Subscribe
Notify of
guest
163 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Roger Exwood

Best news I’ve had so far today.

X

Good news. We need to build more Sea Viper systems to be fitted to hulls to be used off our coast.

ETH

Aster block 1 brings defence against SRBMs, not ICBMs. Sea Viper would be pointless.

Fred the Frog

shh, you’ll upset him.

X

Should I report you to the site’s owner?

Cameron

What’s his age again? Lol

X

I suspect this is my old friend. He will get bored again.

Fred the Frog

Huh ? you have a friend ? well I never.

Fred the Frog

13.

Fred the Frog

Why not eh ? You seem to like to report everyone else on here after all. “mummy, mummy, they’re all picking on me mummy”. Lol.

X

What do you think Sea Viper is exactly? Sea Viper is the RN or UK name for PAAMS. And like all guided weapons system PAAMS consisted of sensors, central processing units, launchers and missiles. Sea Viper isn’t just Aster.

ETH

Right now, Sea Viper is just Aster. Next is CAMM. Unless you specify you want a new missile to be integrated, you cannot assume people reading your comment will know that.

Fred the Frog

Carefull, He’ll report you to his “Mummy”. X likes to do that a lot on here when shown up.

X

Sea Viper is PAAMS. I hate using Wikipedia. But………

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAAMS

The opening of the article says……

In 2016 France and Italy committed to developing the Aster 30 Block 1NT (New Technology) for their land-based SAMP-T ballistic missile defence (BMD). The Block 1NT missiles retain the same external form and compatibility with the Sylver VLS but have the ability to deal with both short and medium-range ballistic missiles (with an effective range of around 600km). The main addition is a new Ka-band radar seeker head for greater acquisition range and accuracy. There is also an Aster Block 2 in development to deal with intermediate-range missiles up to 3,000km.
Aster 30 will be evolved into a maritime variant to counter increasing threats posed by anti-ship ballistic missiles

Andrew Deacon

Any chance of adding an anti ship role to sea viper while there at it , can’t be more than a software update ?

zavve

Aster 30 will still have a very small warhead. Most likely less than Sea Venom.

Andrew Deacon

Pretty sure it won’t matter much at Mach 4 , it’s enough to tell any potential aggressor within 70 miles to think twice. Kinda reminds me of the documentary on a type 45 when a nato fleet was off Syria , if I recall correctly the Russians were approx 70 miles away, a potential dozen asters might well be a bigger deterrent than 8 sub sonic harpoons.

Cameron

I wonder what kinetic damage would be created to say a bridge of a warship at that speed.

Redshift

441 MegaJoules of KE at Mach 4 (approx 1400 m/s) using a mass of 450Kg, probably less though as I imagine that mass contains fuel.

According to this page

https://www.unitconverters.net/energy/megajoule-to-ton-explosives.htm

O.1 tons of explosive

Last edited 24 days ago by Clive Higginson
Just Me

Nothing, as SeaViper has no anti surface mode.

Jon

I’m not exactly sure what’s new here. I think it’s the contract signing, which is certainly good news.

However, the SVE upgrade to Block 1 has been previously announced, including an upgrade of the Sampson radar. We are told this isn’t Block 1NT, so I don’t think anything radical has happened.

Isn’t the headline is pure MoD spin, given Dutch trials of SM-2 earlier this year on an Iver Huitfeldt class frigate, and their upgrade of the SMART-L radar?

Last edited 30 days ago by Jon
Watcherzero

I believe they signed a deal alongside Italy to refurbish Block 1 stocks last year. Whats new is they have signed a second deal for BMD ship integration and possibly re-specced some of them as Block 1 NT.

Jon

Thanks. That’s clearer.

ETH

Nothing about 1NT yet. The contract signed last year only ever mentioned a mid-life refresh, it’s only recently that that was confirmed to be to Block 1 standard.

4thwatch

Great news, but we can’t wait till 2026-32. We might need them a lot sooner.

Nick B

this is the problem with everything the MoD announces. Its always Jam in the 2030s and that might not happen (and certainly wont happen at current budget proces) given several years of high inflation and the current rapid increase in borrowing rates.

Hulahoop7

Just need to tow the test barge up the Thames

Rudeboy

Long since gone…

Test barge Longbow was scrapped in Turkey some time ago…back in 2013. She was retired in 2004 and stored.

She’d been around since 1978, originally used for VL Sea Wolf in 1985. Stored after that in 1989 and re-activated for PAAMS in 2002.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/360808/20140926-Former_Trials_Barge_Longbowl.pdf

Supportive Bloke

She was getting a bit long in the tooth before we get too over excited about things.

Fortunately it isn’t that hard to lease a jack legged platform and put some ISO containers onto it.

The amount of physical testing that is done these days is much smaller than it once was. At one point you fired off loads of missiles for various types of tests.

Mind you if you go back far enough you fired off as few as possible as you didn’t want to find out too much…..well certainly not at demanding targets……..

horatio

Total waste of money in buying Aster 30 block 1NT for type 45 as anti-ship ballistic missile cannot possibly work and is a pure communist propaganda, this has been stated and proven by arguments time after time by this what his name, construction bloke guy in this forum.

Last edited 29 days ago by horatio
donald_of_tokyo

Disagree. It is really there. If you look at the worlds’ movement, you can easily see it. Now so many nations are investing on hyper-sonic and/or ballistic missiles, or defense against them. Clear and present danger, it is.

Not saying it is cheap and numerous. High speed is very very expensive, thus not in number, for sure. Aster 30 blk1 (and near future possible purchase of Blk1 NT) is a good move.

Supportive Bloke

What are we defending against ATM?

1) North Korean efforts that you could track with a stainless salad bowl and WWII radio set. I jest slightly but tracking these wold be a doddle. These make the Russian missiles look sophisticated.

2) Iranian SCUD retreads and SCUD+…..nothing to get excited about

3) Russian ‘hypersonic’ missiles which are terminal dive hypersonics which are cold war tech warmed up. These are effectively a very short range ballistic trajectory as they only pop up to go down fast using gravitationally gained momentum in the terminal phase so really these are very short range ballistic missiles.

Against all of the above the A30 provides a highly credible hit-to-kill.

What else is real?

What else are we defending against: Putins wonder weapons?

You can assume that all the Russian and Chinese tests have been observed by satellite and other means.

Simon

I’m puzzled, ballistic missiles can hit moving targets? If that was the case American carrier fleets would be null and void

X

Not A Boffin………..

horatio

I am sure not a boffin, referring to expert comments by some guy called… constrictive supporting bloke…? The name however eluded me.

Last edited 28 days ago by horatio
X

Right! 🙂

donald_of_tokyo

A realistic and modest “boost” on BMD on T45. Aster 30 blk1 is not the best solution for BMD, but it will do good, because now RN totally lacks its capability.

Future with Aster 30 Blk1 NT is foreseen.

But, Aster 30 Blk2, which I understand comparable to SM-6 blk1B (hopefully), is far in the horizon. It might be easier to adopt SM-6 blk1B for T45.

Land-based BMD needs longer coverage. SM-3 or Arrow serieses will be the solution. I understand Aster30 Blk2 is NOT for that purpose.

Supportive Bloke

A realistic and modest “boost” on BMD on T45. Aster 30 blk1 is not the best solution for BMD, but it will do good, because now RN totally lacks its capability.”

Hmme……

As the alternatives other than SM3 don’t exist either there isn’t any alternative?

May I propose an alliterative wording?

A realistic and modest “boost” on BMD on T45. Aster 30 Blk1 is not the best only solution that can realistically be added to T45 for BMD in the short to medium term, but it will do good, because otherwise RN will totally lacks this capability until something better is fully developed.

SM3 is roughly equivalent to A30.

SM6 is a massive missile by comparison.

Other than SM6 the alternative is to wait for a capability to emerge? At least this way RN are not once again FFBNW and can gain experience with this.

To have radars on the platform that are highly capably is a really, really good start. Maybe once A30 Blk II comes in that will be the upgrade pathway. However, I think that requires the longer tubes?

donald_of_tokyo

Thanks

1: I think, for T45, Aster 30 Blk1 NT is the best solution, not Blk 1 for BMD. Introduction of Aster 30 Blk 1 as BMD missiles on T45 will take years, and I understand it is interim solution. The real BMD power comes when RN orders Blk1 NT, and it is very near future. Let’s hope Blk1 NT be ordered by, say, 2025 (which will be even before the blk1 be fielded on T45)

2: Aster 30 Blk2 is roughly equivalent to SM-3 blk1B, not the current model, SM-3 Blk IIA. Big difference. But, this is not a big problem for RN. SM-3 is going very high level, even aiming at ICBM kill. SM-3 will be a good option for UK land-based BMD, because it can provide wider coverage area.

T45 BMD must focus primarily on CVTF escort. Long-range Ballistic missile is expensive and less in number, but CVTF may face dozens of IRBM-class missiles. Aster 30 Blk1/Blk1 NT are the best suited there.

3: SM-6 blk1B is very massive missile, agree, even used as hypersonic anti-surface missile. Can even sink a naval ship. It is a different class of long-range AAW and ASuW missile, none of the Aster 30 series cover.

I think, Aster 30 blk1 + blk1 NT for RN, and SM-3 for land-based BMD will be a good way for UK. If needed, Aster 30 blk2 may also come for RN, but I’m afraid anti-ship missile is rapidly moving from fast but simple ballistic, to hyper-sonic agile ones. Thus, Aster 30 blk1 NT might be a good “all-rounder” solution. Its short leg is not a big problem for navy.

Independently, adding SM-6 blk1B as hyper-sonic ASuM, which can also be used as very long-range AAW “sniper”, might be interesting option for T45 (although not highly likely).

Last edited 29 days ago by donald_of_tokyo
Supportive Bloke

I think you are underestimating A30 and maybe overestimating SM3!

Glass Half Full

SB, you seem to be confusing your Standard Missiles?
In order of ascending capability SM-2 -> SM-6 -> SM-3.

Per your previous post SM3 is definitely not equivalent to A30.
SM-3 is intended to intercept from short- up to intermediate-range ballistic missiles.

Duker

And SM-3 has only been proven in ‘guided tests’ where the target is slower and not accompanied by decoys that are used in real ICBMs

Netking

SM-3 has only been proven in ‘guided tests’ where the target is slower and not accompanied by decoys that are used in real ICBMs”

Only?

Which other missile in existence anywhere can manage to do what you just described?

Duker

Because every one thinks it can hit a real ICBM and it will prevent a weapon from landing. It cant despite being otherwise promised

Netking

I’m fairly certain no US military official promised this. In fact, it was made clear that the SM-3 intercept test was mostly to prove that the SM-3 had the performance to actually intercept an ICBM representative target. Also, I’m not aware of the target being slower as you stated. The test was scripted as is almost always the case at this point in testing out a new weapon system. The intercept team knew when the target would be fired and from which direction the target would be coming from but again, from what I understand this is quite normal for far less complex weapon systems. They have since stated that another, more complex test is already planned and these test will become progressively more challenging and realistic to prove/disprove whether the SM-3 is a viable anti ICBM weapon.

What is being missed by many it seems (certainly not the Russians or the Chinese) is the strategic implications of this actually working. If they can get this to work reliably and with the numbers of SM-3s that can be produced, this significantly erodes the nuclear second strike capability of Russia and China and basically puts mutually assured destruction in doubt. Watch this space closely.

Supportive Bloke

Ah, yes thanks for pointing that error out.

I meant A30 is equivalent to SM2.

That said the Standard Missiles come in a lot of flavours and blended flavours.

donald_of_tokyo

I understand Aster 30, both Blk1 and Blk1 NT, is better than SM-2?

(the reason why I noted nothing on SM-2 in my post).

Supportive Bloke

Somewhere comparable or better.

As we don’t know the full performance specs it is hard to be sure!

But I take the point.

But I did make an error about SM3 performance so the correction was justified.

donald_of_tokyo

Thanks

“we don’t know the full performance specs it is hard to be sure!”

Exactly…

Jon

The different blocks of SM-2 have different functions. For BMD, you compare against the modified SM-2 block IV. I grabbed some numbers off the Internet, but I’m not sure how correct they are.

SM-2 Block IV (RIM-156A)
Range: 240-370 km (against aircraft perhaps. Can’t find the specific intercept range against missiles)
Max height: 33 km

Aster 30 Block 1NT
Intercept range: 150 km
Max height: 20 km

I don’t think you can rule out SM-2 as worse than Aster on those figures, but the SM-2 is older tech and I’d expect the Asters to have a better probability of interception.

Last edited 28 days ago by Jon
Glass Half Full

Is the USN still using SM-2 Block IV (RIM-156A)? Seems like that is likely to have been fully replaced by SM-6, starting at just under a decade ago.

Jon

I think so. It seems to have been on it’s way out ever since it was introduced, and I keep reading that it’s being phased out in favour of the SM-6, but I’ve not seen anything that says it actually has yet. Even a write up from last year (Centre for Strategic and International Studies) still said it was being phased out, not that it had actually gone. Wikipedia still has them on the Arleigh Burkes and the Ticonderogas. I don’t know for sure though; my having to resort to quoting Wikipedia should speak volumes about my uncertainty.

They didn’t build that many in the first place, but it was only declared operational in 1999 and I think they were modified and renewed at one point (at least most of them). So still operational in 2022 is certainly possible.

Last edited 27 days ago by Jon
zavve

I think the future lineup of Standard Missiles for the USN is SM-2MR Block IIIC -> SM-6 Block IA (SM-2ER Block IV Airframe with AMRAAM Seeker) -> SM3 Block IIA

Last edited 26 days ago by zavve
Glass Half Full

Somewhere in that mix they will also have SM-6 Block IB, assuming the development program continues through to operational deployment. Seems like it would replace Block 1A over time.

zavve

The USN is marketing SM-6 Blk IB as an ASuW weapon. I don’t really understand why but that’s what they are doing.

Glass Half Full

Thanks for the clarification. Some further reading and I also see the USN ASuW focused use, which seemed to be the positioning some time back anyway.

It seems strange to limit its flexibility like that, but then I also read some speculation that the smaller strakes required to still fit in Mk 41 might affect AAW maneuverability. The smaller strakes being dictated by the increased 21″ dia motor. I guess we’ll have to see.

Just Me

SM-2 has been relaunched as is a much improved missile.

ETH

Aster block 2 doesn’t (and won’t) exist. No mention from MBDA for years and the new TWISTER programme has nearly the same requirements (which, additionally, will be designed for land-based use).

Just Me

ASTER 30 Block 2 is so far over the Horizon, it won’t be seen for at least a decade, if at all.

Teun van Blaricum

They already are beaten to that by the Royal Netherlands navy, they can ready track and give fire solution to ICBM’s in space. They are one step away from having the kill possibility too; by ordering the SM3. A Missile the 7provinciën class can include without any modification.

The 7Provincien already have shown it has the capability in coop with the US navy.

Supportive Bloke

A Missile the 7provinciën class can include without any modification.”

If it requires zero modification that would be beyond incredible.

There would have been a radar and a CMS software update was well as probably some controller cabinet upgrades. Then maybe the little issue of ‘rules’ to be determined……

donald_of_tokyo

Agreed. SM-3 series needs dedicated aiming protocol and control sequence. Having Mk.41 VLS is one of the easiest point of having SM-3. “The other part” costs a lot and takes time.

Note that, Dutch navy even decided NOT to introduce ESSM Blk2 (active radar homing version) to two of their four FFGs, because of cost and out-of-service date. Only two of them will carry it.

Jon

In last year’s test, didn’t the Dutch ship relay in-flight targetting information to the missile? The write-ups were a bit ambiguous, but I thought that’s what happened. The US ship fired it and the Dutch ship took over.

I know that some of the Thales NL radars uplink to US missiles and it wouldn’t surprise me if the SMART-L MM was already capable of talking to SM-3.

Last edited 28 days ago by Jon
Jon

I found a less ambiguous write up that states

“The Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile ship also used the track data from the long-range surveillance radar [the SMART-L MM] to guide the SM-3 interceptor”

So it seems control wasn’t handed over after all.

ETH

The Dutch ship communicated to the Arleigh Burke which communicated to the missile in-flight. Engage On Remote.

Jon

They could also decide to get SM-2 block IV, which gives theatre BMD. As the frigates already field SM-2 block III, that might be their next step.

ETH

SM2 Block IV was SM6’s predecessor. They won’t be exported or manufactured anymore.

Callum

They already are beaten to that by the Royal Netherlands navy

 They are one step away

If you’re one step away, you can’t defend against ballistic missiles, thus you don’t have BMD capability. OPVs have radars, that doesn’t make them air defence ships. With no disrespect to them, the RNLN doesn’t have maritime BMD capability.

Jack65

Problem here is time frame…..at the moment 3 of the 6 are involved in PIP with Dauntless still not on sea trials….when on earth can we realistically expect upgrades to get done???

Steven Alfred Rake

I’m glad some one has seen the elephant in the room.
On paper the T45’s are a good bit of kit but the energy generation department seems to be their Achilles heal.
Only my own thought’s but I think the money would be better spent of bringing forward the T83 programme with the BMD and a good anti-ship system on board. If we based the deign on the T26 we could have the first one in the water before the PIP is compleated (if it ever is).

N-a-B

No. You couldn’t. Aside from the minor problem that there’s no capacity to build a T83 in parallel with the Batch 2 T26, the T26 hull – and propulsion system – isn’t set up in any way shape or form for a Force AAW ship of the future.

The energy generation department will be fine. the Achilles heel is actually the logistic support for the class – which is the primary reason that Dauntless is taking so long.

Steven Alfred Rake

So having the engines cut out when an extra load is introduced to the main drive is OK. The PIP is only going to help with the auxiliary engines (3 bigger diesel instead of 2) so when the main engines cut out the diesels should be able to cope and not shut down completely as they do at the moment but there is still going to be a loss of power. Do we really what that in our main Air defence of the fleet as the more load we put on the main engines the more likely it is that there will be a shutdown, Not good if you are the fleets one and only defence against airborne incoming.
But hay, it has been a long time since the powers that be actually gave a f–k about little things like that!!!

N-a-B

If only you were party to the actual details….

Steven Alfred Rake

Don’t tell me the T45 are all singing and all dancing, that why they have spent more time along side that at sea.

N-a-B

They don’t sing or dance. It’s your understanding of the PIP and adjacent projects, what the issues actually are and why the DG capacity is being uprated that’s awry.

Steven Alfred Rake

So please enlighten us all

N-a-B

Those of us who know won’t be going into detail on a public forum.

Let’s just say that characterising the issue as engines cutting out when “an extra load is introduced to the main drive” is not what happens.

Steven Alfred Rake

By “not” fixing the main issue (what ever it is) we are just throwing good money after bad, and it dose not stop the fact that the 6 T45’s have spent more time along side than at sea in their illustrious history.

N-a-B

Who says we’re “not fixing the main issue”?

Steven Alfred Rake

The PIP is only concerned with replacing the auxiliaries IE taking out 2 deisel and replacing them with 3 larger ones so that they can handle the load when/if the main engine cuts out as it has been doing due to over heating issues. This will help but the original design fault will still exist so until some one takes the decision to replace the main engines then maybe we could have a Destroyer worth its salt.

N-a-B

The WR21 does not cut out due to “overheating issues”.

I repeat – you misunderstand what the issues actually are. PIP replaces 4MW of DG capacity with 9MW, which allows different plant states to be adopted. The EIP deals with some of the adjacent reliability issues.

The reason the T45s are taking so long has very little to do with the actual propulsion plant and much more to do with the ILS.

Steven Alfred Rake

Yeh what ever, yet anouther believer!!

N-a-B

Yeah, whatever. A wiki-enabled internet warrior.

Don’t let your Mum catch you “enthusing” over those sites.

Steven Alfred Rake

Don’t do Wiki old boy and my mum passed away a few years ago, the trolls on this site come in many guises, you profess to know all this is to know about the problems currently on the T45’s yet you have no answers to those problems and yet you like to try and belittle people who are trying to put forward solutions to a problem that should have been rectified long before vessels went down the slips. Ineptitude at it’s worst now supported by by an army of trolls hiding behind their key boards.

N-a-B

The “problems” are being answered. that you don’t like them or agree with them is neither here nor there.

There are very real practical reasons why it can’t be done at the wave of a wand and all the ships PIPed tomorrow. Or indeed why building (non-existent) Type 83s, or basing them on a completely unsuitable design – which still couldn’t be built in the next few years – are not “solutions” as you put it, but fantasies.

You’re not Mark Francois by any chance are you?

Steven Alfred Rake

You are right to mention the time it will take to get all 6 vessels up to PIP standards (quite some time) but these vessels have been operating with the current problems since HMS Daring was compleated in 2008 and yet some 14 years later and nearly half way through their service life they are supposedly being “put right”
The T45 is half of what it was supposed to be when first designed both in number and its ability with a problematic power train to boot.
So as I originally stated it is time to look at a replacement.

Unlike several people on this site I do not hide behind other names.

Andy a

Replace with what? A ship that will take minimum of 3 years to design, 2 to build and we have no yard time for 15 years as t45 exist and we require t26 more

DaveyB

I know it would have cost a shed load more money. But is that the only reason why they never looked at replacing the WR21 with the MT30? As far as I’m aware the MT30 doesn’t use a recouperator./intercooler combination and seems to be a lot more reliable?

Last edited 26 days ago by DaveyB
Paul T

I don’t know the specific differences per se but think how good the T45 could have been if the MT30 was available during design and build.

Just Me

The preferred option was the LM2500 as fitted to the Horizon relatives.
have a word with Geoff Hoon as to why an unproven GT was fitted against best advice.

N-a-B

That’s because it wasn’t supposed to be the only prime mover operating at any one time, which means it doesn’t need to be ICR.

It’s also much bigger (with alternator) than the WR21, as are it’s uptakes and downtakes for the increased power delivered. Which means it would be very difficult to retro-fit in a ship not designed for it.

Just Me

Wrong

X

You’ve railed against IEP for an age.

N-a-B

Not IEP per se. IEP is eminently sensible.

The concept of the WR21 ICR GT and specifically the idea of single engine flat fuel curve operation is not.

X

The concept of the WR21 ICR GT

Probably the stupidest thing to happen to the Royal Navy.

Jon

Surely the fastest way to get a trial BMD system would be to install strike length Mk 41s or Sylver 70 on one of the Type 45s or even one of the Type 31s (along with some form of distributed kill chain, in preference to upgraded radar). This would allow progression from Aster 30 Blk 0 through to Aster 30 Blk 2 and give the navy institutional knowledge ahead of the Type 83s, which might be some time in coming. I can’t see why energy requirements would be such a big deal. They are rocket powered, not railguns.

Cameron

Maybe stretched type 26?, and would 26 Ned new radars ect yeah?

N-a-B

Stretching a T26 would be an extraordinarily bad idea. The length is already risky in terms of structural configuration…..

That’s before you think about damaged stability.

Fred the Frog

not to mention weld deformation.

X

We could just buy FREMM’s…… 🙂

Rob N

Why… we need a new hull for T83 as current thinking indicates that a frigate hull will not be big enough. You need to factor in the increased missile count, new weapons, more power generation for DEWs and room for growth. FRENMS or T26 are just too small.

X

The conversation was about stretching T26 not replacing T45. Note I used a smiley to indicate that I was joking too.

The terms frigate and destroyer aren’t fixed terms. In the US it might be a question of size. But here in the UK it is about primary or first rate capability. A destroyer has area air warfare capability. And a frigate is a primarily an anti-submarine ship. The terms are becoming increasingly meaningless now. Most FREMM’s can fire ASTER 30.

It would be stupid just to try to replace lacklustre T45. The next ship needs to replace both T45 and T26. The Italian DDX program looks promising.

comment image

DaveyB

So you mean a cruiser? 🙂

I still think the Italian ship is too small in the hangar/mission bay area. For a ship to be “good” at both ASW and AAW roles it will need to use both manned and unmanned ship launched vehicles. These will take up a lot of space. Think about the amount of space a couple of semi-inflatables take up, then times it by at least two for the unmanned surface vessels used for sub-hunting. The T26’s mission bay is huge for a reason. If we now include a manned medium sized helicopter plus another couple of VTOL UAVs. The aft end of the ship is getting pretty crowded. Which will necessitate a large flight deck. The ship isn’t going to be small, possibly getting close to 200m long!

X

comment image

DaveyB

Ha, the original Moskva class helicopter carrier. Perhaps a variation of this or the Tiger class after they were converted.

OkamsRazor

Lacklustre T45? What planet have you been living on when the pre-eminent AAW on the planet is “lacklustre”. When the geriatric platform that is the AB delivers it’s next generation radar capability in 2025, it will have reached a level of parity according to most accounts, prior to the T45 radar upgrade.

X

comment image

Last edited 26 days ago by X
X

You are confusing Sea Viper with the barge that carries it.

Rob N

Not quite sure why you keep putting up French designs. You can be sure the next T45 will be a British design. That will be a good thing reflecting the UK’s growing success in the naval ship export market with T3026 and T31 exports. We just have to avoid US intercoolers this time.

Why would we buy French we can design and build our own kit thanks. Bot to mention supporting UK jobs and ensuring we can do all the spares and servicing without reliance on another country.

DaveyB

Now go wash your mouth out with soap, you dirty little heathen. 🙂

X

You darn kids! Caught again. 🙂

AlexS

Yeah, it is Italian…

Rob N

T45 can function without PIP and has done tours in hot climates. PIP is the ultimate solution to the power issue. It will take a few decades to get T83 into service and until it appears we need to defend the fleet. The Aster upgrade does not need a dry dock it would only need new missiles, a ship computer update and the SAMPSON radar head upgrading – which could be done by taking off the old one and putting in a new one.

All the upgrades are not that intrusive. What I would like to see is PIP combined with the Sea Ceptor and SAMPSON upgrade this would do the whole thing in one go and ultimately save ship out of service time,

Steven Alfred Rake

You are right they can function with out PIP (and have to at the moment) but how long is the PIP going to take to upgrade all 6 vessels I do not thing it will be compleated in this decade and as you rightly pointed out the upgrades could be done while along side but it is pointless unless the power generation issues are fixed.

donald_of_tokyo

RN annoucement:

…“The ability to almost double the size of the missile outload on a Type 45 will be a real game changer for ships facing near-peer adversaries, particularly with the surface mode offered by Ceptor which will significantly bolster our ability to defeat fast-attack craft,” he explained….

So, anti-surface mode of Sea Ceptor is now official, not a future dream, looks like. Good to see it.

Duker

“‘Defeat fast attack craft’…those speed boats better watch out

Supportive Bloke

It was slipped out about 12 months ago.

It is a relatively straight forward upgrade.

ETH

Yes, it was also tested recently.

Cameron

So the ships will be decades old before they get these needed upgrades….what a joke.

X

Yes. We have been caught out because government never thought there would be an enemy to fight at sea for decades if ever. Never mind that constant clamour of ‘we don’t need to do that because we are on the USN’s side…’

Fred the Frog

Some on here never thought Putin would Invade Ukraine either, just sayin (again) “Experts” eh, what are they like ?

X

Somebody didn’t think the Biden White House would be so stupid as to tell their puppets in Kiev to launch a genocidal assault on the ethnic Russians of the Donbas knowing full well what it would mean economically for the West. But I am an expert and we are all living now with the repercussions of the Biden White House’s stupidity.

Louis

😂😂😂.
I cannot tell if your being serious or not but if you aren’t you are a top tier comedian.

X

Who knows…….. 😉

Rob N

Not quite sure if you are joking or working for Putin’s failed press department. News Flash – no one believes a thing Russia and its stooges say anymore. They even say stuff like we will not invade Ukraine, then a few days later they invade…

I hope they are not paying you in rubles….

X

🙂

AlexS

They did not navigated much, so they should be in a good state for a long life.

Erik

Simply not true. The Dutch navy has already demonstrated this capabilty. Their LCF frigates are capable of detecting, tracking and provide a firing solution to destroy incoming balastic missiles. Their new SMART L mm/nn radar can detect missiles at a distance of 2000km.

Last edited 27 days ago by Erik
Duker

of course they would say that. But in real world situations no navy has detected , tracked and destroyed an actual ICBM. Even the USN describes their targets as ‘near ICBM’
“In Tuesday’s test, the latest version of an Aegis SM-3 missile was fired from a U.S. Navy destroyer situated in the Pacific, northeast of Hawaii. Its target was a mock ICBM that had been launched from a U.S. test range at Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands.
The target missile was not equipped with decoys or other sophisticated systems of the kind that a U.S. missile interceptor might face in a real attack on the U.S. homeland.’
Some sources say the mock ICBM was only travelling at half the speed of a real ICBM

Jon

ICBMs aren’t the target. It’s short and medium range ballistic missiles delivering conventional warheads.

Rob N

Yes we need a system that will protect carriers against Russian/Chinese anti-ship ballistic missiles. This should do the job….

Erik

True! However the SM-3 is the only missile able to destroy an ICBM in space. The Aster 1 NT is not capable of leaving the earth astmophere. The Type 45 will therefore not have the same ability as the American and Dutch navy. However the Dutch navy will not buy the SM-3 missile. But the Belgian navy probably will. Due to the fact that the Belgian and Dutch navies have almost completely merged into one, they will have that capability.

Missile defence is actually a farce. There are not enough SM-3 missiles to stop a full attack on the US. And even if one or two ICBMs will get through, the shield will have failed. These two missiles (upto 20 MIRV) will completely destroy the country.

DaveyB

To be fair a lot of the exoatmospheric targets used are launched from old Minutemen missiles. Yes, they have an inert warhead, but it is still a re-entry vehicle. So in essence you could call the target and missile an ICMB

ETH

The wording of the MoD announcement was the first single-ship sensor to shooter BMD capability.

Erik

That is not true. It will not have a true BMD capabilty because the Aster 1 NT does not have the capabilty to shoot down an ICBM / SLBM. The Aster 1 NT missile can not leave the earth’s atmosphere, a SM-3 can. Therefore the statement of the MOD is not correct.

Last edited 27 days ago by Erik
X

What is your definition of space then? What is SM-3’s exo-atmospheric ceiling?

Erik

The definition of space is debatible but it is generally accepted that space starts at an altitude of 100km, the Kármánline.

The flight data of the SM-3 is as follows:
Operational range: Block IA/B: 700 km (378 miles)
Block IIA/B: 2,500 km (1,350 miles)
Flight ceiling: Block IA/B: 500 km (311 miles)
Block IIA/B: 1,500 km (933 miles)

That is well into space. These missiles are also capable of destroying satelites.

Last edited 26 days ago by Erik
Duker

Range is not the same as altitude

interesting detail that the SM-3 block II increases the missile body diameter to 21 in from 13.5 in.

Erik

Please read my comment again. It states flight ceiling as well!!

DaveyB

The current SM6 is said to be capable of reaching 120,000ft altitude. The general consensus for SM3 is that it can only engage targets above 200,000ft. This is why the Chinese in particular state that their hypersonic glide vehicle (HGV) cannot be intercepted as the fly at altitudes between 120,000ft and 200,000ft.

To counter this Raytheon are developing a wider diameter 1st stage booster for the SM6. Thereby allowing it to intercept HGVs flying above 120,000ft.

The SM3 was given a bigger 1st stage booster to further increase its altitude. This is to allow it to intercept ICBM and their payloads in the medium orbital altitude. So not only can it intercept the released re-entry vehicles. But also the ICBM as it transits to the release point.

There is not a lot of information on Aster’s true altitude engagement, with some sources claiming it can only reach 80,000ft. Some of these sources claim it for the standard Aster 30, whilst others claim it for the Block 1NT.

If you compare Aster with SM6, you will see a massive disparity in the diameter and overall size of SM6’s 1st stage booster to Aster’s. If Aster wants to have the same capabilities as SM6, it will need a much bigger booster.

X

It is going to reach a point where militaries will have to start looking at (sub-)orbital platforms for these missiles. Again.

X

But if Aster does the job it does the job. I am with you to be honest on AEGIS and SM-x missiles. If it were me that is what the RN would be using not PAAMS. It is another example of how we diverge with the USN for stupid European unity reason.

Erik

I agree, but only if it can destroy a wide range of ballistic missiles. But I personally prefer the SM-6 and SM-3 missiles. They offer a wider range of altitudes which they can cover.

I think it is a mistake not to buy these missiles. But it is probably a budget issue. These missiles are very expensive.

X

We should have jumped on the Aegis train June 15th, 1982.

We might not be able to buy the missiles but we have the base system. The Danes are only just shooting SM-2’s from the IH after how many years in service?

Erik

The AEGIS system in combination with the SPY-1D is very limited in its field of view. The RN would be much better of buying the new SMART-L MM/NN version. The older version is already in use with the RN. It is has a far wider field of view.

Last edited 26 days ago by Erik
Rob N

AEGIS and US missiles are only now catching up with Sea Viper and in ABM terms are slightly better off. The Sea Viper evolution will put T45 back on top again. The addition of A30 B1, then A30 1NT and A30 B2 will give the UK capabilities at least on a par with the US if not better. The ASTER missile is technologically more advanced then SM family in terms of hit to kill effect.

However perhaps the time has come for the UK to build a next generation SAM using technology from ASTER, Meteor with Japanese radar tech and perhaps input from Sweden.

A naval SAM with the Meteor power plant, advanced manoeuvring like ASTER and a UK/Japanese AESA radar.

Netking

I don’t believe the aster missiles employ “Hit to Kill at all. The only missile that currently use Hit To Kill are the SM-3 and Thaad. Also it’s being extremely kind to say the SM missiles are only slightly better off in the ABM capability when the aster missiles do not as yet have any ABM capability at all.

DaveyB

That’s not true. Aster has been used on a significant number of trials and live fire exercises, where the threat to be intercepted was a ballistic missile. They have successfully shot down a host of Black and Silver Arrow air launched ballistic target missiles.

The Black Arrow in particular is supposed to mimic the performance of a SCUD type short range ballistic missile. That will hit the ground at speeds of around Mach 5. The Silver Arrow has a bigger booster to attain a higher altitude, it can hit the ground at speeds approaching Mach 6.

In most of the trials the inert Aster made a direct hit on the target missile.

Netking

Thank you for correcting me on this as it is not often I see this capability promoted for the Aster series of missiles, probably because its limited to short range missiles which is still a very vital capability. I do think there is some confusion with terminology as well. “Hit to Kill” usually means a kill vehicle impacting the target as opposed to a warhead that explodes when it gets close enough. I have never seen the claim by mbda that the aster missiles employs hit to kill technology.

Just Me

Host of 1

Just Me

Yes they are, the tiny warhead has to pretty much hit the target to stop it. It’s warhead is no bigger than SeaWolf.

Just Me

Nope, nothing like correct.
SM-6 runs rings around ASTER and has an AAW, ASuW and ABM capability.

X

I never understand why comments like that one get posted. We shouldn’t have bought this version but that one? So what? Back in the dark past after a naval air war it was readily apparent that the RN’s view on topic was too limited. Aegis isn’t the best. But Aegis is used by the USN and our allies and will still be in development when PAAMS has become old.

Erik

My comment was about updating the radar system, it wasn’t about changing it to a completely different system.

The Royal Navy already uses a version of the SMART-L (S1850M) on the Type 45 and on the carriers. Installing an update would be a smart choice.

Last edited 24 days ago by Erik
Netking

“The AEGIS system in combination with the SPY-1D is very limited in its field of view. The RN would be much better of buying the new SMART-L MM/NN version. The older version is already in use with the RN. It is has a far wider field of view.”

Do you have a source for this?

Erik

The SPY-6(V)1 will provide Arleigh Burke-class destroyers with something that was badly needed for some time now – dual-band functionality. Currently, the DDG-51 class ships use the SPY-1 as its primary sensor and have no secondary volume search radar. This means that, for example, when the ship is conducting Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) with high-elevation scans, it cannot conduct anti-ship cruise missile defense with low-elevation scans (narrow field of view!!). The Type 45 destroyer gets around this issue by using the Sampson AESA radar as its multi-function sensor with the Thales S1850M PESA radar as its secondary volume search sensor. AMDR will leapfrog the US Navy’s destroyer ahead of the Type 45 in terms of radar capabilities with its dual-band radar (Except for the height at which it is mounted. The Type 45’s Samspon is still mounted somewhat higher than the Burke’s arrays. The Thale’s S1850 radar on the Royal Navy’s Type 45 destroyers operates in the L-band. The SMART-L demonstrated in the exercise formidabel shield 2021 that it is able to detect and track ballistic missiles and at the same time is able to track and destroy incoming anti-ship missiles.

One obvious advantage is that AMDR is of AESA design, which offers greater power output, multiple steerable beams, and greater electronic protection compared to PESA. That is why it is strong advisable to upgrade the S1850M PESA radar to the AESA version. It looks quite simimular but is uses the latest AESA GaN technology! What applies to the SPY-6 also applies to the SMART-L, same technology! It will give the Type 45 a detection range of 2000km when it comes to detecting incoming ballistic missiles! It can even detect satellites.

Raytheon company states it is able to detect a target with half the radar cross section (RCS) at twice the distance compared to SPY-1.

More recently, the US Navy’s described the 37 radar modular assemblies of the AMDR as SPY-6, equating to 40 times the sensitivity of SPY-1.

Scott Spence, Raytheon’s Senior Director of Naval Radar Systems, states that “It’s 70 times more sensitive than the current radar.

Marcase

The RNLN already has BMD and TMD capability with 2 of its 4 (of which 1 is working up, 1 in extended 1yr maintenance) LCF frigates; their SMART-L radars are being replaced/updated to the SMART-L/MM variant for improved BMD/TMD tracking plus the full SM3 buy will finally go through. There was a hush-hush agreement with the USN to have half a dozen SM3s earmarked for the RNLN for “emergency use”.
comment image

Jon

Somewhat off topic, but not entirely. Taiwan has been testing anti-ship missiles for its coastguard, just in case. The HF II missile has a 180kg warhead and a range of 250km, bigger than NSM. It seems when they build ffbnw, they actually test it out to make sure it works.

It’s a bit embarrassing that an island we don’t even recognize as a country test anti-ship missiles for their OPVs, and the Royal Navy can’t keep any on their destroyers.

X

It’s not off topic. The RN is a mess. Thanks to our Political Class. It makes me very angry.

Just Me

ASTER can hit a SCUD, nothing more.
it’s not a true ABM capability.

ETH

Fortunately its SRBMs that pose the biggest threat to surface ships.

Dangermouse

By the time this is developed and fitted the Type 45 will be near its out of service date.

Just Me

ASTER will see out it’s RN career on T45.
Its an evolutionary dead end that will not find its way onto future RN platforms.