The Ministry of Defence has awarded a £2 million contract to MBDA UK to examine the feasibility of integrating the Mk41 Vertical Launching System with the Aster 30 missile.
According to a transparency notice published on 30 January, the contract will fund a one-year integration study assessing the technical viability of operating Aster missiles from the widely used Mk41 launcher system. The work is expected to run from February 2026 to March 2027. The study will explore compatibility between the Aster missile family and the Mk41 system, with the aim of informing future capability development and improving operational flexibility across the Royal Navy’s surface fleet.
The Ministry of Defence said the findings would support longer-term decisions on launcher commonality, potentially reducing the requirement to maintain separate vertical launch systems for different missile types. MBDA UK was selected through a direct award process on technical grounds. As the original equipment manufacturer for the Aster missile, MBDA holds the specialist design authority and technical data required to assess integration feasibility. The company also retains contractual rights to relevant Mk41 technical data from Lockheed Martin, the launcher’s manufacturer.
The department stated that there were no reasonable alternatives capable of conducting the work to the required level of technical assurance. The contract, valued at £1.67 million excluding VAT, falls under military research and technology services and does not constitute a decision to procure or install Mk41 launchers on Royal Navy vessels, the MOD added.
Instead, the study is intended to test viability and identify potential risks, costs and constraints associated with integration, including regulatory, technical and programme dependencies. The Mk41 Vertical Launching System is in service with numerous NATO navies and supports a wide range of missile types, including air defence, strike and anti-submarine weapons. Aster 30, currently deployed aboard the Royal Navy’s Type 45 destroyers as part of the Sea Viper air defence system, is launched from the Sylver vertical launch system.
The Ministry of Defence noted that the study’s outputs will be used to inform strategic choices rather than commit to a specific configuration, with any future decisions remaining subject to affordability, operational need and the Defence Investment Plan. No timelines or platforms have been identified for any potential follow-on activity.
Good news, and hopefully a pathway to broader deployment across the fleet, given that all our future escorts will be armed with a significant quantity of Mk41 cells (as planned – I know the T31 is nebulous). That of course would require changes to the radar systems on the frigates, but it’s a start. It also makes British pitches to both Denmark and Sweden for the Type 31 frigates more appealing.
I’m glad this process is starting more than a decade before the Type 83 is provisionally due to enter service. The British procurement system has a history of delays, and a moment in the 2040s in which our air defence destroyers lack their missiles would be far too familiar.
I am worried about how this process will function, however. LockMart and the integration of foreign weapon systems onto their products, specifically British products, is hardly a combination that inspires confidence. For all the marketing mumbo-jumbo about various systems being Mk41 compatible, the actual pool of integrated foreign missiles is tiny – just the Japanese Type 07 anti-submarine missile (which is a slightly different situation, as Japan constructs its own Mk41 systems).
Doesnt necessitate changing the frigates if they dont plan to use Aster on them.
I know, I’m saying that would be required IF they decided to use them.
Can’t they be cued from the T45 radar? Obviously a limitation when they’re on their own, but they’re less likely to need BM interception for those types of missions.
Not without a system like CEC
All I can say is I read an article recently referencing such a future concept and its feasibility. It’s desirable exploiting Samson considering its capabilities until its replacement on future platforms but as Hugo mentions would involve widespread sensor fusion and upgrade to the ships fire control. Will it happen I’m sure there will be a Committee or 5 for that over the next decade.
MOD is clearing the decks for an AAW variant of T26.
Given a choice, the RN would jump at the chance to ditch ASTER and move over to SM-6 which has become the de facto primary 5 eyes AAW missile.
Hardly, this is related to T83, and why wouldnt the RN be interested in SM6 arguably more capable and more likely to be upgraded.
I’m not entirely sure if they would. The treasury hardly allows in the funds for a decent size stockpile and that is with the price of the aster. The standard series is far more expensive and if we opt for getting SM-3 for BMD those are about 15 million a piece. You would have to spend upwards of 10 billion just to get enough missiles for a decent stockpile if using SM6 and SM3. While SM6 is quite arguably a better missile than aster we also have to acknowledge that just being a better missile doesn’t mean that much if we can only buy a couple hundred of them
The SM-6 is best used in concert with two other types of missile – a dedicated BMD solution and a cheaper dedicated solution for air-breathing targets. The USN has this nailed down by the SM-3 and the SM-2, which compensate for the SM-6’s main issues (it’s comparative weakness at terminal phase BMD and the high price per unit).
On the other hand, the RN doesn’t have the luxury of a dedicated exo-atmospheric interceptor, nor is it able to field a dedicated medium-range interceptor purely for air-breathing targets, due to cost issues. As a result, the RN uses the Aster to fill both the terminal-phase BMD role and the AAW role, which necessitates sacrifices – those principally being made to the extremes of capability. For example, the Aster’s range is at best 150km, meaning that the SM-6 outstrips it in that role by far. But, the Aster is designed with terminal-phase BMD as a greater priority, making it better at that role in its later versions. By replacing the Aster with the SM-6, you lose that dedicated TPBMD design in exchange for greater prices, fewer missiles, but longer range.
I thought that BAE were involved in the design, development, and production of the Mk 41 Vertical Launching System (VLS) and that BAE as prime contractor awarded a contract to Lockheed Martin in 2018 to supply the MK 41 VLS for the Royal Navy’s new City-class Type 26 frigates.
I presume this is in order to equip T83 with MK41, enabling Aster/CAMM/strike/ASM all in one flexible VLS.
I wonder if Aster 30 can dual pack+
Definitely not, the interceptor may be small but the booster is not.
MBDA in France has already done some investigative work on this potential option simply as a precaution to losing out on Aster sales, clearly not desirable for them and their gated platform but certainly was deemed feasible should it be deemed essential. So will be interesting to know where that left off and this new very wise new feasibility study picks up. Hopefully there won’t be any internal conflicts, which might be the biggest hurdle knowing French intransigence, so let’s hope they are on side (if reluctantly no doubt) with opening it up. With fears over US mischief it might be a real opportunity for MBDA to cash in.
No, only 1 aster 30 missile can be packed into a strike length MK41 VLS cell
“…does not constitute a decision to procure or install Mk41 launchers on Royal Navy vessels”
What utter drivel! We have already contracted for Type 26s to have Mk41s and announced that Type 31s will have them added. We declared the full integration of Stratus missiles with Mk41, so what’s with the coy messaging? It’s like announcing that buying a frigate doesn’t constitute a decision to employ sailors. What are you afraid of, MOD? That someone might actually believe you capable of making coherent strategic decisions? Do I really need to explain that’s a good thing? Do I?
Its not drivel, its stating that this isnt related to the purchase of Mk41 systems for ships such as say T31, which has had nothing contracted.
And stratus hasnt even flown yet, so its years off intergration.
Indeed clearly it is about as wide options as possible to use in a system we are clearly increasingly committed to. There will be great reluctance to have to design in inflexibility to our future warships or restrict the options of those being built. Incorporating Sylver and Mk41 would be a very unsatisfactory solution so knowing your options to avoid it are essential. It will as you referred to earlier overlap decisions on all manner of support systems and sensors, so starting with the basics to underpin planning and decision making even if years ahead is more than wise.
😆
Maybe they are concerned that any future purchases of the MK41 VLS system might not be possible from the US, although it might be possible to purchase MK41 VLS systems from Japan as an alternative
Good news, the Artisan radar is capable of queuing aster 30 so this may see the T26 eventually become more of a destroyer along the lines of the River class from Canada with a better theatre level of air defence while the T45 moves up to ABM capability more like a cruiser.
I think Aster 30 on T26 rather than T31 or the T91 providing additional missiles for a T45 using CEC is a more likely outcome from this trial.
I don’t think Artisan can use ASTER to its full potential at the moment, especially not against BMs. It just isn’t a powerful enough array.
The Artisan NG that BAE are developing should be able to, though, that thing looks beefy. If Tacticos is as modular as Thales say we should replace the NS110 with that and start demoting Artisan to MHPC vessels.
Filling up the mk41s with Aster on the T26s will mean taking silo space away from other missiles. Wonder if they’re looking at putting in one or more mk41s, replacing the forward CAMM farm? What does this mean for quad packing of CAMM/CAMM-ER and potentially dual packed CAMM-MR? The BAE T91 model was showing the Artisan-NG with mk41s so maybe there’s some pre-working on this? Hope this can benefit the CIP and development of T31/AH140 for RN and exports.
This isnt for T26….
How do you know this isnt for T26?
Because it does not have the radar or the VLS space to effectively employ Aster
I feel like aster 30 is better put on a type 31 than a type 26 given the locations both will be deployed to. Type 31 will be doing independent deployments in possibly quite hostile locations such as the Persian gulf and indo-pacific whereas the type 26 will only do solo deployments in the North Sea and, GIUK gap and Norwegian Sea where they are already kind of kept safe and if they are ever travelling to somewhere like the Persian gulf it will be part of a larger task force.
If the Americans can’t be relied on anymore, shouldn’t the Royal Navy be considering whether to fit Sylver instead of Mk41 VLS in future?
SYLVER is a dead end.
The Italians are using it for their next-gen destroyers, I believe.
The issues was, and continues to be, timing.
When the Type 26 and Type 31 were being selected and developed, Sylver was a dead-end. A50 was unable to carry larger missiles, whilst A70 couldn’t carry anything smaller. For the RN, Sylver was no different in its flexibility than the cold-launch CAMM VLS. So, it was Mk41 all the way, because at that point, it was the only option.
Then, the A70-NG began to enter the public knowledge. Still, with the relationship with the US still warm and predictable, the Mk41 remained a decent purchase, given this newer universal European VLS was still of way off.
Now, that’s changed, and if you look at things from a pure convenience perspective, the A70-NG would probably be the best choice. All the planned future British vertically-launched missiles are of European (MBDA) origin, and there are extended-range BMD missiles in the works for France and Italy that would serve the RN well. But, because of the commitment to the Mk41, British warships are too late into construction to avoid a major capability gap if a switch was approved (Type 26), or are built specifically to take the Mk41 as part of their design (Type 31). That leaves the RN stuck with the Mk41, and therefore obliged to carry it forward into the Type 83 destroyer and its accompanying programmes.
Japan produces the MK41 VLS system, might it be possible for the UK to purchase them from Japan instead of the US ??
Decades back when the RN was casting a sideways glance at Mk41, DCNS claimed ASTER could be retrofitted to Mk41.
But lessons are never learned, the DCS explicitly warned MOD that SYLVER was a risky dead end and the T45 should be fitted with the Mk41- at the time cheaper, and much more flexible and everyone uses it.
The VLS is cheaper, the missiles are not.
Italy will use sylver on they future ships and very probable so will the french. it’s not a dead end.
More nonsense, more feasibility studies and more future plans, all to make an effort at placating those who actually know how much bullshit HMG and the MOD are spewing out. Nothing they do now will impact our capabilities in the next couple of years, aside from taking their balls in their hands and ordering off the shelf kit, in preparation for the war we will all be seeing in the next 24 months.
And what exactly can we do in the next 24 months, hmmm?
Exactly, nothing tangible mate!
🤣😂🤣
Your head seems to be a nice place to be, many thanks 🤡🤣
Yet another T45 design decision that continues to gift the navy with crippling pain as time goes on.
You can have less than a handful of bespoke platforms that won’t have compatibility between each other and we’ll can the production before we figure out the design flaws.
Crippling pain how exactly? We have no weapons that can currently go in Mk41
One just has to wonder why no one has looked at integrating Aster 30 with the most widely used western VLS system at the design stage ? This is 101 basic stuff when you spec and design any weapon system, you look at the potential customer baseline numbers and work from that unless there are serious advantages to not doing so.
Ask yourself a question would anyone seriously design an assault rifle to use a 7.63 bullet ?
The RN has already committed to fitting Aster 1 NT to the T45 and fitting CAMM instead of using the pre allocated space to fit MK41, surely this was looked at before that decision was made ?
We dont need Mk41 to launch Aster on T45, this is for future ships like T83
And Europe wanted indepndent VLS for carious reasons but ultimately failed to expand upon it. However yet to be seen if the US allows Aster to be integrated.
They probably would as Lockheed Martin lists the Aster as a “future missile integration” candidate on its official Mk 41 product documentation, emphasizing the system’s open architecture designed to support allied weapons.
MBDA holds contractual rights to use the necessary technical data from Lockheed Martin (the U.S. manufacturer of the Mk 41) to facilitate this integration.
Integration is seen as a key step for AUKUS and NATO interoperability, allowing allies like the UK (on it’s type 26 and 31 frigates) to use European missiles within a standard U.S. launcher framework
This is for T83 in all likelihood
The MK41 is modular, systems like the Typhon on land and containerised MK41 look like the option the USN is going to use on the Coast guard cutter based frigate. Shopping containers based.
Some sources say Germany is looking at Mk41 integration for IRIS-T, presumable to increase export potential.
Lockheed Martin is integrating, PAC-3 into MK41 for is aegis based customers.
Mk41 is going to be the choice platform so makes sense that for exports it’s integrated.
For the T31 export hopes or could mean better competition for sales to those countries that use Aster currently.at present they would look at the FDI, or Fremm.
Arrowhead with Mk41 then allows them to buy a wider selection of weapons and not be reliant on what fits sylver.
Or maybe the existing Sylver cells are becoming obsolete and for just 6 destroyers that will remain good until 2040, a change to Mk41 would be cheaper?
Theyre not going to change out the VLS on Mk41 again
On T45 not Mk41