Britain and France today launched the preparation work for the future anti-ship missile and future cruise missile project after signing a state agreement and notification of contracts.
The ‘Future Cruise/Anti–Ship Weapon’ project, originally believed to be producing one missile able to strike ships and land targets, now appears to have become two distinct missiles. One is a supersonic anti-ship missile and the other is a subsonic cruise missile.
Le Délégué général pour l’armement Joël Barre, le directeur 🇬🇧 @DefenceES & le PDG @byMBDA, ont lancé les travaux de préparation du futur missile antinavire et futur missile de croisière (FMAN-FMC) après signature d’un accord étatique et notification de contrats #NotreDéfense pic.twitter.com/Xbs1j6OO3u
— Direction générale de l'armement 🇫🇷 (@DGA) February 17, 2022
What is the Future Cruise/Anti–Ship Weapon for?
The FC/ASW aims to replace Storm Shadow/SCALP air-launched cruise missile in operational service in the UK and France as well as Exocet anti-ship missile in France and Harpoon anti-ship missile in the UK.
In November the First Sea Lord, Admiral Tony Radakin, told the House of Commons Select Defence Committee that options for FC/ASW were still “being looked at” including potential hypersonic weapons.
“The path that we as a Navy want to go down is absolutely that—longer-range missiles from ships with land attack. To Mr Francois’s point earlier about whether that is in the programme, it is in the programme with money that has been allocated for the future cruise anti-ship weapon, but we are only on the cusp of an assessment phase with the French. We have not delineated that it is going to be weapon X, but we have the budget line that supports that approach.
The exciting thing for the Navy is that the more substantial money is in the longer-term line, with the ambition around the future cruise anti-ship weapon and the French partnership. That has got the money in the line, but I agree with you that if we are operating at the hypersonic level, there is a debate as to whether that is at the back end of this decade or the early 2030s.”
It was also stated recently by Minister for Defence Procurement Jeremy Quin that the total spend to date on Future Cruise/Anti-Ship Weapon and associated activities by the Ministry of Defence is £95 million.
Damned, so long…
Cant wait to see the result…
Is this just a development of storm shadow? If it is why is going to take so long?
No.
Its a totally new missile, probably more from the french ASMPA than the Storm Shadow, depend on what they are going.
But hell, more than 10y its really too long (can be justified if hypersonic, absolutely not if sub/super).
Hypersonic technology is still relatively immature, despite what others might say about Russia and Chinese attempts.
That’s why I said “Justified if hypersonic”.
But for what they said atm, nothing sure about it…
French are already going relatively fast on hypersonic, hope its also to serve this project…
This missile is really something to see in service for UK and France.
And I hope to see them being able to be launch from old harpoon/exocet position, not only from VLS 😡
It is also good to see France and the UK still working on these projects together despite the recent political tensions between the countries.
In 10years China will have a 500 strong surface fleet and won’t care if we can muster 30-60 hypersonic ASM on 10 ships (all we could afford) loosing 20 (will take more than one to sink a ship) or so ships won’t make a difference yes I know we wouldn’t be on our own. We need to start and think what defencces the Chinese are fielding those 20 barrel ciws will take out alot of missles so spear 3 will have to be the sacrificial lamb first salvo. And this is if it doesn’t kick off sooner.
How could a nation of 65m possibly keep up with sufficient numbers against a nation of 1.4 billion? We couldn’t. Spear EW would form any attacking component, providing active jamming and laying spoof returns for those CIWS. Submarines are our primary means of killing ships and there is already investment in unmanned systems which will lead to means to approach a peer naval rask force and engage. The US Marines have launched naval strike missiles from unmanned trucks , so a 500km hypersonic antiship missile with a land launched system could well deter incursions into the SCS of elsewhere should… Read more »
Australia is spending us$1 billion on 200 x LRASM. That is equivalent in population twrms to UK ordering 600.
It’s not just LRASM (560km range) that is being procured, but also JASSM-ER (930km), and Tomahawk (1600km) too.
The Government here in Oz has allocated many many billions of dollars for not only the three long range missiles mentioned above, but also for a whole variety of other guided missiles and weapons for the RAN, RAAF and Army too.
Plus ongoing collaboration with the US on the development of Hypersonic weapons too.
Cheers,
Cheers John. Multiple overlapping technoligical capabilities to offset lower volumes of people. Sound sound strategy
Are you reading this MOD!!
Australia has an excellent and well organised military — but it is a different military than the UK’s. For example, It doesn’t have 4 Nuclear Ballistic Missile Submarines on the books.
The UK also has Tomahawk and Storm Shadow.
I wasnt starting we would be taking on China alone only that if we can only fund a small number of hypersonic weapons and land attack cruise missles what’s the point the development cost are going to be enormous along with low production thus high cost and the yanks have put alot of money into there R&D and have yet to get a working prototype. The Chinese will have superior numbers and home advantage. Having to wait 10years + for either a fixed wing lightweight missle spear 3 on F35b yes 10years as block 4 now pushed back to 2029-30… Read more »
US can now launch missile from the ramp of a cargo plane. Check out project rapid dragon. We should be thinking along the same lines
We don’t have to be able to fight the entire PLAN. we need to be able to counter whatever expeditionary force China could deploy into the south/north Atlantic ect if they decided to play silly with one of our possessions that’s not covered by nato ( BAT etc) If it’s a fight in the Pacific we would be just a small part ( maybe a carrier group couple of ssns). Japan will probably be the big contributors of frigate With the us providing the carrier battle group muscle as well as the not insignificant Austrian surface fleet and possibly India… Read more »
“the not insignificant Austrian surface fleet”-In WW1 maybe. Made me smile. I think we should play our part in containing expansionist China. We’re far from ever trying to take on the PRC on our own, indeed there’s plenty of Allies there already far ahead keeping up collectively with the PLA. Collectively they are stronger than the PLAN. We are a permanent member of the UN security council, relient on world trade & imports, 5th or 6th largest economy, so we do have some responsability with what goes on in the world; yet we’ve perversely allowed our forces to drastically atrophy… Read more »
Nothing like a good typo to mess with your point. I do agree we need to have a significant up lift. It’s going to take a long while as skilled people will be the limiting factor even if we could find another few frigates under the sofa. But I think we should be planning to have a significant force increase within a decade. We should be looking at being able to support both carriers As well a amphibious force. we really need to plan to be able to match the PLAN at an equidistant point ( we will never be… Read more »
Agree we are getting to a point in world affairs where we need to think more about defence spending. To me, the thing is this: We have two major potential hot war enemies: Russia and China. Russia is nearest threat and threatens Europe. China is further away. China faces a number of UK Division ‘powers’ – Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Australia… whereas Russia is faced by the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Poland. Point is, the US is the Russia/China Division power providing the major mitary component. If the UK and France start allocating resources to face China we aren’t adding… Read more »
I rob the UKs problem is it’s got to think about the future areas where it may need to operate alone. We have a lot of places that we will not have any major support from Allies and we will need to be ready. I know everyone rolls there eyes if the falklands are mentioned, but I don’t thing many people really understand the geopolitical potential of the falklands and it’s link to the British Antarctic territories or what that could mean for the future wealth of our nation. The falklands are the DOOR and KEY to the BAT and… Read more »
Yes, agree. But… being able to project power doesn’t mean you have to make a big show of it. Our main focus should be on Europe. Re the Falklands, yes we need to be aware – but the biggest threat to the Falklands is Argentina, and frankly they will be in no condition to be a threat for a long time yet. My concern is trying to do too much. We’re not a great power any more; our contribution against China will always be very limitede.
Problem is a 500 ship fleet costs a lot of money and manpower something i question if China has enough to sustain it long term
It’s China, so manpower is no problem. The free worlds greedy exploitative capitalists have moved so much manufacturing there that money isn’t major problem. We’ve fed the beast that could eat us all. Besides, it’s still a totalitarian dictatorship, so can spend what it likes & kill any dissent. If we want to play our part in protecting our own freedoms & stemming a domino-fall of friendly free states we must build a bigger navy & get basic capabilities back on our warships. An interim heavyweight AShM is a screaming omission no matter what spin is used to smokescreen its… Read more »
I second what you are saying about interim AshM and ABMD. We can count on more of this FFBNW rubbish sorry to say. The situation in the Ukraine may be cover for the Chinese taking Taiwan or for both. We should follow the Australians and act decisively. We cant let a ten year gap in capability fester. How much time did the USN have to prepare for 12/7/41?
“It’s China, so manpower is no problem.”
Remember China has a demographic time bomb, a lot of Chinese born in 1960/70s. Birth rates reduced later due to one child policy. So the workforce will shrink in the next decade.
Chinese local government has debt in the $4 to 8 trillion range. Chinese high speed rail has debt of $950 billion. Evergrande owes $300 billion. That is just a snapshot. If you look at other Chinese developers or Hainan Airways group or vast numbers of smaller Chinese firms, the debt levels are eye watering.
Absolutely. Everything is great just now as the Chines have a lot of new shiney kit. But that kit has to be manned, maintained, updated throughout its lifecycle. Purchase cost is only part of the bill. The US has a massive budget and doesn’t have a 500 ship navy.
Another thing to take into account is the Chinese Population, as they start demanding better health care, unemployment benefits, pensions etc. the demands on the Chinese Taxpayer will grow.
They may come up with a 500 ship fleet that would need regular refuelling that would be quite a push unless they have various friendly foreign ports around the globe wouldn’t you agree Knight 7572
China has serious demographic, health, old people funding etc, problems coming down the track before very long. And that without the larger economic resources per pop of Western countries. And they will need to focus quite heavily on this with a lot of their resources. Their GDP per pop is still only 25% of ours. For a quick comparator: Median Ages in 2018 / 2020 (to give a hint at rate of short-term change) are: China: 37.4 / 38.4 Italy: 45.5 / 46.5 USA: 38.1 / 38.5 UK: 40.5 / 40.6 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_median_age Some Western European countries have much older populations… Read more »
Obvs that second number has a minor component of Covid deaths skewed to older people.
Those looking at Covid deaths in China, think the real numbers are at least one million to perhaps 1.75 million.
Quite right. We should return to the two power standard immediately.
We don’t need to match China one to one! Let the US deal with that. China’s in their backyard not ours.
What we must do though is make sure that along with our European allies we can out match Russia without relying on the US.
That is a critical requirement and one that is easily achievable. If the braincell deficient politicians come out of hiding from behind their bigger friends back…
I didn’t mean to imply we would. I meant that if we’re go down the expensive hypersonic route we won’t get many missles for our bucks and how many ships we could take out with a few super expensive missles the opposition like China which will probably be a massive upto 500 ships come 10-15 time would be able to absorb those losses. So why not just go for a long range cheap easy option to fit out our a ships with 60-70 missles like the Chinese have done with the YJ18 missle derived from a Russian model. The Chinese… Read more »
I agree we should be equipping our ships with the ability to engage other ships. Its the most basic of requirements of any navy.
China is not exactly in the US’s backyard. Do you have Google maps?
It’s a big backyard but one they share and one they both want to be the dominant power of. Do you not follow global politics?
There is compelling evidence that China’s economy is heavily linked to a property bubble that has already burst.. similar to the one in Japan. An economy in trouble may have problems being a superpower. Look what happened to Russia…
Yes and look how Argentina and now Russia are dealing with it….. preparing for war. We have no ASM missle planned on our ships after 2023…..and a replacement is a decade away. the best we can do is borrow other ships or bolt on’s acquired at cost and hastily fitted without adequate training.
Yes, with a demographic time bomb to follow!
“In 10years China will have a 500 strong surface fleet…”
Highly unlikely. China’s growth has slowed considerably due to economic and demographic factors.
I may have estimated a little but someone seems to think there still expanding.taken from usni news China has the biggest maritime force on the globe with an inventory of about 355 vessels, according to a Defense Department report released Wednesday. With 355 ships in its fleet, the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) is slated to expand its inventory to 420 ships within the next four years, the Pentagon’s annual China military report estimates. By 2030, the PLAN is expected to have 460 ships. The 355 estimation accounts for “major surface combatants, submarines, aircraft carriers, ocean-going amphibious ships, mine warfare… Read more »
Mark, China produces some one billion tons of Steel a year. The Uk produces somewhere about 7 million tons a year…. Ie less than 1% of what China produces. China can out produce us, or anyone with ease… so I don’t think that 60, or several hundred missiles will make a big difference… what does make a difference would be some extra SSN’s….I think we need to realise that Britannia doesn’t rule the waves, and we aren’t a superpower any more…
Nothing says you aren’t confident in your ability to defend your ship that covering it in CWIS guns.
Give it a few years if that. “Now, the test is believed to have also included the release of a separate missile that rocketed away, falling harmlessly into the South China Sea. Neither the United States nor Russia has demonstrated the same ability, which requires launching a missile from a parent vehicle travelling five times the speed of sound. The hypersonic missile, which unlike ballistic missiles can be steered, missed the target by more than 20 miles (32km), which a senior Pentagon official, General John Hyten, said last week was “close enough” given it was an initial test. The potential… Read more »
I wonder why they will require so many?
China is developing plans for a 13,000-satellite megaconstellation
The recently approved 14th Five-year Plan for the period 2021-2026 and “long-range objectives through 2035” call for an integrated network of communications, Earth observation, and navigation satellites.
https://spacenews.com/china-is-developing-plans-for-a-13000-satellite-communications-megaconstellation/
Is this kind of thing even legal? Are there any international laws governing of how many and what goes into space? Where and how have China managed to get the tech and finances to do all this and it all seems to be exponential! Are there any concerns about the shear scale of this by the West? Hopefully there is some counter capability to all this observation, surveillance and god know what else!
We are looking to do the same thing but on a smaller scale.
The space race is on!
https://www.iiss.org/blogs/military-balance/2022/02/uk-defence-space-strategys-orbital
Hypersonic can also be for the travel phase with a high supersonic/agile terminal phase.
Wait & see.
Let’s hope it’s more reliable than the French missile. Last time they used it in combat half of them didn’t even launch.
Its mostly false.
Missile was not involved, it was the firing system of the Sylver, from the last doc I read about that.
Because they dont had time to analyze, they give up to trying force them and another vessel was used to fire the missile.
So, stop spread all this bullshit…
Its sad and bad, but its something we can attent from complex ammunition when you dont use them often…
(So mostly for all european / small navies)
Hang on MBNA only recently said that they are favouring using an existing missile as the basis for this though now that it seems it’s going to be two missiles and I wouldn’t be surprised even three if the supersonic version starts as that but then is configured to be further developed into a hypersonic missile, that may no longer be the final decision or may only apply to the cruise missile, who knows. If one starts out as hypersonic from the off then who knows what date in the thirties it would be available, certainly not in any way… Read more »
The FC/ASW programme intends to develop a new generation of guided weapons to replace the Exocet and Harpoon anti-ship missiles in naval service, and the air-launched Storm Shadow/SCALP cruise missiles. The concept phase, which concluded last year, narrowed down to two complementary candidate designs: a long-range, low-observable subsonic missile; and a highly manoeuvrable, high supersonic missile.
Primarily because the French don’t need it yet with their latest Exocet and cruise missiles. We desperately need it but did not bother planning for it until it was too late. It’s only lack of budget holding it up.
Given Tomahawk exists and given Storm Shadow is in service, is highly effective and is being upgraded under the SPEAR initiatives surely the focus has to be prioritised on the AshM capability.
I’m glad they are talking about two missiles now. Long range stealthy cruise missile was always more important in my mind than a super sonic/ hypersonic missile. At the end of the day we have launched dozens of cruise missiles, thousands if you include the US and never a single anti ship missile.
The point is to have an AS missile able to do landstrike with a decent range (randomly, 500km), not to make a long range cruise missile.
But you can have a long range cruise missile able to hit ships or land targets. Chances are you will never once use the anti ship missile but you will use the cruise missile on many occasions. With a dual purpose missile you don’t have to waste capacity in VLS either just carry lots of dual purpose weapons. Some may be long range subsonic and some shorter range hypersonic.
Long range mean bigger missile, also more costly.
Its interesting to have mid range dual purpose (AS/Land Strike) missile, but for having long range can also be bad if we must sacrifiate on AS capabilities.
Let the long range land strike to dedicated missile…
I agree. You can have a long range sub sonic cruise missile with an anti ship seeker as an option. But an Mach 2-3+ anti ship missile is more difficult to operate as a long range stealthy cruise missile. They can both do both roles but the costs and complexity goes up and it will be a compromise on both roles. Much better to go with 2 missiles and share as much tech as possible. I do mean a lot of tech so as not to have twice the cost. If the RN is really worried about anti ship missiles… Read more »
Good thinking on all accounts there.
Agree having a 500mile+ range anti-ship missile is sort of pointless, especially with the ROE that western navy’s operate under. But a very long range land attack missile is what you want.
That’s why I prefer a great AS missile with some land strike capability on a mid range (300-500km) and not an useless frankeinstein because we want 2000km of range with all the capabilities of a subsonic + hypersonic + supersonic + supraluminic missile…
Trouble is if you leave it to La Royale and the RN they will probably Just wind each other up and end up deciding that it would be best to go for a ship based intermediate range ballistic missile with an optional factional orbital bombardment capability and a nuclear pumped laser warhead in the terminal phase.
I thought that’s what Perseus is 😀
In ten years we don’t know what sort of missile will best be used against other ships though almost inevitably a hypersonic weapon will be required for best chances of success or part of a range to defeat defences. You cant just presume we will never need to sink ships especially as things are currently developing. Indeed presently I don’t see us participating in the sort of land war that we most recently have ie Middle East, and even if we did it might well mean there are naval engagements involved too so it seems to me an anti ship… Read more »
Is there going to be a big disagreement between the two sides resulting the the whole project being a failure?
I dont think so.
Its a critical project for both side, our shares/gains/needs are clear, less complex than a Tempest/FCAS project.
Hope to not see any bad politicians trying to involve this project in other common politics bullshit.
Agreed.
Advanced missiles is proven area of successful collaboration between Britain and France. Plus, both sides want the same thing and the centres of excellence agreement within MBDA means that both nation’s industries benefit. No reason for this to fail.
Agree, ships are such complex beasts which differing national needs, make it difficult to collaborate. A missile is a simple beast ( from the point of view of what it does and that it’s easier to agree on.
Both nations do need to keep sovereign capability around these weapons systems as if you cannot produce the weapon systems for your complex warships it sort of makes Spending money keeping the shipyards and Complex warship design capability a bit pointless, so you may as well buy of the self.
Absolutely such missiles already exist after all and any missile appearing over the next decade should have strong flexibility in this respect, they have already made or soon will Brimstone standard for each if it’s various uses air land or sea launched.
(this isn’t an argument against specialist missiles mind just that where possible missiles should have as much flexibility up to the point of not significantly compromising their prime function.)
Because we haven’t been in conflict with a major maritime peer recently.
Well by the same logic we don’t need ships at all surely, as we haven’t used them to bring down planes, sink submarines or as far as I know even taken out a drone. However as we saw with Northumberland only last week trying to out manoeuvre a Russian destroyer 18 miles off our nuclear submarine base when you possess no anti ship weapon but the opposition have plenty then it doesn’t matter how unlikely we are to actually use them your ship shouldn’t be left to operate in that condition under almost any circumstances. Even more as and when… Read more »
We have used them to sink ships and submarines all be it by their helicopters and shoot down aircraft and even missiles we have never fired an anti ship missile in anger. I firmly believe it’s a capability we should have however if your taking up VLS silos and spending billions it’s better to have a duel use weapon as land attack is an almost certain task that will be performed on a fairly regular basis.
I thought we had one of these cruise missile type of things (?) with a 100kg+ warhead that was already better than Tomahawk except for range.
Am I confused?
For air we both have the SCALP/Storm Shadow (same missile).
From ships as cruise missile only France have the MdCN.
But as AS missile able to do land strike and build by UK or France, only the french Exocet but its too low range (180km~)
I have always been amazed that MBDA, UK MoD and the French MoD didn’t build on the SCALP/Storm Shadow’s capability.
It has a very good imaging infrared seeker that can be used to target ships/subs moored in a port. Why couldn’t they add some moving target software?
It has a relatively low RCS, decent range, two way datalink (now) and in the form of MdCN is VLS compatible. The Broach warhead will make short work of anything it hits. We have had a missile in service since 2002 that could have also been a heavy weight anti-ship.
Its a common failure of Europeans, we don’t capitalize enough on our success.
Definitely. We should absolutely have integrated it onto the F-35 as it would have significantly increased the CSG’s strike range and also give the RAF something to shoot at enemy ships with.
One reason, is the asymmetrical load if the aircraft returns to the carrier with only one missile. And at 2,900lb it’s heavy. And It’s a very expensive munition (£790,000 a pop) to ditch into the sea. Same reason it wasn’t integrated onto the Harrier GR7/9. Another reason is, long range precision strike can be provided with TLAM from Astute SSN that is part of the carrier strike group. F35B Will be equipped with SPEAR 3 with 140km range. 8 missiles can be carried internally.
True
The TLAM limitation is that the Astute won’t have that many onboard whereas the various VLS could each have a few so sending 10’s to target could be be reality.
Say 8 in each of 2 x T26 and 6 each of T x T31 then you can have 28 missiles to throw at the other side.
An Astute might have 8-12? Less than that and the torpedo racks start to look a bit thin.
TBH £790k for a missile isn’t much these days. They were only that cheap as we ordered a big stockpile.
Granted it is heavy.
Let’s hope it becomes a reality on T26 and / or T31/2. Think Astute can carry 48 weapons; I’m not sure how many of those would be TLAM. I guess the load out can be tailored depending on the operational requirement.
It might be useful to see if either or both of these could be cannister launched and so be fitted onto the T23/T45s pending operational requirements while there is still life in them. I read somewhere that RAN are looking at a cannister version of LSRAM, TLAM for the Hobart Destroyers and also possibly TLAM for the RCN T26s.
And surely you wouldn’t want to potentially lose an Astutes stealthy strike attributes by firing missiles unnecessarily on occasion.
And very much that too.
I’ve never understood the Astute TLAM thing as the only source of land attack missiles in service.
Perhaps the F35b needs a ‘concrete bomb’ of same weight as Storm Shadow – load 1 of each into bomb bay and when/ if Storm shadow is fired you also ditch the concrete bomb. Result empty bomb bay. If not bring both babies home 😉.
Hey! Its cheaper than devloping a hypersonic missile😂.
The main reason Storm Shadow integration was cancelled was because by the time it was integrated to F-35 it would only have afew years left in service.
A pity they cancelled it in favour of Tornado.
The Harrier already had an “emergency clearance” to fire baseline Brimstone (dual-mode Brimstone is almost identical).”
“The Ministry of Defence has assessed that it would in principle be technically feasible to launch the Storm Shadow missile, which is the UK’s only air-launched cruise missile, from a number of in-service and future fixed-wing platforms other than the Tornado fast jet.
“The Harrier II Plus is capable of deploying the Sea Eagle anti-ship missile from MBDA (formerly Matra BAe Dynamics), which is a fire-and-forget sea-skimming missile also carried on the Sea Harrier, and the air-launch version of Harpoon AGM-84 surface strike missile from Boeing.” https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/av8b-harrier-ii-plus/ “In January 2021, the U.S. Department of the Navy awarded Vertex Aerospace LLC the $123 million Contracted Maintenance, Modification, Aircrew, and Related Services (CMMARS) task order in July 2020 to provide aircraft maintenance and Contractor Logistics Support (CLS) services for the U.S. Marine Corps’ AV-8B Harrier fleet until 2029. The AV-8B is equipped with one centerline… Read more »
I’ll just make me point – yet again – that we could do with buying back the old SHAR IIs / AV8s for the carriers… or stick one on the back of a frigate. 😊
We need something useful that’s for sure. See my post at the bottom of this thread!
…and the Ruskie incursions in the NAtlantic, NSea, Channel, and Med would be more circumspect if there was a Harrier immediately in the vicinity coming in at low-level with at least the possibility of dishing out some bad news for the day.
As I commented on another thread it is **possible** that this has already been addressed. It would certainly explain the lack of urgency around RAF procuring things. As you say this is just a software processor issue. Ironically Storm Shadow has just about the poorest available hard information – I’m not saying that is a bad thing. The harpoon brochure tells a lot more! Similarly with Aster I’m unconvinced that it couldn’t do a close to hypersonic dived attack on a ship. Smaller warhead but a lot of kinetic. It is cheaper to update software than to deletion a whole… Read more »
It would make a lot of sense if Storm Shadow had an unpublished secondary anti-ship capability. The RAF haven’t had a heavy weight anti-ship missile since Sea Eagle. Though Nimrod was cleared for Harpoon, as is the new P8. The Aster 30 still has a long way to go to compete with SM6, especially when it comes to maximum engagement altitude. MBDA have published that Aster 30 has a maximum engagement altitude of 65,600ft, whereas Raytheon say SM6 is more than 100,000ft for the Dual I version. The SM6-1B is get a new larger diameter rocket booster. It is this… Read more »
It is fun to do a bit of informed speculation!
I like how you think, but is the atmosphere thick enough for an air breathing ramjet at that altitude…?
Yep, a Ramjet will keep working up to those altitudes. In 1961 a Bomarc B Ramjet powered surface to air missile intercepted a target drone at 100,000ft and it was still accelerating. The USAF estimated that it could have reached 131,000ft before the engine couldn’t breath anymore. NASA’s Scramjet powered X43 managed to hit Mach 9.64 at 110,000ft in 2004.
Thanks, that’s helpful.
One of the criticisms that often gets thrown out about Meteor by the USAF AIM-120D/AIM-260 club is that the ramjet limits engagement opportunities at higher operational altitudes. Those numbers there suggest that it’s good for any A2A combat engagement, as well as the lower end ABM use that you talk about.
It was politics plain and simple, plus a way to justify its not built over here, so we’re not buying it. I expect there was a lot of lobbying by the US missile manufacturers not to get it. The USAF know how good Meteor is by first hand experience from Red Flag and other exercises. They poured scorn on a really long range air to air missile as a concept. Yet the AMRAAM replacements, the Lockheed Martin AIM-260 JTAM and Boeing LRAAM will have a similar performance to Meteor. They are quoting the JTAM with roughly twice the engagement range… Read more »
‘ere, who are you calling a “Thick atmosphere”?
To be honest warhead size becomes a bit academic on on hypersonic missiles as the kinetic energy of something missile sized travelling at around 4000-5000mph is around the same as an intercity 125 crashing into you ( I did the maths on The energy from one of the high speed missiles the Russians claim to have and it was around the same as a train doing 125mph)
True.
So the warhead might actually have to be more to decelerate the missile or to spread the impact over a wider area?
Interesting thought that.
Otherwise the missile would just punch down through the ship and might just make a neat narrow hole.
Yes you would actually want a missile that either tumbles on impact or acts more like a hollow point. So the warhead could be more about allowing all that kinetic energy to be dumped into the ship by helping the missile body break up. That’s one of the reasons I would be really interested to see how sea captor would workS against a ship. That small warhead is not much but a 100kg missile doing 3 times the speed of sound is a lot of Kinetic energy.
Getting through the plating is pretty trivial with that sort of energy.
Issue is more how to turn the kinetic energy into predictable ship killing damage rather than a neat(ish) hole.
HESH on an Aster, anyone?
It is more about critical timing.
First blast to open up a narrow opening in the deck but preserve kinetic.
Second blast to convert kinetic to wider damage.
The Royal navy cheaped out on the launch cells on the type 45s they are not deep enough to carry the navalised storm shadow.
Good.
It costs 3 times as much as TLAM.
And its very different from Storm Shadow. Doesn’t even look close to it.
“Why couldn’t they add some moving target software”. Doesn’t the IR seeker imply that capability.
As SB says above, perhaps it does, but its not published?
Thanks all. Helps clarify.
They need to stop giving the same thing 6 different names depending on platform and country.
At least the US designations are so bizarre no one forgets them.
Funding line secured. That’s one major hurdle passed.
Yeah already a good thing even if its damn far away.
Do we think that the stealthy one will be available sooner than the very fast one? I would have thought so, and if it was able to target (say) ships…this could be a good thing.
Like the idea of using spear3 to soften up the defences especially if a jammer is used in the strike. They may have 20 barrel ciws, but think of the ammunition expenditure if a dozen spear3 are inbound followed by something zooming in at Mach 20 (or woteva).
AA (reaches for brandy to calm excitement)
Subsonic stealth is easy to make since we already know how to do it.
(SCALP / MdCN)
Hypersonic is obviously the most complicated.
That element might be deployable first.
Hard to see why the subsonic needs to be held up by the hypersonic?
Hypersonic is the new buzz word. It’s not that complicated going that fast. Big motor. We already have missiles going Mach 4+, we have ballistic missiles going Mach 20+ and have done the development decades ago.
The problem seems to come from the targeting side and deciding flight profiles etc.
Ma 4 is supersonic, not hypersonic.
Yes, not that hard to going fast, more hard to accurately guide the missile to the target.
That’s why the lone AS hypersonic capabilities at the moment can only be achieve by a combined speed:
-Travel phase in going hypersonic
-Terminal phase at supersonic/high supersonic speed with high agility from something like the pifpaf of the ASTER.
Agreed, perhaps we will see the supersonic version using a scaled up throttleable ramjet from the Meteor?
Agreed. The flight control system on a high speed missile needs to be very very tight. Any control surface movement no matter how small will impart high G loading and move the missile a fair distance. Pifpaf gets around this somewhat by using control jets of gas to “shove” the homing head in the direction it needs to go. You still have massive G loading but no control surfaces to worry about. In the terminal phase this system lets the missile get closer to the target in the final seconds of an engagement so that the small warhead is closer… Read more »
Is this a contract that can’t be backed out of? Or is it just a yeah we’ve got the money in future. Honest I’ve got a trust worthy face. I will give u my passport as collateral lol
I thought the French withdrew because of the AUUKUS deal? I’m guessing this is the long-awaited Perseus program?
Perseus was just an MBDA concept, nothing more.
They didn’t withdraw they just paused the initial talks. Now back on.
Thanks.
Aside from the “we have the money” part, the rest was as clear as mud… 🤷🏻♂️
I think there has been some confusion around this. From what I’m seeing there still hasn’t been a decision on which missile type to select, and no decision has been made around there being 2 missiles. The confusion appears to have arisen as the tweet uses the French designation for FC/ASW, FMAN-FMC, when put through google translate this appears to indicate 2 missiles but is essentially the same thing as FC/ASW. The 2 missiles on display are the same mock-ups that have been exhibited since le Bourget some time ago. Basically, much as I’d like it to mean there will… Read more »
Yeah, we dont have much data for the moment.
Wait 1 or 2 more years before knowing something really interesting:.. Maybe after the completion of the french tests on their hypersonic vehicle.
The exciting thing for the Navy (and RAF) will be hoping we don’t face a peer adversary in conflict at sea between now and the future unspecified date when this capability finally becomes operational. It’s like asking the army to train without ammunition for a while until the “next generation smart super amazing bullet” becomes operational sometime in the 2030’s.
Meh, China….
Fired it’s wonder hypersonic missile at a stationary target and missed by 24 miles
Would be nice to be able to shoot back though surely?
What happened to the planning assumption being “in service by 2027”, used to argue that the interim missile wasn’t worth it? that was only six months ago.
Let’s get the surface/ship attack missile, please.
This looks like good news, and although this might be 99% of the posts I make, but I’ll say it anyway – I would like to see a large expansion of the technology sector in this country, and although you NEVER wish to see them used, weapons technology (be it missiles, aircraft or ships) bring together a lot of allied fields – material science, computer science, optics etc etc; and then the pool of skilled people demanded for these industries should bleed into the rest of industry. Technology that is used for weapons is also often adopted in other spheres,… Read more »
Intresting picture:
Same picture has been seen for a number of years at trade shows and MBDA presentations. Those mock ups have been around since at least 2019 as well.
The most expensive missiles are those that having been paid for, sit on a shelf all their life. Making the FC/ASW the same missile would save having half the stock never being used for want of a target, hopefully. BTW, Trident stands alone in that, by definition, it does its job by never being used, and if it is, then it’s failed.
I’d hope the whole military was the same, never used, its very presence ensuring the peace. I’d pay extra for that. But in the real world…
Virtually no other navy takes that head in the sand view. In any expected or uncalculated conflict we send our warships into, they can be blown away long before any other anti ship capability gets into range. We have fantastic subs, supposedly, yet only 6 or 7. The RAF has no ship killer missiles. Many nations make their own AShMs & keep both their own & other nations equipped with them despite the alledged folly of buying kit that hasn’t been used-apart from in the Falklands war, Gulf war, Yemen war. Only 1 type of our helicopters(Wildcat) can carry lightwieght/very… Read more »
Fitted with Fresh Air (FWFA) is cheap!
I can’t spot where I said that the RN shouldn’t have an heavy anti-ship missile. Maybe you could point it out for me?
Apologies, I’m just taking on the treasury/MOD innaction of being happy to gap the capability & use that argument. I have Rantomatic capability & aren’t afraid to use it!
No worries. If it weren’t for all the jumping to conclusions and flying off the handle, I wouldn’t get any exercise.
And how many ships have been sunk by these missile wunderwaffe since 1945?
Several. HMS Sheffield & Atlantic Conveyor in 1982, INS Eilat in 1967, Pakistan lost two destroyers, a fleet oiler, an ammunition ship, approximately a dozen merchant ships in an Indian attack in 1971, Iranian FFG Sahand in 1988.
Do we gap torpedos for our subs since only one or two ships have been sunk since WW2? No, navies know how vital & potent they are. We play with fire leaving the capability of our ships.
No Royal Navy warship that deployed chaff has been hit by an anti ship missile.
It’s a very different world now. Those that have AShMs and many do, I think are highly likely to use them. The Russians and Chinese love to shoot stuff off. Just think bloody large ATMs for ships. Better we have sone too than not and good with LA. We’d like a few more subs with torpedos too.
I agree, the naval staff should get out more and feel the salt on their face and realise for a hapence of tar they are risking their sailors lives. Their fault and the RAF for not taking things seriously. To me its completely incomprehensible. Why is no one resigning? The Russian dispositions are now suggesting in a war scenario they will come into the open ocean and fight it out and interdict trans atlantic air reinforcements and Europe as a whole by a tight blockade and ground our airforce. I can see their plan as clear as day. Why cant… Read more »
Royal Navy with no anti ship missiles until 2030’s !??
One supersonic, one subsonic, no Hypersonics???? Given the the weapons currently available off the shelf and hypersonic weapons already being test launched in the US, why on earth have we signed this agreement? What exactly are we aiming to achieve? Why wait a considerable period of time to acquire weapons we can acquire elsewhere in a far more rapid time frame?
Finally! Bit concerned about the idea of a subsonic cruise missile and supersonic AShM though. One catch-all bit of kit would allow greater numbers and greater operational flexibility. With 2 distinct variants in 2 district roles I fear the UK will only stump up the cash for 1 or will try and go for both but end up with paltry stocks and lots of vessels ‘fitted for not with’ or with empty MK41 silo’s.
I’m afraid you are right.
Things like nuclear depth charges might well be needed again sadly as Russia has them and might be less shy about using those than surface tactical nucs simply because there is less mess.
Subsea is the Russians main theatre.
Taranis, in its smaller development platform, would make a useful subsonic, stealthy cruise missile. Capable of deploying serious firepower for singular delivery system.
Once Pandora’s box has been opened, stuff that escapes cannot be put back in. As we retired the WE177 that was a tactical nuclear weapon that was also used in depth charges. It would be pretty easy for AWE to make again. The designs were not destroyed and the fissile material was stored or reused for Trident. You may not be aware but our Tridents are getting a new warhead designed and built by AWE. If they can design a MIRV warhead, a tactical one will be even easier.
If they do start making WE177 again please let them also update the test equipment. It was like using props in a shonky 1950s syfi movie! Lots of clunky brown/black bakalite with moving coil meters.
So to summarise. Lots of money going into R+D. But no clear in service date. No clear release or idea as to just how many UK plc is gettinh. So numbers or true understanding of the proposed weapons capabilities range or payload.
2030s or late 2020s is not going to be quick enough Russia and China will outgun Western navies by then with their hypersonic weapons already test flown and entering low rate initial production.
There will be no major war within the next 10 years… Where have we heard this story before.
Just had this info from another site say replacement by 2028?
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2022/02/future-cruise-and-anti-ship-weapon-fc-asw-program-reaches-new-milestone/
It’s far more critical to have all the capabilities, reserve stocks & numbers deployed to carry attrition to have a decent conventional deterrent so that the nuclear option is a distant, ultimate option. Making our forces so small, gapped & obsolete leads us to nukes far too early to be sensible & requires allies to fill our gaps.
Frank, the reality is that we have to see ourselves as part of an Alliance-in this case, Nato. I would hope the UK would never even consider using the Nuclear option unless as an absolute last resort in retaliation. There were rumours at the time that Maggie considered threatening it in 1982 but I have my doubts as to the veracity of that claim
Was in the navy for the falklands war and skua was a great achievement, however sea eagle was supposed to be the next generation surface to surface but unable to get it to work,or over the horizon radar , we need third party or we’re basically s::t
As was proved in the Falklands the Exocet (French missile) was very capable of taking out surface contacts (susceptible to chaff) but better than anything we had to offer (we bought Exocet for surface ships) so any cooperation is welcome as they have a proven track record
The exocets used where air launched and one was land launched. The seeker head was easily decoyed by 3″chaff rockets. SRBOC wasn’t fitted until after we all got back. Post conflict we had Jammers and all sorts of other goodies fitted. For the Gulf there where even more countermeasures, Barricade, DLF and Lynx fitted with Yellow Veil. No surface units on either side got a chance to shoot exocet. It had a short ish range and if you needed to go over the horizon you needed a helo to spot for you… Much the same as you do now. Exocet… Read more »
Some trivia as you guys have said all the important stuff-I bet that in the uncaptioned photo at the top, the middle guy is the Chief Frenchie and the man in the light suit with the kindly smile is the Brit. The other gent-not sure.
Vive L’Entente Cordiale!!
The caption is in the tweet after paragraph 2 😮 As I read it L->R: Chief DGA bod (big French Bureaucrat), High up DES bod (big Brit Bureaucrat), Boss of MBDA. The Brit is in the middle even of the captions are R->L. The MBDA boss is the one not protecting his crown jewels imo either because his is the only fly that works, or he knows that clasped hands don’t work to stop a missile. “The General Delegate for Armaments Joël Barre, the Director 🇬🇧 @DefenceES & the CEO @byMBDA , launched the preparation work for the future anti-ship… Read more »
Haha Matt-nice one😂 and there goes my stereotypes out the window! I thought the mildly untidy lad in the light suit was a typical Brit Boffin whereas the character in the middle was a smooth continental. Ho ho ho!!
Why can we not just buy RBS 15 for UK Warships the US has we are nearly at a Cuban Missile Crisis we need a long range misslie now will not cost much we only have two working RN Ships
🙈
“The UK Royal Navy (RN) faces an extended gap in its heavyweight over-the-horizon anti-surface warfare (ASuW) capability after plans for a limited buy of ship-launched anti-ship missile systems was abandoned.
Industry was formally notified by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) earlier this month that the Interim Surface-to-Surface Guided Weapon (I-SSGW) programme had been cancelled.”
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/naval-weapons/latest/uk-confirms-cancellation-of-i-ssgw-programme
Yup the over-the-horizon stuff is crucial. As a non-military person I found the recent “Warship” Tv programs profoundly embarrassing – though not surprising. We desperately now need better offensive weapons, not in 10-years time – particularly anti-ship. Despite manufacturing and budget problems we need more attack subs too. Come on Gov/MoD – wake up!
…and we need again our own indigenous defence industry strategic capability – not rely on the French or German industry.
Agree with both posts.
MBDA is partly (37.5%) owned by BAE systems
Yep. However I am arguing for a strategic element to our defence industry whereby the UK can take project lead and ownership of the IP and controls arms sales – so these things are not then used against us. 37.5% ‘aint 51%.
Not used against us “cough, cough Falklands” Type 42, Tiger cat etc” The main manufactures of missile merged for a very good reason in that there was a limited market/funds and they didn’t all want to compete with each other, hence MBDA
Thought a Blowpipe was used against the Harriers in the Falklands and some time into the conflict the lovely Frenchies released the code to land-fire the Exocets.
Yes I can see why the missile companies get together, but I am arguing for a UK (CAN/AUS) missile industry that does not export such arms. i.e. we invest in our own tech, with some assurance that it won’t be used against us in the future.
I cant see why Canada or Australia who buy most of there equipment from the USA would want to get involved in a UK missile program which would then need to be intergrated into there (US) equipment as well as footing a huge bill because the manufacture has only three customers with a limited requirements, hence a huge cost.
Which part did you find find embarrassing?? the program I watched showed an incredibly professional crew and warship operating in very difficult conditions. Aircraft and subs sink ships. That has been learnt from decades of experience of operating around the globe. Vessel launched AshM missiles have a very poor record. AshM on vessels sounds and looks impressive. But in the real world, they are of limited use.
I’m not criticising the crew. They did their best with what little they had. In a post from another thread I said overall and in one particular episode: Dramatic needs of TV aside, It looked like to me, (and sounded from the dialogue) that the Russian warship/spy-ship came to just 8-miles off the coast of NI, and then called in the Russian aircraft to buzz Northumberland (mock attack from 23k ft down to 500ft flypast) at the same position. No disrespect to the boys and girls aboard Northumberland as they are just the last cog in the wheel, but the… Read more »
The T23 is a very capable warship, especially with 2087 sonar 997 Artisan radar and 32 Sea Ceptors. It’s a match for anything Russia can muster. And at no point will the Russia warship or Bear bomber have entered UK waters or UK airspace. The Bear will have been intercepted. QRA at Lossiemouth and Coningsby is manned 24/7 365. And the UK Air defence system is a very well oiled machine. Have a little faith.
I want to believe Robert, I really do, but I must admit I have zero faith in UK Gov & MoD to adequately equip our military for the threat. More than most I am aware of how the Media can distort a story through basic editing and I’m sure there is a load more stuff that is not broadcastable for security reasons. However, just following the narrative in that particular episode the Russian spy ship was 8-miles of the coast of NI and shortly afterwards the Bear buzzed HMS Northumberland at low-level seemingly in the same vicinity – no sign… Read more »
All warships suffer breakdowns and maintenance issues. They are extremely complex. The Russians will have exactly the same problems; things go wrong from time to time, and they will have had COVID outbreaks. One Russian vessel had very at sea for 166 days. Could you imagine how low moral will have been on that vessel? They don’t get to do nice runs ashore in Portsmouth or France; when I’m sure most onboard, would love the opportunity to do so. And that Bear WILL have been intercepted. Nothing moves towards the UK without being escorted by Typhoons. The Bears sometimes do… Read more »
Sure Robert. Yes I understand that all ships break down. It just struck me that that the tearing of the front gun barrel rubber(?) gland was a bit of a design vulnerability in heavy seas. The program did not show any interception of the Bear and it came all the down to do a low pass, so surely a Typhoon would have followed it down if it were there? The Bears are dropping all sorts of sniffers in the Irish Sea and this was seemingly all about protecting the approaches to Faslane and the program gave the impression that the… Read more »
8 miles off the coast of NI is still in international waters. And remember, it’s a TV show. And some events are made out to be more dramatic than they really are.
Sure, I understand the TV stuff Robert. BTW UK waters are at the 12 miles limit from shore and in my book NI is in the UK..
Albert. We have one of the most sophisticated and capable air defence networks with 24/7 Typhoon capability, and huge radar coverage that is networked in with the wider NATO umbrella. The RN safeguards our shores 24/7. Russia isn’t invading the UK, so I wouldn’t lose too much sleep over it. Trust the professionals Albert. We are extremely competent at this kind of work. The Russians do not see us as weak, or a soft target.Very much the opposite in fact. It’s a big game that’s been playing out for decades.
The 4.5 gun be it the Curvy original mod 0 or Kryton mod 1 does not fair well when you start headbutting big waves . The gun mantle which is the part of the turret that the barrel comes out of as the gun elevates and depresses has always leaked. A fix was done in the 90s by a Chief Tiff who designed a canvas bag arrangement that attached to the barrel and onto the turret protecting the mantel whilst also allowing movement of the barrel . He got a Herbet Lott award for it…(probably a 25 quid book token… Read more »
As always thank you for your detailed knowledge Gunbuster – much respect in these matters. I can see that in heavy seas the forces on any barrel-to-gun mantle joint must be horrendous. So it’s canvas. Ah! Well at least its not rubber or nitrile so freezing temp and u/v exposure should not be so bad. It just struck me that as the potential failure of this joint leads to ingestion of water into the ship, and critically its electrics, then surely some sort of fail-safe/back-up arrangement should be implemented to at lest contain it within th egun turret. In the… Read more »
I had read that the approach couldn’t be agreed (French wanted fast, we wanted stealthy) so they are doing both (with the inevitable costs and slowness of development?)
Think everyone has said it already but we need something now (pref JSM and NSM – our primary ASuW weapons are submarines and then the F35 so they need a weapon which they can use).
Something long-legged and stealthy would seem to be the sensible way forward. Mach 5+ compression heating and sensors don’t seem to be something which will work together that well.
Russia and China are developing hypersonic cruise missiles – we are going to get a sub-sonic missile! They are having a laugh….
The anti-ship one is supersonic, can we have hypersonic please….
So when will we get a new ASM?
Hypersonic vs subsonic, doesnt mean the subsonic is less advanced…
Subsonic: Stealth, long range, waypoint capabilities (and you can add:.)
Hypersonic: Mostly ballistic, precision ?x?, quickly on target, hard to intercept
I must say, hard to intercept is just a question of years, all depend on radar because an ASTER launched in time with the right guidance can intercept hypersonic threat.
With the boost in ballistic calculation these last years, I’m not sure about semi ballistic and ballistic hypersonic missile to be a real threat in the next decade…
Russia has hypersonics that are ballistic and manoeuvrable… a subsonic missile gives a long time for you to detect it and shoot it down. Stealth is only reduces signature it does not make you invisible. I think son of Storm Shadow is already out of date. If you want to go subsonic stealth you should at least have a M5 plus terminal sprint…
Do not get me wrong I am not saying hypersonic missiles cannot be shot down it is just that it is harder to do so…
“Russia has hypersonics that are ballistic and manoeuvrable”
They say, do you have any footage or proof ? x)
Subsonic missile can also be just above the ground like most of the sea skimming AS, very hard to detect in time.
Its easier and less costly to upgrade a missile stealth than a fighter stealth.
For me AS subsonic is not interesting, but still a good thing for very long range cruise missile.
I prefer to see Hypersonic + high supersonic terminal for the next AS.
Wait & see!
Hypersonics will meet their maker with new super fast computer tech. Just a matter of time before they are blasted by lasers so directed.
Good video showcasing all the missiles on display.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7m9wkllH7IQ
When I watched the Sea Serpent section I was reminded of the Israel-Singapore collaboration (Blue Spear) and thought – this is what we could have had, only better.
“French needs/workshare will come before Britain’s.”
And why ?
France needs are the same for AS, you just need to understand, its not a tomahawk…
Apparently we are now the 3rd biggest spender on defence globally, what the hell does it all go on??? Certainly not numbers or getting things done quickly.
Exactly.. is there something we don’t know about? How are we the 3rd biggest spender when there is little to back this up when all you here about is reductions and delays.
Some excellent discussion chaps nice to see everyones point of views. Iv just found this article on Forces.net explaining in detail our current missles the armed forces use and there applications. https://www.forces.net/technology/weapons-and-kit/know-your-missiles-uks-most-high-tech-firepower…
It pussles me if we have meteor a Mach 4 missle that can take out a knats gonad at 200km why the tech can’t be used to make a longer range and bigger warhead variant for ASM role. And the same goes for storm shadow. Are the 2 different missles on display in the photo upgraded versions of stomshadow and meteor?
Nice link – thank you
I feel the French are going to drag this out and eventually cancel as with most other multi-national projects, even the Germans are getting fed up with France and the future fighter project.
German and FCAS are the worst example…
They dont want to let the french export the NGF, they want to have access to all technologies from Dassault and Safran.
They just want to rape the french industry..
We now have two weapons, maybe because we can’t agree. They’ll only drag out the one they don’t want, and only if we don’t drive it ourselves.
Again procurement taking several years to long and is their any military justification for developing a hypersonic and cruise missile ? Please someone with expertise Tell us. Is cruise missiles now the equivalent of a bow and arrow ? Are the Russians or Chinese developing a new one ? Sounds like big excuse to give tax payers money to defence Co. Common sense would dictate we develop at least one type of Hypersonic missile ASAP. Do what the Russians and Chinese do, if we can, and steal the R&D!
Did the cannon make the pistol obsolete?
Did the mortar make the Howitzer obsolete?
Its all about the right tool for the job, and the biggest, most expensive hammer isnt always the right one.
So the hypersonic venture will not be apart of this project after all that??? Supersonic is just more of the same?
A lot of people getting all febrile and moist about the much over vaunted ‘hypersonic’ Russian/Chinese anti ship missiles. Hint, faster means you just miss wider if you can’t see the target. The much touted Chinese one missed a stationary target the size of 4 football fields by 24 miles.
Given recent events, the RN surely can’t now wait to the “back end of this decade or the early 2030s.” An urgent operational requirement for the Interim Surface to Surface Guided Weapon (I-SSGW) is surely back on the table. I wonder if the USN could spare us a couple of dozen Harpoon 2’s – ship and air launched variants.