The loadouts of SM versus ESSM are variable, and almost certainly at least sensitive if not actually classified on a deployment-by-deployment basis.  The Standards won't just be SM-6, BTW.  It's likely to be mostly SM-2 Block IIIC (basically SM-6 active seeker in a single-stage missile) because SM-6 is expensive and limited in inventory. 

No Tomahawk on FFG(X) -- the ship has a constrained budget and the Tomahawk mission planning system costs millions of dollars and requires several crew billets to operate and maintain. Plus there are so many other Tomahawk shooters in the fleet that it hardly seems necessary.  The planned load of 8 (threshold) or 16 (objective) NSM is still a lot of anti-ship firepower to play with.  (Especially remembering that NSM does have a little-mentioned land-attack capability.)

I would not hold my breath on the actual deployment of a VL LRASM -- it's not funded and OASuW Increment 2, which could be filled by LRASM, is not coming quickly.  But if VL LRASM did happen, and was applied to FFG(X), it would go in the main VLS cells, not topside launchers.

Topweight can be a huge concern in warships.  Everything installed up high in a ship reduces stability, which can become critical if the ship is damaged or dealing with bad weather, or both.   

taschoene said:

The loadouts of SM versus ESSM are variable, and almost certainly at least sensitive if not actually classified on a deployment-by-deployment basis.  The Standards won't just be SM-6, BTW.  It's likely to be mostly SM-2 Block IIIC (basically SM-6 active seeker in a single-stage missile) because SM-6 is expensive and limited in inventory. 

I had figured / hoped SM-6 as its the most versatile

-Terminal anti-ballistic missile (such as the 'carrier killer' Chinese DF21/26)

-Anti Air / Anti Missile 

-Can attack naval and surface targets 

Does the SM-2 have an ABM capability?

"No Tomahawk on FFG(X) -- the ship has a constrained budget and the Tomahawk mission planning system costs millions of dollars and requires several crew billets to operate and maintain. Plus there are so many other Tomahawk shooters in the fleet that it hardly seems necessary."

Thats a bummer.

My concern is that given the increasing emphasis on Anti-Missile defense due to China's A2/AD system, most of our surface fleets Tomahawk capability may actually be occupied primarily with air defense missiles.

IE if a Carrier Battle Group has a total of 500 VLS cells in its escort fleet, less then 1/2 may actually be occupied by Tomahawks due to all the AA/ABMs. 

"The planned load of 8 (threshold) or 16 (objective) NSM is still a lot of anti-ship firepower to play with."

How good is the NSM?

I know its reportedly 'stealthy' but the rest of the specs (275lb warhead, 115mi range) didn't seem that impressive. 

Especially compared to the range and payload of the LRASM or Tomahawk Maritime, as well as longer range enemy missiles. 

gatnerd said:

How good is the NSM? I know its reportedly 'stealthy' but the rest of the specs (275lb warhead, 115mi range) didn't seem that impressive.  Especially compared to the range and payload of the LRASM or Tomahawk Maritime, as well as longer range enemy missiles. 

I think it's quite good.  

On the warhead size issue, it's not that much smaller than Exocet, and we know that works pretty well achieving at least a mission kill on most combatant warships smaller than a carrier.  LRASM and Maritime Strike Tomahawk have huge warheads because they inherited them from their land-attack roles, not because they need them for the anti-ship role.

On range, keep in mind that there's a significant plus behind that 115 mile+ range.  NSM's cousin Joint Strike Missile manages up to 345 miles in hi-hi-lo mode, so NSM could probably manage a good deal more than 100 miles if the mission can accept a high-level cruise phase.  And in any case, there' a lot of need to counter targets that aren't half an ocean away, for which NSM is well-suited.  

I'm not losing sleep about strike missiles being crowded out of magazines, because the enduring problem has been finding enough missiles to fill VLS magazines, not the other way around.  Even the most aggressive projected buys of missiles like SM-3 and SM-6 don't even come close to filling up the available VLS cells.  

Red7272 said...

2.8 kg versus 6.5 kg and 300 grams versus 650 grams. 

There are more modern rounds but actual naval SAP is relatively rare and conservative. Both are kinda useless for shooting at ships, which is why the Russians have a lightweight 100 and the French have stayed with their 100 for new designs. 

The French have transitioned to the OTO 76 mm for their FREMM and Horizon frigates and it is also planned for the new Admiral Ronarc’h frigates.  Gives them more commonality with other EU nations and thus lower munitions costs.  IIRC, the last French ships armed with the 100 mm gun were the La Fayette frigates, although it has been exported to other countries since that time.

taschoene said:

I'm not losing sleep about strike missiles being crowded out of magazines, because the enduring problem has been finding enough missiles to fill VLS magazines, not the other way around.  Even the most aggressive projected buys of missiles like SM-3 and SM-6 don't even come close to filling up the available VLS cells.  

Good grief. So we're building more ships, without adequately arming/protecting the ones we already have?

When you say shortages, is that primarily AA/ABM, or are we also short on 'Hawks as well, and sailing with some empty VLS cells?

"It's just a slight modification of our current ammunition, Congressman".

They're operating on the fact you can get new missiles faster than new ships.

Also, at least one guy who has done serious wargaming says SM-6 and ESSM for anti-ship usage have more kill chain vulnerabilities than dedicated ASMs. Don't know if he's right, but he would have inside info we don't.

Farmplinker said:

Also, at least one guy who has done serious wargaming says SM-6 and ESSM for anti-ship usage have more kill chain vulnerabilities than dedicated ASMs. Don't know if he's right, but he would have inside info we don't

Thats interesting. I wonder why that would be the case? You'd think hitting a ship would be a hell of a lot easier then hitting an incoming supersonic missile, which is what both are designed for.

Perhaps its because the ASM's have infared image seekers vs radar for SM6?

A bunch of SAMs had a rudimentary ground attack capability already 5+ decades ago, but as the SAM is meant to deal with rather fragile airborne targets the warhead is hardly something that would sink ships. Particularly if you follow SAM developments, much of the height/range increases in modern SAM systems come from ever smaller/lighter warheads courtesy of precise guidance that now days aims for hard kill hit or at least close proximity vs not so close proximity hit when huge 200kg fragmentation warheads are in play . Particularly with size limitations of VLS cells.

The second thing is the flight profile, considering the booster and motor are designed for really high speed i hardly expect these to be flying in sea-skimming profile of a conventional AShM  

autogun said:

gatnerd said: Reportedly to have a mix of 57mm and 40mm guns, which seems a bit odd caliber mix. That may have something to do with the fact that Bofors, who make both the 40mm and 57mm guns, is owned by  BAE Systems...and guess who won the contract for supplying the frigate?  Actually, I don't think that a formal decision about the armament has yet been made.  It would indeed seem odd if two new gun calibres were introduced for a handful of new ships.

I am most surprised to read that, according to BAE, the 57 mm and 40 mm Bofors guns are indeed to be fitted to the Type 31:

BAE Systems will produce and deliver Bofors 40 Mk4 and Bofors 57 Mk3 naval guns for the U.K. Ministry of Defence’s Type 31 general purpose frigate program.

The agreement, through a contract with Babcock International, will supply the Royal Navy with a set of advanced, multi-purpose gun systems for its fleet of five ships, with the first ship expected to go into service in 2027.

The contract includes five Bofors 57 Mk3 medium caliber guns and 10 Bofors 40 Mk4 small caliber guns. Both close-in weapon systems are designed to protect the ships against modern and future complex threats. The guns also offer the Royal Navy optimized ammunition types, including the cost-efficient programmable Bofors 3P all-target munition.