Reports in the French media say that an additional 220 Aster 30 missiles have been ordered under a tri-national procurement. Aster 30 is the RN’s primary air defence missile, the effector used in the Sea Viper system that equips the six Type 45 destroyers.
In February, Defence Minister, Maria Eagle stated that negotiations had been concluded and an order for additional missiles was imminent. The share between France, Italy and the UK is unclear, but the RN will be able to deepen its modest stock of Aster 30s.
OCCAR is expected to formally announce next week they have contracted Eurosam (a joint venture between MBDA and Thales) to deliver the weapons. Given the deteriorating European security situation, alongside the new contract, the three nations are also urging manufacturers to accelerate delivery schedules for both this order and previous commitments. In December 2022, France and Italy awarded Eurosam a large contract to produce nearly 700 Aster missiles, reflecting the increasing demand for these weapons.
To meet the growing requirement, MBDA is working to reduce Aster missile production time from 42 months in 2022 to less than 18 months by 2026. Output is also expected to grow by 50 percent over the same period as part of a broader effort to scale up production. Expansion of the Aster missile fabrication, integration and pyrotechnics facility at MBDA’s Selles-Saint-Denis factory in France is already underway to support these efforts.
Previously, in December 2022, the MoD signed a contract with MBDA to acquire the Aster 30 Block 1, which will deliver an improved maritime anti-ballistic missile capability. This involves converting the RN’s existing stocks of Aster 15 and 30s to Aster 30 Block 1 standard at MBDA’s facility in Bolton and at DM Gosport.
The RN Sea Viper system already has a short-range Theatre Anti-Ballistic Missile capability, combat proven when HMS Diamond shot down a Houthi ballistic missile in April 2024. The number of rounds expended by HMS Diamond during last year’s operations in the Red Sea is unclear, but she did return to Gibraltar mid-deployment to replenish several empty VLS cells.
The acquisition of additional missiles also supports the UK Sea Viper Evolution programme (SV-E), which will enable the Type 45, equipped with Aster 30 Block 1 to engage Medium range Ballistic Missiles of the 600km range class over an entire 360° local area defence zone. By replacing the Aster 15 short-range air defence capability with Sea Ceptor housed in a new 24-cell silo, the 48-cell Sylver VLS systems can be fully loaded with the far more ABM-capable long range Aster 30 block 1. HMS Diamond will be the first ship to achieve SV-E Initial Operating Capability, scheduled for February 2028.
Related articles
What is the state of Royal Navy anti-ballistic missile capability?
Royal Navy to be the first European force to field maritime ballistic missile defence capability
Royal Navy’s Type 45 destroyers – reaching their full potential with addition of Sea Ceptor missiles
From Sea Dart to Sea Viper – area air defence for the Royal Navy
I’ve no frame of reference, but this ‘accelerated’ manufacturing volume of 18 months per missile still seems slow to me. I can’t imagine that an SM-2 or a Patriot round takes longer than 10.
Eurosam are going to have to speed up and increase capacity if they want to take market share from the Patriot system and LockMart…
At the moment it takes 12 months to build the Patriot missiles seeker radar and 24 months to build the rest of the missiles components leading to a production mismatch where they have more seekers than missile bodies to put them in. There is a new factory under construction in the US to increase capacity from 550 missiles to 650 missiles per year but it wont open until 2027.
Having worked in the defense electronics industry, small run modules like these are often hand assembled, and each module has hundreds of hours of testing. For example it would be cycle tested +50c to -40 c to simulate going from desert floor to 40000 feet . Vibration testing to simulate launch etc. this all takes time
Known in the trade as individual type approval — file under mental.
You build to spec and sample test — this is contractor make work grifting.
The MOD needs to get real.
Missile production — surely the logistics / critical path is understood?
Long leads / extra long leads known and their individual critical paths understood and thrifted to the max?
42 months to build a missile — is the bricky needed to build the factory just out of nappies?
The UK MIC is just some patter merchants waving shrouds.
It depends what failure rates you are prepared to accept?
If each modules isn’t fully tested then you LtK probability will drop substantially.
If you are relying on a single launch to take out an incoming dropping LtK is quite serious.
So you need more automated and parallel testing of components. You don’t do one at a time in the environmental test oven/freezer you do a load and just label them up properly. Unfortunately you do need thermal cycling to spot dry joints and other manufacturing issues.
As production scales up some of those issues will just melt away into the production feedback loops.
But that does mean investing in fully automated production so the consistency is there without the human element.
You can only really do statistically valid testing, as you describe, on really large batches of items all produced identically. With the hand produced cottage industry approach, with is likely used now, then things are going to be less well defined.
I worked for Marconi Space & Defence on the NATO IV program back in the 80’s, as an RF Design engineer, we used to have to perform huge amounts of testing. The idea you can just crank out missiles without doing extensive testing is naive in the extreme. Perhaps works in the Elon Musk world, but not when you want a missile to launch successfully and eliminate the threat. you’ve got to remember these things undergo huge stresses and are being transported in a ship that going to be thrown around all over the place in all sorts of weather. So each missile has to be stress tested to ensure nothing is going to fail. All it takes is for one component to come loose, and that missile is useless in fact its worse than useless as its taking up space in a silo that could house a working missile.
In any mission critical system, testing is the longest and most crucial element.
What were the failure rates?
What levels of re-work were required to get a pass?
This is a huge amount of non value add work.
Right first time is what you need.
Not filing away poor build quality.
Either it is box ticking for box ticking’s sake or it is a production environment that has no confidence in its own output.
Total Quality management is probably a bit old school but it would be a huge step forward on what is described above.
And then you have Six Sigma — loads of numbers and technobabble hiding the nugget of root cause analysis.
Testing is only an approximation of a products final use.
Never ending testing is just Victorian boiler engineering updated for a ignorant risk averse world.
If you know your product you know what makes it good.
What qualities it needs to make it work — the magic number not a bingo caller going through the whole book.
Focus on that and you will start to be credible.
Plus move away from cottage industry / artisan spec builds.
As someone once said — quantity generates a quality all of its own.
Lots of testing means lots of contractor margin.
“ This is a huge amount of non value add work.”
So there is no value in having a missile that works every time; and
There is no loss of value by having a dud missile in the VLS?
I don’t agree with that.
As I pointed out above you need volumes above cottage industry orders to automate production processes. If you are ordering 50 missiles per year and customer demands lowest £ price then manual testing makes sense.
If the customer wants a fully scalable solution and will pay for the automated line with testing – then of course this makes more sense. But that is a 1000’s of units per year tipping point.
Testing — what are the failure rates?
What is the level of rework that this testing initiates?
Right first time.
Confidence in your own abilities.
Proper supplier management — SQA incoming.
The issue is that even with all the testing the missiles still fail.
Suggests that there are deeper failures in play.
surely a complete redesign for ease of manufacture and encased solid state components is warranted as part of the specification requirements, hand building like a Swiss watch tourbillion is not ideal
I stand corrected, thank you!
Even if EuroSAM are about on par, if they want to capitalise on the bad press US defence is getting at the moment then they’re going to have to bump up even further to steal market share…
I’ve read that and SM-2 or SM-6 takes about 24 months. Raytheon is adding a new SM-6 line to accelerate the output. The stated Aster build time frame sounds reasonable.
Fair enough, thank you- I’ve clearly got an unrealistic expectation on this!
This all seems at a Glacial pace, same as all the other Naval work. Speed is of the essence. I don’t like to be scarist but we could be in some kind of conflict sooner rather than later. Remember Russia is on a war footing.
Airbus build planes in just a few months but you have to wait years to buy one.
Missiles are likely just the same. If we ordered 200 a year for ten years then the actual production stage might be reasonably quick.
The lack of spares & ammo has always been a major weakness of the mod, spending on their upkeep scares political elite,cannibalising what we have is their go to strategy! Or hope nothing happens! It’s all about ££££!
Given the length of time it takes to build missiles, and the rapid pace they are utilised, then any major conflict (God forbid) would rapidly eliminate stocks with no ability to resupply.
Need to rapidly progress alternative systems such as dragonfire, etc.
Dragonfire is no alternative for A30Block1. It’s much shorter range but is also being rolled out at an accelerated pace inc on Type 45s
This is all too slow.
Tricky tracking all this T45 work, Diamond first for A30 upgrade but Defender first for CAMM install. Wonder when all 6 units will have PIP, CAMM, A30BLOCK1 & NSM? Post 2032 it seems.
Diamond follows Defender in combining PIPKEEP with the CAAM Installation work,one might expect the Refit time to be shorter for the CAAM work at least.
The whole program is really a job creation scheme sponsored by the government. Providing most jobs for the longest time, killing two birds with one stone. The problem being the lack of urgency, if the missiles are needed to be used in anger all in my humble opinion.
Whey would the U.K. government be spending money to create jobs in France?….
Your ‘theory’ doesn’t hold up to 10sec of thought.
Have there been any studies done to upload more than just the (4×6) 24 CAMMs on the T45s? If they’re going to be realigning or building onto the side and front walls there looks like there’s room for 2-3 x6 silos down both sides? For 48+ CAMM. There could be even still be room for 1-2 mk41s instead of the gym! Considering there’s only the 6 ships there’s potential for an even greater up take here way greater than just 50% and all pre T83.
Interestingly the RN T26 site says the CAMM will be quad packed and there will be 48 of them.
Half of we wonders if T45 will go the same way….but half of me thinks we might be better off with sovereign control with no US bits….
Trump has hit the kill switch for US MIC that is for sure – nobody trusts his intentions or believes that a treaty means anything. I wouldn’t like to be in LM or Boeing military sales offices ATM.
Website is wrong, T26 is getting cut outs for 4 distinct launchers, e.g the CAMm launchers
We will see soon enough when George @Владимир Темников UKDJ does some drone shots.
Just thought I would point out the text on the RN website, which is not always very accurate, but I defer to your inside knowledge?
Morning SB, and if the Norwegians go for the T26 with CAMM it’ll be interesting to see what vls silo layout they go for and if that might influence the RN. I think for longish deployments and high threat environments you might as well have a bit more than less particularly if the FSS and port reload access are limited.
No, I don’t think they’ve bothered looking into that because the space is not available under the dexk
The CAMM launchers look like they’ll be basically above deck, up to 3m+/- so maybe with some deck penetration. And I bet £5 there’s plenty of room down there…too much headroom in the gym for a start! Two ExLS vls would have given 48 (2×24) CAMM. Just 24 seems very underdone for the T45, maybe okay for the T31. We’ll all see it more clearly when built. They could have even gone for additional Sylver vls! I’d like to see an article on this 6 CAMM silo set up with a bit more information on it. It can’t be that too top secret can it? Just to be controversial, how about 20’/40′ pods front/sides/behind the Asters? Looks like there’s space but could look a bit ugly. There was an article a while back here on NL on pods but not sure if it was considered for the forward deck?
The construction upgrade is already complete for the 1st T45, HMS Defender.
There cant be second guessing now. Let it go.
https://www.navylookout.com/hms-defender-comes-out-of-dry-dock-as-missile-upgrade-project-progresses/
Thanks. I had read that article. Hoping for more but 24 it is. Blocks of 24 seems to be the “thing”.
I think they’re going for a cheaper and lightest CAMM as an interim upgrade. The 6 silo CAMM can go on and above the deck. They’re not flush with the fore deck. Plenty of headroom in the gym area, but maybe not on the sides. Having all 48 as Aster 30s must be adding to the loaded weight bit too.
Buying Mk 41 puts money into US industry, not European or UK, and gives the US control via embargoes on spares and software support. After everything that has happened, and is continuing to happen, there is going to be no money or political support for brand new contracts outside of Europe. Existing US contracts will likely be fulfilled, but the mood music coming out of the meeting rooms suggests that there is no trust, and a strong desire to focus financial resources towards sovereign sources of supply, or sources that are from near peer allies, rather than the big boy across the pond who is proving fickle, and has proven that his system doesn’t have the necessary safeguards to stop clowns turning everything into a circus.
Agreed, the timing is not now great with Trump, and what about the mooted 4x mk41s for all five of the T31s!? More Sylver or a Sylver compatible with mk41 missile loads or a universal/adaptable vls of some sorts? Maybe time to get the pods/containerised missile modules more developed if we can’t access or fill mk41s?
We’re stuck with mk41 vls. Slyver does not fill the requirements we need for our new frigates
What are the requirements? Strike length (7 metres) to accommodate cruise and, possibly, ASROC, and maybe future ABM.
Sylver A70 is strike length. Naval Scalp is a decent cruise missile in service, today. ASROC is just a torpedo on a booster that was designed in the 1950’s. With some of the new money it should be trivial for the RN to commission a Spearfish on a modern booster, getting a better torpedo into the bargain!
On top of that, Sylver A70 would have parts and logistics/training commonality with the T45s. Also, A70 does the same job as Mk41 but is about 25 to 30% lighter as an installation, which will be important for Type 31’s metacentric height and stability reserve because of how high up in the structure T31 will carry its VLS. A70 preserves more upgrade margin for the ship in the future.
I can’t think if any particular advantage to Mk41, and can think of some downsides, such as decreased reliability (Mk41 is more complex, e.g. uses electric motors where Sylver uses rechargeable springs) and the increased logistics complexity of introducing yet another unique system to the RN. How many different VLS do we need?
A70 only launches Naval Scalp. It cannot launch AAW missiles like Aster, it’s basically a different VLS. Mk41 also has more space. No one has been able to fit CAMM into slyver
Silver A70 only fires Scalp Naval
MSR
During ALL of WW1 – a period including the three years before the USA formally entered the war in 1917 – the UK brought no less than half of its total munitions used (i.e. expended throughout all of WW!) from private manufacturers factories which were based over in the USA
Therefore I really don’t think the UK’s very-long-term dependency upon the US of A’s armament’s industry is going to end “anytime soon” –
…..especially when The Donald’s anger about defence spending (or rather the lack of it!..) was – very obviously – directed toward the EU…..
…; a muliti-lateral organisation which we offically walked away from on the 31st Jan 2020
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
If you’re an irate taxpayer, you should be arguing with me to spend it at home or the near-abroad rather than supporting US industry, US businesses, US employees and, geopolitically, supporting the status of the US dollar as the world’s reserve currency by continuing to spend billions of your own currency in that market, instead of in Stirling and Euros.
On the subject of The Donald, he has in two months undone 75 years of consistent US foreign policy regarding Europe: no US president since Truman wanted a strong, independent Europe, they wanted a compliant and subservient Europe and for most of that time, they got it. They used their defence dominance to co-opt all the senior leadership positions in NATO, used it to influence political policy across the alliance, in some cases were able to use their power to influence domestic policy within allied nation states and in all cases, reaped the rewards of huge defence contracts going to US businesses, and supporting the dollar, globally. The value to the US of this arrangement simply cannot be overstated and they have used it to its maximum effect for their own gain for the last three or four generations. All of this is very, very obvious to any student of history who reads much beyond 1945… a period which we can now justifiably place on the shelf beside the Rise and Fall of Rome, being so far removed from our present day reality as to be just as irrelevant.
Who says half the british army munitions came from US before 1917. ?
The US was even less prepared for a European mass land army war
Duker
in general terms, this one:
Economic history of World War I – Wikipedia
In more specfic terms, this one:
Profiting from World War One: The Fortunes of the Bankers Who Financed Both Sides
It was very simple really:.
By 2015 the UK had mobilised all of its readily available manpower: mostly to fight on the western front
However the total supply of UK manpower (and by 2015 some of our womenpower) which was left remaining working on the British homefront was simply totally inadequete to keep all of those men whom were by then out fighting on the western front supplied with sufficent munitions.
That scandal caused many issues throughout all of government – and the remedies included introducing some truely-draconian new laws
(including eventhe first pub licencing laws! i.e. the begining of the end for freedom and democracy here in the UK as we once knew it when my grandfather was around…. )
Thus, mostly because of the shell shortage scandal, the UK government started buying muntions overseas, especially from private manufacturers based over in the USA
The USA governnment was neutral until 1917.
However – from 1914 until 1917 – the USA government allowed its private manufacturers to sell arms to both sides whom were fighting in WW1
Hence by 2016, the UK had brought so much of its WW1 munitions supply from the USA that we had used up all of our own reserves of foreign exchange currency = and thus we also had to start borrowing from US banks (again privately) and also from the US Treasury
i.e. so the UK would have enough dollar currency to be able to buy yet more armaments from those many private US manufacturers.
(i.e. shell to mostly lob into the very wet mud all along the western front……. So, well over one hundred years later, those US made munitions are still being excavated from the Flanders countryside: often unexploded)
—————————
Meanwhile ….
……….. the RN was blockading German trade routes out at sea
……… thus preventing the importation of all of the goods wot that nice chappie Kaiser Bill (a close relative of our Queenie Vicky) wanted to buy – especially those modern munitions stamped “made in the USA” and food supplies (both from the USA and especially from Argentina).
The Germans did, very occasionaly, get through to New York harbour : with their submarines: i.e. to stock up with US goodies….
German submarine Deutschland – Wikipedia
And so they stocked up on small amounts of new arms etc
That RN blockade of the North Sea was one (and only) major UK military action of WW! that was wholly sucessful (note 1) .
However the RN’s blockade took a very long while to truely take effect.
.
Hence why Germany invaded Ukraine very soon after its peace treaty with czar’ist Russian was signed in very late 1917: i.e. to get the food being grown in Ukraine into German domestic stomachs ASAP
Those German food laws in Ukraine in early 2018 were even more draconian than the UK’s brand-new pub licencing laws of 2015: so shooting people for stealing any bread or grain.
However they still failed to feed the German homefront: mainly because the two railway systems – german and russian – were built to two different track gauges (still true today)
………and hence why – just a few years later in the early 1920’s – Adolf Hitler proposed, in his little book Mein Kamf, that Germany invade and annex Ukraine.. and then quickly populate it with blonde farmers – i.e. to avoid the German nation being starved into defeat next time around.
(Blonde farmers whom, in those very-many slightly- later progaganda photos, looked just like a very young Ms Useless Von Der Leyen’s in her first-ever election poster = however I am sure that resemeblence is a very unfortunate coincidence!).
CONCLUSION
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
I’ve seen this said before and can only think it was a rumour started by the American arm of BAE Systems to protect Mk.41 sales, because it’s simply not true. The only difference between A50 and A70 is the length. Anything you can launch from an A50 you can launch from an A70.
You can find confirmation of this everywhere. I’m looking at the MBDA Naval Cruise Missile page right now and they mention Aster as an added benefit of buying A70 in the second to last paragraph.
There’s just no compelling argument, in the current climate, to assume the RN should go with Mk41. It gets us ASROC and sleepless nights worrying if the US will withdraw support as a “negotiating tactic” … and we’ve got enough to worry about with F35, Poseidon, the deterrent and a dozen other systems, in that regard, already!
Sylver is in service now. We don’t need yet another unique system.
It’s not a rumour. French Fremms are not fitted with full A70 vls loadouts instead some of them only have 16 and separately 16 A50 vls.
Same goes for the Italians. Their new destroyer has a mix of A70 and A50.
The Italians are also funding A70NG which is actually a universal VLS
That’s not because the A70 can’t take Aster, it’s for various other reasons, mostly money and budgets (they bought the A50s first and can’t justify not using them) and some doctrinal reasons. Doctrinally, they don’t want all strike length silos because they’ll never fill a FREMM with nothing but cruise missiles as this would leave it vulnerable. Also, FREMM is unlikely to be used as an ABM platform so it doesn’t need the extra silo length for any future extended range ABM Aster variants that may come along.
Every single official and industry-based source I have ever seen on the subject has confirmed that Aster of any variety will fit in A70 and there is no technical reason why you couldn’t sign a contract for a ship full of A70s with Aster in them, tomorrow. Off the shelf. No development needed.
It’s not just a rumour, it’s a myth! It. is. not. true. Go and ask the manufacturers. Read their websites. Look up the pdf documents that are available online. You will not find a single word that says Aster won’t go into A70. You’ll find plenty that say the opposite.
And yet every outsider source and military observer states otherwise.
I imagine it’s something they don’t want to be publicly known that Slyver is such a limited VLS
Dude, I’ve literally just told you… you know what, words fail me. What military observers? You mean retired blokes in armchairs? Actual defence industry journalists and commentators do not say these things because they are not true.
I officially give up. I will not reply to any more comments on the subject of A70. I have given chapter and verse and I have been wasting my time.
Maybe to do with things that need to be fitted in under the VLS?
So some of the VLS is shorter A50?
Warships are very volume limited and it is hard packing everything in so it is maintainable.
As you say weapons mix may be a factor too. If they don’t think they will only fire A70 weapons why fit all A70 and spend the extra?
T45 does have the depth to take A70 there are removable seatings on top of the permanent seatings.
Base question — why are warships seemingly volume limited?
In the olden days it was down to the weight of the armour protection.
Therefore space inside the citadel was limited and compromises had to be made.
Shipbuilding as an industry can deal with bigger vessels / heavier modules so what is the issue with warships and their hobbit sanctuary design vibe?
Somebody needs to take a brave pill.
A70 was never related to the A50 family, that’s what people are failing to get across. The A70 was specifically designed to fire and launch the MdCN, not for the rapid rate of launch required for the A50 system.
As such, the cell shaping is different between the two – A50 uses a square cross-section to accommodate the folded fins of the Aster-30 booster, whilst A70 uses a circular cross section for the circular MdCN.
Naval News sites a French official as confirming that modifications to the VLS would be required to launch Aster missiles.
Apologies, meant ‘cites’.
“The missile has been designed for vertical launch from the compact A70 SYLVER vertical launcher which is also capable of housing other MBDA missiles such as the ASTER family of air defence missiles.”
https://www.mbda-systems.com/products/deep-strike/mdcn-ncm
My understanding is that A70 and A50 are related only in name. The Sylver family, when designed, was never intended to be a universal VLS equivalent to Mk41. Instead, it was explicitly designed to launch the Aster missiles as fast as possible, whilst being as light as possible. This is likely why, although there are Sylver variants capable of only launching Crotale and not Aster, these variants have never been pursued – the Sylver family is optimised to solely launch Aster.
A70, on the other hand, was designed later on solely to launch MdCN. As such, there was never a requirement to fulfill the rapid launch capability found in the A50 when the A70 was being designed. Therefore, whilst A70 might have the dimensions to launch Aster (likely what MBDA are getting at), it would be worse at doing that job when compared to the A50, as it’s simply not designed for the same role. In fact, it’s widely believed (though not confirmed) that the electronics of the A70 are incapable of communicating with the air defence systems in the same way that A50 can. This is all likely why ships such as the French FREMM and Italian FREMM EVO use both A43/A50 VLS to launch their Aster, and dedicated A70 to launch MdCN.
Hi. Good point, but remember that a quad pack for Crotale exists for A50, just as a quad pack for ESSM is available for Mk.41. The A70 is not physically circular, itself, it uses a liner or insert that is designed to protect and support the MdCN (which I’ve been previously referring to by its old name of Naval Scalp because I’m getting acronym overload as I get older). You change out the liner when you change out the load.
Anyway, for the benefit of anyone else reading this, in the same way that you stick in an insert to accommodate quad packed missiles without them rattling around, you stick in a circular insert to support and protect the MdCN, which is cylindrical because it doesn’t have folded external fins and so a circular insert (a tube) is the easiest and most reliable way to stopping it rattling inside the silo.
I get acronym overload as well, especially with American systems.
My understanding is that A70 and A50 are related only in name. The Sylver family, when designed, was never intended to be a universal VLS equivalent to Mk41. Instead, it was explicitly designed to launch the Aster missiles as fast as possible, whilst being as light as possible. This is likely why, although there are Sylver variants capable of only launching Crotale and not Aster, these variants have never been pursued – the Sylver family is optimised to solely launch Aster, and there are better ways of launching other missiles.
A70, on the other hand, was designed later on solely to launch MdCN. As such, there was never a requirement to fulfill the rapid launch capability found in the A50 when the A70 was being designed. Therefore, whilst A70 might have the dimensions to launch Aster (likely what MBDA are getting at), it would be worse at doing that job when compared to the A50, as it’s simply not designed for the same role. In fact, it’s widely believed (though not confirmed) that the electronics of the A70 are incapable of communicating with the air defence systems in the same way that A50 can. This is all likely why ships such as the French FREMM and Italian FREMM EVO use both A43/A50 VLS to launch their Aster, and dedicated A70 to launch MdCN.
Isn’t the electronic interference problem actually between Sylver and Mk.41? It’s been noted that Mk.41 cannot be installed adjacent to Sylver for this reason. T45 never had the expansion space behind the gun utilised for Mk.41 (and I think this was only ever speculation: nothing official was ever released about plans for this).
I’ve only ever heard it in reference to A70 and the air defence systems.
Still, it doesn’t really change the reasoning – as A70 was never designed to launch Aster in the same way that A50 was, whilst A70 might be able to physically fit Aster, A50 simply does the job of launching better, therefore making integration into the A70 redundant.
You see this in Mk41 as well – reportedly, A50 can launch the Aster faster than Mk41 can launch Standard, as Aster is designed to do so principle, whilst Mk41 is not.
Yes, I’ve seen the same things asserted about Aster verses Standard, and the conclusions made sense based on the data provided. Also, Standard is not alone among US systems in having its performance suffer due to it being an iterative design, rather than a clean sheet design, as Aster was (state of the art 1990’s!).
Tangentially, there is the question of ballistic missile defence and I wonder if investing in A70 now would actually future proof against that. Aster block 1NT is intended to counter short range ballistic missiles, yet remains dimensionally similar to Aster 30 blocks 0 and 1. Thus, 1NT will still fit in an A50 silo (and the RN has recently purchased 1NT, of course, to fulfill the ABM mission). However, all available rumours/mutterings/dropped hints suggest that Block 2, being designed to counter medium range ballistic missiles, will be physically bigger. This would suggest that it not fit in A50.
As you say, A50 was designed to launch Aster and do so quickly. However, for the ABM mission, microseconds at launch matter less, so a Block 2 launched from an A70 would likely not suffer any measurable reduction in efficacy against its intended target.
And a vessel so-equipped would have the option of carrying MdCN alongside… which becomes an argument to buy A70 and MdCN in advance, knowing that there will be an Aster to fill them, in the future.
I think I’ve strayed into speculation, now 😉 But I don’t see A70 as a bad investment for a number of reasons, not least granting the RN an option of a home-grown ASROC based on Spearfish (which could fit in an A70 with an inch to spare). I suggest this wild idea because Mk.41 is on the RN’s wishlist for Type 26 because they want to embark TLAM and ASROC.
If we factor in the political dimension (which always gets the last word in defense procurement) and consider that we’re looking at increasing independence from US suppliers, a Spearfish ASROC doesn’t seem so far-fetched, alongside MdCN in an A70 silo that shares logistics and training with the existing stock of Sylver already in service, as opposed to adding a third type of VLS to the RN, and one over which the UK has less control.
Your recent posts have been a very detailed set of comments about this missle system
All very useful “stuff” = so many thanks!
Both Turkey and South Korea make alternative Mk41a clones.
Just a possibility to consider.
I understand that Japan licence builds actual mk41 systems. Are they allowed to sell to others or is it for local use only?
As understand RN only procuring the updated Block 0, the Block 1 that can intercept the limited range 600 km SRBMs whereas the French and Italians procuring Block 1NT with its new Ka-band seeker that allows intercepting up to 1,500 km short range IRBMs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JG2B-Ot9SL4
The Aster 30 Block 1NT is part of Sea Viper Evolution Phase 2. Let’s get the phase 1 sorted first, as it includes software upgrades to both Sampson and CMS to better enable ballistic missile defence.
Hi Davey, an aside but do you reckon the Aster SAMP/T might get a look in the GBAD requirement? Extra buy with reduced costs, shared pool of missiles, systems commonality, what’s not used for land can be used by the Navy and vice versa? France and Italy are investing in SAMP/T so it can’t be all that bad.
Expensive and low missile production rates. I’d rather see continued and accelerated work on the CAMM-MR and further Typhoon purchases. Especially as it appears Aster is unlikely to survive into the Type 83 in UK service.
Aster vs US kit vs MOD Dreamware — might a review be required given Donny John’s recent comments and actions?
Type 83 isnt even a program yet and you are saying they are ditching a missile system thats European co production and compatible with their existing radars and combat systems ?
More likely the opposite , if a land based BMD system for british army is needed , it will be Aster based
I think we see a British/American alternative. Likely a development of CAMM-MR.
That is, unless Aster is integrated into Mk41. But the RN is moving towards Mk41.
having more than one type of vertical launcher isnt an issue. They are a commodity
The pram comes after the baby , not the other way round.
This is a Danish frigate . Its got Mk41 plus MK59 VLS from Lockheed plus the harpoon launcher
The USN also has trainable system even though ESSM could be VLS, like RAM
They need to find practical ways to speed things up. I also wouldn’t write Aster off for the T83. Anything new different would have to be demonstratively better. Pending availability of CAMM-MR fo the UK it could make good sense to have SAMP/T and or both. Why wait? France and Italy seem to made quite a commitment to sea and land based Aster and considering relations with the US at the moment the UK has that option too.
So in conclusion we are one generation behind the French / Italians already?
Not a great look for the MOD / the Navy / UK PLC.
Who is running our naval AAW development — NHS England?
are cells of 24 or 48 really enough when the enemy is going to be throwing missiles, drones and aircraft at them like confetti surely 96 or 128 SAMs are the way forward
Depends how it’s deployed. Yes on it’s own it will be overwhelmed. But it’s more likely to be escorting the Carriers with a second Type 45. Not forgetting the fighters the carrier operates and the Type 23/26 frigates further out. Also it’s no easy task to coordinate a strike against an enemy actively trying to disrupt your plan. Knock out a few of their bombers and it’s a little less overwhelming.
Now, we need to have a MDBA factory build them in this country.
Pretty fair — unfortunately the Treasury told Thatcher that we don’t do manufacturing and she with her retail background was happy to go along with their dreams.
45 years of increasing irrelevance was the result.
Starmer better start rolling up his sleeves.
All the talk of failure rates and testing doesn’t matter a jot if the enemy fires 10 missiles at you and you can only guarantee knocking 5 of them out the sky. The other 5 are still going to sink you.
Yes it does — right first time / real world manufacturing means that they are cheaper and you can afford more of them.
10 incoming / 10 plus outgoing — you have a chance.
10 incoming / half your launchers empty / less than 10 outgoing — you are looking at the sore end of a complete slapping.
Treating missile production as a cottage industry with artisan builders in a converted barn in Hampshire or Sussex and a file to fit assembly vibe / test to absurdity and beyond quality regime is just MOD / UK MIC waste and laziness turned up to 11.
Oh Please. MBDA Bolton, juts one of their sites, is a new build location which preplaced the old De Haviland propellors site nearby ( despite the name were a leader in british missiles from the early 50s.)
Its current production includes
Sea Ceptor, Land Ceptor, Meteor, ASRAAM, Sea Venom, and Spear 3.
OK — new site …
Is it 20% production / 80% testing?
As mentioned previously what do we learn from all this testing?
Do we find out a long list of faults that need re-work?
Or do we just tick boxes because they pass?
If we find faults we should be able to improve the build quality / material selection.
If we find pass after pass then we can start to thrift and reduce the workload.
All this testing has to provide something useful.
UK missile successes — now what would they be?
From memory not a great export industry for Sea Cat missiles.
Sea Cat was very successful on export market.
Having the Thales MBDA consortium for European missiles-radars is a plus and absolutely going to continue
The dutch just found out the their version of USN SM-2 is no longer in production, so stuck with an obsolete system while still in service
Sea Cat — export market …
Your definition of success is different from mine.
And if it was a success then where did that success go?
Sea Wolf not up to the job outside of the RN?
We had something but in true GB PLC / engineering we could not develop it and we couldn’t sell it.
Same sorry story just about everywhere.
What is the going rate for an eight cell — 2 x 4 — Mk41 VLS system?
As an outsider it would appear to be pretty simple with some fancy steel.
Hull volume might be an issue but if you build big it should be pretty straight forward.
South Korea seem to do knock off.
Japan does a license build.
Either route useful to us?
Or do we boot the French up the erse and tell them to up their game?
Yeah we could “build big”hull to volume to increase space for more and larger VLS. But no doubt you’d then whinge when we then have to spend money enlarging our existing dry-docks to accommodate these ever-larger escorts.
(As it is the T45s were already ‘built big’ with lots of space to accommodate future weapons/sensors.)
Every decision has knock-on consequences, which is why off the top of the head ideas are rarely as simple as presented.
What dockyards would need their drydocks to be enlarged?
90 feet beam was a challenge in 1912.
Where did Albion and Bulwark go — they must be looking for work soon.
Top of the head ideas — not quite / concept design for an affordable RN.
You never know it might catch on.
Pushing parametric design / variational geometry for 25 years.
Big Auto took its time to get involved.
But it got there.
or if you want to read the much longer answer
During Gulf War One: i.e. the last properly big shooting match before Feb 2022
………so when we were firing lots and lots of missiles against a fully prepared enemy
…………the overall sucess rate for all types of guided missiles being fired by coalition (allied) forces was an overall hit rate of approx. 1 in 2 (50%)
The other 50% lived up to their name: i.e. by miss-ing
That was a big improvement from the previous hit rates – so up from approx one in four (25%) throughout the Vietnam War and then the 1973 Yom Kipper War
So, to use your own example……..
…….for any NATO shipborne AAD system to be able shoot down all 10 incoming enemy ASM missiles being aimed at you – a warship needs at least 20 of its own warshots “ready to go”
– and even that bare minimum figure assumes that all of your own ship’s radars and sensors and crew etc etc are all working correctly – so right up at fully 100% combat effectiveness
Because thesedays, a single hit by any modern ASM onto any Royal Navy warship – wot used to be called “a leaker” in the trade – would definitely render any RN ship “combat ineffective”
(even if that single ASM hit did not actually sink it)
——————-