British F-35s and Typhoons together with Czech Gripens worked with American destroyer USS Gravely during an air defence exercise as part of Neptune Shield 22 last week.

The exercise involved a range of multi-domain activities “between Air, Land and Maritime assets across Europe and in the Baltic and Mediterranean Seas”.

This particular activity offered the opportunity to conduct Air-Maritime training and “strengthen Alliance capability in a critical area”.

“These types of activities allow NATO forces to coordinate and cooperate together in a complex scenario and improve our ability to react as one, against any threat,” said Brigadier General Christoph Pliet, Deputy Chief of Staff Operations at Allied Air Command.

“Each time we work together with our Allies in the Maritime and Land domains, we become a more cohesive and ready force,” added General Pliet.

USS Gravely - Wikipedia
USS Gravely

In a press release, the Alliance add:

“NESH22 allows NATO forces to integrate the high-end maritime strike capabilities into the constant vigilance activities that provide security and regional stability. The unique capabilities of Allied air power also enables multiple theatre-wide missions and training events to be executed concurrently across Europe. NESH22 has increased the readiness of Allied air, land and maritime components.”

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

131 COMMENTS

  1. Other than what’s apparent over Ukraine, I wonder to what extent the lack of exercises with different nationalities affects the effectiveness of, say, the Chinese armed forces?
    AA

    • I would imagine in a very similar way to how it affects the Russians. Exercising with and against peer level threats is a critical part of working out what works and what doesn’t because when an ally finds a weakness in your equipment or strategy, they tell you about it so you can fix it. If you only exercise internally then you don’t have that outside point of view to expose the weak points.

      • “Exercising with and against peer level threats”. So the Russians need to work with the North Koreans then!

      • Does Russia or China maintain any equivalent of the US adversary squadrons, allowing exercises against dissimilar combat aircraft? I expect it should be possible to acquire some F-16s or the like…

    • Considering these excerises tend to have massive rules around them, that make any conflict very artificial, i do wonder just how much value they actually give. Looking at the various wars that have happened over the decades and its enemies creating new tactics to overcome weaknesses that have generally won, which would be generally outside the rules of engagements in these types of excerises.

      Helpful when we have to work together as an alliance for sure, but Russia is fighting alone.

    • I’m guessing it’s debilitating, you don’t just learn to be a major military force, look at the USA in 1917 and 1941. They had Allie’s in France and Britain able to help them with technology, training and tactics and it still took years. The Chinese have know one to teach them and the only nations they can train with are Donkeys. From what I have heard most Chinese exercises are little more than show and the majority of the upper levels of the PLA are business executives who do the “war thing” for show.

  2. Which once again shows off the lack of an anti ship missile for RAF Typhoon & F-35B. (Even in simulated attacks). Or at least a heavy precision stand off weapon that can hit moving targets, & thus have a secondary anti ship capability.

      • Neither are any use for that.
        The best we’ve got is PWIV from Typhoon and F-35, and Brimstone from Typhoon only.

        • Yeh; just musing. Meteor has a long range and it’s mach 4 KE is of the same order of magnitude as something like Harpoon. Much smaller warhead of course but it would still pose a significant threat as we know from HMS Sheffield – create enough havoc to get close enough to lob a PW? Brimstone 2 has long legs and is also supersonic. I think I read somewhere the ‘Sea Spear’ version has a 16kg warhead; bigger than the standard 6kg Brimstone. And I would be amazed if an I/R seeker option and/or mid course correction could not been fitted to Storm Shadow.

          • MoD and MBDA were/ are investigating the use of Meteor as a ARM, but that might be the JNAAM version with AESA. There was talk of an adaptation as a fast response precision strike missile but afaik it went nowhere.

            Sea Spear is essentially the same as Single Mode Brimstone, only with a software change. The Spear missile (which fills the Spear 3 requirement) does have a warhead around 16kg. The missile itself is around twice the size.

            Storm Shadow has an IR seeker head for the terminal attack, but it requires pre-loading with the image it expects to see from intelligence data. It doesn’t have a data link so cannot be re-targeted or course corrected following launch. It has no ability to attack moving targets I’m afraid.

          • The updated Storm Shadow has a two-way data-link. It can therefore receive new target details as well as relay images to the operator. I don’t think it has been programmed to attack a moving ship, but it can definitely hit a moored up one in a harbour. Its infrared seeker has a pretty decent image resolution, so it can distinguish specific parts of a target prior to the terminal attack. Everything is more or less in place to turn it into a multi-role missile. Just needs a “Go” from the MoD and some time to do the development.

            The Mitsubishi’s AAM4-B Ka-band AESA radar when fitted to Meteor, will have a number of distinct advantages over other missiles. For starters if the antenna array is arranged in square-ish pattern, it will mean it can transmit a very narrow circular beam, with next to no sidelobes. Therefore, the majority of the available power can be contained within the beam.

            As it Ka-band (27 to 40GHz) it has a very tiny wavelength measuring 1.11cm to 0.75cm peak to peak. This means it will be able to detect surface irregularities on an aircraft, such as fasteners, rivets and very small 90 degree angle, as seen when mechanical flight controls move. It also means if you have a stealthy aircraft missing small parts of the RAM coating, paint or tape. The small patch of uncovered metal will reflect the Ka-band transmission.

            The other advantage AESA gives you is a wider operating bandwidth. So the radar receiver will easily detect anything within the whole KA-band. But with digital tuning etc it can be made to detect lower frequencies such as the X and Ku bands, without too much component changes. To detect lower frequencies will need some more radical changes. But the AESA radar could be made to detect and allow the missile to home in on other radars and some very high frequency radio transmissions.

            There are some disadvantages with using a Ka-band radar, namely the detection range. Ka-band frequencies are significantly affected by atmospheric attenuation. So its detection range will be substantially lower than a X-band radar. However, as this is used in a missile, which won’t be reused. You can properly amp up the power, so it lasts long enough to achieve the kill.

            The major difference between a standard Brimstone and Sea Spear with the heavier warhead, is the effective range. Even though its launched from ground level, by having the bigger warhead space would need to be taken from something else, namely the fuel volume being the easiest to reduce. Sea Spear has a much shorter range than a ground launched Brimstone.

          • I’ve never seen anything from MBDA, MoD or anywhere that indicates that the Storm Shadow MLU involved anything other than refurbishment and removal of obsolescent components. Never seen anything about a data link being added.

            Sea Spear (aka Maritime Brimstone) does not have a larger warhead. MBDA have never contracted with anyone for a smaller rocket motor. The warhead is still a tandem charge. The only change is MBDA have advertised a delay and proximity capability, which was also proposed on the Future Attack Helicopter Guided Weapon Brimstone variant that lost out to JAGM.

          • LRASM is nothing more than a significantly modified JASSM, after all, more or less along the lines you suggest with Storm Shadow.

    • Those mythical subs that can be everywhere at once will carry out anti shipping strikes. No need to worry.

      • Some were also saying our warships could do without AShMs because our jets (& 5 or 6 operational SSNs) would also deal with surface threats. With what?!!

        Seems like we’re firmly head in the sand, imagining excuses & spin from the treasury will somehow compensate for not having basic war fighting gear. They even back tracked on a rare episode of sanity when they proposed & then cancelled an interim AShM. Theres plenty of options out ther. It’s simply inexcusable.

    • They’re available John, we just need to purchase some!

      “MARTE ER missile is going to be integrated on Eurofighter TYPHOON and other fast jets. MARTE ER’s design takes into account that MARTE MK2/S is already qualified and installed on these two platforms. This offers the following advantages: Same mechanical, functional & electrical helicopter interfaces.”

      Marte ER

      Range: Well beyond 100 km

      https://www.mbda-systems.com/product/marte-er/#:~:text=MARTE%20ER%20missile%20is%20going,mechanical%2C%20functional%20%26%20electrical%20helicopter%20interfaces

      • This weapon isn’t integrated on Typhoon yet. It’s one thing hanging it under the wings for publicity photos. Another altogether to turn it into a workable weapon system.

        • I keep reading contradictory reports on Marte ER & Typhoon. First it was part of the Qatar contract. Now that has gone quiet & other platforms mentioned instead.

          • Matre ER is a sticking plaster weapon. Probably very good reason why the RAF don’t have a requirement to purchase it, or any other air launched anti ship missile at the moment.

          • It should be the Koweit order that have Marte ER for Typhoon..

            The Typhoons for Koweit is an Italian contract, while Qatar one is a British contract.

          • More news:
            Qatar indeed will have Marte ER but it will be in NH90 helicopters it bought from Leonardo.

      • I believe Kongsberg, are also paying to have their JSM integrated on Typhoon at the company’s expense. In my opinion a more flexible weapon system than Marte.

        • Kongsberg have proposed it but no-one has ever funded it.

          Marte-ER is being integrated by Italy, work underway at present. It’s being paid for by Kuwait.

    • Can we not use Storm shadow? uses a thermal imager to match target to memory so surely it would make a mess of a large surface ship?

    • Totally agree John, the lack of a fixed wing maratime strike weapon is a massive capability gap that most other top tier militaries except us seem to have, arming our F 35’s with something like the JSM or LRASM would provide a significant boost in firepower to a carrier strike group.

      We saw just how deadly these types of weapons can be in the Falklands when used against us.

      • You’ll probably see the RAAF/RAN doing this, maybe even LSRAM too. The RAF/RN seem to be hanging out for the FC/ASW so let’s hope it’s just around the corner.

  3. Wonder how the results went. Having to get dangerously close to deliver any weapons on target. Not that we need air delivered anti ship capability when we have a navy. Ahhhh, wait a minute…. the navy can’t do it either….dohhh

  4. “Does anyone have any information regarding our f35s on this subject as I’ve not seen any images of our planes since their return from the world tour?

    “Intergranular corrosion occurs as a chemical reaction between metal and the environment.

    It can degrade the material properties causing stress cracking and cause tensile stress which can impact adjacent components”, the report said.

    The report points to Aluminium Alloy 7085, used in the construction of the F-35 — the first time the material had been used in widespread production of a military aircraft.

    “AA 7085 is reported to have increased susceptibility to intergranular corrosion,” the report said.”

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-07/williamtown-joint-strike-fighters-susceptible-to-corrosion/11085220

    “The photos below clearly show three rust-covered fighters, as well as an F-35C Lightning II take-off fighter also covered in rust. According to INF, when asked, Pentagon spokesman Joe Dellavedova said the rust was caused by a manufacturing error by arms manufacturer Lockheed Martin, with all models being affected. It’ll be “fixed” in new batches of F35s.”

    https://bulgarianmilitary.com/2022/01/28/shocking-photos-us-f-35c-lightning-ii-jets-covered-in-rust/

        • That looks like a F22 not an F35 (see the intakes). One of the benefits of F35 over F22 is the stealth coating takes less effort to maintain

          • Are you suggesting the F22 has the same issues?

            “The report points to Aluminium Alloy 7085, used in the construction of the F-35 — the first time the material had been used in widespread production of a military aircraft.”

          • Google rusting F22s! Its well known. The skin coating is what drives up the maintenance costs; so for the ones they used for airshows and the like they actually skimped on it a bit (because you don’t need to be stealth at an airshow).

            I think a lot of people (including the US Navy) have wondered how these expensively coated air craft would fare on the front of a carrier. It doesn’t make them less airworthy just less stealth, but as in general they have radar reflectors on them so that our adversaries can’t get a real understanding of just how stealthy they are, again its not a huge issue (although obviously we set higher standards for our kit.

        • The rusty looking surface of the F35 and F22 is not due to aluminium corrosion. Aluminium oxidation due to salt water corrosion is white and powdery. To protect the aircraft that operates in a maritime environment. The primer and paint will have some protection properties, but the manufacturer would also add a corrosion inhibitor such as ACF-50, to areas such as wheel wells, bomb bays etc. On top of that the aircraft will have a fresh water wash and detergent wash planned into its maintenance cycle, which is followed up with corrective maintenance on areas showing signs of corrosion.

          The rusty looking surface is due to certain materials within the radar absorbent material oxidizing.

    • There was no sign of any corrosion onboard the F-35B used by the USMC or RAF onboard the QE Class when they returned from a very long deployment.

      • One of the benefits of having a big ship is we can keep them inside away from the elements (I believe the QEs can take 24 inside)
        The US Carriers have to keep a lot more aircraft on deck.

      • There was a previous report about the USN noticing it’s F35s showed deterioration onboard its ships whereas those on the QE showed none. The simple answer is we keep them in the hanger most of the time, not exposed to elements in the flight deck.

    • I think you are scraping the bottom of the barrel dredging up an ABC Australia report from more than three years ago.

      Our ABC (equivalent of UK BBC), doesn’t exactly have a reputation for particularly high quality defence reporting here in Australia, in fact it’s mostly the opposite.

      As to the ABC report, which supposedly quotes the KPMG report, uses words such as ‘potential’ problems, or ‘risk’ of metal stress.

      There of course is risk and the potential to get run over when one is crossing the road, doesn’t mean it actually happens.

      I vaguely remember reading that ABC article three years ago, but I don’t remember it being reported in the main stream Defence media at the time, or reported since.

      Funny that?

        • Exactly, what’s that word again for under bridge dwellers? Starts with a T doesn’t it?

          Anyway, any opportunity to try and lay the boot into the F-35.

          • Mate,

            Can I make a suggestion?

            It’s not healthy to obsess over one thing, your one man crusade against the F-35 is over the top.

            Close the laptop for a while, get a hobby, go outside in the sun and suck in some fresh air.

            You’ll feel better if you do.

          • Mate, do you work for the procurement DPT at the MOD? Is that what you did with Ajax?

            Personally, I would rather point out the problems so we don’t piss more money away on something that’s clearly not fit for purpose at great expense to the taxpayer.

            It was supposed to be both stealthy and cheap after all!

            And then look at a potential shortfall of 600 airframes, how much will it cost then?

            “Let’s fast forward to the 2035/2036-ish timeframe. Is there still a need for that low-cost platform? I think, right now, there is,” he said.

            “And what does it look like? Do we replace it with another F-16-looking thing? Did the F-35 come down in cost enough where we can buy more of them? Is it something else? Is it unmanned at that point, because we can do things differently?”

            All of that, he said, is “a question for another day. The good thing is, we don’t have to do anything right now. We’ve got 18-20 years of life left on 600-plus F-16s that are doing great work for our nation.” The decision on how it will be replaced is “probably six, eight years away,” he said.

            https://www.airforcemag.com/f-16s-to-serve-nearly-two-more-decades-replacement-choice-still-6-8-years-away/

          • Just like the USAF wanted 750 F22’s. They got 197. It’s still the world’s best air dominance fighter. You have very short sight views with the F35 Nigel. Views that are not shared with the Air Force’s and Navy’s around the world that have the true data and cost & capabilitys.

          • Hi Robert.

            Interesting the Yanks didn’t opt to re open the F22 line but instead went with a further order of F15s. I imagine Lockheed stored the jacks for the F22?
            Would a second batch of F22 will be more affordable or would this be offset by the restart costs?

          • No unfortunately. The costs would be huge to restart F22 production. And it’s now 20+ years old. But the F15EX only exists because they didn’t buy enough F22’s, and F15Cs have had to soldier on much longer than intended

          • Another reason why F22 production could never be restarted is because the US Govt made a point of destroying all the Jigs and production aids.

          • Agreed, Nigel thinks he knows better than the top brass of most Western nations… 😂

          • How about quoting a credible source rather than a partisan site pushing an agenda? 🤦🏻‍♂️

          • I was a joke to another comment. Somehow it ended up after your comment. I have deleted it.

          • Mate, no prob.

            I was just a bit confused is all.

            I’m always up for a joke, as long as I know what the joke is!

          • The facts are Nigel. 14 countries operate F35, with another 7 In the procurement process. And it’s the most capable fighter ever operated by the RAF. As for numbers. Not one single nation has bought the numbers originally set out. F22, 750, got 197. Typhoon, 250, then 232, got 157. same with Rafale numbers, Gripen ect ect. It’s not a reflection of the capability of these aircraft, it’s just politics and budgets. F35 has game changing capabilites well beyond simple top speeds and g limits. It’s a shame you don’t understand its capability, and what it brings to the fight. I’d ask a RAF/RN pilot what it can do.

          • Ha ha! Very good.

            Maybe not friends in our reality?

            Cur the ‘Twilight Zone’ theme perhaps?

        • Oh God, who wrote that article? Without going into too much detail, it looks worse than it actually is. The embedded RAM will still work as advertised regardless on how bad it looks.

        • Inf news, Indonesia based, owned by the same company that owns the South China Morning Post and Goldthread = Alibaba Group.

          Take their news and views with a big pinch of MSG!

          • I will!

            “While it is known that significant leaps in the maintainability of radar-absorbent materials (RAM) were integrated into the F-35 design, recent images from the F-35C’s inaugural cruise raise potential questions about the ease of maintaining the jet’s coatings in the demanding maritime environment.

            Photos that appeared recently on the Pentagon’s Defense Visual Information Distribution Service, or DVIDS, website reveal the extent of the weathering that’s affected the F-35Cs of Strike Fighter Squadron 147

            After all, rust only affects ferrous metals like iron or steel and the F-35’s largely composite airframe wouldn’t rust, although its RAM — which has already been through a couple of iterations — may very well show similar signs after significant exposure to the harsh saltwater environment.

            While what makes up the F-35’s RAM — some of which is supposedly baked directly into the aircraft’s skin panels themselves — is a closely guarded secret, Iron is a known ingredient of radar-absorbent coatings going back to the dawn of stealth technology.”

            https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/44067/the-f-35cs-radar-absorbent-skin-is-looking-pretty-rough-after-months-at-sea?fbclid=IwAR19qVbOnzOYrZ4rKz9EuUMBDZPS50PzMOPgYSD0KhNlnkB27U4UjUg-Ro4

    • Nigel most likely ferrite in the RAM used to coat the F35. Aluminium is more likely the internal components. You mentioned intergranular, have read the report but this is likely microscopic corrosion within the material at the grain boundaries, this could lead crack propagating in the structure but this would not be visible externally or even to the naked eye or if it was it would not be ‘rust’ coloured

      • Cheers expat, as DaveyB points out, it appears to be the stealth coating that is showing signs of rust, not good for a stealth aircraft and expensive to fix no doubt.

    • Hi Guys, I happen to know a fair bit about this side of things.

      7085 has extremely good resistance to corrosion. It can be treated with an enhanced annealing/ageing process that refines the grain boundaries and increase the presence of low angle grain boundaries which are great for increasing resistance to intergranular corrosion and as a result – stress cracking. I’m sure Lockheed Martin are aware of this.

      Aluminium oxide is white anyway… What you’re looking at is red rust which is basically iron oxidisation. I’d suggest it is a fault in the coating or environmental surface contamination that is flash rusting.

      Think rail dust on your car. The substrate is in perfect order but the surface coatings have hot metal particles and debris that penetrate the coating surface and then rust, giving the impression of flash rusting.

      Also someone mentioned RAM contains ferrite… If the % weight content isn’t in the right percentage bracket – That’ll do it!

      • Hi Rfn_Weston, many thanks for taking the time to explain the problem in some detail.

        Would it then be the case that the coating which appears to be red has reduced the effectiveness of stealth on the F35s that suffer from this problem? and of course, bulkheads cracking?

        Many thanks in advance for your reply to my questions!

  5. So what did our F-35’s and Typhoons fly about looking pretty being decoy targets so the Gripens could shoot missiles

  6. Could QUICKSINK (the modified GBU-31) be a be good, quick, cheap option for the F35? I presume these could be stored in the internal weapon bay?

    • No not really, you still need to get relatively close to a ship to use the weapon, plus you need to continuously lase the ship, for the seeker to home in on. If you fly at a high-ish straight and level path, you will easy meat for the ship’s air defences. You could fly in at very low level, do an over the shoulder lob whilst bunting, then slam down to the deck again hoping you’ve broken lock. But again that’s very risky, plus the weapon is no longer being laser guided. Unless you have another aircraft standing off outside the ship’s air defence umbrella.

      Laser guided bombs used against high end warships, with a decent air defence system, is a sure way of reducing the number of aircraft and pilots you have.

      • Sorry, meant for Steve S

        Hi Steve S, depending on the size of the GBU-31 for internal carrige.

        “The limited weapons loadout of the Block 3i F-35 makes an effective attack of many expected types of targets in a typical theatre a challenge.

        For example, unlike legacy aircraft, the Block 3i F-35 has no mixed weapons load capability, which limits flexibility to attack targets with appropriately matched weapons.

        Block 3i F-35 aircraft can only employ two internally carried bombs, and although internal carriage reduces the susceptibility of the F-35 relative to legacy aircraft, by virtue of the low observability it provides, it does not provide the ability to attack more than one or two targets.

        ▪ Pilots report inadequacies in Pilot Vehicle Interfaces (PVI) in general, and deficiencies in the Tactical Situation Display (TSD) in particular, which displays the results of sensor fusion and is designed to provide increased situation awareness, continue to degrade battlespace awareness and increase pilot workload.

        Workarounds to these deficiencies are time-consuming for the pilot and detract from efficient and effective mission execution.

        Lack of target marking capability – a key capability for both Forward Air Controller-Airborne (FAC-A) some of the sensors to ensure multiple tracks did not form, which is unacceptable for combat and violates the basic principle of fusing contributions from multiple sensors into an accurate track and clear display to gain situational awareness and to identify and engage enemy targets.

        » Similarly, multiple false ground tracks often are displayed when only one threat emitter is operating. In addition, tracks that “time out” and drop from the display cannot be recalled, which can cause pilots to lose tactical battlefield awareness on enemy air defence radars that turn on only intermittently, as is typical of missile engagement radars. » Sharing erroneous tracks over the Multifunction Advanced Data Link (MADL) between aircraft in the F-35 formation multiplies the problems described above.

        » The Air Force IOC Readiness Assessment (IRA) report also identified deficiencies with fusion in Block 3i. ▪ Electronic warfare (EW) capabilities, including electronic attack (EA), are inconsistent and, in some cases, not effective against required threats.

        » Although the details of the deficiencies are classified, effective EW capabilities are vital to enable the F-35 to conduct Suppression/Destruction of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD/DEAD) and other missions against fielded threats.

        » The Air Force IRA report also identified significant EW deficiencies in Block 3i. ▪ Datalinks do not work properly. Messages sent across the MADL are often dropped or pass inaccurate offboard inter-flight fusion tracks based on false or split air tracks and inaccurate ground target identification and positions.”

        https://www.dote.osd.mil/Portals/97/pub/reports/FY2016/dod/2016f35jsf.pdf?ver=2019-08-22-105333-997

      • I read a quote from a usaf official recently who explained the thinking behind this weapon. It’s not envisioned for use in attacking high end surface vessels but lightly armed vessels, think the Chinese maritime militia which possesses close to a hundred thousand vessels and are often times armed and used to intimidate opposing vessels. No need to “waste very expensive anti ship weapons on these when you can use the relatively cheap quicksink to accomplish the same thing.

    • I read a quote from a usaf official recently who explained the thinking behind this weapon. It’s not envisioned for use in attacking high end surface vessels but lightly armed vessels, think the Chinese maritime militia which possesses close to a hundred thousand vessels and are often times armed and used to intimidate opposing vessels. No need to “waste very expensive anti ship weapons on these when you can use the relatively cheap quicksink to accomplish the same thing.

  7. So the Brits get to hone their anti-ship systems and the Yanks get to improve their anti-aircraft defences. If they share information it sort of cancels out their mutual advantage? Hmm…
    I suppose each would hope that adversaries do not conduct these vital learning excercises😉

    • Yes, I came late to the party too.
      Quite interested by the Italian connection with the Marte-ER that someone mentioned. No idea about the relative benefits vs JSM etc. but I like the idea with partnering with them to strengthen overall relationships. What with CAMM-ER, the upgrades to Aster 30, helicopters and of course Tempest, it’s a productive relationship that’s worth developing. To me, their cannister-launched AShM kind of falls into this bracket- as a low-end compliment to FC/ASW for T31 and other GP frigates.

        • Yes, it has the advantage of small weight overall. It would be a good system for RN Merlins. Italians have them(or the old version) in their Merlin/NH90

        • Does that make it broadly analogous to the old Sea Eagle then?
          75 kg warhead may be less than JSM (I think they’re about 100 kg?), but it also looks to be physically smaller, which means that Italy may be interested in partnering with us on F-35B internal carriage integration. The biggest issue I have with our carrier package at the moment is that we rely almost completely on the Astute for surface warfare against larger targets at range, at the same time we’re “leaning” to the Pacific and China as the main threat. The USN have Hornet to deliver LRASM, even if they don’t put it onto F-35C, but we have to wait on maybe getting one of the FC/ASW weapons integrated for what I expect to be external carriage only. Seems to be less than optimal.

    • At face value, you are right mate. But you have to ask, why aren’t the RAF and RN making it a priority? Why dont they have an official requirement for the capability?. What do they know that we don’t? why aren’t they making a big noise about it. There is much more to it then strapping on a missile under the wing. The Sea Eagle went out of service years ago.

      • FC/ASM is the official requirement, or Spear Cap 5. Expected early 2030s on a Typhoon near you.

        Prior to that, Spear Cap 3 should also have an anti-ship capability Expected on Typhoon from about 2023 and F-35 from 2027/2028. MBDA say, “it can engage a wide range of target types both on land and at sea.” So I’m guessing that’s an anti-ship function unless they are talking about blowing up oil platforms. It’s pretty small and I’d have thought it would have to be fired in significant numbers to disable a warship.

        As for the Royal Navy, someone took their budget away.

      • Hi mate. You of all people are always more sensible and reasoned than me, and I’m told I’m all that often enough!

        I myself think it is simply budget. I get the reluctance and reasoning concerning sticking ASM on all our escorts, and I get that the main anti ship platforms are aircraft and the SSNs.

        I’d wonder what do they know that we don’t concerning removing the Hercs, that seems bonkers too, and that comes down to budget, regardless of the fact the commitments of the Atlas Hercules Globemaster fleet have not diminished.

        Regards the SSNs we know there are too few, regardless of their sea denial capability vs most navies, which then leads me to the sensible option that the RNs carrier groups best offense against another ship, or ships, bar the SSN, is an ASM from a fast jet.

        I also think that potentially losing a jet against an OpFor group of ships is more preferable than losing an SSN, or exposing its location during a ship attack. And to me the SSN’s main role is ASW more than AS.

        ALARM and Sea Eagle AFAIK were capable missiles removed because of budget not capability?

        • Hi mate, I’ll take that as a compliment 😆 Sea Eagle and Alarm was about budget, but also the threats didn’t meterliaze, especially with Sea Eagle, and the Russian threats. As we concentrated on insurgency campaigns. Hercules does seem bonkers, but some clever planners will have crunched the numbers, and decided we can cover it. Atlas availability and capability still has a lot to unlock. Even C17 and Voyager capacity can be improved with the same number of aircraft. Increasing flight hours, tweaking maintenance routines can create lot of extra capacity. And hopefully a few more A400’s will be funded. But ultimately, it does come down to money, and its the same dilemma every nations Armed Force’s go through. Tough choices have to be made if we want upgraded Typhoons, new weapons, more UCAV’S, loyal wingman ect F35, Tempest, the list goes on. And with anti ship weapons, the RAF/RN just don’t see them as a top priority, because they know the money is better spent on something else that will make a real difference to our capability. Like upgraded Spearfish, Martlet and Sea Venom. SPEAR 3 on Typhoon and F35. The next generation of anti ship and land attack weapons will be a step change from what is available today, capability worth spending money on. Until then, alot of these weapons are willy waving and not much else. Except TLAM and Storm Shadow, they are dogs.

          • The antiship land attack missile is coming and it’s a case of waiting. Spear 3 is coming soon. Blame Lockheed for the F35 problems. RAF had planned things to moving faster. What could be cut to get an interim anti ship capability. I just can’t see where the funds would come from. Put that cash into getting new missile into service on time.
            I would much rather monies was spent on situational awareness and targeting at longer ranges. It’s ok having a 1000 mile anti ship missile but who are you launching it at and how do you know where they are and where they will be. Top priority needs to be where are the enemy and where can you attack them to use you assets to the best ability.

          • Exactly mate. Missiles are useless without an effective kill chain. And how do you find, track and engage an enemy warship from many hundreds of miles away moving at 25knots, running electronically silent. It’s next to impossible. Add in low observable designs, ECM, EW, knowing satellite orbit track’s, using the weather as cover. All the reasons why these weapons have never been used for decades.

      • The MOD also knows that the chances of us having to engage an enemy warship are range with a heavy weight anti ship missile is slim to say the least. We haven’t fired one at anyone for over 40 years. Neither has anyone else. And unless the intelligence tells us that Russia is going to send its fleet to invade over the North sea, then the chances are we won’t need them. Is it a capability risk? yes. Is it one we are willing to take until FC/ASM can enter service. Yes. And Spear cap 3 will be a very capable weapon system. Every gets hot under the collar about anti ship weapons, everyone except the RAF/RN with real world experience and expertise.

          • Those are littoral attacks at very short range. Not open ocean warfare. Even the recent strikes off Ukraine probably used additional UAV targeting.

          • Robert, with respect always, just look at the ever increasing Chinese fleet that’s in our back yard dusn here. You can’t keep looking at the past or even the current Ukraine conflict in the Asov… which is actually a very good case for needing long range AShMs, just ask the Ukrainian’s! A lot of navies have a decent level of AShMs. We don’t need an “arsenal” ability but something more hard hitting than Marlet and Venom that can do land attack and complement the subs. Anywsy I wish this bloody FC/ASW Woy d just come along soon so we can allmove on from this issue! .

          • Hi mate. Yes getting FC/ASW soon rather than later would solve alot of issues. The Ukraine example wasn’t long range open ocean strikes, but close in littoral, something we are well equipped for. The Chinese are a growing concern, but conventional war is far from certain. What does China really have to gain? we have seen the affects the Ukraine conflict is having on the global economy and Russia will suffer massively from this. As would China. And in terms of the Chinese military, they have big numbers, but little experience. And compared to the military might of the US Navy, western allies, the Japanese, South Korea, Malaysia and of course our friends in Australia and New Zealand. They would have a very hard time. And with all heavy long range anti ship missiles, they are pretty useless without an effective kill chain. Find, track, engage. Very difficult from long ranges without external targeting support. And with the limitations of over the horizon radar coverage from warships own on-board systems. But technology marches on, and the next generation of weapons will hopefully prove much more effective and address many of today’s limitations. 👍

          • Just realised lots of clumsy typos above, sorry about. A very good and comprehensive reply from you. I agree with you on all bits of our alliances and the integrated kill chain required but, at the end of it all its very useful have some actual weapon to shoot with and I and a lot of us here think the UK comes up really short (amongst other things) in the AShM department even the TLAM numbers were a shock to me! We are as you suggest very inter-dependent on our allies, I just wish the UK was a bit more comprehensively armed. Don’t we all! We know the new stuff is coming and hope that it’s not late!
            On Ukraine, they’ve been busting for more and longer range AShM capability to shoot over the Black Sea-Asov “littoral” Pond! I thought their Neptune has a longer range than Harpoon but maybe the later is more effective.
            I agree that China would also face global sanctions like that against Russia if they pursued some unilateral military action, but economically the damage and shortages would be even more massive and affect everybody, a global “lose-lose” but it doesn’t stop them posturing and “show-boating” all their ships, planes and parades and testing the West out.

          • Great reply, thanks Quentin. You make some very good points. I definitely think the West’s response to Ukraine will make the Chinese think again about any advances towards Taiwan. Russia has demonstrated exactly how NOT to invade your neighbour. And I think we will see Chinese distance itself some what from the Russians. RN firepower, lots to come, but it is all a few years away. SPEAR 3 will be a fantastically capable and flexible weapon, with anti ship capability and the EW version will be another big step forward. 👍

          • Fair points, all. However, in ref to Ukraine, regardless of needing the UAV for targetting (it could have been an RAF RC-135 patrolling the edge of the Black Sea, or other NATO ISR aircraft) they wouldn’t have been able to remove the Moskva’s AAD umbrella without having the weapon itself.
            Besides, I think we’re conflating the original discussion around air-launched AShMs with fitting them to escorts for blue water combat. I can understand the argument that there is low priority on getting AShMs onto our escorts- although they do need them as far as the RN is concerned. We have decided that F-35B is going to be our “expeditionary” combat platform, meaning it has to be able to provide air superiority and strike capability in any situation required, from the sea. If we cannot clear a path through someone’s fleet (in the littoral or blue water), and/or neutralise an enemy’s sea-based AAD, then our carrier group and allies can’t deliver strike packages. At the moment we are purely reliant on our Astute for doing this, when we have 24-36 potential platforms that could do the job from further away, with less risk, and engage multiple targets more effectively.
            I really don’t expect to get in a shooting war with China or Russia, so your (and I presume the RN’s) point about the criticality of the capability is very much valid. But there is a deterrence value in having a capability that we just don’t have at the moment, and that is an issue to me. I think the RN is claiming something that they can’t back up, which I suppose is OK. Until the other guy is able to go just that little bit further in escalation (not necessarily shots fired), because they know you can’t actually do anything about it.

          • Great points mate. I think the RN has been playing this game with the Russians for so long, they feel they have it well covered. The know what kit they have, and what it can and can’t do, they know the tactics, how they think, and what the outcome will be. China is another beast. But short of all out WW3, the chances of engagement are remote. And the West as a whole has far greater capability to bring down on China heaven forbid it came to that. A lot of politics is at play between the two sides. But ultimately, we need each other. I do agree with many, that if we and many other nation’s had kept defence spending higher over the last 20 years, Ukraine might never have happened In the first place. Will we see an increase in defence spending? I hope so, but with the cost of living crisis, and the pandemic recovery, it’s a pretty hard sell to the tax payer. We will see what the Autumn statement brings.

          • “We will see what the Autumn statement brings.” Yes indeed…
            To be honest, given the immediate economic issues that we’re facing as a country, just maintaining promised defence spend will be a positive in my view (given previous goverbnment track records). And, given that people are struggling to heat their homes and put food on the table and travel to work to earn because of the cost of goods, then it’s hard to argue with government decision to not further increase defence spending.
            Especially as we’re basically ruining Russia’s conventional ground combat capability on a budget in Ukraine at the moment..!

          • Yes, Increasing defence spending for new toys is a hard sell when people are struggling. Some will say we can’t afford not to, but domestic politics is a tricky business, especially when the MOD got a significant uplift not long ago. The MOD needs to do a better job of spending what it already gets, before the treasury will open its wallet again.

      • You can only attack with Wildcats IF you have them embarked rather than Merlins that carry no anti surface missiles. That is a lottery. We should ensure both types can carry them, like other Merlin operators do. Doubly so when we’re losing ship bourne AShM capability for several years. Utter madness.

      • Maybe the FC/ASW is just around the corner or there’s some other secret developments going on. I sure hope it’s not a massive amount of delusion, ust laziness or some inter-service rivalry going on as fighting effectively with “Fitted for fresh air” won’t cut it!
        I’m a Pom down here in 🇦🇺 and proud of the government making a commitment to up arming the RAN, RAAF with some decent AShM ability and maybe even the Army with coastal NSM.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here