The Ministry of Defence has confirmed that the Future Cruise/Anti-Ship Weapon (FC/ASW) programme is expected to be operational with the Royal Navy by 2028.
John Healey, Shadow Secretary of State for Defence, posed the question to the Secretary of State for Defence, highlighting the significance of this programme and its progress.
In response to Mr. Healey’s query, James Cartlidge, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence, stated, “The Future Cruise/Anti-Ship Weapon (FC/ASW) programme is in the middle of the Assessment Phase which is currently on track. The planned assumption for service entry date for equipping the Royal Navy with a Future Offensive Surface Warfare capability under the FC/ASW programme is 2028.”
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.
The confirmation provides a clear timeline for when the capabilities of the FC/ASW programme are expected to become operational within the Royal Navy. As the programme’s Assessment Phase progresses, further details and potential adjustments to this projection will come to light.
The United Kingdom and France recently confirmed the launch of the preparation works for the Future Cruise/Anti-Ship Weapon (FC/ASW) programme, after the signature of a government agreement and associated contracts by the French Direction générale de l’armement (DGA) and the British Defence Equipment & Support (DE&S).
The ‘Future Cruise/Anti–Ship Weapon’ project was originally believed to be producing one missile able to strike ships and land targets but has now become two distinct missiles.
Italy Signals Intent to Join UK and France in FC/ASW Programme
In a related development, missile systems company MBDA welcomed the Italian government’s intent to join the UK and France in the FC/ASW programme. In a press release, the company announced that a Letter of Intent (LOI) has been signed by representatives of the three National Armament directions during the Paris Air Show.
This move signals the start of preparatory work for Italy’s full participation in the programme.
Eric Beranger, CEO of MBDA, expressed his delight with Italy’s intent to join the FC/ASW programme. He stated, “Participation in the FC/ASW programme will provide all three nations with a sovereign next-generation deep strike and heavy anti-ship capability to counter advanced threats.” Beranger further added, “FC/ASW will meet the operational needs of the Italian, British, and French armed forces in the deep strike and anti-ship domains for the decades to come.”
Is the intent still to carry NSM? if so I assume this is to bridge a capability gap between now and 2028?
Yes, they are being fitted and 11 sets have been acquired.
Potentially NSM they can be fitted to Albions as well as T31 / T45.
Although NSM may be used to provide cheaper shots where hypersonic and/or stealth isn’t the main factor such as supporting ground forces.
To be fair, NSM is itself highly stealthy. It is simply slightly lighter weight and with a more modest range compared to what is likely to come with FC ASW
True but it is also cheaper per shot so can be used against lower end targets where the full fat article is OTT.
Indeed. Just clarifying that NSM is itself the real deal. Nice to have options. Really interesting to see what mix of weapons go onto the various vessel classes….esp type 31. Do you give them both NSM for seldom defence coastal strike and FCASW for deep strike given they are likely to be in outer perimeter of fleet / closer to land.
Yes NSM is a really good asset.
It is also worth bearing in mind that T45 will at some point have some of its VLS extended to full strike for NT – this will mean it too can have a few FCASW in its silo mix.
May shed light on why Mk41 wasn’t fitted there and why CAMM (which of the three flavours hasn’t exactly been announced) is also added so the A30 load out is possibly static with the A15 slots taken by NT and FCASW?? Maybe??
We know that anything French will be SYLVER compatible.
I doubt Type 45s will ever get strike length vls. Not because they aren’t capable but because of MOD spending priorities. It would require a full war Vs China or Russia for the MOD to fund strike length vls on type 45s. I think fitting some NSM sets and Sea Ceptor cells will be the maximum weapons for for type 45s. Hopefully Aster 30NT/ER to provide a limited BMD capability. That’s about all we can hope for. Mk41 VLS sets being fitted on type 31s and 26s is great and should massively improve the RNs offensive strike capability. Especially with… Read more »
It has been announced that T45 will get the NT variant.
NT variant requires S-70 tubes.
Do the T45s actually have S-70 tubes?
Nope
They will have to be fitted.
I would guess the loads out was 24 A30 and 24 A15.
The 24 A15 are superseded by 24 CAMMM – flavours..
I would guess that 24 slots will be increase to full strike length.
I would guess 12 to hold NT/PT and 12 for strike.
With 8 NSM up top for AShM?
All guesses mind.
I think the loads were 4×8=32 A30s + 2×8=16 A15s but maybe the mix could be altered if all in A50 vls’. If they have to add S-70 vls that could mean the magazines being higher up in the silos.
I reckon there’s the space for 4×8 or 5-6×6 CAMM added for a nice 80+ full load out. But whatever it is it’ll be a significant upgrade. Even adding 1-2Mk41s onto the T45s considering they’re doing in the T31s, is an opportunity but maybe one not wanted.
It was confirmed there was depth to extend downwards for A70.
There are sections added on top of the kneelers that the VLS sits on that can be removed.
T45 has a different function and therefore load out.
48 SYLVER slots
24 CAMM slots
8 NSM slots
That is a very serious load out.
Indeed, but…and IMHO…i feel it could be made even a tad “more serious” in the CAMM area. We have to leave all this to the experts and yes these ships will be “beaut” (Aussie slang) when done. Even upgrading the Wildcats and it’s capabilities will be a good move.
Telling me, it’s one hell of a loadout, T45 is already highly regarded by the US Navy as a carrier escort.
With its new loadout it will be extremely capable and able to drop the hammer on anything that strays within 100 miles of its defensive umbrella.
The future mix of upgraded T45, T26 and T31 will give a ferocious layered defense capability..
In terms of AAW it is perfect. A30 Is an excellent system as is SAMPSON. It is being upgraded to meet the emerging threat surge. Adding CAMM-(??) enables other threats to be engaged to conserve the expensive A30 and ANT/PT for their precise roles. Really nothing to complain about on that score. T31 will provide a really good missile bus and T26 can both be a missile bus and do ASW at the same time. Not sure about Wildcat upgrade for ASW – I’d rather see a drone option TBH. Split role with drone dropping buoys and another drone doing… Read more »
Its got to be drones down the road for many reconn and ASW work where one needs to get up close and personal like boxing the Russians into their Northern bastion.
Build with heavier gauge steel plate to ice work.
See the BAE Strix for Sonobuoys and Dipping Sonar…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-86lYBY6sB8
Who did the CGI? It is almost Kremlin quality….
All depends on the real world payloads.
For dropping sonar Buoys not such a massive issue on payload. Probably have one deployed and one ready to relieve it.
I understand the ASW version of the wildcat had to take a serious hit in endurance to cart all the kit around and it effectively losses all its utility element ( you can no longer move people, casualties etc in the cabin).
Exactly.
There is a reason why Merlin, which is a serious beast, was chosen.
I’ve never found out if the Sylver A70 existed when T45 was built. Suspect not as MdCN was not around then. If it was it was a daft move to get A50 rather than A70…
S70 existed – it is used for SCALP
It was a pure money decision, to keep it exquisite in the AAW all the fat was trimmed from everything else ( it was a the most extreme example of min max thinking). It was not the wrong decision from the RN to go this way ( but the treasury should have stumped up for the extra kit). So it only got A50 ( but at the time there was no plan to ever use them for anything other than Aster15/30 ( NT was not even a dream) and that was really an OK decision..
You can also go up There must be a good 2m from the silo deck up to the top of the silo side walls. Fitting the extra length of the A70 shouldnt be an issue. Personally I think that they should fit extension pieces onto the A50s and cover the top of them in round mushroom like covers! 😂
Ceptor also has anti surface capability as a 25+ Km fast reaction missile.A couple of those diving in on you at M 3+ will mess you up
Hmm, that is indeed a serious loadout. If NSM is indeed fitted then the Russian Navy will have to pay close attention to the T45 as well as the AB’s when next they cruising around North Norway.
I have just read (Navy Lookout) that the first T45 to get the CAMM upgrade will be HMS Defender which will likely finish the PIP and missile enhancement together in mid 2026. Three years isn’t that long – not at my age anyway 🙂
Cheers CR
If that’s the case why don’t they add S70 instead of camm vls and then quad pack the s15 tubes
That would be the most efficient way of upgrading T45 to give it NT capability wouldn’t it?
Not so much.
The hole in T45 is Mk41 shaped not S70 shaped.
CAMM is soft launched on all other RN vessels – why make things complicated?
Making things simple makes things robust and cost effective.
I wonder if they will do with the sylver A50 silos that are ripped out of the T45 even if they just go for a minimal fit of 8 A70s that’s still 48 silos….18 ( which I think is realistic) would give you 98 silos…that’s a lot of money of kit..you have to wonder if we end up seeing some of those used on something like a T32 of fitted to some of the newer high value ships that will be coming along.
That depends if they can be lengthened economically.
I don’t see the point in putting A50 onto anything else?
Type 45’s should have been fitted with A70 Silo’s from the get go,they could then have had the option of using this – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MdCN_(missile)
They can be upgraded.
Follow the decisions pathway.
A30 / A15 was chosen for AAW.
Mk41 was chosen for other roles.
Horizon fell apart and Mk41 was deleted to try and eek the budget for 7&8.
Budget existed for 7 not 8.
Budget for 7 could be spent on Mk41 or Global Combat Ship…..G Brown and a self effacing Admiral agreed to expedite Global Combat Ship.
That was one really shit set of decision making….the lost of 7-8 in the build was a profoundly bad decision….although we got lucky and now the gap in numbers is really covered by our ASW escorts having 30odd CAMM each, so providing their own local area defence capability.
I’m not sure it was such a bad set of decisions.
G Brown was trying to create a drumbeat of orders for the Clyde.
If T26 had been ordered earlier it would have meant no Rivers but at the same time the present T23 spending would have been obviated.
When you look at what gas been spent in T23 in recent years – extending each one is costing a large % of T31 price – now THAT is bad decision making coming home to roost.
True, the bad decision was based on the fact of the pissing around after so effectively that money was squandered and they would have been better off building the extra T45s. What it in the end paid for was the FSC concept to be kicked around and then scraped in 2010..then a load of development work on the GCS which the conservative government tore up in late nov 2010…wanting a cheap shite escort. Dicked around for 4 years until BAE and the Navy got the warship they wanted finally signing the whole sorry mess of 5 years to late in… Read more »
Indeed a US article (in relation to Ukraine’s desire to obtain them from Poland) was stating it to be one of the stealthiest missiles and indeed most manoeuvrable around due to its construction materials and light weight.
There was a comment a while ago that the RN was also looking at loitering munitions which could also be good for the assault ships.
We are looking at things that are announced and gave budget lines
The intent I believe for FC/ASW is to make it VLS launched so the NSM can continue to arm the T45 and T23 even after FC/ASW enters service. Was also likely to be cross decked to T31 but might not be now they will get mk41 possible for T32 though.
With 11 sets of NSM purchased. I’m hoping once type 31 and 26s in service and armed with FCASW the NSM sets will go entirely over to the 6 type 45s and 5 river batch 2s.
River Class would lack the stability and tòp weight limits and the damage control measures to start bolting on heavy containers.
The sensors would struggle to match the range of the missile and if you tried to deploy them against more heavily armed assets the crew would die in a shooting war pretty quickly
With missiles added they smell like a warship and get sent into harms way.
Not a good thing.
Should have more T31 style ships for fighty roles.
Just a note on the Australian and Canadian T26s, these seem to have 2×4 NSM mounts over the mid section too. Freeing up the Mk41s for other things. The RNs T26s still have the same space available.
True but neither have an option like FC/ASW for mk41 launch at the moment.
I wouldn’t put them on a river class. They are ocean going patrol vessels with good basic sensors. There job is to have high at sea availability rates, to wave the flag and if needed shoot the guns. How the river class would get a firing solution to launch the missile is a big issue. The U.K. isn’t fighting any nation with heavy antiship missiles just now. In the future there aren’t a lot of countries that can actually put naval vessels far from there home country. Hopefully the U.K. avoids actual invasions of countries. Still the anti ship missiles… Read more »
Agreed. A CTA40 gun would be the first weapon upgrade for rivers closely followed by 24 loitering munitions
That would be amazing.
As always ( well usually! )…sensible.
Never make an opv look anything like a warship…it ends up getting used like one and we know what happens to patrol ships in a war ( the type 21 was essentially a patrol ship that was over armed). Keep the 30mm it’s fine, if we are investing any money in the OPVs give them a good set of autonomous vehicles ( sub and air) so they can be used for both high seas constabulary, search and rescue and undersea infrastructure monitoring).
Type 21 bullet catchers equipped with a hull able to absorb enemy rounds.
The USMC puts 2 NSM on a light truck , as are the Baltic states, so they would be a useful asset for the RM or army.
Potent coastal defence set up. Ideal if the Chinese start bolstering the Argentinian navy or being more adventurous themselves down there. A few trucks on west Falllands would be a powerful deterrent.
FCASW will only be for ships with mk41 so NSM will continue on type 23 and 45 until they retire, it sounds like type 31will now get mk41 as well as type 26
Uh?
It is Anglo/French.
French = SYLVER compatible…..how many Mk41 slots have MR got. Answer ZERO.
I clearly meant in Royal Navy use , type 26 and perhaps type 31 via mk41
Silly question, does this mean that the UK then will have both versions, the supersonic and subsonic? Will the latter have a longer ranger than the former? Will one be cheaper than the other? Will both also be air, sub, cannister as well as MK41 launched? Hope the UK gets all options and at least 2028 is getting closer.
I hope so, we really need a long range deep strike cruise missile procured in numbers. TLAM is great but with only 60 in the inventory it’s not a lot. At minimum we need the ability to fire 100 cruise missiles on the opening night of a campaign. This is the normal amount we would use for SEAD operations normally. With T26 and T31 able to carry a large number of these this becomes very much a possibility. We also need something that can be launched from SSN torpedo tubes as the US has discontinued TLAM production and we won’t… Read more »
TBC – i believe France favours a Supersonic/Hypersonic Weapon while the UK favours the Subsonic Stealth option,all will be revealed in due course.
Hope the UK doesn’t short change itself here. Having a mix of faster versus further could be useful for different scenarios. If they’re going to be launched from Mk41s they’re going to need boosters too.
No coincidence that the Russian use them in combination now that hypersonics are seen as not quite the super weapon supposed. That said Kinzhal is just an air launchec ballistic missile hypersonic cruise missiles are potentially a very different beast.
Range is the massive factor, for an anti ship weapon 300 Km and hypersonic is what you want but for land attack you need 1000km+, it not really possible to do both with current technology.
Presume FC/ASW will ultimately become an entire class of missiles: stealthy subsonic, supersonic and eventually a hypersonic variant (via AUKUS Pillar 2), probably w/ staggered IOCs. Encouraging note that the Italians have obviously been briefed on program progress, have had curiosity piqued and believe there is a real product at the end of the rainbow. The discouraging note may be the projected timeline–track record of IOC and FOC for multiple munitions slipping to the right–damned inconvenient, if one happens to be currently in a war. 🤔
Has there been announcements on what the final missiles will be. I know there’s been ideas, studies, but I’ve not seen anything about what that production missiles are going to be.
I don’t think it’s carved in stone yet. I think (not 100% on this) it goes:
– Pre-Concept Phase
– Concept Phase
– Initial Gate Approval
– Assessment Phase
– Main Gate Approval
– Design/Demonstration
We are currently in Assessment and I think we’d expect announcements of what we’d hope to buy after Main Gate.
Sounds good. On a closely associated issue, I’m still surprised that Sea Venom is taking such a time to be effectively intregrated. Always presumed there is significant technical leverage from one to the other.
Pretty aggressive timeline given how long these things normally take. Assuming we see an air launched version for the F35 it’ll finally restore lethality to the Royal Navy’s carrier fleet nearly 30 years after Sea Eagle was withdrawn.
Will also be interesting to see if the NSM is retained long-term as a supplementary capability or used purely as a stopgap.
No chance, LM have a weapons integration backlog years long and they won’t integrate a UK only weapon any time soon
Can’t arrive soon enough. Let’s hope the time frame doesn’t slip meanwhile.
I’m a bit confused is this one missle to replace all the older systems, or is it two missles which share a lot of common parts with one of them intended to replace storm shadow/SCALP and the other to replace the anti ship missles in service? If it is one missle and the air launched version will also have anti ship capabilities does this mean the UK will be getting some air launched anti ship capabilities other than the p8? Will the carriers be able to perform anti ship missions with its f35s? Do you also think in the future… Read more »
More recent discussions and mock up that was displayed was 2 separate missiles. 1 for anti ship 1 for land attack. Presumably if this is the route that’s taken they will share what they can to keep costs down.
Anti ship will be faster, while land attack will be more stealthy and longer range.
I think the plan is that these missiles will be able to be launched from ships and aircraft.
There are some pics on the internet of the mock ups.
FC/ASW is a do it all missile, ie both anti-ship and land attack. Today a surface to surface missile will predominantly be used for land attack. Whereas anti-ship missiles are very rarely used outside of live fire exercises. Therefore, it is logical to design a missile that can do both. MBDA were tasked to come up with a series of designs that could do both. However, both France and the UK have differing requirements on how this is to be done. France favouring a high speed hypersonic cruise missile. Whilst the UK favours a subsonic stealthy cruise missile. It will… Read more »
This is confusing isn’t it, can only say that as originally it was intended that there would be only one missile with the French during the evaluation and concept stage tending towards hypersonic and the UK (at least 12 to 18 months ago) favouring slower but stealthier that there will be considerable overlap of intended capabilities to cover all options and potential vulnerabilities. Otherwise though not sure much has been revealed to go on. I do remember mention that the stealthy version might come first with it then being further developed into a hypersonic version but can’t remember if that… Read more »
What are the chances of FC/ASW improving on Sea Venom’s time to entry?
Ooh. A lorra lorra more cruise missiles for Ukraine.
Maybe.
I wonder if Typhoon will see the FCASW added two years earlier than originally planned.
22 Jul 2021
“The planning assumption for service entry for future Cruise /Anti-Ship Weapon on the T26 Frigate and Typhoon aircraft is 2028 and 2030 respectively.”
LINK
Any further updates on the F-35B carrying the Future Cruise Anti-Ship Weapon before the mid-30s or at all?
“Against peer adversaries, particularly operating powerful Anti-Access/Area Denial strategies, stand-off weapons of greater power and range are needed.
The threat may apply both to the aircraft but also the carrier group that must otherwise stay within the combat radius of the jet, potentially within the A2/AD bubble.
Storm Shadow will not be integrated on F-35, although hopefully, its successor FCASW will be sufficiently compact to be air-launched and integrated on F-35 by the mid-2030s.”
LINK
Hi Nigel, it would be good to get these into the P-8s too.
Agreed, as they can carry the LRASM, so no reason why the FCASW could not be fitted that I’m aware of.
https://www.navalnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/LRASM-P-8A-Poseidon-770×410.jpg
Depends how many storm shadows we give to Ukraine.
.
2028? So 2035 for IOC judging by recent procurement performance I hope I am wrong.
I didn’t like the formula “the planning assumption is” when Quin used it and I don’t like it now. When Quin said it during the concept phase, even before there had been any agreement on what the missile actually was or how many types there’d be, it was clear that this planning assumption date was no better than a placeholder. It was just a date that had been assumed. That Cartlidge is still using the equivalent phrase doesn’t suggest any realism or commitment. I worry it’s just a convenient date used to tell Parliament some nonsense without actually lying. It’s… Read more »
Good news all round. A serious fighting outfit for the new frigates and at last a really beefed up T45. Just what we need for a truly global navy. Labour: please note.
Where is the money coming from?
So much being discussed is not in the budget.
Sorry to be a killjoy.
The real game changer here was the excellent decision to fit Mk41 to the Type 31s. Opens up so many options to the RN in terms of what the missile load out can be for each ship type.
Yeah, it’s crazy, we could have gone that way nearly 20 years ago. T45 and the A50 VLS is such a let down.
Who knows what could have been done if we did not have to spend a £100 billion fannying around in the mountains of Central Asia for the US to just walk away.
Technology changes, threats change.
RN bought an adaptable platform…..that is being…..adapted?
second point, sad but true.
Things seem to be moving along for the navy ,HMG giving them more punch 🇬🇧 🚀
If this comes in the timescale stated I will be pleased, thought I’d be a lot lot longer.
There is zero chance they will be in service by 2028, more like 2030s. Sea Venom has been in development sine the 90s and won’t be operational till 2026.
I hope someone is looking at lower cost options too.
5 years only and no prototype yet. Nah in bureaucratic West things are very slow.
You have to wonder if they are investing more to speed up timeframes to allow the storm shadows to be passed to Ukraine at a faster rate.
PASE is the term used prior to the full business case being approved and is only a vague indication of a target in service date. I expect the approved in service date to be well after 2030 unless we already have all the system components at a high technical readiness level and have tested them together in a synthetic or similar test environment. The key part of CAMM was always the modularity element whereby the data backbone was developed to decouple the various components allowing rapid system integration.