MBDA Future Cruise / Anti-Ship Weapon (FC / ASW)

[Firefinder]

Okay but I don't see how 2x2x34inches fits into 2x4x25inches.

Likely by reducing the Between cell spacing as well as reducing cell well thickness.


As is the actual out size of the mk41 is closer to 30 inch square, with 2 remove for spacing then two more for casing then a bit for packing of insulation wiring and like.

With the base design being close to 50 years old there's a lot of newer materials and tricks that will allow you to open it up.

But my big question is the HOW DEEP it is.

Being able to fit a FAT missile is one thing but you also need LENGTH to actually take advantage of it.

 

[BonPlan2]

Sorry to be pedantic, but there is no "SCALP Naval", it's called MdCN / NCM
MBDA makes it pretty clear --> https://www.mbda-systems.com/products/deep-strike/mdcn-ncm
Sure MdCN builds on MBDA experience with SCALP, but that seems to be it... Shape, Engine, Booster, Warhead are all different for exeample.

Lecornu announced that a new order of SCALP/Storm Shadow missiles has been placed to replenish the stocks reduced by deliveries to Ukraine, not MdCN's.
As stated by Lecornu, this is a franco-british effort, another proof that it has nothing to do with MdCN which is 100% french.
--> View: https://x.com/SebLecornu/status/1943011932140962139



We are almost off topic, but they are in fact not ordering MdCN/NCM, but the new ELSA missile
I posted the quote from their defence minister right above ...

https://www.defense.gouv.fr/cesm/no...es-ndeg93-scalp-naval-nouvelle-arme-politiquehttps://www.opex360.com/2024/01/25/...sile-de-croisiere-naval-a-ete-confiee-a-mbda/"La première utilisation opérationnelle du MdCN [aussi appelé « SCALP Naval », ndlr] eut lieu en avril 2018..."

 

[TomS]

but that a Mk 41 Self Defence-length canister won't work in a Strike-length launcher.

This isn't actually true. For example, the Standard MR canister (the Mk 13) is a "tactical" canister. It fits fine in a Strike Length Mk 41. Same for the Mk25 quadpack for ESSM, a "self-defense" canister. There is just an adapter segment fitted at the bottom of the cell to make up the difference in height.

 

[TomS]

I think the Mk57 would have been a better choice for Type 26s the way things are moving. That would have allowed for a less square STRATUS LO missile, but seen as the UK is sticking with Mk41s isn't there already an anti-ship capability Tomahawk and if they want a collab with the French couldn't they develop the MdCN to have anti-ship capability and maybe a turbofan and tie in with ELSA efforts? That would still fit in the Mk41 too.

Aside from being an orphan, as noted, Mk 57 is huge, about twice the deck area per cell compared to Mk 41. It also has some features specifically tailored to very stealthy ships (the flush cell lids) and a lot of void space because of its secondary role as passive armor on the Zs.

They could have had a chat with Hyundai Hanwha Aerospace about K-VLS II if a larger VLS was really desired. It has the advantage of actually being in production. Or the Lockheed Growth-VLS if they want to throw money at the situation. (Ha! What money?)

But I suspect the RN preference for Mk 41 is all about having Tomahawk and its (so far hypothetical) USN successor missiles as fallback options if the European missiles don't pan out.

 

[Forest Green]

Aside from being an orphan, as noted, Mk 57 is huge, about twice the deck area per cell compared to Mk 41. It also has some features specifically tailored to very stealthy ships (the flush cell lids) and a lot of void space because of its secondary role as passive armor on the Zs.

They could have had a chat with Hyundai about K-VLS II if a larger VLS was really desired. It has the advantage of actually being in production. Or the Lockheed Growth-VLS if they want to throw money at the situation. (Ha! What money?)

But I suspect the RN preference for Mk 41 is all about having Tomahawk and its (so far hypothetical) USN successor missiles as fallback options if the European missiles don't pan out.

I just didn't like the fact that it's led to the STRATUS LO being a square peg with a round hole.

 

[Yellow Palace]

This isn't actually true. For example, the Standard MR canister (the Mk 13) is a "tactical" canister. It fits fine in a Strike Length Mk 41. Same for the Mk25 quadpack for ESSM, a "self-defense" canister. There is just an adapter segment fitted at the bottom of the cell to make up the difference in height.

It's a while since I saw the details, but IIRC that adapter is non-trivial to install or remove as a consequence of the canister design philosophy.

 

[TomS]

It's a while since I saw the details, but IIRC that adapter is non-trivial to install or remove as a consequence of the canister design philosophy.

Probably true. It is down at the bottom of the cell guides, so not super-simple to access. And it functionally is an extension of the launcher, not the canister, so it has to be secured as such.

 

[Reuben James]

I just didn't like the fact that it's led to the STRATUS LO being a square peg with a round hole.

I get you. I too was hyped for Euro-LRASM.

 

[TomS]

I get you. I too was hyped for Euro-LRASM.

That's basically what they're getting, though. LRASM would fit a Mk 41 cell, it just hasn't been ordered that way.

 

[Reuben James]

That's basically what they're getting, though. LRASM would fit a Mk 41 cell, it just hasn't been ordered that way.

It was more in reference to the low-observable characteristics of the missile, which aren't from the outside similar to the JASSM or LRASM to my eyes. Both of those systems use a more flattened, less rectangular shaping, with fewer sharp angles. The previous models shown off for the TP-15 were closer in this regard, even if we know now they were not being considered at the time they were displayed.

That said, MBDA still describes the design as 'ultra low-observable', so they clearly believe it to be very difficult to detect. Who knows?

 

[Titus K]

One last tidbit from Naval News contributor Dimitris Mitsopoulos on A70 VLS, ELSA, MdCN etc ...

According to the Greek Minister of Defense, Nikos Dendias, speaking today in Parliament during the discussion on the approval of the upgrade of the three Hellenic Navy FDI HN frigates to the Standard 2++ configuration, the exercise of the purchase option for the 4th frigate, and their FOS, Greece will not only install the SYLVER A70 VLS on the FDI HN frigates (one 8-cell module on last three) but also on the Italian FREMM frigates, provided that negotiations for their acquisition are successful. This would mean that the two Bergamini-class ships would see their missile cells increase to 24–32.

Greece going all-in on A70 really makes me wish/hope that at least one of the STRATUS missiles is Sylver compatible.
Until now, A70 was only 12x 8 cell launchers in the french navy ... hopefully export will motivate NavalGroup to update the launcher.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1973817477281841598

View: https://x.com/D__Mitch/status/1973817477281841598

 

[TorpedoJ]

It was more in reference to the low-observable characteristics of the missile, which aren't from the outside similar to the JASSM or LRASM to my eyes. Both of those systems use a more flattened, less rectangular shaping, with fewer sharp angles. The previous models shown off for the TP-15 were closer in this regard, even if we know now they were not being considered at the time they were displayed.

That said, MBDA still describes the design as 'ultra low-observable', so they clearly believe it to be very difficult to detect. Who knows?

They seem to think that the new shape is stealthier than the old one, despite it being nearly the same shape as Storm Shadow. I wonder if the rearrangement of the rear of the missile body has a greater effect than the shape of the nose?

 

[Phoenix_jz]

MDCN is not in production anymore, the last batches were the tubes launched variants ...

It's being replaced by a naval variant of the European ELSA cruise missile adapted to sylver A70(NG?)
Its likely a cost reduction initiave loosely based on the MDCN and it's new land based variant

This is not quite correct. I'm not quite sure where the Greek press and Minister of Defence is coming from on this, but MdCN's production lines are still active. It is, however, optimized around a low rate of delivery because it has, to date, only been fulfilling orders for the Marine Nationale - and those orders have been extremely limited. The most recent deliveries were the third batch for the initial Suffren-class SSNs, in 2022 (three batches totaling 50 missiles), but more will likely follow as the remainder of the class is delivered in the late 2020s up to 2030. I suspect the reported 'restart' costs may have more to do with an acceleration of production? As to this point MdCN demand is simply so low.

The focus on ELSA by Dendias is confusing to me. ELSA does not 'exist' at present, and there is nothing to navalize. There are competing proposals for it - some ballistic missiles, some cruise missiles. One such system, as has already been mentioned here, is a terrestrialized version of MdCN/NCM - MdCT/LCM. This proposal aims to keep the missiles common and the launch systems as common as possible as far as some of the electronics and mission-planning systems goes. If this were to be the option selected for ELSA, you would essentially just be procuring the MdCN itself, or perhaps something consistent with the MLU of the MdCN under ERMIN that is starting to be studied.

As mentioned before, the Marina Militare is looking at MdCN/NCM as its at the very least interim solution for deep strike. It is the explicit system named for integration studies for FREMM-EVO and likewise, in the Italian MoD's DPPs, for the U-212 NFS (for which it will have to be the long term solution, as Stratus will not be torpedo tube launched in either version).

 

[Phoenix_jz]

Update on financing from the Italian side.

Touching back earlier in the thread, some will recall this piece of news from the DPP 2023-25, which was the first to fund FC/ASW. That allocated an outlay of €10M from 2024 to 2026, with a total requirement for €150M (though it noted final costs were not yet defined), and incorporated this outline:

Some useful information out of Italy since this is the first year FC/ASW is appearing in the MoD's DPP.

The DPP 2023-25 includes a schedule for the FC/ASW program, which breaks down as follows;

• Concept Phase - 2017 to 2021 [Already completed by France and Britain]
• Assessment Phase - 2022 to 2024
• Demonstration and Manufacturing Phase - 2025 to 2035

It also includes two separate dates for the delivery of the two missiles. The land-attack cruise missile is to be delivered in 2028, which matches up to the date the British have given for when they expect to have the VL version for use in the Type 26-class frigates. The anti-ship missile, however, is not expected to arrive until 2034. Which is perhaps not to surprising, there are significant disagreements between the French and British as to what form the AShM should take, and all three navies have interim solutions (Exocet MM40 Block 3c, NSM, Teseo EVO).

https://twitter.com/x/status/1714105185709015228

View: https://twitter.com/phoenix_jz/status/1714105185709015228

The DPP 2024-26 unfortunately was a step back, with the program disappearing into the list of unfunded priorities, along with the then planned move to acquire NCM (MdCN).

The DPP 2025-27 returns funding to the program, though this appears to be a unified program for both deep strike capabilities and future anti-ship systems across air, surface, and submarine platforms - i.e. not just Stratus but also covering NCM/MdCN acquisitions.

Unfortunately the DPP this year is a step back in detail compared to prior years, and there are no details as to expected total costs. Presently €1.2M is allocated for 2026, €18.8M for 2027, €60M from 2029 to 2030, and €180M in 2031 and beyond - curiously, there is no end date for the expenditure listed.

Given this is substantially less than what is expected for the Teseo Mk.2 EVO program (which, not even including funding from 2018 to 2024, is expected to see €331.5M from 2025 to 2027), I suspect that the total requirements will end up being substantially higher.

 

[Titus K]

The focus on ELSA by Dendias is confusing to me. ELSA does not 'exist' at present, and there is nothing to navalize. There are competing proposals for it - some ballistic missiles, some cruise missiles. One such system, as has already been mentioned here, is a terrestrialized version of MdCN/NCM - MdCT/LCM. This proposal aims to keep the missiles common and the launch systems as common as possible as far as some of the electronics and mission-planning systems goes. If this were to be the option selected for ELSA, you would essentially just be procuring the MdCN itself, or perhaps something consistent with the MLU of the MdCN under ERMIN that is starting to be studied.

I agree, and maybe this new "ELSA"/MLU version of LCM/MdCN could use the Safran/RR turbofan planned for Stratus LO ?

The current missile is rather constrained by it's TR50 turbojet
A turbofan would increase the range significantly or allow for a larger warhead (similar to tomahawk)

 

[Titus K]

French payments according to the PLF 2026

Stratus LO (futur missile de croisière)

2025 : 55M €​

2026 : 130M €​

2027 : 219M €​

2028 : 143M €​

2029 onwards : 315M €​

Stratus RS (futur missile anti-navire)

2025 : 63M €​

2026 : 195M €​

2027 : 207M €​

2028 : 4.75M €​

2029 onwards : 4M €​

​

Right around 900M € already allocated over the next 3 years (2026–2028)

 

[Forest Green]

Yeah, I think that's what's going on.

MBDA's ELSA is could just be a new MdCN / NCM, maybe updated through a cost reduction initive, adapted to the new VLS cells (A70NG) and available as a land based variant ( MdCT / LCM )

The ship/sub-lauched variant may even keep the name MdCN / NCM... but Grece is ordering this missile through the ELSA initiative, wich seems to be somewhat separate from the legacy MdCN.


Anyway, this doesn’t work in favor of a Sylver-launched Stratus LO, since it would be competing against this new/updated ELSA/MdCN.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7qD2NcBbrk

 

[kqcke for you]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7qD2NcBbrk


View attachment 790167
View attachment 790168

Missile looks different but maybe its just the angle

 

[TylrrTylrr]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1991238257011507574

View: https://x.com/gabriel64869839/status/1991238257011507574?s=46


I’m guessing this would be external‍

 

[Reuben James]

Good, should see that on the F-35B around 2060.

 

[TorpedoJ]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1991238257011507574

View: https://x.com/gabriel64869839/status/1991238257011507574?s=46


I’m guessing this would be external‍

Well this would be fun, and make a lot of sense. Not one of the things I expected to be an option in the DIP. It makes the JSM idea redundant, but in a good way.

 

[timmymagic]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1991238257011507574

View: https://x.com/gabriel64869839/status/1991238257011507574?s=46


I’m guessing this would be external‍

Definitely external....and inner wing pylon only.

But I suspect the 'fit tests' consist of a paper based exercise of...

1. Are the mounting shackles aligned (yes because they're standard)
2. Is the pylon rated for that weight?
3. Are the data connections compatible (yes because they're standard)
4. Will the weapon fit dimensionally

And errr....thats it. A 2 minute exercise.....if we're lucky they took a fibreglass and plastic mockup and hung it on an F-35B in Marham and took some photo's with some nice lighting....

 

[zen]

Well they might have run a simulation. Definitely a 'can standard percentile humans using the correct equipment, load a round onto the pylon'.
The bigger question is simulated drop in subsonic cruising airflow.

 

[Reuben James]

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/new-british-frigates-to-be-armed-with-stratus-strike-missile/

 

[Reuben James]

We already new the Stratus missiles were planned for the British frigate - the interesting part of this article is that the Minister being questioned did not mention the Stratus RS, referring instead only to the Stratus LO.

I think there are couple of possibilities we could potentially draw from this:

1. The RN intends at this time that only the Stratus LO will enter service aboard the Type 26 frigates.
2. The RAF and RN intend to purchase only the Stratus LO, and to leave the RS to the French, who are the leading nation on that missile.

I wonder whether this is because there will be a delay in Mk41 integration for the RS, or, alternatively, that there is no real intention to fit the RS into the Mk41, and instead desire to leave it as a canister and air-launched munition.

Another angle to consider might be that the RN has lost faith in the concept of a mid-supersonic, sea-skimming missile as a useful tool in the modern naval environment (useful compared to other missile types).

Edit: there's of course the other possibility, that the Minister was speaking purely from a naval perspective, and that the RAF is still invested in the RS as a SEAD/DEAD, VLRAAM.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Another angle to consider might be that the RN has lost faith in the concept of a mid-supersonic, sea-skimming missile as a useful tool in the modern naval environment (useful compared to other missile types).

Then the RN is smoking something they need to share.

Your standard subsonic missile takes about 90sec to go from "detected as it crossed the radar horizon" to "impact," while a supersonic missile like Klub only gives you 30sec before impact.

 

[TorpedoJ]

Edit: there's of course the other possibility, that the Minister was speaking purely from a naval perspective, and that the RAF is still invested in the RS as a SEAD/DEAD, VLRAAM.

Unfortunately the question was phrased specifically to refer to the Navy, but it would seem like for the Counter-HVAA and DEAD roles STRATUS RS is more useful.
It would be a reversal of the initial assessments that had the RAF only wanting a Storm Shadow replacement and the Navy wanting a supersonic anti-ship weapon. IIRC there were simulations early in the project comparing the subsonic stealth and supersonic options for anti-ship, but I can't remember at all what the (made public, at least) conclusions where. Does anyone have a source at hand?

 

[Reuben James]

Unfortunately the question was phrased specifically to refer to the Navy, but it would seem like for the Counter-HVAA and DEAD roles STRATUS RS is more useful.
It would be a reversal of the initial assessments that had the RAF only wanting a Storm Shadow replacement and the Navy wanting a supersonic anti-ship weapon. IIRC there were simulations early in the project comparing the subsonic stealth and supersonic options for anti-ship, but I can't remember at all what the (made public, at least) conclusions where. Does anyone have a source at hand?

The French ran significant simulations of both types during Polaris 21, and did come to the conclusion that in a communications and GPS denied environment, the RS-type design was more effective in the anti-ship role, mostly because, as Scott Kenny says above, once past the horizon, the LO-type is essentially little better than Harpoon. I will add however that by far the most lethal asset attached to the Red Force in these exercises was a French SSN.

“The cooperation with the British has so far been hampered by divergent military-technical analyses and industrial interests. Simulations carried out by the Navy and the DGA in the field of anti-surface warfare show that stealth, so much vaunted by the British, cannot by itself make a real difference in naval combat. The stealthy anti-ship missile is indeed detectable as soon as it passes the horizon, even low over the water. High speed and maneuverability, on the other hand, are far more credible factors for operational superiority and lethality.”
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-new...-french-navy-high-intensity-exercise-polaris/

 

[Reuben James]

Then the RN is smoking something they need to share.

Your standard subsonic missile takes about 90sec to go from "detected as it crossed the radar horizon" to "impact," while a supersonic missile like Klub only gives you 30sec before impact.

Absolutely, and I agree that they really ought to have both. It just struck me as very odd that the Minister chose to explicitly confirm the integration of the LO onto the frigates, but referred to the RS only as one of 'two concept solutions'.

There's also the other possibility being that the Minister is referring to integration into the Mk41 VLS, and that the RS will be fitted in canisters initially.

 

[TorpedoJ]

The French ran significant simulations of both types during Polaris 21, and did come to the conclusion that in a communications and GPS denied environment, the RS-type design was more effective in the anti-ship role, mostly because, as Scott Kenny says above, once past the horizon, the LO-type is essentially little better than Harpoon. I will add however that by far the most lethal asset attached to the Red Force in these exercises was a French SSN.

“The cooperation with the British has so far been hampered by divergent military-technical analyses and industrial interests. Simulations carried out by the Navy and the DGA in the field of anti-surface warfare show that stealth, so much vaunted by the British, cannot by itself make a real difference in naval combat. The stealthy anti-ship missile is indeed detectable as soon as it passes the horizon, even low over the water. High speed and maneuverability, on the other hand, are far more credible factors for operational superiority and lethality.”
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-new...-french-navy-high-intensity-exercise-polaris/

Thanks, well found.
I suspect that this is another partial answer, and the MoD do actually want to have RS given the obvious advantages for anti-ship (unless they think range is more important than pK). But as RS is supposed to come along 4-5 years later than LO it may be beyond the envelope of what the MoD is considering at the moment.

 

[timmymagic]

We already new the Stratus missiles were planned for the British frigate - the interesting part of this article is that the Minister being questioned did not mention the Stratus RS, referring instead only to the Stratus LO.

I think there are couple of possibilities we could potentially draw from this:

1. The RN intends at this time that only the Stratus LO will enter service aboard the Type 26 frigates.
2. The RAF and RN intend to purchase only the Stratus LO, and to leave the RS to the French, who are the leading nation on that missile.

I wonder whether this is because there will be a delay in Mk41 integration for the RS, or, alternatively, that there is no real intention to fit the RS into the Mk41, and instead desire to leave it as a canister and air-launched munition.

Another angle to consider might be that the RN has lost faith in the concept of a mid-supersonic, sea-skimming missile as a useful tool in the modern naval environment (useful compared to other missile types).

Edit: there's of course the other possibility, that the Minister was speaking purely from a naval perspective, and that the RAF is still invested in the RS as a SEAD/DEAD, VLRAAM.

This has been known about for years...

Stratus LO in its land attack version will be available far sooner than Status RS in its anti-ship mode. Previous dates mentioned were 2028 for land attack and 2035 for anti-shipping. I find both those dates not particularly believable..to different degrees.

There have been persistent questions left unanswered for many years on FCASW....

1. Will there be anti-ship variants of both missiles, we know RS will be so configured, but will LO have that capability like LRASM?
2. Will UK and France buy both variants? France is likely to...but UK's need for RS is likely to be lower due to F-35 and GCAP in service dates...and NSM on ships....plus if they really need anti-shipping for aircraft JSM integration on F-35 and P-8 is more likely.
3. What will FCASW be integrated on in the aerial domain? Particularly with UK re-opening Storm Shadow line...will we bother with integration of Stratus LO to Typhoon and F-35 or await GCAP only.
4. Who would pay for RS integration to Mk.41. UK has a clear interest for LO integration in Mk.41...but RS far less clear. France will integrate on Sylver...but it won't fit in T45 Sylver cells (or anyone else's but a limited number of French A70 cells for that matter) and UK appears to be moving away from Sylver....(a mistake I believe)
5. What are Italy's plans? What are they installing or hanging LO on? They're also a Storm Shadow user...but not yet on Typhoon....they use Sylver as well....but do they have any cells that can fit RS at present? I don't think they do until if/when Sylver A70 NG arrives...
6. Will canister launch be available for either variant? It's been mentioned in passing before...RS would make sense, and might make the RN keener for its adoption, particularly as it would be a limited buy for Anti-shipping only, not use limited Mk.41 space, which on T26 will be reserved for Stratus LO land attack, and you'd hope the long planned ASW weapon and CAMM-MR (and plus they've only bought enough NSM for T45 and T31).

Regarding Stealth vs high speed.....has someone told the US with LRASM, and every other Navy with NSM? And the ones planning to purchase JSM?

I suspect that there might just be an tad of the French saying that because they have no choice but to say it....otherwise the anti-shipping market, that has traditionally been a strong seller for them with Exocet, is pretty much all closed off in the West...LRASM, NSM and JSM have in effect cleaned up all available sales....with RBS15 mk3/4 and Gabriel V/Blue Spear also taking sales....

 

[Reuben James]

But as RS is supposed to come along 4-5 years later than LO it may be beyond the envelope of what the MoD is considering at the moment.

Yeah, I'm probably reading far too much into the statement

Just starved of interesting British defence news at the moment. We're in the awkward period before the DIP when no one wants to make a move.

 

[Reuben James]

Will there be anti-ship variants of both missiles, we know RS will be so configured, but will LO have that capability like LRASM?

Yes, it was confirmed a while back that the LO would have a 'secondary anti-ship capability'. EDR reports on this below:

Some tests on the seeker were also made. The RJ 10 will feature a radiofrequency seeker, while the TR 15 will have an imaging infrared one. Both seekers will be based on next-generation technology. Talking about the RF Seeker, “MBDA Italy will definitely be a key element in its development, the Fusaro Centre of Competence having developed such an AESA (Active Electronically Scanned Array) multimode seeker for the Teseo Mk2/E missile which first launch was performed in mid-October 2024,” Franco Donfrancesco, National Sales Business Development Director at MBDA Italia stated. The RJ 10 is being designed mainly to attack ships, to perform SEAD/DEAD missions, destroying enemy radars hence weakening its air defences, and it will also have a capability against high value airborne assets (HVAAs), such as AWACS, tankers, etc, at super long distances. As for the TP 15, it is mostly aimed against ground targets, such as military depots, headquarters, reinforced concrete facilities, while maintaining antiship as a secondary mission. Although nothing was said about warheads, this should mean they will be pretty different. That said, both missiles maintain a considerable flexibility.

https://www.edrmagazine.eu/mbda-details-its-deep-strike-current-and-future-capabilities

What are Italy's plans? What are they installing or hanging LO on? They're also a Storm Shadow user...but not yet on Typhoon....they use Sylver as well....but do they have any cells that can fit RS at present? I don't think they do until if/when Sylver A70 NG arrives...

Presumably they'll also expect to use it on their GCAP aircraft, and possibly the Typhoon.

 

[Reuben James]

Will canister launch be available for either variant? It's been mentioned in passing before...RS would make sense, and might make the RN keener for its adoption, particularly as it would be a limited buy for Anti-shipping only, not use limited Mk.41 space, which on T26 will be reserved for Stratus LO land attack, and you'd hope the long planned ASW weapon and CAMM-MR (and plus they've only bought enough NSM for T45 and T31).

Canister launch for the RS is shown and verbally confirmed in this promo video from MBDA.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnETaHe0G0c


Skip to about 8:52

 

[timmymagic]

Canister launch for the RS is shown and verbally confirmed in this promo video from MBDA.

Yes they've said that...but they also claimed in the past that both Mk.41, Sylver and canister launch would be available for both variants...but someone needs to fund that....

Right now we don't even know the engine that will actually be in LO that was to be operational in 2028 (and which hasn't even flown yet)...we think it might be a turbofan from RR/Safran...but don't really know...

The opacity around FCASW around performance, cost, actual real fieldable capabilities, launch methods, planned integrations etc etc is rather concerning this close to a claimed IOC (and if you believe the 2028 date for Stratus LO I have a bridge I can sell you...). It's rare for such opacity to suddenly result in something on time and on budget....

 

[Scott Kenny]

Absolutely, and I agree that they really ought to have both. It just struck me as very odd that the Minister chose to explicitly confirm the integration of the LO onto the frigates, but referred to the RS only as one of 'two concept solutions'.

Unless the LO can get within 10km before it's detected...

There's also the other possibility being that the Minister is referring to integration into the Mk41 VLS, and that the RS will be fitted in canisters initially.

Highly likely.

 

[Forest Green]

Canister launch for the RS is shown and verbally confirmed in this promo video from MBDA.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnETaHe0G0c


Skip to about 8:52

I hope the Stratus-LO looks more like the one in that video than some of the more recent models.

 

[timmymagic]

I hope the Stratus-LO looks more like the one in that video than some of the more recent models.

Unfortunately it appears that was just a placeholder...the newer images are what it should look like in the real world...no explanation has been given for the change in shaping.

 

[kqcke for you]

Regarding Stealth vs high speed.....has someone told the US with LRASM, and every other Navy with NSM? And the ones planning to purchase JSM?

Was there really an option? The only market option for an Supersonic AShM where chinese, Indian(/russian) and russian. Not something that most western user would buy from....

I suspect that there might just be an tad of the French saying that because they have no choice but to say it....otherwise the anti-shipping market, that has traditionally been a strong seller for them with Exocet, is pretty much all closed off in the West...LRASM, NSM and JSM have in effect cleaned up all available sales....with RBS15 mk3/4 and Gabriel V/Blue Spear also taking sales....

Considering the rise of new supersonic AShM weapon from european user its likely true to some extend but that doesn't mean that subsonic stealthy anti-ship weapon are that mutch worse. Im the end we will likely see a combined armament on most ships

 

[timmymagic]

Was there really an option? The only market option for an Supersonic AShM where chinese, Indian(/russian) and russian. Not something that most western user would buy from....

Well the US cancelled the supersonic LRASM-B...and lets face it they're far, far more likely to be firing AShM at well defended targets in the future than we are...or anyone else in NATO will be any time soon...