Subscribe
Notify of
guest
179 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
John Hartley

You only need one to fire, to give the Russian ships a hell of a scare, so they stay well away from the Ukrainian coast. If that means a Heath Robinson bodge up, so be it.

Fred the Frog

No-one told the RN that 40 years back though.

John Hartley

Difference in moral though.

Qiana

Start creating money from home. It is a terribly nice and simple job. I am a daily student and half time work from home. I made $30,000 last month on-line acting from home. (ed20) Everybody will do that job and make additional money by following this:- .Link and a lot of details…… http://Www.CashApp1.com

Last edited 3 months ago by Qiana
Duker

Russians invented the whole concept of Ship to ship missiles , so they have plenty of CIWS and such to counter a harpoon coming their way
Kastan and Pantsir-M come to mind, both with cannon-missile combo

John Hartley

It doesn’t need to hit. It just needs to give them a fit of the vapours.

Duker

Seem to remember its the UK and US that have had their warships hit by anti ship missiles in ‘operational zones’

Humpty Dumpty

Harpoon lacks range. Russian ships could stay out of range of Harpoon and still fire Kalibr and Oniks missiles at land. Even LRASM and NSM lack range as land-launched missiles (do they even exist?) because of the size of the Black Sea. The only anti-ship missile I’m aware of with sufficient range is Tomahawk Block Va and even then I’m not sure if a land-launched variant exists or how long it would take to develop one if one doesn’t.

Last edited 3 months ago by Humpty Dumpty
Duker

ER version can fly 300km but no takers …yet

Sunmack

Escorts without anti-ship missiles.

Destroyers reported to be without a functioning sonar that lack ship launched torpedoes and the ability to engage ballistic missiles and also have an unreliable propulsion system.

Submarines that are excellent but being built at a glacially slow pace.

Brand new frigates with no sonar, anti-ship missiles and only 12 SAM’s.

A light helicopter with no ASW detection gear and a large helicopter with no anti-ship missiles.

Carrier aircraft with only short range AAM’s and no air to surface missiles to attack land or naval targets.

I think that the announcement might have been mistaken and it is in fact the Ukrainians who will be providing us with military aid

Michael

That pretty much says it all.

Zak

This post has to be sent to our government and the mod. But surely they know this already.

ATH

There was money in the last defence review for an interim system for I think 8of the T23. The RN got bids from most of the existing systems. In the end the senior leadership of the RN cancelled the program as poor VFM. There professional option is that the RN can benefit more from spending the money on other things.

Jon

It was 5 systems, with missiles for 3 available at any one time. I doubt very much it was the navy who wanted them cancelled. They were called interim supposedly to avoid annoying the French, but we did that with AUKUS anyway. In reality they would have been useful for decades.

The Prime Minister wanted his floating bazaar right away and the Chancellor refused to fork over the cash. Where was the £250m to come from?

The Defence Procurement Minister claimed the planning assumption was that FC/ASW would be operational in 2028. This was when FC/ASW was still in the concept phase, and he knew the planning assumption was a joke. He didn’t care, and used it as an excuse to say that there would only be a gap of 5 years.

Sometimes I think “just” and “only” are the worst four letter words in the language.

David Broome

And iSSGW could have gone to the Type-31s as well when FCASW comes in 2030 (was 2028).

Humpty Dumpty

At this point it would make sense to buy LRASMs and fit them to our Poseidons. At least then we’d have stand-off anti-ship and land-attack capability, which our navy currently lacks.

The Japanese Type 17 anti-ship and land-attack missile looks especially promising. Japan’s planning to increase its range to 1,500km. It’s stealthy and can perform evasive manoeuvres. We should buy loads of them for our Poseidons and Type 45s as well as using them as a land-launched missile. Hopefully they’ll be able to be fired from torpedo tubes as well.

Last edited 3 months ago by Humpty Dumpty
X

T17 is a fantastic system.

Humpty Dumpty

Yep and if a sub-launched variant is developed even better, ideally one that can be fired from both torpedo tubes and a VLS.

As for our Poseidons and ships, we need good SAM systems to protect the airbases and ports they use. SAMP/T and/or David’s Sling would be good options imo. And the European TWISTER air defence system in the future, which I’ve read will be able to take out a variety of threats including manoeuvrable hypersonic missiles, which AIUI no current system can take out.

4thwatch

That’s what they said about Long Lance.

4thwatch

I see the Polish Navy are fitting heavyweight torpedoes to their new Frigates. We have them and should fit them to the new build T26 and T31. Who imagines Merlins will last 5 minutes when the opposition get loitering SAMs in their submarines.

Humpty Dumpty

Interesting. I’ll do some Googling. The Type 31 though doesn’t have all the features that make the Type 26 quiet, so I’m not sure how useful this is. The Type 26 has CODLOG propulsion, an acoustically quiet hull and rafted engines to make it as quiet as possible and hard to detect by subs (although I can’t imagine it would be that quiet slamming into waves). That said, subs are getting quieter all the time as well. When those French and UK SSBNs collided a while back it made me wonder if passive sonar is obsolete now, at least against the quietest subs. Ships carrying heavyweight torpedoes makes more sense than Sting Ray say, but only if you can actually detect subs out there. Same goes for VL-ASROC.

Loitering SAMs? Are you thinking of something along the lines of a sub-launched variant of Switchblade 600? That would certainly be a serious threat to any ASW helicopter.

I think it’s likely that in the future more and more subs will carry IDAS missiles (or an equivalent) to shoot down ASW helicopters. IDAS also has the added benefit of being a short-range (40km) anti-ship and land-attack missile. Especially useful for diesel-electric AIP subs and/or UUVs.

Last edited 3 months ago by Humpty Dumpty
David Broome

A towed sonar array helps and honestly Captas-1 or TRAPS is better than nothing even if only as torpedo decoy.

Humpty Dumpty

As I said, is passive sonar capable of detecting the quietest of subs any more?

A French and UK SSBN collided a while back and they presumably have the best passive sonars going: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Vanguard_and_Le_Triomphant_submarine_collision

Plus there were the Gotland exercises and several other exercises where diesel-electric subs weren’t spotted.

So if even top-end passive sonar isn’t up to the job, lower end systems are pointless for detecting subs.

It seems to me that (a) new operating procedures and/or (b) new detection methods are required. (a) might prevent friendly countries’ subs colliding (e.g. by sticking to different areas of the ocean), but it won’t prevent collisions with enemy subs. As for (b) there are a lot of possible options, although how effective they’d be in reality I don’t know. That would require extensive testing to determine that.

As for torpedo decoys, do they even work against wire-guided or wake-homing torpedoes? Anti-torpedo torpedoes make more sense.

Last edited 3 months ago by Humpty Dumpty
FieldLander

Do not be so positive. The government are getting lots of publicity for giving stuff (rightly) away. Not so sure where the Anti-Ship Missiles, described as ‘advanced’ eleswhere, are coming from though. Harpoon can only be a bodge.

John Hartley

One interim missile, in production now, is the MBDA Marte-ER. Can be ship/shore/helicopter launched. Integrated on Typhoon. I think the Italians have the earlier version on their AW-101 & they say its a simple upgrade to the newer ER. Its not the greatest anti ship missile, but it can be fitted to many things, Merlin, Typhoon, T45, with ease & available now.

Humpty Dumpty

Good point. Even an MQ-9 Reaper could carry them I’d have thought. Weight-wise it looks like it could carry 4 Marte-ERs.

David Broome

I have been making the same point on the Telegraph. We continue to disarm and go for built for and not with and that is nuts. Don’t worry, we can always deploy our vegan diets and confound Russia with pronouns and decolonised mathematics. It’s like were living in a Monty Python skit.

Last edited 3 months ago by David Broome
Sunmack

I think we do that because politicians see it as a job creation budget rather than a defence budget. Building the hulls creates most of the jobs so they are okay with that but weapons, sonars etc. create fewer jobs relative to their cost

Sunmack

It’s strange that we’ve found that anti-ship missiles are important in modern warfare but we’ve decided that we can do without them for several years

Armchair Admiral

Its farcical, our lack of anti-ship missiles. Been said here before of course.
Even a few batteries of sea-spear or Brimstone would serve the Ukrainians well, mounted on something small and able to shoot and scoot.
AA

Humpty Dumpty

“Its farcical, our lack of anti-ship missiles.”

Totally agree.

The Royal Navy currently has no credible above-water anti-ship capability. Harpoon is a laughably bad missile in this day and age. It seriousy lacks range and even if it DID have good range, it’s subsonic, unstealthy and can’t perform evasive manoeuvres, which presumably means it’s ludicrously easy to shoot down.

F-35Bs won’t be getting SPEAR 3 until Block 4, which has been pushed back to late this decade, and in any case LRASM and JSM are far better options imo, which are currently being integrated.

My preference for a Harpoon replacement would be the Japanese Type 17 anti-ship and land-attack missile, especially once it’s had its range increased to 1,500km as planned by Japan. It’s a stealthy missile and can perform evasive manoeuvres, which means it would be hard to detect and shoot down.

The Type 17 would be ideal for the Type 45s (and their replacements) as well as for the Type 31s and Type 32s. Possibly even the newer/least old Type 23s depending on how much life they’ll have left in them when the 1,500km version of Type 17 comes into service.

We should also fit Type 17s to our Poseidons as well as use them from mobile land-based TELs.

“Even a few batteries of sea-spear or Brimstone would serve the Ukrainians well, mounted on something small and able to shoot and scoot.”

This would probably work to make Russia think twice about using landing craft or to mision-kill ships carrying military hardware trying to reach Sevastopol or other ports, but these missiles lack range.

Ukrainians need long-range missiles that outrange Kalibr and Oniks. AFAIK the only western missile that currently has sufficient range is Tomahawk Block Va, but I don’t know if there’s a land-launched variant and if there isn’t how quickly one could be developed. That said, like Harpoon, Tomahawk Block Va is subsonic, unstealthy and I think it can’t perform evasive manoeuvres (although I may be wrong about that), so it would presumably be easy to shoot down. One option though might be to develop a launcher to launch MALD-Js from land alongside Tomahawk Block Va missiles. MALD-J would presumably make a hit much more likely.

What Ukrainians also need imo are LOADS more Bayraktar TB2 drones (AIUI they have less than 50), Soviet SAM and SHORAD systems that they already have and know how to use, the Rheinmetall MANTIS NBS system (which is fully automated and so presumably wouldn’t require much training) and THOUSANDS of Switchblade 300s and 600s to take out a wide variety of ground targets at safe stand-off ranges including S-300s, S-400s, SHORAD systems, tanks, other armoured vehicles, logistics vehicles, artillery positions and rocket launchers, especially the particularly nasty TOS-1.

Some A1 IM-SHORAD Strykers and Rheinmetall Skyranger vehicles wouldn’t go amiss either, nor would the tank destroyer developed by MBDA and PGZ that can carry 24 Brimstones, although I’m not sure if any of these vehicles are currently in service and if they are how much training would be required so that Ukrainians could use them.

The Spike NLOS anti-tank missile would also be very useful because of its long range, especially in the Donbas region which AIUI is flat and full of wide open spaces, so using Javelin or NLAW would presumably not be options in such scenarios.

Last edited 3 months ago by Humpty Dumpty
Rob N

I think everyone is forgetting that we have a force of top notch SSNs with Spearfish. These represent the true UK ani-ship capability. This is why at least one to two SSNs would alway be with a CSG in time if war.

I think government after government have been playing dice with defence capability gaps. We not only should have modern air and ship launched ASMs but we should have shore assed ASMs to provide defence of the UK mainland.

In the same way we should have a UK SAM system to protect the UK like most other NATO countries.

But budget cuts over the years and political complacency/incompetence have left us with huge gaps in our defences.

Hopefully the Government will now pull its finger out and start to take Russia/China seriously.

Sunmack

You make a lot of good points but I think that the utility of our SSN’s for anti-ship warfare is overplayed.

Firstly we only have 6 (rising eventually to 7). With a normal ratio of vessels deployed of 1:4 that leaves at best two boats on tasking.

Secondly, we have more missions than subs. CSG escort, ASW protection in the North Atlantic, intelligence gathering, protection of deploying and returning SSBN’s and cruise missile carrying East of Suez* means that there are already more tasks than submarines.

Thirdly, our submarines are the finest ASW assets available so when doing something like escorting the CSG that should be their mission. To attack a surface target 500 miles away would mean detaching the SSN for up to two days. That same mission could be done in 2 hours by an F35 equipped with a heavyweight ASM.

* One of the few things we Russian’s have got right is putting cruise missiles on small, cheap warships such as corvettes. We’d be far better off with the otherwise useless T31 East of Suez with 12 Tomahawk in VLS that losing a £1.3 billion submarine which represents half of our deployed SSN force on that mission.

4thwatch

Quite. I’d love to sit in on some of our decision meetings that reject reasonable ideas and see how they crush them so effectively.

Humpty Dumpty

“protection of deploying and returning SSBN’s”

Not just SSBNs, but SSNs too. Surely this is a perfect reason to start developing and building diesel-electric AIP subs?

They’d be ideal for not just these missions, but to also patrol UK waters, the North Sea, the GI-UK gap, the Falklands, the Persian Gulf to support Type 31s escorting commerical vessels, to operate off Gibraltar and anywhere else where the range of an SSN isn’t required.

Hell we could even develop nuclear-powered “sub transporters” (to coin a phrase) to transport say 4-6 diesel-electric AIP subs wherever they’re needed. These transporters could also act as motherships to refuel, recharge, rearm and replenish these subs. They’d also enable crews to be swapped.

Diesel-electric AIP subs are much cheaper than SSNs and we could build a decent number of them and faster than SSNs. Fit them with long-range stealthy anti-ship/land-attack missiles, IDAS missiles to shoot down ASW helicopters and Torbuster to hard-kill torpedoes and we’d have VERY useful assets.

David Broome

Sadly we have no capacity as BAE is committed to Astute and Dreadnought. The Japanese have the best non-nuclear subs and we should bite the bullet and order three.

Humpty Dumpty

Sadly? Sounds very defeatist to me. What happened to Churchill’s “Action This Day” attitude? If the war in Ukraine won’t make the government pull its finger out, nothing will. We should create the capacity. Build new shipyards (subyards?). Or else as you say buy diesel-electric AIP subs. The German Type 212 looks good to me, especially when it gets IDAS missiles, which are currently under development, to shoot down ASW helicopters. IDAS is also a short-range (40km) anti-ship and land-attack missile. As for Japanese subs, which do you have in mind?

Last edited 3 months ago by Humpty Dumpty
4thwatch

So why not fit Spearfish to our surface ships? The Polish navy are going to fit heavyweight torpedoes to theirs.

Deep32

The PN are fitting MU-90 torpedoes to their new frigates I believe. It’s a European version of our Stingray Lightweight torpedo!!
I’ve not seen anything about a heavyweight weapon being fitted to these frigates, would be grateful if you could point me in the direction of that info.
Lightweight torpedoes whether air or ship launched are fire and forget weapons, while heavyweight torpedoes are generally dual purpose (AsuW and ASW). Have a much greater range and are generally wire guided, using onboard systems (sonar) to get them to their search area, giving them a greater chance to detect and thus kill the target.

AlexS

The PN are fitting MU-90 torpedoes to their new frigates I believe. It’s a European version of our Stingray Lightweight torpedo!!

No it isn’t. It has mostly Italian origin.

Deep32

Last I looked, Italy was in Europe no!!!

AlexS

You don’t get it…. It has nothing to do with Stingray.

Humpty Dumpty

“So why not fit Spearfish to our surface ships? The Polish navy are going to fit heavyweight torpedoes to theirs.”

Subs are getting quieter all the time. How effective is passive sonar these days against the quietest subs?

And even if passive sonar IS still effective, Spearfish for example is outranged by the Russian Type 65 torpedo which has a range of up to 100km. So in that case we need much longer ranged Spearfish torpedoes (and ideally faster ones too). As well as a longer ranged variant of VL-ASROC. Not that Royal Navy ships carry VL-ASROC, but still, just saying.

And as for active sonar as used by ASW helicopters and sonobuoys, is active sonar still effective against modern subs with hi-tech acoustic tiles?

I’m not being smart, I genuinely don’t know.

But all I do know is that a French and UK SSBN collided a while back. That suggests to me that passive sonar is no longer up to the job.

Humpty Dumpty

“I think everyone is forgetting that we have a force of top notch SSNs with Spearfish.”

We don’t have many Astutes at all (they can’t be everywhere at once), plus Spearfish could do with being faster and longer ranged imo. Plus the Astutes would be even better if they had very long-range stealthy anti-ship/land-attack missiles capable of evasive manoeuvres and/or hypersonic missiles like the CPS for example, Torbuster to hard-kill torpedoes and IDAS missiles when they come into service to shoot down ASW helicopters. IDAS can also be used as a short-range (40km) anti-ship and land-attack missile.

“We not only should have modern air and ship launched ASMs but we should have shore assed ASMs to provide defence of the UK mainland.”

*shore-based (not sure what “shore assed” means, but it doesn’t sound pleasant)

I totally agree.

Our F-35Bs won’t be getting SPEAR 3 until Block 4, which has been pushed back until late this decade, and in any case LRASM and/or JSM would be far better anyway since they’re longer ranged and more powerful missiles.

Our Poseidons also need LRASM and/or JSM.

Plus any reason why Merlins and Wildcats couldn’t carry anti-ship missiles? Ships don’t always sail as part of a carrier group after all.

The Japanese Type 17 anti-ship/land-attack missile would be my preference to replace Harpoon though, especially once its range has been increased to 1,500km as planned by Japan.

“In the same way we should have a UK SAM system to protect the UK”

Again, totally agree.

My preference would be SAMP/T and/or David’s Sling. (Sky Sabre is too short ranged and AIUI can’t shoot down ballistic missiles, although it’s OK I suppose as the lowest layer of defence.) Plus buy TWISTER in the future when it comes into service, which I’ve read will be able to shoot down manoeuvrable hypersonic missiles, which AIUI no system currently can.

In fact the whole of Europe needs a sophisticated, multiply redundant IADS. Some European countries have SAM systems (although not all by any means), but there’s nothing approaching an IADS where the I stands for INTEGRATED.

Deep32

“Spearfish could do with being faster and longer ranged”!! So you are aware of what it’s speeds and range are then?? Contrary to what some think, it only has two speeds, Slow (faster then any warship,/SM can do), and Fast (,which is even faster). It’s engagement range is determined by its speed, it is however several times greater then a typical lightweight torpedoes range even when in Fast speed.

Whilst our Merlin’s are not equipped to carry ASMs, Wildcat is equipped to carry both Martlet and Sea Venom ASMs.

Humpty Dumpty

I wrote: Spearfish could do with being faster and longer ranged.
You replied: So you are aware of what it’s speeds and range are then??

*its

Max range: 54km
Max speed: 60 knots

The Russian Type 65 torpedo has a range of up to 100km and a speed of up to 50 knots.

So clearly Spearfish needs a serious upgrade, especially in terms of range. It could also do with being MUCH faster.

“It’s engagement range is determined by its speed”

*Its

Well obviously. That’s stating the blindingly obvious. That applies to any torpedo.

“it is however several times greater then a typical lightweight torpedoes range even when in Fast speed.”

*than
*torpedo’s
*even at fast speeds

Again obviously. What’s your point?

“Whilst our Merlin’s are not equipped to carry ASMs, Wildcat is equipped to carry both Martlet and Sea Venom ASMs.”

*Merlins

What? Totally irrelevant.

Martlet/LMM and Sea Venom are anti-ship missiles fired by Wildcats. They’re short-ranged, underpowered missiles.

Martlet is designed to deal with FIACs and Sea Venom isn’t powerful enough to take out a high-end ship. And in any case, a Wildcat would get shot down by a high-end ship (or even a less powerful ship) before it could even get in range to fire Sea Venom in the first place.

Last edited 3 months ago by Humpty Dumpty
Supportive Bloke

“The Russian Type 65 torpedo has a range of up to 100km and a speed of up to 50 knots.
So clearly Spearfish needs a serious upgrade, especially in terms of range. It could also do with being MUCH faster”

This poses a number of interesting questions

Namely is Type 65

  • real or is it Kremlin CGI; an
  • does it go as fast as advertised – if it exists; and
  • does it go as far as advertised – if it exists?

I very much doubt Spearfish needs more than an update. The fundamentals of it will be good for some time unless there is a change in basic physics that I have not heard of.

Humpty Dumpty

The only sensible position to take is to assume the Type 65 torpedo exists and that its advertised specs are real and to improve Spearfish so it exceeds those specs.

If it’s a non-existent weapon or if it’s real but its specs aren’t as advertised, we’ve lost nothing. In fact we’ve gained a better torpedo.

If on the other hand the Type 65 is real and its specs are accurate (or worse downplayed and actually better than advertised), then a Russian sub could take out an Astute at greater range than it can fire back. Not a good position to be in at all.

It would also make sense to fit Astutes with Torbuster to take out incoming torpedoes.

Deep32

You have said that Spearfish needs greater range/speed because it is effectively out ranged by the Russian T65 Torpedo!

Not entirely sure how you have come to that conclusion based on your very limited knowledge of SM warfare, not knowing if any of the data ref T65 is in fact true or not (as posted by @SB), and totally incorrect information on Spearfish parameters – yes, you are wrong about its speed and range.
T65 is predominantly used against Carriers/LMVs and is a wake homing torpedo, irrespective of how fast or far it goes, it’s not used against SMs.

Such ranges true or not are totally irrelevant in SM v SM encounters, as detection ranges are relatively short, and torpedo target acquisition ranges shorter still.

Your reasoning ref Martlet and Sea Venom totally misses the point in using them, as does your post about SSBNs and SSNs needing escorting by SSKs!!

Our SSNs do not escort our SSBNs in and out of our waters, they contribute to their safety in a different fashion. If you don’t know how, it’s not a crime. You might however, want to refrain on commenting about things you clearly lack knowledge of, as it only makes you look ………..!!

Humpty Dumpty

“You have said that Spearfish needs greater range/speed because it is effectively out ranged by the Russian T65 Torpedo!”

Yes I did.

Does the Type 65 torpedo outrange Spearfish or not?

“not knowing if any of the data ref T65 is in fact true or not”

And how could I possibly know that? I don’t work for the manufacturer and nor do I work for a western intelligence agency.

All I can go on, like any member of the general public, is publicly available information. If that information is wrong, that’s not my fault, is it?

“(as posted by @SB)”

SB queried whether the Type 65 even exists. How am I meant to take a comment like that seriously? And why would you use someone to back up your argument who doubts the Type 65’s very existence? Clearly anyone who disagrees with me is good enough for you though, regardless of how nonsensical the comment.

“and totally incorrect information on Spearfish parameters – yes, you are wrong about its speed and range”

Firstly I was simply giving the figures given by Wikipedia, so these weren’t my figures, but I’ll concede that, as you said, the range of a torpedo depends on its speed, so yes it’s variable. Therefore you can’t just give a single figure for max range. (Or max speed for that matter, which is also variable.)

After doing a little Googling, I found a more nuanced article.

For example this article https://defense-update.com/20170816_spearfish.html says:

“At full speed of 80 knots the Spearfish can strike targets at a range of 14 miles, and, at low speed, it increases the range to more than 30 miles.”

Again, I have no idea if these figures are correct or not since I’m not the manufacturer, but 14 miles is just 22.5km and far lower than the figure given by Wikipedia, so this makes Spearfish look even worse than it did already.

And 30 miles is approx 48km, so far closer to the figure Wikipedia gave, although still less, so again this doesn’t make Spearfish look good.

These aren’t particularly impressive (or safe) ranges at all, so at the very least it would make sense for Astutes to carry IDAS missiles when they come into service to shoot down ASW helicopters and Torbuster to destroy incoming torpedoes, whether from subs, helicopters, MPAs or ships.

Really though Astutes (and their replacements) should have very long-range stealthy anti-ship/land-attack missiles to enable Astutes to fire at ships and land targets from stand-off distances beyond the range of ASW helicopters (and ideally MPAs as well).

Obviously these speed and range figures will vary according to a variety of factors, but what I’m NOT seeing for Spearfish is a range of up to 100km.

Also see my reply to SB above regarding why it makes sense to assume the Type 65 range figure is correct, even if it isn’t.

“T65 is predominantly used against Carriers/LMVs and is a wake homing torpedo”

LMV?

According to the Wikipedia Type 65 article, it appears only the DST92 variant of the Type 65 is wake homing. The article also states in the info box “Guidance system: active/passive sonar and wire guidance”, so I fail to see why a Type 65 couldn’t take out an Astute. Assuming that the guidance system information is correct that is.

Plus one other point, if the Type 65 range of up to 100km is correct, then a Russian sub could target the QE or PoW carrier from a range of 100km and if there isn’t an Astute within firing range of the Russian sub, then it will be powerless to stop such an attack. All the more reason to increase the range of Spearfish so it exceeds 100km. As well as giving ships anti-sub missiles with a similar range and anti-torpedo torpedoes.

“Such ranges true or not…”

Well are they true or aren’t they?

“Your reasoning ref Martlet and Sea Venom totally misses the point in using them”

What point did I miss exactly?

You brought up Martlet and Sea Venom missiles in a discussion about torpedoes. They’re totally irrelevant to the topic under discussion.

And I notice you didn’t address this point I made: “… a Wildcat would get shot down by a high-end ship (or even a less powerful ship) before it could even get in range to fire Sea Venom in the first place.” ANY ship with a half-decent SAM system could shoot down a Wildcat before it could get into range to fire Sea Venom.

“as does your post about SSBNs and SSNs needing escorting by SSKs!!”

I never wrote any such thing, someone else did. Well the person only mentioned SSBNs, not SSNs.

My point was that it would make sense to build diesel-electric AIP subs for this role to escort SSBNs as they deploy and come back to base (and SSNs too for that matter).

Plus they’d be useful for many other roles like patrolling home waters, the GI-UK gap, the Falklands, the Persian Gulf or anywhere else where the range of an SSN wouldn’t be required. Plus they’re much cheaper than SSNs.

“Our SSNs do not escort our SSBNs in and out of our waters, they contribute to their safety in a different fashion. If you don’t know how, it’s not a crime. You might however, want to refrain on commenting about things you clearly lack knowledge of, as it only makes you look ………..!!”

And you might want to improve your reading comprehension skills so you don’t talk down to people accusing them of saying things they never said.

Deep32

You are clearly what I would call a WikiWarrior gaining most of your information from the internet, which, before you go off on one is perfectly fine. However, using single source info and clearly lacking knowledge/experience of the subject can leave you open to criticisms, so don’t be surprised when people challenge/dispute some of your observations as it were. You will find that a lot of posters on various sites have experience of what is being discussed, which you might, or not, want to take onboard.

Getting back to the discussion ref T65/Spearfish, the Wiki posted parameters be it range/speed warhead size are largely irrelevant actually, as engagements over such distances are highly unlikely. It’s the ability of your sensors to detect the opposition that is the important factor, and in SM v SM engagements that range is short. Even in the halcyon days of pre Walker spy scandal the West never had such a range advantage.

With wake homing torpedoes you are just as likely to hit something else or miss entirely especially over those sort of ranges.

The range a torpedo can detect a target at is even shorter still, and comes down to its size – diameter (determines how many hydrophones can be fitted to the weapon head) and the target radiated noise level.

If for example your sensors can’t detect the opposition SM out past say 15 kyds, then having a torpedo with a 100 kyd range doesn’t matter. If you can’t get said weapon close enough to the target, your torpedo will never detect it.

Spearfish doesn’t need to have an increase in its range or its speed, it has both in abundance for what it’s designed for. The sonar systems fitted to UK SMs are amongst the best out there, modern SMs are v quiet, engagement ranges are shortish.

*LMV* Large Merchant Vessel.

Supportive Bloke

I’m a bit concerned that we are taking Russian claims of weapons capability at face value.

recent events have proved that many of their systems come nowhere near the claimed specifications.

This of itself will cause a bit of a revaluation of UK systems purchases as I sense the reason that some systems ‘were not good enough’ was based on over estimation of Russian systems defencive capabilities.

Humpty Dumpty

“You are clearly what I would call a WikiWarrior gaining most of your information from the internet, which, before you go off on one is perfectly fine.”

If it’s perfectly fine, then what’s your problem?

“However, using single source info…”

What? I did originally re the speed and range of Spearfish and then I rectified that, but you refuse to acknowledge that.

Plus I raised issues relating to information given by Wikipedia relating to the Type 65, which you completely ignored. A notable example being whether all variants of the Type 65 are wake-homing. Not a peep from you.

“and clearly lacking knowledge/experience of the subject can leave you open to criticisms”

I can accept criticism or correction if (a) it’s reasonable, (b) it’s accurate and (c) it’s not condescending.

What I won’t tolerate however is being spoken down to. Nor will I tolerate you labouring a point after I’ve conceded it. That gets old quick. If you want to be a stuck record, go and talk to someone else, I’m not interested.

And apart from the speed/range of Spearfish (a point I’ve already conceded and that you refuse to acknowledge), list everything I wrote that was wrong.

On the other hand, there were several issues I raised and questions I asked in previous comments that you completely ignored.

You also didn’t even have the grace to admit that comments you wrongly attributed to me had actually been written by someone else.

Last edited 3 months ago by Humpty Dumpty
Adrian

I think here there is confusion over what the UK can do in a defensive role compared to an attacking role. I suspect a couple of type 45s can defend the whole of the UK from air strikes on their own along with 4 Astutes from sea threats. The difference is that UK wants to also project power which we can only do in certain abilities, i.e carrier strike group.

Although I agree we’re short of anti ship missiles and most of our ships are under armed we also need to remember the type 45s are destroyers and not cruisers. That said anti ship is a weekness that needs rectifying.

Humpty Dumpty

“I think here there is confusion over what the UK can do in a defensive role compared to an attacking role.”

No confusion on my part.

“I suspect a couple of type 45s can defend the whole of the UK from air strikes on their own”

Absolute nonsense.

Aster 30 Block 0 missiles that Type 45s carry can’t shoot down ballistic missiles or manoeuvrable hypersonic missiles, let alone nuclear ICBMs. They also don’t carry many missiles, so could be easily overwhelmed by a saturation attack.

Plus Aster 30 Block 0 only has a range of 100 or so kilometres, so there’s no way a couple of Type 45s could defend the whole of the UK as it’s about 900km from the top of Britain to the bottom.

“along with 4 Astutes from sea threats”

We’d be lucky to be able to put just 2 Astutes to sea at any one time. Plus they can’t be everywhere at once. And in any case, Astutes can’t shoot down land-attack missiles.

“UK wants to also project power which we can only do in certain abilities, i.e carrier strike group.”

Oh please. Project power with what exactly?
Two carriers with hardly any F-35Bs? And just Phalanx for self-defence, which is absolute garbage.
No way to refuel F-35Bs in air and no anti-ship missiles for them.
Type 45s and Type 23s with just Harpoons which seriously lack range. Plus they’re subsonic and unstealthy, so easy to shoot down.
Type 45s that can’t shoot down ballistic or hypersonic missiles.
No long-range land-attack missiles on any of our ships.
Royal Navy ships are utterly toothless at present.
The only useful and survivable assets we have are Astutes and we don’t have enough of them. Plus they’d be better with anti-ship missiles, Torbuster and IDAS missiles when they come into service.

“Although I agree we’re short of anti ship missiles and most of our ships are under armed we also need to remember the type 45s are destroyers and not cruisers.”

What does that even mean?

Last edited 3 months ago by Humpty Dumpty
Supportive Bloke

You are ignoring the alternate undeclared modes of most systems. And totally ignoring EW which reading between the lines has been very effective in the Ukrainian situation.

Whilst something may not be advertised as AShM it may well be perfectly capably of hitting a ship.

For instance Ceptor does have a quietly announced AShM mode. I’d be surprised if ASTOR didn’t either – so a biggish missile slamming into a ship at more then Mach3 would do a lot of kinetic damage particularly as ASTOR has a pretty sophisticated targeting system that would allow a pin point hit on something as slow as a ship.

I agree neither are a sea skimmer or a real heavy weight missile but they would do more than wake you up.

Humpty Dumpty

“You are ignoring the alternate undeclared modes of most systems.”

What? What does that even mean?

What modes?

What systems are you referring to?

And if these modes are UNDECLARED, how do you know about them?

“And totally ignoring EW”

What?

“Whilst something may not be advertised as AShM it may well be perfectly capably of hitting a ship. For instance Ceptor does have a quietly announced AShM mode.”

It’s called Sea Ceptor and that’s the name of the system. The missile it fires is called CAMM and it has a woefully short range. It couldn’t reach Russian ships far out in the Black Sea.

Plus Sea Ceptor is a ship-based system. The land-based version is called Land Ceptor/Sky Sabre and again CAMM lacks range to reach ships in the Black Sea.

“I’d be surprised if ASTOR didn’t either”

It’s spelt Aster and there are two variants; Aster 15 and the longer ranged Aster 30. I’ve not read anywhere that either variant has anti-ship capability. And again even if they did, they lack range to take out ships in the Black Sea.

Last edited 3 months ago by Humpty Dumpty
Supportive Bloke

Almost all missile systems have alternative capabilities.

They may not be the first line capabilities.

But to say that a missile that can fly to a target coordinate and go bang has zero utility to do something else involving flying to a target and going bang is far from true.

Sea Ceptor does have an anti ship capability that was quietly declared.

The fact that it has an anti surface capability is in the manufacturers data sheet which is public domain as it is on their website.

  • High system performance against the full naval air target set including manoeuvring, low-signature targets in high level countermeasure environments, plus the ability to engage small high-speed surface craft

The distance that Ceptor will be able to travel is much higher than the declared distance and it will be even greater in a ballistic trajectory went it is not having to go at Mach3+ and can simply be used as efficiently as possible.

Ceptor has got very sophisticated targeting so would be able to hit a specific spot on a ship such as a radar or an missile rack.

Ceptor can also manoeuvre at very high G so can avoid CIWS.

I would not write off the ability of a coherent attack of small agile missiles supported by EW to take out large capital ships.

I’m sure you will simply say that this is all nonsense. But I do have some experience of this kind of thing and a good feel for the subject matter.

Humpty Dumpty

“Almost all missile systems have alternative capabilities.”

Do they?

And in any case, it’s irrelevant since CAMM doesn’t have the range to take out Russian ships staying far out in the Black Sea. Look up the ranges of Kalibr and Oniks.

That said, if Russian ships are using their deck guns against land targets (and I don’t know if they are or not), then yes CAMM might potentially work, but I don’t know if Land Ceptor/Sky Sabre has anti-ship targeting capability. Or whether it could be developed. Or how long it would take to train Ukrainians up on the system.

But for Russian ships staying far out in the Black Sea firing Kalibr or Oniks the only missile I’m aware of with sufficient range is Tomahawk Block Va. And again a land launcher would need to be developed if one doesn’t already exist.

“But to say that a missile that can fly to a target coordinate and go bang has zero utility…”

I never wrote any such thing, but feel free to put words in my mouth.

I said CAMM lacks range if Russian ships are far out in the Black Sea, not that it couldn’t cause damage if it hit a ship.

“Sea Ceptor does have an anti ship capability that was quietly declared.”

You’re repeating yourself now.

X

we have a force of top notch SSNs with Spearfish

Some of the comments on here are comedy gold. The USN has a force of SSN’s. We have some SSN’s. A force…….>larf<

Supportive Bloke

We probably have as many serviceable SSN’s as the Russians do given their maintenance and parts issues.

Yes, the US has far more than we do but their economy is also far, far bigger.

I would love to see 12-14 SSN’s but I have no idea how that could be made to happen given the constraints at Barrow.

The more relevant issue is do the allies have enough to contain China who do have the money and will to build and will soon be in possession of Russian Nuclear Sub tech as a price for bailing Putin out.

I hope there is a big fat financial plan to help the Russian economy if and when Putin goes otherwise it will be Red China’s money doing the talking. The West could well win the war but lose the peace?

David Broome

But we don’t have two Astutes to spare for CSG and other tasking. Honestly we should order 3 Taigei-class from Japan to cover Faslane (and for littoral operations) to go with a govt to govt deal for the Type-17. Ukraine shows we need more weapons, ships, aircraft and personnel for all three services. It seems No Action Talk Only!

ATH

There is always the possibility the BJ just said the first thing that came into his head, without checking if his “idea” was realistically possible.

Bobs Baradur

BoJo checks before saying something ?
Hmmm, are they’re any recorded instances of that happening ?

Now that MOD has to find some ASHM for Ukraine,
maybe the RN can try for some too.

The American have some NSM laying about for their useless LCS,
have the MOD send a C-17 over.

Last edited 3 months ago by Bobs Baradur

[…] post Can the UK supply anti-ship missiles to Ukraine? first appeared on Navy Lookout. Save the Royal Navy […]

DaveyB

What were the missiles that the new Ukrainian UK built patrol boats going to have? I heard it was going to be either Sea Venom or Sea Spear. Both of these would have been canister mounted. With the Sea Venom having the longer range and punch, whilst the Sea Spear being capable of supersonic swarming attacks.

MBDA have shown that both missile types can be vehicle mounted. With Sea Venom set up as a dedicated coastal battery unit. Interesting prospect if it is Sea Venom, with its advanced imaging infrared sensor and two way datalink. As it could be linked up to a UAV such as a TB2 for over the horizon targeting.

GBNL

Has MBDA shown Sea Venom can be vehicle mounted? Sea Spear 100% but I can’t find anything for Sea Venom.

DaveyB

Hi mate, the system was announced a few years back at Singapore’s IMDEX. Singapore were looking at a requirement for a new shore based missile system. MBDA proposed the Sea Venom. I’m not sure why they proposed it over Marte-ER that was already in production and being sold to Qatar. The system did a number of shore based trials in France. It was mounted on the back of a Renault GCB 6×6 truck. I believe that’s as far as it went, as Singapore didn’t purchase it.

Humpty Dumpty

“whilst the Sea Spear being capable of supersonic swarming attacks.”

How on earth would that be possible?

DaveyB

Sea Spear being a derivative of Brimstone has swarming capabilities. A group of missiles when fired will “talk to each other” via datalink. Brimstone was initially designed as a fixed wing supersonic (Mach 1.3+) anti-tank weapon. The inter-missile communications were developed so that the missiles did not target the same tank. The millimetric radar is so accurate it can pin point and recognize specific areas on a target, for example a tank’s turret roof. However, they can also be programmed to all aim for the same specific point on a target.

Humpty Dumpty

That’s not what I meant. Sea Spear lacks range, so it’s not going to be able to even reach Russian ships far away that are equipped with Kalibr and Oniks.

As for dealing with FIACs, (a) Sea Spear is an expensive solution and (b) how many would a ship carry anyway? Almost certainly not enough to deal with a swarm of dozens of FIACs. Plus surely some downward-firing airburst ammo able to cover a large area would be both cheaper and more effective? Sea Spear seems to me like an over-engineered, overly complex missile to solve a relatively simple problem. Thales RAPIDFire would be another option.

DaveyB

I guess it will depend on where the action takes place? Close in to the littorals, or within visual range, Sea Spear would have its place. But something like Martlet would work equally as well against FIAC and at a much lower cost. Sea Spear would also be more useful against amphibious landing craft, where its larger punch can do more damage than Martlet’s. However, if its within 4km, then ATGMs would work equally as well. Though they travel a lot slower than Sea Spear, so may be easier to intercept.

Beyond visual range, so over the horizon targeting will be a real problem for Ukraine. They have very few assets that can be used for targeting and relaying course update information. The TB2 UAV could do some of this as its equipped with an EO turret that includes a laser designator. But it will need something like a Link-16 compatible datalink to communicate with the missile. Especially if it to be used against a moving ship.

None of Ukraine’s Soviet era aircraft are compatible with NATO missiles, as they don’t use the 1553 databus or its derivatives. Even the Polish and Slovak Mig 29s that were updated, do not include the 1553 databus, so they are still limited to Soviet/Russian weapons.

For Russia its relatively easy. The have ships that can fire land attack cruise missiles from well beyond the horizon. Safe in the knowledge Ukraine has very few aircraft that can hunt them. Their Su24s would be the best aircraft for the job, but they are fast running out of spares to maintain them. The Mig 29s could also do this job, but they are needed for counter air operations.

Russia has the added advantage that it has the whole of Ukraine under surveillance from satellites. Plus many of its cruise missile attacks are against fixed locations. As Ukraine does not have a functioning Navy any more, there’s even less threats to their ships.

I think what the UK has promised to Ukraine, is a means of protecting their coast from amphibious assault, more than countering cruise missile launching warships operating safely behind the horizon. Unless Ukraine is provided with ISTAR and a means of locating these warships. A long range anti-ship missile will be useless. They will be better off with a missile system for protecting the coast. If they were provided with the Sea Venom system that MBDA proposed to Singapore for coastal protection. This would give them some serious firepower and a means of sinking Russia’s amphibious forces.

The Bofor’s 57mm gun opens up the guided rounds and programmable multi-fuse shell cupboard. As has been alluded to, the T31’s 57mm gun will be getting the MAD-FIRES semi-active guided round for air defence as well as dealing with FIAC. It is also getting a programable shell, which could be either the BAe 3P or the US Alamo. Which again can be used against FIAC.

Supportive Bloke

That is too logical and based on facts.

Humpty Dumpty will probably fall off his wall in rage at that and all the Queens men won’t put him back together again 🙂

Humpty Dumpty

Don’t talk about me behind my back. If you’re going to criticise me, have the decency to address me directly.

“That is too logical and based on facts.”

List everything I wrote that WASN’T based on facts.

“Humpty Dumpty will probably fall off his wall in rage…”

In rage? What on earth are you talking about? List everything that indicated I was filled with RAGE when I wrote it. Smh.

Humpty Dumpty

“I guess it will depend on where the action takes place? Close in to the littorals, or within visual range, Sea Spear would have its place.”

Against what targets though?

Sea Spear is a ridiculously expensive solution just to deal with FIACs. And as I said, ships wouldn’t carry enough to deal with dozens of FIACs anyway.

I’m a big fan of Brimstone to take out tanks. A Typhoon can carry up to 18 Brimstones, MQ-9 Reapers can potentially carry them and MBDA and PGZ have developed a tank destroyer that can carry up to 24 Brimstones. There’s also no reason I don’t think why the A1 IM-SHORAD Stryker couldn’t carry Brimstone instead of Hellfire. Or why other vehicles couldn’t be developed with Brimstone (and better equipment like Starstreak and a CT-40 cannon for example). But a sea-based version of Brimstone? That doesn’t make any sense to me at all.

Any weapons system that requires one missile to take out one target is a hopelessly ineffective (and ridiculously expensive) system to deal with swarm attacks, whether you’re talking about FIACs or UCAVs. What you need are guns firing airburst ammo, powerful chemical laser weapons and microwave weapons.

Against any vessel with anti-ship missiles, that would mean that a ship couldn’t get close enough to fire Sea Spear in the first place.

And even if a vessel doesn’t have anti-ship missiles, but does have a CIWS, especially one firing airburst ammo, then there’s no guarantee Sea Spear would even hit its target anyway. I mean it’s not stealthy. And is it even able to perform evasive manoeuvres?

Does Sea Spear have ANY realistic role? That’s not a rhetorical question btw. I can’t think of one. And even if it does, which of those roles couldn’t be carried out far cheaper and far more effectively by other solutions, either systems that currently exist or that could be easily and quickly developed?

While there are several things I hate about the Type 31s (especially the fact that they’re ridiculously downgraded Iver Huitfeldts), dealing with FIACs is one thing the Type 31 should be capable of. Considering that I think that Type 31s will probably spend most or all of their time in the Persian Gulf escorting commercial vessels, this makes sense.

Type 31s can take out FIACs using the 57mm gun and the two 40mm guns as well as using Wildcats carrying Martlets/LMMs. Plus I’ve read that the 40mm and 57mm guns firing 3P ammo would have some measure of anti-missile capability, as would the 57mm gun firing MAD-FIRES (assuming the Type 31s actually get MAD-FIRES). That said, the Type 31s need at least 24 CAMMs imo, ideally 48, and they also need an anti-ship/land-attack missile. The NSM would make sense for the Persian Gulf imo.

A couple of Thales RAPIDFire CIWS guns wouldn’t go amiss either, assuming there’s space for them that is. The Type 31 is hardly a small ship, so I’d have thought the space is there.

“But something like Martlet would work equally as well against FIAC and at a much lower cost.”

Definitely.

But even Martlet/LMM isn’t exactly dirt cheap and again you have the problem of just one missile per target. Even if a Wildcat could carry 20 Martlets (although I recently read it’s been downgraded to just 10) that’s obviously not enough to deal with dozens of FIACs.

That’s why I suggested downward-firing airburst ammo that covers a wide area and that could take out several targets in one go and/or the people operating the vessels.

That said, something like the CBU-105 would be ideal to take out a lot of FIACs, but we’re signed up to the Convention on Cluster Munitions. I understand this on land because of unexploded ordnance killing and maiming civilians after a war is over, but at sea? That makes no sense to me at all. The CBU-105 would almost certainly be overkill against FIACs, but a cheaper, less powerful variant could be developed specifically for this role. Another option would be the CBU-107 that uses tungsten and steel rods to take out targets, so there’s no issue there with unexploded ordnance. I can’t imagine it would be hard to develop ship-launched, USV-launched and Wildcat-launched variants of these systems to take out a large number of FIACs in one go instead of using one missile per target, which is ludicrously inefficient (and expensive).

“Sea Spear would also be more useful against amphibious landing craft…”

More useful compared to what?

Surely far cheaper systems could be used? Or developed?

“Beyond visual range, so over the horizon targeting will be a real problem for Ukraine. They have very few assets that can be used for targeting and relaying course update information.”

Agreed.

“The TB2 UAV could do some of this as its equipped with an EO turret that includes a laser designator. But it will need something like a Link-16 compatible datalink to communicate with the missile. Especially if it to be used against a moving ship.”

I’m not saying you’re wrong, I simply don’t know re Link-16. Got any sources so I can read up on this?

“None of Ukraine’s Soviet era aircraft are compatible with NATO missiles”

Well, yeah of course, but the Su-24 can carry the Kh-31A anti-ship missile. It’s a pretty short-ranged missile, but would it be possible for an Su-24 to fly low over the water at night, appear over the horizon, fire a Kh-31A and then immediately turn around to fly back to base? Would that work?

Another possible option would be the Tomahawk Block Va anti-ship missile assuming a land-launched variant could be quickly developed.

“For Russia its relatively easy. The have ships that can fire land attack cruise missiles from well beyond the horizon.”

Well yeah precisely, Kalibr and Oniks, which is why I mentioned Tomahawk Block Va.

“Their Su24s would be the best aircraft for the job, but they are fast running out of spares to maintain them.”

Source?

“The Mig 29s could also do this job…”

Does the MiG-29 even carry anti-ship missiles?

“Russia has the added advantage that it has the whole of Ukraine under surveillance from satellites.”

So does the west, doesn’t it?

“Plus many of its cruise missile attacks are against fixed locations.”

That’s a non sequitur surely?

And in any case, Ukraine would greatly benefit from large numbers of S-300s from any countries that have them and are willing to donate them. Then ideally other countries would backfill them with systems like Patriot, NASAMS and SAMP/T for example.

And one system that would be especially useful to Ukraine would be the Rheinmetall MANTIS NBS system. It’s a SHORAD/C-RAM system that can shoot down helicopters, low-flying planes and drones, certain types of missile, bombs, rockets, artillery shells and mortars. MANTIS systems donated in large numbers would protect both civilian areas and military bases and save a LOT of lives. MANTIS is a fully automated system so I can’t imagine much training would be required. And whatever training is required, the sooner it starts the better.

The Rheinmetall Skyranger vehicle is a mobile version of MANTIS. That would also be incredibly useful to Ukraine. As would the Oerlikon Skyguard and Skyshield systems.

“I think what the UK has promised to Ukraine, is a means of protecting their coast from amphibious assault, more than countering cruise missile launching warships operating safely behind the horizon.”

Possibly, I don’t really know. All I do know is that those Russian ships need to be taken out at long range.

X

Severely damaged HMS Glamorgan? Severely? Really? Missile hit at 0637 and all fires out by 1000. Yes 14 poor souls lost their lives but severely damaged? Have you ever been aboard a County?

Supportive Bloke

Yes, I have.

Glamorgan she was.

The plated over hole in the mess deck always caused me to mentally pause as I walked past.

If that missile had hit slightly differently it would have caught to the Sea Slug storage magazine that ran the whole length of the ship. I cannot doubt, along with many others, that if this has happened Glamorgan would have been lost with a terrible toll.

RIP.

X

Severe damage though?

If you want to give yourself the heebie-jeebies go down to the bottom of the ship. And put you hand on a hull plate and feel the cold. Then consider how little there is between you and the abyss.

Did you write the article?

Supportive Bloke

The damage was pretty bad. The helo was written off and the hangar was trashed. Frankly anyone who was there would tell you they go lucky as the missile hit a glancing blow so did not penetrate and explode.

I have felt the hull plates but never really though like that.

No, I did not write the article.

Duker

Didnt the horizontal magazine in Countys have a number of armoured doors to provide protection to the missile chain ?

Supportive Bloke

It was divided.

But to state that they were armoured doors is an over statement.

It was pretty much accepted, at the time, that if one Sea Slug went in the magazine that the whole thing went. They were pretty unstable missiles.

X

The Counties going South in 82 should have dumped the launcher and missiles over the side on the way down. The Chileans converted the space into accommodation. It’s not too difficult to imagine a similar RN version with an enlarged flight deck and Sea Wolf. But so personnel intensive.

Fantastic ships from a different age. Impacted ship design into the 70’s.

4thwatch

Father was in the Pacific fleet. Sleeping below waterline in a non-airconditioned overcrowded carrier!

Duker

The money that was wasted on converting the cruisers to helicopter carriers ( not long after their expensive conversion to fully auto 6 in guns) would have been better spent on County conversions by getting rid of rear missile launcher and missile magazine and with a larger rear helicopter deck and hangar ( probably cut down one level for stability reasons) and the Sea Dart up front instead of one of the 4.5in turrets

Mike Walters

I was scratching my head to understand how Johnson’s promise of supplying harpoon missiles could be achieved. The missiles are obsolete and we have no land based systems. Also they are so slow that Russians would shoot them down.
Thanks for clarifying the problems. Basically we can’t do it.
How can you have ships with no ability to destroy other warships ? Not so concerning onT45 as they will be alongside or in refit.

Supportive Bloke

Also they are so slow that Russians would shoot them down.”

Maybe.

Given the land based performances I would not be so sure.

I agree Harpoon is big and slow but it just being there changes the threat balance for surface ships.

Humpty Dumpty

Maybe?

Harpoons are subsonic, unstealthy and can’t perform evasive manoeuvres. How AREN’T they going to get easily shot down?

Plus it’s all moot anyway because Harpoon is greatly outranged by Kalibr and Oniks, so Harpoons wouldn’t even be able to get anywhere near Russian ships staying far out in the Black Sea in the first place.

The only western anti-ship missile I’m aware of with sufficient range as a land-launched missile is the Tomahawk Block Va. And that’s assuming that it can be quickly modified to be launched from land.

Last edited 3 months ago by Humpty Dumpty
DaveyB

To be brutally honest, no one really knows how they will perform in a wartime scenario against a modern (ish) Russian warship. Sure they’ve been fired at some smaller ships in the Gulf and Libya. But against a peer Nation’s ship is whole new ball game. On paper the ship’s air defence system as used on the Admiral Gorshkov class frigates “should” be able to detect it, track it and fire at it. But until a Harpoon is fired at the ship it is only speculation on they will perform.

Humpty Dumpty

My money’s on a Harpoon getting shot down any day of the week. LRASM and NSM are another matter though because they’re stealthy and able to perform evasive manoeuvres. Have them accompanied by MALD-Js and a hit’s even more likely. But it’s all moot anyway because they’re outranged by Kalibr and Oniks. The west needs FAR better anti-ship missiles.

Supportive Bloke

It also depends on which version of Harpoon we are talking about.

Whist it is absolutely factually correct to say it is very big and not the most maneuverable there are other things that can be done to enhance it.

The front end was made less radar reflective in the newer models and the ability to reprogram en route means it does not need to go active until it is very, very close.

Given the very clear level of NATO understanding of Russian weapons systems it can safely assumed that it would be well understood how to get quite close undetected.

I’d also be more than surprised if the Russian ships could cope with more than 4 incoming missiles at any one time. They won’t have anything like the T45 CMS.

That is before it is even considered if NATO EW would stuff up the Russian ships system for the Ukrainian attack. You know like the S300 and S400’s that mysteriously never seem to work…..

Supportive Bloke

We do know now that Neptune has been battle tested today!

Nepture +1 Russian Navy 0

Mike Walters

I think the Ukrainian armed forces are bigger and better equipped than the UK.

Supportive Bloke

Sorry I call tosh.

What and how do you think weapons are tested on our land based ranges?

Laptop connected to firing cabinet. That is how it will really be done.

Look at how the launch tubes for Harpoon are supported: a competent metal workshop could weld that up in a morning.

There is zero need for a full CMS integration. Yes, you need to know the way points to program the missile but these could be manually entered as a text string. You know copy and paste. You could get the coordinates from a friendly NATO country….

So what the Ukrainians need are the missiles, controller cabinets and the test software. We could give them the launcher frames but they can make those.

IRL they are not going to care if the missiles miss-fire. So the past-sell-by-date is not that relevant. Like supermarket sell by dates these things do have margins and given the UK and US, rightly, have a strong H&S culture they will be conservative.

Why? they will be mounted at a fixed position, probably concrete, and can be remote fired from a good distance away. They won’t be on a ship.

Jon

Agree totally. You take more risks in a war. Get the Harpoons to Odessa.

David Broome

NATO (US) system = a big no from Washington as they retain veto on US made kit.

Radar = a Russian anti radiation missile will find it

Deployment = a smoking wreck that someone suggests is what happened to the recently donated s300s after crossing the border.

Supportive Bloke

I don’t think the big NO is from Washington. There is massive support in both houses.

Older Harpoon version are old and US doesn’t care about that tech being captured.

Radar – if the Russian anti radar missiles are as good as everything else they have then I won’t be holding my breath. That wouldn’t stop the Ukrainians trying. Anyway the active radar doesn’t go on until the missile starts to home and that can be set very late as it can be programmed to go to a way point and then to hunt.

On you last point maybe. Maybe not.

Chris

Absurd capability gap. With MBDA in the UK and several allied options from the US, Norway and France there is no acceptable excuse for this situation.

Jon

I liked the Israeli proposal. Still do. The speed they turned out the anti-ship missiles for Singapore was impressive.

Humpty Dumpty

Totally agree.

edwinr

Good story – raises some interesting points. It would be interesting to see what damage a 16kg warhead would do to a Russian frigate. What about two 16 kg warhead striking simultaneously? Obviously, where the missile strikes is a huge consideration.

Humpty Dumpty

Even if we had large numbers of operational Harpoons, they’re outranged by Kalibr and Oniks, so Russian ships could simply stay out of range of land-launched Harpoons and still attack land. They’d make Russians think twice about using landing craft though or about using ships to carry military hardware to Sevastopol or any other port.

It’s absolutely ludicrous though that the UK doesn’t have better, longer ranged anti-ship missiles than Harpoon, Sea Venom and Martlet, especially as we’re a seafaring nation.

As far as I know, the only western anti-ship missile that currently outranges those Russian missiles is the Tomahawk Block Va, but I don’t know if there’s a land-launched variant or how quickly one could be developed. Being subsonic and unstealthy though, it’s questionable how likely it would be to hit its target or whether it would get shot down. If accompanied by MALD-Js, hitting ships would presumably be more likely, but then a land-launched variant of MALD-J would also be required, which would complicate things. Not an insurmountable problem though I don’t think.

What other options are there for Ukraine?

– Su-24s firing Kh-31A anti-ship missiles? They’re short-ranged missiles, but if an Su-24 flew low over the water at night, appeared over the horizon, fired the missiles and then turned around, could that work? At what range would the Su-24 be detected? At what range could it actually be engaged? That’s assuming of course that Ukraine still has Su-24s (or could be given some) as well as operational air bases near the coast. Can Su-24s operate from roads or grass airfields? Could Su-24s (and other aircraft) be fitted with the Arexis EW pod to enable them to get close to ships without being engaged? And if so, how quickly could this be done? This would also make Ukrainian aircraft more survivable against SAM and SHORAD systems and more capable of taking them out I’d have thought.

– Fit Harpoon or LRASM to Ukrainian aircraft? Ideally rugged transport aircraft that wouldn’t need a prepared runway to operate from, making them more survivable than aircraft that do. (If they could be fitted with Storm Shadow to take out SAM and SHORAD systems all the better. Storm Shadow is stealthy and outranges S-400. It’s overkill, but would work I’d have thought.) Harpoon and LRASM could be fired by aircraft from beyond the range of SAMs on Russian ships. LRASM would clearly be the better option though because it’s stealthy and a far more sophisticated missile. Expensive though. Could an air-launched variant of the NSM be quickly developed?

– MQ-9 Reapers firing Hellfires or Brimstones? Again flying low over the water at night. I’d have thought Ukrainians who know how to operate Bayraktar TB2 drones would be fast learners when it comes to Reapers. These missiles could presumably mission-kill ships by taking out their radars, satellite links and bridges.

– Boats to get Ukrainian frogmen close to Russian ships, but beyond detection range, then use SEAL Delivery Vehicles (SDVs) to attach explosives to the ships? Don’t know how feasible that is, just thinking out loud.

– Any other possibilities?

At this stage though, if it were up to me I’d just load up bombers and Poseidons with LRASMs and wipe out the entire Black Sea fleet. And the Russian Baltic fleet as well. I’m sick of all this pussy-footing around. Putin only respects strength, so let’s give him plenty of what he respects. NATO could steamroll Russian ground forces in next to no time. Russia is going to reduce Ukrainian towns and cities to rubble, one after the other, just like it has with Mariupol, unless it’s stopped and Ukraine doesn’t currently have the military hardware to do that. NATO though does. Russia’s currently on the back foot and now would be an ideal time to hit them hard.

Duker

Tomahawk Block V is a land attack missiles . Not anti ship. They use the latest Harpoons for that
The rest of your analysis is typical clueless armchair general stuff.

Sunmack

The US Navy is upgrading Tomahawk to enable it to be used against ships.

Deep32

I believe TLAM Blk Va is the new anti ship variant being produced. Not sure if it’s service with the US yet though.

Duker

Seems to be a possible ‘future upgrade’ to make the TSM . No mention of how far away that future is or even if it will be funded.

Boeing has developed the Harpoon ER with 300km range and test firings have confirmed that. No orders or real interest in that either. ( it could have gone on the LCS)

Humpty Dumpty

“Tomahawk Block V is a land attack missiles.”

For starters I wrote Tomahawk Block Va. Secondly, nice grammar. Thirdly, Tomahawk Block Va *IS* an anti-ship missile; Block Vb is the land-attack variant.

Plus what’s with the attitude? I’m trying to think up ways to help Ukraine, unlike you who felt a need to post a snotty reply for absolutely no reason, except to make yourself feel superior.

And as I said, Harpoon is outranged by Kalibr and Oniks. That’s a fact, nothing clueless about that at all.

“The rest of your analysis is typical clueless armchair general stuff.”

It wasn’t ANALYSIS dipstick. What I wrote were TENTATIVE SUGGESTIONS, hence all the question marks. You’re clearly not bright enough to know the difference.

And which of my suggestions specifically do you consider clueless? And why? Maybe you’re the sort who would have smugly told Barnes Wallis that a bouncing bomb was a clueless idea.

Duker

I didnt want to go over it since it was so totally off beat there was no more to be said , but here goes since you want to dig the hole deeper. I literally know nothing but these just leap of the page
Fit Harpoon or LRASM to Ukrainian aircraft? – clueless
 MQ-9 Reapers firing Hellfires or Brimstones- clueless
NATO could steamroll Russian ground forces in next to no time-clueless
etc etc

And you did claim the Tomahawk Va- which isnt even developed yet is ‘currently’ outranging … just wrong assumption
The Harpoon ER , which is a real ASM, has had test firings at 300km but no real interest from USN or others. Unlikely to want an even longer range or pay for development of another type.


Humpty Dumpty

Your initial reply to me was needlessly snotty and insulting.

You wrote “Tomahawk Block V is a land attack missiles [sic].Not anti ship.”

That’s simply wrong and you didn’t even acknowledge that fact.

You then wrote “The rest of your analysis is typical clueless armchair general stuff.” That was totally uncalled for. The only acceptable response is an apology.

And as I said before, what I wrote were TENTATIVE SUGGESTIONS. Nothing deserving the response I got from you.

“I didnt want to go over it since it was so totally off beat there was no more to be said”

No, you had no valid arguments.

“but here goes since you want to dig the hole deeper.”

No, that’s your specialty,

“I literally know nothing”

You know nothing? What are you a Greek philosopher?

“but these just leap of the page
Fit Harpoon or LRASM to Ukrainian aircraft? – clueless”

What’s clueless about it? Are you saying this is technologically impossible?

“MQ-9 Reapers firing Hellfires or Brimstones- clueless”

How exactly? The Reaper has good range and carries Hellfire already. Brimstone has been tested on it.

“NATO could steamroll Russian ground forces in next to no time-clueless”

How is this clueless? Russia is currently on the back foot. Now would be an ideal time to attack and drive Russia out of Ukraine, including Crimea.

“etc etc”

Writing “clueless” isn’t an argument, nor is writing “etc etc”.

Without saying why you think my suggestions are clueless, I can’t respond to you because you haven’t formulated a single coherent argument.

“And you did claim the Tomahawk Va- which isnt even developed yet…”

First you incorrectly claim that Tomahawk Block Va isn’t an anti-ship missile and now this, which is also wrong: https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2021/03/raytheon-delivers-first-batch-of-block-v-tomahawk-missiles-to-us-navy/

Wanna go for the hat trick?

“… is ‘currently’ outranging … just wrong assumption”

Feel free to put words in my mouth. I never said that Tomahawk Block Va has ever been used, I said it’s longer ranged than Kalibr and Oniks.

“The Harpoon ER , which is a real ASM”

What’s Tomahawk Block Va then? A figment of my imagination?

“has had test firings at 300km”

Which is far shorter ranged than Kalibr and Oniks.

X

Fantasy. Your comment is pure fantasy.

Humpty Dumpty

Why specifically?

X

War isn’t a game. You lot think it is DCS.

Humpty Dumpty

I asked why specifically. You haven’t answered me.

4thwatch

I’m sure that’s what they said to Barnes Wallis too.

X

Really? That’s a leap even for this place.

Humpty Dumpty

https://www.engineeringclicks.com/bouncing-bomb/

“Initially the backspin would stabilise the bouncing bombs each time they hit the water but critically the forward momentum and the backspin created a water surge ahead of the bombs in the shape of a ramp. This meant that the bouncing bombs would hit the water and then immediately climb the ramp ahead of them leaping into the air and back down again. Due to the precise testing of the bouncing bombs Sir Barnes Wallis knew exactly when to drop them, how many times they would hit the water and vitally, when they would hit the dam wall and sink. Like a depth charge the bombs hit the dam walls, fell to a depth of 30ft at which point, as programmed, they detonated. All of the months and months of testing, the ridicule and the dedication of the whole team ended in perfection.

Once described as foolish and “tripe of the wildest description” that fateful day when the bouncing bombs were dropped thrust a dagger into the heartland of the German war machine. The bombs obliterated the dam walls which had for so long protected munition factories and other key operations of the German authorities.”

[bold mine]

Last edited 3 months ago by Humpty Dumpty
Duker

Barnes Wallis was a renowned ( and qualified) marine and aviation engineer even before the bouncing bomb. I think he was behind the earthquake bombs too
he had a number of advanced ideas to his credit, including geodetic frames used in airships which he designed for the Wellington bomber.
he wasnt the only one of that era, but rightly he could be called a ‘giant’ in aviation design.
Its amazing that people would compare his well thought through innovations with their own nonsense.

Humpty Dumpty

“Its amazing that people would compare his well thought through innovations with their own nonsense.”

His bouncing bomb idea was considered nonsense by some at the time. You almost certainly would have been one of his detractors.

And you haven’t said why you consider my suggestions nonsense. You’ve just dismissed them out of hand.

Duker

The ASM version of the Tomahawk hasnt even been developed yet, nor is it in test phase. Your confusion even extends to the USN using them for land attack which seems to mean in your mind that they are ASM versions as well.
I welcome people who point out my errors, you for some reason dig the hole deeper rather than learning and moving on

Humpty Dumpty

“The ASM version of the Tomahawk hasnt even been developed yet”

You clearly didn’t read the link I posted previously. Here it is again:
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2021/03/raytheon-delivers-first-batch-of-block-v-tomahawk-missiles-to-us-navy/

And here’s another:
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2021/11/us-navy-awards-raytheon-contract-for-maritime-strike-tomahawk-block-va/

“Your confusion even extends to the USN using them for land attack which seems to mean in your mind that they are ASM versions as well.”

What on earth are you talking about? There are two variants dipstick. Tomahawk Block Va is the anti-ship variant. Tomahawk Block Vb is the land-attack variant.

“I welcome people who point out my errors”

No you don’t.

“you for some reason dig the hole deeper rather than learning and moving on”

No, that’s what you do.

And you still haven’t answered my questions in an earlier comment.

Steven Alfred Rake

Which ever system ends up in Ukraine I just hope it can be replaced with a few more than we send out double quick time as our own ships are looking a bit toothless and thin on the ground right about now.

Rugger-13

So there is a big gap in UK capability.
Surely the UK needs to buy something like NSM/JSM for our surface combatants and for shore based batteries – the Poles and US Marines have bought mobile launchers. So these are highly capable missiles, okay they are not Persus but still potent.
They should replace Harpoon on T23 and T45 and on T25. When we have the new Anglo-French missile then they should be fitted to T31/T32.

Armchair Admiral

Exactly the sentiment expressed here before. One has to wonder if a) the French had the right hump with that suggestion or b) Perseus is ACTUALLY far more advanced than we think? As an alternative gap-filler, hurry up Spear3 integration and fit it in numbers to everything
A “UK anti ship missile encompassing a capability the USA does not have,”, surely this is or has to be Sea Spear? (Not that we actually have any) Minimal complicated targeting requirements, supersonic, swarming…
AA

4thwatch

I cant see why we don’t just scale up and adapt Meteor. In wartime things happen if you make them.

GBNL

The Royal Marines should be copying the US marines NSM buy. Give the LRG’s the capability to drop off units at certain strategic coastal/island locations and set up area denial zones with AShM’s and SAM’s.

X

Why? The idea for the USMC is a mistake. The West doesn’t have enough infantry and you want to double down on that half baked sea denial strategy? Why? Never mind all the Corps’ arty comes from the Army (if the RN picks up the bill.)

Humpty Dumpty

Having LRGs and setting up area denial zones is a good idea, but (a) in some scenarios you’d need a much longer ranged missile than the NSM, (b) you need a good SAM system like SAMP/T (Sky Sabre doesn’t cut it, at least not on its own anyway), (c) you need a better way to get the RMs to where they’re needed. Albion-class and Bay-class ships would be ridiculously easy to mission-kill or sink.

Humpty Dumpty

“So there is a big gap in UK capability.”

No kidding. In MULTIPLE areas.

“Surely the UK needs to buy something like NSM/JSM for our surface combatants…”

JSM is the air-launched variant of the NSM, it’s not for use on ships.

And the NSM seriously lacks range, less than 200km. It’s OK for use in the Baltic Sea, but the best option for our frigates and destroyers imo would be the Japanese Type 17 anti-ship/land-attack missile once it’s had its range increased to 1,500km as planned by Japan. We should also fit it to our Poseidons for even greater range.

“…and for shore based batteries”

Again the Type 17 would be my choice as a land-launched missile to defend the UK. It has the range to cover the whole of the North Sea and the GI-UK gap. And again Poseidons would give the Type 17 even greater range. The hypersonic CPS missile is another option when it comes into service.

We also need good SAM systems. Sky Sabre lacks range and AIUI can’t shoot down ballistic missiles or manoeuvrable hypersonic missiles. That said, I’m unware of any current system that can shoot down the latter. The European TWISTER system, which is currently under development, is being designed with this capability though. Another possible option would be powerful chemical lasers fitted to airships operating in the stratosphere where AIUI there’s little moisture or wind, so the lasers should work optimally as opposed to using ground-based lasers. This would be a modern take of sorts on the YAL-1 project.

“They should replace Harpoon on T23 and T45 and on T25.”

Presumably you meant T26. And again my preference is the Type 17. It could be fitted to any of our current or future ships. Possibly even our River OPVs, which would actually make them useful for something. For low-end missions 42m customs cutters from Damen fitted with the Thales RAPIDFire would be relatively cheap and could be bought in large numbers.

“When we have the new Anglo-French missile then they should be fitted to T31/T32.”

What will its range be?

Last edited 3 months ago by Humpty Dumpty
Bloke down the pub

I wonder if the Ukrainians regret scuttling their only frigate at the outset of hostilities?

4thwatch

I’m sure they do. I wonder if it was sabotage.

Humpty Dumpty

I read it was under repair, so it was scuttled so Russians couldn’t get their hands on it and continue the repairs. Sounds sensible to me.

Phillip Johnson

The PM could only have been talking about Sea Venom. Harpoon is a very old system and it is most definitely not open architecture.

GBNL

The single best thing we could ever do for Ukraine is give them surface to surface Brimstone. Not for shooting at ships but for their army to take out Russian tank columns, command vehicles, artillery and SAM’s.That’s what they need more than anything right now.

If we are looking to give them something for ships, I wonder how hard Sea Venom would be to surface launch? As far as I know it’s a ‘dropped’ missile, unlike Brimstone which fires off rails.

Armchair Admiral

In the day they made canister launched Sea Skua, so presumably no reason the Sea Venom cannot be canister launched. May need a slightly larger booster motor.
AA

Humpty Dumpty

“The single best thing we could ever do for Ukraine is give them surface to surface Brimstone.”

I wouldn’t say the SINGLE best thing, but surface-to-surface Brimstone missiles would certainly be extremely useful to Ukraine.

“Not for shooting at ships but for their army to take out Russian tank columns, command vehicles, artillery and SAM’s.That’s what they need more than anything right now.”

Totally agree. Without such capability Russia is going to reduce more and more Ukrainian towns and cities to rubble just like it already has with Mariupol. Russia clearly is incapable of winning a fair fight, so it’s just targeting civilians instead hoping it will break the resolve of Ukrainians to fight. It appears to be having the opposite effect though.

MBDA and PGZ have developed a tank destroyer that can carry 24 Brimstones. That would be incredibly useful to Ukraine. As would Spike NLOS with a range of 25km. I’ve read the Donbas region has a lot of wide open spaces, so such a long-range anti-tank missile would presumably be much more useful than Javelin or NLAW in such scenarios. And obviously Spike NLOS (and Brimstone) could take out other armoured vehicles as well. In addition to targeting artillery positions, rocket launchers, SAM systems and SHORAD systems.

Ukraine could also do with LOADS more Bayraktar TB2 drones with UMTAS anti-tank missiles. AIUI they currently have less than 50 TB2s, which is nowhere near enough for a country the size of Ukraine. I don’t know how many more TB2s Turkey could donate or how fast it can build TB2s. Or whether they could be built in other countries.

Ukraine would also greatly benefit from THOUSANDS of Switchblade 300 and 600 loitering munitions to take out a wide range of ground targets such as S-300s, S-400s, SHORAD systems, Krasukha-4 EW systems, artillery positions, rocket launchers, tanks, APCs, IFVs and logistics vehicles. Even the 300 variant could presuably take out soldiers operating artillery and rocket launchers as well as the radars used by SAM systems, rendering them useless. AIUI the US has only sent 100 Switchblade 300s and 10 Switchblade 600s. That’s nowhere near enough. I hope these are just trial runs to see how quickly Ukrainians can be trained up on them, but Ukraine can’t afford to wait weeks for large numbers of these incredibly useful loitering munitions. Many more civilians and soldiers will lose their lives with each day that passes before Ukraine gets the military hardware it needs in large enough numbers to not just defend itself, but to take the fight to Russia and drive it out of Ukraine.

I also think that quad bikes and trailers would be extremely useful to small Ukrainian infantry units to greatly extend their range and to carry out shoot-and-scoot attacks on a wide range of ground-based targets. The British Army has such equipment: https://www.army.mod.uk/equipment/logistic-vehicles/
And unlike tanks, APCs and IFVs, quads don’t require a huge, complex logistics train. Plus no training needed. Obviously the trailers would enable such units to carry far more weapons systems and ordnance than they could otherwise.

MQ-9 Reapers would also be very useful. I’d expect Ukrainains familiar with the TB2 drone would be very fast learners when it comes to the Reaper. Plus the Reaper has air-to-air capability, so it could shoot down helicopters and low-flying drones.

I’m not sure if the the A1 IM-SHORAD Stryker or the Rheinmetall Skyranger vehicles are currently operational (or in what sorts of numbers), but if they are they’d be far more useful to Ukraine than tanks imo. The Strykers can take out tanks with Hellfires, low-flying helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft with Stingers and infantry with its 30mm Bushmaster gun. Skyranger can also take out low-flying aircraft as well as rockets, artillery and mortars. Its AHEAD airburst ammo should also presumably be capable of shooting down anti-armour missiles as well as rockets or missiles fired by attack helicopters or fighter aircraft. Airburst ammo can also take out infantry in defilade. Strykers and Skyrangers operating together would be a formidable combo. Throw in MBDA/PGZ tank destroyers as well and even better. (The Strykers could be improved imo with Brimstones, Starstreaks, the CT40 cannon, an APS and multispectral camouflage, but that’s another issue.)

Ukraine also needs loads of Soviet SAM systems and SHORAD systems that it already has and knows how to use. This will enable Ukraine to target Russian fighters and bombers flying higher than MANPADS can reach.

The Rheinmetall MANTIS NBS system would also be incredibly useful. It’s a fully automated SHORAD/C-RAM system, so I can’t imagine much training would be required. MANTIS is a stationary system that uses the same Oerlikon Revolver Gun as the Rheinmetall Skyranger vehicle. Each smart programmable AHEAD round contains 152 tungsten projectiles to shoot down low-flying aircraft, rockets, artillery shells and mortars. MANTIS would save a LOT of lives.

“If we are looking to give them something for ships, I wonder how hard Sea Venom would be to surface launch?”

Sea Venom, asssuming a land-launched version could be quickly developed, might make Russia think twice about using landing craft, but there are other options to deal with landing craft such as TB2 drones and artillery.

What Ukraine really needs though is the ability to take out Russian ships firing Kalibr and Oniks missiles from great ranges far out in the Black Sea. The only anti-ship missile I’m aware of that currently has enough range is the Tomahawk Block Va, although I don’t know if a land-launched variant exists or how quickly one could be developed.

Lastly Ukraine needs a way to take out Iskander missiles in Russia or Belarus as well as target airbases where aircraft carrying Kinzhals are based. I’m not sure how to achieve this. That said, GPS spoofers/jammers, laser dazzlers and decoys may render these missiles ineffective. Not sure though, just thinking out loud.

AlexS

Launching Brimstone from a Tornado at altitude is one thing. What would be the range of Brimstone static position and from land?

IKnowNothing

They have StarStreak launchers already. My understanding is that those launchers can fire Martlet missiles, which have a role as anti-shipping missiles (though of course they are intended for use against small craft really). That would hardly be what we might think of as an anti shipping missile, and it might not be quite what Ukraine needs, but it might be what Boris meant when he said we could supply anti ship missiles.

Charles Stemp

This demonstrates how small and inadequate our own defences are.

X

Those pointy things for’ard are airy planes. They go whoosh!!!!

comment image

Esteban

When it looks like your flight deck is overcrowded…that is a good problem to have.

Humpty Dumpty

If ships are staying out of range of DF-21, DF-26 or Kinzhal then F-35Bs don’t even have the range to reach land. They’d be utterly useless in a war against Russia or China.

Same goes for F-35Cs on US carriers even if MQ-25 refuelling drones were available, since they still couldn’t give the F-35Cs sufficient range to reach land.

Last edited 3 months ago by Humpty Dumpty
Humpty Dumpty

The person you’re replying to wrote “This demonstrates how small and inadequate our own defences are.” [bold added]

What does a picture of a US ship with F-35s on it have to do with the Royal Navy? Absolutely nothing at all.

And in any case, the person was presumably referring to our lack of effective anti-ship missiles, which makes your comment even more irrelevant.

Last edited 3 months ago by Humpty Dumpty
Barney

We should be keeping our noses out on the military/ armament front, Boris Johnson seems to be looking for hero status in Ukraine, whilst putting the UK in the firing line from Putin with his crazy actions.

Bob

Oh do pipe down.

DaSaint

Regardless of the age of the UK’s Harpoon anti-ship missiles, if the US (pronounced Boeing) is assisting, they can easily configure a mobile system for whatever number of missiles the UK is contributing. This really isn’t rocket science.

Supportive Bloke

How do you think missiles are fired on test ranges?

ivan vukosavljevic

That is right path to WW3

Humpty Dumpty

What? Russia has proven itself totally incapable of taking over Ukraine. It’s in no position at all to fight OTHER countries. What on earth are you talking about?

Cam

Nuclear lol

Humpty Dumpty

Lol? How old are you? And clearly I was referring to conventional war. If Russia fires high-yield strategic nukes, it’ll get nuked back. No-one wins, both sides lose.

X

You don’t really understand how Russia has gone about this war do you?

You lot here can never make up your minds. One moment the Russians are stealthy uber ninjas. And then when you want them to be they are clowns. Which is it?

What on Earth are you talking about?

Humpty Dumpty

What am *I* talking about? What are *you* talking about? I’ve no idea what you’re rambling on about.

And what do you mean “you lot”? What an arrogant comment. As if you’re the only one here who’s worth listening to. It’s quite the opposite. I notice you didn’t reply to my comment about how Barnes Wallis was ridiculed for his bouncing bomb idea for example.

X

I like making sweeping silly statements. It is only the Interweb.

That you don’t know what you are on about does not surprise me.

Humpty Dumpty

“I like making sweeping silly statements. It is only the Interweb.”

What an idiotic comment. Admit you were talking nonsense, it would save time.

“That you don’t know what you are on about does not surprise me.”

Another idiotic comment. I feel like I’m talking to a teenager. If you’re an adult, you’ve got some serious growing up to do.

Humpty Dumpty

Navy Lookout, there’s a spam/scam comment below by a commenter called Qiana about making money from home. Please remove the comment and ban the commenter.

david

Australia has ordered NSM for its F-35 with special variant to hunt down EM (radar) signatures. It gives you an idea what they are planning its use for. Also Australia signed a deal with Ratheon for a cruise? missile assembly plant on the Australian Mainland $billion investment.

DaveyB

NSM is the ship and shore based missile, whilst JSM is the aircraft launched version. The JSM has a redesigned fuselage, where the engine’s air intakes have been moved from above to a pair mounted low either side. This was to allow it to fit in the bomb bay of the F35.

Kongsberg in partnership with BAe are fitting a derivative of the multimodal RF sensor that is used in the Lockheed Martin LRASM, to JSM as part of request by Australia. This will give it a better hunting capability. Where it can scan for radio and data communications, along with radar signatures. Which would be detected well beyond the visual recognition range of its imaging infrared sensor. Kongsberg have said it will also be included in future versions of the NSM.

Phillip Johnson

Haven’t heard that the NSM’s are for the F-35’s. The stated reason for for the NSM buy was to replace the Harpoons on the ANZAC Frigates and Hobart Class AWD’s.
The RAAF is buying JASSM-ER’s for the RAAF Super Hornets (and on the F-35’s when block 4 software is available) – much bigger bang..
The domestic guided weapons facility for which Lockheed and Raytheon have been short listed is a bit of a mystery as it has not been announced what it will produce.

D J

I would think Raytheon would likely mean ESSM. Australia is a consortium member, has provided IP & already produces part of the missile.

X

We should have built TLAM here. It is a cheap weapon. It is the reason why T45 should have had an additional VLS and why Astute should have had vertical tubes too. To make it all worthwhile though we need our own recce constellation.

Julian Edmonds

Is the “recce constellation” OneWeb?

Sean

Latest reports are that the Ukrainians managed to hit the flagship of the Black Sea fleet, the cruiser Moskva, with a couple of their own Neptune anti-ship missiles. These appear to started an ammunition fire aboard, necessitating the evacuation of the crew.

Supportive Bloke

If true that is good news for Ukraine.

That new will probably cause Humpy Dumpty to fall off his wall….

Neptune isn’t very sophisticated and it’s closest comparator would be….Harpoon!

Oh well….

Just hope there were no nuclear depth charges on board.

Humpty Dumpty

As I said before, if you’re going to have a pop, have the decency to say it to my face. Talking about people behind their backs is what sad sacks do.

And in any case:
(1) The cause of the damage to the ship hasn’t been determined yet
(2) Even if it was a Neptune missile, then clearly the Moskva must have been within range
(3) Neptune, like Harpoon, doesn’t have the range to reach a ship staying far out in the Black Sea equipped with Kalibr or Oniks

You really are a sad case.

Supportive Bloke

1) there is either the Ukrainian or Russian version to believe; and

2) Neptune / Harpoonski might have a better than declared range; and

3) I’ve no idea why Kalibr or Oniks are relevant except for counter fire?

Fact is that ship either self destructed through incompetence (Russian version) or was badly damaged (Russian and Ukrainian version) by two Neptunes (Ukrainian version).

Version:-
a) is incompetence; or
b) the defensive systems/training are woeful.

Take you pick: neither is a good look for the Russian navy.

PS I’d try and calm down a bit. There is a lot of experience and knowledge on here. If you listen you might learn? Also the regulars do try and be polite to each other: we agree to disagree without getting aggressive.

Most of us really want to see RN succeed. Part of that is to gently point out that some of the RN bashing is misplaced.

Last edited 3 months ago by Supportive Bloke
Duker

Reflect for a moment the two previous times western warships were hit by anti-ship missiles in ‘war zones’

Supportive Bloke

I do reflect on that.

That is why design and damage control as so important.

Humpty Dumpty

“PS I’d try and calm down a bit. There is a lot of experience and knowledge on here. If you listen you might learn? Also the regulars do try and be polite to each other: we agree to disagree without getting aggressive.”

You talk about me behind my back and then have the temerity to call me “aggressive” for calling you out on it.

You’re an absolute plank.

Last edited 3 months ago by Humpty Dumpty
Sunmack

Even the Russian’s have confirmed extensive damage from explosion and fire with the ship having been evacuated and now being towed to port.
They refuse to comment on the reason but an SSM strike, as claimed by Ukraine, seems most likely.
Turns out that those fine Ukrainian chaps didn’t need us after all.
I do prefer this entertaining mock up of the Russian response

Screenshot_20220414-110858_Facebook.jpg
Supportive Bloke

The Russians are pathing they way they reworked their carrier to be a dual purpose carrier / submarine.

I made that joke on UKDJ when their ‘carrier’ floating dry dock failed. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery……

Sunmack

It is. Though I wish I’d waited to post until I’d seen this one about them reissuing their Snake Island commemorative postage stamp

20220414_130719.jpg
Peter MacINTYRE

Maybe the Ukrainians can supply the Royal Navy with an effective interim anti-ship missile?

Supportive Bloke

How did the Ukrainians get the target data.

What Johnson said was ‘anti ship system’ what is if gave them the missing part of the ‘system’?

Sunmack

I suspect that Uncle Sam’s air force is providing them virtually real time ISTAR data hence how they keep finding senior Russian’s in their command posts to blow up

Supportive Bloke

Oh I agree.

We will also be supplying some with our Rivets.

Supportive Bloke

Biden was surprisingly clear that the AShM ‘AShM system’ could only be UK supplied.

4thwatch

Keep shooting till it sinks and the tug too.

Humpty Dumpty

Navy Lookout, I’ve already pointed out a commenter called “Qiana” and you’ve done nothing about it. Plus now another commenter called “Julie Morris” has posted another scam comment.

You need to delete these comments and ban these commenters.

And also put measures in place so that such comments don’t get posted in the first place.

Will

Much more modern and lethal variants of the Harpoon are still in production today, and very cheap as such things go. The latest versions are practically a new weapon entirely. I had no idea that the RN had let its capability with Harpoon wither away so drastically. I will say again that it’s completely beyond me why the British don’t simply buy new Harpoons off the shelf rather than start, then stop, then re-start, then stop the poorly defined MOD proposals that have circulated for replacing Harpoon entirely. I get the desire to field a quantum leap upgrade by way of a brand new system, but I don’t get the incompetent dithering. In for a penny, in for a pound. Either spend the money and hire the expertise necessary to develop a true game-changer, or just keep buying the probably-still-good-enough latest versions of Harpoon.