The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[Phd8511]

I'm leaning towards the idea they may go with Mk41 tbh - and we might see Mk41 on the 45's shortly afterwards (there's space aft of the Aster silos reserved) Why? We need a land attack and anti shipping capability and whatever anyone makes will end up being Mk41 compatible - it's a no-brainer- even the MBDA stuff will be packaged accordingly.

So, while I may be wrong, if I were asked to guess, I'd plump for Mk41.

And yeah, Harpoon is looking a bit smelly and old - particularly as the RN versions are just one above the Flash Gordon warships firmware level.

LRASM or whatever, Perseus looks a bit powerpoint right now but we'll see.

CAMM will be fine - particularly on ships with SAMPSON - it's re-using a lot of mature tech so I'm not seeing it as a development risk and it'll be a big upgrade for type 23. There's nothing to stop Aster 30 going on the Type 26 in small numbers I'd imagine - say four or so in high threat areas. Meteor would be interesting for the end game capability it brings - that throttleable ram jet means it could still have bags of smash available at long ranges - but you're right, with Aster 30 on tap, hard to justify except to my childish fancies

but they are already refitting the Type 45s with Harpoon--how long will that be?

Type 23/26 will not have SAMPSON--they have Artisan instead.

 

[Bonza]

Sylver means you have to fire SCALP (typo?) which is short range and not as great as Tomahawk.

CAMM has some limited ASuW ability against small FIAC.

Understood, thus my referring to MdCN - if you go and take a look at the information out there, MdCN is essentially a navalised SCALP, which also incorporates a booster to extend range when deployed on surface/subsurface platforms. The missile also incorporates IR homing in addition to GPS/INS guidance, which may indicate the potential for a variant capable of hitting moving targets.

Public sources appear to vary on range estimates - I've seen figures ranging from 250kms to "over 1000kms". If the former figure is the more accurate one, then the MdCN would appear to give up a tremendous amount of range to the Tomahawk. If the latter, much more general figure is closer to the truth then it's difficult to say how the missile would stack up to its competitors, but certainly a range of 1000kms is sufficient for a true standoff/strike capability. I guess we'll just have to see how they shake out. If MdCN can hit the 1000km range figure along with moving target and datalink capabilities, it could be a hell of an addition to those navies making use of the Sylver VLS. I doubt it would be as cost-effective as smaller, dedicated anti-ship missiles, but it would allow for a common munition type for use on land and sea targets. A great member here called CB90 could probably give a better idea of the implications for using MdCN as a multi-role munition, though from what I can remember of discussing LRASM with him, he favoured (in that particular context) a separate solution for strike and anti-ship missions.

CAMM can indeed be used for plinking small surface targets, as can ESSM, Standard and probably Aster too, if it were necessary. In this limited role the American weapons have the edge in both overall size and warhead size, which is important if one is engaging surface targets (in my humble opinion anyway). If the material I've seen is correct then technically ESSM/Standard have the advantage in overall range too, however I assume this would be countered by their need for target illumination in the terminal phase of the flight, at least until SM-6 and (hopefully) ESSM block 2 come into service. CAMM and Aster are both active guidance weapons and thus have an advantage there, but their relatively lightweight warheads would impact the effectiveness of these missiles in an anti-surface role.

As I mentioned above though, this anti-surface capability is very much secondary to the anti-air role of the weapons mentioned, and I doubt their suitability as makeshift anti-ship missiles is going to be driving any kind of procurement decisions and so on.

 

[swerve]

MdCN isn't just a Scalp with a booster. It has a completely new body (it can be fired from torpedo tubes), & I expect also other changes. I'd say it's a new missile using some Scalp components.

The 250 km range is probably from someone with no other information saying "it's a version of Scalp" & using the "at least 250 km" range of Scalp.

 

[StobieWan]

but they are already refitting the Type 45s with Harpoon--how long will that be?

Type 23/26 will not have SAMPSON--they have Artisan instead.

We have Harpoon in inventory and it's not a bad thing to re-use the kit from the 22's but going further into the future, we're going to need something a bit sharper I suspect.

And yes, I know SAMPSON is a Type 45 fit - I'm just saying that if Type 45 gets quad packed CAMM, they'd perform better with that set than Artisan.

 

[Bonza]

I'm leaning towards the idea they may go with Mk41 tbh - and we might see Mk41 on the 45's shortly afterwards (there's space aft of the Aster silos reserved) Why? We need a land attack and anti shipping capability and whatever anyone makes will end up being Mk41 compatible - it's a no-brainer- even the MBDA stuff will be packaged accordingly.

So, while I may be wrong, if I were asked to guess, I'd plump for Mk41.

And yeah, Harpoon is looking a bit smelly and old - particularly as the RN versions are just one above the Flash Gordon warships firmware level.

LRASM or whatever, Perseus looks a bit powerpoint right now but we'll see.

CAMM will be fine - particularly on ships with SAMPSON - it's re-using a lot of mature tech so I'm not seeing it as a development risk and it'll be a big upgrade for type 23. There's nothing to stop Aster 30 going on the Type 26 in small numbers I'd imagine - say four or so in high threat areas. Meteor would be interesting for the end game capability it brings - that throttleable ram jet means it could still have bags of smash available at long ranges - but you're right, with Aster 30 on tap, hard to justify except to my childish fancies

Yeah, I'm still not convinced about Perseus either. Even with a serious development effort, I think it would be years before a practical capability could be achieved. Really I'm more interested in the NSM's potential to provide a modernised and relatively low-risk capability to bridge the gap between Harpoon and a future anti-ship missile. Wouldn't require VLS cells either, NSM can be set up with their own launch canisters just like Harpoon/Exocet/etc.

It's probably the least complicated solution to modernising the RN's anti-ship capabilities, although I've got little doubt that LRASM, once in service, will prove a superior missile. The expectations placed on LRASM are clearly more ambitious than those of NSM, for better or worse. But if a credible surface threat were to emerge before the RN's choice of next generation anti-ship capability went operational, perhaps a small stock of NSMs could prove useful. They're certainly going to be far more effective against even a remotely modern target than Block 1C Harpoons...

 

[Bonza]

MdCN isn't just a Scalp with a booster. It has a completely new body (it can be fired from torpedo tubes), & I expect also other changes. I'd say it's a new missile using some Scalp components.

The 250 km range is probably from someone with no other information saying "it's a version of Scalp" & using the "at least 250 km" range of Scalp.

Ah, thanks for the additional information Swerve. I wasn't familiar with the original size of SCALP/Storm Shadow so I must have completely skipped over the differences. If there is such a substantial difference between MdCN and SCALP then I'm inclined to believe the longer range estimates, given it will be a larger missile with a booster to enhance performance. Do you know anything about its IIR terminal homing? I'm curious as to whether this indicates a potential ability to engage moving targets, as I mentioned in an earlier post, or if the intent is simply to provide improved target discrimination relative to the GPS/INS guidance package.

 

[Phd8511]

Understood, thus my referring to MdCN - if you go and take a look at the information out there, MdCN is essentially a navalised SCALP, which also incorporates a booster to extend range when deployed on surface/subsurface platforms. The missile also incorporates IR homing in addition to GPS/INS guidance, which may indicate the potential for a variant capable of hitting moving targets.

Public sources appear to vary on range estimates - I've seen figures ranging from 250kms to "over 1000kms". If the former figure is the more accurate one, then the MdCN would appear to give up a tremendous amount of range to the Tomahawk. If the latter, much more general figure is closer to the truth then it's difficult to say how the missile would stack up to its competitors, but certainly a range of 1000kms is sufficient for a true standoff/strike capability. I guess we'll just have to see how they shake out. If MdCN can hit the 1000km range figure along with moving target and datalink capabilities, it could be a hell of an addition to those navies making use of the Sylver VLS. I doubt it would be as cost-effective as smaller, dedicated anti-ship missiles, but it would allow for a common munition type for use on land and sea targets. A great member here called CB90 could probably give a better idea of the implications for using MdCN as a multi-role munition, though from what I can remember of discussing LRASM with him, he favoured (in that particular context) a separate solution for strike and anti-ship missions.

CAMM can indeed be used for plinking small surface targets, as can ESSM, Standard and probably Aster too, if it were necessary. In this limited role the American weapons have the edge in both overall size and warhead size, which is important if one is engaging surface targets (in my humble opinion anyway). If the material I've seen is correct then technically ESSM/Standard have the advantage in overall range too, however I assume this would be countered by their need for target illumination in the terminal phase of the flight, at least until SM-6 and (hopefully) ESSM block 2 come into service. CAMM and Aster are both active guidance weapons and thus have an advantage there, but their relatively lightweight warheads would impact the effectiveness of these missiles in an anti-surface role.

As I mentioned above though, this anti-surface capability is very much secondary to the anti-air role of the weapons mentioned, and I doubt their suitability as makeshift anti-ship missiles is going to be driving any kind of procurement decisions and so on.

Isn't SCALP just ship-launched variant of the Storm Shadow? So F-35 Storm Shadow, Type 26 Storm Shadow--easy way out?

I still prefer the Mk41. Not that the UK would get Tomahawk via Mk 41 immediately or ASROC but it widens options and matches with its closest ally.

 

[RobWilliams]

Oh I thought they were floating her out then onto the fitout wharf

That comes later, then we get some really cool imagery, HMS Illustrious in dock, HMS Queen Elizabeth out the dock and fitting out & HMS Prince of Wales being constructed in the dock.

There's some really nice imagery coming out now, there was a CGI of a QEC and Illustrious in docks next to eachother, now it's no longer a CGI

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/07/03/article-0-1F5D062B00000578-637_964x1001.jpg

Looking at the F-35 mock up on the deck & the deck of HMS Queen Elizabeth next to Illustrious, you can see how small Illustrious is.

 

[RobWilliams]

Isn't SCALP just ship-launched variant of the Storm Shadow? So F-35 Storm Shadow, Type 26 Storm Shadow--easy way out?

SCALP is the French Air Force's Storm Shadow equivalent, the naval SCALP is the MdCN (missile de croisière naval) is a different missile (with some 4x the range and a range of other differences)

I still prefer the Mk41. Not that the UK would get Tomahawk via Mk 41 immediately or ASROC but it widens options and matches with its closest ally.

Impossible given current scenario (last purchase was sub launched TLAM and production ends next year)

 

[Phd8511]

SCALP is the French Air Force's Storm Shadow equivalent, the naval SCALP is the MdCN (missile de croisière naval) is a different missile (with some 4x the range and a range of other differences)



Impossible given current scenario (last purchase was sub launched TLAM and production ends next year)

Uh no. Philip Hammond checked with DoD and they sad no. I hae to look around--hre gave a speech at some right wing think tank in the US and they asked him about it.

So wher is the Type 26 now? 50-50 chance on either type of VLS?

 

[RobWilliams]

I would very much like to see the interview where Hammond got a conformation that TLAM production will extend beyond 2015/2016 for international orders. (At least, that's what I think you said no to, the idea that the UK couldn't buy any more TLAM after the recent order of 65 in the last few days?)

As to type of VLS I couldn't say, there are arguments for them both.

 

[Phd8511]

I would very much like to see the interview where Hammond got a conformation that TLAM production will extend beyond 2015/2016 for international orders. (At least, that's what I think you said no to, the idea that the UK couldn't buy any more TLAM after the recent order of 65 in the last few days?)

As to type of VLS I couldn't say, there are arguments for them both.

Why Britain and America Must Remain Partners of Choice in Defense

Somewhere in this Q&A. Hammond was asked by a member of the audience and he said all is fine--he questioned the Pentagon.

 

[RobWilliams]

I found it and he didn't exactly say all was well, he said he asked at the Pentagon and the response given was that the budget for 2016 had not been released so any comment on that has to be speculation. He claims that he has not heard anything in London about changes to TLAM production, however the Ministry of Defence *does* know about it and are considering the impact

Most of the speculation has come around in response to the 2015 budget which *has* been published as opposed to the 2016 budget.

A Ministry of Defence spokesperson told IHS Jane's : "We are aware the US Department of Defense is reviewing its future Tomahawk requirements and are considering what impact, if any, a US decision may have on the UK's future procurement plans.

"A potential suspension after 2015 would not affect the MoD's current agreements."

Then another order of 65 TLAM comes to fruition, possibly as a result of this 'consideration'?

US brass has been on record saying TLAMs days are numbered (in terms of production) - from the same link

Unveiling the navy's budget plan on 4 March, Rear Admiral William K Lescher, the USN's deputy assistant secretary of the navy for budget, said: "FY 2015 is the last year of the Tactical Tomahawk procurement as that programme transitions to sustainment with a re-certification depot line and modifications that are going to keep that weapon as a premier attack weapon over the course of its service life while we develop the Next-Generation Land Attack Weapon."

I was aware that industry were lobbying Congress to continue production (similar to how BAE and GD have done with the Bradley and Abrams against the wishes of the Army) but if this article of the WSJ is accurate from a few days ago, in the words of Chamberlain "no such undertaking has been received"

With Fate of Tomahawk Missiles Unclear, Industry Warns of Future Costs for Restarting - WSJ

Personally I don't see everything having the guise of 'all is well', IMO.

 

[swerve]

Isn't SCALP just ship-launched variant of the Storm Shadow? So F-35 Storm Shadow, Type 26 Storm Shadow--easy way out?.

Look online for pictures, & look at what MBDA says about the two missiles. And see my post above.

 

[Phd8511]

I found it and he didn't exactly say all was well, he said he asked at the Pentagon and the response given was that the budget for 2016 had not been released so any comment on that has to be speculation. He claims that he has not heard anything in London about changes to TLAM production, however the Ministry of Defence *does* know about it and are considering the impact

Most of the speculation has come around in response to the 2015 budget which *has* been published as opposed to the 2016 budget.



Then another order of 65 TLAM comes to fruition, possibly as a result of this 'consideration'?

US brass has been on record saying TLAMs days are numbered (in terms of production) - from the same link



I was aware that industry were lobbying Congress to continue production (similar to how BAE and GD have done with the Bradley and Abrams against the wishes of the Army) but if this article of the WSJ is accurate from a few days ago, in the words of Chamberlain "no such undertaking has been received"

With Fate of Tomahawk Missiles Unclear, Industry Warns of Future Costs for Restarting - WSJ

Personally I don't see everything having the guise of 'all is well', IMO.

I see just one article from the WSJ. How do we know for sure this is the end? Then the US isn't expected a large scale campaign where hundreds of Tomahawks will be released?

"fate unclear" is just as dubious. I would wait for more official sources.If that is so might as well not call it strike length VLS cells and tell us exactly what they are.

 

[kev 99]

I read its just a Storm Shadow-like missile....

It's got the electronics of Storm Shadow, but Storm Shadow is 2.84m long while MDCN is 6.5m and they also have different warheads.

MBDA did quite a lot to SCalp to make it into MDCN, do a google search for an image, they're look rather different.

 

[RobWilliams]

I see just one article from the WSJ. How do we know for sure this is the end? Then the US isn't expected a large scale campaign where hundreds of Tomahawks will be released?

"fate unclear" is just as dubious. I would wait for more official sources.If that is so might as well not call it strike length VLS cells and tell us exactly what they are.

My point being that the WSJ - as of a couple of days ago - is still reporting that TLAM has an unclear fate. Initial reports predicting Raytheon would lobby were first done 4 months ago as the main facilitator of TLAMs survival and still nothing has happened.

It appears that the USN is looking at the potential of restarting TLAM production if a rapid depletion of stocks occurs and - naturally - Raytheon are saying what an expensive and futile venture it would be.

I don't think so, "fate unclear" is about as perfect as you can get to describe TLAM. It has officially been said to be finishing production next year and there are corners trying to turn this decision around which may or may not succeed. The missile may or may not continue to be produced, so 'unclear' is about as perfect as you can get as opposed to saying a definitive yes or no at this point.

They are called strike length cells because of what could fit as opposed to what would. There's also a lot of brass saying TLAM either is or should end in production on 2015. Myself I find that a bad idea and would prefer slowed down funding for TLAM than cancellation in its entirety.

 

[Bonza]

I read its just a Storm Shadow-like missile....

Before you continue posting, can you please take a look at the forum rules:http://defencetalk.com/forums/rules.php

Specifically rule 2, relating to one-liner replies. There are times, such as when one is thanking another poster for some information, or asking a very specific question, where a one-liner might be appropriate. However, as a general rule we ask members to put some more time and work into their posts, so as to add more value to the discussion as a whole. Expand on some of your ideas, think of questions pertinent to the issue at hand, add a level of detail to your responses - in this way your posts contribute a lot more than if you are just posting one liners consistently.

I hope you find the DT forums interesting, and are similarly interested in making some contributions of your own. But please do have a look through the rules at the above link, and make an effort to include some more content in your posts. Around here post count doesn't matter to anybody - what matters is a mature, detailed posting style that lends itself to online discussion. I hope you can appreciate this.

Cheers

 

[Phd8511]

My point being that the WSJ - as of a couple of days ago - is still reporting that TLAM has an unclear fate. Initial reports predicting Raytheon would lobby were first done 4 months ago as the main facilitator of TLAMs survival and still nothing has happened.

It appears that the USN is looking at the potential of restarting TLAM production if a rapid depletion of stocks occurs and - naturally - Raytheon are saying what an expensive and futile venture it would be.

I don't think so, "fate unclear" is about as perfect as you can get to describe TLAM. It has officially been said to be finishing production next year and there are corners trying to turn this decision around which may or may not succeed. The missile may or may not continue to be produced, so 'unclear' is about as perfect as you can get as opposed to saying a definitive yes or no at this point.

They are called strike length cells because of what could fit as opposed to what would. There's also a lot of brass saying TLAM either is or should end in production on 2015. Myself I find that a bad idea and would prefer slowed down funding for TLAM than cancellation in its entirety.

So i dont get it. If its ceasing production why so late then for the FMS if this is the last time it can ever be bought? The MOD is bigger than one Hammond. And still doesnt say why there's a wavering between Mk 41 and SYLVER.

If this reply long enough or do I have to extend it??????????????

 

[Phd8511]

Before you continue posting, can you please take a look at the forum rules:http://defencetalk.com/forums/rules.php

Specifically rule 2, relating to one-liner replies. There are times, such as when one is thanking another poster for some information, or asking a very specific question, where a one-liner might be appropriate. However, as a general rule we ask members to put some more time and work into their posts, so as to add more value to the discussion as a whole. Expand on some of your ideas, think of questions pertinent to the issue at hand, add a level of detail to your responses - in this way your posts contribute a lot more than if you are just posting one liners consistently.

I hope you find the DT forums interesting, and are similarly interested in making some contributions of your own. But please do have a look through the rules at the above link, and make an effort to include some more content in your posts. Around here post count doesn't matter to anybody - what matters is a mature, detailed posting style that lends itself to online discussion. I hope you can appreciate this.

Cheers

No it is a bit difficult to judge when not to thank people with one lines but I hope my previous reply works.

Is this long enough or do I have to be removed from the board?