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

timmymagic said:
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?
Click to expand...
Someone clearly told the Russians, the Indians, the Chinese, the Japanese or the French.
Germany and Norway have also started developping a supersonic AshM
 
Titus K said:
Someone clearly told the Russians, the Indians, the Chinese, the Japanese or the French.
Germany and Norway have also started developping a supersonic AshM
Click to expand...

How many times have they all actually fended off AShM's again?

The people who have, and who trained and equipped from the 70's to defend against supersonic AShM like SS-N-22, seem to have a different opinion...
 
timmymagic said:
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...
Click to expand...
Was LRASM-B not cancelled more than a decade ago at this point? I was under the impression that it was a more cost-motivated choice, with the USN still believing that there wouldn't be an adversary capable of defeating the subsonic version, rather than the subsonic version being suitable for all situations.
 
timmymagic said:
How many times have they all actually fended off AShM's again?

The people who have, and who trained and equipped from the 70's to defend against supersonic AShM like SS-N-22, seem to have a different opinion...
Click to expand...
Well then, that settles it…
If the UK isn't interested in the supersonic solution so be it, France has clearly committed to it, and both solutions (LO/RS) will be in MBDA portfolio wich is good news.
 
Good news that the STRATUS program is entering development phase Forest Green.
 
timmymagic said:
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?
Click to expand...
Didn't USN have their own HALO program to replace LRASM in OASuW inc2 ?. USAF has HACM and SIAW, and as far as I know Standard missile such as SM-2 and SM-6 both have anti surface mode. There is also plan to add antiship seeker to phase 2 of PRSM.
 
timmymagic said:
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....
Click to expand...
I understand the logic, but I don’t think this argument holds up. I really think it's a doctrinal choice.

According to SIPRI, MBDA has consistently sold between 50 and 150 Exocet missiles per year over the past 30 years… If I had to guess, production rates likely remained fairly stable at around 100/year.

Also, aside from a small number supplied to the UK and to Greece, Exocet missiles have rarely been sold to Western countries anyway… there wasn't much western market to dry-up in the first place.
 
Titus K said:
I understand the logic, but I don’t think this argument holds up. I really think it's a doctrinal choice.

According to SIPRI, MBDA has consistently sold between 50 and 150 Exocet missiles per year over the past 30 years… If I had to guess, production rates likely remained fairly stable at around 100/year.

Also, aside from a small number supplied to the UK and to Greece, Exocet missiles have rarely been sold to Western countries anyway… there wasn't much western market to dry-up in the first place.
Click to expand...

Production is way lower than that.

Remember that Exocet sold well for a number of reasons...Falklands War success...but most of all...because if you weren't buying from the Sov's or US you had little choice. The Italians, Israelis and Swede's produced missiles (unless you wanted a terrible Chinese Styx clone), but the Swedes were careful who they sold to, the Israeli's couldn't sell to a lot of countries and the Italian missiles were either inferior or very complex to use. And there was the small matter of Iraqi purchases that really bumped those numbers up...

But now? Anyone serious, and who can, is buying LRASM, JSM or NSM. If they're not Western aligned they're buying Chinese, Russian, Israeli or even Indian. And more nations now make their own (Brazil, Turkey etc etc)...

There just isn't the market out there for it at present...they really need a new offering desperately.
 
timmymagic said:
Production is way lower than that.

Remember that Exocet sold well for a number of reasons...Falklands War success...but most of all...because if you weren't buying from the Sov's or US you had little choice. The Italians, Israelis and Swede's produced missiles (unless you wanted a terrible Chinese Styx clone), but the Swedes were careful who they sold to, the Israeli's couldn't sell to a lot of countries and the Italian missiles were either inferior or very complex to use. And there was the small matter of Iraqi purchases that really bumped those numbers up...

But now? Anyone serious, and who can, is buying LRASM, JSM or NSM. If they're not Western aligned they're buying Chinese, Russian, Israeli or even Indian. And more nations now make their own (Brazil, Turkey etc etc)...

There just isn't the market out there for it at present...they really need a new offering desperately.
Click to expand...
Without french navy it's ~850 missiles ordered over the last 15 years, or ~55 missiles per year on average …
I’m not claiming it’s a bestseller, but it clearly continues to find buyers …

For comparison, Aster production was around 30–40 missiles per year in 2022…

Capture d’écran 2026-03-28 à 20.58.09.png
 
Last edited:
TomS said:
Complement rather than replace and it got killed.
Click to expand...
Correct me if I’m wrong but Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare Increment 2 only have supersonic/hypersonic version. Scramjet version got killed due to cost concern but it got ressurrected and this time it use rocket motor instead.
https://www.fw-mag.com/shownews/893...r-launched-hypersonic-weapon-is-still-ongoingIt really comes down to doctrine. If your adversary relies on small ships and fast attack craft, it makes sense to develop and use cheaper subsonic anti ship missiles. But if you’re facing a navy built around multiple carrier battle groups, then more advanced supersonic or even hypersonic anti ship missiles become necessary to have a realistic chance of penetrating their defenses.
 
Titus K said:
Without french navy it's ~850 missiles ordered over the last 15 years, or ~55 missiles per year on average …
I’m not claiming it’s a bestseller, but it clearly continues to find buyers …
Click to expand...
That sounds about right. I counted 20+ export warships delivered with MM40 Block III over the last 10 years, ie. ~2 per year. Plus 10 Scorpene SSKs with SM-39. Big orders from Rafale customers like Qatar (60 AM-39), Egypt etc. Also Qatar’s big order for land based MM40s. Plus at least a dozen older warships with MM40 Block II upgrades to Block III, Cyprus’s land based Block IIs also upgraded to Block III…

Plus France’s own domestic orders and Block II upgrades on top of that.

NSM’s sales success is impressive as it’s become the de facto surface launched Harpoon replacement across NATO and even beyond. However sales of air launched ASMs like JSM and AM39 are so closely tied to their launch platforms, it’s not surprising that JSM has benefited from F-35 sales. As for LRASM it’s only been sold to the RAAF for its F/A-18Es.
 
Last edited:
H_K said:
That sounds about right. I counted 20+ export warships delivered with MM40 Block III over the last 10 years, ie. ~2 per year. Plus 10 Scorpene SSKs with SM-39. Big orders from Rafale customers like Qatar (60 AM-39), Egypt etc. Also Qatar’s big order for land based MM40s. Plus at least a dozen older warships with MM40 Block II upgrades to Block III, Cyprus’s land based Block IIs also upgraded to Block III…

Plus France’s own domestic orders and Block II upgrades on top of that.
Click to expand...
I’d forgotten about the upgrades. So if you combine export, MN orders and upgrades, production is probably closer to 75 per year on average … so not that far from my initial guess of 100.
Also, the new Exocet SM40 may find a niche market in the near future… there aren’t many TTL AShM on the market right now (JSM-SL should also be avaible post-2030)

I don't think Stratus RS will be produced at a massive rate either given how expensive the missile is likely going to be… Hopefully i'm wrong.
 
Titus K said:
Also, the new Exocet SM40 may find a niche market in the near future… there aren’t many TTL AShM on the market right now (JSM-SL should also be avaible post-2030)
Click to expand...
There's Sub-Harpoon and there's the Klub. Oh, and a Chinese thing or two.

All of which mean alignment with one major power or another. France isn't anywhere near as picky about who they sell to, or what you do with it once you sell buy it.



Titus K said:
I don't think Stratus RS will be produced at a massive rate either given how expensive the missile is likely going to be… Hopefully i'm wrong.
Click to expand...
It's broadly comparable to the JASSM, and those are made at a pretty good rate.
 
Last edited:
Rather strange why they did not make the Stratus RS have the same length as the Storm Shadow/SCALP family of missiles it would have made more sense to have it designed to be similar, instead they have designed it with a length of 4 metres? Would it have anything to do with the fact that it wil have to be stored and launched from the internal weapons bays of the FCAS/GCAP fighters?
 
Good update from Eurosatory 2026. Confirms that the supersonic STRATUS RS anti-ship missile is expected to enter service on the Rafale in 2033. The ship launched variant will follow and will use horizontal launch ramps, not VLS (for now?). STRATUS RS will be multirole with a SEAD, anti-AWACS and land-attack capability.

Also confirms that the French are not buying the subsonic STRATUS LO, unlike the UK and Italy. Instead they are upgrading the ship/sub-launched MdCN and air-launched SCALP to a common Mk2 standard, as they wanted a new cruise missile sooner. The upgrades will allow for a high level of commonality at the subsystem level, while the 2 different form factors allows them to keep the extended range capability of the MdCN. However they may order STRATUS LO in the future.

Long-range strike: new version for the MdCN, and the final stretch for the FMAN
https://www-meretmarine-com.transla...r-le-fman?_x_tr_sl=fr&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en

FMAN/FMC: an update on the program
The meeting with the MdCN program officer at the DGA also provided an opportunity to review the Franco-British FMAN/FMC program, mentioned earlier. The French and British (later joined by the Italians) made distinct choices regarding the renewal of their deep strike capabilities. These divergent choices were known from the outset, but they did not prevent the two countries (now three with Italy) from collaborating within a single program

On the British side, the choice was quickly made to prioritize the FMC, which took the form of the STRATUS LO, a stealthy subsonic cruise missile, successor to the Storm Shadow, but much more discreet, maneuverable, and effective. For British and Italian forces, this missile was intended to replace the Storm Shadow missiles launched from Typhoon or Tornado fighters. It also had to be capable of being deployed aboard warships, including integrated into a VLS, for both deep ground strikes and strikes against surface targets. Therefore, with the British prioritizing the STRATUS LO, they had no need for the Scalp Mk.2, which would arrive only a few years before the STRATUS LO.

Conversely, France has chosen to focus on the other segment of the FMAN/FMC program, namely the STRATUS RS anti-ship missile, capable of flying at over Mach 3. Like the FMC/STRATUS LO, the FMAN/STRATUS RS is fundamentally a multi-purpose missile: while designed for attacking ships, it can also destroy land targets, strike anti-aircraft defense sites (SEAD mission) and even attack AWACS radar aircraft.

Nevertheless, developing the two missiles in parallel allows each country to have longer-term options. When the time comes to replace the Scalp Mk.2, France will have direct access to the Stratus LO and its technologies. The same applies to Italy and the United Kingdom, which will be able to quickly acquire supersonic strike missiles should the need arise.

For the time being, the two programs are progressing in parallel. France is expected to bring the FMAN into service in 2033, the same year the first Rafale aircraft to the F5 standard are expected. The version deployed aboard the French Navy's frigates will follow shortly thereafter. It should be noted, however, that, like the MdCN/MdCT, and unlike the current approach with the Exocet, the objective is to have exactly the same FMAN missile in both versions, with the naval variant simply having an additional booster. Here too, the aim is to simplify production and inventory management.

It should also be noted that, while the British want to integrate the naval FMC into a VLS, the French Navy prefers to retain horizontal launch ramps, as with the Exocet missiles. This will allow for up to eight FMAN/STRATUS RS missiles per frigate, without reducing the number of Aster or MdCN anti-aircraft missiles usually carried in VLSs.
Click to expand...
 
Have there been any new hints on what the UK is getting? It was starting to sound like just LO in which case the joint project was a bit of a waste, but if the RAF wants DEAD beyond Spear 3's range RS is the only way to do it.
 
TorpedoJ said:
Have there been any new hints on what the UK is getting? It was starting to sound like just LO in which case the joint project was a bit of a waste, but if the RAF wants DEAD beyond Spear 3's range RS is the only way to do it.
Click to expand...
The article says that the UK and Italy are getting the subsonic Stratus LO for both air-launch and ship launch (VLS).

They could choose to buy Stratus RS in the future, much like the French may buy Stratus LO. But for now each is country is buying only LO (UK+IT) or only RS (France).

Presumably there’s still a high commonality in terms of the seeker, navigation unit and electronics (not sure if there’s also a missile-to-missile datalink for coordinated attacks?). Possibly also the warhead if Broach can work for anti ship use.
 
H_K said:
Presumably there’s still a high commonality in terms of the seeker, navigation unit and electronics (not sure if there’s also a missile-to-missile datalink for coordinated attacks?). Possibly also the warhead if Broach can work for anti ship use.
Click to expand...
I believe that Broach would be extremely effective as an anti-ship warhead. Especially against a highly-compartmentalized warship.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I believe that Broach would be extremely effective as an anti-ship warhead. Especially against a highly-compartmentalized warship.
Click to expand...
After what it did to that Russian submarine I believe it. From what I can find the initial shaped charge entered at the forwards hole and the secondary made it all of the way past amidships before blowing a second hole in the hull:
1781891138032.png
Imagine that but it enters a destroyer from the side and times the fuse to detonate in the very centre of a VLS farm.
 
Problem for BROACH is the first charge could cut right through a ship and have the second charge fly all the way through and out the other side before detonation.

All in the angle and amount of stuff in the path of the warhead.
 
zen said:
Problem for BROACH is the first charge could cut right through a ship and have the second charge fly all the way through and out the other side before detonation.
Click to expand...

The warhead appears to have been travelling lengthwise not beam wise.
 
NMaude said:
The warhead appears to have been travelling lengthwise not beam wise.
Click to expand...
Which is my point, that strike hit in the correct orientation to the target to guarantee it would be effective.

Planning or fluke?
 
zen said:
Problem for BROACH is the first charge could cut right through a ship and have the second charge fly all the way through and out the other side before detonation.
Click to expand...
Granted. That mostly would apply to BROACH hitting a cargo ship, though. Something with lots of large compartments and no resistance.

However, a pop-up attack to drive the secondary charge through-and-through the ship and into the water would still cause the effect of a shallow-water mine the weight of the secondary charge.
 
zen said:
Which is my point, that strike hit in the correct orientation to the target to guarantee it would be effective.

Planning or fluke?
Click to expand...
AFAIK the time delay on the secondary can be changed to control the penetration distance. So they could aim for a beam-on strike on an escort or try to rake the length of a lightly built LHD.
 
I'd imagine it has adjustable delay to cater for different thicknesses of HAS and bunker.
But I could be wrong.
 
zen said:
I'd imagine it has adjustable delay to cater for different thicknesses of HAS and bunker.
But I could be wrong.
Click to expand...
IIRC that is the reason why it has an adjustable delay.

But a little bit of research to see how quickly the following charge decelerates as it hits 1/4"/6mm steel plate should give you good data on how much delay is needed for antiship work. Might need a bigger range for the void-counting system, but that's a trivial upgrade.
 
Scott Kenny said:
IIRC that is the reason why it has an adjustable delay.

But a little bit of research to see how quickly the following charge decelerates as it hits 1/4"/6mm steel plate should give you good data on how much delay is needed for antiship work. Might need a bigger range for the void-counting system, but that's a trivial upgrade.
Click to expand...
With the modern electronic refit one could also include a second one if its simpler, like one optemised for anti ship.

Does the shape charge have any fragmentation sleeves?
 
Last edited:
It depends on the fuze. With the German MEPHISTO in the Taurus, the fuze can be adjusted so that any type of target can be engaged. All warheads also have a fragmentation effect. I'd be surprised if that weren't also the case with Scalp/Storm Shadow and BROACH.
 
xena said:
It depends on the fuze. With the German MEPHISTO in the Taurus,
Click to expand...
MEPHISTO isn't the fuze. The fuze is called PIMPF (Programmable Intelligent Multi Purpose Fuze).
xena said:
the fuze can be adjusted so that any type of target can be engaged. All warheads also have a fragmentation effect.
Click to expand...
MEPHISTO's shaped Charge for example has a dedicated fragmentation sleeve around the shape charge against soft targets. Yes any warhead that explodes creates fragmentation but one is intentional / designed the other not.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom