Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Cruise/Anti-Ship Missile for Typhoon

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Cruise/Anti-Ship Missile for Typhoon

Old 10th Jul 2021, 11:04
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Welwyn Garden City
Age: 60
Posts: 1,497
Cruise/Anti-Ship Missile for Typhoon

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/typh...ruise-missile/

What strikes me about this is, just how many diverse operational roles are to be loaded onto just seven squadrons of Typhoons?

FB
Finningley Boy is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2021, 11:15
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Near the coast
Posts: 1,986
How hard can it be?!

It’s kind of an honest question. Would it really be a discrete role to be able to launch an anti-shipping missile?

BV
Bob Viking is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2021, 11:22
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Central UK
Posts: 562
Well if Typhoon can't launch them then what can? We have to have a credible anti-ship/standoff land attack missile capability, it's essential.
meleagertoo is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2021, 11:36
  #4 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Welwyn Garden City
Age: 60
Posts: 1,497
Originally Posted by Bob Viking View Post
It’s kind of an honest question. Would it really be a discrete role to be able to launch an anti-shipping missile?

BV
Penny Packets and one man Bands spring to mind, just what is the F-35 for? I'm increasingly baffled by the strident tone of our MPs, on the government benches and all, when telling off the Russians etc. Do they really think we alone pose any kind of military concern to them? What would have been Boris Johnson's response had one Putin's Fencers sunk HMS Defender? A diplomatic incident?

FB
Finningley Boy is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2021, 12:46
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Not far from a lot of solar panels.
Posts: 111
I misread the thread title as Anti Cruise Ship missile .

Otherwise known as Covid-19, etc.
Null Orifice is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2021, 12:49
  #6 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Welwyn Garden City
Age: 60
Posts: 1,497
Well done mr Null,

I see what you did there!

FB
Finningley Boy is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2021, 13:27
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Near the coast
Posts: 1,986
FB

What I was alluding to (maybe I was being too subtle) is that surely the job of a ‘multi-role’ fighter is to fulfil multiple different roles.

Many moons ago crews had to be trained specifically in discrete roles since our aircraft and weapons were not exactly high tech.

Nowadays aircraft avionics and platforms along with weapons systems are designed to make things simple.

I am not a Typhoon pilot so I will bow to the experience of any knowledgeable individual who can state otherwise (there may be obvious issues of security involved) but it doesn’t seem to me like it’d be very hard to target a ship with such a missile. Surely that is the point.

Now we would obviously like our F35s to be able to shoot ships since it will often launch from such vessels but I suspect it is a little more complicated, contract wise, to strap new weapons onto an aircraft we have bought off the shelf.

BV
Bob Viking is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2021, 13:30
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: 26000 to 28,000 lightyears from the galatic centre
Age: 75
Posts: 190
Why Typhoon, surly it should be F35B. Is the RAF still pretending it has a global anty-ship capability.
Should the RAF get some input from Commander Ward DSC AFC.
***
orionsbelt is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2021, 13:32
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 345
Originally Posted by Bob Viking View Post
It’s kind of an honest question. Would it really be a discrete role to be able to launch an anti-shipping missile?
BV
I think FB's point may be the (perhaps to we of a certain age) small size of the airforces we now have given HMG's ambitions.

With my Sharkey helmet on my answer is yes, and the FAA should be properly equipped to do it. In reality, I would have thought it comes down to whether or not one needs a special variant to do it, or it can be managed by upgrading the standard equipent fit. Back in the days of Sea Eagle there were two squadrons with the role specific Tornado GR1B and prior to that the Buccaneer was specifically designed for he role and in th RAF specific squadrons tasked in the maritime attack role. Perhaps in these days of data links and networked battlespace with the guy/gal in the cockpit effectively being both pilot and WSO the days of specialism are over?

Perhaps not a question for a public forum but I would like to know if QWIs are currently training pilots on the maritime attack role.
SLXOwft is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2021, 13:38
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: West of Suez
Posts: 313
Just the job. That'll put paid to Chinese expansionist plans.
AnglianAV8R is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2021, 13:47
  #11 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Welwyn Garden City
Age: 60
Posts: 1,497
Originally Posted by SLXOwft View Post
I think FB's point may be the (perhaps to we of a certain age) small size of the airforces we now have given HMG's ambitions.

With my Sharkey helmet on my answer is yes, and the FAA should be properly equipped to do it. In reality, I would have thought it comes down to whether or not one needs a special variant to do it, or it can be managed by upgrading the standard equipent fit. Back in the days of Sea Eagle there were two squadrons with the role specific Tornado GR1B and prior to that the Buccaneer was specifically designed for he role and in th RAF specific squadrons tasked in the maritime attack role. Perhaps in these days of data links and networked battlespace with the guy/gal in the cockpit effectively being both pilot and WSO the days of specialism are over?

Perhaps not a question for a public forum but I would like to know if QWIs are currently training pilots on the maritime attack role.
And further still SLXOwft, how are the Typhoon squadrons deployed? Is everything squeezed into the training programme of each unit? Are the squadrons assigned specific roles meaning out of seven squadrons there are now about four or five operational roles; Air Defence, Maritime Attack, Close Air Support, Interdiction, Armed Reconnaissance. I'm not entirely up to speed with the more obscure jargon which appears to be in use today, but all these roles, whatever the aircraft they flew, and their were aircraft types and dedicated crews for each and several of each, are now carried out by any Typhoon pilot who can deploy on an anti-shipping role in the morning and then fly GCI controlled intercept in the afternoon while carrying out a low-level attack on a target inside hostile territory the next. Not all at once of course, but expected to be current in all and more. I'll accept that its the case that the latest few Typhoons can do this and more interestingly, so can the pilots. If so the Typhoon is a truly remarkable aircraft, but are there enough?

FB
Finningley Boy is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2021, 13:59
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Near the coast
Posts: 1,986
FB

In basic terms the answer to your question is yes.

The pilots are expected to be able to do all of that. That is possible because better cockpit integration makes all the discrete roles far easier.

I have said this many times before but, as much as I absolutely loved my time on the Jaguar, a single Typhoon Sqn can easily outgun and out bomb the entire Coltishall wing as it was in 2006.

I remember how difficult TIALD Ops were on the Jaguar and the amount of coordination required between a pair of aircraft to get a single Paveway on target.

Sea Eagle was a great capability but having Squadrons dedicated to their use (or something similar) is simply not necessary any more.

Now a single Typhoon can easily self-designate one of its many Paveways or even just drop them on a GPS position that they can enter from the cockpit. It could easily carry a sea skimming missile and a mixture of air to air missiles and even a bomb or two (software permitting of course) to carry out multiple roles on the same sortie. And I would expect a well trained pilot to be able to do it.

Technology really has moved on this much. And rightly so.

BV
Bob Viking is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2021, 14:36
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Up yer nose, again.
Age: 64
Posts: 1,162
Originally Posted by Finningley Boy View Post
What would have been Boris Johnson's response had one Putin's Fencers sunk HMS Defender? A diplomatic incident?

FB
Probably workplace violence.
Peter Fanelli is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2021, 15:49
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Not too sure but it's damn cold
Posts: 178
Genuine question,

Does anyone read the information linked to before pontificating?

The article clearly states that a combined UK/French project aims to replace StormShadow/SCALP, Exocet and Harpoon for, in the UK’s case, both Typhoon and T26 Frigates.

A concept for a weapon that can be both a cruise missile replacing one that is already carried by the platform and an anti ship weapon to replace one already carried by the platform the T26 is replacing.

It may even be able to do both heaven help us and increase current capabilities.

it is literally spelled out from para 2 onwards!

“The Planning Assumption for Service Entry for Future Cruise /Anti-Ship Weapon on the T26 Frigate and Typhoon aircraft is 2028 and 2030 respectively.”

So what exactly is all the internecine knicker twisting about?
artyhug is online now  
Old 10th Jul 2021, 17:20
  #15 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Welwyn Garden City
Age: 60
Posts: 1,497
Bob Viking,

I take your point, I probably did anyway then again, the US despite the obvious difference in funding and quantity, still fields equally capable aircraft, well, latest Block F-16 alongside F-22, F-35 etc.

artyhug

Quantity has a quality all its own. Its depth and mass we're lacking nowadays, but the intention is dispense with what we can on cost grounds, rather than utilise or bring up to date the tranche 1 Typhoons, they are to go.

FB
Finningley Boy is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2021, 17:22
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Arizona, USA
Posts: 1,176
It's not just an anti-ship cruise missile per se - it's the replacement for Storm Shadow for the RAF and SCALP for the French AF.

It will also be a replacement for Harpoon for the RN and carried by ships as small as the Type 26 in VLS.

If it ends up being based on the MBDA concept, it will be capable of Mach 5 and a range of 300km compared to 1,000km for TLAM, 560km for Storm Shadow and 148km for Harpoon.

More details here:

https://www.navylookout.com/royal-na...siles-by-2028/
RAFEngO74to09 is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2021, 20:26
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 345
Some further random thoughts:

According to MBDA:

Storm Shadow / SCALP 'designed to meeet the demanding requirements of pre-planned attacks against high value fixed or stationary targets such as hardened bunkers and key infrastructure,' 'On approaching the target, its onboard infrared seeker matches the target image with the stored picture to ensure a precision strike'.

Exocet AM39 is an air launched fire and forget missile designed 'To strike at stand-off ranges for launch aircraft safety in all environments (brown and blue waters) with high probability intercept.' and ' Ensures a high-penetration probability against most strongly defended surface targets.'

Two differing roles one preplanned against known fixed targets; one, at potentially short notice, against what might be an unknown vessel type probably manouevering violently at high speed (for a ship). So IMHO replacement of both probable requires two versions with different software demands (which I agree will probably be one set of code to cope with both) but is more likely to require a different sensor fit and potentially payload.

If the UK is to acquire it for air launched anti-shipping strikes, then it would make sense for the carriers to be able to use it. So, perhaps it will be integrated with Vixen during their parallel development?

Bob V, what you say makes sense to me. I have assumed from all I have read and heard that current aircraft have a much reduced workload for pilots, and that the combination of the cockpit systems and shared data picture have transformed target identification and delivery of ordnance, Also without meaning to denigrate their predecessors. Given the smaller numbers required, even from a shrunken pool of those interested, I believe the average calibre of the current generation must be higher.

My previous comment was meant to be purple in outlook, so apologies if the facetious Sharkey comment was misunderstood.

Last edited by SLXOwft; 11th Jul 2021 at 11:04.
SLXOwft is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2021, 22:57
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 4,089
I must admit, I’m surprised they’re not hanging it on Poseidon MRA1?
Lima Juliet is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2021, 08:56
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Wherever it is this month
Posts: 1,636
Originally Posted by Lima Juliet View Post
I must admit, I’m surprised they’re not hanging it on Poseidon MRA1?
I'd imagine the integration cost would run to several tens, if not hundreds of millions. Aircraft design authorities and the likes of QinetiQ have customers over a barrel with this, unwittingly aided by risk aversion from DE&S and the MAA over the amount and type of data required to issue a release to service. I expect it'd be far cheaper to buy a stockpile of LRASM, which would also bring interoperability benefits with the US.

This type of argument inevitably ends up with UK industry complaining to ministers, making highly questionable export arguments. [The only states which reflexively buy British tend to be Gulf ones, mainly to keep the price of their US kit down; other customers face a simple choice between a product integrated by design and supported in a single package with the airframe, and a bolt-on UK product with a small user base, a high share of the integration cost and a separate support arrangement.] If ministers side with industry, which let's face it is their default position in these flag-waving days, the RAF is ordered to waste money purchasing integration paperwork instead of buying weapons and has to wait years for the aircraft OEM to do the work.

In this case, as there are no reliable Gulf customers (given the absence of P-8s from the region), it is actually conceivable that the RAF might not have to go through this palaver and could be allowed to buy some LRASM. It'll probably depend on the balance of near-term integration costs with the long-term cost of maintaining two separate missile types in the stockpile.

Last edited by Easy Street; 11th Jul 2021 at 09:08.
Easy Street is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2021, 11:07
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 345
Overnight I engaged my brain.

There has been a reasonably long standing (pre-2014 at least) desire to give Typhoon an anti-ship capability.
Typhoon has been tested carrying up to six Marte-ER anti-ship missiles (range 'well beyond 100km') but I don't think there have been any takers yet. Plans were rumoured for it to be included as a capability in the Phase 4E upgrade.
Back in 2017 Kongsberg announce plans for integration of the Kongsberg/Raytheon JSM with Typhoon - the Norwegians want it for their F-35s and I believe it can be carried in the internal weapons bay.
Presumably both Typhoon and F-35 will be compatible with the proposed anti-ship variant of SPEAR-3?

I suspect any UK P-8 Stand-off ASuW buy will depend on the outcome of the USN OASuW Increment 2 competition with the RAAF, RAF and possibly the Luftwaffe wanting to retain commonality, would be daft to buy LRASM before knowing if it wins the competition for a missile with a 2024 ISD. Even then it depends on an agreed OR and HMG stumping up the money.

Last edited by SLXOwft; 12th Jul 2021 at 10:59. Reason: plance?!
SLXOwft is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.