Royal Navy Giving Up Anti-Ship Missiles, Will Rely On Cannons For Naval Combat (telegraph.co.uk) 432
cold fjord writes: It will soon be a bit more difficult for Britain's Royal Navy to rule the waves as it gives up anti-ship missiles as a result of budget cuts. That will force the Royal Navy to go "old school" and rely upon naval gunfire for ship-to-ship combat. Cannon fire as the primary means of ship-to-ship combat has been largely obsolete since the 1950s following the invention of guided missiles in World War 2. Prior to that, cannon fire had been the primary means of naval combat for hundreds of years. Although the Royal Navy ranged up to 16" guns on battleships, the largest gun currently in active service is a 4.5" gun. That will leave the Royal Navy unable to engage targets beyond approximately 17 miles / 27 km, whereas Harpoon missiles provide an 80 mile / 130 m range. The loss of anti-ship missile capability will begin in 2018 and may last for 10 years for warships, and 2 years for helicopters. The Sun quotes a naval insider who said: "It's like Nelson saying, 'don't worry, I don't need canons, we've got muskets.'" The loss of missile capability heaps more misfortune upon a naval force that recently has seen its available frontline combat force drop to an unprecedented 24 warships.
Rule the waves? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
My thought on it is that if the nation went to war in which naval battles were a possibility (or actually happening), the budget would be instantaneously available to them to do whatever necessary to protect their seas. I'm sure they also have a rather large stockpile they could draw on in the meantime as well.
Re: Rule the waves? (Score:4, Funny)
You're perspective concerning the speed of government procurement is unique.
Re: Rule the waves? (Score:5, Insightful)
All you need is 4 or 5 years notice to get ready for a shooting war. No problem.
Re: Rule the waves? (Score:4, Interesting)
"We will have this gap of several years without missiles. Well, that's fine if you don't have to fight anybody in the meantime."
Well (speaking as a British Citizen) that's fine by me. Britain doesn't 'have' to fight any wars at the moment. We enter existing conflcts, or initiate conflicts without international mandates based on provably false intelligence.
And of course the UK navy has other ways to destroy ships. Ship-launched TASM (Tomahawk Anti Ship Missiles), ship-launched Spearfish torpedos, helicopter launched Sting Ray torpedos and so on. The last large military vessel to be sunk by our navy was engaged by a nuclear submarine which launched a torpedo (General Belgrano sunk by HMS Conqueror in 1982).
Picking up the slack (Score:3)
Not only is the UK one of the wealthiest nations on earth, it is one of a few, if not the only one among NATO nations that spends the recommended 2% on defence.
My guess is that they are hoping the US will continue to pick up the slack since the US wildly over spends on it's military. Not sure how long that will go on with the new idiot about to enter the White House. But I agree that it makes little sense for a maritime nation like the UK to have a second rate navy. The UK might have it's problems but it's not exactly in the poor house with one of the 5 largest economies by GDP in the world.
Re:Rule the waves? (Score:4, Interesting)
"to protect their seas"..
Which is what, exactly? Seriously? The party they have to do that against on their own is just Argentine.
They don't have seas to protect anymore, All of the colonies have their own navys.
Re:Rule the waves? (Score:4, Insightful)
To be fair, the army have the weapons to sink anything in the Channel, let alone the RAF. The Navy are a force projection these days, home waters defence is easily handled through air power.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't forget pork for the shipyards and defence contractors, and jobs for the sailors, and comfort for the Tory voters who still think Germany might invade and we need the Royal Navy to stop them.
You say that like it's a bad thing! OK, being glib there. The money poured into the endless sinkhole of BAe is not really productive. However, if you assume that war might happen, then you need to keep the shipyards open and operating for if the worst case scenario happens. If major war does break out we'd be screw
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Rule the waves? (Score:5, Interesting)
y thought on it is that if the nation went to war in which naval battles were a possibility (or actually happening), the budget would be instantaneously available to them to do whatever necessary to protect their seas. I'm sure they also have a rather large stockpile they could draw on in the meantime as well
Where is this stockpile going to come from if you don't develop, test, build and train with it in advance?
And how is the budget going to help when you've got a lead time in years to get something through the pipeline? I know PHBs are fond of the idea they can have 9 women make a baby in a month by throwing money at her, but that's just not how it works.
Re:Rule the waves? (Score:4, Informative)
Providing money when you go to war is too late. It takes months to secure missiles and integrate them with modern warships (which will probably be on the bottom by then).
Re: (Score:3)
And how exactly would you launch a Tomahawk from a British Destroyer or Frigg without putting it into a dock for half a year or a year first?
Hipsters (Score:3)
You can work out what colour it should be, though.
Light grey, like everything else.
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps The Royal Navy have Amazon Prime?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
the guy said almost 40 years. I think soon to be 35 years is close enough to "almost 40 years" in most peoples eyes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
We haven't use nukes in over 70 years, but we still apparently think we need them.
The reason Britain hasn't fired anti-ship missiles from ships recently is that it hasn't needed to. But note that they'll also need the F35 to be fully baked before they can operate the aircraft carriers they're building.
So really it looks like for some period the Royal Navy simply won't have the capability to fight other warships except with their seven submarines. This means they can't really contest command of the sea anyw
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Brexit prevents most EU military cooperation so this supply failure seriously weakens British power.
Spot on for the rest of the comment, but I think NATO is still alive and well (OK, maybe Trump something, for now I haven't the foggiest what he'll do with NATO and I'm betting he doesn't either) and is the primary conduit for military cooperation amongst the European states.
In any event, Brexit,Natexit or otherwise, EADS isn't going to be split apart.
Re: (Score:3)
Trump was correct about NATO being based on an increasingly false premise, and most of the member states really aren't shouldering their fair share; that doesn't mean that there aren't new equally valid premises and I know there is metric but-loads of pork that can be cut without effecting military readiness.
Making changes in bureaucracies the size of NATO is like steering a battleship, you turn the rudder and nothing seems to happen for a long long time, then when it does, it takes a long, long time to ge
Re: (Score:3)
Come on, now. Brexit does nothing to UK military power unless the UK decides to leave NATO as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Brexit prevents most EU military cooperation so this supply failure seriously weakens British power.
BREXIT: UK leaving (perhaps) the EU. Note: this is a political "thing".
NATO: UK cooperating with the rest of the NATO. Note: that is a military thing.
World Trade: UK is free to purchase what ever they need/want from the EU or from anyone else. Note: that is a trade thing.
Re: (Score:3)
NATO wasn't much help with Argentina. The French wouldn't even help us defend against their anti-ship missiles for fear or devaluing their defence industry.
Re: (Score:2)
When is the last time the British Navy fired an anti-ship missile from a ship? Almost 40 years? Seriously.
Or better yet, what potential enemies in the UK's sphere of influence will require anti-ship missiles?
The only one I can think of is Russia, even then their navy is antiquated and would be facing every modern NATO navy. Almost all the opponents the UK has to deal with wont be able to defend against, let alone oppose a 4.5" QF cannon.
The gist I got was that the UK is simply not buying any new ship to ship missiles. We've still got a stockpile of Harpoons, we're just not buying new ones. The anti-ship s
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Rule the waves? (Score:5, Interesting)
When is the last time the British Navy fired an anti-ship missile from a ship?
Ideally, you have a military, not to fight your enemies, but to deter them.
Almost 40 years? Seriously.
Tomahawks [wikipedia.org] are used by the Royal Navy as anti-ship missiles. They are also used against land targets. They were last fired in action by the Royal Navy against Libyan targets in 2011.
Re: (Score:2)
OK but why bother? (Score:5, Informative)
Is anyone seriously planning on attacking British warships with something besides rafts full of IEDs? What's the likelihood that Brits would be involved in a Naval engagement that didn't also involve the American Navy, a force that is nearly cartoonish compared to every other fleet on the planet? Is there some expectation that they'll be front-line in a shooting war beside an American carrier group?
Re:OK but why bother? (Score:5, Insightful)
A military is sort of like an insurance policy. It's a huge waste of money until you actually need it.
Re: (Score:3)
You'll need a tiger stone [getelastic.com] long before you need a ludicrously large military like the UK's, much less the U.S.
Drats! (Score:2)
There goes my fantasy of making the UK our 51st State...
Thanks, I think..
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Shadowed by 2 british, 2 norwegian and 2 german subs, and likely by a US sub, too.
So what is your point?
Re:OK but why bother? (Score:5, Funny)
> Is anyone seriously planning on attacking British warships
Right now? No, they still have ship to ship missiles.
Re: (Score:2)
There seems little doubt that Britain is planning on being protected by American military might, just as Canada is.
Dropping their defensive capability leaves them with only two options when push comes to shove: surrender or go nuclear. I suspect that they would opt for surrender.
Re: (Score:2)
You are an idiot.
There is no navy on the world, except the US one, that is a thread to the UK's, or any other European navy.
And the US are not a *serious* thread. if they would go rogue and try to attack Europe they need to get their carriers into strike range.
Good bye Nimitzt, good bye Reagan, good bye what ever battle group they bring ...
Unlike the US navy most European navies are designed for "home defense" ... the chance that a US battle group is able to detect a norwegian, danish, british, german or ev
Re: (Score:3)
England is like a big unsinkable aircraft carrier right off the coast of Europe. You can bet it's security will always be a concern to the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Thing is, we (Canada) are not only directly beside the US, but we're also the buffer between the US and Russia. The hell does the US care about the UK for, especially if they're no longer contributing back in the occasional "coalitions of the willing"?
The US has, at least recently in our history, had very close national ties with both the UK and Canada, as well as the Aussies and Kiwis, perhaps due to our shared Anglo culture and heritage. I guess you could think of us as "sibling" countries, with the UK as the "parent", I guess? I'm not sure how else to explain it. So, yeah, I think the US does tend to care about it's collective Anglo "family".
Not that we'd ever admit that to a canucklehead.
Re: (Score:2)
Thing is, we (Canada) are not only directly beside the US, but we're also the buffer between the US and Russia. The hell does the US care about the UK for, especially if they're no longer contributing back in the occasional "coalitions of the willing"?
Buffer??? May I ask what you mean by that? The way I understand it, wouldn't Alaska be the first part of NA to see combat?
Re: (Score:2)
Alaska is negligible. ICBM flight paths from Russia are through Canadian airspace, so intercept relies on equipment stationed there.
Ummm... not with ICBMs. Canada was actually offered the opportunity years ago to have missile defense stations their, but they turned it down, and have only just reconsidered earlier this year. Meanwhile, Alaska is a huge participant in the GMD (Ground-Based Midcourse Defense) program, and actually has a pretty sizable network of defense silos. I'm not entirely sure what the original anon meant, which is why I'm asking, but I know that from an ICBM standpoint Canada isn't that significant to the USA compare
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In case if you haven't been paying attention, that's exactly the attitude that Trump has been complaining about. America alone can't afford to pick up the tab for defending all of Europe and Asia any more.
Wrong people to blame (Score:2)
The Republicans are not the ones sequestering and cutting Defense budgets, that's Democrats. Republicans have attempted to stop the bullshit spending and takeover of health insurance. Get your facts straight!
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
people were saying the same thing in 1981, in fact the government thought it so unlikely that they were trying to flog off our brand new aricraft carriers.....
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder what happens in 10 years that brings back the missiles?
Either way, these are regular Harpoon missiles they simply won't be carrying. It's not like they're dropping the launchers from ship designs and re-building the entire fleet. They just won't be carrying the missiles. If the red fleet steams south towards the GIUK gap, the launchers could certainly be re-loaded in short order; even if the Harpoons themselves had to be flown over from the US.
Re: (Score:3)
The only system to give the GCHQ any issue was Argentina's Air Force traffic as it used a new, better system that was not op
well, anti-ship missiles are archaic (Score:3)
So Trump was right? (Score:2)
No wonder Trump has been incessantly complaining that America's allies do not spend enough on their own defense and rely on the American firepower. The situation is quite similar all over Europe.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, the UK is one of the few NATO countries that does spend it's allotted proportion of GDP on defence.
This is pure incompetence by the Admiralty and the government. In the past, there has been a desire to prioritize number of ships above the capability of those ships. It's a disastrous policy that is driven by people more interested in building their own empires than doing their job.
Re:So Trump was right? (Score:4)
And they've been at it so very long, too...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
When Britain really ruled the waves -
(In good Queen Bess's time)
The House of Peers made no pretence
To intellectual eminence,
Or scholarship sublime;
Yet Britain won her proudest bays
In good Queen Bess's glorious days!
When Wellington thrashed Bonaparte,
As every child can tell,
The House of Peers, throughout the war,
Did nothing in particular,
And did it very well:
Yet Britain set the world ablaze
In good King George's glorious days!
And while the House of Peers withholds
Its legislative hand,
And noble statesmen do not itch
To interfere with matters which
They do not understand,
As bright will shine Great Britain's rays
As in King George's glorious days!
(hey, it's not often I get to post a relevant Gilbert & Sullivan!)
Rushing to post ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Europeans should really get to work together in terms of weapons standardization. Right now the situation with all those small Navies, like Spain, Germany, Poland, etc is that they are all amounting to very little. They should all have ONE standard destroyer ship that's produced by the dozens, one type of frigate, ONE type of Aircraft carrier, one type of each diesel and nuclear subs, one type of anti-ship missile, and so on. The situation where each navy is trying to procure a little bit of everything
Re: (Score:2)
Actually it is more or less like that. No idea why you are complaining.
Most european weapon projects are joint ventures of various european states and then sold to the other ones.
However "standard" destroyers make not much sense. Every few years we design/build a new destroyer or frigg or submarine class. And such a ship/boat is in service for 30 - 50 years. Often it makes no sense to refit the older ships to the new standard.
E.g. a modern german frigg is designed to be off shore up to 24month with only the
Simple solution (Score:2)
This can easily be fixed with tax cuts, particularly if targeted at billionaires.
Why is this? (Score:2)
At the same time, China is massively increasing their defense spending with both official numbers, and much larger unofficial numbers... [businessinsider.com]
METRIC ERROR (Score:2)
AS missiles are risky (Score:5, Informative)
One of the reasons Anti Ship missiles suck is due to time of flight and no discrimination systems to filter out what will effectively become a potential target once the platform reaches its designated area and begins its search pattern.
Every target has what's known as an AOU or " Area of Uncertainty ". This is typically designated as a circle around the targets last known position. The size of the AOU is based on:
Length of time since target update
Platform that generated update
Target Speed / heading / etc
The more time that passes, the larger the potential area said target can be in and the larger the circle grows.
Now assume you get really good positioning data on your target. Initial AOU size will vary based on what platform provided the data, but assume it's a solid hit.
Ignoring the fact we'll never shoot just one missile and that it would take forever to coordinate a dozen shots across multiple ships, let's say we just send one off from a few hundred miles out.
So not including super and hypersonic systems, most cruise missiles are subsonic so figure maybe half an hour flight time to reach the target area.
That AOU is going to grow considerably in half an hour and if other ships are in the area, those AOU's can start to overlap. Meaning you can have more than just your target in the search area when the radar goes active and begins looking for something to kill.
Bad news if you happen to be floating in the general area and are big enough to generate a radar return.
Now picture this scenario in a cramped space like the Persian Gulf where hundreds of ships and their gigantic overlapping AOU's make targeting anything a downright pita.
The newer platforms may be more intelligent ( LRASM is supposed to be ) but Gulf War era tech certainly was not. No mid flight updates. Once flying, the weapon was on its own.
Source: Ex Tomahawk Blk II/III TWCS Fire Control type
Re:AS missiles are risky (Score:5, Interesting)
Now picture this scenario in a cramped space like the Persian Gulf where hundreds of ships and their gigantic overlapping AOU's make targeting anything a downright pita.
Some years ago, I was sitting in on an exercise a group of TAO students were running on the ENWGS (Enhanced Navy War Gaming System); each side had a small collection of patrol craft and/or frigates, and they were in an area that had a number of merchies sailing around. The blue side had sent up a helicopter to search, the orange group had sent a Petya forward. Both sides discovered the other at about the same time, and there was a brief flurry of anti-ship missile launches. When the smoke had cleared, the sole casualty from both sides was the Petya, which was an 'own goal' from a missile fired down its bearing that activated its seeker head a couple miles too soon... but the missile exchange cleared out 3/4 of the merchant ships that had been in the area.
Re: (Score:2)
The enemy must to use its expensive ammo in small amounts and never ever have too many ships.
"At this point, the exercise was suspended, Blue's ships were "re-floated""
gunship diplomacy (Score:2)
What's the point of having a futuristic-ally armed ship anyway ? aside from its ability to transport a lot of supplies, fly the flag visibly and to do humanitarian missions in pirate infested seas all of which can probably work very well with regular naval guns.
For any real war I would have thought the best way to take out a ship would be from a submarine or from a land- or space- or air-launched missile.
and who's to say there isn't some clever way to make the guns more effective with "smart shells" or s
Grandstanding (Score:5, Insightful)
This is grandstanding to get the British people riled up and get popular opinion to support allocating more money for defense spending. They've set the doomsday date far enough in the future that they have time to let the bureaucrats allocate the money and save the day and keep the missiles on the ships.
Why? (Score:2)
"The Navyâ(TM)s Harpoon missiles will retire from the fleetâ(TM)s frigates and destroyers in 2018 without a replacement,"
So don't retire them?
Better to have a couple-year obsolete missiles (assuming they ARE obsolete, defense industry techs are pretty aggressive about selling upgrades) than NONE.
This is like local governments that, when told their state funds are being cut, START by laying off cops and firemen - it's a sham to make *any* budget cut seem agonizingly painful.
Re: (Score:2)
Not all is lost (Score:3)
There are lots of ways to sink a ship. When I worked in that business we took very seriously the threat of low-flying aircraft with modern ECM pods and laser-guided bombs. The Queen Elizabeth will be commissioned in May, so while the Royal Navy may not have anti-ship missiles that doesn't necessarily mean it won't have a way to sink ships. I suspect F-35s, with their low radar cross-section, will be well-suited to that role.
And then there are submarines.
Not to worry, they have new aircraft (Score:2)
They will have operational F-35s in about.... ummm.... maybe 10 years
Re:Not to worry, they have new aircraft (Score:5, Funny)
Who needs a strong Navy anyhow? (Score:2)
The world is getting ever more peaceful, right?
No need to worry about the NATO collapsing in the wake of a Trump presidency either. After all, there are reliable European allies who are already planning for a stronger EU defence integration if NATO turns into a paper tiger.
Oh, wait a second ...
Never mind. Good luck!
Re: (Score:2)
My "wait a second" line was to recall that little hick-up called Brexit.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm just curious what foreign power would even want to take the UK.
Remember... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
computers came about as a result of artillery calculations.
Not entirely, there were three contemporaries. American computers came about that way. British ones came about as the result of military code breaking. German ones came about for the hell of it.
Cannon be damned (Score:2)
Ram 'em and board, mateys.
History repeats (Score:5, Informative)
People forget this due to the reversal afterwards, but one of the cost savings of the incoming Thatcher government in the UK was to scrap and sell all the aircraft carriers leaving a gap of some time with no aircraft carriers before HMS Illustrious and HMS Ark Royal (R07) were completed. The Argentinians took note and occupied the Falkland Islands expecting to be safe from a toothless Royal Navy.
They acted too quickly because while the sale of the HMS Invincible in February 1982 to Australia had gone through the aircraft carrier was still in the UK in April when the war broke out. The other operational carrier, HMS Hermes, was going to be scrapped some time in 1982 due to a decision made in 1981 but was still intact in April. The Argentinians got a bit of a shock in facing two aircraft carriers instead of the zero they expected. The carriers HMS Triumph and HMS Ark Royal (R09) had already been recently scrapped under the Thatcher government Navy reduction plan, but they were quite old ships anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I don't ever recall Trump offering any other country the role of a world's policeman. He did suggest that USA should get out of conflicts and alliances that are costly to the USA with no real benefits.
I don't know which way the Pentagon spending will go, as Trump has given a bunch of contradicting statements. A massive boost in Pentagon spending does not seem to be consistent with cutting the government size or its deficits.
I don't see any real confusion (Score:5, Interesting)
The US pays for wars all over the place which have been very expensive. 7-9 Trillion in the Middle East with nothing in return except destabilized countries with a populace that hates and is more aggressive to the US and its allies. Stop giving arms to rebels who turn those weapons on you, close bases that don't do us any good and bring troops to bases that do, and if we are defending a country we should receive compensation instead of paying a country to have a base. Further, there can be cuts to BS departments of money grubbing and lobbying, but that would be a secondary issue to tackle.
The US Defense budget is massive, but we sure don't spend it on troops and weapons. Way too much overhead and far too many pet projects.
Re: (Score:3)
She voted for Bush's gulf war. She's a warmonger.
Re: (Score:2)
She voted for Bush's gulf war. She's a warmonger.
... so did he. [factcheck.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Red herring.
1) Trump wasn't an elected official in Congress and had no vote on the matter
2) Trump wasn't an elected official in Congress and didn't have access to classified information. Hillary did.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Aircraft carriers are nice toys whose main purpose is displaying flag and being a nice target for the subs. If you want to compare the British and Russian defense capabilities, try to count how many Russian cruise and ballistic missiles can strike the UK or UK Navy ships and what UK can do about it. The nuclear missile subs is what really matters, and the Russian Northern Fleet has dozens of them.
Re: (Score:2)
It's true that carriers make nice targets but they also have a huge offensive punch. One carrier battlegroup has enough firepower to destroy just about any country on the planet.
Re: (Score:2)
It's an open question really. So far they have been only attacking third world countries that can't strike back. But is it a good weapon against.. say China. The Chinese have guided ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads specially targeting aircraft carrier groups for example.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The nuclear missile subs is what really matters, and the Russian Northern Fleet has dozens of them.
And UK has 6, or? And France has 6, too. Or was it 8?
On the other hand it is lucky that the Russian subs are cruising in front of the US and Chinese coast ;D
Re: (Score:2)
Russia is working on developing tugboats for its submarines
You gotta be joking right? The Russian aircraft carrier may need a tugboat because it's a thirty year old ship with turbine engines that were build outside of Russia proper. Russian nuclear submarine fleet has always been a top priority for Russia and they have series production of ballistic missile submarines, multipurpose nuclear submarines and also diesel subs.
Re: (Score:2)
If I was an american strike group, I would not worry about a Russian sub with nukes ...
The Russian torpedoes are a much much much more serious threat. How many marines on the planet do have torpedoes that go with 350knots under water and have a range of 100nm - 200nm?
Re: (Score:2)
You have conveniently forgotten that Kursk was an older-generation Soviet sub. Russia is currently producing Yasen-class multipurpose nuclear attack submarine which is basically state of art. Moreover, the fact that subs sink every once in a while simply highlights the fact that they're very complex devices, like the say the aircraft, which also regularly crash all over the world.
The Russian Northern Fleet has more subs than probably the rest of Europe combined. If one sub sinks for whatever reason, Russian
Re: (Score:2)
From the point of view of a first world navy, those are nice floating targets that will be disabled with one cruise missile. Yes, it can be used to attack third world countries.
Re: (Score:3)
Teams contacted the Libyan mil and gave them an offer. Stand down and walk away. So its not that any ship was "tested", the other side selected to stay home.
Thats not any navy winning, thats having signals intelligence and making a lot of calls.
The Falklands was more real. Lots of hardware issues and code on imported hardware to get working. The lesson learned was never to fully trust importe
Re: (Score:2)
FTFY.
FTFY2.
Re: (Score:3)
You're right, Swedish women love being gang-raped on the streets.
Re: (Score:2)
For those who are really worried about the fate of the Russian aircraft carrier, it's actually alive and well, and it's already striking targets in Syria. Here is a collection of recent pics and videos.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
http://bmpd.livejournal.com/22... [livejournal.com]
http://bmpd.livejournal.com/22... [livejournal.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
One thing that is missing from the comments is that the counter to anti-ship missiles - decoys, phalanx defense and anti-missile-missiles - are currently looking pretty good, and with the advent of some defensive lasers, improving a lot. The improvements in the anti-ship missiles is mostly a matter of guidance; the basic tech has ben stagnant for a while. In military terms, something is 'obsolete' for just as long until someone comes up with a counter. Air-to-air missiles were initially touted as ending