I'm sure we would all love T45s to be permanently fitted with an ASuW missile, but the reality of costs dictate that have to accept the fact that we could add it quite quickly if need be, but for the moment it is not on. However let us get a few facts straight.
- The T45s do not have no ASuW capability, apart from helos, they also have the nice shiny gun on the front. That might not cover all situations, but it would often be more effective than a missile, especially in the sort of limited ROE situations that will occur at short notice when there is no time to add a missile for a larger outbreak of war
- Harpoon is not exactly state of the art, and against an area AAW system may not be any more effective than a helo
- Harpoon would have been no use at all when the Iranians captured the boat crew
- CEC is not 'crucial' . It would be good to have it yes, but I would prefer a v good radar (Sampson) to old radars (say Spy 1-x) and CEC by far
As for PAAMS finishing testing after the ships were built: how could you do a full system test until they were built. The radar and C2 is part of that system. You wouldn't build a ship around an old and proven missile that is about to be obsolete would you?
1) The original poster was painting a picture that ASuW wasn't necessary. I agree with your point that it has been omitted due to cost not a lack of operational need. We discussed a few posts back some of the capabilities elswehere in the forces I'd be prepared to give up to pay for properly equipped warships. I might also stop the foreign aid we give to India that we begged them not to stop asking us for. That would pay for ASuW and CEC. We can afford it. We choose not to.
2) Sure, they could be fitted. I'm sure if Iran does take any action in the Gulf (or any other aggressor in any other theatre) that they will give us a months notice so that we can do so.
3) I never said the T45 had no ASuW capability. The gun has a limited range against surface warfare targets that would require the T45 to be in the envelope of most of the SSMs that an adversary might carry - not a great idea. My point was about the zone of control ships exert around themselves due to their offensive systems. I think it's better to keep adversaries 80+ miles away from your ship due to it's own SSM's than 15 miles due to its main gun.
4) Harpoon isn't state of the art but it is readily available (the surplus missiles from the T22's) so is available now and cheap. We could then move to a common next generation SSM (that hopefully also has a land attack capability) for all surface combatants when we select the system we want for the T26.
5) I never said that Harpoon would have been useful against the Iranians in the HMS Cornwall fiasco. The point I was making is that there is a danger in having no back up capability to helicopter borne systems as helicopters become unavailable. At least in the SSM role there is a gun as limited back-up but the lack of ASW torpedoes leave the T45 with no ASW capability at all if here helo is not available.
6) You argue we shouldn't fit Harpoon because it is not top rank and then argue that the key top rank AAW enabling technology offered by the CEC is a nice to have. It's a vital to have. Read back a few posts to the ones from the RN guy talking about when they trialled it on the T23 and how effective it was. You create a choice which doesn't exist. We could have Sampson and CEC. We just choose to spend our money on other things.
7) Aster was trial fired from barges. That was where they found there were problems with some of the missiles which delayed their entry into service. There genuinely might be an explanation for the sequence of the testing as I'm far from being an expert but I can't think why it would not have been tested from the firing barge against supersonic targets before building the ships that would carry it. Surely you want to know that your billion pound a piece warships main missile works before you build it?
