The jointly developed anti-ship missile will replace Harpoon in British service and Exocet in French service.

According to a statement released by the Ministry of Defence, this move builds on commitments made in the Lancaster House Treaty.

Minister for Defence Procurement Harriett Baldwin and her French counterpart Laurent Collet-Billon signed an agreement to enable the next phase of the programme to begin.

Délégué Général pour l’Armement, Laurent Collet-Billon said:

“The documents that we signed today are concrete evidence of the strong links that bind France and the United Kingdom in the armament field. By signing these new agreements, we have set the momentum for the coming months.

I sincerely thank the French and British teams for the huge amount of work that has led to this achievement. Several major milestones within our equipment cooperation await us in 2017 and we will work just as hard to pass them.

I am specifically thinking about the FC/ASW programme conception phase contract award in March 2017 and the launch of the FCAS programme demonstration phase at the end of the year.”

Earlier in 2016 at the UK-France Security Summit, the two parties pledged to work on a “joint concept phase for the Future Cruise/Anti-Ship Weapon (FC/ASW) programme to identify solutions for replacement of the Scalp/Storm Shadow missiles for both countries, Harpoon for the UK and Exocet for France.”

According to a joint statement issued regarding the summit, a cruise missile will also be developed:

“Since the last Summit, significant milestones have been reached on Collaborative weapons projects: on the Future Anti-Surface Guided Weapon (Heavy) / Anti Navire Léger programme, a joint contract for the £500m (€600m) worth Development and Manufacturing phase was signed in March 2014 ; on the SCALP / Storm Shadow Capability Enhancement Programme, a 2-year Design Phase was launched in July 2014 ; there has also been extensive information exchanges in 2015 and building of understanding on portfolio opportunities.

Besides, other key cooperative missile activities will be extended further in 2016, such as the sustainment of our Aster missiles stockpiles and the shared-studied enhancement of our SCALP / Storm Shadow capability. We signed today a SoI confirming our intent to enter into a joint concept phase for the Future Cruise/Anti-Ship Weapon (FC/ASW) programme to identify solutions for replacement of the Scalp/Storm Shadow missiles for both countries, Harpoon for the UK and Exocet for France. Any Concept Phase would seek to inform by 2020 decisions concerning a potential follow-on Assessment Phase.

We are working with the objective to sign arrangement for this Concept Phase for the end of 2016, to pave the way for possible contracts by March 2017.”

The decision to launch a joint concept phase for the Future Cruise/Anti-Ship Weapon (FC/ASW) programme is listed by MBDA as a “solid prospect” for the future growth of the company.

MBDA previously showcased CVS401 Perseus for this role (pictured above), Perseus is a supersonic cruise missile, being developed “in consultation with the Royal Navy and French Navy”. The weapon was first unveiled at the 2011 Paris Air Show.

The defence company describes the missile as a “Unique multi-role, multi-Platform weapon system to be integrated on all major weapon platforms such as; warships, submarines, aircraft and land-based platforms.”

The missile showcased by MBDA reportedly has a range of 300km and can reach speeds of Mach 3 however at this stage, it’s just a concept.

Minister for Defence Procurement, Harriett Baldwin said:

“This innovative project further strengthens the UK-French defence relationship and supports innovative research on both sides of the Channel.

In an uncertain world, working with international partners and allies is more important than ever and I am delighted that our teams, working with British and French industry partners, are making good progress on these ambitious bilateral programmes.”

While this news is welcome, it does not address the significant gap the retirement of Harpoon will cause. The Royal Navy will lose its anti-ship missile capability in 2018 when the Harpoon missile is withdrawn.

While the fleet will still have an anti-ship capability via the submarine fleet and embarked helicopters, this will still be a significant capability gap.

Harpoon missiles are unlikely to be replaced for up to a decade.

According to the Telegraph, Rear-Admiral Chris Parry, said:

“It’s a significant capability gap and the Government is being irresponsible. It just shows that our warships are for the shop window and not for fighting.”

Former First Sea Lord, Lord West of Spithead said:

“This is just another example of where the lack of money is squeezing and making the nation less safe.We will have this gap of several years without missiles. Well, that’s fine if you don’t have to fight anybody in the meantime.”

Many however describe Harpoon as totally inadequate for anti-surface warfare in today’s environment, many however also argue that it’s a useful capability and in the words of a Royal Navy officer we spoke to this morning ‘better than nothing’.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
43 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Mike Saul
Mike Saul
4 years ago

All sounds very reasonable, replacing several different missiles with one type.

Just two questions, the in service date and how much?

Probably the most viable alternative would be the USA LRASM, which will be available shortly and cost less than US $1m each

Colin
Colin
4 years ago

The real Kicker is this statement : The missile showcased by MBDA reportedly has a range of 300km and can reach speeds of Mach 3 however at this stage, it’s just a concept. Not even tested The other point this missile was showcased The weapon was first unveiled at the 2011 Paris Air Show. So if the British Government new that Harpoon was going to be out of service 2018 Why didnt they act back in 2011 ?? And what happens when we leave the EU the price will soar with the French or they will not want anything else… Read more »

Joe
Joe
4 years ago
Reply to  Colin

The thing about the LRASM is that it will not be canister launched….. this is very important.

The LRASM will be air launched or from Mk-41 vls…..

So, in other words, it will only work from the mythical T26s, but not the T45s (without modification).

They could have just spent a tiny sum of money on some newer Harpoons and be done with it.

mike saul
mike saul
4 years ago
Reply to  Joe

Joe I agree, we need to fit mk41 vls to t45 destroyers as a matter of urgency. The procure the missiles at the same time, the money is there we need to stop wasting it on trivia.

Steve10
Steve10
4 years ago
Reply to  Joe

“Lockheed Martin is preparing to compete for OASuW Increment II competition in 2017” Scott Callaway, Surface Launched LRASM Program Director, told us during SNA 2016. In its deck mounted configuration, a LRASM launcher has the exact same footprint as a Harpoon launcher. It looks similar in form and shape as well: The LRASM missile fits inside a cylindrical canister positioned at an angle (just like the existing Harpoon launchers). The deck mounted LRASM shares the same MK 114 ASROCK booster as in the vertical launch variant. Lockheed Martin has already evaluated the console size requirements to accommodate LRASM and confirms… Read more »

Secundius
Secundius
4 years ago
Reply to  Joe

US Mk.41’s aren’t used on the Type 45 Destroyer, French SYLVER Launchers are used…

Matt
Matt
2 years ago
Reply to  Secundius

The Type 45s are “fitted for, not with” the Mk 41, so the option to use them is definitely available if the money can be found.

Joe
Joe
4 years ago

So….. it has always been vapourware and will continue to be vapourware for many many years to come.

Steve
Steve
4 years ago

Got to love knee jerk reactions from the MOD/Government. Negative news in the newspapers about the Harpoon going out of service and they rush out a story to make it look like all is ok, but if you read the story properly its clear that these will not be ready any time soon and there will be a significant gap in capability. The PR department of the MOD really could do with some new blood, as this story and the american jets on the carriers, just make things look worse and not better.

Mike
Mike
4 years ago

The point is missed! This is continued waffle to hide yet another capability gap that has no end date. The reality, laughable and disturbing, is that the few warfare capable escorts we have will soon possess NO offensive capability(ASuW) against similar classed warships. Wildcat can carry missiles capable of taking out a fishing boat, providing they are serviceable and sea state allows take off. Total incompetence and an inability to plan and communicate within the RN and MoD has left our fleet exposed in yet another area; this one is a game changer, no heavy ASuW missiles, our ships will… Read more »

Humpty Dumpty
Humpty Dumpty
1 month ago
Reply to  Mike

The problem is that even LRASM as a ship-launched anti-ship missile lacks range against Kalibr, Oniks, YJ-18 and Zircon. The only Western anti-ship missile AFAIK that outranges them is the Tomahawk Block Va, but it’s not stealthy and it’s subsonic, so it would be easy to shoot down I’d have thought. LRASM can’t be carried internally by an F-35 so that would negatively affect the RCS of an F-35 and LRASM too is subsonic. Plus why a sub-launched variant of LRASM hasn’t been developed boggles my mind. What we need is an anti-ship missile that: Outranges current Russian and Chinese… Read more »

Last edited 1 month ago by Humpty Dumpty
Jack
Jack
4 years ago

The Harpoon missile is rapidly about to be superseded by a range of much more effective anti-ship missiles which the UK will be operating with in the next few years. And an Astute class sub with a couple of dozen Spearfish sailing either as part of a carrier task group or independently is a much bigger threat to any potential adversary either above or below the waves than a frigate with harpoons can ever be.

Mike
Mike
4 years ago
Reply to  Jack

Jack, what planet do you live on?

Joe
Joe
4 years ago
Reply to  Jack

I’d love to also know more about these mystery missiles that the UK won’t be operating!

Paul Hopkins
Paul Hopkins
4 years ago

jack, I think you are missing the point. It is no good saying that in 10 years, for example, we will introduce in to service the replacement for the Harpoon that went out of service in 2018. And regards the SSNs, they cannot be everywhere at once. When the Harpoon goes it’s replacement should be at the quayside ready to be fitted.

Matt
Matt
4 years ago

Why wouldn’t they look to use the NSM and JSM developed by Norway (with Australian partnership)?

Albion
Albion
4 years ago

In ten years time it still won’t be in service

Jack
Jack
4 years ago

Harpoon has never been fired in anger by the RN, unlike Sea Skua which has been used extensively over several decades. The superb new Martlet and Sea Venom anti-surface missiles which are now coming on stream and will be more effective in terms of operational use for the Royal Navy than harpoon ever will.

Steve
Steve
4 years ago
Reply to  Jack

The helicopter dropped missiles appeared to be roundly ineffective in the Iraq wars, if you compare total fired against ships sunk / disabled.

Mike Saul
Mike Saul
4 years ago
Reply to  Jack

Jack so on that basis we should get rid of trident, asraam, starstreak, rapier 2000 and countless other weapon systems as they have never been used.

Equipping our armed forces with the weapons they would need in the event of conflict, rather than historical usage is the only viable way forward.

Humpty Dumpty
Humpty Dumpty
1 month ago
Reply to  Jack

Are you on crack? LMM/Martlet has a range of 8km and Sea Venom has a range of 20km. LMMs are good for taking out FIACs and Sea Venom is good for taking out larger vessels that don’t have any means of shooting back. Which is what exactly? To take out top-end warships both LMM and Sea Venom are totally inadequate. If a Wildcat tried to use either missile against a frigate, destroyer or cruiser it would get shot down before it got anywhere near its intended target. What the UK needs is an anti-ship missile that’s stealthy, high supersonic or… Read more »

Oscar Zulu
Oscar Zulu
4 years ago

Baffling decision by the Royal Navy. Especially given the latest upgrades to the Harpoon mean it is a more than useful ‘stop-gap’ until the next generation of missiles are developed, proven and fielded – the road from vapourware to war load could be a decade away. The Royal Australian Navy, for example, employs the Block II Harpoon which is capable of land attack (a poor man’s Tomahawk if you will) albeit its relatively short 124 km range means its launch platform will need to be operating in the littoral to strike coastal targets. Still a useful capability against shore based… Read more »

Oscar Zulu
Oscar Zulu
4 years ago

I don’t think you can realistically compare a Sea Skua missile designed in 1972 (30 kg warhead, 25 km range) with a recent Block II Harpoon (221 kg warhead, 124 km range). However well they may have performed in the Falklands or the Gulf War (mostly against small patrol boats or landing craft), their helo launch platforms would be very vulnerable in the current SAM threat environment. For example an ESSM missile (fielded by 12 western navies including the USN and RAN) closes at Mach 4 and has double the range of a Sea Skua. It could destroy the helo… Read more »

Oscar Zulu
Oscar Zulu
4 years ago

Ditto Martlet (13 kg warhead, 8km range) and Sea Venom (30 kg, 20 km).

They may be very effective new generation weapons for what they do (analogous to the AGM-114R Hellfire II in service on the USN and RAN MH60 R Romeos) but they are a different class of weapon to Harpoon.

They are not designed for ASuW against capital ships.

Apples and Oranges really.

Jack
Jack
4 years ago
Reply to  Oscar Zulu

The Sea Venom missiles can be used against large naval targets using precise aiming points on the vessel to be attacked.
In addition many of the contributors to this debate seem to be unaware or ignorant of Spear 3, 8 of which can be carried in the bay of an F35b and can be used in a saturation strike on large surface ships, which will added to the inventory soon.

Humpty Dumpty
Humpty Dumpty
1 month ago
Reply to  Jack

It doesn’t matter how precise Sea Venom is, it only has a range of 20km. A Wildcat would get shot down before it got in range to fire one on a frigate, destroyer or cruiser. And that’s assuming that it even had the range to reach an enemy ship in the first place, which it almost certainly doesn’t.

As for SPEAR 3, it’s subsonic so will almost certainly get shot down.

Give up the crack, it’s addling your brain.

Jack
4 years ago

Sea Venom can inflict severe damage on large warship targets through precise aim point targeting. Sea Venom can also be used against land based targets.
The Sea Skua was fired in anger many times. Harpoon and its predecessor Exocet never was used in action by the RN.

Steve
Steve
4 years ago

With the exception of the US one, the current options don’t appear to be radar stealthy. Unless there is another situation like the Falklands where a task group is forced too close to shore, I suspect modern radar/defense systems could handle any of the options above. Even then, with modern radar / aew, i suspect they would have been identified and dealt with. At this point, a saturation attack system seems to be a better option, something like a large number of small missiles (something like 20+), with the hope of getting enough through to do worthwhile combined damage. Whether… Read more »

Jack
4 years ago
Reply to  Steve

Sea Venom has pricise point aiming to use against large warships.

Humpty Dumpty
Humpty Dumpty
1 month ago
Reply to  Steve

Yep, saturation attacks seem the best bet to me. I’d buy Airbus A350s with a range of 15,000 to 16,000km, modify them to carry Tomahawk Block Va anti-ship missiles with a range of 1,600km and fire more missiles at ships than they have the capacity to deal with. With such a long range of 1,600km the missiles could be fired from beyond the range of ship-based SAMs and aircraft flying from carriers. These Tomahawk anti-ship missiles would be even more likely to hit their target if they were stealthy as well as high supersonic or hypersonic (or at the very… Read more »

Jack
4 years ago

One more point to consider is the new spear 3 missile 8 of which can be contained within the bay of the new F35b’s. These can be launched in a saturation attack at long range against a surface vessel.

Colin
Colin
4 years ago

Uk Government better come up with something FAST as Argentina are looking to buy BrahMos extended Range Military sources told IHS Jane’s that the two sides reached a deal to double the BrahMos’ range to around 600 km during Russian president Vladimir Putin’s trip to Goa in mid-October. Configured on the Russian Navy’s P-800 Oniks anti-ship system (SS-N-26 ‘Strobile’) and its 3M55 missile, the BrahMos and its variants are manufactured at a dedicated facility in Hyderabad, southern India. The missiles have been in service with the Indian Army (IA) and Indian Navy (IN) for almost a decade, but India is… Read more »

Steve
Steve
4 years ago
Reply to  Colin

Argentina is in no state to attack the falklands, with or without the missiles. Taking out HMS Clyde only gets them so far, they still need to sneak up on the garrison there and do so without the UK reinforcing it. Ok this wouldn’t be that hard considering the limited number of front line troops stationed there and the reality that the political complications involved in reinforcing the islands, would mean that the government would only do it after the attack has started. However the defending troops would only need to defend for around 48 hours before a large number… Read more »

Humpty Dumpty
Humpty Dumpty
1 month ago
Reply to  Steve

“Argentina is in no state to attack the falklands, with or without the missiles.” Not currently, no, but there’s never any room for complacency. Prepare for the worst, hope for the best. “Taking out HMS Clyde only gets them so far…” Why on earth is a River-class OPV patrolling the Falklands? It’s absolutely useless and a sitting duck. It can’t defend itself and it has zero offensive capability. We might as well have a pedalo armed with Nerf guns there. It would make far more sense for us to start building diesel-electric AIP subs modelled on the German Type 212.… Read more »

Will
Will
4 years ago

What about the Japanese XASM-3 – Mach 3 with a 90-120 mile range?

It would be ready before any similar MBDA product.
http://thediplomat.com/2015/12/look-to-japan-to-solve-the-navys-asm-crisis/

Steve
Steve
4 years ago

This is where the fitted for but not with, doesn’t look like such a terrible decision. We can in theory pick and choose which weapon system we want and then also buy the VLS system to match and fit them to the ships.

Steve
Steve
4 years ago

We also have to put this into context, the US Navy, which has almost bottomless resoures has the same problem. I just think no one saw the need for ship to ship combat until Russia flared up again and China started enforcing its will against those of the US.

Humpty Dumpty
Humpty Dumpty
1 month ago
Reply to  Steve

“I just think no one saw the need for ship to ship combat”

Why on earth not?

LeviTheScot
LeviTheScot
4 years ago

For a second I thought it looked like a futuristic version of the behemoth.

Matt
Matt
4 years ago

It won’t replace Harpoon; it’ll replace f**k all, which is the RN’s planned ASM for the next few years.

Nick Harriss
Nick Harriss
4 years ago

The Norwegian Naval Strike Missile is modern (the most modern in the NATO fleet), available from a close and reliable country, and would fill the gap perfectly even if the missile proposed may replace it longer term (let us face reality, at least a decade). As Raytheon has demonstrated on the LCS for the USN, it fits on deck mounted canisters very similar to Harpoon, so should prove a relatively easy fit on both Type 23 and Type 45.

Humpty Dumpty
Humpty Dumpty
1 month ago
Reply to  Nick Harriss

The NSM has a range of 185km according to Wikipedia. That’s far less than Kalibr, Oniks, YJ-18 and Zircon so no it wouldn’t perfectly fill the gap. In fact it’s absolute garbage against the high-end ships it’s going to face. How does shit like this get approved, let alone built? Bribery probably. NSM, LRASM, RBS-15 and Perseus all lack range compared to the missiles I’ve just mentioned. A credible Western anti-ship missile needs: To outrange existing and proposed enemy anti-ship missiles To be stealthy To be high supersonic or hypersonic (or at the very least able to accelerate in its… Read more »

Humpty Dumpty
Humpty Dumpty
1 month ago

If Perseus actually gets built after an ultra-speedy 10 years then it’s largely useless as a ship-launched anti-ship weapon if the Wikipedia-given range of “300km class” is correct. RN and Western ships (as well as ships in countries that aren’t Western but allied militarily with the West) need an anti-ship missile that outranges Kalibr, Oniks, YJ-18 and Zircon. AFAIK the only current ship-launched Western missile that outranges these missiles is the Tomahawk Block Va. But it’s not stealthy, subsonic and can’t accelerate in its terminal phase, so it’ll probably get easily shot down. A variant that’s stealthy, high supersonic or… Read more »

Last edited 1 month ago by Humpty Dumpty