Britain and France have agreed to progress the joint Future Cruise/Anti-Ship Weapon (FC/ASW) programme to the next phase, committing to the Demonstration and Manufacture stage. Named the Future Offensive Surface Weapon (FOSW) by the RN, it will arm the Type 26 and Type 31 frigates.
The FC/ASW programme, led by European missile manufacturer MBDA, aims to replace both the UK’s Storm Shadow and France’s SCALP cruise missiles, as well as the Exocet and Harpoon anti-ship missiles. Two distinct missiles are being developed under the programme: the high-supersonic RJ10 variant, intended to defeat moving maritime targets and dense naval defences and the subsonic TP15, optimised for land attack and suppression of enemy air defences.
The first prototype of the TP15 missile has already been produced, with extensive radio frequency (RF) signature testing carried out at a dedicated RF testing facility. Meanwhile, exhaustive supersonic wind tunnel trials have been completed on the propulsion system for the RJ10 at MBDA’s site in Bourges. Additional trials conducted on both missile variants include testing of their advanced seekers, warheads and fuzing systems, as well as aerodynamic assessments and further engine evaluations.
The capabilities of the missiles is being expanded further with high-value airborne asset (HVAA) interdiction alongside land attack, anti-ship, and suppression/destruction of enemy air defences (SEAD/DEAD).
The two nations have set a demanding timeline for the programme. RJ10 entry into service is optimistically slated for 2028, with TP15 in 2030. More than 750 engineers across the UK and France are working on an accelerated schedule to deliver both missiles. The effort will support around 1,300 jobs across both countries
It was first confirmed in 2021 that the missile would be integrated with the Type 26 frigate and RJ10 at least will be compatible with the Mk41 VLS system. With Type 31 now also expected to receive Mk41, FOSW will eventually provide a significant long-range strike capability to both frigate classes. (It may also be fitted to the future Type 83 destroyers.) The Naval Strike Missile is an excellent interim choice for the RN (So far fitted to 3 frigates) but carries a relatively small warhead. FOSW will restore a heavyweight anti-ship missile to the RN and a ship-launched deep strike capability.
Alternative options for RN warships fitted with Mk 41 include the US Navy’s AGM-158C Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) or the latest Block V Tomahawk Maritime Strike Tomahawk (MST), but FC/ASW offers a European solution and close industrial alignment with a key defence partner. Italy has now formally joined the effort, paving the way for a possible tri-national missile programme that will become the cornerstone of European conventional missile strike capability into the 2030s.
In the meantime, the UK and France have also placed further orders for Storm Shadow/SCLAP cruise missiles. Although the original tranche delivered to the RAF from 2003 is believed to have numbered more than 900, stocks have been depleted as these weapons have been launched by the RAF during operations in Libya, Iraq and Syria and supplied to Ukraine.
If there are two missiles one built by the UK and one by France, what is Italy going to do? Are they goingto pause the project whilst they all argue over work share agreements?
Supply parts and sub systems for one or both of them?
I worked on Tornado and Eurofighter – the logic is that it will cost twice as much to have 3 parties but it will be split between 3 so it’s cheaper per country!
That’s a silly comment as there is 1 manufacturer, MBDA and 2 production sites, the U.K. subsonic cruise missile and France hypersonic attack missile. These are in the final stages, so any input from Italy will be post production. This looks like an excellent cooperative project, why must every comment be juvenile.
No it is not. There was a study done that showed it would have been far better for the UK to have built ‘Tornado’ on its own as it would have been cheaper and preserved more of the industrial base. Most European projects seem to involve the UK paying more for something and other states paying less but getting more of the work share. Typhoon is a good example. Why must every one of your comments be so supercilious and factually incorrect Dull Blade?
Who carried out this study that mention but don’t reference?
That’s really interesting. I’d like to read that study you mentioned. Do you have a link or a name for it?
If you would care to show what relevance this has to MBDA, which is one of the only European true success stories and a global leader in military defence (and stop living in the past!) I will gladly withdraw my comments.
To be perfectly honest it is well accepted that both Tornado and Typhoon would have been cheaper and quicker into service without the collaboration.
A lot of the collaborators had to be spoon fed British IP and then put their own twist on it.
Then add the silly and predictable specification / directional tech arguments then add the workshare arguments.
The main issue was the the politicians were terrified of BAe having a blank cheque. That was one of the real drivers for the multinational collaborations.
Sorry, but thats re writing history. …”Tornado and Typhoon would have been cheaper and quicker into service without the collaboration.”
The opposite was the case …being ‘The premium attached to a purely national project would make it unaffordable’
Remember Britain wanted a dual role aircraft “ capability for counter-air and interdiction operations with both conventional and nuclear weapons. ‘
As is known that resulted in the GR1 and F2 versions, where the extra changes for the F2 were at Britain’s cost but the versions had a lot of commonality.
The development costs weren’t just for ‘an airframe’ but you had the brand new engines, new attack radars and sensors plus different ADF radar for UK with missile development.
The much larger numbers from a multinational production made a huge difference in the cost per plane for research development fixed costs.
800 in total compared to 385 in 2 versions for UK only
Some proper background from senior people who were involved at the time
https://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/documents/Research/RAF-Historical-Society-Journals/Journal-27A-Seminar-Birth-of-Tornado.pdf
Thanks for the link, interesting reading. I don’t think doomsters like WIZ want anything factual or positive to stand in the way of their daily fix of negativity!
This looks like a good move and am encouraged they are speeding up development. Both missiles are sorely needed, not just by our Navy.
Interested by the high-value airborne asset (HVAA) interdiction features, i guess this for command and control aircraft at extreme range.
Although not mentioned, it must have land and air launch compatibility as well.
Yes, both weapons are earmarked for Typhoon, Rafale, GCAP and SCAF. There has been very little mentioned on a land launched version. But if it can be launched with an additional rocket booster from a ship either vertically or from a cannister. Then there should be no issues launching from the back of a truck. However, it has also been announced that the weapons diameter is too large for torpedo tube (21″) launching, so MBDA are updating Exocet for this requirement. Though I’d expect both to be capable of being vertically launched from the AUKUS SSN’s VLS.
Is it the subsonic just air and the supersonic just sea/vls launched or both be sea/air compatible? Will the RN still have the NSM for lower tier targets as well as FCASW? The proposed Norwegian T26 has a 4×4 NSM fit which is pretty useful in freeing up mk41 space for other missiles, same on the US Constellation class. Hope the RN maximises its T26 and T31s. They could try and fit 4×4 NSM on the T45s even if FFBNW in full in absence of any mk41s.
Both will be air and surface (sea) launch capable. The Typhoon for the UK has been earmarked to do the integration trials, as is Rafale for France. I have yet to find out what ship will be used for the trials. As currently we (UK) don’t have a ship with Mk41. Perhaps the RN will use a barge like they did initially with Sea Viper.
Thanks Davey. Partly joshing but could the UK manufacturer of the 6 CAMM solo block can expand its product range and build a no frills equivalent version of the 8 cell mk41 or a 1/2 mk41? I’ve seen images of 4xquad CAMM launchers, might be MBDA, not sure. Might save a few quid if local and save on weight. All the mk41s for the UK seem to be taking forever unless its been done secretively. Not sure if I’m imagining this but I thought I read sonewhere about the Italian’s (them again) deploying a “universal vls” on their new DDX Destroyers. Do you know anything about these?
CAAM requires a seperate launch controller per every 12 CAAM missiles. Hence 3 cell stand alone ExLS quad packed or MBDA 6 cell units (2 x 6).
What about Sub launched. Hand launched for that matter!
Now you’re being silly!…thought it was just me…Lol. I was actually being quite serious above.
Bit late to the party, but I’d guess that the land-launched slot will be filled by the Precision Strike Missile launched via M-270?
Coming up with an additional launch platform for another long-range missile doesn’t sound viable for the British Army, but I suppose that they could work out a slot-in cannister to launch it from the M-270s if there was enough added value over the PrSM…
“The capabilities of the missiles is,” grammar error.
Any word on if TP15 will be MK41 compatible? Would be nice to have 8 RJ10 and 8 TP15 on each Type 26, still leaves room for 8 VLS torpedos as well.
A box launcher for the Type 45s wouldn’t be a bad idea either.
I suspect the T45 will stick with NSM. By the time these missiles are available in significant quantities the T 45 will be in the last 5/10 years of its service. I don’t see them being taken out of service for a weapons change at that stage.
I hope Typec31s get NSM for a short time from the 23s.
Like all these collaborative ventures will proceed at a 🐌 pace, 2028/30??⁹
Editor
Sorry to be rude to both NL and MDBA here…
However, as the photos and descrptions both quite-clearly show:
Are two entirely different types missile.
i.e. there appears to be to be very little, if any, commonality between them! (note 1)
These are two very-different missle development programmes…
and if HVAA – which used to be callee AAD – then that makes it a third type of missile
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Note 1
Except painting both of them a very shiny black: i.e. a paint scheme which makes any low observable mssile far more observable (especially in daytime)
Anti-HVAA will be done by RJ10. It already has ramjet propulsion, an active radar seeker and high maneuverability because of its other roles, ought to make a pretty good VLRAAM.
Hopefully they can use common electronics, warhead components etc. to drive costs down, otherwise there would indeed be little point in the double programme.
Congratulations on figuring out the bleeding obvious. Yes these have always been two very different missiles with two different objectives. 🤷🏻♂️
Sean
TLDNR
Peter (Irate Taxpyer)
The French need canister/box launch for both missiles anyway because their Fremms don’t have VLS silos that can take such large weapons, so it shouldn’t be too difficult to replace NSM on T45.
TP15 was shown launching from a T26’s mk41 in an MBDA video, I think it’s pretty much confirmed that they will be interchangeable in terms of launch platform.
Isn’t it planned for A70
A70 is only designed for MdCN, A70NG might be able to take it but the AAW FREMM don’t have either.
Sorry Bazza, just seen you’ve asked same question.
I think this is suppose to say TP15 rather than the RJ10. Naval News’ interview at the Paris Air Show, shared the animation at the MBDA booth showing TP15 vertically-launched from a Type 26 (MK 41) whilst RJ10 was seen being cannister-launched from a FREMM
Both weapons with be integrated with the strike length Mk41 VLS, which will be fitted to both the T26 and T31. The strike length version is 7.5m deep. The Sylver A70 is only 7m deep, MBDA have yet to say if the weapons can be used by the shorter Sylver VLS.
Already seems to be uncertainty about fitting the Mk41 launchers to T31. I think the in service dates had slipped as well. I wonder if these will ever see service as money is tight all round. They should both have Verticle launch capability and which can be sub launched?
I think we do need to get on with it as presently we are still short of hitting power. Low hanging fruit would be containerised heavy weight Spearfish on T26 and T31.
And where exactly are you putting the containers on T31
You don’t think there is a reason why no significant navy in the world is fitting heavy weight torpedoes to any surface vessel?
Uncertainty about fitting Mk41 launchers to T31 exists only in your head. The £65m contract for the CIP for this for all 5 Type 31s was signed in April.
Aside from making it easier for the enemy to sink a frigate by placing hundreds of kg of explosive in a container on its deck…
what would be the point?…
If I can be slightly inflammatory, can they redirect some mk41s over to the T45s? Slot spaces already there, just need to cut the gym roof open…and move the gym somewhere else. LOL.
This space is going to be used for 24 Sea Ceptor silos replacing the Aster 15 and leaving the 48 sylver for the Aster 30 missiles.
Yes, I’m aware of that. A waste of space IMHO. 2 Exls x 24 would give you 48 CAMM plus 48 Aster, that’s a formidable load! Then you might be able to replace the Phalanx’s and 30mm with 2x40mm. Are the T26s getting 2x30mm or 2x40mm? Like to see if the 6xCAMM, maybe 2, can be put on the B2 Rivers like they were on the BAE Leander T31 proposal.
The cost of a full 6 ship VLS change over to the very expensive LM Mk41 doesnt justify it.
Better to spend money on missile /radar upgrades than some metal boxes
It seems to have a better list of base spec’s which is good.
But I think we still need something BrahMos-eques to accompany it.
Options are always good.
Isn’t RJ10 the BrahMos equivalent?
I thought ‘high supersonic’ usually meant Mach 3+, and if the manoeuvrability is enough to hit air targets then that will be useful for anti-ship terminal phase.
I think he’s referring to the range of the Brahmos, which is out past 500km. We’re still yet to find out just how far the reach of the RJ-10 will be.
The rumours, at least, would suggest Tomahawk level ranges for TP15 and so RJ10 shouldn’t be that far behind.
Also, MBDA seem very proud of the propulsion system for RJ10. There’s no indication that it is unusually fast, so I would infer that they have improved the efficiency over missiles like Meteor such that it has good range for a ramjet missile.
I thought we’re getting only the TP15.