The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[RobWilliams]

You know who DOES have Block II Harpoons? Canada and Australia.

Carrier based vs SAG based ASCMs is an ongoing debate in the USN as well. Really depends on your threat set.

In the medium term when we geet F35Bs on the decks of the carriers we won't be having an ASuW capability in the form of an AShM (which wouldn't allow us to fly in a VLO config even if we did get 'em), but the consequences from this are debatable.

Considering we're not interested in the CAW method then the SAG method will have to do.

This is a problem which should hopefully be erased when Perseus comes around, a missile which can do both land strikes and ASuW.

 

[CB90]

In the medium term when we geet F35Bs on the decks of the carriers we won't be having an ASuW capability in the form of an AShM (which wouldn't allow us to fly in a VLO config even if we did get 'em), but the consequences from this are debatable.

Considering we're not interested in the CAW method then the SAG method will have to do.

This is a problem which should hopefully be erased when Perseus comes around, a missile which can do both land strikes and ASuW.

Agreed, it will really depend on what expectations are for the RN in the future. ASCMs are pretty much limited to high end naval threats, and not many countries can afford to maintain that kind of force, of which the vast majority are friendly.

But a gap until 2030....the world has seen some big changes in even shorter times.

 

[StobieWan]

With the RN's TLAM history, I'd be surprised if the RN went away from TLAM, mainly for economic reasons.

Same to a lesser extent for Harpoon. I say lesser extent mainly because in a global threat environment, having either a VLS compatible ASCM for capacity or a "silver bullet" type of ASCM may be a requirement.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you couldn't do better, just saying DoD/MoD's tend to be real tightfisted when there isn't an active shooting war or looming threat, and even more so when their parent economies aren't doing so hot.

TLAM Block IV for the big stuff I'm sure - I'm just wondering if there's scope for something in the middle, cheaper, shorter range, smaller warhead for littoral stuff. I guess Vulcano rounds might cover some of that but something multipurpose and in plentiful supply would be interesting.

TLAM for Type 26 would depend very much on the UK buying a lot more missiles than the sixty or so we keep in inventory I think..

Ian

 

[kev 99]

TLAM Block IV for the big stuff I'm sure - I'm just wondering if there's scope for something in the middle, cheaper, shorter range, smaller warhead for littoral stuff. I guess Vulcano rounds might cover some of that but something multipurpose and in plentiful supply would be interesting.

TLAM for Type 26 would depend very much on the UK buying a lot more missiles than the sixty or so we keep in inventory I think..

Ian

If TLAM does go into Type 26 I suspect it won't be the all of them, I suspect it will only be the 8 ASW ones while the GP ones miss out, don't know why call it a hunch. If that were to pass what would be the minimum that our stocks would need to go up by 50? 100?

 

[Fast Mover]

StobieWan; I very much agree with your last comment.

What will likely be loaded into those strike length cells in the first decade of T26 service? If the current climate persists I am inclined to answer that question with 'not very much!', but lets think positively for a moment and assume funds for weapons to fill those cells exist in the early 2020s.

Perseus, if and when it enters service, will most likely not be around until the early 2030s, so let's put that aside for the moment.

I feel the RN has a couple of primary options regarding weapons: with a purchase of MK41 the RN can continue with the already in service TLAM and look at buying LRASM as the Harpoon replacement - two missiles to cover land attack and ASuW - excellent. Alternatively, with a purchase of Sylver A70, look at either adapting it to take TLAM or buy the naval SCALP variant that the MN are/will be fielding. For the ASuW role, is Exocet being fielded in the future in a Sylver compatible vertically launched version..? This option supports MBDA/European industry... but it doesn't seem quite as appealing to me as the MK41 alternative.

These are of course only two of many possibilities. I look forward to other peoples suggestions on the 'best' load out. I feel that the strike length cells are the most exciting new capability in the surface escort fleet in decades and the RN ought to take full advantage of having them; and not allow them to be under utilised with nothing more than a couple of Tomahawks per ship.

Food for thought I hope.

FM

 

[RobWilliams]

I don't think you should disregard Perseus so easily, true an ISD of it has been said as 2030, but by then the first Type 26 will be 9 years old. Until 2028 there will still be a majority of Type 23's in service, would buying a missile like LRASM make sense considering that when Perseus should come into existance we'll only have 9/13 ships in existance only to then remove LRASM from the inventory?

That's my issue, the idea of introducing a new missile, and then having a missile which does the same job except in one package. Again I accept that Perseus is only a concept, but it's a concept the RN/MN want to come into existance as the concept has been developed by MBDA, the RN and MN together.

It's not as simple as sliding it to one side, if I did i'd say LRASM all the way, but the fact is it IS coming in the future and we need to take that into account.

Mk41 would need us to spend more on our TLAM stocks than we currently do, and rightly so. We've got a stock of around 60 TLAM right now whereas the RAF got an order of 900 (IIRC) Storm Shadow units when they first came around, now considering the cruise missile capacity of the surface fleet will be severely expanded the stocks need to be too.

Janes reports the progress of Perseus could make it become the replacement for the Exocet in French service and Storm Shadow/SCALP. AFAIK there's no plans about making it being VL compatible.

The A70 gives us a degree of commonality with the Type 45's i'd imagine, but it gives us an inferior land strike capability and a nonexistant heavy ASuW capability IIRC.

 

[StobieWan]

If TLAM does go into Type 26 I suspect it won't be the all of them, I suspect it will only be the 8 ASW ones while the GP ones miss out, don't know why call it a hunch. If that were to pass what would be the minimum that our stocks would need to go up by 50? 100?

I might have said t'other way around and that the GP ones will be getting TLAM if any - different taskings, they may be more likely to be in position or whatever.

I don't know what a minimum stock would be but if we're keeping 7 Astute (ultimately) topped off with TLAM to one extent or another with 60 ish, then you'd be looking at another 50 or so I'd have guessed to keep a surface combatant pool running - remember they'd be the VLS encapsulated type (same missile, different enclosure)

Maybe we should just fit '26 with heavyweight torpedo tubes

 

[RobWilliams]

Agreed, it will really depend on what expectations are for the RN in the future. ASCMs are pretty much limited to high end naval threats, and not many countries can afford to maintain that kind of force, of which the vast majority are friendly.

But a gap until 2030....the world has seen some big changes in even shorter times.

IMO while they ARE limited to 'high end' naval threats, if we get even the smallest sniff that a hostile capital ship is at sea then the subs will hunt it down (same as with the FI conflict, one sub tasked on finding the Belgrano and another tasked with finding the Vienticinco de Mayo), not the surface fleet. That's a big thing IMO, right now the SSNs do a great role with TLAM strikes, but in Op Ellamy they had to hang around designated areas ready to launch strikes. If we can do that with the surface fleet then these brilliant assets can focus on their primary functions; ASW and ASuW if they need too. The more ships that can come in and cover the strike role, the more often subs can try and limit the gap caused in ASuW.

I'd go as far as to say that you'd probably use ASCMs against ships frigate/destroyer size, targes which would be too much for FASGW(H) to be able to handle for a couple of reasons; physical size & self defensive suite but I can't help but think things have probably gone badly wrong if you get a lock on a ship like an aircraft carrier or something (not that you would, these days)

 

[StobieWan]

Mk41 would need us to spend more on our TLAM stocks than we currently do, and rightly so. We've got a stock of around 60 TLAM right now whereas the RAF got an order of 900 (IIRC) Storm Shadow units when they first came around, now considering the cruise missile capacity of the surface fleet will be severely expanded the stocks need to be too.

The reason we had to order 1,000 or so Storm Shadow was that they're not in production so to get a decent price, we had to take a large batch. TLAM isn't in production either but the USN puts an order in every so often for them and we piggy back off that. I believe we have the capacity to draw on USN war stocks to some extent as well - it's a fairly cosy arrangement which means we don't have to keep hundreds of TLAM on tap.

 

[CB90]

IMO while they ARE limited to 'high end' naval threats, if we get even the smallest sniff that a hostile capital ship is at sea then the subs will hunt it down (same as with the FI conflict, one sub tasked on finding the Belgrano and another tasked with finding the Vienticinco de Mayo), not the surface fleet. That's a big thing IMO, right now the SSNs do a great role with TLAM strikes, but in Op Ellamy they had to hang around designated areas ready to launch strikes. If we can do that with the surface fleet then these brilliant assets can focus on their primary functions; ASW and ASuW if they need too. The more ships that can come in and cover the strike role, the more often subs can try and limit the gap caused in ASuW.

I'd go as far as to say that you'd probably use ASCMs against ships frigate/destroyer size, targes which would be too much for FASGW(H) to be able to handle for a couple of reasons; physical size & self defensive suite but I can't help but think things have probably gone badly wrong if you get a lock on a ship like an aircraft carrier or something (not that you would, these days)

Yeah, i should've been more clear. When i say high end threat, I'm talking about any navy that can field a highly capable air warfare destroyer (or even frigate..."capable" is really driven by the radar/armament set)...from an ASCM perspective, that is the hard target in a CSG or SAG.

The trouble with relying on SSNs is that they take time and need cueing, and a nation with a decent C4I network can run ASCM strikes with something like a Houbei (not really worth expending a heavyweight torpedo). And as you've noted...if there are threat subs around, you want them focused on ASW...

 

[CB90]

That's my issue, the idea of introducing a new missile, and then having a missile which does the same job except in one package.

LRASM will be capable of land strike as well.

It's easier to turn a high end ASCM into a decent land strike missile...much harder to go the other way around. For example, Harpoon Block II and Naval Strike Missile both add land strike capability...they just don't have the kind of range that TLAM does.

Supersonics are sexy, but it becomes a question of whether the tradeoffs in range, capacity (inevitable cost), and delay are worth it. And if you don't get it right (not saying MBDA wouldn't, but I am calling out some Soviet solutions), it's less capable than some subsonics out there.

 

[RobWilliams]

Which makes it a little bit worse IMO, what's the point of investing in a new multirole missile when one you've actually chipped in to get the sort of system you want comes along in 10 years?

If anything, Perseus in it's current incarnation supports the sustainment of TLAM for land strikes rather than keeping LRASM.

 

[CB90]

Which makes it a little bit worse IMO, what's the point of investing in a new multirole missile when one you've actually chipped in to get the sort of system you want comes along in 10 years?

If anything, Perseus in it's current incarnation supports the sustainment of TLAM for land strikes rather than keeping LRASM.

In terms of maturity, it seems to be a research paper at best.
I know you Euros have some government crosspollination with your defense firms and all that, but i'd think any investment in it up to now has been minimal.

Real question is if there is an expectation to NEED a ramjet powered supersonic sea skimmer in the 2030-2040 timeframe.
LRASM could be reasonably expected to hold the line from ~2017-2040 based on where the rest of the world is today, and required development cycles to overtake on that end. I'm talking if they were spending like we did during the Reagan years, and had an established national technical education base to start with.

Western governments aren't exactly flush with cash these days, so I'd honestly be surprised to see Perseus survive in its current form barring either a resurgent Russia or expectations for NATO involvement in any potential East Asian conflict involving the PRC.

 

[StobieWan]

Yup - I think Perseus will be one of those "whatever happened to that really cool looking missile all those years back" discussions in a decade. Unless Space bats from The Sea invade.

 

[Fast Mover]

@RobWilliams:

I wasn't disregarding the Perseus at all chap..., I was just looking to focus on the 2020s - the first approximate decade of service for the T26s - before Perseus enters service, if indeed it ever does (which I hope it does!). Like I stated in my post, but nevermind

I think the best scenario we can hope for is that the RN increase their pool of TLAMs sufficiently so that each deployed T26 has a 'reasonable' number* aboard. As you pointed out the T23s will be around for a long time yet and hopefully with their Harpoons retained until the end of their service lives.

*with 24 strike cells - would they even be given 6 TLAMs for a deployment?!

I agree that LRASM is a far from certain future purchase - but I feel that having an anti-ship missile on the replacement for our T23s is highly desirable (not necessarily LRASM, but certainly a replacement for Harpoon).

We live in an era in which several fleets are expanding the numbers/capabilities of their ships considerably (China, as well as Russia if it fulfills it's stated plans) - my point is that a few years down the line we may be seeking to protect our interests in an area of the world like the Middle East (an area of focus as has been inferred recently for the British Forces post Herrick) which could conflict with those of other nations with their increasingly capable navies. An anti-ship missile capability on our T26s is important IMHO, and UK model Harpoon is arguably already dated.

We can't really sit back and say Perseus will be the all singing and dancing answer to our needs, because even if it arrives on time (snigger)... that's a LONG time to wait!

 

[RobWilliams]

Real question is if there is an expectation to NEED a ramjet powered supersonic sea skimmer in the 2030-2040 timeframe.
LRASM could be reasonably expected to hold the line from ~2017-2040 based on where the rest of the world is today, and required development cycles to overtake on that end. I'm talking if they were spending like we did during the Reagan years, and had an established national technical education base to start with.

It has several attack profiles, it's not just a sea skimmer. There's at least an expectation for a high performance land attack missile which we currently have with TLAM. Harpoon is getting long in the tooth, so there *might* be the requirement for a surface launched AShM depending on what direction we go. IMO the best compromise would be a combination, d'you agree? Considering land strikes would be the main objective, I'd prefer a land attack missile which can act as an AShM when required first rather than vice versa, preferably a derivative of Perseus rather than the thing itself as it's just not got the legs.

Western governments aren't exactly flush with cash these days, so I'd honestly be surprised to see Perseus survive in its current form barring either a resurgent Russia or expectations for NATO involvement in any potential East Asian conflict involving the PRC.

Indeed, but one crucial point is that France is very keen on domestic production. Considering the sort of success they got with Exocet, i'd be surprised if the French went for anything other than Perseus or a derivative of Perseus.

If it was just a UK job, i'd agree with you, but this is a direction the French want to go too. While they may not have the cash right now, it's going to be a long time before they'd have to put some notes down for it.

That's just my opinion.

 

[RobWilliams]

@RobWilliams:

I wasn't disregarding the Perseus at all chap..., I was just looking to focus on the 2020s - the first approximate decade of service for the T26s - before Perseus enters service, if indeed it ever does (which I hope it does!). Like I stated in my post, but nevermind

No worries mate, but all I wanted to get across is that if - for example - we got LRASM, then it wouldn't be particularly long in the weapons life until other options which the RN are wanting come along.

That's what I mean, if Perseus wasn't on the horizon, then go LRASM all the way. But it is there.

I think the best scenario we can hope for is that the RN increase their pool of TLAMs sufficiently so that each deployed T26 has a 'reasonable' number* aboard. As you pointed out the T23s will be around for a long time yet and hopefully with their Harpoons retained until the end of their service lives.

*with 24 strike cells - would they even be given 6 TLAMs for a deployment?!

Agreed, IMO the Harpoons would need upgrading, like I said AFAIK our Harpoons aren't exactly young and there will be a couple of Type 23s floating around in the 2030s (assuming first delivery in 2021 of a Type 26 then one pumped out per year)

I doubt it, I'd expect them to be largely empty for regular deployments unless going to the hotspots (i.e East of Suez) where there *might* be a change.

I agree that LRASM is a far from certain future purchase - but I feel that having an anti-ship missile on the replacement for our T23s is highly desirable (not necessarily LRASM, but certainly a replacement for Harpoon).

Indeed indeed, I agree 100%, my only gripe is that the timeframe is a bit tight. If Perseus was pushed back to say 2040 then i'd be all for LRASM.

We live in an era in which several fleets are expanding the numbers/capabilities of their ships considerably (China, as well as Russia if it fulfills it's stated plans) - my point is that a few years down the line we may be seeking to protect our interests in an area of the world like the Middle East (an area of focus as has been inferred recently for the British Forces post Herrick) which could conflict with those of other nations with their increasingly capable navies. An anti-ship missile capability on our T26s is important IMHO, and UK model Harpoon is arguably already dated.

We can't really sit back and say Perseus will be the all singing and dancing answer to our needs, because even if it arrives on time (snigger)... that's a LONG time to wait!

The ME is incredibly important, something like 80% of our LNG supplies come from the UAE so if that route was cut off then we'd be in a severe energy crisis, and I do agree that I think that something should replace Harpoon ASAP if updates are not coming, but is neccesarily bringing in a new missile + associated infrastructure for about a decade of service neccesarily the best option?

I'm not saying Perseus is "the all singing and dancing answer", all I have a problem with is the timeframe. Am I saying I have the optimal solution? Absolutely not, but do I think that buying LRASM is neccesarily the best solution? I do not.

I vaguely recall a while ago that Raytheon put forward an update which would give TLAM Block IV an ASuW capability.

Robust debate, lovin' it chaps.

 

[CB90]

It has several attack profiles, it's not just a sea skimmer. There's at least an expectation for a high performance land attack missile which we currently have with TLAM.

Well I understand that, but the point of "supersonic sea skim" is that you're trying to develop a "silver bullet" ship killer...something that can take down even a modern air defense ship with ease. Great in theory, going to be REALLY expensive, but all that development gets you is a fairly specialized ability to go around fighting other high end navies.

Harpoon is getting long in the tooth, so there *might* be the requirement for a surface launched AShM depending on what direction we go. IMO the best compromise would be a combination, d'you agree?

Yup. If you think Perseus will survive future budgets. More on that later.

Considering land strikes would be the main objective, I'd prefer a land attack missile which can act as an AShM when required first rather than vice versa, preferably a derivative of Perseus rather than the thing itself as it's just not got the legs.

I vaguely recall a while ago that Raytheon put forward an update which would give TLAM Block IV an ASuW capability.

This is where I somewhat disagree. Dual role missiles sound good, and much of what makes a good strike weapon also fits for an ASCM. However, the technology to take a strike missile to be a capable ASCM is expensive. Totally new seeker requirements. More "brains" to defeat countermeasures. Survivability design against air defense ships. New flight profile.
That could limit your overall capacity more than any savings from going multirole. Along with possible design compromises to favor one or the other mission set.

That's what I mean, if Perseus wasn't on the horizon, then go LRASM all the way. But it is there.

In my opinon, "horizon" is when they have a developmental prototype that demonstrates that what you intend for it is within reach. To use birth as a gross analogy, a guy named Perseus just noticed a girl named Vertical Launch cell. Still lots that needs to happen before you can bet on spitting a baby out in 2030.
LRASM is on the horizon. If you pumped money into it today, I'm confident it'd be ready in five years.

The ME is incredibly important, something like 80% of our LNG supplies come from the UAE so if that route was cut off then we'd be in a severe energy crisis, and I do agree that I think that something should replace Harpoon ASAP if updates are not coming, but is neccesarily bringing in a new missile + associated infrastructure for about a decade of service neccesarily the best option?

Problem is there's no requirement for an exotic missile solution like Perseus in the Middle East. TLAM Block III alone could keep Iran at bay for the next 20 years. Iran is going nowhere fast. If anything, you need a more short ranged, cheap solutions like NSM or Spike to beat them in the numbers game.

I'm not saying Perseus is "the all singing and dancing answer", all I have a problem with is the timeframe. Am I saying I have the optimal solution? Absolutely not, but do I think that buying LRASM is neccesarily the best solution? I do not.

Here's my wrapup.

Harpoon Now + Perseus Later is certainly a viable strategy. Unfortunately, there's no real demonstrated need for a system like Perseus, unless either France/UK intend to play in a big war in the Far East. If that is a legitimate possibility, and one likely to be supported for funding, good call. Although you certainly couldn't do it alone, as at this rate, they would easily outspend (and probably outsteal) both UK and France.

Russia's not doing so great with their naval revival...but if you want to worry about Russia, ASW is where to pump resources. They're out of the modern surface Navy game for the forseeable future. So IMO, there's a real risk you may end up with Harpoon Now + ??? Later instead when the treasury looks at what's going on in the world. .

LRASM is a compromise. But buying into it would get you something with potential to be viable for a very long time, and it could fit both dual roles quite nicely.

In an ideal world, I'd back Harpoon + Next gen project as well...but I'm playing devil's advocate.

Robust debate, lovin' it chaps.

Agreed.

 

[RobWilliams]

Well I understand that, but the point of "supersonic sea skim" is that you're trying to develop a "silver bullet" ship killer...something that can take down even a modern air defense ship with ease. Great in theory, going to be REALLY expensive, but all that development gets you is a fairly specialized ability to go around fighting other high end navies.

I'd imagine that a supersonic sea skimmer would have a better time at targetting moderately defended warships than LRASM would, being a 'stealthy' subsonic weapon. If you could, could you help me get the LRASM-B component because i'm trying to look it up and in one end i'm getting word that it's meant to be a high altitude supersonic missile using ramjet propulsion and then there's constant references to AviationWeek about it being cancelled in Jan 2012, which isn't the case now because of the push through tests, it's confusing. I'd appreciate to have the whole thing laid out.

This is where I somewhat disagree. Dual role missiles sound good, and much of what makes a good strike weapon also fits for an ASCM. However, the technology to take a strike missile to be a capable ASCM is expensive. Totally new seeker requirements. More "brains" to defeat countermeasures. Survivability design against air defense ships. New flight profile.
That could limit your overall capacity more than any savings from going multirole. Along with possible design compromises to favor one or the other mission set.

They do sound good, but wouldn't this still be a factor with LRASM? It's got all of the gubbins for targetting ships and counter countermeasures and such, so wouldn't that still be an issue considering the dual role nature of LRASM?

In my opinon, "horizon" is when they have a developmental prototype that demonstrates that what you intend for it is within reach. To use birth as a gross analogy, a guy named Perseus just noticed a girl named Vertical Launch cell. Still lots that needs to happen before you can bet on spitting a baby out in 2030.
LRASM is on the horizon. If you pumped money into it today, I'm confident it'd be ready in five years.

I'd be willing to bet it'd be sooner than 5 years, but I get what you mean. My thinking was that I was putting myself in a position say 2020. The first ship is due to be delivered, the budget needs to be sorted about what comes in.

My idea pretty much depends on the level of interest Perseus gets coming up to 2020 and onwards.

Problem is there's no requirement for an exotic missile solution like Perseus in the Middle East. TLAM Block III alone could keep Iran at bay for the next 20 years. Iran is going nowhere fast. If anything, you need a more short ranged, cheap solutions like NSM or Spike to beat them in the numbers game.

The RN and MN would appear to disagree, considering the nature of the development and evolution of the concept and the sort of performance ideas coming out, it's been touted as the successor to Storm Shadow/SCALP too.

I don't deny that TLAM would do the job, indeed it would. As for short ranged and cheap solutions, that sounds more like a FASGW(H) or LMM job from a Wildcat than NSM. I'd imagine NSM isn't particularly cheap, but i've not seen any figures about costs so.

Here's my wrapup.

Harpoon Now + Perseus Later is certainly a viable strategy. Unfortunately, there's no real demonstrated need for a system like Perseus, unless either France/UK intend to play in a big war in the Far East. If that is a legitimate possibility, and one likely to be supported for funding, good call. Although you certainly couldn't do it alone, as at this rate, they would easily outspend (and probably outsteal) both UK and France.

I'd consider Harpoon/Perseus only really to be viable if we invest in updating our Harpoon stocks ASAP.

I don't really consider the UK/France in a war in the Far East as being a possibility, the current medium term trend for the UK is to pivot to the Middle East to take up the slack from the US' pivot to the Pacific.

I don't see the UK/France offering a whole lot to a war in the Far East apart from saying to the US "we'll cover the gap in the Med/Gulf with our carriers so you can re-deploy". That'd probably be the most helpful thing we could do.

Russia's not doing so great with their naval revival...but if you want to worry about Russia, ASW is where to pump resources. They're out of the modern surface Navy game for the forseeable future. So IMO, there's a real risk you may end up with Harpoon Now + ??? Later instead when the treasury looks at what's going on in the world. .

There most definitely is a real risk of capability gapping, as of right now there are some problems with the UK's carrier strike capability

• Might have a gap of 1 year with a handful of stopgap Merlins before the fleet is properly navalised
• AEW solution won't be available until 2020 at the earliest, but not such a big deal

Not to mention gapping MPA capability, we're used to having capabilities gapped. There's the real possibility that gapping AShM's might not be that much of a deal, when was the last time a ship launched missile attacked another ship?

I get that it's obviously not the best solution, but in terms of calculated risk it could be more reasonable than the others above.

LRASM is a compromise. But buying into it would get you something with potential to be viable for a very long time, and it could fit both dual roles quite nicely.

I've got nothing against the system, i'm sure it'll deliver what is required of it well enough and would be sustainable well into the future I just think it's a bit of an awkward timetable to work with.

What's the potential of leasing weapons from the US as an interim measure?

 

[CB90]

Well here's the direction the USN is going: #NavyAnswers: Anti-ship Cruise Missiles

And this is a good primer on LRASM:
Long Range Anti-Ship Missile - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The language around those programs is probably intentionally vague.

If the focus is the Middle East, that doesn't explain buying into a 200+ mi supersonic ASCM. If anything, NSM is perfect...NSM is designed by Kongsberg to meet the needs of a Navy that plans its fight for cluttered archipelagos. They might not have thought about equatorial heat though. The long range air defense threat from the IRIN is almost non existent...you could fight them with Russian Styx missiles.

The only US-UK weapons lease program I'm aware of is Trident...and I'm sure that is for special and unique reasons. But there probably wouldn't be much issues getting it rapidly onboard UK ships if a need suddenly arose...particularly if the T26 is designed with a MK41 VLS and the space and network standards to match US kit compatibility.