The ‘Future Cruise/AntiShip Weapon’ will be fitted to Typhoon jets from 2030.

The information came to light in response to a written Parliamentary question.

Kevan Jones, MP for North Durham, asked:

“To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what is the planned service date for the Future Cruise/Anti-Ship Weapon.”

Jeremy Quin, Minister of State for the Ministry of Defence, responded:

“The Planning Assumption for Service Entry for Future Cruise /Anti-Ship Weapon on the T26 Frigate and Typhoon aircraft is 2028 and 2030 respectively.”

Quin also added:

“The Future Cruise/ Anti-Ship Weapon Programme is due to complete Concept Phase activity in July 2021. The Concept Phase has been focussed on conducting in depth operational analysis, technical studies and initial design activity to refine user requirements and better understand the options available to MOD to meet these. The Concept Phase findings forms part of the Programme’s Outline Business Case for Ministerial consideration.”

What is the Future Cruise /AntiShip Weapon?

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.

Last year we reported that two years into the FC/ASW (Future Cruise/Anti-Ship Weapon) Concept Phase, MBDA announced the successful achievement of its ‘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 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.”

It was also stated recently by Quin that the total spend to date on Future Cruise/Anti-Ship Weapon and associated activities by the Ministry of Defence is £95 million.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
117 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Rogbob
Rogbob
9 days ago

Nice intent, but good luck getting this to production and integrated on 2 platforms when they’ve only spent <100M so far since this was launched c2010. That’s about what, 2-3 meetings and a graphics team to produce the image? 🙂

Pete
Pete
9 days ago
Reply to  Rogbob

In fairness that is the UK MOD share that is quoted. Assume French have spent the same. If work to date has been done on a reimbursable basis then that would amount to quite a considerable volume of PAX years of concept engineering. I’m assuming the sensor fit and data links etc will be very similar to / an evolution of Spear 3. The concept of multiple warheads working together is building on the proven Brimstone capabilty and WIP Spear 3. Development might be further along than we think.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
8 days ago
Reply to  Pete

I think it has to be, to make those dates or even close. I read separately that the UK has been financing technology research that allows weapons to communicate with each other vital for multiple and swarm attacks be it defending or attacking a target, I guess that and other investments will feed into this as well as other projects like loyal wingman concepts.

santista ingles
santista ingles
8 days ago
Reply to  Rogbob

😅😅 u reading my thoughts but 3d drawings look good tho

Marked
Marked
9 days ago

Great, it was needed when sea Eagle was retired around 2000! 2030, what a joke.

Robert Blay.
Robert Blay.
9 days ago
Reply to  Marked

But as we haven’t needed to fire any ASM’s at anyone, and the investment has gone into weapons that we needed to fight a land locked insurgency conflict. And Sea Venom/Viper ect then the decision was correct.

Graeme
Graeme
9 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay.

Only because we struck lucky and haven’t had to fight a near peer adversary. It should have been a priority because far flung insurgencies are barely more than a nuisance, losing control of the sea lanes is a matter of national survival. It is insane that we have stumbled into a situation where the only credible weapon against a modern warship is one of our 7 SSNs, who have to get within 30 nautical miles in order to be in range and are vulnerable to helicopter borne ASW countermeasures unless either an RAF landbase or the new aircraft carriers happen… Read more »

Sceptical Richard
Sceptical Richard
9 days ago
Reply to  Graeme

I agree with you on the 7 SSNs. If we’re talking of choices on how to spend scarce resources, personally, I would have a navy consisting only of some 20+ Astutes and a few OPVs. But maybe it’s just as well I don’t make the decisions.

Jonathan
Jonathan
9 days ago

The problem with that is that I would create a navy that was great at area denial anywhere on the globe but rubbish at preventing an area being denied its own shipping.

Gunbuster
Gunbuster
8 days ago
Reply to  Graeme

“Luck is not a factor” ( pop quiz… What movie)

The RN risk assessed the need for ASuM and decided it wasn’t an issue. Same can be said for binning CVS and Sea Harrier.
Looking back they where correct in the decisions they took over the time period in question.

As it is now they have decided we need ASuM for the projected threat.
Fair enough.
I’m not going to argue.

Robert Blay
Robert Blay
8 days ago
Reply to  Graeme

We haven’t struck lucky. We have made the investment in the weapons we actually need, instead of buying weapons that cost a fortune and take up critical man hours in maintenance just to look pretty sat in racks that will never be used. Our helicopters have excellent anti ship capabilites for the littoral, which has been proven to be the most affective method of anti ship warfare. And Astute class to take out larger vessels. Of all the capabilitys the RN possess, long range anti ship missiles is the one that bothers them the least. If we really really needed… Read more »

Sceptical Richard
Sceptical Richard
9 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay.

We haven’t needed any of our weapon systems in recent years except those required to fight an asymmetric conflict in a landlocked country. And half of those had to be acquired through UORs. So that is not a measure we should follow. Should we get rid of our entire ASW capability because we haven’t had to sink any subs since the war?

Jonathan
Jonathan
9 days ago

To be fair we had a number of capabilities to sink or threaten surface vessels, so it’s not a fair or balanced argument to comparing it to emoting our entire ASW capability.

Last edited 9 days ago by Jonathan
Paul
Paul
8 days ago

Im pretty sure we sunk an argie sun in the 82.

Sceptical Richard
Sceptical Richard
7 days ago
Reply to  Paul

Yes. I think it was the Santa Fe. But it was caught on the surface and was terminally wounded by AS11 missiles fired from FAA Wasp helicopters (I think)

col
col
2 days ago

I’m sure the missile went through the conning tower.

Steve
Steve
6 days ago

I was thinking about this the other day whilst watching a vid on what really happened during black hawk down. The US marines came under immense fire and only survived because their armored humvees. And yet we entered iraq/Afghanistan a decade or so later with unarmoured land-rover.

Then there was the need to extend the service of the tornados because the harriers were retired too early and the typhoons were not ready.

Predicting needs is clearly not a MOD strong point, neither is luck. It seems enter badly prepared and ride it out until a fix can be purchased.

Sceptical Richard
Sceptical Richard
4 days ago
Reply to  Steve

The MOD is indeed a complex and myopic animal, but our Joint Chiefs and their Planning Staffs deserve most of the blame, not the civil servants

Marked
Marked
9 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay.

Don’t tell me they accurately forecast they wouldn’t need to use the weapons.

They struck lucky in a game of chance. If they’d struck unlucky we could so easily have lots of dead service personnel as a result.

The attitude to defence in this country and willingness to have so many huge holes in our capabilities is disgraceful. There’s far too much willingness to rely on others for what is ultimately our own responsibility.

Last edited 9 days ago by Marked
Robert Blay
Robert Blay
8 days ago
Reply to  Marked

We are a member of NATO, we train constantly with our allies. Like everything, it’s a balancing of cost, requirement, and real world need. Knobody things the RN is somehow lacking In capability, just because we don’t have every escort fitted with ASM’s. It isn’t top trumps pal. We have capabilitys 2nd only to the USN, and our T45’s are superior to anything the Americans operate.

James Fennell
James Fennell
9 days ago
Reply to  Marked

I suspect the Typhoons are getting a land attack cruise missile variant to replace Storm Shadow while the Type 26s get the Anti-Shipping variant. I could be wrong. F-35B is interesting. It is cleared for JASSM and NSM but can only carry these externally. Spear is good for smaller vessels or swarm attacks to take out C3 and sensors on larger ones, but not enought oomph to sink a large warship. I suspect the RN will be a look at putting FCASW on F-35 if feasible, but US industry might push back as they have with Meteor.

Last edited 9 days ago by James Fennell
Robert Blay.
Robert Blay.
9 days ago
Reply to  James Fennell

You don’t need to sink a ship to take out out of the fight. Any damage to the upper decks, critical sensors, Steering gear, damage to VLS tubes is enough to remove them as a threat.

James Fennell
James Fennell
9 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay.

Agreed

Jonathan
Jonathan
9 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay.

For some reason people always seem to think just blowing the doors off is never enough.

Last edited 9 days ago by Jonathan
Ron
Ron
9 days ago
Reply to  James Fennell

Morning James, I think it would be useful if the RN had on their T26s both the land attack and shorter range, (if 300km is short range) varients. Reason for my thinking, the FC/ASW could with its stealth and hypersonic speed could not only engage high value ships but coastal radar sites, this leaves the long range subsonic bunker busters to do deep penatration which could then be followed up by an F35 strike as the path would be cleared. I agree that that SPEAR 3 can be useful for the RAF but do we really want to put these… Read more »

Trevor Holcroft
Trevor Holcroft
9 days ago
Reply to  Marked

Are you seriously suggesting that a capability that could go in to service in 2000 (and developed even earer) could match the current suggested missile in 2021.

Rogbob
Rogbob
8 days ago
Reply to  Marked

Why?

What have we been shooting at in that period?

Noting we had Nimrod with Harpoon until 2010, and would have continued that bar the unfortunate demise.

C.2000 we acquired Storm Shadow, a superlative cruise missile that has been used masses. An entirely new capability and one that was far, far more useful than Sea Esgle which is why the squadrons tasked with the latter formed the core of the new capabilty.

DaveyB
DaveyB
8 days ago
Reply to  Rogbob

One of the target sets for Storm Shadow are ships anchored up. It wouldn’t take a lot of software development to include a moving ship. The missile can be programmed for sea level attack or a high angled dive, there’s opportunity to have multiple attack profiles. The BROACH warhead would make a right mess of a ship if it hit. It’s a shame that the UK/France never looked at using it as a multi-role land attack and anti-ship missile. The imaging infrared red sensor and data link would give it a stealthy approach. Then the targeting library will make sure… Read more »

Last edited 8 days ago by DaveyB
Rogbob
Rogbob
8 days ago
Reply to  DaveyB

I dont think a moving target capability for SS is a genuine option without a lot of development and almost certainly a new sensor. Hence why it hasnt been done.

I also suspect its relatively low speed would make it vulnerable in that sense – its a low level weapon that uses terrain as its guise for a successfull approach.

With France having Exocet and the UK having Harpoon/access to, then it doenst seem a worthwhile effort to me – especially given other priorities.

DaveyB
DaveyB
8 days ago
Reply to  Rogbob

The sensor used in Storm Shadow has very high image resolution. It was needed to make sure that the target could be compared with a library image. The sensor was chosen so that the missile could aim for a specific point on the target line a bunker’s air shaft.

This is no different to how the Kingsberg NSM (JSM) selects the correct target amongst a number of targets.

As I said Storm Shadow can already be used against a static ship. Will targeting a moving ship be really that hard?

Rogbob
Rogbob
8 days ago
Reply to  DaveyB

Well yes I think it is. If the target is moving then what it is seeing is very different, changing aspect constantly and in an unknown way (the missile knows what it is changing by) and you get into all the rates of change – the target, the image and above all the missiles control ability to put it on the target. I’m speculating of course – but it doesnt strike me as a simple thing to do especially as Storm shadow broke new ground in what it does at all so may have constraints that newer systems dont. Also… Read more »

DaveyB
DaveyB
8 days ago
Reply to  Rogbob

It’s a good point, that all over the horizon missiles suffer from, i.e. locating the target when it’s no longer at the predicted intercept location, as ship has done something unpredictable. Even missiles with an active radar seeker have a limited detection range plus the gimbal has a limited traverse. This is why today most modern anti-ship missiles have a data-link. Where the targeting information can be updated. But this means either the launch aircraft must remain in the vicinity or another 3rd party will need to keep the target in view. Once the missile is sent on its way,… Read more »

Rogbob
Rogbob
8 days ago
Reply to  DaveyB

Quite, so as I suggested, a new sensor and new software. We’re definitely outside simple here surely? Also, there is the ability of the missile to phyiscally respond to a moving target in terms of not just finding the target and knowing where it wants to go, but manipulating control surfaces to get there. SS can set itself up for an accurate impact point against a static target but can it respond dynamically to a manoeuvring target doing 30kts and rolling and turning? These rates of aspect change are complicated by rates of position change. I also wonder how it… Read more »

OkamsRazor
OkamsRazor
8 days ago
Reply to  Rogbob

If you’ve solved these issues for AAW then you’ve already solved them for anti ship missiles.

Rogbob
Rogbob
8 days ago
Reply to  OkamsRazor

Have you? So you think Storm Shadow has, or could have, the same agility as an ASRAAM? And that its sensor because it is imaging must have the same capability for search as ASRAAMs? Whilst ASRAAM of course has the same capability of acheiving a point of impact as Storm Shadow? (Noting ASRAAM has a fragmentation warhead precisely because AAMs dont expect to hit the target at all). There is a lot of detail here that seems to be glossed over. Tbh, I dont think anyone is arguing whether it could be done, but simply that doing so with SS… Read more »

DaveyB
DaveyB
8 days ago
Reply to  Rogbob

I was just thinking it was missed golden opportunity. When Storm Shadow (SS) came in to service in 2002, it was breath of fresh air compared to what was available then. The use of a thermal camera (imaging infrared) had only just been used on short range air to air missiles, like ASRAAM. Using such a sensor for a land attack missile was risky but very forward thinking. Intended to strike high value targets like command bunkers, it was designed to evade air defences through the use of its use of its passive sensor, a reduced radar signature airframe and… Read more »

Rogbob
Rogbob
7 days ago
Reply to  DaveyB

Yes, but as we’ve considered, taking its approach and trying to put that into a dynamic environment where it lacks a wide area search sensor, most likely cannot use its extant sensor, or even respond physically to manoeuvre into a dynamic target not to mention where it cant use terrain to get there – is why its not really a starter. Yes I’m sure it could be done, but at cost and time and effort and in lieu of something else. In the context of this being one of the lowest priorities for something we needed/wanted and there being alternatives… Read more »

James Fennell
James Fennell
9 days ago

Two concepts were presented by MBDA in 2019. A stealthy long-ranged subsonic cruise missile, optimised for land attack and apparantly derived from the SCALP/Storm Shadow family (itself derived from the Apache airfield attack munitions dispenser), and a shorter-ranged supersonic anti-shipping missile with a secondary anti-AWACs capability dervived from the French ASMP nuclear stike missile. The RAF preferred the cruise missile, while France and the RN preferred the supersonic weapon. We could conceivably get both from this programme. Given that both are derived from current weapon systems – as CAMM is from ASRAAM – fast-track development is possible.

5e6577717ebcef2a800e0672eb8628f2cd982e8522104c3eaa13525d38bd974a.png
Last edited 9 days ago by James Fennell
RobW
RobW
9 days ago

Great news. After Ben Wallace was appointed he said that we need to concentrate on upping the “lethality” of our armed forces. So much seems to be going in the right direction yet still people moan.

Gareth
Gareth
9 days ago

So not the F-35 then?

Peter S
Peter S
9 days ago
Reply to  Gareth

Too big for the weapon bay- external carriage would compromise stealth. F35b will carry 8 Spear 3 internally when block 4 integration is complete. A salvo of these might prove more difficult to defend against than a single larger missile.

Pete
Pete
9 days ago
Reply to  Peter S

But stealth is less of an issue/need if your launching from 200 – 300 km out. ….and having the carrier launch strike attacks from up to 1200km from the target will help keep the carrier itself safe.

Gareth
Gareth
8 days ago
Reply to  Pete

Indeed – don’t know what the numbers are like but I guess it might even be possible for an F-35 to carry, say, two FCASW externally and a bunch of SPEAR-3 internally on the same load out. Either way I suspect any CSG commander would greatly appreciate an extra 200-300 km strike range.

Rogbob
Rogbob
8 days ago
Reply to  Gareth

But a CSG already has that courtesy of SSNs and potentially T26. Plus land based Typhoons (and Tempests if we’re honest about when it’ll actually be available!) flying with this new weapon. I’s suggest that lack of F35 reflects the reality of integration costs/restrictions* on a US aircraft and/or the reality of trying to get aircraft with such huge weapons off (and back on) the carrier deck. *this works both ways – the UK not wanting to give the US all the knowledge about a weapon it doesnt have (noting it would need some info, and likely demand all!). Storm… Read more »

Robert Blay
Robert Blay
8 days ago
Reply to  Pete

The bring back weight could be an issue. Storm Shadow weights just shy of 3000lb each, and that’s a very expensive weapon to ditch into the sea.

Rogbob
Rogbob
8 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

Its also a massive asymmetric weight if you’ve only got one (eg hangfire case and loss of aircraft outcome). That’s the driving issue I think rather than sheer weight given the F35 has circa 15,000lb of fuel capacity and you’ll be down to min at landing so <1000 of that. (Granted with 2x SS you couldnt be at full fuel for max take off, but broadly the bringback should work). It’s what did for SS on Harrier, and thus what partly did for Harrier as it didnt have the control authority. Dont know if the same for F35 it also… Read more »

Robert Blay
Robert Blay
8 days ago
Reply to  Rogbob

Yes, couldn’t agree more. The fly by wire on the F35 probably has very good control authority for asymmetric weight, but the release to service limits might kick in if the RN don’t want to take the risk. Unless the rolling vertical landing could be looked at further for heavy weapon bring back. I’m sure the test pilots are all over it.

Pete
Pete
8 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

True…but is that not why the rolling landing technique is being developed. From a land strike perspective then assume the probability of returning with missile is very very low but I get your point in the anti ship role where the probability of missile launch is significantly less than land strike. Have to say, with Italy, Japan, UK, South Korea and Singapore (as well as USMC) planning on operating F35b to some extent you would think there would be scope / market for a midďle to heavier weight Naval strike / land attack missile optimised to fit internal to f35b… Read more »

Robert Blay
Robert Blay
8 days ago
Reply to  Pete

Yes, very possibly. I think the Spear cap 3 missiles will provide a very credible anti ship capability with the ability to carry 8 internally with 80-100km range, then add the EW version into the mix, and it will be enough to give any advisory sleepless nights.

Rogbob
Rogbob
6 days ago
Reply to  Pete

That’s a very fair point in terms of export potential. I’m thinking it may be a reluctance to share SS data with the US – although they’ve done so for Meteor and the ramjet tech there is ahead if anything the US has (and it dearly wants that). Certainly I recall you couldnt even mention SS by name with the US, it was a “x000lb class weapon”. That was some time ago, and I’d assumed that have moved on, but perhaps not. In rerms of bringback/returning, the issues are: 1- you have to consider one missile as a real outcome,… Read more »

Peter S
Peter S
8 days ago
Reply to  Pete

If you want to launch attacks at 1000km range, launch a Tomahawk from a surface ship or a submarine. Its latest upgrade includes an anti ship capability.
It makes no sense to spend a fortune to buy a stealthy aircraft and then choose a weapon that negates that stealth. Sea Spear has a range of at least 80 miles. So the carrier could launch an attack from hundreds of miles away without the target even detecting the F35.
Of course we still have to integrate it and Meteor with block 4, reportedly costing > £20m per aircraft.

Rudeboy1
Rudeboy1
8 days ago
Reply to  Peter S

Sea Spear???

There’s no such missile.

MBDA briefly called a surface launched Brimstone that…but it had a range of c20 miles.

Pete
Pete
8 days ago
Reply to  Rudeboy1

It had a range of only 20km because it had a different warhead. Heavier 16kg designed to take out FAC with a single hit. Normal brimstone II with 40km range from a standing start has a 6kg warhead.

Peter S
Peter S
6 days ago
Reply to  Rudeboy1

Yep. Spear3. As you say, Sea Spear is a Brimstone variant for surface launch.

Pete
Pete
8 days ago
Reply to  Peter S

Sorry. I meant the the flight radius of f35 (900 km) combined with 300km range of the missile being described their combined range keeps csg out of range of most anti ship missiles!!

Gary
Gary
8 days ago
Reply to  Peter S

Of course you could try to design the missile with comparable or better stealth characteristics to the F35 – you could then hang them off the wings no bother.

Rob Young
Rob Young
8 days ago
Reply to  Gary

Not really – it’s the shape of the F35 + missile that would have to be shaped to be stealthy as a unit, you can’t just sling a stealthy missile under the plane! What you would have to is design a detachable cover to ‘merge’ the silhouetes giving a ‘new’ stealthy shape.

Rogbob
Rogbob
8 days ago
Reply to  Gary

As the other reply says – stealth is the “whole package” in terms of the shape etc. of the overall aircraft and stores as presented.

The radar reflections between underwing stores and the airframe are a massive source of being detected, tracked and locked onto.

Agajn – youd need a wholly new outside shape, ie in effect make an internal bay. That’s pretty much impossible!

Although note F35B does have a low observable gunpod, but I suspect it is hardly used, definitely wouldnt be where stealth was a mission criteria and probably is only marginally better than a non-stealthy gunpod.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
8 days ago
Reply to  Rogbob

What effect do the self protection wing tip missile pylons have. Not heard any mention of their stealth implications esp when carrying sidewinders and the like.

Rogbob
Rogbob
8 days ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

They’ll reduce it significantly (well, increase signature!). Hence the weapons bay being designed around a JDAM and AAM to ensure it can deliver the desired attack whilst having a minimum of self defence. Whether that’s a real cost vs the benefit of the additional weapons is at the detail level we aren’t privvy to (and if were shouldnt discuss!). The actual role fit is going to be very mission dependent, even different aircraft in a formation would have different trade-offs. Given F35 is also doing air defence, then a larger missile fit would presumably be worth the signature impact as… Read more »

Frank62
Frank62
8 days ago
Reply to  Peter S

Perseus is a stealth missile, so shouldn’t degrade F35 stealth much carried externally. Does the NSM fit F35 weapons bays?

Meirion X
Meirion X
8 days ago
Reply to  Frank62

See Rogbob’s reply above.
Even a stealth object carried externally will have an impact on the rest of the aircraft with the radar emission deflected from the carried stealth missile, back on to the aircraft then it will be bounced back to the radar, rendering the stealth features Useless.

Stealth missiles are only stealthy, when traveling singlely, by deflecting the radar emission in another direction away from the direction of the radar, Not being returned back to the radar.

Last edited 8 days ago by Meirion X
DaveyB
DaveyB
8 days ago
Reply to  Meirion X

Agree, but this only applies if the F35 needs to get close to the ship. The F35 will detect a ship’s radar long before the ship can detect it. The aircraft’s ASQ-239 Barracuda will not only categorize the ship’s radar, but also show the pilot the signal strength and likelihood of detection. If the aircraft has two “Perseus” type AshM hanging off the wings, Does it really matter? Even if the ship was paired with an AEW aircraft, the F35 will still get close enough to identify the ship and support aircraft before its detected. Giving it the option of… Read more »

Frank62
Frank62
7 days ago
Reply to  Meirion X

I stand corrected, thanks MX.
We need to get our act together & buy the kit for the role. Rogobob seems to think any capability not used in recent years can be gapped. On that basis we’d lose our Nuclear deterrent & virtually every shipboard weaponry.
Conventional forces are also a deterrent, unless they lack basic weaponry. Our purchasing & equipping is a national disgrace, thinly veiled by government spin to decieve as public that is distracted by other affairs.

Deep32
Deep32
8 days ago
Reply to  Frank62

No mate it doesn’t, the F35B weapons bay is too small(short) to accommodate the JSM as it’s called, so will hand under the wings.

DaveyB
DaveyB
8 days ago
Reply to  Frank62

NSM was modified in to JSM for air launch. The JSM can fit in the bays of the F35A and C, not the B. The B’s bays have the same length and width as the other two, but is shallower so it won’t fit.

Nate M
Nate M
8 days ago
Reply to  Gareth

from all the photoshop images i have seen its seems that an f35 can carry 4 spears per bay. that means 8 spears per aircraft. thats means at least 96 missiles in a squadron (12 aircraft is the minimum for a squadron). and if my maths is correct that means a squadron of f35s can knock the french navy out of the war. if it happens that is.

Bob.
Bob.
6 days ago
Reply to  Gareth

Possibly later. It takes time to get the Americans to integrate a new weapon onto F35 as they have plenty of their own to evaluate.

geoff
geoff
9 days ago

Let us hope the reality matches the promise!

On another note-(please indulge me George) I was 17 years old in 1966 and living in Durban. South Africa had no TV then so we listened to the final on the radio in the Empire Billiard Saloon. Three weeks later,we saw a movie at a local cinema of the Final called I think, Goal! World Cup final 1966, and it was in colour!!! Tonight wife and I watching on Satellite TV.
We have come a long way…! Enjoy gents!

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
8 days ago
Reply to  geoff

Fingers crossed geoff.

geoff
geoff
8 days ago

My nerves are shot already Daniele 😂 

col
col
9 days ago

Is this the MBDA Pegasus project?

James Fennell
James Fennell
9 days ago
Reply to  col

Perseus I think you mean? Yes FCASW is a programme that includes the ASMP derived Perseus AShM and the SCALP derived cruise missile.

col
col
8 days ago
Reply to  James Fennell

Thank you for the correction on the name

Ron5
Ron5
9 days ago
Reply to  col

Perseus was a video prepared for a Paris air show. Nothing more.

Watcherzero
Watcherzero
8 days ago
Reply to  Ron5

This was it at the 2011 Paris airshow:comment image
And a physical model at the 2019 Paris airshow:comment image

Along with a subsonic version of the same missle:comment image

Ron5
Ron5
7 days ago
Reply to  Watcherzero

MBDA didn’t call those last two models Perseus.

Watcherzero
Watcherzero
6 days ago
Reply to  Ron5

It didnt call its weapons on display anything at all merely describing them as ‘remote carriers’ and ‘deep penetrators’ the design of the missile and use of two submunitions is clearly the same as 8 years previous however.

T.S
T.S
9 days ago

Well the good news just keeps coming! Since starting to follow the woes of our armed forces several years ago and everything being doom and gloom, we finally have positivity in abundance. Two new warship types now in production, with another two in the concept phase. Support vessel tender running and a plan to grow amphibious supports as well. A range of modern missiles all in the wings over the next 10 years to finally give us some teeth. Tempest up and running well by the looks of it with real promise of some transformational tech. Boxers now entering construction… Read more »

Ron5
Ron5
9 days ago
Reply to  T.S

*three new warship types in production

James Fennell
James Fennell
9 days ago

Interesting that many of the small print comments in the Defence Command Paper are coming to fruition. ‘more missile stocks for Type 45’ and ‘strike missiles for Type 26’. Expect ‘new medium range and SHORAD’ systems for the Army soon (CAMM-ER and a SP 30mm gun?).

welshTapWater
welshTapWater
8 days ago
Reply to  James Fennell

7 AD commander already told (confirm?) that 40 km MRAD are coming.
so possibly CAMM-ER are coming in the future

Nicholas
Nicholas
8 days ago
Reply to  welshTapWater

Initially I was having a look at Barrett’s MRAD rifle thinking 40km was quite a stretch. Doh!

Nate M
Nate M
7 days ago
Reply to  welshTapWater

if u don’t mind me asking can please show me the source. just so that i can getting a better understanding of things btw.

Rudeboy1
Rudeboy1
8 days ago
Reply to  James Fennell

CAMM-ER already as good as confirmed. The Commander 7 AD has said as much.

Rogbob
Rogbob
8 days ago
Reply to  James Fennell

Ideally HVM on Boxer with a remote 40mmCTA in conjunction with a coaxial GPMG/HMG (to maximise the CTA gun’s spread and thus give commonality – although with WR gone and Ajax potentially following that may not be an issue!).

Goldilocks
Goldilocks
7 days ago
Reply to  James Fennell

Agreed, hopefully the army upgrades its air-defence capability as at the moment… its a bit rubbish. THAAD would be a good investment, but as always unlikely due to £££

Frank62
Frank62
8 days ago

We all knew that, but what is urgent is getting one in operation immediately in the meantime for our warships too. Perseus will be great, when we get it, but that’s many years away. Several excellent AShMs around that can fill the gap, for goodness sake get on with it!

Robert Blay.
Robert Blay.
8 days ago
Reply to  Frank62

We still have Harpoon. A stop gap weapon is being purchased. We also have Sea Viper, and Martlet missiles. Spearfish and Stingray torpedoes. Even Sea Ceptor has a surface capability. So still plenty of toys to spoil any bad guys day. Spear cap 3 will also have anti ship capability.

farouk
farouk
8 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay.

Robert wrote: “We still have Harpoon.” Yes we do, but the iteration we have is the Block C which first came on line in 1985 and is semi obsolete. Block C was superseded by Block E in 1997 and then the Harpoon Block II in 2009. All the advances made were made to future proof the missile against upgrades in anti-missile technology which our 36 year old missile hasn’t received and there lies the problem. Hezballah a terrorist org has the Chinese C-802 (Iranian version Noor) which is better than the Harpoon in use by the RN not only that,… Read more »

DaveyB
DaveyB
8 days ago
Reply to  farouk

From the Noor’s past operational record. If it’s better than Harpoon, then we are in trouble. When the Houtis fired the 9 Noors at the USS Mason, up to half of them flew into the sea. The rest were either taken out by ESSM, SM2 or spoofed by countermeasures. In theory the Israeli Hanit corvette should have stopped the Noor. Having Barak short range surface to air missiles, Phalanx and up to date countermeasures. Something clearly went wrong in not only identifying the inbound missile, but also taking the correct actions in response. Even firing off a cloud of chaff… Read more »

Goldilocks
Goldilocks
7 days ago
Reply to  DaveyB

Yes, Israel claimed that it got through the defensive shield as they didn’t even know Hezbollah even had them, and that friendly jets were in the vicinity, thought they might accidentally shoot them down….

dan
dan
7 days ago
Reply to  Goldilocks

I remember reading that their CIWS wasn’t even turned on at the time.

Robert Blay
Robert Blay
8 days ago
Reply to  farouk

Of all the RN’s capabilities, long range AshM Is the one that bothers them the least. Have a little faith in the subject matter experts.

dan
dan
7 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

Most weapons decisions nowadays are made by governmental elected penny pinchers and not military weapons experts.

Nate M
Nate M
8 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay.

harpoon obsolete. a ww2 150mm naval gun can do better then that! other then that all exciting toys.

Frank62
Frank62
7 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay.

They’re all lightweight short ranged weapons whilst any enemy has heavyweight missiles that could destroy or disable us long before we get in range, except for our antiquated blockII Harpoons. An interim missile should’ve been funded, selected & in service back in 2018 when we should’ve retired the old Harpoons.
Excuses & 2nd-rate weapons don’t fill the proper AShM role. It’s like having battleships(WW1/2 vintage) with no main guns.

Robert Blay
Robert Blay
7 days ago
Reply to  Frank62

And what capability would you have cut or defunded to pay for a fancy AshM that will be sat in racks never be used? The reality is, the RN don’t see a long range AshM as an absolute priority, otherwise we would have them if they thought it was absolutely necessary. Why do you think we have bought Sea Venom and Martlet and funded Spearfish upgrades? Have a little trust in the subject matter experts. Nations are not throwing around AshM on a whim. And we are not at war with China. Spear cap 3 is coming to F35, that… Read more »

dan
dan
7 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

The RN also realizes that in any naval battle with the Chicoms or Russians America will be providing heavy support to them with their aircraft, ships and subs loaded with long range anti ship missiles.

Nate M
Nate M
7 days ago
Reply to  dan

well the interim missiles will be coming online by 2022 (i think) so no need to get too worked up about it. also pursues seems to be good weapon in concept. hopefully they increase the speed a bit to mach 8 or 9.

Robert Blay
Robert Blay
7 days ago
Reply to  dan

You really need to stop saying Chicoms.

dan
dan
5 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

Why? It differentiates the communists Chinese from the democratic Chinese people that were forced to leave and now live in Taiwan. It’s like people saying Yanks for Americans. Haven’t we had enough PC?

Robert Blay
Robert Blay
5 days ago
Reply to  dan

It’s not about being PC, it just sounds stupid.

dan
dan
5 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

We might not be at war with China now but can you say with absolute certainty that in 5 years or more we won’t be?? Didn’t think so. Reminds me of a press conference that occurred in the late 1990s. A reporter asked a high ranking military official where he thought the next war would be fought. He replied by saying he didn’t know where it would be but he said with 100% certainty it won’t be fought here. He was pointing to Afghanistan. lol

DaveyB
DaveyB
8 days ago

What do we really know about the requirements of the future cruise/anti ship weapon (FC/ASW)?/ Well it can be deduced that it must have at a minimum the capabilities of the current Storm Shadow/SCALP, but obviously more so. The maritime version of SCALP, the MdCM has a range and performance similar to the Tomahawk. To achieve this extra range from the same size airframe using the same engine, the MdCM flies slower than the air launched version. The problem of trying to make it fly faster for longer is that the airframe needs to be a lot bigger, or you… Read more »

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
8 days ago
Reply to  DaveyB

Cheers for that very illuminating insights on the balance and contradictions involved.

Sonik
Sonik
7 days ago
Reply to  DaveyB

DaveyB thanks really interesting analysis as always.

Do you work for MBDA?…if not I think perhaps they should give you a job 😉

Last edited 7 days ago by Sonik
farouk
farouk
8 days ago

Last week Israel unveiled their latest 5th generation anti-ship missile (which also has a land targeting capability) Called Sea Breaker:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fjIGNH2yAI
it looks pretty impressive.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
8 days ago
Reply to  farouk

Couldn’t see any speed information though it’s late and could only peruse it briefly. Does it expand upon that. Fascinated to compare the different priorities found from different offerings as Davey refers to above it can get quite complex. I guess Israeli priorities may differ to a true blue water navy, depending upon, one presumes to what extent this is prioritised for export opportunities over their own specific requirements.

Watcherzero
Watcherzero
8 days ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

Subsonic sea skimming, good sensors and a very large warhead for a cruise missile but no stealth materials.

Last edited 8 days ago by Watcherzero
Reasonable1
Reasonable1
8 days ago

Does this show up the weakness of stealth technology when our primary carrier aircraft can’t carry anything outside of its concealed weapons bay? What happens if we need quick delivery of such a missile out of reach of our fighters? Sure they can be launched from a ship, but deployment would take a lot longer than if it were delivered by air.
The RAF/Navy have a need for the likes of F18’s with our carriers fitted with catapults.

Peter S
Peter S
6 days ago
Reply to  Reasonable1

There is nothing to stop the F35 carrying weapons externally. There are 6 pylons with the wing tip ones suitable for AAMs and the middle and inboard ones capable of heavier loads. In a situation where enemy air defences have been suppressed, stealth would be unnecessary and the F35 would operate like a normal strike aircraft.
Any new missile would need integration which isn’t cheap.

Nicholas
Nicholas
8 days ago

I wonder if they plan to intergrate this with the Poseidon fleet?

Goldilocks
Goldilocks
7 days ago
Reply to  Nicholas

I mean it would make sense but a lack of £££ probably means no, but you would think if the RAF have stocks of it to put on the typhoon, it would be a good capability enhancement for the P-8 which at the moment is armed with American Torpedoes

Sonik
Sonik
7 days ago
Reply to  Nicholas

Given the growing number of P8 users it might be sensible for MBDA to do that themselves, or at least do it for a very competitive price.

Last edited 7 days ago by Sonik
Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
7 days ago

I just can’t see a scenario where we need lots of big anti ship missiles fired from ships. The navy would of pushed for it if they needed it. Also how do people on here know our harpoon are rubbish? Based on the only place we would possibly use a heavy weight anti ship missile would be in the middle of a big empty ocean, our harpoon would work fine. Now the navy have pushed for a missile from 2030 onwards as they see it maybe needed for then. I suspect it’s also to do with the missile getting made… Read more »

Sonik
Sonik
7 days ago
Reply to  Monkey spanker

I think that’s a good way of looking at it.

Ship launch AShM are really a deterrent capability, to keep adversaries at a decent stand-off distance, where RN/RAF then has significant advantage using other capabilities.

So it doesn’t even need to be the best AShM in the world just enough to give others pause.