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

[Bruno Anthony]

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.

PLAN has been building up a lot earlier than just the last 10 yrs. Way to plan ahead of the threat.

 

[WatcherZero]

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]

The Italian new destroyers DDX will be very likely fitted with the new A70NG cells, capable of firing the anty ship supersonic version of the FC ASW (it was named RJ10 by RID, whas this name ever mentioned before?)

RID Rivista Italiana Difesa - Nuovi dettagli sugli incrociatori pesanti DDX

Nuovi dettagli sugli incrociatori pesanti DDX

www.rid.it

 

[H_K]

it was named RJ10 by RID, whas this name ever mentioned before?)

More info from Euronaval on RJ10 (high end ramjet powered penetration weapon) and TP15 (cheaper turbojet cruise missile)... both at early stages of development.

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

 

[Antonio]

Italian new destroyers DDX

Don't want to go off-topic. Just to note that In the article the ships are referred as "heavy cruisers". Interesting

 

[DWG]

Don't want to go off-topic. Just to note that In the article the ships are referred as "heavy cruisers". Interesting

Isn't it just RID christening them that based on displacement?

the displacement, which at the moment can be estimated at 14,000-14,500 t full load; a significant displacement, in fact, which has thus led us to “force” the title with the categorization “heavy cruiser”.

If they're purely considering displacement, by the historical measure anything over 7,100t can count as a CA based on the Furutaka class, or 8,500t based on the York class.

 

[NMaude]

14,000 - 14,500 tons displacement is typical of cruiser.

 

[WatcherZero]

The post WW2 US guided missile cruisers from 1960's to late 1990's ranged from 7,800 tons to 11,000 tons with most on the smaller side. Ticonderoga still in service 9,800 tons. The Soviet Cold War cruisers ranged from 4,800 to 5,600 tons standard displacement with the in-service Kara class being 8,200 tons.

 

[NMaude]

So a heavy-cruiser displacement then?

 

[WatcherZero]

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.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The post WW2 US guided missile cruisers from 1960's to late 1990's ranged from 7,800 tons to 11,000 tons with most on the smaller side. Ticonderoga still in service 9,800 tons. The Soviet Cold War cruisers ranged from 4,800 to 5,600 tons standard displacement with the in-service Kara class being 8,200 tons.

Bad comparison, due to the "cruiser panic" and mass reclassification in 1975. A whole bunch of large destroyers (DDGs and DLGs) got bumped up to being called cruisers (CGs). The Tico class are literally Spruance class DDs with a new superstructure on top. From the main deck down Ticos are identical to Sprucans.

USS Long Beach CGN-9 was the last cruiser hull built for the USN, and was 15,000 tons. The Baltimore-class CAs of WW2 were 17,000 tons, and the Des Moines class were 21,000 tons.

 

[WatcherZero]

They did design a 25,000 ton cruiser to follow the 60's cruisers but it was cancelled. I think its derogatory to just call them Destroyers though, they do displace far more than most WW2 light and even a few heavy cruisers. The Spruance destroyer would form the basis for the Ticonderoga cruiser but the Spruance came in the 70's, later than most of the 60's cruisers (which were built on enhanced Frigate hulls), in doctrine it wasn't the cruisers being up designated it was the concept of a destroyer being up designated with the addition of a helicopter deck however their armament was initially quite limited with no anti-ship capability beyond a 5" gun until Tomahawk was added later. The guided missile cruisers on the other hand were specifically designed for hunting other ships not being escorts (and the smaller ones kept the non-cruiser designation). You also had the four converted Baltimore class which served as guided missile cruisers which were also carrying Regulus missiles, you could refer to them as Heavy Cruisers. Its also worth pointing out that historically a Frigate was a larger and more powerful ship than a Torpedo Boat Destroyer which initially were very small.

 

[Scott Kenny]

They did design a 25,000 ton cruiser to follow the 60's cruisers but it was cancelled. I think its derogatory to just call them Destroyers though, they do displace far more than most WW2 light and even a few heavy cruisers. The Spruance destroyer would form the basis for the Ticonderoga cruiser but the Spruance came in the 70's, later than most of the 60's cruisers (which were built on enhanced Frigate hulls), in doctrine it wasn't the cruisers being up designated it was the concept of a destroyer being up designated with the addition of a helicopter deck however their armament was initially quite limited with no anti-ship capability beyond a 5" gun until Tomahawk was added later. The guided missile cruisers on the other hand were specifically designed for hunting other ships not being escorts (and the smaller ones kept the non-cruiser designation). You also had the four converted Baltimore class which served as guided missile cruisers which were also carrying Regulus missiles, you could refer to them as Heavy Cruisers.

The USN classed those heavy escort ships as Destroyer Leaders, built on destroyer-style unarmored hulls. Or at best on an unarmored light cruiser hull, in the case of USS Norfolk, DL-1.

Its also worth pointing out that historically a Frigate was a larger and more powerful ship than a Torpedo Boat Destroyer which initially were very small.

That definition of "Frigate" was out of use as soon as steam replaced sails. The "largest vessel not in the line of battle" was called a cruiser when powered by steam. When powered by sail, such a vessel needed to be fully square-rigged like a ship of the line (historical definition).

Between 1890 and 1910, Torpedo Boat Destroyers went from ~300 tons to over 1100 tons. By the end of WW2, the typical destroyer was 1800 tons and had effectively replaced the Torpedo Boat it was supposed to hunt.

Between 1955 and 1975, the USN called their big ships Frigates, trying to reflect back to the Original Six Frigates of the USN that were the biggest and most dangerous ships of their time. Nothing that could kill them could catch them, and nothing that could catch them could kill them. But that was when people were calling the old ASW Destroyer Escorts "frigates", which led to US congress getting their panties in a bunch over how the USSR Navy had all these cruisers and the USN had so few and they were all WW2 veterans. So in 1975, the USN redesignated all their DLGs as CGs, DLGNs as CGNs. And started calling the ASW "Ocean Escorts" frigates like how Europe was calling their ASW escorts frigates.

 

[DWG]

14,000 - 14,500 tons displacement is typical of cruiser.

The Washington Treaty disagreed:
​

Article XI

No vessel of war exceeding 10,000 tons (10,160 metric tons) standard displacement, other than a capital ship or aircraft-carrier, shall be acquired by, or constructed by, for, or within the jurisdiction of, any of the Contracting Powers.​

Heavy Cruiser (or incrociatori pesante) has a fairly precise definition under the London Treaty*, a) below:​

Cruisers​

Surface vessels of war, other than capital ships or aircraft carriers, the standard displacement of which exceeds 1,850 tons (1,880 metric tons), or with a gun above 5.1 inch (130 mm) calibre.
The cruiser category is divided into two sub-categories, as follows:​

(a) Cruisers carrying a gun above 6.1 inch (155 mm) calibre;
(b) Cruisers carrying a gun not above 6.1 inch (155 mm) calibre.​

The definitions fell through as the Japanese withdrew, but 14,000t cruisers were either the last gasp of the first class armoured cruisers, or a temporary aberration around WWII, they were never typical, always being grossly outnumbered by the smaller cruiser classes.

And we're getting grossly off topic.

* Though having looked at the text it doesn't actually use the word 'heavy'.

 

[timmymagic]

More info from Euronaval on RJ10 (high end ramjet powered penetration weapon) and TP15 (cheaper turbojet cruise missile)... both at early stages of development.

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...

 

[MihoshiK]

The Washington Treaty disagreed:



Heavy Cruiser (or incrociatori pesante) has a fairly precise definition under the London Treaty*, a) below:​

The definitions fell through as the Japanese withdrew, but 14,000t cruisers were either the last gasp of the first class armoured cruisers, or a temporary aberration around WWII, they were never typical, always being grossly outnumbered by the smaller cruiser classes.

And we're getting grossly off topic.

* Though having looked at the text it doesn't actually use the word 'heavy'.

It's been eighty years since we've defined ship types by tonnage.

 

[Antonio]

Don't want to go off-topic. Just to note that In the article the ships are referred as "heavy cruisers". Interesting

Didn't want to go off-topic.
My fault. Posts to be transferred to a proper thread

 

[Firefinder]

The Washington Treaty disagreed

The Washington Naval treaty and the London Naval treaties been render Null and Void since 1938.

No one but historians or story writers even look at it at anymore.

Also by that Definition the US Des Moines class Heavy Cruisers that clock in FLAT EMPTY at 17,000 tons is not z cruiser when it very much is.

Ditto for the 16k Worcester Baltimore amd Oregon City classes. Which compain are nearly 30 something ships, out doing both the RN and IJN classes combine.

Ship types as a whole general get heavier as time march on unless Artificially limited by the mention treaties. As seem by the modern Destroyers which average 9 to 10k tons, or right smack in the Treaty Cruiser range, which begs of the question of what does that make them?

Answer is destroyers still.

The treaty system is deader then battleships and have no bearing on modern designs.

So stop acting like it does.

 

[H_K]

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...

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.

 

[timmymagic]

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.

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...

 

[TomS]

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...

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.

https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2008-4590

 

[WatcherZero]

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.

 

[red admiral]

Kinda seems like classic MBDA of separate missiles for different countries being developed separately in different countries but is called a "joint" programme

 

[kqcke for you]

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.

https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2008-4590

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.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

The guided missile cruisers on the other hand were specifically designed for hunting other ships not being escorts (and the smaller ones kept the non-cruiser designation).

US Guided Missile Cruisers (and I mean the actual cruisers, Long Beach and the conversions) were designed primarily as escorts, they carried the flag facilities, height finders and fighter control facilities to control the CAPS and assign sectors to the Frigates (DLG/DLGNs like the Coontz/Farraguts, Leahys, Belknaps, Californias, Virginias) to defend.

 

[TomS]

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.

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.




*Well, I typed TP not TR, but you get the point. Fixed that typo now.

 

[kqcke for you]

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.

Yeah probaly over looked it. But im quite interrested into the content of the paper

 

[DWG]

The Washington Naval treaty and the London Naval treaties been render Null and Void since 1938.

That was rather my point. Just like the term 'heavy cruiser'.