• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

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

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
819
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
"France & UK Launch Next-Gen Missile Project with MBDA to Replace Harpoon/Scalp/Exocet by 2030"
Published: Tuesday, 28 March 2017 15:21

Source:
http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/2017/march-2017-navy-naval-forces-defense-industry-technology-maritime-security-global-news/5032-france-uk-launch-next-gen-missile-project-with-mbda-to-replace-harpoon-scalp-exocet-by-2030.html


Today in London, the United Kingdom and France have signed an agreement to launch a joint concept phase of the Future Cruise / Anti-Ship Weapon (FC/ASW) programme with MBDA. The agreement was signed by Laurent Collet-Billon, head of France’s Defence Procurement Agency (DGA - Direction générale de l’armement), and Harriet Baldwin, UK Minister of Defence Procurement.

Running for up to three years, the aim of the concept phase is to lay the ground work and inform the UK and France’s decision making and requirements for a potential follow on assessment and demonstration phase of the next generation of cruise and anti-ship missiles, with a planned operational capability to be achieved by the end of the next decade.

Valued at 100 M€, work on the FC/ASW concept phase will be split 50/50 in terms of both quantity and quality of content between the UK and France. The effort will see MBDA mature systems and technologies that will increase the survivability, range and lethality of anti-ship and deep strike missiles launched by both air and naval combat platforms. The DGA will act as the contract authority for the concept phase with MBDA.

Equally funded by France and the UK, the FC/ASW programme is a product of the very close Anglo-French defence relationship set out by the Lancaster House treaties. The FC/ASW Concept Phase is the latest step in the two countries’ highly successful collaboration on missile technologies through MBDA. This joint work has allowed the two countries to develop a range of world-class missile systems, such as Storm Shadow/SCALP, Meteor, Aster, and Sea Venom/ANL; to rationalise the development and production of missiles through the ‘OneMBDA’ organisation; and to harmonise the research and technology efforts of both nations across their entire missile industrial sector through the MCM-ITP (Missile Components and Materials – Innovation and Technology Partnership) programme.

Harriett Baldwin said: “Our relationship with France is strong and enduring. We have a long history of cooperation in defence and security with our European Ally. As demonstrated by having Europe’s largest defence budget, the UK is committed to European security and we will continue to collaborate on joint defence programmes across the continent. Today’s agreement will sustain 80 jobs in the UK.”

Laurent Collet-Billon said: “We are launching today a major new phase in our bilateral cooperation, by planning together a generation of missiles, successor to the Exocet, Harpoon, SCALP and Storm Shadow. The FC/ASW (future cruise/anti-ship weapon) programme’s aim is to have by around 2030 a new generation of missiles. This future capability is strategic, industrially as well as operationally. This new programme will be the backbone of our “One Complex Weapons” initiative.”

Welcoming the news, Antoine Bouvier, CEO of MBDA, said: “This agreement secures the strategic autonomy of France and UK’s deep strike capabilities for the future. After the ratification last year of the Anglo-French agreement authorising us to operate OneMBDA centres of excellence, the FC/ASW project opens the next page of MBDA’s European strategy. Through this strategy we aim to work in even closer partnership with our domestic military customers in order to converge their requirements, while streamlining our own industrial processes across borders. Only this form of co-operation will allow European industry to continue delivering exceptional products and sustain the long-term critical mass needed to keep providing Europe with independent access to key sovereign technologies.”

Dave Armstrong, Managing Director of MBDA UK and Group Director of Sales and Business Development, added: “FC/ASW represents the future of deep strike capability in Europe. The programme is of strategic importance to MBDA, who will lead a team gathering industrial champions from both nations, and will ensure that the UK and France remain at the cutting edge of missile technologies well into the future.”


About FC/ASW
The concept phase of the FC/ASW programme aims at identifying solutions for the replacement of the two countries’ Storm Shadow/SCALP cruise missiles, France’s Exocet and the UK’s Harpoon anti-ship missiles. The concept phase builds on a previous joint study phase initiated by both nations in 2011.

In 2015 and 2016, the UK and France respectively ratified an inter-government agreement to allow MBDA to specialise its industrial capabilities across both countries in centres of excellence. These centres of excellence focus on key sovereign technologies and enable MBDA to achieve efficiencies that cannot be met when working within national boundaries.


FCASW is likely to share some commonality with the CVS401 Perseus, a concept missile unveiled by MBDA at the 2011 Paris Air Show.
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,13079.0.html
 

mrmalaya

Consider it done.
Joined
Sep 1, 2011
Messages
322
Reaction score
1
You (one) could link this story this story to the debate about Brexit versus the UK's defence relationship with Europe.

MBDA must be the stand out success of post-Cold War European defence cooperation?
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
819
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
"France, UK advance deep strike weapons study"
28 March, 2017 SOURCE: Flightglobal.com BY: Craig Hoyle London

Source:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/france-uk-advance-deep-strike-weapons-study-435641/


France and the UK have launched a three-year programme to advance the replacement of their current inventories of air-launched cruise missiles and anti-ship weapons, to enter use around the end of the next decade.

Representing an investment worth €100 million ($108 million) to be funded equally by the nations, the future cruise/anti-ship weapon (FC/ASW) activity will be performed by MBDA, under the leadership of France’s DGA defence procurement agency. It aims to introduce a new family of missiles to replace the partners’ current MBDA Storm Shadow/SCALP-EG and Exocet weapons, as well as the Boeing-produced Harpoon system.

MBDA says the up-to three-year concept phase will “mature systems and technologies that will increase the availability, range and lethality of anti-ship and deep strike missiles launched by both air and naval combat platforms”.

DGA director general Laurent Collet-Billon says Paris expects to field a family of systems to replace its current weapons “by around 2030”.

Referring to the company’s “One Complex Weapons” initiative, MBDA chief executive Antoine Bouvier says: “We aim to work in even closer partnership with our domestic military customers in order to converge their requirements.”

Work on the proposed FC/ASW capability began with joint studies conducted from 2011, and the new phase will potentially be followed by an assessment and demonstration activity.

Speaking during an annual results briefing in London on 15 March, Bouvier said MBDA’s future family of deep strike weapons will be an important capability to protect deployed forces in a future anti-access/area-denial environment.

MBDA was last year contracted to perform a mid-life upgrade on the Storm Shadow/SCALP-EG cruise missiles used by the French military and UK Royal Air Force. The UK’s Defence Equipment & Support organisation values its commitment as worth £146 million ($183 million) and says the work – to include refurbishing the weapon’s turbojet engine and upgrading its navigation system – will ensure Storm Shadow “remains fit for purpose and ready for operational use” until a successor enters use.

Deliveries of refurbished weapons will commence for the UK next year, with work having started last month. France is to receive improved SCALP-EG rounds for use with its Dassault Mirage 2000Ds and Rafales from 2020.
 

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
10,846
Reaction score
1,979
http://www.defensenews.com/articles/france-successfully-fires-sea-venom-missile
 

FighterJock

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 29, 2007
Messages
1,794
Reaction score
582
bobbymike said:
http://www.defensenews.com/articles/france-successfully-fires-sea-venom-missile

Any idea what speed Sea Venom will fly at once launched? :-\
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,694
Reaction score
1,908
FighterJock said:
bobbymike said:
http://www.defensenews.com/articles/france-successfully-fires-sea-venom-missile

Any idea what speed Sea Venom will fly at once launched? :-\

Officially stated as "high subsonic."
 

JohnR

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
790
Reaction score
237
Why has it taken so long to design a supersonic replacement for Harpoon, Exocet and Otomat? What happened to the Franco German missile and wasn't there an Ottmach proposal>
 

taildragger

You can count on me - I won a contest
Joined
Nov 2, 2008
Messages
326
Reaction score
207
Why has it taken so long to design a supersonic replacement for Harpoon, Exocet and Otomat? What happened to the Franco German missile and wasn't there an Ottmach proposal>
A supersonic missile with the same range & warhead would necessarily be larger & heavier, meaning fewer could be carried on many platforms. Some platforms, like subs, might not be able to accommodate a larger missile at all.
Supersonic speed is unnecessary to engage many targets and might not be that significant an advantage when attacking well-defended targets.
 

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
2,332
Reaction score
1,025
The most important time to go quickly, is once the missile has risen over the horizon and is visible to the defending ship.
Getting across the gap from horizon to target is were speed would increase chances of success.
 

Hood

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
2,189
Reaction score
1,920
Interesting, a SCALP replacement. Now I wonder which internal bay size they will optimise this for, F-35, SCAF or Tempest?
Implies more commonalities between SCAF and Tempest in terms of bay dimensions.
 

RLBH

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
376
Reaction score
260
The most important time to go quickly, is once the missile has risen over the horizon and is visible to the defending ship.
Getting across the gap from horizon to target is were speed would increase chances of success.
It's not a given that the supersonic missile actually gives the defender a shorter engagement opportunity. The IR plume from a supersonic anti-ship missile is detectable at a considerable range, which isn't limited by the horizon in quite the same way. This has the effect of pushing out the outer edge of the engagement envelope. At the same time, the higher speed also pushes out the inner edge of the engagement envelope.

Depending on the details of the systems involved, the supersonic missile can have a longer engagement window than a subsonic missile. The supersonic missile also has less ability to manoeuvre to deceive defensive missiles.

There's certainly value in having both types to diversify the threat. If you can only have one, though, pick subsonic for the reasons taildragger gives. Then decide whether the supersonic missile is more important than any of the many other things competing for your scarce defence budget.
 

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
2,332
Reaction score
1,025
The most important time to go quickly, is once the missile has risen over the horizon and is visible to the defending ship.
Getting across the gap from horizon to target is were speed would increase chances of success.
It's not a given that the supersonic missile actually gives the defender a shorter engagement opportunity. The IR plume from a supersonic anti-ship missile is detectable at a considerable range, which isn't limited by the horizon in quite the same way. This has the effect of pushing out the outer edge of the engagement envelope. At the same time, the higher speed also pushes out the inner edge of the engagement envelope.

Depending on the details of the systems involved, the supersonic missile can have a longer engagement window than a subsonic missile. The supersonic missile also has less ability to manoeuvre to deceive defensive missiles.

There's certainly value in having both types to diversify the threat. If you can only have one, though, pick subsonic for the reasons taildragger gives. Then decide whether the supersonic missile is more important than any of the many other things competing for your scarce defence budget.
No it's not a given, but what we lack is that ability to widen the attack. Right now the cheapest option is some ballistic artillery. But a sprinter of some sort ought to be considered as well.
 

RLBH

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
376
Reaction score
260
The most important time to go quickly, is once the missile has risen over the horizon and is visible to the defending ship.
Getting across the gap from horizon to target is were speed would increase chances of success.
It's not a given that the supersonic missile actually gives the defender a shorter engagement opportunity. The IR plume from a supersonic anti-ship missile is detectable at a considerable range, which isn't limited by the horizon in quite the same way. This has the effect of pushing out the outer edge of the engagement envelope. At the same time, the higher speed also pushes out the inner edge of the engagement envelope.

Depending on the details of the systems involved, the supersonic missile can have a longer engagement window than a subsonic missile. The supersonic missile also has less ability to manoeuvre to deceive defensive missiles.

There's certainly value in having both types to diversify the threat. If you can only have one, though, pick subsonic for the reasons taildragger gives. Then decide whether the supersonic missile is more important than any of the many other things competing for your scarce defence budget.
No it's not a given, but what we lack is that ability to widen the attack. Right now the cheapest option is some ballistic artillery. But a sprinter of some sort ought to be considered as well.
Does the UK need that diversified attack more than it does theater missile defence, or armoured vehicles, or any other capability? Ultimately we need to prioritise, and a second (or later, considering torpedoes and carrier aircraft) means of attacking surface ships is probably less urgent than a capability that would be entirely lacking otherwise.
 

red admiral

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 16, 2006
Messages
671
Reaction score
150
Interesting, a SCALP replacement. Now I wonder which internal bay size they will optimise this for, F-35, SCAF or Tempest?
Implies more commonalities between SCAF and Tempest in terms of bay dimensions.
Why do you need to carry these sorts of weapons internally?
 

timmymagic

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
62
Reaction score
97
Interesting, a SCALP replacement. Now I wonder which internal bay size they will optimise this for, F-35, SCAF or Tempest?
Implies more commonalities between SCAF and Tempest in terms of bay dimensions.
Why do you need to carry these sorts of weapons internally?
There is zero chance of any of these munitions being internally carried by F-35 at least. It won't be in the UK requirement as the F-35B bay is too small to accommodate a weapon that could carry out any of the proposed roles for FCASW effectively.
 

stealthflanker

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Messages
784
Reaction score
510
The most important time to go quickly, is once the missile has risen over the horizon and is visible to the defending ship.
Getting across the gap from horizon to target is were speed would increase chances of success.
It's not a given that the supersonic missile actually gives the defender a shorter engagement opportunity. The IR plume from a supersonic anti-ship missile is detectable at a considerable range, which isn't limited by the horizon in quite the same way.

Do you always assume that Supersonic missile will *always* have "hi" trajectory ?

If the missile fly as low as the subsonic one (and they can, not just could) How one can see the IR plume ? Like does the wave behave like a HF or VHF that can reflect through ionosphere thus make detection beyond the horizon possible.
 

Trident

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
1,117
Reaction score
436
Exactly - modern supersonic anti-ship missiles can optionally sea-skim just fine - the obligatory "high-diver" basically became obsolete with the SS-N-22 in the 1980s. Also, the dogma that supersonics can't manoeuver as well similarly seems to be an outdated trope - Oniks and the cruise stage of the Kalibr AShM are credited with 15g evasive jinking capability, IIRC. Sure, their turn radius will be larger than something like NSM's, but their speed also counts for something - isn't "g" a good measure of the aimpoint displacement they generate for defences? I struggle to see Harpoon-type missiles jinking appreciably harder than 15g.

That said, I think going fast all the way is a useful capability particularly for long-range missiles. If you arrive three times as fast (e.g. Oniks vs. Harpoon or Uran), your target can only move as far from its last known position at 300km as it does with a subsonic missile at 100km. It simplifies the targeting problem (I seem to remember the subsonic TASM had its range reduced to ~450km compared to ~1500km for TLAM mainly due to the extensive search pattern required in the target area).
 
Last edited:

RLBH

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
376
Reaction score
260
How one can see the IR plume ?
Heat rises, and radiant heat can warm the air reasonably remote from the emitter. That means IR sensors can do OTH detection of a sufficiently radiant source, and anything doing supersonic speed at low level will be pretty radiant.
 

stealthflanker

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Messages
784
Reaction score
510
How one can see the IR plume ?
Heat rises, and radiant heat can warm the air reasonably remote from the emitter. That means IR sensors can do OTH detection of a sufficiently radiant source, and anything doing supersonic speed at low level will be pretty radiant.
and wont this "heat rise" got diffused by the surrounding air ?
 

RLBH

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
376
Reaction score
260
How one can see the IR plume ?
Heat rises, and radiant heat can warm the air reasonably remote from the emitter. That means IR sensors can do OTH detection of a sufficiently radiant source, and anything doing supersonic speed at low level will be pretty radiant.
and wont this "heat rise" got diffused by the surrounding air ?
As I understand it, it's sufficiently accurate to cue missiles to the point where on-board guidance can take over. This is apparently part of the reason later SM-2 missiles have IR seekers.
 

Dilandu

I'm dissatisfied, which means, I exist.
Joined
May 30, 2013
Messages
1,226
Reaction score
726
Website
fonzeppelin.livejournal.com
As I understand it, it's sufficiently accurate to cue missiles to the point where on-board guidance can take over. This is apparently part of the reason later SM-2 missiles have IR seekers.
Aren't they were equipped with IR seekers to gave them some over-the-horizon capabilities against low-flying targets?
 

Similar threads

Top