The interim anti-ship missile would have filled the gap between Harpoon retiring and the ‘Future Cruise/Anti–Ship Weapon’ entering service.

In 2019, the Ministry of Defence notified bidders of its intention to purchase an interim anti-ship missile as current Harpoon stocks reach end of life and a replacement not being due until 2030. The Ministry of Defence issued a Prior Information Notice (PIN) for a “Next Generation Surface Ship Guided Weapon (SSGW)” to equip Royal Navy vessels. The notice is as follows:

“The Authority has a possible future requirement to procure a next generation ship launched anti-ship weapon system for use within training and operational roles with the Royal Navy. First delivery of the ship installed equipment would be required by December 2022 and first delivery of missiles would be required by December 2023. Manufacture and delivery of the weapon system to be delivered in Financial Year 2023/2024.”

When Harpoon exits service in 2023 there will be a serious capability gap until the entry into service of FC/ASW programme in 2030 if the interim missile project does not happen, warned the Defence Committee.

I reported back in September that progress on the interim missile appeared to be slowing down, now we know why.

First Sea Lord Admiral Tony Radakin said at a recent session of the Defence Select Committee.

“Harpoon is going out of service in 2023. We have a capability conversation: do we bring in a relatively modest surface-to-surface weapon—it does not have a very long range and it is not hypersonic—and, if so, how much does it cost? It might be as much as £250 million, just to allow us to have five sets for three ships. When would that be able to come in? It looks like the earliest would be 2026 or 2027.

We have paused what we call the interim surface-to-surface guided weapon programme to force us to say: we accept that there will be a gap as Harpoon comes to the end of its life, but we should reach out to hypersonic weapons and weapons that have plus-1,000 km range. Do we do that with our international partners? That is when you start to look at the future”

The Royal Navy appear to want to gap this capability in the shorter term in order to afford a better solution in the longer term.

Admiral Tony Radakin later added:

“I think the problem that we have is focused around Harpoon, which goes out of date in 2023. We are having a debate about whether we take the sticking-plaster approach of an interim surface-to-surface weapon, which might have what I would call a relatively modest range and might stretch to being land attack, or do we accept that we might have to have more of a gap and go for a more substantial offensive weapon. We do that in partnership with other nations.”

What is the Future Cruise/Anti–Ship 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.

However, in September 2021 the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding to progress the project was postponed by France in response to the AUKUS pact which saw Australia cancel the acquisition of French-designed conventional submarines in favour of nuclear submarines based on United States and UK technology.

In November the First Sea Lord, Admiral Tony Radakin, told the House of Commons Select Defence Committee that options for FC/ASW were still “being looked at” including potential hypersonic weapons.

“The path that we as a Navy want to go down is absolutely that—longer-range missiles from ships with land attack. To Mr Francois’s point earlier about whether that is in the programme, it is in the programme with money that has been allocated for the future cruise anti-ship weapon, but we are only on the cusp of an assessment phase with the French. We have not delineated that it is going to be weapon X, but we have the budget line that supports that approach.

The exciting thing for the Navy is that the more substantial money is in the longer-term line, with the ambition around the future cruise anti-ship weapon and the French partnership. That has got the money in the line, but I agree with you that if we are operating at the hypersonic level, there is a debate as to whether that is at the back end of this decade or the early 2030s.”

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

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

327 COMMENTS

  1. Right bunfight on Navy Lookout, for good reason. Usual thing, 95 million already spend, no missiles. FSGAWM (or whatever) will be cancelled or late.
    A smaller versatile missile almost in our inventory could have been fitted in 5 ships for some of that spend…..?
    Waiting usual replies…what do I know etc. But its nice to get an early post!!

    • While I like the idea of a multi-purpose FC/ASW and arming Type 31 and 32 with Mk.41, I see a few problems with this.

      The first is that our navy will have no AShM for 7 years, and this is very much a problem. If war breaks out, the only assets that we have that will be of use will be the Astutes, our surface ships will only be capable of self-defence until they inevitably run out of missiles. That is simply unacceptable.

      Secondly, this means that the Type 45s will have no chance of getting any AShMs as they has no space for any Mk. 41s…

      • Mmm a couple of points – firstly Sea Ceptor has an Anti-Ship Capabilty,not as big hitting as a dedicated ASM certainly but a Capability nonetheless,secondly the Type 45 doesn’t need the MK41 VLS for ASM,they carry Harpoon just in front of the Bridge.

          • Yes it will go out of service,fingers crossed that there will be no major conflict before FC-ASW completes development,but as i said Sea Ceptor covers some of the gap ( better than nothing at all ) for Type 23, 26 and 31,and in a real emergency a UOR can be issued for Type 45 for an off the shelf Cannister Launched System ( the room is there ).Obviously Mk41 for Type 45 is not going to happen but i can’t understand why they went for A50 instead of A70 Sylver when the 45’s were built,this would have opened up other options,been FC-ASW Compatible
            ,plus Aster 30 1NT and 2BMD would have been an easier upgrade.

          • For T26 and possibly T31 (FFBNW) with Mark 41VLS there’s Tomahawk V, an anti-ship missile with a 1,000 mile range. I suspect the RN are viewing this as an alternative if the French no-longer want to joint develop a new missile.

          • You have a point, and its one of the biggest issue for European navies (At least UK/France).

            Since the next gen of ASM comes from VLS, with the lack of place in our ships, it will come to be painful…

            I pray for a great range on this missile to least give a decent land attack capability.

          • I have listened to Radakin talk (the entire Parliamentary session is on Navy Lookout btw), and he says that the aim is to develop a weapon with 1000km+ range and a land attack capability.

            I’m going to bring up a controversial idea: the U.K. already doesn’t have an SSM. Can we really call the outdated obsolete Harpoon that we mount on our Type 45s and Type 23s a proper anti ship weapon? And, to be fair, would getting something like NSM actually stand in a war against China’s Type 55s? As a read more into this topic, I think there isn’t a missile that we can get today that IS actually good enough. And, so, I think Radakin talks sense. Invest big into FC/ASW and maximise the chances of it becoming a truly world-beating weapon.

      • I dont know if it is a problem. We wont know unless there is a conflict where anti ship missiles launched from another ship demonstrate their effective use.
        I think the RN is looking ahead and preparing for the 2030s when a conflict with China becomes a distinct possibility. Their current build up of naval forces will yield quantitative and qualitative parity with USN in the 2030s, at least for surface warships.
        We will need long range hypersonic weapons by then. If saving 150 million now (100 million already spent? ?) increases the chances of getting such advanced weapons in the 2030s then i think thats the right decision.
        Until then. Bum cheeks need to be held tightly together that we have no peer or near peer conflicts.

      • This might be a silly suggestion but CPU s the Aster 30+ be given an AShM capability? It’s almost hypersonic itself?

  2. The enemy knows RN have no SSM’s so can maximizes their VLS for their own SSM’s
    Instead of say 60 SSM and 60 SAM can put instead 90 SSM and 30 SAM

      • Or if the conflict involves allies beyond the RN. You can hardly nip back to port to change things when you spot a US or other ship across the horizon. Hardly ideal mind to put it lightly.

        • Yeah good point. When you consider possible conflicts we might be involved in it’s hard to think of one where we’d be alone. I know some might say Falklands but Argentina is no threat for at least the next 10 or even more years.

          •  “do we accept that we might have to have more of a gap and go for a more substantial offensive weapon. We do that in partnership with other nations.”

    • Highly unlikely to fight a peer nation with those resources on our own – and if we fit VLS to Type 31 as a result of cancelling I-SSGW we can load them up with missiles bought as UORs if FCASW not ready.

      Also as I already said, getting a surface ship into the range where I-SSGW would be useful is probably suicidal. Its only real utility is for last ditch defence.

  3. The RN have shepherded their financial resources whilst providing pretty good value for money to date – at least in terms of other UK military parameters we have for comparison. Now, unless FCASW is further advanced than we’re advised, which appears not to be the case with the latest French response, this I-ASM call starts to look a little too much of a gamble.
    The Chinese are currently increasing all naval combatant production at a very high rate; to the extent that, by around the end of this decade, they will have numbers approaching comparison with those fielded by the UK, and then US, during the early years of WW2. Yet no-one at this time has fired a shot.
    My conclusion is that the PRC, if not effectively ‘at war’, are already on an advanced war footing.

    • “If you seek peace, prepare for War” But I don’t think PRC are out there looking For Peace at this present time ask Taiwan regular air incursions it’s just a matter of time

      • Dunno, Knight. But looks a credible possibility to date!
        During the Select Committee proceedings, the axiom that 1SL could always find a use for more funding was raised, only partly in jest. To my impression, the ‘conversation’ that seemed most orientated around funding was the I-SSGW. Just recently it was ‘essential’; so, trying to balance a shoestring budget? Even assuming that development of FCASW or similar goes well, it’s cost must be significant.
        So, with reference to your question, ‘How long can we?’

  4. Just a question
    What is the next largest navy without a surface missile? While the logic is understandable it’s embarrassing and dangerous and another blunder in acquisition of military equipment

    • The RN will be the worlds only ocean going, let alone blue water, navy without it. Even countries like Bangladesh have stuck SSMs on to their corvettes and frigates.

    • There’s always spin BS but there is no defence in reality to leaving our escorts to be blown away before any other weapons can be bought within range of another warship. Japan, S Korea, Taiwan, India & others all produce their own AShMs, even supersonic ones or more, yet we can’t be bothered to even but one off the shelf. The nation is being apallingly failed by our leaders.

    • Will the Harpoon really need to be out ?
      They really cant be updated for small cost ? Or at least just extend service life ?

  5. The French with 2 destroyers and seven modern frigates…the rest built back in the 80′ and 90’s. One carrier and six nukes with a fraction of the capability of the Astutes. Yep, they know what they’re doing?

    • I’ve never heard someone call the 45s dodgy… there’s nothing dodgy about them. The only problem they have is being solved and once they receive 24 CAMM, 48 Aster 30 with potentially Block 2 integrated will become what is undoubtedly best air defence ship.

    • The Horizon Class and Aquitaine Class are frigates

      had France got the 2 cancelled Horizon Class and 9 cancelled Aquitane Class then they’d have a decent Frigate fleet as the Georges Leygues Class Anti-Submarine Warfare Frigates would probably have retired years ago if France had more Aquitaines to fill their role

      They’d have a large fleet of 32 Frigates overall ergo 4 Horizon Class Anti-Air Warfare Frigates, 17 Aquitaine Class Anti-Submarine Warfare Frigates, 5 LaFayette Class General-Purpose Frigate and 6 Floréal Class Surveillance Frigate.

      • According to NATO standards the FREMM are destroyers (as Horizon and T45). And yeah 17 of them would have be very valuable for the french navy..

        • Yeah as they are basically the ASW Frigate fleet however technology level-wise

          • Horizon Class Frigate is a 1990s era design
          • Aquitaine Class Frigate is a 2000s era design
          • Georges Leygues Class is a 1970s era design
          • LaFayette Class Frigate is a 1980s era design
          • Floréal Class Frigate is a 1990s era design

          The thing is the French Frigates are outdated design-wise when compared to the UK’s Type 26 which is arguably a 1990s era design that had has 30 worth of R&D put in

          • Hmm.. you’re saying that the backbone of the french fleet is outdated compared to a ship which is not finished.. of course the T26 will be better equiped but for now we don’t see them on the battle line and the main strenght of the navy is composed of old (but still usefull) T23. To be fair the FREMM are better than this, has a land strike capability and a descent surface air defence. And they are really good looking 😀

          • Frankly, France frankly has been neglecting its military

            It should be questioning if it needs PANG really like it is a colonial Navy at best with very limited power project ability as their Durance Class can only shift 7600 tonnes of fuel compared to RFA Fort Victoria’s 12,500 tonnes of fuel 

            The French replacements the Jacques Chevallier Class are supposed to carry 3.4 million US gallons of Fuel or how many tonnes of fuel?

          • According to wikipedia (not the best but only thing I found) close to 13000m3 so 3 millions US gallons.. the first is supposed to reach the sea in 2022 and they will have 4 of them.
            Let them think themself about the utility of a strike carrier. They proved many time to us that they know how to use this

          • For the FlotLog => 13 000m3 of fuel.

            “like it is a colonial Navy”
            Look at the world map, we dont have only metropolitan France…

            Even if I agree about the utility of a new CVN when you compare with 5-9 DD / 3-4 SSN with VLS.

            We dont talk about being colonial, but its a fact that for defense interesting we need to keep a projection capability.

            The UK is in the same situation for what I know, pretty odd to read something like this here.

          • Age isn’t really relevant, the question is armament/senors/availability rate. Yes in the long run age comes into it, but a war is fought in a moment in time, which could be tomorrow or in 10 years time, what you have at that moment matters.

          • Dont forget the coming FDI, smaller but also superior to the FREMM except for the weapons stock sadly.

            But for the superiority of the Type 26 over the FREMM… I will not giving my hand on this.
            Better for the radar (Contrary should be a shame) but the rest ? Well not really.

            Its pretty arguable to sacrifice “heavy” VLS to put sea ceptor on this ship since the capabilities of the sea ceptor against modern threat is… well not really so great.

            Having 24 “heavy” cells on a ship of this size is the same error than the 16 VLS on the FDI.

            Lack of projection.

          • Why what ? Better for the radar ? Simply by design.

            Why all modern ships adopt the same:.. Dont know how to say it english:.. single mast ? 😡

            Because he offer enhanced capabilities for detection with modern flat radar.

            That’s also why Naval Group successfully push the FDI design (Not the lone reason) over the FREMM, even if a revised FREMM was designed for the Canada:

            FREEM ER (32 to 48 A50/A70 + 24 VL MICA) – DESIGN ONLY
            https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-A1AeTMMmo40/Wb0lnSMa3DI/AAAAAAAACeI/NMHwmWDAwkIBVcBZEHNru-7DtET3HDblwCLcBGAs/s1600/fer.jpg

            FREMM / FREMM DA (FR)
            https://www.naval-group.com/sites/default/files/styles/heading_article/public/2020-08/fremm_0.jpg

            FDI
            https://static.latribune.fr/full_width/1777154/fregates-fdi-grece-naval-group.jpg

            You can clearly identify the differrence between the 2 versions.

        • This is getting confusing the Americans are lengthening the FREMM design and are still calling them Frigates has NATO not informed them? Fact is the Frigate/Destroyer definition is obscure at best as many attempts (mostly failed) to rationalise it on here has shown. Probably best to compare by combined numbers and/or capabilities in all honesty especially as T26 is very possibly going to be the basis for our next Destroyer design otherwise we just go round in ever decreasing circles.

          • Agree with that, the distinction between frigate and destroyer depend really of countries. And in french the word doesn’t exist by the way

          • Culture Time:
            The french “word” for destroyer exist and is coming from old days and is “Contre-torpilleur”.

            So why we dont use it ? I dont know…

          • The whole destroyer, frigate, cruiser thing is a bit of a red herring as every nation makes it all up as they go along.

            Im pretty sure the RN and La Royale would never agree an international standard In principle, the USN would always insist that’s their standard was the international standard and the Russians and Chinese would completely ignore everything western. I suppose the last time there was any form of international standard would have been the treaty driven ships of the interwar period ( and the Germans smashed that one with their interest take on what a cruiser looked like).

          • I agree.
            That’s why I dont care about the name in a navy, just look at the NATO CODE since it represent the mission and for what I know, we must agree to the rules for the designation.

          • The nomenclature really doesn’t matter, when push comes to shove, you’re not going to care if that inbound weapon is from a frigate or a destroyer (or a corvette).

      • All the 10 first line frigates are destroyer from the NATO standard.
        Thats why they have a code “D-XXX”…
        And the next 5 FDI will probably have a D code too since the capabilities are better exception for weapons stocks.

        As for the role, all FREMM are ASW.
        The difference between the 6 FREMM and 2 FREMM DA are the land attack capabilities where the 2 FREMM DA have Aster 30.

        In fact, the 2 Horizon frigates have also greats ASW capabilities, better than most NATO (especially US) ships… But ofc not as good the FREMM.

    • French Navy and Air Force regardless of their equipment have NEVER Won a modern day battle in their ENTIRE History. That fact will never change.

        • Registration means nothing, is my point.

          We could designate 50 tugboats at destroyers but I don’t know what that has to do with the comparison of navies’ capabilities.

          The 8 Aquitaine-class serve the role of Anti-Submarine warfare. The UK also has 8 ships in this role – Type 23s. They just use different names.

          The French ones are more capable because they are newer but the Type 26s will presumably overtake FREMM when that comes out, that’s just how ship development works.

          • “Registration means nothing, is my point.”

            Yes and no, from NATO standard it has a sense:
            That’s why the german navy has 0 destroyer.

            The type 23 is more like the Floréal than a FREMM, that’s why she’s a frigate, lighter, not the same mission.

            And the match for the Type 26 is probably to look with the FDI, even she’s smaller (4500t), if the MN finally go for the 24-32 VLS ASTER/MdCN, she will come to be a beast.

            As you said, its normal for newer ship to be better than the old ones, the opposite would be a shame and odd.

            But newer doesn’t mean better in all specs.

            The biggest issue of our ships, FREMM/FDI/T26/T45 is the lack of VLS, the next gen of ASM will just make it bigger…

            In all case for me, I dont care about who has the bigger, the better, since we probably going to fight side by side, the better you are, better we are and the better we are, better you are.

    • 2 Horizon, 6 FREMM with Land Attack capabilities, 2 FREMM DA with enhanced Air Defenses.
      Will come also the 5 FDI even if we dont know about their final capabilities (Land attack or not ? 16/24/32 VLS?), pretty small (4500tons) but in fact with better overall capabilities than the FREMM:

      All of them are Destroyer from NATO code:

      The name “frigates” is just a navy choice, nothing with the role:

      But well, I must agree “know what they’re doing”, since the cancel of 9 FREMM, I cant agree.
      Even with the chocie to build a new CVN… Not sure if its really a better idea than build 4 SSN with VLS or 5-9 more FDI.

        • Since you talk about 2 destroyers when the list is about 10, I let you guess.

          I’m not even arguing about the “Astute is superior”, because well, we all known that anyone talking about the superiority of such secret system than SSN, dont really need to be seriously eared.

          • One simple fact for you. You can have the French Navy with two modern destroyers and seven modern frigates or you can have nine destroyers. Either way you don’t get past our six and thirteen respectively.

          • Simple fact for you:
            You only look after the name, dont understand the role.
            What you call Destroyer, is a first rank frigate in the Marine Nationale.
            What you call Frigate, is a second rank frigate in the Marine Nationale.
            So, from NATO STANDARD, the french navy have:
            10 Destroyer (2 Horizons, 8 FREMM), + 5 Light coming (FDI):
            11 Frigates (5 FLF + 6 Floréal) Later – 5 replaced by the 5 DD.

            The 11 Frigates will be replaced by 5 FDI of 4500t, but coded D and X EPC (maybe, someday, who really know?), so by 2030 the MN will not have any “second rank” frigates.

            I dont really know the exact fleet of the RN, and I dont care wether you have a bigger, it will not shock me since its historically “normal”.

            So.
            Can you put aside you superiority complex and analyze some data before talking ?

      • Frigates are more like the old destroyer escorts of WW2 that had less armament than full size destroyers. Distinctions are blurred in the modern era.

    • That’s 5 more modern surface combatants than the UK has. Besides the 45s all the UK’s frigates are built in the 80’s and 90’s. And soon they’ll have less firepower than a WW 2 warship.

  6. I’m afraid the French Navy is not one to emulate they are in a dire condition. We have the type 26 coming along and the issues with the type 45 are being addressed. The astute is second to none and much more capable than the barracuda class submarine. This is really a weapons issue and rather than get into bed with the perfidious French we would be better engaging fully with more modern US approaches to hypersonic weapon systems. I would like to see much more integration of our R&D with the US and the submarine programme is a great example. The Europeans are technologically backward compared to the US.

      • Mike we would all agree here that the T45 programme has been frustrating and we could do with more destroyers and frigates but claiming the French are superior to the Royal Navy is clearly incorrect. The French have good and bad in their fleet as well – take their aircraft carrier as a prime example. My glass is half full and yours is half empty and that is the difference. Unfortunately the Royal Navy has to live within its means in terms of what the UK is willing to spend upon it. However, we have two excellent carriers now with aircraft (latest generation V F35) that are building up in numbers, the type 26 frigate in the best frigate in the world in terms of potential capability. we have the type 31 being built (and a future type 32) both of which are excellent general purpose frigates at relatively low cost and the issues with the type 45 are being rectified. Don’t forget the type 45 issues were fully and squarely an issue with an American intercooler design which wasn’t up to scratch (an elementary heat transfer engineering issue). The type 45 just came a bit too early for the very reliable and excellent MT30 gas turbine (used around the world). I would agree we should accelerate the design of the replacement for the type 45 and we should attempt to work with the US (instead of Europe) on hypersonic missile technology (the US is miles ahead of Europe). I’d quite like to see an Anglosphere military alliance being front and centre in our foreign policy and with less reliance on NATO (maybe having an EU defence collaboration working with an Anglosphere military alliance). This strong alliance would be the US, UK, Canada, Australia (and if they can get their act together) New Zealand as well. However, they is my personal opinion just like you have a personal opinion which I disagree with. However, I wouldn’t seek to have you banned just because I didn’t agree with you. I welcome your opinions so I can counter them with my own facts. Debate is always very healthy and we see too much of the cancel culture in the UK at the moment as people can’t tolerate others opinions. This is actually a negative import from the west coast of the US in my opinion (i.e. cancel culture).

        • “Debate is always very healthy and we see too much of the cancel culture in the UK at the moment as people can’t tolerate others opinions. This is actually a negative import from the west coast of the US in my opinion (i.e. cancel culture).”

          I salute your open minded approach Andrew, unfortunately I can’t see it catching on on the whole internetty thing. I’m guessing nobody has sat you down and had ‘the chat’ so pull up a bollard and park your arse…. basically the internet is for people to be shitty to each other. And pornography. I hope this hasn’t shattered your illusions too much mate. 😂

          For what its worth I agree with you, people can be very quick to go for the low blow online, its easy, you don’t have to look anyone in the eye (or risk a sore face) when you’re telling someone they’re an idiot because they disagree with your opinion. Here we all are though eh ?? 😕

        • No you weren’t as you have already said you have never served (well not as this avatar Mike) or even as the Frenchman PierrLM, or as anti-war TH and before that the anti RN and aircraft carrier “white elephants “ Harold. The nonsense just keeps flowing from your troll keyboard (and we won’t mention John and “Map” from Falmouth!!!!) You must have done something in your life which you are proud of but stolen glory and walting it, isn’t acceptable !

    • Probably best not to introduce their carrier to the equation I guess. Various projects have problems to be addressed the French are no less prone to others in reality. And their new frigate design being offered to Greece is frankly something of an expensive joke compared to its competitor designs designed to tie the buyer into French technology rather than actual capability… and at great expense too.

  7. When was the last time a ship borne surface to surface anti-ship missile was successfully used in action? Over the horizon missiles need to be targeted, ISTAR. So for it to be of any use then some sort of aviation is needed. Since 1943 ship mounted weapons have been subsumed by submarines and aircraft as the go to platform for sinking ships. Until we have ship launched missile witth the range of an aircraft and ability to find and target a ship unaided that will not change. FCASM offers that capability, NSM or the like is quite useful in littoral conditions to defend against FACs and corvettes, but its not an effective offensive weapon.

    • That is a fair point but be careful you’re not committing the famous saying about “Generals are always preparing to fight the last war” The tech has advanced significantly over the last couple of decades and with the advancement of drones, datalinks, cec, I imagine finding, tracking and engaging surface ships is not as difficult as it use to be.

      having said all that, I do think this is the right decision. Take time and get this right.

      • Err yes it is…If you are shooting from 300+Km its very very difficult.

        Time of flight means the target will move, even if using a high speed missile…seeker heads need to see the target when they get within range and they only have a limited angle of sight
        Mid-course updates and OHT are essential for long range shoots. Using a ships helo for OHT and Harpoon is difficult enough and most of those shots are 60 miles or less.

        • Not disagreeing, especially at those ranges but I do think difficult is relative based on who we’re dealing with. The usn, China and to a lesser extent Russia (They seem to have the missiles but lack the isr) have invested large sums into this very issue and I can also see China coming up with some very novel, low tech ways to find and track ships using that massive “civilian” maritime fleet.

          • True – the Russian P-800 anti-ship missiles solve the problem of over-the-horizon targetting by being fired in a swarm. One missile flies high and designates the target with it’s onboard radar and transmits the targets location to the other missiles which fly at sea skimming height. If the high-flying missile gets taken out another pops up to take its place and so on until impact. The missiles also co-ordinate their approach such that they arrive at the target from different directions simultaneously, with speeds in excess of Mach 3. No GPS is needed. In an ideal world the T45 would have approximately 35-40 seconds to react to the missiles crossing over its radar horizon before impact.

            Furthermore, even at 1000 km range a missile travelling at Mach 3 (~1000 m/s at sea level) would traverse the distance from firing point to target in a little over 1000 seconds, to account for initial acceleration. A targetted ship traveling at 30 km/h would only move about 9 km in that time which is really not that far and well within the target detection ‘cone’ of the missile.

            It seems wholly unlikely that the PLAN or the Russians would go the trouble of investing in long range ship-launched anti-ship missiles if they didn’t think they could use them effectively in combat. This is definitely a bad decision by our MoD, especially as there’s no guarantee that the all-singing all-dancing FCASW will be delivered on time given the MoD’s lousy record on project delivery. An interim solution is definitely needed.

      • Good points. As ever the key to winning is finding and fixing the enemy before they find you. Any ship with beyond radar horizon weapons needs access to targeting data. That can come from the combat cloud these days – sattelites, UAVs, ISTAR aircraft even submarines and XLUUVs can find and track targets beyond the range of the firing platform. I-SSGW was designed to give the GP Type 23s, which operate in the Gulf and with the LRGs a littoral strike capability (its useful to note that the main advocates of these shorter ranged weapons have littoral navies or operate in enclosed seas like the Baltic and Med – Norway, Sweden, Finland, Israel etc.). As part of a blue water fleet missiles need to work with carrier aircraft to deliver a long range punch – so F-35 creates air dominance and degrades the A2AD bubble, and also creates the battle scape picture allowing cruise missiles / 1,000km hypersonics to deliver the killer punch.

        • I follow your logic but having a floating bit of the UK ‘in area’ already means that all you need is something in the air to guide a missile in for the long range ‘shoots’. Its the same principal with TLAM on boats, if you have a boat ‘in area’ with even half a dozen then you can use them as a viable option (as opposed to a threat).

          Having said that, I’m not advocating every RN vessel being armed to the teeth for just in case, its horses for courses but our larger escorts like the 23/26/45’s and hopefully the 31/32’s in the future should (in my opinion) have that option ‘there’ so all we need for long range ‘shoots’ is the over the horizon guidance which is easier to get there than flying out an airborne strike capability. If that makes sense.

          • The point is a surface ship moves around at 30mph, a FAC 40-50mph, a helicopter from 100-200mph and aircraft up to 700mph at sea level, so its much more likely that an aircraft will get into a firing position without being seen and be able to ‘scoot’ than a surface vessel, certainly with relatively short ranged weapons. Anything on the surface over 25 miles away will need real-time targeting from a ship’s helo, UAV or another platform, so there needs to be naval or land based aviation or sattelites that can provide all-weather real-time data around to use them at range. Something like NSM will provide some offensive capability in enclosed waters, but far less flexible than airborne platforms, and self-defence during littoral actions. Something with 1,000km range and hypersonic is a different matter, so long as targeting information is available it can get to a surface task force before it can find you, and defeat A2AD.

          • That’s a bit of an all or nothing argument James, which it seems the MOD might be deploying too unfortunately.

            As I said, if you have the weapons ‘there’ its a lot easier to get a set of eyes in than get the right aircraft and for it to potentially travel a very long way. Back in the day when we had Subharpoon it was something we practiced with MPA’s (before we gapped them too 🙄), it even had its own ‘codeword name’ and we could get real time intel. It could be a spotter in a Cessna. These missiles aren’t Congreve rockets, they have a brain and you point them in the right direction and tell them what to sink. I’m not an expert but I seem to mind being told they could be told to ignore (for example) frigates and go for the big units and that was with the old ones, I’d guess the newer and shinier ones are even smarter.

          • In a perfect world we would have both, but with the resources we have it seems reasonable to go for the weapon that will really hurt the enemy. I understand the problem with sub-Harpoon was that it reveals the sub’s position after launch, and better torpedoes like Spearfish could do the job while maintaining stealth.

            Current generation AshMs are more stealthy, have better countermeasures and a better fire and forget brain as you state, but you still need to know that there is something there to fire at, and they are still subsonic and relatively short-ranged compared to helo or aircraft launched weapons.

            In enclosed or littoral waters where ranges are always going to be short – or for coastal defence – they make sense, e.g. Baltic, Eastern Med, Norwegian Islands, Gulf (which is why I-SSGW was for the GP Type 23s), but in blue water it will probably be difficult to find tactical utility.

          • I agree we don’t live in a perfect world and I ‘get’ the hesitancy to invest in a short term project (if that’s what it is) but its a gamble and one I wouldn’t want to put my name to if I was 1SL (the mob missed an opportunity there right enough 😂).

            A boat can give its position away by opening its bow caps if the opposition is close enough with a decent sonar never mind firing a torpedo or sub surface launched missile. Its part of the risk factor and why you wouldn’t really want to use one when a spearfish (which is a much more effective way to kill a ship) could be used. They were for over the horizon stuff really and more designed to put a ship out of action than sink it but ‘every little helps and all that. Submarines can at least skidaddle after firing while skimmers are kind of sat there shouting “kooey, I’m over here….” but its a capability that most navies value. I’m hoping that some zombie Harpoon type solution is found if an interim solution is off the table.

          • The point is a surface ship moves around at 30mph, a FAC 40-50mph, a helicopter from 100-200mph and aircraft up to 700mph at sea level, so its much more likely that an aircraft will get into a firing position

            So whrre are those missiles for the RN F-35 and RAF Typhoon?

          • Just start a fire at the coast of the channel and ask for a raffy with an Exocet.

            Yeah because that’s also why ally exist, even if its your best ennemy or worst ally, depend your pov.

          • And that’s the big gap that needs filling as quickly as possible. Not having Effective AsuW weapons for the F35 and Typhoons is big gap especially in regards to any North Sea, North Atlantic conflict involving Russia, which is a possible risk.

    • There hasnt been any naval conflicts for a long time, the last time a torpedo was used in conflict for example was the Falklands.

      • Yes that was my first thought, when was there an opportunity for a ship to ship missile to actually be effective in action, if they had been ineffective in action then yes I could have understood the argument. So I would say the effectiveness has not truly been tested.

        • So we don’t need SSBNs?

          In green we carried around NBC kit because the threat warning was that opfor would use it. Have they?

          It’s difficult.

          War is coming and I want every RN ship able to defend herself and her breathing heart – the crew.

          As we approach the 11th, it becomes more poignant: stood UNDER the shiny Sheff as she was launched, cycling into Barrow the a.m. after she was sunk.

          I’m torn.

          • I agree. If an enemy disabled our fleets surface to surface capability it would be sabotage, but we’re doing it for them. Treason.

        • Opportunity is the key word – we took lots of ship launched Exocet to the Falklands as did the Argentine Navy, yet the missile strikes were 1.) air launched Exocet, 2.) land based Exocet, and 3.) helicopter launched Sea Skua. Tactically, getting 30mph frigates and destroyers into position to use ship launched missiles is difficult and also puts them at great risk, so self-defence is most likely use – and self-defence against missiles and aircraft is more important as they are much more likely to get in close than surface ships. Much better tactically to sink the enemy’s ships at range with air launched weapons or submarines. Of course missiles with the range of aircraft, and hypersonic, are game changers.

          The Argentine Navy attempted a fleet action on 1st May 1982, using their carrier air and two surface groups – both of the latter had ship lauched Exocet – they were stopped by Conquorer sinking Belgrano (and an s-boat had a bead on the 25th Mayo carrier too but was not given permission to engage) – a point when they realised getting in close enough to use SSMs (or even carrier launched A-4s) was probably suicidal. That said Sea Skua was useful dealing with littoral zone incursions by supply ships, and air launched Exocet sank Sheffield and Atlantic Conveyor as we know, and land based Exocet was a good answer to NGS heavily damaging Glamorgan. It should be noted that everyone’s favourite choice of I-SSGW, NSM, has half the warhead size of either Exocet or Harpoon.

      • We have been very fortunate not to have been in conflict with peer forces with both contemporary capabilities and overseas ambition in that time. But they do exist and are getting stronger.

        If it’s littoral and you can sink a ship from land you do so.

        If you can’t sink from land you sink from the air or using subs.

        If your air or sub capabilities can’t reach you sink using surface vessel launched missiles…or you avoid.

        It is likely to be several years before F35b has an anti ship capability for CSG and that will be relatively lightweight. Uk will be doing very well to have 2 x Astutes deployed concurrently across the globe. RaF doesn’t have any anti ship capability other than…maybe..multiple brimstone from 60km. Sea Venom has short range and isn’t very effective against sophisticated defences.

        Fortunately we have allies.

        • The 2010 incident? Murky we may never know what really happened. No sub or torpedo was detected in the vicinity even after replaying sonar logs. A couple of North Korean minisubs did put to sea a couple of days before the sinking. There are traces of RDX explosive found but not the aluminum compound traces you normally get after a torpedo explosion. Dredging found parts of a torpedo but it looks like those parts had weathering suggesting they had been there for months, the parts had north korean markings but not the ones they use on their in service torpedo’s, further analysis a couple of years later suggests the explosion was smaller than initially calculated and may have been either an abandoned mine or one of the US popup homing mines. There was also evidence that the ship may have run aground and collided with a mine resting on the seabed in shallow water. The North Koreans may have attached a lance demolition charge with divers rather than using a torpedo. All together it suggests it was either a terrorist sabotage or accident and not really what could be considered a standard naval engagement.

          • I’ve read about this sinking, a very murky but interesting incident, one which shows how the NKs play their game. Also quite a surprise for the SK government I believe.

          • Yes, Watcherzero, that’s the incident I was thinking of. Thanks for that, I wasn’t aware of the follow up investigations. Yes, it does sound like the top was old (a training range?) and a mine is a candidate.

      • Gulf wars 1 & 2, carrier strikes in Iraq post Saddam & Afghanistan, Russian intervention in Syria, anti-piracy ops etc. Plus we’re watching a dangerous arms race in the Far east as the PRC looks to expand, invade Taiwan & challange the USN.
        One reason we have relative peace is strong defences, not throwing them away. In an increasingly dangerous world military weakness & vulnerabilities embolden our enemies.

    • Posters throughout this thread are giving you reasoned responses Mike. Why don’t you debate your position rather than cut and pasting the same position?

      • You’re fine mate.

        The big difference is until this troll appears you do debate, you do keep on topic, you do contribute, you do impart experience, you do respond, you are positive, you are polite, and you do keep the same nameless ID for reasons I and others respect.

        A glance at that trolls history displays none of those things.

        Perhaps if he keeps throwing about the banned bollox I will flag the previous “sexual slurs ” coming my way to admin because of the way my name is spelt…….

        • Thanks for that mate, it’s a small snapshot of your everyday online media! Sad trolls that ruin things for others. You keep doing what you are doing Daniele as you are one of the real, solid, knowledgeable posters on here, and no matter what experience we have your encyclopaedia knowledgeable of the military is an education and a bloody useful tool for others! 👍 Always impressive mate!

      • Hi Mike. Harold. TH. I’m a man. Can you get that into your skull?

        A quick google wiki on “Daniele” and its origins might help you.

        Thanks.

    • Never use facts in an argument with ideologues. You are of course correct. In exactly what kind of a scenario would a thousand mile hypersonic missile be required? At what cost? Some spending on belt and braces might be more essential. The First Sea Lord’s second thoughts are wise.

      • A thousand kilometers I think, 600 miles. In the same scenario you would launch a carrier air strike. To destroy your foe before he can find you, or in a land attack to strike deep into his territory to take out his fleet in harbour, or his command and control facilities.

        Taranto, Midway or Pearl Harbor come to mind.

    • In reality shipboard heavyweight Anti ship missiles are almost a form of last ditch defensive weapon systems. Why would you ever choose to put your massively expensive and likely almost irreplaceable ship in range of another ships weapon systems and sensors when you can send out an aircraft to do the job without risk to your ship.

  8. After France lost out too the triAnglo Sub deal, I don’t think that they will be willing too sell us any Anti Ship missiles at current market price Mike

      • The last I read only in the last few days the design being proposed by MBDA is very much based on a current French design which surprised me though it said without great expansion using the same body with improved electronics and sensors. Didn’t strike me as being especially a step forward on that basis and hardly fits in with the statement in this article talking about considering acquiring hypersonic abilities. Is the Anglo French effort cracking, US efforts and alternatives being considered or simply a re-appraisal taking place, none of which bode well for the timescale.

        Makes you even wonder if the intermediate option is out because more investment will be put into obtaining the best of those existing/near existing options as the long term choice itself.in place of the Anglo French effort.

        • Thanks for info. I think we need to keep both in play. Industrially MBDA would be a better bet but we are relying on this to deliver on time and on spec. If in the end that’s the US option that’s the way to go. It’s never a bad thing to let companies know we have a plan B

        • Teseo Mk2/E was announced as being sold to Italy recently may be what you saw? Its an Italian missile that MBDA acquired as a legacy product when purchasing an Italian manufacturer and has been sold to Italy and a lot of African/South American states. Its pretty much Harpoon with about double the range, the latest version adds a land attack mode. Design goes back to the 70’s as essentially strapping a rocket booster to a torpedo (and looked pretty Heath Robinson) the new version does have a more conventional ASM shape though with a Storm Shadow body but a lot of extra wing fins.

        • Because it was based on the ASMPA french nuclear missile, which is a Air launched high supersonic with 500+km range.

          But for what I know the spec (speed/range) are not already fixed, the fact that the subsonic version of the project is always on the table is… odd.

          • The airframe is based on ASMP I understand (for the supersonic ‘Perseus’ version), the subsonic version is an evolution of Storm Shadow. However the motors, seekers, brains, stealth and much more will be new. Because a lot can be taken from ASMP, Sea Venom, upgrades to Exocet and Storm Shadow, development could be quite quick.

  9. The correct decision. What is the point in spending needless hundreds of millions on what is in effect, sticking plaster when the Royal Navy is unlikely to be going into action against an adversary in the next 10 or so years? Better to focus on what can be developed for the future, spend wisely and stop throwing money down the drain.

    • See were your coming from Phil in the long run ,but let’s face it having a sticking plaster could keep you in the fight 🚀

    • Sticking plaster or leave an open bleeding wound? All our escorts are half defeated with no AShM fitted. May as well have a house but no doors fitted.

  10. Well this is what we pay our Admirals for. Big call by him. As to whether to go French or US well I think we should keep our options open. Yes Macron is a …. but he’ll be gone next year. As to US well F35 tells you the upside and the downside. Quality kit but there’s no collaboration. You take what your given or you walk away. On US there’s a new law going through congress that’ll make it virtually impossible to sell the US military anything. Stick my neck out go with France and FC/ASW.

    • Big call: correct call.

      Remain laser focused on weapons that are truly useful.

      Keeping carp on board wastes resources and prevents focus on getting the right Weinstein for the job.

      • What I meant really was the yanks are keen too get great innovations like the Harrier and build on them whilst at the same time selling some really dodgy stuff

        • Yeah but they’ve changed the laws on overseas procurement since the Harrier. It’s why Bae,RR etc have all had to build factories over there. Go on a US politics site and they’re even going to make it harder for the US military to buy from overseas. The US military wanted to buy Brimstone there was no US equivalent so no threat to US defence companies and still Congress blocked even considering it. US politics is pure corruption sorry ‘campaign contributions’ and building factories in congressional districts.

          • 😂 I’m a big fan of Big Country/Skids. Dunfermline FC still play Into the Valley at the start of their games, choon.

            You’re right about getting into bed with the Yanks(in my humble opinion) though, you’re never going to be the ‘big spoon’.

          • Tony blairs still got the Collar that GW Bush lead him round with from 50/50 to 90/10 and not in our favour

          • When Granpa Biden became president elect a reporter from the BBC ask him for a quick interview when the reporter stated his name and he was from the BBC Ģrandpa Joe’s reply was I’m Irish and walk off Looks like our Special relationship is only in our Head

          • Is like to see a muscled up Sea Brimstone for the Interim AShMs with some LAM ability? Be creative, back British industry, build it and get it on all our surface ships. If we don’t use it, it can be repurposed for Coastal or Land use. Alternatively we can but NSM which (I think) does all these too. 😄

          • Developing it would cost money I don’t think exists in the budget. There are no shortage of things that need cash I don’t think that would be a runner.

      • I do. He’ll probably make it to the run off but can’t see him getting 51%. His only hope is that Marine Le Pen is the other candidate. The majority of the French are not happy with him.

        • As a french let me tell you a sad story about the french.
          We are stupid about politics…

          Well I know, its not a french trait :sick:.
          But, even if Macron is not really well loved, the fact is, the rest of the politicians are not much loved.

          So, if you give us the choice between Macron and another shitty politicians, Macron will win.
          And since for the moment we dont see any real opponent, french are so much divided when comes to politics…

          Very hard to give a real estimation but it will not surprise me if Macron back for another 5 years.

          But, you know what? If Macron really stay, its probably a good thing for the FR-UK cooperation.
          Dont forget its the most “anglo” candidate in France, the AUKUS blow, its the lone willing to “lowering” the pressure.

          • I’ve a headache just to think about it.

            If I had been British, I would have made popcorn for the French elections.

          • There you go Anglo french relationship in a nutshell, we are both led by donkeys and our democracy gives us choices between a donkey and mule, meaning both nations get lead by asses.

  11. Ok, the decision is understandable if not disappointing. But I see the logic to go for the step changes of hypersonic and long-range. Let’s hope that between now and the first FC/ASW delivery our ships don’t get caught up in any major conflicts.

    • We’re still in the Gates whilst other countries are galloping ahead with Hyposonic weapons knowing us Brits we’ll be looking at developing a Railgun

      • Still think Railguns may have a future just one where they have been re-evaluated and in a different form. They just presently form a this or that equation with hypersonics and the latter is the better bet as things stand. But more importantly only the Chinese and Russians have operational hypersonics as it stands, the US hope to start fielding them in ‘finished’ form over spin versions by about 2024 but how effective they will be is difficult to judge even if they meet that as tests are hardly giving great confidence in so doing. Not sure what the options are for us producing them any time soon it seems to be pretty complex to combine that sort of speed with range and indeed accuracy too.

    • Agree BOF, but potentially very risky decision short-term. It’ll just take one little silly incident to happen in the Baltic’s, Med, Indo-Pacific and it’s all on and we mayn’t have adequate firepower to counter China-Russia’s ships and subs missile armoury. Why the fuss over £250m when way more has been wasted and mismanaged else where?

  12. Two silly questions for many but honest ones.

    1. Is it possible to upgrade the current RN Harpoon stock to a more modern version? I have noticed that several nations are buying Harpoon for their new ships.
    2. If upgrades are not possible does NATO have a weapons reserve/pool that the RN could use?

    Otherwise what is the RN meant to use, we do not have enough Astute’s to be everywhere, we cannot depend on the F35Bs as, well we don’t have enough. Even now if I understand correctly the 10 of F35Bs that were on Big Lizzie have returned to the UK. We could always throw snowballs or tomatoes, ” now tomatoes don’t hurt, they don’t break the skin, but this f**ker did, it came in a tin”

    What happened to the RN concept of “hit first, hit hard and keep hitting”? If I had my way all RN frigates would have 16 anti ship missiles, eight in the 20-120 range and eight in the 80-300 range with a further 8-16 200-1000 land attack/ anti ship aerial burst. The first 16 in canisters, the land attack in vls.

    • Ordinance has a shelf life, the electrical and mechanical components, solid fuel and explosives will deteriorate over time so eventually you have to recondition (very dangerous and costly) or replace your munitions with freshly manufactured ones (about every 15-20 years give or take). Boeing have stopped upgrading the Harpoon, a couple of upgrade programmes got cancelled in the middle of the last decade and its capability remains a turn of the millennium capability level. The US now sees it not as something to purchase for itself (its transitioning to Norways Naval Strike Missiles NSM) but as something to sell to its allies.

    • Hi Ron, I’m with you on this. Surely they can afford to upgrade or buy one for one replacements with the latest Harpoon? Easy fit and familiarity already on all T32/45s. Waiting for 7+ years for something that may get even further delayed I think is putting our few navsl assets and people at risk. We’re showing weakness not “balls” here. Surely they’ll be a need for a “littorial engagement” AShm (that can be non-VLS) that fits between the Marlet/Venom and LSRAM/ FC/ASW? The Canadians are putting NSMs on their T26s, that’s something we can do too if we choose, in addition to TLAM and FC/ASW. And the Norwegians are now proposing NSM on helos, maybe something we need to look at for our Merlin’s, Wildcats, F-35, Typhoons and P8s? There’s a lot of possible options. No time for mistakes here.

  14. Would this be a potential option for wildcat in the future? Not that we intend to purchase anything now clearly, just a simple question.

    I’ve always thought that Kongsberg might be the interim option as it covers a wide range of options including Land Sea and air and can be fitted to Typhoon.

    Kongsberg Pitching NSM-HL Missile For Maritime Helicopter
    https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/sas-2019/2019/05/sas-19-kongsberg-eyes-helicopter-launched-nsm-missile/

    • Just acknowledging I read your piece on this before my reply above. Seems like a very sensible fill in solution doesn’t it?

      • With the potential threat of China invading Taiwan before Perseus arrives, it would be prudent to have something at the very least which might just deter this from happening.

        Showing a weak hand never plays out well and how long will it take to get the missiles we would need to be installed, tested and working not including the time to move a task force into the SCS?

        The latest Tomahawk Block V and LRASM are other options worth considering, but sadly this is all we seem to do!

        The Joint Strike Missile has already been assessed and can fit on multiple hardpoints of Typhoon, an interim batch of these could be used by both the RAF and the RN as a deterrent if nothing else?

        https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/26939/japan-buying-joint-strike-missiles-for-its-f-35as-is-a-much-bigger-deal-than-it-sounds

        • You do have to wonder why the people in MOD procurement are so seemingly blinkered to all these good options. Is it really coming down to money? £250M is not really that much? They’re looking ahead, which is great and necessary, but as a lot of us think here (and others here do have a different view) this interim AShM is kind of needed now, I’d say within the next three years latest. Time to stop all the faffing around and make a decision for something not nothing. As a side note I heard the RAN is putting TLAM on their 3 Hobart AAW destroyers. Not sure if in their VLS or canister. Makes you wonder what additional could be added to the T45 when their PIP is concluded. I think the RAN are also working with the US on canister launched LSRAM too, so even more possibilities we could be involved in.

          • Agreed Quentin D63, Especially when you consider the cost against one Type 31 which would take three-plus years to replace and the lives lost that cannot.

    • No but it would be an option for Merlin, especially if they are to be upgraded to continue in service to the 2030s.

      • Many thanks, After a little bit of research I found out that the JSM also uses a dual-mode passive IIR/RF seeker, the same as the LRASM.

    • Well our major missile business is now the uk arm of a French Company so it depends how you define doing it ourselves and relying on the French. Much of the rest in sensors etc is the uk arm of an Italian company. Not sure quite how integrated it all is or what cross fertilisation there is.

      • It’s the U.K arm of a multinational European business. Not really a French company, just that there is a French arm along with a German and Italian arm. B.A.E systems and airbus have equal stakes with Leonardo having slightly less.

      • MBDA is not french.
        Every “cells” of MBDA can do its own stuff.

        The reason why MBDA exist is to facilitate sharing between european nations and also take benefits from a greater market for multinational MBDA programs (such as the ASTER).

        But ofc, if you make it alone, you “break” the benefits from MBDA.

    • Criss, in psychological terms Co-dependency that leads too Regression not Progression it seems that we are unable too think and do for ourselves without fear of rejection .Or in economic terms ” we’re not good with balancing the budget “

  16. I’ve never heard someone call the 45s dodgy… there’s nothing dodgy about them. The only problem they have is being solved and once they receive 24 CAMM, 48 Aster 30 with potentially Block 2 integrated will become what is undoubtedly best air defence ship.

  17. Firstly, this is a shambles, no long term planning or adequate provision for Harpoon replacement which should have been in place a good while ago. Secondly, there is no guarantee the FCASW project will go the distance and turn out the missile everybody wants, least of all a hypersonic weapon. The US is way ahead in that area anyway……. although it needs to be remembered that nobody has actually successfully tested a hypersonic ASM against a maritime target manouvering at speed……hypersonic are best used against stationary targets….so, at the end of the day, whilst a manoeuvrable hypersonic will have its place in future, its not the answer to everything…

    • Spot on, its still very untested in this environment especially though still no excuse for complacency that’s for sure.

    • “no guarantee the FCASW project will go the distance and turn out the missile everybody wants”, good point Paul42. All the more reason to by an interim solution. Roll-out of FCASW could well be delayed or maybe technically short of the mark. I also like the rhetoric used on this site of shifting the interim solution off the targetted assets onto, say, T31s, once FCASW is rolled out, assuming support for the interim could be maintained. This would give us a variety of anti-ship/land attack missile options for different combat scenarios.

  18. Anti ship missiles are needed. There should be no gap. Why can’t Harpoon be kept in service longer? So new fantastic missile in 2030, when ever did a project happen on time. Late Late was in part why Australia were able to cancel the subs from France, Over cost and Over Time. UK Military gets worse.

    • Really don’t see a new truly state of the art missile being ready for 2030, it’s not even been properly defined or specs agreed. Going hypersonic would I fear push it well into the thirties and the costs more than substantial which is why I wonder if acquiring one from the US if hypersonic is increasingly on the cards.

      • Exactly but which-ever way the hapless MOD decide to upgrade anti ship missile defence, we need a stopgap and what better than the existing Harpoon, there simply is nothing else for the foreseeable  future..

    • It’s funny, but not really funny. I wonder if the MOD and leadership ever look at the UKDJ and Save the Royal Navy type websites for all our comments. They might get a shock of all our grass roots views and common sense and not to just talk amongst themselves.

      • Morning.

        You made this comment in a similar vein previously.
        8 days ago, on the Forts sold to Egypt thread.

        “It is hilarious that there is an Admiral responsible for flogging off ships. I guess there will also be an Admiral in charge of the heads and an Admiral in charge of office supples.”

        And my reply then.

        “There isn’t.
        DESA is headed by a civil servant. I never remember it to be headed by any serving officer from the 3 services from memory.
        The Vice Admiral mentioned is DG Ships at DES, and with a multi billion budget and dozens of teams procuring equipment. He does not dispose of surplus MoD equipment.
        What rank should that person be in your view? Able Seaman? Or maybe a 1 * Commodore?”

        As is so often the case, you don’t reply or engage with answers given.

        The last sentence of my reply then is pertinent to your point. And here I go repeating it again.

        What rank should they be?

        Defence is a huge organisation with hundreds of directorates and organisations that needs SRO of a certain rank to run multi billion pound programmes with hundreds or sometimes thousands of staff.
        What rank should the SRO be Mike? Able Seaman? 1 Star serving or MoD Civil Service equivalent?

        Key note – there are many many more of these supporting organisations that make defence tick than the frontline army battalions and regiments, RAF squadrons, or RN ships. Hundreds more.

        There are not 34 Admirals, There ARE Rear Admirals, Vice Admirals, and Admirals.

        How many of your 34 are also in MoD Head office directorates or in the “Purple” tri service domain. What rank should they be?

        What rank do you think DCDS Military Strategy and Ops and under him ACDS ( Ops ) should be in the MoD Mike? The men responsible amongst other things for co ordinating the DCMC and DCMO in attack on this nation or nuclear war?

        That entity is not a battalion or a ship, but no less important.
        Arguably more so. I’d prefer the DCMC exists than a battalion of soldiers or a certain warship.

        Many posters here only see the sharp end of defence and have no idea of the complexity of the supporting elements that make it a reality.

        “Defence” is more than just the pointy end.

        There is always an argument for trimming more of the top brass. That has been done several times already since Options for Change in 1991. It was done in the 95 Front Line First review, on other occasions, and Land Command and Naval Command reorganised themselves again recently.

        So I ask again, what rank should these people who run the supporting parts of defence, which consists of 150,000 odd uniformed and almost 60,000 civilians be?

        There is no point in demanding evidence if you do not reply to replies you get.

        Lets see if you reply this time or just A/ Ignore B/ Head for the hills. C/ Give some off the cuff brush off D/ Engage with my comment.

        • Sorry for interrupting your ‘debate’ with ‘the artist formerly known as….’ but he does have a point about the number of Flag officers. While we’re not quite at the stage of everyone being a Generalissimo, we are a very top heavy military. I know that you need to have people at certain levels for interoperability with other forces (don’t know if its still the same but NATO only used corporals or equivalents because some countries people below that level were ‘not suitable’) so there is mutual respect etc but when we have a navy of roughly 33 thousand, its hard to justify having a Flag officer per thousand, especially when a lot of those thousand are somewhere up the ladder themselves. Roughly 20% of the navy is officers, then there’s the assorted Senior Rates and Killicks, hmmmm maybe we’re not that far away from all being Generalissimos after all. 🤔

          • So what is the answer?

            We can hardly scrap the organisation’s these 1 * represent.
            Mikes comment was there are more top ranking officers than the numbers of equipment and personnel they manage.

            My point is there are more organisations at the back end than front line, so it is inevitable there will be more 1* than ships.

            Or we have thousand people staffed multi million organisations run by the caretaker! Doesn’t happen in the private sector so it won’t in the MoD.

            Would a down grading of every rank work?

            I believe Squadron leaders don’t command squadrons, for example.

          • My starting point is that I know its not going to change.

            Humans being humans, most want more recognition and that comes down to promotions and in a simplistic way being ‘better’ than those ‘below’ them. You can put as much gold on your shoulders as you want though, your sh*t still stinks. Yes, military attaches (for example) need to be a certain rank for both prestige and experience and that makes sense, you need to have a ‘level’ but there are a lot of jobs that could (and often are when needed) done by people at a lower rate or rank.

            The culture needs to change in the Forces, pay people what they’re worth rather than having to promote them so they get more money and accept that not everyone wants to climb that greasy pole. I know that that is wildly idealistic and not going to happen. The crap jobs needs to be shared around a lot more too, the RHIP (rank has its privileges) approach is rampant and there is a lack of respect which exacerbates the problem. Its often the reason people leave, the straw that breaks the camel’s back kind of thing. Maybe changed now but I did 4 years as a crabfat back in the 80’s before joining the navy and the RAF were much better about this, even compared to nearly 25 years later when I left the navy.

            Using the civvy comparison, I’ve been told by someone who sort of deals with this kind of thing that you can tell when a company is in financial trouble because one of the first things they do is start laying off the cleaning staff and the like, then it starts creeping ‘up’ the tree and the last ones to go are the managers. Make of that what you will, basically people are selfish dicks and will look after themselves, the Forces are supposed to be better than that but they’re not and there’s your insurmountable problem. Funnily enough, before I left the mob they started to lower the rates of the WE’s and ME’s, PO’s doing CPO’s jobs etc, I had no problem with this personally, it made sense to me but a lot of guys weren’t too happy, the same approach wasn’t happening in the Wardroom though, and we still have guys who have that 2.2 in media studies joining with their second ring because they’ve been to university instead of joining up when they were 18…..

            Yeah I’m biased because I think the system is flawed but I’ve no chip on my shoulder I promise. Just saying that it is a VERY top heavy organisation. Anyway….. missiles, where were we….

        • The rank of captain for what? Give us an idea from your service experience where you think a Captain should be responsible for? And LE or DE?

      • That’s not what you said, you said that they exceed the numbers and equipment they manage! You said zero about warships! What about the logistic side, the land based assets etc, it’s not just about warships, that’s a very civvy way of looking at it!

  20. I always thought it would be better to arm the F-35s rather than surface vessels, for the purposes of land attack and anti-shipping. Since 1939, most major ships have been sunk by planes or submarines.

  21. MOD needs to wake up to what Is happening. China is expanding trade route control now and has already established logistical bases cw combat battalions, artillery and armour v close to the Red Sea entrance at Djibouti which could allow effective control (or at least disruption) of the Suez Canal traffic and east west maritime movement. RN needs some reasonable capability now while it awaits arrival of next next gen capabilities.

    https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theeastafrican.co.ke%2Ftea%2Fnews%2Feast-africa%2Fus-issues-warnings-over-china-plan-military-bases-kenya-3608702&data=04%7C01%7C%7C6a482bdbbff84682782b08d9a03b51ab%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637716998898210269%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=%2FED35XaBjjWCapn0Hga7ius98mLPehCLZhIDz4y8aSA%3D&reserved=

    • That would mean taking a common-sense approach Pete, PLAN for the worst if you get my meaning and hope for the best, Perseus in our case!

      • Assuming France doesn’t decide because we ‘betrayed them’ with AUKUS to pull out of the Perseus meaning we never get it

        • As a french (When I say that here, I’ve the little image of painting a target on me, pretty fun):

          It’s unlikely to happen, since the Lancaster House treaty, only the UK have abandonned common projects, not France.

          If we have a lot of problems in our relations (not a secret for anyone the last 1000y), on the military subject we are closer than the common politicians.

          Also, on the missile, we are both (FR/UK) pretty well associated with MBDA, so it’s a win-win for both to continue to work together.

          Ofc, the AUKUS is problem but, not really a UK problem, it comes more from the Aussie than the UK.

          I just hope our politicians (From UK AND France) will not continue to delay such critical project for our forces.

          We have already to deal with the germans on the SCAF… No need to fights with the brits on the missile:

          • Agreed, our two militaries work so much closer, better, more professionals and for longer than any fly by night Macron/BJ! The French forces know when to fight and who best to fight and train with! All the crap we see in the media is purely political bluster. I enjoy working with the French lads every time, professional with the right attitude and able to ruck with the best of them.

          • Is that because they foxtrot oscar to the RearComZ?

            Asking for a friend as I was always posted to the RCZ before anything kicked off… 🙂

            Better safe than sorry… unless tasked tasked to enter the Ratpit, then it was the FEBA… engage.

  22. Helicopters to sink small vessels, SSN’s to sink large warships. AshM as back-up. The RN’s experience, and has learnt that from decades of experience. A sensible decision in the long term. No capability gap is welcome, but the powers that be known the chances of us having to engaging foreign warships with conventional weapons In the next 10 years is slim. And Anti ship warfare is very difficult to pull off. The successful tracking and kill chain to find track and engage a modern warship at extended range that will be using every tactic, every countermeasure,
    every nasty EW and defensive system it has at it’s disposal is beyond most Navy’s. Then add in rules of engagement. And it becomes a very tricky business. UOR’S exist to fill gaps if we really need them, and the RN isn’t the only Navy with vessels at sea with empty missile canisters. Even the USN can’t fill every warship with the max number of weapons they are capable of deploying. It costs to much cash.

    • Hi Robert, I absolutely respect your view but disagree to some degree. We can’t argue with past, but the present is now and our potential adversaries have large quantities of everything. We simply don’t have and shouldn’t kid ourselves of our superiors which maybe we think we are! You’d expect everyone to obey the rules of engagement but the very first incident of any war is breaking these rules in the first place. Don’t expect adversaries to be nice and behave and announce their intentions. They’ll seek their advantage upfront, hard and fast. Our helo’s AShM’s are short on range and hitting power, our subs don’t have any AShMs only torpedos, yes, TLAM v4s but does this have an anti ship ability? Our P8s don’t seem to have anything new yet, nothing on our Typhoons, nothing yet on our F-35s, and our ships, not much either. AShMs on vessels should complement the gunnery. Just a basic logic of if others have then we should have the same at least. We have so few major assets, they should be more than adequately armed. Of course if we had 1-3 more Astutes I wouldn’t let off so much. This is all in my humble opinion of course.

      • Hi Quentin. I’m not arguing that we shouldn’t have AshM, I’d love us to have every bit of kit available. But the RN doesn’t see AshM as a major priority because of some of the reasons I have mentioned above. And major wars don’t just break out over night, certainly not the kind that involves attacking Western major warships with AshM. Major political fallout would have to take place before nations start having a pop at each other, certainly with the likes of China/Russia ect. And we would be part of a coalition, and very likely have a UN resolution in our back pocket. And UOR’s a plenty. Suddenly some of these weapons we are told that will take 4 years to integrate, we appear like magic sat ready to go on the dock side.

        • Good reply, it’s okay to differ, may we both be right, just a little! We all want the best for the RN, Army and RAF and the whole of GB and it’s people!

          • We sure do, but global politics has a big role to play before we start shooting at anyone. And once a international crisis has the governments full attention, it’s amazing what resources are suddenly available. The COVID-19 vaccine role out being a perfect example of that. 👍

          • I follow your logic Quentin but money doesn’t solve everything, it certainly helps of course but if you have a platform ‘there’ at the time when things do get a bit heated then especially with our reduced numbers, you’re going to have to wait until the relief unit gets a dusting with the magic money tree then gets its grey ass out there. As weapon systems get more complicated there needs to be more integration, this is where that much maligned ‘fitted for but not with’ shows its worth but units need to be at that stage first (and at least have a notion that the MIGHT be using it so training for it) rather than just having some fancy new system dumped on them. Its not like the Falklands where we clagged a load of GPMG’s onto anywhere that would hold them. The ability to engage over the horizon has become quite a common place thing, at least the threat of it as its not ‘fire and forget’ but still very doable. To gap that capability is quite a ballsy call, especially for a country that has that capability, whether its helo or MPA, if push comes to shove, you can use allied units or even rent a civil aircraft if it got desperate.

            I just hope there is some really worthwhile logic that I’m just not seeing in binning what was always intended as a stopgap system.

  23. Evening Harold!

    Well just recall the UK has better subs than the French. How do we know -cos Aus dumped their’s. They want a real nuke submarine – not a toy one that has to be refuelled every 7 years or so.
    As for the RN the 2020’s are the decade of rearming by 2030 the fleet will be much improved.

    • If you think having a LEU reactor mean being a toy, you dont understand anything about strategic issue…

      Why french nuclear ships use LEU ? Not ’cause of a lack of knowledge, just because it’s simplier to use civilian grade U since we dont produce high grade U.

      France is not like the UK. We dont have and we dont want to rely on the US for the nuclear deterrence.

      So, thinking about the astute being better than anything else because using HEU from the US… well… Not really no.

      For the rest, you dont know a shit about the spec of the Astute AND/OR the Suffren, so confirm any superiority from one or another, especially since one of the 2 has just ending its first sea trial.
      You are just showing your lack of knowledge.

      • Aus just wanted a reactor unit that would last the subs entire life. The French subs get refuelled every 7 ears or so. So don’t meet the criteria. As for UK being dependent on the US – it seems that Aus is willing to take that onboard (be dependent on Uk/USA) too rather than rely on France. As for the Suffren specs no I don’t know them but neither do you – funny that. However the UK and US have been in the nuke sub game longer and tend to share certain technologies.

        • Sorry but, totally false:

          1. The Aussie asked for a SSK, not a SSN
          2. The issue with the HEU is the NPT, you break the treaty creating a dangerous situation for the world.
          3. The problem is not to break the contract, situation has changed, will has changed, no problem if they want something else. The problem is how all of these was done, you cant handle partnership like this between ally.

          Despite a lot of people said, the contract was “just” worth 5b$ for french.
          The “cost” expanditure and problems was also not like AU press said.
          The AU$ lose 30% of its value, all the structure needed to be construct from scratch, the AUSSIE had a lack in all the spectrum of subs construction.
          Also, the number of subs changed from the beginning for more subs, of course it adds some costs.

          At the end, the real cost change was really closer of the 13%.

          And to finish:
          “As for the Suffren specs no I don’t know them but neither do you – funny tha”
          The difference between, I dont try to give a ghost superiority when I’m not able to really arg about it.

    • And projects like Harrier, Tornado, Jaguar, Typhoon, Invincibles and Queen Elizabeths did materialise – what is your point?

  25. My questions.

    One: Just WHAT has been done to this point to spend 95 million? What? The Admiralry and MoD taking? Where does it go?

    Two: if it costs around 250 million for 5 sets to equip 3 ships, just how does every other navy afford to equip theirs? The costs seem astronomical.

    Why not just buy LRASM for 3 million a go ( as someone here suggested rhey cost ) from that 250 million budget. It gives us a slightly larger inventory than the existing TLAMs on the SSNs.

    It would be something. Rather than nothing.

    It seems to me it’s more flexible to have fast jets, Helicopters and our SSN carry out the ASM role than ships. It also seems they’re actually more interested in Land Attack.

    • I nipped in quick with the first post but my comment is way down for some reason.
      I did say what has 95mill achieved, and as you say..nothing has been purchased with that amount of money. Perhaps an official explanation of how that money was spent would be nice and I bet we could easily see a way trim some of that off. I don’t suppose they discussed at the meeting how 95M was spent on nothing?
      We could have blown £5mill on meetings (a ridiculous amount) and actually purchased something with the rest. It’s a lot of spear3 or (insert your option here) for 90 million quid.
      All the options discussed have their merits but as it stands neither the RN or RAF have anything big to throw at any larger vessels. As for “no war within 10 years”…sounds a bit like “peace in our time”.

      • Pretty much how I see it AA, this was intended as an interim system at a relatively low budget to procure a known and proven system (that I’m assuming could be sold on when the new shiny one comes along) so no real surprises. To spunk a large whack of that budget for nothing seems plain wrong. I can only assume the more we ‘gap’ the easier it gets, the training etc required surely was costed so it can’t be down to the additional costs etc you would hope, from the outside it just looks ‘wrong’, at least to me.

  26. Hmm…. we’re developing FC/ASW with the French, but the French aren’t exactly happy with the U.K. at the moment on defences issues…

    Meanwhile the RN’s new Type 26 will have Mark 41VLS and the RN has just decided to equip FBTW the T31s with the Mark 41 VLS.

    Incidentally, Block V Tomahawks started being delivered to the USN this year. This is the new version that can target ships over 1,000 miles away.

    Could it be the RN isn’t going for the interim solution because it’s simply going to buy some Tomahawk V’s or have its existing stocks upgraded to V standard? And then if the FC/AWS project falls apart, possibly double-down on buying more??
    In which case, good strategic thinking by the RN. 🤔

    • Having a few more Tomahawk to supplement what we already have would be great if they can target ships as well…but..actually how useful are they as ship killers?
      Are they stealthy/jam/jink/swarm..or do they just lumber on towards a target with capacitors crossed, and hope.

      • Well the USN is buying the new Block Va for its maritime attack capabilities:- >1,000m range, dynamic targeting, radar targeting, sea-skimming. Generally I’d regard the top brass at the USN as knowing their stuff, and having the budget to buy the best.

        Pretty sure the 450kg warhead is going to kill most ships – that’s double the weight of the warhead on Harpoon and triple that of the Exocet.

    • Yeah France seems to think we betrayed them with AUKUS although had the French not screwed up the contract with Australia, they wouldn’t be in the mess they were and they have an election coming next year

      • Yes I know from Australian friends that the wheels had been coming off the French project for a while, and that the French had been given several warnings by the Australian government. But admitting they screwed things up doesn’t suit the French political class when there’s an election coming up: when in trouble blame the Roast Beefs 🤷‍♂️

  27. Why are they saying an interim missile system will take from December 2022 to 2026/27 to be ready and why will 5 systems only go on 3 ships?

    • Yes I don’t think they’re being honest about the timeline there. And if Kongsberg simply developed a new launch canister for the Naval Strike Missile, with 4 instead of 8 missiles, I would venture to guess that might top off their order book nicely, and maybe get the UK to put pen to paper.

  28. As for our French “friends”weak Boris should withdraw the helicopters from Mali. Let the French get their own long range,
    Helicopters. Buy US hypersonic ? Hopefully by 23 they will be fully deployed with US forces.

    • Politics and ground ops are always in 2 differents categories.

      For the moment we were always “successfully” able to make a difference between the 2.

      This has saved our relations more than once.

      So, before saying this kind of thing, just imagine how bad can the things goes if you play this game.

      Neither France or UK will win this game…

      • Correct! Let the politicians gob off and bluster but leave the military professionals to carry on doing what we all do best! Military head sheds from both sides of the channel see our elected leaders argue, but know the real relationship is the military one!

  29. Interesting thread, with lots of infighting and a load of posters excusing the lack of an Anti ship Missile by finger pointing at the French or that we have coming on line short range anti ship missiles that can be fitted to Wildcat.

    • Yes tho an interim SSM would have been nice but longer term the fact that it will be possible for the T26s & T31s to fitted with mk41vls is more important so likely the correct choice.

      • The RN should have had Mk41 vls many years ago, we’re just playing catch up with that. Plus of course having the system is one thing, having something to put in it is something else…..there is a profound lack of planning and Indecision within the MOD/RN which is readily apparent to potential adversaries……..

        • UK is in a difficult situation. Aus has gone for the Mk41 cos they use US stuff not having a major naval weapons industry of their own. But UK is tied to Europe via MDBA but likes some of the flexibility of the Mk41 I suspect. Certainly if France cant gets its act together re heavy SSM’s etc then the Uk should look elsewhere and if you have Mk41 fitted that means US likely.I’d certainly look at a 21st cent version of ASROC too. RN needs more than just helo based ASW weapon delivery as helo numbers finite and aren’t available 24/7 etc.

          • Fully agree. But we should abandon FCASW now, and look to purchase US systems including Hypersonic if required. The very latest ASROC is indeed worthy of consideration, our lack of Helocopters is a problem….

  30. I personally believe that a ship launched version of Spear 3 or Sea Venom as a universal fit to all escorts would be very useful. Then one would fit the heavyweight hypersonic, 100km range to a limited number of platforms.

  31. So, is the Anti Ship capability gap another example of lack of adequate forward planning by the MOD or just another example of “limited resources” when trying to cover so many areas of capability? Still, holding back in the short term for ‘the promise’ of something far better in the future sounds like the better of two options.

  32. The boy has the jargon, we’re going to “reach out” to hypersonic blah blah blah and its going to be exciting. Well that’s me reassured.

    Its the usual guff, he’s not wrong that if they’re not going to come in to service until ’26 or ’27 then what’s the point if the new all singing, all dancing one is coming into service in ’30 (yeah, yeah, I know, I know 🙄) but why the feck haven’t they squared away the intermediate one for ’23.

    I really don’t know why we’re shocked about this stuff any more. 😞

    • Nicely sums it up. I just do not understand how procurement of an OTS can take so long.

      Should we be suspecting just another form of corruption? That 95 million can vanish by thinking and talking? What else is there? Surveys?

      Isn’t thinking, talking, and perusing the international sales catalogue free?

      DC was spot on on this.

      • Being generous mate, they may have just been crap about it rather than corrupt but I share your cynicism. 95 million is a quite a waste for nothing to show for it, I don’t care what the ‘big’ budget is.

        From the outside it looks pretty simple, weapon system A is finished by date X ( a few years in the future too), we want weapon system C and for it to be in place by Z. In the meantime we KNOW that we’re going to compromise and get an intermediate weapon system and its going to be in use between X and Z (giving Z a bit of wriggle room) and we have a budget for it. Seems we’ve spent a chunk of the budget and decided the compromise is to do without for a while. Just a pity they didn’t come out with this plan earlier and save 95 million quid if we were willing to compromise that far.

        I’m not one who screams for our platforms to be bristling with weapons but having the ability to take out an enemy over the horizon is pretty much a given now, even if it needs the assistance of a second party like an MPA for the intel. When we had Subharpoon it was something we practiced so I’m sure the surface dwellers did/do too.

        The guff that Radakin is spouting is the same political crap they all end up coming out with, its all politics sadly.

          • Fair one, I’m not the only one to make that mistake though. On the other hand, is that what you took from my post, there was a budget for an INTERMEDIATE system and now they’ve pulled it. I’m really not one for having our warships bristling with weapons but having the ability to knock a missile into an enemy vessel from beyond the horizon is now considered pretty ‘normal’ so for us to gap it is quite a big thing on forward deployed vessels.

  33. If this leads to a proper long term solution, hypersonic, dual anti ship and land attack capability, then I would say its proven to be the right decision.

    If…

    I’m not full of confidence based on the MODs past record.

    If like so many on here claim anti ship missiles aren’t that important, why does every other significant navy (and many much smaller) continue to invest in such a system?

    Which is the biggest sin? To have a capability that we ultimately never need to use? Or send our sailors into conflict ready to be slaughtered when it turns out they don’t have the capability it turns out they actually need?

  34. Someone needs to be fired over this, preferably with a Harpoon attached. This decision means the RAF also lack an anti-ship weapon too. Ideally LRASM or JSM for compatibility with the F-35. But as usual dreadful decision making leaves our armed services personnel without the equipment they need.

    • Got to say when I got home yesterday could not believe this post ,and to think the Admiral is going along with it .Really lost for words on this one bet it’s not the last 😕.

  35. What an utter mess yet again. We’ll get no intermediate solution, and the long-term solution will leave a 5 year gap and be some half-obsolete system as well. Classic UK Armed Forces delusion mixed with MoD management not even fit for a company making beer

    • I suspect 5 years is a highly optimistic time frame, what are the bets it gets delayed by a decade or so for various reasons, but ultimately lack of funds to get it into service.

    • This is what I thought, or at least shorten the capability gap. I’m sure there are technical reasons for not extending the life of Harpoon, I just don’t know what they are lol.
      Hopefully someone more knowledgeable can inform us.

  37. “It might be as much as £250 million, just to allow us to have five sets for three ships. When would that be able to come in? It looks like the earliest would be 2026 or 2027.”

    I hate to criticize Mr. Radakin but this seems disingenuous. Naval Strike Missile would take until 2026 or 2027 to be integrated on RN warships? Please. They could be integrated onto RN warships already.

    Having said that how useful is Harpoon anyway? In what scenarios would that or NSM be used? Given how threats evolve is this the best use of the deck space? Cold War ornaments are the best use of deck space? Not say drone defense?

    I understand that RN warships have a more defensive posture than other navies, and people yearn for more VLS or what have you, but these ships filled to the brim with weapons look like serious fire hazards pretty much everywhere. There’s an old baseball phrase here in the states that rings as true today as it did 50 years ago: Good defense (pitching/bowling) beats good hitting every day. Well I don’t know how good of an analogy that is to this case but I thought I’d share it anyway.

  38. Well HMS Prince of Wales has been launching Banshee’s just lately, may be we could strap some TNT to them and fly them into ships as it is unlikely we will be able to feild any ASM for the foreseeable future.
    The Iranians seem to get away with flying drones into ships

    • Looking at the Azebaijan-Nagorno spat, perhaps a few slow, long range loitering munitions might be better? Israel sells Harop in deck mounted boxes.

  41. Just as you think the MOD can’t get any worse! Why indeed go for a “sticking plaster” when you can leave a gaping bleeding wound!
    Just how incompetant are we? Everybody else has AShms & many similar countries make their own AShMs, but we’re happy to leave a main surface weapon absent for years. It’s like having (WW1 or 2)battleships without any heavy guns or combat jets with no AAMs.
    Utter shambilic disgrace. We don’t pay taxes so Tory mates can plunder the public purse but our military gets its teeth drawn & servicemen let down.

  42. In terms of the French vs. Royal Navy, capability levels vary dependent on what one is looking at:

    In terms of air defence, RN has 288 Sylver 50 VL tubes (carrying either Aster 15 or 30) spread over six ships (Type 45); French Navy currently has half that number spread over five ships.

    In terms of anti-ship capabilities, reportedly every major French warship carries Exocet Block 2 or 3; for the RN, Harpoon is going out of service and apparently only two frigates are currently even carrying a full complement of Harpoons.

    In terms of ASW, eight RN frigates carry towed array, with exactly the same number in the French Navy. Ships with active sonar total 18 for the RN and 12 currently for the French.

    When it comes to land attack cruise missile, six French ships carry Sylver 70 VL tubes for land attack missiles; no RN surface combatants do.

    The French building program envisages adding more air defence capable ships (eg. 5 FDIs with Sylver 50) and many more ships with hull mounted sonar (including 10 Patrouilleurs Océanique), so that by the 2030s the FN is likely to have more than 30 ships (Horizon, FREMM, FDI, future European Corvette and Patrouilleurs Océanique) with active sonar. For the RN, Type 31 won’t (as currently envisaged) carry any sonar at all, so total of sonar capable ships may be half the French number by that time.

    • AD (Modern only)
      FREMM: 6*16 (In fact more, but we give 16 VLS to Mdcn for each)
      FREMM DA: 2*32
      Horizon: 2*48
      Current: 256
      Coming FDI: 5*16
      Next: 336

      “The French building program envisages adding more air defence capable ships (eg. 5 FDIs with Sylver 50)”
      No, it’s about adding 1/2 Sylver A70 since we talk about gives the MdCN capabilities to FDI.
      The 2×8 A50 is already staged.

      ASW

      “many more ships with hull mounted sonar”
      5 FLF are currently updated with hull mounted sonar.

      The Horizon have also some ASW capabilities:
      8 FREMM + 2 Horizon + 1/5 FLF + 6 Estienne d’Orves:
      16 to 21 ASW capable ships:

      But about ASW, dont forget the capabilities of helicopters with sonar buoys.

      I know its not going to happen, but if 2 countries must “coordinate” their efforts in their navies, its probably France and UK.
      Although we are divided, we share a lot of geopoliticals needs, we are geographically close.

      And I know I will hurt some people here, but the french and UK are probably the 2 countries with the most entrangled history.

      • Only 4 FREMM have SYLVER 50 (2 AAW with 32 tubes; 2 FREMM ASW with 16 tubes; the other 4 ASW have SYLVER 43, so unable to fire Aster 30).

        Only 2 La Fayette have hull mounted sonar currently, since Surcouf mounts BlueWatcher; was sonar not removed from A-69s? Perhaps not.

        By my count by 2029:

        13 French ships with towed array (8 FREMM; 5 FDI); 28 ships potentially with hull sonar (2 Horizon, 8 FREMM, 5 FDI, 3 upgraded La Fayette, 10 PO – assuming all delivered on time).

        UK by contrast: 8 ships with towed array (T26 and T23); 14 with hull sonar (T26, T23 and T45).

        • Yeah well, for the future delivery except for the FDI, I prefer not give anything.

          For the A43, that’s true, but the ASTER 15 is better than anything else (same size) in air defense currently.

          Dont even ask me why they chose to equip the FREMM with the A43, its a shame.

          For the FLF, that’s why I count only 1 “up to”.

          But well, this comparison is not really good. To much limited and anything can change because of another great idea from politics:..

          And well:. since when France ever had a “good” navy ? :sick:

  43. Admiral Radakin I heard had an hand in the Australian sub deal word has it that’s why Boris pick him as top man ,yet not done so good for is own navy 😒

  44. Really do not understand why all these chats are harking on about the French navy. Point is once again the RN are having ships that fall short of capability and all down to government neglect. Would you want to serve in a military ship that could not defend it self in all areas!

  46. I think this is a bonkers decision. It’s basically someone having done a risk register and thought when was the last time we needed to fire one in anger, coming up with answer, that we haven’t and decided on that basis we can probably last a bit longer without the capability and save some cash into the bargain.

    The problem though is if something does kick off in a week or two’s time, what will the Navy do, as you won’t be able to integrate a system on a ship within a that timescale. I think it is better to at least have the interim missile, as it would be good enough to meet future challenges, but still leave the door open for the FC/ASW in 10 years time.

    • I think if something kicked off in a few weeks time all bets would be off. We’d just keep Harpoon and maybe upgrade to Harpoon II. Seriously I’m much more concerned sbout the state of ASW in RN. Esp shiborne – T45 and t31 have no real sonar capability! T45 might not even be supported at moment snd was basic anyway. And T31 won’t even have a sonar. Helo’s only ( due to reliability etc) just isnt enough and ships need sonar for anti- torpedo and mine detection as well etc.

    • Someone is doing a big bit of risk management! Given the increasing rhetoric coming out of the PRC towards Taiwan, think that waiting 7-8 years for something might just be gap too many.

  47. The Boeing Harpoon Block II is the obvious Interim ASM, available for a headline price of about $2M a missile via the US FMS programme. But add on essential test and maintenance equipment, spares and repair parts, and 5+ years of logistics and engineering support and the actual price is closer to $4-5M each. So 40 missiles could cost the MOD c.£140M. Then there is the need to upgrade T23’s or T45’s to physically and safely carry and fire the missiles, and update their combat systems to utilise it effectively. Six ships would need to be so fitted in order to ensure having three operational at any given time – say £10M a piece (generalising horrendously), and we are now up to £200M. And Harpoon II is probably the cheapest option. You can see why the RN/MOD is getting some sticker shock over the cost of a system that supposedly will be in service less than a decade.

  48. Looks like we’re returning to the thinking of the 1930’s; “No war within ten years” rolling forward. With that being our cunning plan we can gap any capabilities we like as long as there’s another cunning plan to get it sorted in ten years time. Of course this cunning plan requires all potential adversaries playing fair!

  49. Not brilliant but then Harpoon is a big dumb missile with perhaps limited utility. My biggest issue with this is that the RAF has no ASM either.

    I can’t see there being sufficient pressure from politicians or the public for this to change, so we now have a 10 year capability gap. Who fancies sailing the SCS and even the Taiwan Straight in a ship with limited offensive capability?

    I guess Harpoon Block II would be better than nothing, particularly if the P8s have it too.

  51. Surely if you want to put an SSM on a Type 31 why not fit one that is already integrated in to TACTICOS of which there are many. That should shave a few years work

  52. I agree that the RN is perilously deficient in numbers. But the French are a poor choice of a nation that has better.

  53. Could some of the saved budget be diverted into installing Sea Venom onto the Merlin’s? Currently it’s only cleared for Wildcats. Would give more ASM capability at (hopefully) a reasonable cost

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here