Interim surface-to-surface missile negotiations to begin soon

I believe we must be prepared for war, even if a world war is less likely to happen now. Is it really that much to ask to put 8 anti-ship missiles on each and every one of our escorts? And nowadays many of the missiles have a land attack capability too, which could come in useful.

I’m not so sure about the Russian navy not being a big threat, but you are right about their carrier. Their navy is definitely a threat to our undersea cables, but that is off topic here.

I guess that brings us back to the topic of the article. A new anti ship missile to replace the current system. Not sure if T45 will get them, but definitely T23 and T26. Don’t get me wrong, anti ship is important, but looking at the budgets, and the threats, other capabilites might be higher up the priority list. Spear 3 and Meteor for F35 for example. And we have the superb Spearfish on our Astute boats.

Only five T-23s are to get this interim missile (or at least that was what was stated before).

Although Spear etc are probably really good, they aren’t really long-ranged, ie I feel we should be prepared for war with the big boys not just with lesser adversaries.

I suppose for me it’s all very pertinent as although i’m British i live in Russia, and I see how militarised society is here.

I’m not sure how many vessels will get it. I think we need better cyber warfare capabilites and the spread of disinformation from countries like Russia. Where in Russia do you live if you don’t mind me asking?

Definitely true about cyber and disinformation. I’d rather not answer the other questions, but i’m not a spy if that’s what you’re asking lol

? that’s ok, I’m just intrigued. Don’t get talking with to many people who live in Russia.

I think your playing by Cold War rules. Russia has shown a complete disregard for rules, have used chemical weapons on Uk soil, Ukraine, Crimea. When they do act it won’t be a 1970 warfare as extension of politics your used to.

But what has Russia to gain from conventional conflict with the west? apart from economic ruin. Putin has been in power a long time, they would get annihilated by the west in conventional conflict. And it certainly wouldn’t be the UK against Russia on our own. Cyber and espionage needs to be beefed up against Russia.

Conflicts are sometimes emotional not logical, happen for many reasons. I also doubt many NATO members would actually do anything, think many talk a good talk but if they aren’t threatened would do little. Putin is also getting old, I fear more for when he dies or looses his grip. Never assume enemy thinks logically or like you. That’s why if you want peace, prepare for war

But we are prepared for war, people seriously underestimate and seem to enjoy putting down our own capabilities. We are just about to deploy a carrier task group to the far side of the world, yes, it’s still early day’s in the carrier and F35 programme, but know other country apart from America can do this. Certainly the Russians can’t.

Exactly! When shove comes to push I reckon some will do nothing and throw their hands up. We need to be prepared to fight and defend ourselves alone. We need to be armed to the teeth really, but there seems to be no appetite for it.

I often have conversations about what will happen when he drops dead. He’s getting older now, and there are some signs that he wants to go into retirement of a sorts, but he knows he can’t as all his dirty dealings would be brought to light. For this reason he has brought in a law to prevent any present or future leaders being put on trial. But age catches up with us all, as does failing health, and he might lose his marbles, which could be a real threat to word security. He will have thought about all the possible scenarios himself and about who could follow him into power. One possible person is the head of the military, who now has a bigger media presence.

We seem to get the bit between our teeth and concentrate on that.

The threat at sea would probably come from the Russian Navy submarines – Astute this, Astute that, how many are actually at Sea? How many are under build. How many T23 can you throw at the problem – what is the total area one 23 can sanitize?

I think the RN are in a dire state and a war with Russia might happen in double quick time – did we know Afghanistan was going to happen?

So, conventional British wisdom is that we will have a heads up – I disagree and both parties need to grip this mettle, stop wrapping it in the flag of the Union – just how much do all the new ones cost? – and invest in Defence.

Interesting conversations taking place on BBC Parliament with many senior ex-braid being questioned over the course of the last few weeks, try to catch an episode if you can.

Defence is under funded, the Navy needs more investment and more recruitment and frankly, we need Babcock to get more orders for an improved T31 with ASW capability in service by the end of the decade, not 24 platforms in service by the mid-30s.

Rant over.

That is a very good rant David ? as I’ve said to others, what has Russia to gain from conventional conflict against the west? America alone could wipe them off the face of the earth. And the future of the RN is pretty bright considering the strain on the economy.

It’s a serious mistake the West keeps making assuming our potential enemies think like us with our “logic” , we thought Germany was all talk and would be mad to go to war with everyone as they just couldn’t win, Japan, Ukraine Crimea, the list goes on, especially with a form of government much different to our own you can’t assume anything as they are so different to us. An aging putin swears to take back their old empire to deflect issues at home, something like that is usually hugely supported by his population as they are willing to endure hardships our population isn’t. Even now with economy suffering they still support him.

We also have diplomacy, we live in a small world now, with interconnected economy’s. All these countries need our trade. And what effects one part of the world effects another too. It’s not like the old days anymore. Want trade deals with China, not conflict. I work for a offshore wind farm company, we are building wind farms in the straights of Taiwan, less then 50 miles from the Chinese coast with European vessels and crews, and guess what, not one has been threatened by any Chinese warships, or swarms or land based anti ship missiles, not one, nothing. Some just want to big up the threats, and completely forget about diplomacy and trade and common sense.

That’s not logical it’s like saying because I haven’t been murdered that no one gets murdered. I suppose the reports from fishing and trade vessels in the area are all lies?

That isn’t the experience the vessel’s that work for us have had, or past RN deployments to that part of the world.

I agree, I think the mistake many are making here is looking at the tactical picture while ignoring the strategic one. WW3 would by definition invoke the entire NATO fleet, and the capability that brings. For any smaller adversary an ASM attack might take out a single RN ship but it would be an act of suicide.

ASMs are a poor cousin to airbourne delivery hence their popularity with Navies without effective carrier strike and/or SSN. Good luck getting your ship in ASM range of a CTG. The US only have them in abundance because they have everything.

But if you look at China and there huge roads in area denial even strongest navy in world doubts carriers and air power will do it alone, hence newer long range fire power. Against a tier 1 force things will be very different to the Falklands

That’s my whole point – China is WW3 scenario, Falklands is obviously different. What I’m saying is look at the bigger picture and don’t conflate the two arguments. Would China really start WW3? They have far too much to loose for little potential gain, no winners here. Argentina invaded the Falklands because their government was on its @rse and had nothing to loose. Hence the IR policy to reach out to China, while maintaining boundaries, is a sensible one IMO. Forcing people into a corner always ends badly.

True but assuming we don’t need a weapon because they would be illogical to fight invites them to think they can win. Was Hitler fighting logical? No. Can’t assume enemy will be logical. Walk quietly and carry large stick

But again Germany was on its @rse after ww1, that’s my whole point. China is not in the same place. They will carry on doing what they are doing as long as it works for them.

No, I disagree if you are basing your evidence on a conflict in 1982? The Argentinian Navy didn’t have much in the way of SSMs. Their main punch came from the Skyhawks using iron bombs. If the Belgrano got within 15km of the carrier group, life would have got interesting. However, HMS Conqueror put paid to those plans.

If you look at other regional conflicts, such as Egypt vs Israel. Then the SSM has been used to good effect. The recent conflict in Yemen has shown that if a side has SSMs they will use them. Thankfully the Houthis don’t have air surveillance assets to help them fire and target ships that are beyond the horizon.

The more recent attacks on shipping transiting the Red Sea have shown how poorly some SSMs have performed. Bearing in mind the missiles used were Iranian copies of Chinese C802s, which in turn are reverse engineered Exocets. The three separate attacks on the USS Mason in 2016 highlight this. Over 50% of the missiles fired flew into the sea. The remaining were neutralized by decoys, whilst the ship’s anti-air missiles took out the rest.

Is this conclusive evidence that SSMs are crap. No, just that the Iranian copies cannot be relied upon. It did show that the ship’s Aegis worked as advertised though, correctly spotting the incoming threat then employing its systems to counter the threat.

As another member of this forum states: “Kill the targeting chain and the missile’s job gets much much harder!” That brings us to the RN’s current rules of engagement (ROE) which states that an enemy must be positively identified before its attacked. So unless the ship has access to third party targeting, it will be relying on within visual range engagements and cooperation with the ship’s helicopter.

Both Martlet and Sea Venom confirm to the current ROE. But also allow it to attack targets beyond the ship’s horizon. These missiles can also be used against a shore target. However, they don’t have the heavyweight punch to knock out a large or fortified target. Therefore the ship requires a heavier weapon.

With today’s financial climate it is no longer practical to have a single purpose weapon, but rather one that can engage a number of various targets is required. This is the problem that radar guided missiles have. Their target resolution is generally quite poor and will lock on to the largest valid reflection. Therefore smallish moving targets on land are out. Unless you use a very high frequency radar like those used in Brimstone, that can produce detailed images of the target. The best option is to use an imaging infrared sensor. That will produce a very high resolution black and white image of the target.

There are only a few missiles currently on the market that meets these requirements. The best of which is the Kingsberg NSM, which is a subsonic, stealthy missile.

For the RN Harpoon carriers the Helo’s do carry out OTH drills on a regular basis. With the Passive identification devices on the Wildcat it does mean that OHT is much more effective. No radar involved and the PID lets you see a target from a lot further away than you could with a pair of binos on Lynx Mk3s.

To ensure the ROE is easier for the RN a data link capable missile will be essential for long range engagements. IIR has advantages over radar homing and a dual homing solution on the Absolutely Final Future Missile Choice would be the ideal solution in 2030. For now though to tied the RN over a radar homing missile with a data link will do

“render their tactical effectiveness limited”

Imagine you’re on a enemy’s ship for example and you know a T-26 armed with a naval tomahawk with very little warning can reach out and send you to the bottom from over a thousand miles away. The deterrent effect alone can paralyze an opposing fleet.

Maybe so. Although I’m not convinced about the deterrent effect. The RN , like many other Nato navies regularly patrol in seas where protagonist navies are supposedly armed with an abundance of ship killer missiles (Black Sea, Gulf, South China Sea etc.). No paralysis there.

As they should but I’m certain in a conflict the thinking would be completely different. China’s entire SCS strategy is based on making the SCS a shooting gallery for the USN in a conflict. Anti ship missiles are probably the main reason for all the debate in the US military about how survivable the surface fleet is in a conflict with China.

So yes they do patrol all these hotspots during peace time. The issue there is generally you don’t get a barrage of ASM fired at you during peace time.

With the advances in propulsion, seeker technology, and ISR capability of navies, I’m genuinely surprised that this threat is being taken so lightly by some.

I don’t think the threat from them is taken lightly. A type 45/23 or future type 26 is very capable of defending against an ASM attack. The 4 or 6 or even 8 SSM that may be carried by a RN warship probably won’t make much of an impact against a Chinese or Russian task group.

China is doing that, but the logical countermove is improving defences, not imitating it.

China is doing that because it cant project power and to overcome CBGs would require such huge missile forces.

China has a smallish surface fleet of limited projection capability – the counter to that is air and submarine power. Hence the US going for those in terms of aircraft numbers/programs and sub strength.

What would be daft would be trying to get into a surfafe to surface battle against an opponent with land bases on its side. Use air to neutralise them.

It’s not taken lightly, but the “action on thinking” is very different. You need to think about what we are trying to acheive, and matching an opponent 1:1 is not effective at doing that.

“China has a smallish surface fleet of limited projection capability”

I don’t think anyone who is paying attention to the way they are building modern, capable ships would make that argument. Yes they are not able to project that power yet, but they are certainly working towards it. It is almost a certainty at this point that their next carrier will be nuclear powered. That’s just the next one. there are plans for even more carriers after that one.

But getting back to the argument about anti ship missiles. In my opinion, it seems the USN acknowledges it can’t out build china at this point and the best way to counter the numerical advantage is by building lots and lots of anti ship missiles. Just look at the recent procurement contracts. Everything that floats and flies will be armed with them. Even the subs will have them.

I dont think anyone who understands what each side is trying to acheive would consider that the US needs to out SSM China and that SSMs are the be all and end all. The Chinese fleet is large and growing but it is still defensive orientated as the USSR one was – bar peacetime expeditonary deployment of course to interfene. But its not trying to cross the Pacific.

The US has largesse so a spread of capabilities is inevitable, but its main effort is very clearly in air, anti air/BMD and sub power. If anything, the missile investment provides reality checks on what it needs to defend against – but AB Flt III shows you what they really want to achieve and SSM is just a bolt on afterthought in comparison.

SSM are not the be all end all but they are a great way to be ahead of China on the cost curve. As I said previously the USN can’t out build china but it’s clear that part of the plan is to negate the numerical advantage by building ever more capable weapons similar to what they did in the cold war against the soviet union.

Remember all that third offset talk from a few years ago? You don’t hear the term anymore but building an ever increasing arsenal of these weapons is that in action. If they can fire off a salvo of million dollar weapons and knock out a billion dollar ship then that turns out to be a great counter to the building spree that China is on.

Again, based on procurement decisions, it is hardly the case that SSM is a bolt on addition as you say. The USN currently has 4 anti ship missile in it’s arsenal. 4 publicly acknowledged I should clarify as their is widely held belief that their is a sub launched supersonic anti ship missile that was developed a few years ago.

Air would be ideal but there is nothing on the horizon that will give the F35b in UK service a truly killer punch against larger capital ships. Spear 3 may have a disabling effect and paveway IV brings you too close unless you are confident in say nightime stealth. Astute is fantastic but can it cover 3-4m sq kms of ocean?

China is a real growing threat in SCS, wider pacific and the Indian Ocean. They have a lot of mouths to feed and their fishing fleets are encroaching on many fronts. Danger, I suggest, is a territorial flashpoint that escalates rapidly and, as @netking points out, their naval fleet is growing significantly larger (numbers and unit tonnage) and significantly more capable.

But we dont need to do it all ourselves.

Spear3 isnt going to arrive singly, and P8 us Harpoon.

As we saw in 82, air and subs is where its at, SSMs feel almost a waste of money – if youre in that range youve been in land/air/sub range for a long time.

And how do you target and provide midcourse updates ?
Tomahawk flies at 500mph. 2 hours to arrive at the target area which in all likelihood the ship will have moved outside of the missile homing head seeker basket.
Its also a fairly slow missile so its quite easy to detect and engage with missiles and CIWS.

I’m pretty certain a modern data link was added in one of the upgrades a few years ago which allowed it to be retargeted during flight. It also has a loitering feature which has become a lot more appreciated in the conflicts recently.

You are correct that it is a slow missile which is the tradeoff for the huge range. In terms of being easy to detect and target, cruise missiles by default due to their size and flight path(map of the earth and/or flying in from a direction and angle that mask it’s presence) are difficult to detect and target even for modern radar systems.

In terms of detecting and engaging it, I suppose in an ideal situation where it’s one tomahawk against a modern surface ship then it’s a relative straight forward intercept but it’s highly unlikely a peer would launch an attack that way. It would undoubtedly be a salvo of missiles, arriving from different directions, probably timed to arrive at the ship within seconds of each other, while aided by some form of electronic attack.

I agree with Rogbob that these missiles are not the be all and end all but their are a potent and versatile weapon for any modern fleet.

The Mk. 57 would be better for the RN, with 28 inch wide silos to quad pack CAMM ER.