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

Sintra said:
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.
Click to expand...
PLAN has been building up a lot earlier than just the last 10 yrs. Way to plan ahead of the threat.
 
They've only been building blue water ships for the last decade, up until the 2010's it was mainly a brown water navy with lots of small short range craft. Even today they have a major shortage of logistic ships that would enable them to maintain a taskforce at sea for an extended period while their planning to retire their sizeable number of LST's in favour of merchant-marine car ferries.
 
Regio Ammiraglio said:
it was named RJ10 by RID, whas this name ever mentioned before?)
Click to expand...
More info from Euronaval on RJ10 (high end ramjet powered penetration weapon) and TP15 (cheaper turbojet cruise missile)... both at early stages of development.

breakingdefense.com

MBDA reveals Anglo-French future cruise/anti-ship missile stealth and wind tunnel testing - Breaking Defense

Over the last 12 months, weapon assessment phase activities have included a first TP15 ultra Low Observable [LO] subsonic prototype missile undergoing “extreme” RF trials, and wind tunnel propulsion system testing of a RJ10 supersonic variant.
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com

GbR-GLxXQAA-pMo

IMG_2197-scaled-e1730812445712.jpg
 
RJ10 and TP15 are just the designation in the design series (10th and 15th designs respectively with the letters referring to their propulsion form) chosen for further development, not the actual name of the weapons then, which was to be expected. (Whenever anyone says RJ10 to me I will think of the network cable!)

They are at the wind tunnel stage, RF testing, and testing of the seeker head. Good to hear actual solid progress.
 
H_K said:
More info from Euronaval on RJ10 (high end ramjet powered penetration weapon) and TP15 (cheaper turbojet cruise missile)... both at early stages of development.
Click to expand...

I'm assuming the cheaper is just in relation to the propulsion system? Can't see the 'ultra LO' missile being actually cheaper than the supersonic...

Its interesting that they're sticking with Turbojet rather than Turbofan....and we still don't know if there will be crossover between the 2 missiles of seekers and roles...particularly in the anti-shipping role...
 
timmymagic said:
It’s interesting that they're sticking with Turbojet rather than Turbofan....and we still don't know if there will be crossover between the 2 missiles of seekers and roles...particularly in the anti-shipping role...
Click to expand...
Could well be a turbofan, given Rolls Royce’s involvement… I don’t think there’s been any public info released either way.

(Also in French there is no distinction between the 2 so I suspect the journalist may simply have translated “turboréacteur” into turbojet)

It’s strongly implied that the ramjet missile will have the radar seeker and primary anti-shipping role, while the subsonic missile won’t (in keeping with its low observable design), which means most likely it will have an IR seeker as it will still retain some secondary anti-ship capability.
 
H_K said:
It’s strongly implied that the ramjet missile will have the radar seeker and primary anti-shipping role, while the subsonic missile won’t (in keeping with its low observable design), which means most likely it will have an IR seeker as it will still retain some secondary anti-ship capability.
Click to expand...

They've also previously said that the supersonic missile will have an air to air capability as well, primarily ultra long range against the likes of AWACS and AAR so radar and 2 way data link is definitely present....there might even be a dual mode capability like IIR as well.

It's going to be interesting to see what crossover of capabilities there is. Will the subsonic version, which we know is primarily land attack, have a really robust anti-ship role like LRASM. The supersonic will definitely be anti-shipping, but how much land attack and air to air capability will it have.

It's also going to be interesting how it sells within the developing consortium....we know the RAF want subsonic land attack from Typhoon...and the RN subsonic land attack from T26. Does the UK have any interest in supersonic at all? France will clearly see a replacement for SCALP onboard AdA and MN. Presumably they will want to replace the long in the tooth AM39 Exocet as well? What about the Italians? Subsonic seems nailed on...but Teseo Mk.2 has just entered service...all the questions about VL systems, canister, sub surface launch etc...hopefully they will do a 'build it and they will come' approach, bite the bullet and qualify every launch method under the sun and wait for the customers...
 
timmymagic said:
I'm assuming the cheaper is just in relation to the propulsion system? Can't see the 'ultra LO' missile being actually cheaper than the supersonic...

Its interesting that they're sticking with Turbojet rather than Turbofan....and we still don't know if there will be crossover between the 2 missiles of seekers and roles...particularly in the anti-shipping role...
Click to expand...

I think @H_K is probably on to somethinhg.

Interestingly, you can even find a technical paper in English from Safran referring to their developments beyond the TP60 and TP40 turbojets as "bypass turbojet engines," which is what the rest of the world would call a turbofan.

 
TomS said:
I think @H_K is probably on to somethinhg.

Interestingly, you can even find a technical paper in English from Safran referring to their developments beyond the TP60 and TP40 turbojets as "bypass turbojet engines," which is what the rest of the world would call a turbofan.

Click to expand...
They never called TR60/40 an "Bypass Turbojet engines" but talk about how they helped them for the development of a "bypass turbojet engine".
That new engine will have an diameter smaller than 15 inch.
 
kqcke for you said:
They never called TR60/40 an "Bypass Turbojet engines" but talk about how they helped them for the development of a "bypass turbojet engine".
That new engine will have an diameter smaller than 15 inch.
Click to expand...

Yes, I typed "developments beyond the TR60 and TR40"* for a reason. I'll throw in the screen capture from the Abstract so we can all be reading then same info (I can't access the whole paper). Sometime between 1999 and 2007, Safran demonstrated a Single Spool Bypass Turbojet and then in 2007 started work on a Twin Spool Bypass Turbojet that seems to have been scalable from <15 inches and up for both UAVs and missiles.


1730915328115.png

*Well, I typed TP not TR, but you get the point. Fixed that typo now.
 
TomS said:
Yes, I typed "developments beyond the TR60 and TR40"* for a reason. I'll throw in the screen capture from the Abstract so we can all be reading then same info (I can't access the whole paper). Sometime between 1999 and 2007, Safran demonstrated a Single Spool Bypass Turbojet and then in 2007 started work on a Twin Spool Bypass Turbojet that seems to have been scalable from <15 inches and up for both UAVs and missiles.


View attachment 746983

*Well, I typed TP not TR, but you get the point. Fixed that typo now.
Click to expand...
Yeah probaly over looked it. But im quite interrested into the content of the paper
 
TomS said:
One slightly surprising comment: "The RJ 10 … will also have a capability against high value airborne assets (HVAAs), such as AWACS, tankers, etc., at super long distances." So, basically non-maneuvering targets, but still interesting. Curious what "super long" means here, because most of these HVAAs have no business coming anywhere close to enemy AD assets.
Click to expand...
I'd guess over 500km.
 
TomS said:
I think @H_K is probably on to somethinhg.

Interestingly, you can even find a technical paper in English from Safran referring to their developments beyond the TP60 and TP40 turbojets as "bypass turbojet engines," which is what the rest of the world would call a turbofan.

Click to expand...
Well, industry also calls it "leaky turbojet" time to time, depending on the context, so when the BPR is very low, it's not that uncommon to see people refer to such engines as primarily turbojet in natrue.
 
timmymagic said:
It's also going to be interesting how it sells within the developing consortium....we know the RAF want subsonic land attack from Typhoon...and the RN subsonic land attack from T26. Does the UK have any interest in supersonic at all? France will clearly see a replacement for SCALP onboard AdA and MN. Presumably they will want to replace the long in the tooth AM39 Exocet as well? What about the Italians? Subsonic seems nailed on...but Teseo Mk.2 has just entered service...all the questions about VL systems, canister, sub surface launch etc...hopefully they will do a 'build it and they will come' approach, bite the bullet and qualify every launch method under the sun and wait for the customers...
Click to expand...
red admiral said:
Kinda seems like classic MBDA of separate missiles for different countries being developed separately in different countries but is called a "joint" programme
Click to expand...
It seems the EDR article newly published, linked by kqcke for you clarifies that:

No workshare among MBDA national companies has yet been established, the programme being still in the early stage, however what is confirmed is that all three nations will acquire both missiles, as this will allow them to cope with different targets in different conditions. “We have an objective of industrial return, and this makes sense because it’s taxpayer money, but first of all we want to have a product which works and which delivers the value,” was the actual answer.
Click to expand...

I think this was written on the wall from the start, to be frank. Since the two countries had very different views, better find a compromise than compromise the programme. Not to mentioned how different characteristica of these missiles makes them better suited for different roles, as reflected on their actual intended missions.
 
TomS said:
One slightly surprising comment: "The RJ 10 … will also have a capability against high value airborne assets (HVAAs), such as AWACS, tankers, etc., at super long distances." So, basically non-maneuvering targets, but still interesting. Curious what "super long" means here, because most of these HVAAs have no business coming anywhere close to enemy AD assets.
Click to expand...
That was actually announced a few years ago. For it to make sense it has to be 300km+, probably much further....because otherwise just use Meteor...

WatcherZero said:
If they carry through some of the design studies its possible one might have multiple warheads with submunitions also serving as decoys, that would increase the costs substantially.
Click to expand...
I think the only time we saw that was in the Perseus concept from years ago. Never been mentioned since. First time I think we saw the term 'effectors' in the wild as well...

Maro.Kyo said:
I think this was written on the wall from the start, to be frank. Since the two countries had very different views, better find a compromise than compromise the programme. Not to mentioned how different characteristica of these missiles makes them better suited for different roles, as reflected on their actual intended missions.
Click to expand...

Originally it never made sense to have the 2 missile approach. Personally I hoped they'd see sense and down select to one missile to guarantee the programme delivered. The UK always favoured subsonic, stealthy and long range (or at least the RAF, the main customer did) and France reportedly favoured the medium range, high speed approach (again I wonder if the AdA felt the same, but exports and replacement of Exocet was key).

But I think Ukraine may have helped on both sides....both now appreciate LO, subsonic with long range given the huge success that Storm Shadow has had....and the UK seems to have come onboard with the benefits of high speed. The additional abilities to attack assets like AAR and AWACS at long range are probably more than just a bullet point on a powerpoint now as well...

But there are still bits I can't square....how does the UK's interest in hypersonics affect their view and potential purchase of the supersonic version of FCASW? Does the UK actually have a demand for an air launched, or even sea launched, Anti-ship missile given the purchase of NSM? My main concern is that they'll not qualify every launch system/method under the sun and not secure the users and market that they should...
 
timmymagic said:
But there are still bits I can't square....how does the UK's interest in hypersonics affect their view and potential purchase of the supersonic version of FCASW? Does the UK actually have a demand for an air launched, or even sea launched, Anti-ship missile given the purchase of NSM?
Click to expand...
UK Team Hypersonics efforts seem totally separate from FC/ASW but who knows what is actually being targeted for that programme. Given the "interim" ASW purchase of subsonic LO NSM then it's pretty difficult to see where purchase of supersonic ASW comes in, especially if SDR refocuses efforts on NATO.
 
red admiral said:
UK Team Hypersonics efforts seem totally separate from FC/ASW but who knows what is actually being targeted for that programme. Given the "interim" ASW purchase of subsonic LO NSM then it's pretty difficult to see where purchase of supersonic ASW comes in, especially if SDR refocuses efforts on NATO.
Click to expand...

I'd agree. After all the UK has had 5 heavyweight anti ship missiles in the past and has yet to fire one in anger. With NSM entering service with 11 ship sets, and JSM available if we ever wanted anti-ship strike from F-35 it pretty much leaves T26 as the only potential UK use. But..its worth saying that some believe the supersonic missile might now be in the frame for land attack duties for the UK as well...

It's also being reported that neither FCASW variant is suitable for Torpedo Tube Launch...as they exceed 21 inch diameter or cannot be packed to that size...which then explains the arrival of Exocet SM40 recently...

That leaves the RN's SSN's in the lurch a bit as they're not going to be able to get any more Tomahawk in TTL configuration any time soon....so I wonder what the long term plan is there? The USN isn't going to be developing a TTL launched cruise missile again with all the VPM it will have...Is the RN banking on VL on AUKUS and hoping to make its limited Tomahawk stock last till then? Thats a bit of a gamble to say the least.....The only other option is MdCN....which interested the UK recently (rather foolishly I thought) in its potential LACM guise...

From going from a possibility of 2 missiles to handle long range complex strike for the RAF and RN....we seem to be going to a future of potentially lots of types (RJ10, TP15, NSM, Tomahawk, Storm Shadow MLU for a while longer, a hypersonic weapon of some variety, perhaps MdCN from SSN, and not forgetting the Army with PrSM and now perhaps LACM)....and if you're talking medium range as over 150km you could add GMLRS-ER, LRAE, Spear and LPS to that mix as well....its getting a little crowded and complex....
 
Last edited:
timmymagic said:
That leaves the RN's SSN's in the lurch a bit as they're not going to be able to get any more Tomahawk in TTL configuration any time soon....so I wonder what the long term plan is there? The USN isn't going to be developing a TTL launched cruise missile again with all the VPM it will have...Is the RN banking on VL on AUKUS and hoping to make its limited Tomahawk stock last till then? Thats a bit of a gamble to say the least.....The only other option is MdCN....which interested the UK recently (rather foolishly I thought) in its potential LACM guise...
Click to expand...
I'm not actually sure about that.

Remember that SSNX is shaping up to be Seawolf Redux, which means some 50 weapons stows in the torpedo room with or without any VPMs. (Somehow Seawolf didn't get any VLS despite the Flight 2 688s having VLS)
 
AUKUS will likely have some vertical capacity, most likely one or two VPM modules for compatibility with US/AUS as well as a drone hanger. If the French put FC/ASW in a TTL like they did for Storm Shadow I could see the RN acquiring a few.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I'm not actually sure about that.

Remember that SSNX is shaping up to be Seawolf Redux, which means some 50 weapons stows in the torpedo room with or without any VPMs. (Somehow Seawolf didn't get any VLS despite the Flight 2 688s having VLS)
Click to expand...

Conscious choice to optimize for SSBN hunting in Soviet bastions. More torpedoes meant more time fighting in the bastion and fewer times crossing back and forth. The submarine leadership was explicitly not interested in using them as Tomahawk platforms -- the initial thinking probably had only ASW SOW for missiles.

The fact that the 688s even had room for VLS was kind of an accident as I understand it. There was a very long space between the sonar sphere and the front of the pressure hull that wasn't there is older classes or in SSN-21.
 
TomS said:
Conscious choice to optimize for SSBN hunting in Soviet bastions. More torpedoes meant more time fighting in the bastion and fewer times crossing back and forth. The submarine leadership was explicitly not interested in using them as Tomahawk platforms -- the initial thinking probably had only ASW SOW for missiles.
Click to expand...
I'd always understood it as designed to solo an entire carrier group, but hunting in the boomer bastions would also make sense.


TomS said:
The fact that the 688s even had room for VLS was kind of an accident as I understand it. There was a very long space between the sonar sphere and the front of the pressure hull that wasn't there is older classes or in SSN-21.
Click to expand...
I was under the impression that the VLS in the 688s was in what's normally free flooding space in the forward ballast tanks. Okay, yes, you do need some 25ft of vertical depth to make a Tomahawk fit.
 
I believe the space was for trim tanks and a large ballast tank to balance the class being rear heavy on the original Los Angeles, they served to make the nose heavier before they put the VLS tubes in. The tubes presumably can serve the same ballast role originally intended by the replaced ballast tank by flooding and adding more trim after they have been fired, the original trim tanks in the space are retained.
 
Last edited:
WatcherZero said:
I believe the space was for trim tanks and a large ballast tank to balance the class being rear heavy on the original Los Angeles, they served to make the nose heavier before they put the VLS tubes in. The tubes presumably can serve the same ballast role originally intended by the replaced ballast tank by flooding and adding more trim after they have been fired, the original trim tanks in the space are retained.
Click to expand...
That would follow.

I regret not being able to serve on a 688i.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom