The MoD are looking for missile with ship launched over the horizon precision anti-ship capability and a terrain following precision maritime land attack capability.
The MoD Weapons, Torpedoes, Tomahawk and Harpoon Project Team (the TTH project team) advise they are looking to outfit five Royal Navy vessels, the Type 23 Frigates, with the systems.
According to the contract notice:
“The TTH project team, part of the UK Ministry of Defence, hereafter referred to as the authority, has a requirement for the provision and introduction into service of the I-SSGW system as an interim replacement for the existing system that is going out of service.
The I-SSGW is to provide a ship launched over the horizon precision anti-ship capability and a terrain following precision maritime land attack capability.
It is anticipated that the I-SSGW capability will operate on X 5 Type 23 (Towed Array) frigates capable of concurrent Anti-submarine warfare (ASW) and Anti Surface Warfare (ASuW) operations in protection of a formed Maritime Tasking Group, for a 10-year period.”
The Harpoon anti-ship missile was due to be retired from Royal Navy service last year, that changed however. Jane’s reported that senior sources informed them that the missiles would remain in service at least until 2020.
According to the publication:
“There is work ongoing to look at options for longer extension in service.”
Royal Navy ships were originally to lose anti-ship missile capability in 2018 when the Harpoon missile is withdrawn with a replacement not due until ‘around 2030’, the interim missile would fill that gap.
What options are there until 2030?
According to Naval News here, there are only a few realistic options for the interim missile system:
“With this new requirement in mind, likely remaining bidders for the the SSGW requirement include Lockheed Martin with the Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM), Kongsberg with the Naval Strike Missile (NSM) and Saab’s RBS15 Mk4 , three anti-ship missiles of the latest generation.”
According to the contract notice, the system will fill the 10 year gap until 2030.
What is being planned for the 2030’s?
The Anglo-French Future Anti-Ship Weapon (FC/ASW).
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.
Equally funded by France and the UK, the FC/ASW Concept Phase is a product of the defence relationship set out between both nations by the Lancaster House treaties.
Recently, MBDA announced the successful achievement of the weapons “Key Review”, jointly conducted with Defence Equipment and Support (DE&S) and the Direction Générale de l’Armement (DGA), the British and French armament procurement agencies.
The conclusion of this Key Review makes it possible to select the most promising missile concepts in order to meet the requirements expressed by both nations’ armed forces.
The firm says that more in-depth studies will now be conducted on these concepts with the aim of identifying the solutions that will be selected at the end of the concept phase in 2020 in order to answer both nations’ requirements for long range anti-ship missions, suppression of enemy air defences and deep strike.
“The conclusions of this study will also make it possible to establish the road maps for maturing the technologies required, and to launch any follow on assessment phase. This new phase will demonstrate the necessary maturity of the weapon system and its key components, to be followed by the development and production phase in the 2024 timeframe, so that current weapons systems can be replaced in accordance with required timescales.”
The FC/ASW programme was born from converging requirements expressed by both France and the UK for a long range anti-ship capability – to deal with the possibility of a confrontation on the high seas, a capability to neutralise the most advanced air defences, and a deep strike capability that can penetrate defences and hit long-distance hardened targets.
I’m sure the RN will make a good choice here! But Why not just upgrade our harpoons to MK2s?! And why are only 5 ASW frigates getting them!. But Atleast those 5 sets could be transferred over to the 5 type 31s further saving money. I think Saab’s RBS 15 Mk4 looks the best option for the RN in the short term in terms of price and canister launched and It’s warheads almost twice the size of the NSM, and it’s Range is further at 300km. We no doubt will all have different choices here.
To answer your questions: -Harpoon (and Exocet) lack any precision land attack capability, which rules them out now that more info has been provided on requirements -the 5 youngest ASW frigates are the only ships that might get effective use from it. Harpoon is staying till 2023, so the 5 GP frigates don’t need new systems, and the 3 oldest ASW frigates will only be in service for another 1-3 years at that point. I personally preferred the NSM when we were just talking about an AShM, but now that land attack is involved I think you’re right about the… Read more »
Finally, NSM seems to be the best fit and carried by the USA too.
It can also be launched from land.
Who is Harry Bulpit??? It’s Nigel Collins! Admin/George Allison, can you look into this please thank you.
Let’s hope the RN spends wisely as the budgets only 200 million for everything. But Atleast they found some money for some anti ship missiles and Saab’s Thor’s speer or what ever it’s called in English has land atack capability also adding another capability to the type 23s all be it only 5 and if transferred to the type 31s gives them a land atack capability also.
Me. Was wouldering why i kept seeing comment’s in my name.
According to wiki ( ok I know) Boeing offered to upgrade the USN Harpoon 1Cs to Block II +ER for well under $1M per missile. Way to go if its meets the spec I would have thought.
I agree
The NavalNews piece linked to in the article suggests that Harpoon and some other candidates for ASM won’t meet the precision land attack requirement.
I suspect land attack is best done with a land attack missile such as block 5 Tomahawk or the Israeli Rampage/Trigon.
I fear the RN is wanting Emirates First class while only having Ryannair money.
Upgrading existing Harpoon to block 2+ may not tick all the boxes, but it is doable on the limited budget.
In my view land attack missiles (and ASM) are going to exist in a range of solutions that scale according to the need, in much the same way as we see air-to-ground missiles and bombs do. This is dictated by tight RoE and a desire to limit or eliminate collateral damage. We also want to avoid having numerous different missiles that have largely the same effect, hence combining ASM and land attack for flexibility of weapon use. Tomahawk and Harpoon are old platforms regardless of updates and we should be considering more advanced options. NSM/JSM would be the first step… Read more »
If the money is there. I worry that it won’t be.
Rereading I think you might be right there. The requirement stipulates terrain following capability not just GPS or INS for the land strike. Perhaps this is why Boeing withdrew from the LCS bid and left the field clear for NSM.
Hopefully this means the 2 remaining Type 45s (Defender and Dragon) can get their own Harpoon sets coming off the upgraded Type 23s.
I didn’t know they were losing their harpoons that soon. All destroyers won’t have any when harpoon goes in a couple odd years I believe, leaving only 5 ASW frigates with the new anti ship missile.
Even the navy admits that harpoon is obsolete and would be unlikely to get through a modern air defence setup. Whilst it’s short sighted not to already have replaced, losing them isn’t as bad as it initially sounds.
May be unlikely to get through a modern defence system, but against the likes of Iran?
Would never be used, since it would be over kill vs the type of vessel Iran utilities.
True, but unlikely to be used against China or Russia either (or we’re really in trouble) – and I was using the term ‘the likes’ – to include NK, Argentina, etc. Meanwhile, overkill is still kill – and is something that seems to happen a lot in other theatres. Millon dollar missiles to take out a technical?
Iran could love it: more likely to take the tankers out for them.
This is a fair point, in a real shooting war situation with Iran or similar, then they would come in useful.
We saw in Iraq war 1 that the helicopter based torpedoes were pretty ineffective against even smaller patrol boats and required large numbers of them to disable the ships.
With 5x T23 (Towed Array) being selected I assume that this is primarily to support carrier group operations until the T26 are available in similar numbers.
Also I wonder if what we are really looking at is the RN wanting the JSM variant, versus NSM? JSM is discussed mainly in the context of air-launched ASM, primarily from F35, but Kongsberg were also investigating torpedo tube launch and have suggested Mk41 is also an option, so a canister option seems practical. JSM provides more options across a range of platforms while waiting for whatever results from FC/ASW.
The Saab RBS 15 Mk4 can be ,inched by the Gripen so I’m sure it can launch from other aircraft like F35b and typhoons in future if they want to that is.
There are integration costs and time associated when a weapon is added to a platform, its neither quick nor inexpensive. The attraction of JSM is that Norway and Australia are already paying to have JSM integrated onto F35 as part of Block 4 upgrades and this has been underway for some time. Japan has also adopted it for their F35s. RBS 15 would only have value as ship launched solution for the RN, it wouldn’t make sense to pay for its adoption onto F35. It also seems to be headed towards end of life with Saab having a contract for… Read more »
I agree that JSM could be a good fit for the RN, as it covers a number of platforms (F35 etc ) as you say , but I would imagine Norway would be keen for in to be intergrated on the P8 too which would be another bonus.
Also it is Mk 41 VLS compatible so could be used on T26 too.
Hopefully Norway and Australia will pay for that integration too 🙂
That’s interesting, It seems JSM is the one!
JSM (A more compact version of NSM, for F-35 internal carriage) was stated as being MK 41 compatible in 2014, and no further announcements have been made. There are a few customers around who would be interested in that VLS solution, but it appears Kongsberg haven’t gone any further with the idea, concentrating on the air launched version for sales.
Shame, its a good dual purpose anti-ship and land attack missile. Not fast, but low observable, which is hugely important.
If we ever need to be in the business of taking out enemy warships, we already have the finest weapon system in the world for such an operation. The Astute class Hunter Killer. ?
Yeah but they have to be in location and with so few that’s going to be very hard, but then again if we are targeting ships we will more than likely only be in one war like that at any one time and I hope the MOD would know in advance and have assets on location or near. And Atleast we didn’t cancel boat 7 like I thought they would have.
It does seem like commenters focus obsessively about ship launched ASM. Provided we know where the ship is then Astute is a great platform. The big caveat is being prepared to send the Astute to the ships location and away from what the Astute may be protecting and of course the Astute can only be in one place at one time. The counter is that provided there is a means to target a ship launched ASM over the radar horizon, then it will be able to cover a much larger area than a submarine can and tackle threats from diametrically… Read more »
I respectfully disagree. It’s not an obsession, it’s just fact that most other major nations have armed their warships with a wide variety of weaponry and we are behind the curve and lack firepower to respond. All we can do currently is shoot down incoming missiles and have little to respond with. We seemed to have slipped dangerously into a mindset of ‘this vessel will defend against this, and that vessel will defend against that’. Ok great, but how do we take out that vessel attacking us? With so few ships, every one of them should have layered defence and… Read more »
I was looking at the Egyptian Navy the other day and I noticed they have 6 old British missile boats, and they are small at 300 odd tons and have 4 × Otomat Mk2 SSM missiles 1 × 76 mm OTO Melara DP gun 1 × twin 40 mm Breda AA gun ST820 air and surface search radar Cutlass intercept radar 2 × ST802 fire control radars Cygnus jammer 2 Protean chaff dispensers When did we lose all our fast missile boats and is it worth basing a few in the straights and Gibraltar and falklands, ok maybe not but… Read more »
To what purpose though Cam? What problem are you trying to solve? What goal are you trying to achieve? What threat to counter? Warships don’t exist in a vacuum.
Thanks for the detailed response. I used the word obsession because it often seems there is a demand for weapons in the absence of context for their use. Consider Harpoon. Why is it the US was perfectly happy with Harpoon along with everyone else using it until relatively recently? I suggest its because Russia wasn’t a serious threat. Can you see Russia launching a surface attack against the US and if so under what circumstances? It was also because until relatively recently China wasn’t a threat for a surface engagement either. That has now changed, hence the US renewed interest… Read more »
Correct as any military which is only able to defend will lose every time. Pre-emotive and retaliatory strike are both concepts of an effective Defence. We lose that ability, we lose the capacity to dominate the battlefield. Any county which only has the ability to defend will love every single time!
I really dont like the idea of having our entire anti-ship capability confined to a single platform (Astutes) and a single weapon (Spearfish). What we need is a missile that can attack land targets as well as ships, and can be fired by multiple platforms; a single missile type is cheaper than separate land attack and anti ship missiles. So my choice would be NSM/JSM, fitted onto Type 23 frigates and later the Type 26s and Type 31s, also maybe the Type 45s. Also fitted to the F35bs. That gives us capability to attack ships from the surface, underwater, and… Read more »
Putting all our eggs in one basket with the Astutes, especially when we only have 7 available, is inviting possible disaster.
Any Royal Navy task force would have a likely escort force of 2 Type 45 destroyers, 2-3 Type 23 frigates and, at best, 2 Astute subs.
And by the time its selected, reviewed, delayed and finally deployed it will be nearly 2030 anyway…
This should have been on the agenda a decade ago!
Makes sense that the TA T23 will get something. The GP T23 will have Wildcat and its airlaunched missiles. The TA T23 will have a Merlin that won’t carry ASMs.
The next thing is what will they choose. NSM is a bit light on range and warhead. LRASM is more capable especially if you have a Merlin doing mid course guidance or long range targeting.
We shall see….
I think we should buy the Brazilian MAN at least it is supersonic unlike the slow doddery offerings from the USA and Sweeten! While Russia, China and India all have supersonic/hypersonic missiles we have conservative old fashioned missiles that would be easy targets for an S400 or similar…
We have fallen behind in ASM and now we intend to compound the problem by buying systems that are not much better then Harpoon – who are we kidding!
Rob N
I am really curious with what exactly the t31 will be armed with.
If they won’t be arming all the top end t23 with anti-ship missiles, it draws questions on the lower end t31 and what they would be useful for in a war situation.
I wonder if the very first comment on this article (by Cam) might have the answer. 5 x T23 getting this interim solution which by definition won’t be Mk41-launched, presumably it’ll be deck canisters, and there are currently 5 x T31 planned. Coincidence? Maybe this is indication that T31 won’t have Mk41 (which given the cost doesn’t surprise me that much), or if it does it will be FFBNW for the RN variant, so any ASM would need to be canister mounted hence the 5 sets of whatever interim solution is chosen for T23 could be cross-decked to the 5… Read more »
Well the type 31s will surely get the 5 systems taken of the type 23s, but the timing of delivery and replacement of ships seems to be at odds with that great money saving idea!
5 systems and 5 t31 does seem like a very big coincidence. If we assume a task force type of engagement (most likely scenario for the RN in a war situation, as total armed forces is too small to be spread too widely), then i would assume Central hub would be the carriers and main supply ships, guarded by a couple of t45s providing air defence There would then be an anti-subsurface bubble around the hub, using maybe 3-4 t23, which would also be able to provide anti-surface defence, as they would be further out. You would then have the… Read more »
If the choice of kitting out only 5 T23s with the interim missile is as you say because it is intended to be carried over to the T31s, it’s also perhaps an indication that the T31 class will be stuck on 5 hulls 🙁 so much for Cameron’s claim that we’ll be also to buy more than 5 then…
i think it’ll be the Saab RBS15 Mk4 they’ll choose.
On one level it’s good to see the RN/MOD taking anti-ship munitions seriously. However, given that the last T23 was originally supposed to go out of service this year, I can’t help but feel that this is more money down the pan because we couldn’t make a decision on our frigate replacement 10 years ago. Really the MOD should be looking at a cross services solution, one that can be integrated with RAF aircraft as well and fill the gap in maritime strike that we have had since Sea Eagle was retired. Chances are though this is being treated solely… Read more »
the_marquis – In an ideal world a common Missile System that can equip Surface Warships, Submarines,both F35 and Typhoon plus P8 would be the best solution, but going by Sods law maybe having one that can be used by Surface Ship’s and the F35 will be the priority seeing as this requirement is for an interim system.
Yeah i wouldn’t disagree that something is better than nothing but it’s just another layer of fudge on top of more fudge, in the sense that this is an interim weapon for a class of ships that are being lifex’d themselves, ie their continued service is an interim measure in its own right.
It is not worthwhile fitting Mk. 41 to the T45. The RN will not have any warpons Integrated and tested on T26 for Mk. 41 until about 2027, by that time T45 will have less than a decade of lifetime.
The RN is not making enough ues of the existing Sylver system as it is, some A-70 cells could be fitted now on the T45s. Warpons for A-70 cells have already been integrated by the French, and other Europeans.
I would say the Mk. 41 is more essential for the T26 to deploy ASROC anti sub warpon.
Oh no i’d say the T45s should have way more life in them than that. Daring commissioned in ‘09 so she’d have at least 12-15 years, and the rest of the class even more, and that’s without us procrastinating for a decade over their replacement and embarking on a costly life ex programme as we’ve done with T23. I agree we’ve not made the most of Sylver but I also think it would have been better to standardise our modern escort fleet on the Mk41 VLS for maximum compatibility both within our own fleet and those of our principal allies.… Read more »
Meirion X – It makes you wonder why the Type 45’s were not built with Sylver A70 cells from the get-go,as you say it opens up other options and would negate the procrastination over the fitting of MK41 cells.
I agree Paul T, like the French did!
I see this as a good news story, we are replacing a obsolete system with somthing better as a stop gap. But I do think it’s alot of fuss about nothing, of course we all want to see our warships bristling with the newest and most deadly toys, but like everything, it’s a balance of budget v requirement and threat. And at the moment, there just isn’t a real, genuine likelihood that we are going to start lobbing missiles at somebody else’s warships. For that to happen, massive political fallout with another nation will have to have taken place. And… Read more »
One issue with that is that we all know it takes years to decide on, order, purchase and install any new weapon on our ships, plus then the training. If there is a massive fallout with the likes of Russia or China to the point that we have to engage in military action against them, we wont have time to do that. Even if it were fast-tracked. You’re working on the assumption that we will have time to equip our ships, when we cant guarantee that. As awesome as the Astutes are, we only have 4 right now, and will… Read more »
It’s my understanding that harpoon is so operationally limited (stupid) that it is not really usable unless we somehow stumble into world war 3. So having the carriers main escorts with some modern usable ASMs that could be used in more likely events seems like a bit of common sense ( even if we keep the harpoons on other hulls for the very unlikely).
Nigel Collins, not Harry Bulpit. Please, can admin fix the problem! It’s interesting to note that the RBS 15 Mk4 air missiles can be launched from the JAS Gripen E as well as trucks. I still think this aircraft would be a perfect fit for the RAF if we sold off the earlier versions of Typhoon. For air policing duties (Meteor already operational) and protecting our coastline (RBS 15 Mk4), it really is a no brainer given the cost of the aircraft and maintenance fees. The EJ200 engine can also be fitted to the airframe, so with Typhoon and Gripen… Read more »
I have a lot of time for the Gripen and it will be interesting to see the Gripen E and F come into service in the next couple of years. It appears to be an immensely capable aircraft that is both affordable to buy and maintain, with excellent avionics and weapons fit. The MOD will not countenance the RAF acquiring a third fast jet type, as it is one of those commandments that has formed in the collective conscience that such a thing would be prohibitively expensive, and besides, we are £10bn short on our procurement plan for the next… Read more »
NIGEL COLLINS
Very well put the_marquis, Let’s see what the budget will be if we leave the EU without a deal.
A substantial increase in defence spending will surely have to be considered and talk of £7 Billion being removed from the overseas aid has already been mentioned.
A Typhoon Gripen partnership for the RAF makes a great deal of sense allowing all F-35B’s to fill the carrier air wings.
Hawk replacement?
Aren’t Saab touting the C/D models round the market as an Aggressor aircraft for air to air combat training? Altho I can’t see the UK going for it in that role, or as a Hawk replacement, as there’s other things the money could be spent on.
It’s a shame Saab can’t get much luck on the export market either as it’s a 21st century Northrop F5.
Off topic(ish)… But the Telegraph is all but announcing that Babcocks gave won the T31 competition.
Indeed and if so very good news.
I cant help thinking though that for a GPFF the Absalon class is a better fit as the extra deck offers so much more flexibility.
Whether that be 2 Merlins, the extra 55 vehicles, or 2 CB90s.. the list goes on… so perhaps an opportunity lost, rather than one gained.
But out of the contenders no doubt in my mind the huitfeldt is the best option.
Fair points. The notion of an “Expeditionary Frigate” is plausible… even if we had 2 and even if it’s weaponry need not be excessive, but flexible.
Given the T26 is our high end and the T31 is supposedly a general purpose frigate, you would imagine the general purpose bit would be critical. The absalon class has the same weapons fit as Huitfeldt/Arrowhead, yet offers so much more flexibility and may even be cheaper to build. Absalon class frigates have led many a nato and international fleets whether that is piracy or in the gulf with distinction and it really does have everything the huifeldt class has except 4 engines and a bit of speed, which I think is a) not necessary for this class, b) correctable… Read more »
All fair points. But don’t we have amphibious ships anyway, and even if we do not would not 2 “propper” amphibious ‘Expeditionary’ ships be better?
As an aside, it seems to me the “general purpose” moniker is misused. It is not really a do everything. It’s more a hmmm, a “journeyman” ship.
Morning Trevor Not sure in this day and age we can afford any journeyman ships. The T23 is a great frigate which has turned into a multi mission ship. I wouldn’t even call them frigates destroyers any more, they should be called Global combat ship (which is the T26’s original name I believe) and the Global mission Ship. I would like to see us develop a corvette similar to the Freedom class or perhaps the C-Sword 90 to complete the set which would be a multi mission ship. We do have dedicated amphibs but the reality is that in the… Read more »
OK, my original post was deleted, I’m not sure why. But lets look at the contenders rationally. 1. Tomahawk land attack missile. The UK only has the sub launched version. It is an excellent weapon with over a 90% success rate. It has many mission flight profiles, using low level as its primary method of attack. There was a dedicated anti-ship version but that has been cancelled. The RN uses the Block IV version that has a two way data-link, an inertial nav platform and GPS. There are plans to include a multi-mode radar which would allow it to attack… Read more »
Very well explained Davey B,
NSM plus one other would clearly be the preferred option depending on what the situation requires at the time.
Excellent post.
Thank you.
I Would like to see Storm Shadow/SCALP to be also used as the heavy weight ASM, it is really designed to hit harden targets. so NSM for T31s and T23s.
The French have already integrated SCALP with Sylver VLS.
A few Sylver A-70s on the T26s would be useful. It looks like Mk. 41 on T26 will only be used to launch RUM-139 VL-ASROC.
The RN should consider an alternative VLS setup for Type 26 frigates.
It would be, Sylver A-70 cells for SCALP and FC/ASW, A30 NT. And have ExLS units for RUM-139 VL-ASROC.
I cannot see Mk. 41 ever be compatible with FC/ASW.
Lets hope the MoD fund the integration of FC/ASW to Mk.41 vls to give it a useful set of warpons.