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

Triton

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
14 August 2009
Messages
9,707
Reaction score
2,493
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.
Click to expand...


FCASW is likely to share some commonality with the CVS401 Perseus, a concept missile unveiled by MBDA at the 2011 Paris Air Show.
Click to expand...
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,13079.0.html
 
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?
 
"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.
Click to expand...
 
http://www.defensenews.com/articles/france-successfully-fires-sea-venom-missile
 
bobbymike said:
http://www.defensenews.com/articles/france-successfully-fires-sea-venom-missile
Click to expand...

Any idea what speed Sea Venom will fly at once launched? :-\
 
FighterJock said:
bobbymike said:
http://www.defensenews.com/articles/france-successfully-fires-sea-venom-missile
Click to expand...

Any idea what speed Sea Venom will fly at once launched? :-\
Click to expand...

Officially stated as "high subsonic."
 
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>
 
JohnR said:
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>
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
zen said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
RLBH said:
zen said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
zen said:
RLBH said:
zen said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Hood said:
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.
Click to expand...
Why do you need to carry these sorts of weapons internally?
 
red admiral said:
Hood said:
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.
Click to expand...
Why do you need to carry these sorts of weapons internally?
Click to expand...
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.
 
RLBH said:
zen said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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:
stealthflanker said:
How one can see the IR plume ?
Click to expand...
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.
 
RLBH said:
stealthflanker said:
How one can see the IR plume ?
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
and wont this "heat rise" got diffused by the surrounding air ?
 
stealthflanker said:
RLBH said:
stealthflanker said:
How one can see the IR plume ?
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
and wont this "heat rise" got diffused by the surrounding air ?
Click to expand...
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.
 
RLBH said:
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.
Click to expand...
Aren't they were equipped with IR seekers to gave them some over-the-horizon capabilities against low-flying targets?
 
This could be a big loss for both sides. Presumably MBDA would do its own thing anyway beyond the political spat but without funding the development programme could founder.
 
red admiral said:
Hood said:
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.
Click to expand...
Why do you need to carry these sorts of weapons internally?
Click to expand...
So you don't sacrifice the stealth of the carrying aircraft.

As a side note, I am expecting SCAF/Tempest/NGAD to have F-35A/C depth bays (deep enough to hold a 2000lb bomb), but longer so that long range AAMs can fit internally. Might as well go for a 5.25m minimum bay length, though that will result in some wasted volume with legacy weapons.
 
I don't think they will use a so long weaponsbay for aam as atleast things like meteor or amraam are set at around 4m and you don't really need more but a more deeper and longer allows to carry more weapons as example 6 meteor in the Back and in the front another 6 Brimstone
 
Now germany are gonna join to so we finally get a programm for a new generation of weapons?? I mean we can please france with this and keep it in the family of europe
 
kqcke for you said:
I don't think they will use a so long weaponsbay for aam as atleast things like meteor or amraam are set at around 4m and you don't really need more but a more deeper and longer allows to carry more weapons as example 6 meteor in the Back and in the front another 6 Brimstone
Click to expand...
The Raytheon LREW is claimed to be too long to fit into the bays of an F-22.
 
Scott Kenny said:
kqcke for you said:
I don't think they will use a so long weaponsbay for aam as atleast things like meteor or amraam are set at around 4m and you don't really need more but a more deeper and longer allows to carry more weapons as example 6 meteor in the Back and in the front another 6 Brimstone
Click to expand...
The Raytheon LREW is claimed to be too long to fit into the bays of an F-22.
Click to expand...
Yeah but remember this is not a missile for FCAS. Its also not planed for F-35 as far as i know so why should we want to intigrate it? The new remote carrier or atleast one of them is also only 4m long so it fits Fcas
 
From a reply to Defence Committee by David Williams PS to MoD

"The current forecast Initial Operating Capability for Sea Venom is the end of this calendar year. Future Cruise/Anti-Ship Weapon is being developed in partnership with France and is currently in the Assessment Phase. A schedule for Initial and Full Operating Capability will be presented for approval by the MOD Investment Approval Committee prior to the Manufacture Phase currently forecast for early 2025. "

Good news on Sea Venom as well...
 
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
 
Phoenix_jz said:
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).
Click to expand...
My vote would be for stealthy subsonic, with a supersonic terminal mode. Gives the defenses minimal time to react.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom