The Sea Venom anti-ship missile is on schedule for delivery in 2026, according to the UK’s Minister of State for Defence, Maria Eagle, in response to a parliamentary question from Shadow Defence Secretary James Cartlidge.
The confirmation came during a written answer session in the House of Commons on 5 September 2024.
Cartlidge had asked about the accuracy of the missile’s certification timeline, seeking clarity on whether the project remained on track.
In response, Eagle reaffirmed that the development of Sea Venom, which is intended to replace older anti-ship systems and strengthen the Royal Navy’s offensive capabilities, is progressing as planned.
“Sea Venom remains on schedule to be delivered in 2026,” Eagle stated, offering no indication of delays or issues affecting the timeline.
Sea Venom, developed jointly by the UK and France, is a lightweight anti-ship missile designed by MBDA to modernise the naval strike capabilities of both nations. Known as “Anti-Navire Léger” (ANL) in France, the missile is set to replace ageing systems such as the Sea Skua in the UK and AS 15 TT in France.
The missile is specifically designed to target smaller naval vessels like fast attack craft, while also being capable of hitting larger targets such as corvettes. Its 30 kg warhead is designed to inflict significant damage, and the missile offers precision through its infrared seeker and optional “man-in-the-loop” guidance via a two-way data link.
First test-launched in 2017 by the French defence procurement agency, the missile has experienced some integration delays, particularly with the Royal Navy’s Wildcat helicopters.
Originally slated for an earlier deployment, full operating capability was pushed back to 2026 due to ongoing challenges. Despite this, Sea Venom’s stand-off range, advanced attack modes including sea skimming and top attack, and flexibility in platform integration make it a key future asset for both navies.
When fully operational, the missile will be deployed on helicopters such as the Eurocopter Panther, NH90, and Wildcat. Additionally, MBDA is developing a surface-launched variant, further broadening the weapon’s versatility.
This has always sounded like a very effective weapon and early trials seemed promising including firing during CSG21 if I remember rightly? However, integration onto launch platforms seems to have been seriously delayed for reasons that no one is willing to comment on…
Lets hope 2026 delivery date doesn’t slip again…
Cheers CR
Ummm…could that have been a test of Martlets as opposed to Sea Venom on CSG 21? Believe contemporaneous accounts appeared to oddly, and perhaps ominously, failed to mention Sea Venom operational trial(s)?
Incidentally, why all the questions posed by this MP, James Cartlidge? Wasn’t this individual a defence related minister in the previous government? Intent to embarrass new government, or a sign of early onset dementia? 🤔
From MinDP to Shadow Secretary. There were worse choices. I suppose he’s drawing lines in the sand.
I understood that a prototype version of Sea Venom was taken on CSG 21 and was available if necessary, but I can’t recall where I read that. My recollection is the same as yours about the lack of trial announcements.
👍
Labour continuously asked him questions and he reported the status to parliament. I think he is simply just monitoring progress to ensure delivery of the various project which have been started. I have no doubt he will critisise should anything slip or change – the best he can do in opposition. If Labour start down playing defence I am sure he will alert us to the fact – lives could depend on it.
Thanks, appreciate the explanation. Turnabout is fair play. 👍
labour party is out of its depth already
Yes I was cynical upon first reading, but I guess it’s a formalised way of checking upon a new Govt’s commitment to the programme and perhaps more importantly any prospective delay to timelines that might have political over technical issues.
the latter one I expect
Asking questions is his job.
Questions, and will there be a ship launched version? Like with the Sea Brimstone? Might be useful for coastal, littoral patrol type ships. Can the Venom be used against land and vehicles too and if it can will be put on the Army Wildcats?
I don’t think anything came of Sea Brimstone. Sea Venom was intended to replace Sea Skua: same idea, man in the loop, helicopter launched, naval targets. I think the idea is for the helo to pop up, launch and then disappear below the radar horizon while maintaining communication with the missile, visually guiding it onto the target. Not sure but it may also have an active seeker mode too. I would guess that within the horizon the obvious weapon is 30/40/57mm gun and beyond the horizon its NSM provided you have the target location. So Sea Venom a niche weapon… Read more »
Excellent comment
🙏
I was going to say the same. Great reply Paul. Thanks.
You say within the horizon, gunfire, and beyond the horizon, NSM, but Wildcats will have a significantly longer range than NSM and can loiter. Also you need to have separate targetting information for NSM when beyond the horizon, so you are going to have to have something aerial anyway.
Yes; I think the RN would have liked Sea Venom sooner. Not sure why integration was delayed. As you say, the combination of Wildcat, Wescam and Sea Venom enables a vessel to exert influence over a significant area.
Don’t forget CAMM provides a good ASuW capability..Mach 3 means it takes 25 seconds to get to the radar horizon ( that’s vs around 2 minutes for a standard western Antiship missile and 50 seconds for 5inch shell) The U.S. navy have used Standard Missiles as a within radar horizon weapon very successfully and each future RN vessel will have min 24-48 of them.
Yes, a T31 ought to be able to look after itself. It will have layered defence against surface threats.
it will be a nasty surface combatant if what was said comes to pass and it gets 32 mk41 silos as well as 8 deck launched NSMs. It’s certainly will not be a patrol frigate ( in which case the RN would have played a blinder…turning a programme for cheap patrol frigates into a programme that delivers 6000 ton powerful ASuW surface combatant).
I think the RN have hired Obi Wan Kenobi. ‘The Force’ is with them. As my grandmother used to say ‘if they fell off the Co-op, they would land in the Divi(dend)’.
What good are NSM again a Russian frigate , they have half the range of Russian anti ship missiles so either they get fired of a chopper or they can’t get in range .
Range is really not the relevant factor…you can have a missile with a range of 200miles..but it’s pretty pointless…kill chain is all that matters and essentially for escorts that means with the radar horizon..ships cannot detect each other beyond around 20miles simple as and you have to find the target ( know it’s around ) exactly fix the target location, track the target so you know where it is going, select and fire the weapon, engage the target with the weapon then assess the damage or not… simply put escorts do not fire at each other from hundreds of miles..they… Read more »
Thanks for the in depth info and taking the time to explain . We should really have anti ship capability in the air the now . So with what you have said and explained . Is that why the Royal Navy have run with out anti ship missiles on warships as there is slim chance they would be used ?
Basically yes…there have been a huge number of ships and navel vessels destroyed in war since 1945 and infact there are no recorded episodes of large surface combatants ever firing heavyweight anti ship missiles at each other.. this is a list of the engagement types that included kills or mission kills of navel vessels in order of numbers 1) air launched anti ship missiles and other air launched weapons..the RN on its own had killed or mission killed around 20 vessels in this way. 2) small boat ambushes..these are the most common use of sea based anti ship missiles..lots of… Read more »
Interesting . It makes sense . To the guy taking an interest with limited knowledge. Would it not be dangerous for a war ship to get so close to launch an NSM missile for land attack ?. Also our strike group f35s are only currently using lasers guided bombs . So how would our strike group sink a ship ?
To be honest any ship has a bit of a risk when undertaking a strike on land.. land based navel strike aircraft have a significant range.. which is why the west tend to use SSNs unless they are picking on a nation with poor navel strike aircraft ( to be honest that’s most of the world). as for the laser guided bomb..they will work and the pave way IV actually have quite a good range ( remember the RN lost AAW ships to an air launched missile with a range of around 22 miles and to iron bombs that were… Read more »
Good explanation , you’d think they would buy some American anti ship missiles untill ours is developed and in service . It’s crazy . Whats your view on the carriers only having phalanx ? Should definitely have Camm considering we have very few escorts ? Is it really needed ?
The big issue is missiles are not plug and play..it takes a couple of years of work to integrate a missile onto a platform..There is an option for typhoon..as almost all of the integration work for Marte ER was done by the manufacturers of the missile. Re AAW missiles for carriers…it’s a bit more balanced as if you fire a silo based missile from a carrier you essentially have to stop air ops until you have cleared the deck of fod. So your better firing your missiles from an escort.. but the addition of 57mm or 40mm bofors would be… Read more »
and that added land attack capability will also enhance the power of the CSG. which really consists of to a dozen f 35 b and a few tomahawks lobbed from a submarine the h.k CSG is a good PR opportunity but in reality is a bit of a paper tiger and exercise in vanity to show the world that the royal navy. is still a top tier one. which we all know is not true.
Well it is top tier in regards to being a blue water navy, in reality your list of blue water navies that can project power across the globe in order are: 1) USN 2) PLAN 3) RN 4) La Royale with a couple of almost 5) Italian navy 6) Indian navy Thats really it for top tier blue water navies..every other nation is essentially a regional navy..even the very large regional navies like japan. and in reality the RN could now put a CBG that includes a modern 70,000 ton carrier an SSN a couple of modern AAW destroyers a… Read more »
For the moment from what I have read China’s available aircraft carriers cannot operate effectively outside of the inner island chain. Only when the Fujian is fully deployable will that true blue sea capability be achieved as a battle group.
Nope..they have sent a carrier battlegroup out around Guam. They have a regular clockwork set of surface action groups deploying into the India Ocean and out to the gulf. They send a surface group down to the antipodes on an annual basis and seem to be now sending a small group throughout the med, North Atlantic to Russia.
Would like some enlightenment here. Ukraine’s use of Neptune missiles to sink the Black Sea flagship. From what I remember of the direct explanation I read from those involved it went something like 1) they had information the ship was somewhere in the vicinity. 2) they obtained more explicit information about its relative position (don’t remember, or they didn’t detail how) but didn’t know if the ship was still there. 3) Decided to take a ‘punt’ using Neptune and fired them in the general direction hoping it’s onboard seekers, when activated and within range of suspected location would detect the… Read more »
I think the point is Ukraine gambled very very hard on the fact the only thing out there would be an enemy vessel..and as you said they fired and hoped the RN would never ever do that, their ROE would never allow that. Fire a anti shipping missile into a sea lane and you always have a chance it’s own seeker will lock onto something…you just don’t know what that will be.
a fast moving spud thrown by a burley sailor could deal with a russian frigate. We’ve seen russian naval capabilities exposed in the Ukraine obsolete low quality equipment coupled with.pkor sailors and leadership the fear of the Russian 🐻 is nothing like many would have us believe.thejr army has been battered by the Ukrainian one, air superiority has never been established. our intelligence will know where the majority of it’s nuclear capacity is located and NATO. should only really be concerned about the underwater issues I’d expect NATO would mop up the russian submarine fleet quite quickly.
U.K. subs won’t as we have none at sea . Not one .
10kg warhead is not going to do much damage and probably more expensive than using Martlet or Sea Venom.
A 100kg missile travelling at Mach 3+ is the point..that’s far more energy dumped into a hull than a 8in AP shell. The 10kg warhead is gravy…and even so 10kgs of programmable warhead is a lot of damage..it does not take very much to mission kill a modern warship. A U.S. AAW cruiser was once mission killed by a single shrike missile.
Why would you need a ship launched version with 11 NSM sets bought?
Why do you need CAMM when you have Aster?
A30 is CSG wide area defence and ABM.
Sea Ceptor is medium area defence and offence and cheaper (£330k) so used against lower tier threats where you don’t want to use your seriously expensive limited missiles.
The point seems to be that Sea Venom would be to NSM what CAMM is to ASTER.
I’d say the comparison would be better between NSM and FC/ASW, but I suppose it’s reasonable.
NSM ship launched . Who we firing them at as it’s half the range of Russian and Chinese anti ship missiles so can’t get in range
My presumption would be I guess Europe being what it is geographically there are many scenarios where land masses restrict effective range so it’s better than nothing. The other question is how good those Russian missiles are at a given range particularly at longer ranges, targeting and all taken into consideration. They have far longer air to air ranged missiles, have for decades than even Meteor but it’s been considered the gold standard because amongst other things its terminal stage lethality. Not saying I know the answers to all this I am just pondering as I say, but ultimate range… Read more »
👍
Pretty sure that was his point
£330k well at least it cheaper than a top of the range Dialysis machine ,as we used too say when firing of Ikara or Sea Dart VFM . Oh how the WEO would stare at us God I miss High sea firings ( just be sarky SB ) But just hope the up coming first Labour budget this autumn , takes into account the geopolitical state of the world and any future threats that may arise ” seek peace prepare for war” .
Munitions need to be expended periodically both to check they work as advertised as well as to get the crew used to the sonics and feel so they know what is going on blind.
That’s why High Seas firing was a such a kick ,we just loved seeing the look on the WEOs face everything went as it should in accordance with the BRs a cheer would go round through Ops room or 909s .Then someone would say “wow there goes another Dialysis machine ” .It was just someone making a correlation between the cost of a missile and the cost of a Dialysis m.achine . One takes life one keeps life. That’s all I was saying I did quite a few HSF it kept us on the ball ,so if anything we’re too… Read more »
Well only around only 30% of the escorts will have Aster and aster is not radar agnostic in the same way CAMM is…also CAMM is cheaper than ASTER 15 and is profoundly cheaper and has a closer engagement range than ASTER 30…it can also have a greater missile density..is cold launched etc etc…it’s like asking why would you have a light support weapon, when you have GPMGs
Not only that each ship will have 34-48 CAMM, a pretty nasty ASuW weapon for within the radar horizon engagements…it would arrive around 2 minutes before a harpoon or NSM could hit the target…the USN have used standard missiles very successfully.
CAMM has a built in radar.
It can be cued from anything that can tell it where to go.
So you don’t need LoS or radar….
Although it’s range puts it in radar horizon range engagements, ER and MR would definitely allow for engagements beyond the radar horizon.
Depends on mast height?
Yes and also “Not so much” if you consider mast hight for radar on escorts they range from 20 meters for a Burke to 40 meters for a type 45..now I don’t know the exact radar mast high of a type 31 but 30meters is probably a good bet. let’s say you had a very small surface target with a hight above water of only 2 meters ( so a autonomous vessel loaded with explosives ) that 20 meter radar has a radar horizon of just over 18kms with a max possible if your lucky detection of around 24km due… Read more »
I would encourage you to think that the full range of a CAMM against a slower target is a great deal more than the published!
The published range is conservative and will allow for fast manoeuvring against a supersonic target.
True, but it’s a 100kg mach3 missile, so powered burn is not going to be long…if your talking sea skimming trying to keep the launch low visibility..but I suspect they will also have a push it up to high altitude and let it glide down mode..which would probably extend the range a fair bit, if you don’t mind everyone seeing the launch, but then if the escort is radiating it’s probably not worried about broadcasting the launch so much… All in all I don’t think people appreciate how much ASuW punch a Mach 3+ 100kg missile delivers..especially in the numbers… Read more »
Because of the way CAMM launches any decent radar will paint it as it ejects quite high before the main motor fires.
All our frigates and destroyers use LPI radars so that isn’t really the issue.
Anything going Mach3 makes a big kinetic hole. 10kg of modern HE is a lot particularly as multi fuzing has improved to be dynamic. So the blast will go exactly where it isn’t wanted.
The main radars used for missile direction are not LPI.
The days of there being separate missile direction radars are in the past?
The missile is sent to a location determined by the radar, EO, Sat Feed, Elint….the radar doesn’t even have to be involved. All you need is a track, location, velocity, vector etc.
Though the radars in the nose of the missile are not usually LPI as they only switch on when the missile is getting close to target.
Geez I love your posts, informative and simple to understand.
…and I think that is the true effectiveness and potential of the CAAM platform, growth and options that is effectively under UK control in the way that Aster is not. Goes well beyond simply comparing the out and out capability of a single Aster 15 missile to a standard CAAM missile.
National capacity and control is more important than a lot of people think to be honest..
Morning SB, for up arming smaller ships if and when needed, like the Rivers and even smaller littoral coastal patrol type craft and the patrol ship the UK is building for Ukraine, where the NSM maybe too bulky and expensive. 11 sets doesn’t cover everything either. Why not go for 20 sets with some for backup? The T26s could take them freeing up the MK41s and it would be complimentary to the FC/ASW.
Sea spear purpose is to engage boat swarms I.e. Iran style. Can’t say what the range would be but no doubt would be around the brimstone variant. Apart from being launched from Ships/ small boats, it could be fired by helicopters. It would be a nice addition.
Let’s hope the Wildcats stay out of SAM range. Wasn’t there talk of transferring some Army Wildcats to the Navy or was that just a fantasy idea? Missiles like Spike NLOS seem to be used as long range anti-tank from helos, vehicles and anti vessel from patrol craft. The later recently deployed by the Philippine Navy.
Does the UK have a test range where they can fire these and sink target vessels to test this sort of thing or is it now all done with computer simulation?
This is a really important weapon, let’s not forget that essentially the Iraqi navy was essentially destroyed by sea skua..destroying 14 vessels, with a number of other mission kills and another 3 in the Falklands..infact sea skua makes up 100% or RN Anti ship missile kills and infact no other anti ship missile has that many recorded kills and mission kills…the Gabriel ship launched comes next with 7 kills and the P15 with 5 confirmed kills and 2 mission kills ( although Russia claims another 7 small boats in the Yom Kippur war that Israel denies… But essentially small ship… Read more »
Are there plans for integration on Merlins as these are the main ASW helicopter and therefore deployed on T23 and hence T26 when in service. Surely this capability needs to be on both RN helicopter asset types?
I might be wrong here but I think the Italian Merlin’s have the ER Matre AShM which can also go on Typhoons. If the Spear 3 doesn’t come soon enough why not put the NSM/JSM on the F35Bs and P8s and share integration with allies doing the same thing?
Typo…ER Marte.
Merlins are too valuable to go off ship hunting.
So is that a capability gap? I understand Sea Skua was retired a while ago. Correct me if I’m wrong.
Correct
From my understanding, a wildcat should be able to carry 2 of these and 10 martlets at once. That’s a decent punch.
Not very far tho’
2026? we’ll have to hope that the excrement doesn’t hit the fan before then
Sea Skua was long since retired in the UK! The RN’s last firing was in 2017.
Its a system of systems game that people (Some) don’t understand. A missile on its own is not a system. Sea Venom on course for 2026 why not quicker? Well a few reasons and nothing to do with the missile going whoosh and bang. The vessels getting it will need dedicated stowage’s in the TAS Mag to hold the wheeled Palletrolley that the missile is stored in , moved around in and used to move the missile to the helo for loading. In a T23 this stowage will be the old Skua stowage on top of the torpedo racks. The… Read more »