The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[beegee]

...but AFAIK there is no version of Aster 30 in development which is intended to provide the sort of performance found in SM-6.

Well, there is Aster NT (new technology). The Block 1 NT missile is capable of shooting down ballistic missiles with a 1000km range and the Block 2 missile is capable of shooting down ballistic missiles with a 3000km range.

The UK already has a degree of air defence missile capability overlap between Sea Ceptor and Aster 15

That's a good point. I wonder if there has been any thought given to modifying the T45s to carry Sea Ceptor as a replacement for Aster 15. The obvious benefits would be a lighter, cheaper missile capable of being quad packed in a single A50 cell. That would allow for more missiles to be carried with a potentially better mix of long to short ranged weapons. I guess it depends on whether the RN thinks the cost of modifying the T45s is worth the benefits.

 

[hauritz]

I thought there were already plans to replace the Aster15 with the Sea Ceptor.

I heard it mentioned a couple of years ago but there seems to be so much toing and froing with the Royal Navy that I am never sure of whether any of these plans ever get implemented.

 

[Todjaeger]

Well, there is Aster NT (new technology). The Block 1 NT missile is capable of shooting down ballistic missiles with a 1000km range and the Block 2 missile is capable of shooting down ballistic missiles with a 3000km range.

Given that the Block 1 NT and Block 2 are intended for BMD, I would consider them more in line with an SM-3.

That's a good point. I wonder if there has been any thought given to modifying the T45s to carry Sea Ceptor as a replacement for Aster 15. The obvious benefits would be a lighter, cheaper missile capable of being quad packed in a single A50 cell. That would allow for more missiles to be carried with a potentially better mix of long to short ranged weapons. I guess it depends on whether the RN thinks the cost of modifying the T45s is worth the benefits.

IMO the important portion to develop would be quad-packing, whether that is done with the Aster 15 or Sea Ceptor would be somewhat less important. However, the selection of the Aster 15 for use aboard the Type 45 DDG, while the Sea Ceptor was in development as a replacement for the VL Sea Wolf does suggest a somewhat fragmented approach. Where that could become more of an issue is with future development blocks for the current missiles, or their replacements.

For example, if the ability to launch Sea Ceptor is not fitted to the Type 45 since there is already a comparable capability in the Aster 15 fitted, what happens if/when a CAMM-ER variant of Sea Ceptor gets developed?

 

[swerve]

Quad packing Aster 15 looks a bit iffy. It's the same width as Aster 30. It'd need a new, slimline booster, & something would have to be done about the fins.

I don't know, of course, but it looks to me as if integrating either CAMM or CAMM-ER with Type 45 shouldn't be hard. MBDA has repeatedly said that CAMM will quad pack into Sylver, & AFAIK CAMM-ER is designed to fit into the same width as basic CAMM. It's longer, perhaps too long with the soft-launch booster for anything less than Sylver A50, but that's not a problem for T45. CAMM customers to date are using or will use various radars & CMSes, so it looks as if it's not fussy about them.

The Italians so far are only buying ER to replace land-based SAMs, but there's a lot of speculation about fitting it to new MM ships, & offering it for export ships. CAMM-ER is being evaluated for the Spanish F110 frigate. Naval applications look likely.

IIRC the only difference between Aster 15 & 30 is the booster. Maybe MBDA would take 15 boosters in part-exchange for 30 boosters. What's their storage life?

 

[Todjaeger]

Quad packing Aster 15 looks a bit iffy. It's the same width as Aster 30. It'd need a new, slimline booster, & something would have to be done about the fins.

I don't know, of course, but it looks to me as if integrating either CAMM or CAMM-ER with Type 45 shouldn't be hard. MBDA has repeatedly said that CAMM will quad pack into Sylver, & AFAIK CAMM-ER is designed to fit into the same width as basic CAMM. It's longer, perhaps too long with the soft-launch booster for anything less than Sylver A50, but that's not a problem for T45. CAMM customers to date are using or will use various radars & CMSes, so it looks as if it's not fussy about them.

The Italians so far are only buying ER to replace land-based SAMs, but there's a lot of speculation about fitting it to new MM ships, & offering it for export ships. CAMM-ER is being evaluated for the Spanish F110 frigate. Naval applications look likely.

IIRC the only difference between Aster 15 & 30 is the booster. Maybe MBDA would take 15 boosters in part-exchange for 30 boosters. What's their storage life?

The Aster (15 & 30) missiles have a diameter of 180 mm, while the ESSM, which can be quad-packed has a diameter of 254 mm. Even if the ESSM fins were to 'pop out' the missile itself has a diameter of 203 mm. So it might even be possible to quad-pack the Aster 30. Incidentally I came across a Sylver fact sheet from 2016 which indicated that development work was underway to enable CAMM and CAMM-ER to be launched from A50 VLS, though it did not mention whether or not they would be quad-packed.

 

[beegee]

The Aster (15 & 30) missiles have a diameter of 180 mm, while the ESSM, which can be quad-packed has a diameter of 254 mm. Even if the ESSM fins were to 'pop out' the missile itself has a diameter of 203 mm. So it might even be possible to quad-pack the Aster 30. Incidentally I came across a Sylver fact sheet from 2016 which indicated that development work was underway to enable CAMM and CAMM-ER to be launched from A50 VLS, though it did not mention whether or not they would be quad-packed.

180mm is the diameter of the interceptor only, not the booster. The booster is 380mm in diameter, far too wide for quad packing.
If Aster was capable of being quad packed MBDA would have done it years ago.

 

[Todjaeger]

180mm is the diameter of the interceptor only, not the booster. The booster is 380mm in diameter, far too wide for quad packing.
If Aster was capable of being quad packed MBDA would have done it years ago.

Interesting. The Aster datasheet only listed a diameter of 180 mm, and I personally would consider the booster part of the missile. That does sort of suggest that the diameter is not the diameter...

 

[beegee]

IIRC the only difference between Aster 15 & 30 is the booster. Maybe MBDA would take 15 boosters in part-exchange for 30 boosters. What's their storage life?

Apparently Aster 15 has a focused fragmentation warhead while Aster 30 has a dual warhead.

Edit: actually, this may not be correct. I'm seeing conflicting information.

 

[FORBIN]

180mm is the diameter of the interceptor only, not the booster. The booster is 380mm in diameter, far too wide for quad packing.
If Aster was capable of being quad packed MBDA would have done it years ago.

Exact the dart is less big this missile is surely the best SAM anti-missile with its system that allows to be extremely agile French Navy do severals tests with Forbin Class vs supersonic sea skimmings targets and each time Aster do the job ! but ESSM more small can be quad packed so increase the power BTW 2 Sea Sceptors fit in a Sylver module

 

[StobieWan]

The Aster (15 & 30) missiles have a diameter of 180 mm, while the ESSM, which can be quad-packed has a diameter of 254 mm. Even if the ESSM fins were to 'pop out' the missile itself has a diameter of 203 mm. So it might even be possible to quad-pack the Aster 30. Incidentally I came across a Sylver fact sheet from 2016 which indicated that development work was underway to enable CAMM and CAMM-ER to be launched from A50 VLS, though it did not mention whether or not they would be quad-packed.

CAMM (MARITIME APPLICATION) - MBDA


That's listing CAMM as being compatible with Sylver in quad pack mode :

"Sea Ceptor can operate from the SYLVER and Mk41 launchers using a quad-pack configuration to maximise packing density and for optimum installation on smaller ships. "

That suggests it's just data links and so forth to make available - the missile fits and works if that statement is to be believed.

 

[oldsig127]

CAMM (MARITIME APPLICATION) - MBDA


That's listing CAMM as being compatible with Sylver in quad pack mode :

"Sea Ceptor can operate from the SYLVER and Mk41 launchers using a quad-pack configuration to maximise packing density and for optimum installation on smaller ships. "

That suggests it's just data links and so forth to make available - the missile fits and works if that statement is to be believed.

Depends on how well they write their English...

can (operate from the SYLVER) and (Mk41 launchers using a quad-pack configuration) == One in Sylver, four in Mk41

can operate from the (SYLVER and Mk41 launchers) using a quad-pack configuration == Four in both Sylver and Mk41

Two different interpretations; punctuation is everything.

oldsig

 

[beegee]

CAMM (MARITIME APPLICATION) - MBDA


That's listing CAMM as being compatible with Sylver in quad pack mode :

"Sea Ceptor can operate from the SYLVER and Mk41 launchers using a quad-pack configuration to maximise packing density and for optimum installation on smaller ships. "

That suggests it's just data links and so forth to make available - the missile fits and works if that statement is to be believed.

Unless there is some technical or financial issue, you'd think integrating Sea Ceptor on the T45s would be a no brainer. With one Sylver module quad packed you'd have 40 Aster 30s and 32 Sea Ceptor. That's 72 missiles, much better than the current 48 max, with a nice wide area/local area balance.

 

[swerve]

Interesting. The Aster datasheet only listed a diameter of 180 mm, and I personally would consider the booster part of the missile. That does sort of suggest that the diameter is not the diameter...

Avio, which should know (it makes it), says the Aster 30 booster has a diameter of 380 mm, length of 2280, & weight 338 kg.

The MBDA factsheet appears to give the diameter of the 'dart', the upper stage common to Aster 15 & 30.

That weight of 338 kg tells us that the upper stage must weigh 112 kg (450 - 338), & the Aster 15 booster must weigh 198 kg (310 - 112), from the weights on the MBDA factsheet.

 

[Todjaeger]

Avio, which should know (it makes it), says the Aster 30 booster has a diameter of 380 mm, length of 2280, & weight 338 kg.

The MBDA factsheet appears to give the diameter of the 'dart', the upper stage common to Aster 15 & 30.

That weight of 338 kg tells us that the upper stage must weigh 112 kg (450 - 338), & the Aster 15 booster must weigh 198 kg (310 - 112), from the weights on the MBDA factsheet.

Hence my comment about the diameter not being the diameter, unless of course the Aster 30 is available without the booster (and still be an Aster 30) which seems doubtful. If the MBDA factsheet is only showing the data for the 'dart' or upper portion of the Aster 30, as opposed to the whole missile including the booster, then that should serve as further warning for people to take information, even that direct from manufacturers, with a grain of salt.

 

[swerve]

As far as I can see the MBDA factsheet is showing the data for the whole missile (weight, length) except for the diameter, which is for the dart. Doh! Perhaps compiled by someone in PR who was given the numbers but didn't really understand them.

It's just occurred to me (should have done long ago) that it should be easy to produce an Aster ER (Aster 45?), by putting the dart on a bigger booster. An Aster which'd fill a Sylver A70 should have a pretty damn long range.

The Aster Block 2 (silly name) is very different: an ABM which fits in the Sylver A50 (same length as Aster 30 but full width all the way up), expected to be capable of shooting down missiles with ranges up to 3000 km. I presume they could give it a bigger booster & fill an A70 cell.

 

[StobieWan]

Unless there is some technical or financial issue, you'd think integrating Sea Ceptor on the T45s would be a no brainer. With one Sylver module quad packed you'd have 40 Aster 30s and 32 Sea Ceptor. That's 72 missiles, much better than the current 48 max, with a nice wide area/local area balance.

That's what I'm thinking - cheaper, lighter missile, but still very capable - I know you could take the attitude that 48 missiles is more than I think was fired by the RN in the Falklands but times have moved on - more arrows in the quiver doesn't sound like a bad idea.

 

[beegee]

That's what I'm thinking - cheaper, lighter missile, but still very capable - I know you could take the attitude that 48 missiles is more than I think was fired by the RN in the Falklands but times have moved on - more arrows in the quiver doesn't sound like a bad idea.

Indeed. Russia and China have a heck of a lot more aircraft and anti-ship missiles than Argentina did. And their naval attack tactics include mass, saturation attacks. Better to have too many and not need them than to have too few.

 

[FORBIN]

CAMM (MARITIME APPLICATION) - MBDA

That's listing CAMM as being compatible with Sylver in quad pack mode :

"Sea Ceptor can operate from the SYLVER and Mk41 launchers using a quad-pack configuration to maximise packing density and for optimum installation on smaller ships. "

That suggests it's just data links and so forth to make available - the missile fits and works if that statement is to be believed.

Good for European ships thinking two max i have see for new Italian LHD and even if Aster 15 is better but same range for power intersting missile load x 4 ! i want it for the Forbin
Aster cell's do 56 cm Sea Sceptor 17 cm but surely only the body some cms in more for wings and canister for 4 in a cellule the canister must do max 28 cm maybe 26 - 27 to have some room between canisters

 

[ngatimozart]

Jolly Jack off QE is having a good run ashore in Mayport and honouring the age old naval run ashore tradition of maximum inebriation and fighting. The locals are taking it all in their stride and some sailors will be on requestmens and defaulters parade the morning after with their caps off an a grumpy jaunty alongside.

Drunken British sailors are invading Florida and beating each other up, because why not?

 

[John Fedup]

Well it seems the RN sailors were better behaved in the bars compared to British soccer fans in bars based on the number of arrests.