MBDA Sea Skua 2

Antonio

Antonio

Moderator
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
22 January 2006
Messages
4,200
Reaction score
1,984
Type 
Radar-guided anti-ship missile.
Development 
MBDA's Sea Skua Mk 2 next-generation anti-ship missile concept was unveiled at the 2006 Farnborough Air Show, following two years of initial development work. The missile was drawn up to address the Royal Navy's Future Anti-Surface Guided Weapon (FASGW) requirement - specifically the FASGW (Heavy) component to provide a successor to the MBDA Sea Skua missile. The Sea Skua Mk 2 shared a name with its predecessor but was essentially an entirely new design. The emergence, also at Farnborough 2006, of the MBDA-led 'Team CW' collaborative guided weapons industry group pointed to the Sea Skua Mk 2 being well positioned for the FASGW competition. However, the FASGW requirement has since moved from being a competitive tender to a joint UK/France programme under MBDA, known as FASGW/ANL, to develop a new common anti-ship weapon for both countries. The Sea Skua Mk 2 was a radar guided weapon but preliminary designs for the successor FASGW/ANL weapon show an EO-guided missile, with a datalink. The basic Sea Skua Mk 2 design has been shelved.Following the FASGW requirement the Sea Skua Mk 2 was intended to equip the Royal Navy's AgustaWestland FutureLynx helicopters. Up to eight missiles can be carried in groups of four on the helicopter's two weapons pylons. The Future Lynx was itself selected in 2006 to meet the Surface Combatant Marine Rotorcraft (SCMR) requirement to replace existing Lynx HMA.Mk 8s. The new FASGW/ANL missile that finally emerges will be effective against ships up to 6,000 tonnes (corvette sized), while
Click to expand...

Source:
http://articles.janes.com/articles/Janes-Air-Launched-Weapons/Sea-Skua-Mk-2-United-Kingdom.html

For those interested in the FASGW:
http://defense-update.com/products/f/fasgw.html
and
http://www.mbda-systems.com/mediagallery/files/FASGW_ANL_ds.pdf

Attached a picture of the Sea Skua 2
 

Attachments

  • MBDA Sea Skua 2.pdf
    282.1 KB · Views: 188
timmymagic said:
First images of Sea Venom at sea....finally...

Wildcat helicopter doing trials on RFA Argus off the West Coast of Africa and in the Med.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1552924163140210689
View: https://twitter.com/NavyLookout/status/1552924163140210689
Click to expand...
One thing I don't understand Is how come sea venom has such short range. It is like 1/5 the range of Spear despite being bigger. Yes I know it has bigger warhead but still, if you want bigger warhead then may as well use something like AGM-119
 
Ronny said:
timmymagic said:
First images of Sea Venom at sea....finally...

Wildcat helicopter doing trials on RFA Argus off the West Coast of Africa and in the Med.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1552924163140210689
View: https://twitter.com/NavyLookout/status/1552924163140210689
Click to expand...
One thing I don't understand Is how come sea venom has such short range. It is like 1/5 the range of Spear despite being bigger. Yes I know it has bigger warhead but still, if you want bigger warhead then may as well use something like AGM-119
Click to expand...
Sea Venom is designed to operate off aircraft already operating Sea Skua. If you introduce a new missile you need new certification, new trials. You don't with Sea Venom.
 
Rickshaw said:
Sea Venom is designed to operate off aircraft already operating Sea Skua. If you introduce a new missile you need new certification, new trials. You don't with Sea Venom.
Click to expand...

Sea Venom is not a drop-in replacement for Sea Skua. And there have been new trials and certification for Sea Venom.

The thing is, the range is generally listed as just "more than 20km." The "more" is doing some heavy lifting there. The missile is also said to provide "long stand-off range" allowing it to remain outside the danger zone of shipboard defenses. It seems like the true range is likely to be considerably more than 20km.
 
But nowhere near as long as SPEAR, for good reasons. Cruciform, low aspect ratio wings + solid rocket propulsion, all launched from sea-level rather than 30kft, isn't a recipe for impressive range. SPEAR has way better aerodynamic efficiency and far more efficient air-breathing propulsion as well as more favourable drop conditions.
 
Rickshaw said:
Sea Venom is designed to operate off aircraft already operating Sea Skua. If you introduce a new missile you need new certification, new trials. You don't with Sea Venom.
Click to expand...
As TomS said its a new missile so has required all of the above. I've not seen it carried by any Lynx/Super Lynx so I suspect it would need a new trials campaign to move it from Wildcat to Lynx/Super Lynx for existing users. Not an issue for the UK as they've retired Lynx.

What I was getting on about with its handling was it was the 'system', storage cases, its maintainability, self test etc. was renowned amongst deck crew for being excellent to work with, to maintain and to move around. A real revelation at the time.
 
Sea Venom has been carried on trials off West Africa on Super Lynxes. Wikipeda states (yes T am aware of the potential inaccuracies in Wikipedia) that it is a simple drop in replacement for Sea Skua.
 
Wikipedia is referencing MBDA's 2014 datasheet (copy attached).

In it MBDA claimed:
The new design will maintain some of the earlier characteristics of Sea Skua and AS15TT allowing
current users to upgrade easily. By retaining compatibility with existing logistic footprints, the
following benefits will be accrued:
• Only minor modifications needed to existing ship storage and handling equipment, serving to
lower integration costs
• Retaining high helicopter load-out
• Minimal impact on logistics and through-life costs
Click to expand...

As a drop launched weapon, SEA VENOM-ANL allows for simple platform integration.
Click to expand...

So as timmymagic says, the idea was to retain Sea Skua's logistical advantages. In short, yes it was designed as a 'drop in' replacement with minimal logistical infrastructure issues.

Aerodynamic integration trials are simplified to some extent by it being a drop-weapon, just need to ensure clean separation, but you still need to validate the two-way datalink and IR-guidance system so its not really a plug and play integration until MBDA and the users have proved it works and be certified as being reliable and doing what the advertising blurb claims.
 

Attachments

  • sea-venom-anl_datasheet-1414139272.pdf
    2.7 MB · Views: 28
Rickshaw said:
Sea Venom has been carried on trials off West Africa on Super Lynxes. Wikipeda states (yes T am aware of the potential inaccuracies in Wikipedia) that it is a simple drop in replacement for Sea Skua.
Click to expand...

No, Wiki does not really say that. It says it can be easily integrated on Sea Skua platforms due to shared characteristics The quote below is what the footnoted brochure actually says. It basically boils down to Sea Venom being similar in size to Sea Skua and fitting in the same magazines, weapon lifts, and dollies with only minor tweaks.

The new design will maintain some of the earlier characteristics of Sea Skua and AS15TT allowing current users to upgrade easily. By retaining compatibility with existing logistic footprints, the following benefits will be accrued:
• Only minor modifications needed to existing ship storage and handling equipment, serving to lower integration costs
• Retaining high helicopter load-out
• Minimal impact on logistics and through-life costs
Click to expand...

On the actual aircraft integration side, MBDA says only that it drop launches (which is easier to clear than a rail launch) and names three helicopters (not including Lynx) planned for integration.

As a drop launched weapon, SEA VENOM-ANL allows for simple platform integration. SEA VENOM-ANL is planned to be integrated on AW159 Wildcat, Panther and NH90 helicopters.
Click to expand...

It is true that one Lynx HMA.8 was used for some early firing trials in 2017 (literally weeks before HMA.8 retired) but that does not mean the missile was a simple replacement for Sea Skua, it means they used an obsolescent airframe as a trials mule for carriage and jettison testing. I can't find any evidence of more active use than that.

www.keymilitary.com

Lynx HMA8 tests Sea Venom

MBDA HAS announced successful trials of its Sea Venom/ANL missile...
www.keymilitary.com www.keymilitary.com

I mean, seriously, just look at the operating principles and it's obviously not a drop-in-replacement. Sea Skua used semi-active radar illumination. Sea Venom has an imaging IR sensor with a two-way data link.


Edit: Damnit, Hood... :D
 
Last edited:
Does the Sea Venom use a solid rocket-motor or a turbojet for propulsion?
 
A notion of "day late and a dollar short",
but can't help but wonder: original Sea Skua receiving an upgrade with Brimstone's guidance electronics and mmw seeker,
could've created an interesting all-target maritime/littoral air-to-surface and surface-to-surface weapon,
with the weight of its warhead perfectly suited to take on FACs/OPVs (or other inshore patrol vehicles, by whatever name you prefer)
as well as coastal/near-shore land based vehicle threats.
Keeping that warhead (Sea Skua's) should've been more than enough brute force against any known MBT threat.

The missile could've been light enough for a number of FAC/OPV installations (looking at LCS's "mini VLS" package with Hellfire/Brimstone sized weapons module), or even the reverse: lightweight coastal defence against landing craft and amphibious vehicles.

AS.15TT would've been an ideal size to incorporate it, also ("Brimstone front end" seeker and electronics package).

Shades of how Griffin was designed and evolved using Javelin tech, but Griffin from ships (like Cyclones) having more range and better-suited warhead option than a naval-launched Javelin.

If the optical guidance option would be preferable to have, Javelin/Griffin's front end (seeker and electronics) should've readily adapted (cheaply modified) to accommodate into Sea Skua or AS.15TT as well.

Perhaps semi-off topic, but interesting notions, nonetheless.
 
DanielStarseer said:
A notion of "day late and a dollar short",
but can't help but wonder: original Sea Skua receiving an upgrade with Brimstone's guidance electronics and mmw seeker,
could've created an interesting all-target maritime/littoral air-to-surface and surface-to-surface weapon,
with the weight of its warhead perfectly suited to take on FACs/OPVs (or other inshore patrol vehicles, by whatever name you prefer)
as well as coastal/near-shore land based vehicle threats.
Keeping that warhead (Sea Skua's) should've been more than enough brute force against any known MBT threat.
Click to expand...
The problem is that the FAC-threat has grown to the size of small corvettes (think Type 056, Projects 20380, 20385 and 20386, Saar 5 and 6) with VL SAMs. They're both larger (requiring a bigger warhead to mission-kill), and can defend themselves out to a greater distance (requiring a missile with a larger range).
 
A Tentative Fleet Plan said:
DanielStarseer said:
A notion of "day late and a dollar short",
but can't help but wonder: original Sea Skua receiving an upgrade with Brimstone's guidance electronics and mmw seeker,
could've created an interesting all-target maritime/littoral air-to-surface and surface-to-surface weapon,
with the weight of its warhead perfectly suited to take on FACs/OPVs (or other inshore patrol vehicles, by whatever name you prefer)
as well as coastal/near-shore land based vehicle threats.
Keeping that warhead (Sea Skua's) should've been more than enough brute force against any known MBT threat.
Click to expand...
The problem is that the FAC-threat has grown to the size of small corvettes (think Type 056, Projects 20380, 20385 and 20386, Saar 5 and 6) with VL SAMs. They're both larger (requiring a bigger warhead to mission-kill), and can defend themselves out to a greater distance (requiring a missile with a larger range).
Click to expand...

And only in a perfect world, are those near peer adversaries at-the-ready and anticipating imminent attack, with capable defensive systems and their crews up and running and "weapons free".

Real-world has shown us, pretty much every incident involving missile vs ship, has resulted in damage to ship enough to pull it from immediate action stations and into damage assessment / damage control.

There always seems to be those mitigating circumstances involved: crew wasn't at-the-ready, systems weren't at-the-ready, ROEs were too restrictive in the AO to allow "weapons free",... always something allowing the "this shouldn't have happened", to actually happen.
Many instances where theoretically capable systems and theoretically capable crews, DIDN'T stop the attack and impact.

Also, not every nation fields Aegis-level hardware that can pick a small helicopter out of "harbor clutter",
or determine if a small surface asset hiding in close proximity to other surface clutter, has fired a weapon, only allowing barely a few dozen seconds of response time, if that.
And again, if crews and systems aren't at-the-ready and expecting imminent attack, real life scenarios have shown the favor to be on the missile's side.

Don't need a Harpoon-sized weapon with a 500-pound warhead to take a thousand-ton ship out of combat effectiveness. The smaller vessels will fare even worse.

The amount of commercial shipping and private watercraft in the vicinity, especially in potential hotspots, could create severe restrictions on using the bigger ship-killers. There are reasons behind even major nations deploying lightweight naval missiles like Griffin, Hellfire, Brimstone, Martlet, FASGW...
 
DanielStarseer said:
Real-world has shown us, pretty much every incident involving missile vs ship, has resulted in damage to ship enough to pull it from immediate action stations and into damage assessment / damage control.
Click to expand...

I can't remember a single incident of an AShM hitting a ship which was alert, had appropriate self defence weapons and correct ROE. The only examples where some of that criteria is in play are INS Eilat and HMS Glamorgan, both were alert, but had no appropriate self defence weapons and strayed into a clearly defined danger area.
DanielStarseer said:
The amount of commercial shipping and private watercraft in the vicinity, especially in potential hotspots, could create severe restrictions on using the bigger ship-killers.
Click to expand...

I remember an RN guy saying that outside of WW3 that they could never see a circumstance where they would be allowed to actually fire Harpoon as the risk to other ships was just too high for command to countenance it.
 
Would you people consider the MBDA Sea Killer / Marte to be in the same category?
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom