MBDA 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 Dividind".
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Some projected completion dates for FC/ASW:
www.navalnews.com

New 3SM 'Tyrfing' Missile Receives German Development Funding

Germany approves funding for the supersonic antiship and strike missile (3SM) 'Tyrfing' to be developed in cooperation with Norway.
www.navalnews.com www.navalnews.com
Another effort comparable to the Supersonic Strike Missile would be the Franco-British “Future Cruise/Antiship Weapon” (FC/ASW). However, somewhat like LRASM the FC/ASW-project joined by Italy last year aims to develop two variants. One would be a supersonic AShM available from 2028. A second, subsonic missile optimised for stealth would address the land attack-requirement by 2030.
Click to expand...
 
Forest Green said:
Some projected completion dates for FC/ASW:
www.navalnews.com

New 3SM 'Tyrfing' Missile Receives German Development Funding

Germany approves funding for the supersonic antiship and strike missile (3SM) 'Tyrfing' to be developed in cooperation with Norway.
www.navalnews.com www.navalnews.com
Click to expand...

Not sure there they've got those dates from but they don't match what has been heard recently.

- Subsonic, stealthy long range land attack 'should' arrive in 2028 for the UK's T-26 i.e. Mk.41 launch (and I'm personally not sure if thats credible unless there has been a lot of work done that we have no idea about).
- Anti-ship arrives in 2034...

Couple of points on the above...and in relation to Naval News article
- We know its the subsonic, stealthy, long range missile arriving in 2028 as the UK has always favoured this approach over supersonic
- The timeframes in relation to land attack and anti-ship makes far more sense, no way a brand new supersonic AShM with new seeker tech is developed, tested and available in 2028, land attack would probably utilise some tech from Storm Shadow MLU which is underway at present so 'should' be easier
- Subsonic, Stealthy, long range 'should' be available from 2030 for air launch (i.e. Storm Shadow replacement) initial launch platform will be Typhoon and Rafale, as ever it all depends on integration timelines...
- It's still not clear if 'Anti Ship' refers to the Supersonic, medium range missile exclusively or if there is to be an anti-ship solution using the subsonic missile a la LRASM i.e. a capability rather than a single missile
- We still have no real idea who is getting what...there is a clear need for the Subsonic, stealthy, long range missile as a Storm Shadow/SCALP replacement for RAF, AdA and RA. No doubt there...but...
- UK RN has Tomahawk for subs and MN has MdCN for launch from subs and surface so likely only UK will be interested in VL FCASW from surface vessels initially, from Mk.41. Perhaps Italy might have a requirement for this as well. But it will need Sylver A70...admittedly they will also have some, albeit limited, land attack capability with Teseo EVO.
- MBDA have mentioned encapsulated versions for use from Subs, but that seems a way off for land attack (though I suspect it will arrive in due course as US no longer makes TTL Tomahawk for UK) and Italy 'might' like it. For sub launched supersonic I think it depends how quickly France needs SM39 replacing...
- RN has NSM as an 'interim' system for 11 ships. Italy has Teseo EVO on the way....so what real demand do they have for anti-ship versions?

Basically I can see the Storm Shadow replacement doing a brisk trade if they can get it integrated to platforms fast enough. But the supersonic anti-ship version? Not so much if it arrives by 2034...NSM is cleaning up that space. If MBDA really wants to make a success of it they need to claw back some ground by developing,testing and integrating the missiles for VL from Mk.41 and Sylver, air launch from Typhoon, Rafale and F-35 (and eventually GCAP and SCAF), canisterisation for sub launch for both types, perhaps canister launch from ships or ground systems so that any prospective customer can purchase it 'off the shelf', otherwise it runs the risk of having lots of potential applications that never get off the ground.
 
Last edited:
I found this on Twitter, but I'm unsure whether or not this is related to the FC/ASW project.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1811396012885340544
View: https://x.com/CarloMasala1/status/1811396012885340544


www.faz.net

NATO-Staaten rüsten auf: Diese neue Waffe könnte Moskau treffen

Deutschland, Frankreich, Italien und Polen wollen nach F.A.Z.-Informationen eine Abstandswaffe mit einer Reichweite von mehr als tausend Kilometern entwickeln. Sie könnten von deutschem Boden aus russische Ziele erreichen.
www.faz.net www.faz.net
 
The European missile announced this week as a colloboration between Germany, Poland, France and Italy is a range of between 1,000 to 2,000 km and ground (truck) launched. Its supposedly primarily based on the French naval launched MdCN/Storm Shadow but taking some input from the Taurus.

Video of MdCN being fired:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ggq-zu3b20
 
Last edited:
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...
Lack of targets.
The requirement died in the nineties with the rusting away of the Soviet Navy and only reared its head again in the last decade because... PLAN.
 
There is somewhere a video of I think a Canadian sinkex where they mention that as much damage was done by .50 fire as anything else.

I wish I could bleep find it though.
 
Daft question perhaps with E-2 no longer with us. Can a loitering UAV EAW system, communicate with a battlegroup efficiently enough to allow over the horizon location/engagement?

Leave the machine gun and take the canolli.
 
WatcherZero said:
The European missile announced this week as a colloboration between Germany, Poland, France and Italy is a range of between 1,000 to 2,000 km and ground (truck) launched. Its supposedly primarily based on the French naval launched MdCN/Storm Shadow but taking some input from the Taurus.

Video of MdCN being fired:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ggq-zu3b20
Click to expand...
Actualy its supposed to be 2000km tought more is wished.
www.spiegel.de

Deutschland, Frankreich, Italien und Polen wollen Marschflugkörper entwickeln

Auf dem Nato-Gipfel beschließen die Mitgliedstaaten, weiter aufzurüsten. Ein gemeinsames Projekt steht schon fest: eine europäische Mittelstreckenrakete, die auch Ziele tief in Russland erreichen kann.
www.spiegel.de www.spiegel.de
 
kqcke for you said:
Actualy its supposed to be 2000km tought more is wished.
www.spiegel.de

Deutschland, Frankreich, Italien und Polen wollen Marschflugkörper entwickeln

Auf dem Nato-Gipfel beschließen die Mitgliedstaaten, weiter aufzurüsten. Ein gemeinsames Projekt steht schon fest: eine europäische Mittelstreckenrakete, die auch Ziele tief in Russland erreichen kann.
www.spiegel.de www.spiegel.de
Click to expand...
Which could be as ‘simple’ as replacing the TRI turbojet with Williams turbofan from Taurus (& Tomahawk/JSM et.al.)
 
kqcke for you said:
Actualy its supposed to be 2000km tought more is wished.
www.spiegel.de

Deutschland, Frankreich, Italien und Polen wollen Marschflugkörper entwickeln

Auf dem Nato-Gipfel beschließen die Mitgliedstaaten, weiter aufzurüsten. Ein gemeinsames Projekt steht schon fest: eine europäische Mittelstreckenrakete, die auch Ziele tief in Russland erreichen kann.
www.spiegel.de www.spiegel.de
Click to expand...

Article says the system in development has a range of upto 2,000km and the person interviewed said the desire was for a system with a range of upto 2,000km, but in the best case it would have even more.

Reuters article said a military official (probably same one) said it would have a range of between 1,000 and 2,000km. Meanwhile its coming out of the French ELSA program started in 2019 to develop a cruise missile with a range exceeding 500km preferably in the 1,000's since the US pulled out of the Intermediate Range arms limitation treaty following several Russian violations.

MBDA said their new Land Cruise Missile weapon based on the MdCN has terrain following, synchronised time on target, high survivability air defence penetration, low radar cross section, meter accuracy and a potent warhead.
 
Last edited:
bobthemonkey said:
Which could be as ‘simple’ as replacing the TRI turbojet with Williams turbofan from Taurus (& Tomahawk/JSM et.al.)
Click to expand...
Hard to say if they get F415 or F122 (i think) tought an F107 W401 would have around half the SPFC with more trust (if it doesn't have an higher SPFC than WR19). Tought we don't know until more information are given. I would guess it maybe should get its own thread but it probaly also falls into the MDCN/ SCALP EG thread.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom