Anti ship missiles

[Stuart Galbraith]

5 hours ago, Argus said:

It's Harpoon, only embarrassment has been keeping them in service thus far.  Subsonic heavyweight ASuM 'shave not really been a first line capability for years. 

Chris Werb said some years ago that the last time he saw an RN Frigate sailing around his way, the Harpoon launchers look rusted to junk. I dont think its been a really viable capability for years. We lost Sub Harpoon well over a decade ago.

I was intended to post up another link, showing the two weapons we are working with the Frenchies on. The idea was to replace with a weapon that could attack ships or land, but now it seems to have become two weapons, a subsonic cruise missile and a supersonic antiship missile. As we are supposedly working with the American's and the Aussies on a hypersonic weapon, im uncertain of the status of that. Somehow I doubt the French are going to want to work with the Australians and Americans, but I guess thats up to them.

[Laser Shark]

13 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

The I-SSGW WAS the interim solution the RN wanted. It now cancelled it. Multiple solutions like Sea Serpent (Gabriel V) and NSM were pitched, but the RN says that due to its own delays, an interim solution would take too long to field.

Dumb excuse imo. Yes, they should have started this process years ago, but even as things stands now, it would still be prudent to acquire an interim solution since FCASW programme is still in its early stages and could wind up facing all sorts of delays.

[futon]

41 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Chris Werb said some years ago that the last time he saw an RN Frigate sailing around his way, the Harpoon launchers look rusted to junk. I dont think its been a really viable capability for years. We lost Sub Harpoon well over a decade ago.

I was intended to post up another link, showing the two weapons we are working with the Frenchies on. The idea was to replace with a weapon that could attack ships or land, but now it seems to have become two weapons, a subsonic cruise missile and a supersonic antiship missile. As we are supposedly working with the American's and the Aussies on a hypersonic weapon, im uncertain of the status of that. Somehow I doubt the French are going to want to work with the Australians and Americans, but I guess thats up to them.

I think that program is an air launched weapon only. 

[Argus]

3 hours ago, Laser Shark said:

Some capacity > no capacity, and there are more modern alternatives out there that could serve as an interim solution until FCASW shows up in the 2030s (or later...). After that they can be put on other platforms or sold to allies. Yes, it will cost some money, but the Royal Navy has historically been the most important branch of the British Armed Forces, so it shouldn’t be THAT difficult to scrape together some funds for this...

Better something than nothing is the argument that's kept it in service this long, but there comes a point where the costs of maintaining a fig leaf outweigh the benefit and the RN seem to feel they've hit that point.  

I'm not suggesting surface to surface ASuW missiles are a waste of time, but the capability is commensurate to roles individual navies see for them. As I understand it, the RN see submarines and aircraft as their principal anti-ship weapons, and don't see over the horizon surface to surface engagements as a first tier priority.  YMMD and they could be dead wrong, I don't know. But either the use case isn't powerful enough to shake the money lose, or the money is just too tight to cover an replacement at this point.

[Stuart Galbraith]

2 hours ago, futon said:

I think that program is an air launched weapon only. 

Ah, that would explain it, thanks. Presumably the cruise missile is the Storm Shadow replacement.

 

[futon]

5 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Ah, that would explain it, thanks. Presumably the cruise missile is the Storm Shadow replacement.

 

Storm Shadow itself still looks rather usable. More so than harpoon. So its replacement looks to arrive on good timely manner.

With ship based ASM, the PLAN VLS-launched YJ-18 looks rather formidable with about 500km range and supersonic terminal speed and surely hits much harder than SM-6. 

For the time being, air launched ASM are very important for balancing against YJ-18 user ships (Type 52D which there are 25 of them and Type 55 which there are 8 of them for the near to mid term.)

[Laser Shark]

3 hours ago, Argus said:

I'm not suggesting surface to surface ASuW missiles are a waste of time, but the capability is commensurate to roles individual navies see for them. As I understand it, the RN see submarines and aircraft as their principal anti-ship weapons, and don't see over the horizon surface to surface engagements as a first tier priority.  YMMD and they could be dead wrong, I don't know. But either the use case isn't powerful enough to shake the money lose, or the money is just too tight to cover an replacement at this point.

Ah, yes, the classic “do we really need capacity x when capacity y and z can also destroy x’s intended targets”, while also ignoring the peculiarities of x and/or why it’s beneficial to have several different platforms with the ability to destroy these targets. Yes, I’ve seen it many times before, and it’s almost exclusively brought forward to justify defence cuts/lack of willingness to spend money on defence.

[futon]

22 minutes ago, Laser Shark said:

Ah, yes, the classic “do we really need capacity x when capacity y and z can also destroy x’s intended targets”, while also ignoring the peculiarities of x and/or why it’s beneficial to have several different platforms with the ability to destroy these targets. Yes, I’ve seen it many times before, and it’s almost exclusively brought forward to justify defence cuts/lack of willingness to spend money on defence.

The UK put a lot into making the twin carrier force and their nuclear sub fleet. Probably a big factor of leaving nothing left out of limited budget for ship launched ASM. This could be used as an example of the benefit in maintaining ally relationship so that an ally country can fill in capability gaps.

[lucklucky]

6 hours ago, Argus said:

I'm not suggesting surface to surface ASuW missiles are a waste of time, but the capability is commensurate to roles individual navies see for them. As I understand it, the RN see submarines and aircraft as their principal anti-ship weapons,

There are no anti ship missiles in British aircraft. They can only sink ships at distance(>20km) with LGB's and torpedoes.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Well that's being worked on, but it's some distance away.

 

[Laser Shark]

53 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Well that's being worked on, but it's some distance away.

 

That’s all well and good, but they likely won’t reach any of your ships until the 2030s, and a decade of RN warships without AShMs is (or at least should be) unacceptable for a country like the UK. It’s nothing short of mind boggling that you haven’t been able to put an interim solution on your ships already, and now seems to have given up on it entirely.

Edited February 18, 2022 by Laser Shark

[Stuart Galbraith]

I'm not defending it, it's one more example of the MODs boneheaded policy of allowing capabilities to lapse, to get the funds to buy the next generation. It's going to have us fall on our ass sooner or later.

On the positive side, the guns still work, and if we get the jetpack working, boarding is a possibility for the first time in 170 years.

 

Edited February 18, 2022 by Stuart Galbraith

[bd1]

😅that one was genuinely good one.

Edited February 19, 2022 by bd1

[BansheeOne]

Stasis fields and cutlasses!

[Stuart Galbraith]

'For England, for home, and for the prize!'

 

 

[Argus]

On 2/18/2022 at 11:45 PM, Laser Shark said:

Ah, yes, the classic “do we really need capacity x when capacity y and z can also destroy x’s intended targets”, while also ignoring the peculiarities of x and/or why it’s beneficial to have several different platforms with the ability to destroy these targets. Yes, I’ve seen it many times before, and it’s almost exclusively brought forward to justify defence cuts/lack of willingness to spend money on defence.

It's still chicken feed, they went without an MPA for nearly a decade and thats a far more critical capability. At the end of the day the RN will fight whoever it has to fight with whatever it has to hand, it's what they do.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Spearfish will probably suffice perfectly well. A shame we dont have any more Mk8's though.

[Laser Shark]

6 hours ago, Argus said:

It's still chicken feed, they went without an MPA for nearly a decade and thats a far more critical capability. At the end of the day the RN will fight whoever it has to fight with whatever it has to hand, it's what they do.

It’s what everyone does when their leaders are either unwilling or incapable to provide them with the necessary capabilities. Norwegian Army units in Lithuania, for example, has had to deploy with next to no air defence capabilities of their own because this had been completely neglected in the GWOT era and until recently. “Madness. Madness, and stupidity.”

[Stuart Galbraith]

As I understand it, even if we went with an interim weapon, there probably would be a delay before entry into service. If we wanted to ensure that there would be no gap, then we needed to do something about 10 years ago, about the time Cameron was cutting the MOD's budget to 'get the Deficit down'.

Im not defending it, im just saying that screwups, like success, take long periods of time.

[Laser Shark]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

As I understand it, even if we went with an interim weapon, there probably would be a delay before entry into service. If we wanted to ensure that there would be no gap, then we needed to do something about 10 years ago, about the time Cameron was cutting the MOD's budget to 'get the Deficit down'.

Im not defending it, im just saying that screwups, like success, take long periods of time.

Agreed, but to be pedantic, the screw ups (cutting the budget, side lining modernization/replacement projects, axing capabilities etc.) tend to be rather brief affairs even if the consequences are not immediately felt. In this case the mistake was already made years ago, as you point out here, and from there on it was a matter of just how bad it’s going to get before it gets better.

[DB]

Also, nobody wants to buy an "interim" capability that allows a new government to cancel it when they want more bread and circus money.

[DB]

On 2/18/2022 at 3:56 PM, lucklucky said:

There are no anti ship missiles in British aircraft. They can only sink ships at distance(>20km) with LGB's and torpedoes.

More precisely, there are no *large* anti-ship missiles in service with British aircraft. FASGW(H) aka Sea Venom has a 30kg warhead and broadly speaking replaces Sea Skua, but is more capable, and LMM aka Martlet is an anti-FIAC weapon, both in service last year and launched from helicopters. Neither of these fits as a Harpoon replacement, though.

Also in the lightweight category one should include Brimstone, and soon enough Spear 3.

[Laser Shark]

43 minutes ago, DB said:

Also, nobody wants to buy an "interim" capability that allows a new government to cancel it when they want more bread and circus money.

That could certainly be a factor, and then there is also the fact that the UK’s partner in the FC/ASW programme is the very same country that has threatened Germany with expulsion from the FCAS (Future Combat Air System) programme if they decide to purchase F-35s for the nuke carrying mission.

Edited February 21, 2022 by Laser Shark

[lucklucky]

6 hours ago, DB said:

More precisely, there are no *large* anti-ship missiles in service with British aircraft. FASGW(H) aka Sea Venom has a 30kg warhead and broadly speaking replaces Sea Skua, but is more capable, and LMM aka Martlet is an anti-FIAC weapon, both in service last year and launched from helicopters. Neither of these fits as a Harpoon replacement, though.

Also in the lightweight category one should include Brimstone, and soon enough Spear 3.

Yeah that is why i posted 20km range limit for missiles.  

Edit: i think those missiles you posted are for helicopters.

Edited February 21, 2022 by lucklucky

[DB]

Given that every RN platform that carries/carried Harpoon has a helicopter that can carry Sea Venom, not having a surface launch capability seems less significant to me and extends the operational radius significantly. Of course, a helicopter at 20km is potentially vulnerable to area air defence, so there is that disadvantage.

Surface launch Brimstone has been demonstrated so would be a candidate for the Anti FIAC and up to corvette sized targets, especially as it can be ripple fired in fairly dense salvoes, certainly enough to saturate low end point defences.

Nevertheless, the future heavyweight is FC/ASW, provided the huge differences between the two solutions can be accommodated.

Edited February 22, 2022 by DB