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

kqcke for you said:
Well Not against ships to my knowledge but only against Land Targets with the Land Attack Version
Click to expand...

And that version is quite different -- it is a purely subsonic, unitary missile, unlike the Sizzler anti-ship version.
 
Scott Kenny said:
10nmi due to head-on LO shaping (and ONLY head-on, for cost)
Click to expand...
This type of things would only work against unsupported ships.

In a Task Force you have to also consider that theres a radar at at 20k feet staring down like a particular angry Eye of Sauron who is in constant telepathic communications with all the fighting systems.

So you will need to make the top LO as well to avoid that.

Otherwise you get picked of at... say 100 miles from you target by a SM2 if you lucky while still cruising at 500 knots.
 
Firefinder said:
This type of things would only work against unsupported ships.

In a Task Force you have to also consider that theres a radar at at 20k feet staring down like a particular angry Eye of Sauron who is in constant telepathic communications with all the fighting systems.

So you will need to make the top LO as well to avoid that.

Otherwise you get picked of at... say 100 miles from you target by a SM2 if you lucky while still cruising at 500 knots.
Click to expand...
Then you only worry about LO from the front and above, not all aspect broadband.
 
Firefinder said:
This type of things would only work against unsupported ships.

In a Task Force you have to also consider that theres a radar at at 20k feet staring down like a particular angry Eye of Sauron who is in constant telepathic communications with all the fighting systems.
Click to expand...

The angry Eye of Sauron is a pretty obvious emitter, and putting it over the Task Force reveals the location of said Task Force. The US Navy tended to operate their E-2s passively for a reason, or deceptively when actively emitting, a long distance away from the task force.

Using anti-ship missiles requires minimising warning, and obtaining the tracks passively via systems like White Cloud, Classic Outboard or EP-3s, meant that the 1980s USN could launch TASMs without the Soviets receiving any warning until the missile seekers started radiating.

A stealthy SS-N-27 equivalent would do the same things, but enable the missile to close in even if the enemy is actively emitting, and enable it to sprint in the terminal phase when the missile gets too close for stealth to be effective.
 
Assuming it's the shipping container, there would be a canister inside it and then the missile inside that. Sounds like the idea would be to load directly from the transport canister into the VLS (hence the "hinged at one end" requirement).
 
Well the rumour had been that Britain wanted a stealthy subsonic FC/ASW variant to enter service around 2028 while France wanted a hypersonic variant to enter service a couple of years later. News today is Britain wants to rapidly develop its own Hypersonic weapon for 2030 (though they could be complementary). The interesting thing is the project is being led by The Central Staff rather than one of the service branches. There has been a lot of Hypersonics work going on in the UK behind the curtains (along with the HyShot program 20 years ago) and this news today is consistent with the report last year that Britain had set aside £1bn for funding three hypersonic projects; a joint hypersonic glide vehicle with AUKUS partners, the collaborative work with France and a homegrown project (also the separate hypersonic aircraft demonstrator).

www.telegraph.co.uk

Britain to deploy homegrown hypersonic missile by 2030

UK military chiefs want to catch up with China, Russia and the US
www.telegraph.co.uk www.telegraph.co.uk
 
Last edited:
WatcherZero said:
Well the rumour had been that Britain wanted a stealthy subsonic FC/ASW variant to enter service around 2028 while France wanted a hypersonic variant to enter service a couple of years later. News today is Britain wants to rapidly develop its own Hypersonic weapon for 2030 (though they could be complementary). The interesting thing is the project is being led by The Central Staff rather than one of the service branches. There has been a lot of Hypersonics work going on in the UK behind the curtains (along with the HyShot program 20 years ago) and this news today is consistent with the report last year that Britain had set aside £1bn for funding three hypersonic projects; a joint hypersonic glide vehicle with AUKUS partners, the collaborative work with France and a homegrown project (also the separate hypersonic aircraft demonstrator).

www.telegraph.co.uk

Britain to deploy homegrown hypersonic missile by 2030

UK military chiefs want to catch up with China, Russia and the US
www.telegraph.co.uk www.telegraph.co.uk
Click to expand...
If the budget could be found (always a challenge with HMTreasury), you'd really want both. Hypersonic is obvious and fast, acceptable for an aircraft carried weapon. Subsonic and Stealthy is what I'd want for submarine launched AShMs.

And if you physically have enough launchers, you can arrange "Time on Target" launches with both subs and hypers to arrive at the same time. All launched by aircraft.
 
kqcke for you said:
Maybe something for nuclear warheads?
Click to expand...
That gets into questions that almost have to be answered with a live launch and air test.

Yes, we know that nukes can handle short term hypersonic heating just fine, they do that in standard RVs. The question is long term heat soak for HGVs.
 
Despite the insistence that FCASW will arrive on Type 26 in land attack form for launch from Mk.41 in 2028, which many people are really, really justifiably questioning....it appears the RN have purchased 8 VL Tomahawk as a hedge, or for trials....or just to avoid the embarassment of having nothing to put in the Mk.41 of their shiny new Frigate when it arrives...

Very long, but very good X thread from John Ridge...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1806297371380265348
View: https://twitter.com/John_A_Ridge/status/1806297371380265348
 
If they were ordered in 2022 it doesnt seem to be in response to slipping delivery. Could for example have been test articles for the SSN-AUKUS program.
 
WatcherZero said:
If they were ordered in 2022 it doesnt seem to be in response to slipping delivery. Could for example have been test articles for the SSN-AUKUS program.
Click to expand...
Would have thought it was way too early for SSN-AUKUS.
 
Pretty sure they will intend to have a silo mounted up somewhere validating launches and launch control, same way they build shore based versions of most ships to test their sensors and weapon systems before the first ship is anywhere near completed. They still build them for ships in service, a Type 45 simulator has just been ordered for training, and a couple of years back Frazer Nash built a 16x12m Type 23 landing pad that pitched and rolled by +/- 30 degrees so pilots could practise landing on a ship up to sea state 6.
 
Bruno Anthony said:
Christ! What takes so long in this part of the world!?
Click to expand...

It's probably all down to political will, IIRC there was going to be in the early 1980s a supersonic AShM derived from the ASALM and then for example was the Franco-German ANS shortsightedly cancelled IIRC in the early 90s as part of the post-Cold War "Peace Dividin".
 
Bruno Anthony said:
The West has been working on a supersonic AShM for about 45 yrs. Christ! What takes so long in this part of the world!?
Click to expand...
We have carriers.

And in all honesty, "subsonic and stealthy" may be even more effective in terms of how-many-seconds-before-impact you can start engaging the incoming missile. At least when compared to "supersonic but not stealthy."
 
zen said:
Yes and No.
Ships are not tanks and noware near that level of armouring in this age, or fact the density of systems.
So it's more a need to distribute the effect of the weapon to hit as many vital elements as possible.

Trying to hit it with big AP dart is likely to just pass through the ship, leaving only a small hole.

The big explosive warhead is to distribute effect and shock load the structure and systems.
Click to expand...
Not sure how I missed this.

No, ships are still very system-dense. Hydraulics, high pressure air, electrical.

A large explosive is good for causing shock loads to hydraulics which lead to big fires. And shock loads to the fire main which makes it very difficult to put out the fire! But a relatively small kinetic or HEAT warhead can still destroy a ship via fires.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom