer is f you. You form a line.
        What a shame the average Russian is now being dragged into there leaders Willy waving contest.

        • Someone really should send Mad Vlad a copy of Dr. Zhivago, either the novel or DVD. Highlight the section that deals w/ the Russian Army revolt in WW I. Followed by revolution and ultimate fate of Czar (and family). Could lead to sober reflection, or, could send his sense of paranoia off the chart.

      • More irrelevant chuff! Any comments in regards to the ongoing recruitment of convicted rapists to join the army of uniformed rapists? Or any comments on the ongoing tactical or strategic situation in the sovereign territory of Ukraine?

  4. Maybe we need to have a chat with the French. I think Sheffield went down from a single Exocet. I realise aluminium super structure had a role to play in that, but that’s still very effective.

    • Hms Sheffield was gutted by fire from the Exocet hit – but she stayed afloat afterwards, in the process of being towed to safely it took in water from a heavy storm which ultimately sank her.

    • The ship would’ve been prepped to take a pounding in a way an operational ship would not be able to (welded compartments etc).

      Ships can stay afloat for some time after a decent pounding though, the USS Stark was struck by two exocets and did not sink.

      Damage to electronics probably renders most surface ships combat ineffective after a single strike.

      • It’s a bit like Colonel Burtons hissyfits after Bradley tests had ammunition replaced by sand. We could have fired on the frigate in fully operational conditions but then you’d not have gotten much out of the test, and only learned that ammunition goes boom.

    • Paul the Sheff remained floating for 4 days after the 4th May strike by the 4th day she was completely gutted but her Dart and gun mags didn’t go up as the strike was midshipman and above the waterline she kept afloat until choppy Swells took her if a DC party had got back on board and patched up the hole but as the fallen lads were still on board the power that be let her go Also the 21s had an Aluminiun superstructure, 42s were Steel

      • It was a shame they couldn’t patch the hole and leave her in situ instead of not doing that and tasking HMS Plymouth to tow her to South Georgia. In situ her empty hulk could have absorbed another Exocet or two.

        • Yeah emotions ran high then Plymouth did her best but too no avail all crypto gear was that wasn’t damaged was retrieved and Plymouth parted company with what is now deemed an official war grave and Lloyd’s of London rang the Lauchins Bell 40 years ago I’m old now those lads are forever young Tim

      • Ok. Looks like I confused with the 21. There was a paper years ago about the DDG51 design that leant lessons from the Sheffield incident. I was sure they referenced the superstructure materials. Need to check my facts better. Cheers anyway.

        • That’s alright Paul ,21s were designed too be light and fast that’s why the Hull was steel too take speed without deforming and the superstructure was Aluminium to cut down on weight little did we know about the concesquences of being struck with British built 250 and 500 lb bombs dropped by an enemy and temp differencials in bulkhead failure , the lessons from Corporate have been learnt

  5. Feck me, wouldn’t want to be on board a helicopter lazing a warship for a paveway strike, there are less messy forms of suicide…

        • I think not. A paveway lazed by a helicopter would be state of the art in about 1985. Got to love the headline. Basically this whole exercise shows how fantastically behind the RN and the RAF is in naval surface stike.

          • Ok mate, I’m sure the guys at 41sqn Typhoon OEU will tell you otherwise, and the Lynx crews with Martlet, and what it takes to bring all these elements together. And offboard laser guiding and ISTAR from drones proved very effective at taking out that Russian junk. The same Russian junk that many on here thought was the bees knees with all those weapons on display and antique avionics. While a new air launched anti ship missile would be great. They are useless without an effective kill chain. And that is what takes a lot of practice.

          • 2 pave way iv were used one lased by the wildcat the other by the typhoon itself , guess it’s just about practicing as many options as possible

          • It’s a tactic to be used, or not used! Target and threat dependant. No problem with the people who have some subject matter knowledge.

        • Yes to quote elsewhere:
          ‘Amid all this upheaval, the option to call upon RAF Typhoons to offer an additional anti-ship capability, including against larger warships, is a useful one. However, the applications for this method of attack in an actual war remain somewhat limited. A direct attack using laser guidance could be ideal for finishing off damaged warships, or otherwise attacking poorly or undefended vessels. But with no standoff ability, it would be unsuitable for an attack on a surface combatant with any meaningful anti-air capability. While the dual-mode Paveway IV does have GPS guidance, this is only for use against static targets. For the time being, the Typhoon still lacks any kind of dedicated anti-ship missile, although a variant of the FC/ASW is planned.’

    • Yeah I thought that too, but maybe there were lessons to be learnt from the laser guided aspect. Perhaps paving the way for that role to be undertaken by a drone in future? Just a thought.
      M@

      • A stealthy drone, that’s viable, but still brings a scarce expensive aircraft uncomfortably close though to deploy a weapon, even when using a max speed lob rather than overflying the target.

        The RAF and fleet air arm need a long range missile, it’s not a luxury, it’s a must! It’s not like the navy has an abundance of options on its surface fleet either.

        • Anti ship missiles will always be expensive and a task force will always have a limited number of them. The Missiles will be expended first and much if not all will be intercepted by Anti Aircraft missiles which are also expensive and limited. After the initial missile engagement two fleets would likely continue to sail towards each other if both are surviving. Aircraft with precision guided bombs would come next followed by naval artillery. Subs and torpedos first, then missiles, then bombs then guns and following that its boarding actions 😀

          That’s what they are practicing here.

          • Arr, me matey, grapeshot to down the mizzenmast, pistols and cutlasses at the ready, boarding party, ho! 🤔😁

          • A couple of spuds chucked at the bridge window would get their attention. Then use the wrong pronouns and they’d surrender in no time.

          • That seems so underhanded a tactic that someone like Putin would now threaten too use the use of pro nouns could soon be tabled by the UN security Council as a threat too Humanity sorry refrain that last as a threat too People can’t have the word man it’s not inclusive for every-person

          • Actually, when I read Jim’s text a vision of Nelson at Trafalgar or the fictional character Horatio Hornblower (an excellent series of novels) came to:mind immediately. Realize that boarding party training is beneficial/essential for constabulary and counterterrorism duties. There is also the sobering example of the seizure of the USS Pueblo in international waters by nutbag NKs in Jan. 1968. If I had been in a position of authority, might have given serious thought to ordering SAC to bomb them back into the Stone Age.

    • I appreciate the training value, but the FAA RAF badly need an air launched ASM on the Typhoon and F35. Be that SPEAR 3 or other long range types the US and Aus are fielding.

      • SPEAR will be very handy for F35, not sure longer range anti ship missile is worth it in F35B. We could definitely use something off the shell and cheap for Typhoon like Marte ER although we would then half to start training typhoon pilots in an entire new mission set that they are unlikely to ever use and its a very specialised mission. Remember also we do have ASM capability in the form of P8 which can already take air launched harpoon and soon LRASM. If I was going to spend my precious pounds it would probably be on P8 with LRASM as it also gives us a strategic bomber style capability to launch cruise missiles at land targets.

        • All sensible. Except I feel for the money we are forking out on the entire QEC capability the F35 air group itself needs an ASM. So let’s disregard the Typhoon option.

          I get why the RN doesn’t prioritise ASM on escorts so I for one don’t join that clamour. But air launched ASM, yes.

          Can P8 use LRASM? Exiting…..😜

          • Yes block 4 has to be highest priority. If the software is so complex and probably old maybe it’s time for a rethink/update to newer software that’s easier to work with.
            Speaking as a non software expert. Probably loads of issues with doing that I don’t know about.

          • Me neither a few web sites is as far as I ever got. All I know is that it is a well known problem that is debilitating trying to adapt and evolve the software to add newer elements and though a rewrite would be the ideal it simply isn’t practical for most of the time so new and old have to co-exist (reminds me of through software making the three different forms of signalling on the Elizabeth line work together as full replacement wasn’t an option, much of the delay was due to problems making it work seamlessly and reliably). Much thought is going into the next 6th gen fighters in terms of modularity with consistent interfaces so that whole sections can be changed and updated without serious effects and the need for retesting on the other sections it communicates with. The most important is the separation between flight software and weapons integration so hopefully the serious problems with weapon integration won’t ( hopefully) be repeated in those new programmes.

          • Very good news indeed. Higher thrust may allow F35B to increase bring back rates above F35C now. The extra range will be very welcome. I can see F35B being followed by F35E in British service.

          • If it can get LRASM on board I would agree. However not sure something shorter range like JSM makes sense. If the F35 B is going to have to get with in 100 miles with no stealth to launch JSM ( under wing pylon) I think it would be more effective to maintain stealth and get in to a 60-70 mile range and launch SPEAR. I then get 8 shots instead of 6, as well as maybe some stand in jamming. Not going to sink a ship like that fast but may be a mission kill even for an entire task force if you take all their radars out.

          • That’s a good question. Remember reading the argument against Brimstone on F35 was that being rail launched it needs to be on a pylon under the wings and the effect on loss of stealth certainly for such a relatively short range weapon makes it very much less attractive. SPEAR thus makes much more sense.

      • Yep, Lynx/Wildcat doing OHT for Harpoon is a well practised drill. Using the PID to find and ID targets, cued from the ESM outfit, means you dont even need to use the helo radar.

          • It does seem to be lost on some people that having long range anti ship missiles brings its own problems with targeting.
            Especially if you want to be sure you actually hit a target. For that you need eyes on target.
            Can’t just fire 1000 mile range anti ship missiles from a boat and they magically find and kill the enemy ships in that area.

          • The current Harpoon is negative data link. With current ROE in limited conflicts etc shooting a Harpoon off where merchies are is not good.
            In an all out no holds barred slugfest then yes send them all down the bearing line sent by OHT

  7. I don’t get the point of using a Harpoon missile from a T23 ? They are about to go out of service so zilch point in learning anything.
    Unless it was to just use stock up or the RN trying to make a point that we really do need an interim replacement.
    Also what munition would a US P8 use that weighs 660kg.

  8. What’s the progress on deploying Sea Venom since CSG21? Should be right up there for Wildcat under the current fast changing threats.

      • I had thought IOC was declared shortly before CSG 21, but I can’t find any official pronouncement and it looks like it was delayed to this year. I’d have expected it to be tested in an exercise like this, so that’s not looking so good.

        • Was thinking the same, if it was at all possible it would have happened let’s be honest. Was checking out Brimstones delays last week, even Brimstone 2 was around 4 years late as for version 1 less said the better, yet when laser sensors were needed during Gulf war (for man in loop requirement) they managed to achieve it super quick and most were subsequently updated.

      • In Britain I’ve noticed an ‘official’ trend that sums up as: All excited – we’re going to have this that and something none other has; then total ominous silence for years.

        • As I hinted at above that more than sums up the Brimstone development, the prior project for a guided munition cancelled so then a rethink and Brimstone started off as a slightly improved Hellfire with supersonic launch, then a far more complex re-design, delay, cancellation, re-instatement, launch at even higher speeds list goes on and on before it finally got into service, at which point they soon wanted/needed new enhancements to be able to use in Iraq. Which all led to Brimstone 2 then being developed with double the development time expected. Great result in the end especially in light of the US programme to replace Maverick with similar capabilities is struggling even under the fear of cancellation.

        • All the talk about the UK being a “world leader in hypersonics” too…where’s the evidence? Absolutely nothing to show for it so far, in the public domain anyway. Others seem to be doing it, like US, Russia, China, where’s the UKs? FC/ASW, where’s that at and are they making any efforts in bringing it forward? Unless the UKs is all under wraps which it could be I just wish people would stop saying things that are nonexistent and only speak more after it exists!

    • Venom is out and about. It was deployed on the CSG21 trip. However there are some pretty major alterations to magazines and handling systems required on FF and DD to carry it. The Palletron that the missile is stowed in, handled in and used to wheel out to the aircraft is different from Skua Palletrons. That means new stowage securing arrangements, load testing of handling equipment etc. You will need to empty the air weapons mag first to get the work done.

      • Up trumps again, GB, thanks.
        Aside, we need a blogger on this type of detail like’s so available in US and Australia. Know we’ve got H.I. Sutton, but there’s Aaron on SubBrief, Alex at Sandboxx Perun & Hypohisterical for Aussies. In fact a mini AUKUS, but with a dearth of our own UK on the up to date stuff. Fancy that role on Youtube?!
        Same goes for the other two services i.e. an easy search channel for anyone interested rather than searching special interest sites, maybe.
        Rgs

      • Hmmm…by inference, alterations to DD and FF magazines and handling systems to accommodate Sea Venom will be accomplished during planned refit periods? FOC timeframe extended as a consequence? 🤔

        • Mag mods you could do the work in a 4 week FTSP alongside maintenance period if you plan it correctly, allocate manpower and have the test and trial teams booked and available. The RN has previously fitted SCOT 5 and some other big systems such as Radar to ships in 4-6 week alongside maintenance periods without any need for docking or a refit.
          Its the usual 6 P’s… get that in place and all will be good.

          There are other things that need doing in parallel.

          You would also need to ensure that the Wildcat allocated to the ship is wired and modded up for the new weapon which is a squadron issue away from the ship. The crew need to train in flying and deploying the system from their aircraft.

          Ship and WAFU maintainers need to be qualified in maintaining, handling, prepping and loading and you need to ensure that the loading equipment on the helo is cleared for use. Stowages for the new kit needs to be onboard to secure it in a sea way. That usually involves welding in new stowages and brackets with the associated work in way to lagging and painting.

          Ops Dept need to do some stuff to learn how to fight the new system and to deploy it effectively.

          Lots of boxes to tick first to get the Certificate of Clearance for Use.

        • We have had since 2014 to think about installation issues mind. Must be part of the T26 / T31 designs already🤔; and on the QEs, I’d hope.
          It’s just that our T23s & T45s could do with it ‘soonish’.

          • Agreed, but as Gunbuster has pointed out, there are a number of intervening steps to actual deployment that are not highlighted in a Program Manager’s (or Government Minister’s) PowerPoint presentation. Real life can be complicated. 😉

  9. Nice to see the RAF unveiling it’s latest anti ship missile lol, on a serious matter what is supposed to fit inside the F35bs internal weapons hold? I was under the impression that paveway is too large to fit, otherwise it has to use the pylons denying it’s stealth advantage?

    • If Martlet’s effective range is only 8km, shouldn’t they be working on an extended range version already? Seems a bit shortish to me.

      • Really all it was designed for to be a “cheapish” anti pb, helicopter missile that can be used in large numbers by light forces. It is basically a modified starstreak missile so shares the same roles as a close in system.
        If you wanted something with further range and a bit of a bite then the navy has sea venom, also wildcat launched I’m suprised that never got used as well.
        I’m a big fan of marlet LMM as it fits in with our current affordable doctrine of light forces that are use speed and adaptability to our advantage, look how the Ukrainians are smashing russian drones with it as it’s intended set targets.

  11. Perhaps the point of us firing two Harpoon missiles is to spread fear and apprehension amongst the Russian fleet. It still kicks ass..that’s the message….?
    Appreciate firing Martlet at a ‘proper’ target but unless it was to demonstrate pin point accuracy in (say) hitting the bridge not sure what else it shows.
    Dropping laser guided bombs designated by Wildcat, perhaps a tactic to get more stand-off range?
    Spear3 please. One Typhoon firing a dozen of them, all hitting from different angles at the same time….now THERE would be a demonstration….
    AA

  13. I thought martlet was only meant for defence against small fast moving craft. What was the purpose of firing these at the hull? Radar or control tower targets etc I could understand but puzzled by the hull. Are they capable of damage to a ship’s hull

  14. This is a bit off topic but did anyone see the warzone article about the F35b getting the GE adaptive engine. Good news if all three variants can have the same engine upgrade.

    • I also spotted the article. Interesting development. Let’s hope it goes ahead 25% increase in range would be welcome and hopefully this engine doesn’t degrade the stealth coating on after burner. Perhaps even super cruise capability for the F35.

  16. Oh aye those imaginary anti ship missiles the wee Harpoon haters keep claiming we don’t have 😂😂😂😂😂

    the wailing and gnashing of teeth at the realisation a RN frigate fired 2 of them ……….🤣😂 and a bunch of martlet aswell ,incandescent with rage they must be🤣

    🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🇬🇧

  18. I might be missing something here but knocking ing the stuffing out a ship like this has some value but in a real live scenario a ship is likely to be able to fight back with its SAM and ECM unless that’s all switched off! . So I’m not sure how successful Harpoon, Paveway and Marlet would be then but good to know that they all work and go bang! There’s no mention of Sea Venom, JSM and Storm Shadow but not sure if the latter was given an AShM capability?

    • With the US selling 60 Harpoons to Taiwan recently I wonder if the RN will also restock a bit? I guess, it could if needed and same with TLAMs. Its latest block 3C must still be considered effective and will probably be one of the cheaper options compared others?

          • It’s always around in the background mix somewhere. Hoping the RN and RAF gets something soon.
            There’s talk in the Aus press here of the current Collins class sub getting updated with TLAMs and the first few new Aus nuclear subs now being made in the US. Being an Aus-Brit I would’ve liked the UK to get a slice of this too. I think we all would! It’s still all unconfirmed.

          • Yeah but 2 mths back the outgoing Aus Defence Minister said to his disappointment UK hadn’t even put in a prospective proposal for the subs.

          • This might be very stupid to say but if the UK delayed or even cancelled 1 of the 4 SSBN sub builds as hasn’t the Vanguard just been refitted with a Lifex? Couldn’t they then have made room and afforded for a new batch of Astute/ Astute+/SSNRs, maybe another 1-3 for the RN and 1-2 for starters for the RAN? I think the UK has just lost a whopping great opportunity here to the US. Admittedly the fit out is more likely to be US orientated but did the UK actually try hard enough here? And considering the RAN joint training with the RN on the Anson it would have been good capitalise on this something like the T26/Hunter exchange.

    • I’ve always wondered why they don’t use sinkex to test defensive weapons , a nearby barge with mk41 or even mushrooms remotely controlled from an air defence destroyer would make very interesting viewing

  19. Well i understood Harpoon was being taken out of service whats all the fuss about. Great when launched against a static and unmanned target but thats not real war

  21. See Russia are using Shahed-136 drones to attack deep into Ukraine. Back to WWII with V1, then. They’re also characterised by a banshee wail as they dive; so Stuka. All delivered by the Bstds who are, ere, ridding Ukraine of Nazis. Nice one.

    • Gavin ,apart from the wonder weapons ,the calling up of Civilians, and a more involvement in the running of the Armed forces Putin is still denying the fact that he is following in the footsteps of one Adolf Hitler all that’s missing is the bunker and Pistol fingers crossed

      • Putin’s finished, whatever he does. Politics offers many ways of dying; literal and figurative. He favours literal, either administered or gravity-assist, so granting that preferred choice would seem only proper. But We’re too reasonable for that.

        The only long term issue is what supersedes. Since Russia historically opts authoritarian, under whatever guise, I don’t hold out much hope. More so as she will now find herself subordinate to China. This latter paragraph I’d like to be proven wrong over, though.

        • Thanks Gavin ,for your post ,yes it would seem that any voice raised against the Russian establishment is quickly silenced with laws that suit the elite and not the majority .So if and when Putin goes like you said another will take his place securing another authoritian leader who will undoubtedly continue in his predisessors footsteps and the cycle will continue as if nothing has changed for the Russian people it’s as if the time of surfitude never went away as seen with the disproportant calling up of Putins reservists from areas far from the Cities pro kremlin but have ethnic minorities, which could cause trouble in the future , such as the Tartars of crimea use those as cannon fodder job done Russia has the troops Crimea is clear of future threats bloody cynical but that’s what’s happening

  23. The US have just started testing a Quiksink AShM guide kit for the GBU-31 2000lb Joint Direct Attack Munition JDAM with the bomb targetting the water beside the ship effectively turning it into a torpedo type ‘break the back’ weapon. GPS guidance to the area by JDAM then radar/IIR from the Quiksink. Whilst only a 15 or so mile range weapon it would give a faster way to get a very destructive weapon to a target than a submarine.

    It is fairly cheap at around $100k plus the JDAM. Big article on it a couple of days ago at the Warzone.

    • While you here would you like to expand on your opinion that the Orcs could reach the Polish border whenever they wanted? I mean they are going for a border just in the wrong direction!

    • Good to see you have not been drafted yet. What’s your assessment of how the war is going? Orcs don’t seem to be the military force you outlined a few months back, or is this just part of some bigger tactic we don’t understand? I know the Russians retreated a lot in the past as part of their tactics to “win” a war. Is that what Putin is doing now? Running away and letting the Ukrainians take Moscow while he keeps his secret war machine in the Urals then conquers all of Europe in a one go.

    • Interestingly like the UK, the US Airforce does not have an Anti ship missile on its fighters. LRASM on the B1 will be the first time I think the USAF has operated such a weapon at-least since the Cold War.

  24. Not certain this is the correct thread to raise this issue, but is there any serious effort being expended by RN to acquire the capability to replenish supplies of Asters and/or Sea Ceptors while underway? Depending upon adversary, could envision circumstances where inventory expended before battle ends–a potentially lethal scenario.

    • Nothing on Aster, Sea Ceptor is much smaller and can probably be lifted by a crew in extreme circumstance but no where onboard to store such weapons.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here