HMS Diamond, a Type 45 Destroyer, has intercepted a ballistic missile targeting a merchant vessel in the Gulf of Aden.

This marks the first successful deployment of the Royal Navy’s Sea Viper missile system against a ballistic missile in combat.

The ship’s armament includes Sea Viper missiles, Phalanx machine guns, and 30mm cannons, equipping it to handle a variety of threats. The Phalanx, capable of firing over 3,000 rounds per minute, and the 30mm cannons have been instrumental in defending against aerial threats, including a Houthi drone.

Deployed in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden, HMS Diamond is a key element in the UK’s efforts to deter the Houthi rebels, who have been involved in numerous attacks on commercial shipping. The vessel’s deployment is part of a broader strategy to maintain freedom of navigation and protect international shipping lanes from illegal attacks.

This event is the first instance since the 1991 Gulf War where a Royal Navy vessel has intercepted a missile in combat. The previous incident involved HMS Gloucester downing a Silkworm cruise missile.

Defence Secretary Grant Shapps praised the crew for their bravery and effectiveness in neutralising threats to international safety.

“I want to thank the brave crew of HMS Diamond for her vital role in saving innocent lives and protecting international shipping from illegal Houthi attacks,” Shapps stated.

U.S Central Command released the following update:

“At 11:51 a.m. (Sanaa time) on April 24, a coalition vessel successfully engaged one anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) launched from Iranian-backed Houthi terrorist-controlled areas in Yemen over the Gulf of Aden. The ASBM was likely targeting the MV Yorktown, a U.S.-flagged, owned, and operated vessel with 18 U.S. and four Greek crew members. There were no injuries or damage reported by U.S., coalition, or commercial ships.

Separately, between 12:07 pm and 1:26 pm, U.S. Central Command (USCENTCOM) successfully engaged and destroyed four airborne unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) over Houthi-controlled areas of Yemen.

It was determined that the ASBM and UAVs presented an imminent threat to U.S., coalition, and merchant vessels in the region. These actions are taken to protect freedom of navigation and make international waters safer and more secure for U.S., coalition, and merchant vessels.”

The interception comes at a time when the Royal Navy is pushing for upgrades under the Sea Viper Evolution project, which aims to equip Type 45 destroyers like HMS Diamond with the ability to engage medium-range ballistic missiles (MRBM).

UK outlines when Destroyers will get missile upgrades

Currently, the Type 45 destroyers are equipped to handle short-range ballistic missiles, as demonstrated by the recent interception. However, the encounter with potentially longer-range missiles signals a pressing need to expand the fleet’s defensive envelope to ensure robust protection against a broader array of threats.

Avatar photo
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

77 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Barry Larking
Barry Larking (@guest_813987)
2 months ago

Good show Diamond!

DB
DB (@guest_813989)
2 months ago

Buzzers to the crew.

When are our paltry number of T45 platforms, being given the sensors, software and missiles, to protect themselves and UK interests.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke (@guest_814104)
2 months ago
Reply to  DB

It is in the equipment plan and TBH it is quite a cheap upgrade for the level of capability UKPLC gets from it.

So it will be a priority as it will feed into the GBAD discussion anyway as it is more than likely that similar missiles will be used for the short and medium ranges.

DB
DB (@guest_814109)
2 months ago

Thank you SB.

Paul.P
Paul.P (@guest_813994)
2 months ago

Can we afford to wait for T83 to increment the number of AAW ships?

Jim
Jim (@guest_814020)
2 months ago
Reply to  Paul.P

There is no other option beyond waiting for T83 to get more AAW destroyers

Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_814073)
2 months ago
Reply to  Jim

There is an option of a AAW based T31 and possibly even a T26. They could look at upping the CAMM count on the T45s. If not in MK41s then a couple of extra 6 CAMM silos down the sides and or on the hangar roof.

branaboy
branaboy (@guest_814082)
2 months ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

Agree with you sir in that there is a very good option in buying a follow on order of 5 Type 26 frigates that are essentially same as what the ASW version is but optimized for the AAW role with a Sampson Mk2 radar (include top plate), the 5 inch gun removed and replaced with the 57mm on the Type 31, and installation of the Sylver VLS for 48 Aster 1/1NT Sea Viper missiles (that is if the Mark 41 VLS system cannot accommodate the Sea Viper / PAAM 1 NT) and a Sea Ceptor mushroom farm (just like the… Read more »

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke (@guest_814105)
2 months ago
Reply to  branaboy

There is zero point in trying to make variants of everything. You just end up with loads of orphaned classes that costs fortunes to run. It is the upgrade pathway that becomes crazy expensive. Much better off using the Mk41’s that have been ordered to launch missiles that are compatible. By this I really mean CAMM-MR. If you must you can add an air search radar to T31 as that has already been done in the parent class as it has a S1850 based radar on top of the hangar. That way you get what you want without taking integration… Read more »

Jon
Jon (@guest_814166)
2 months ago

S1850M is a Thales/BAE hybrid. The pure Thales product is SMART-L and the latest iteration SMART-L/MM has long distance ABM capabilities. They first went onto the De Zeven Provincien class, but France and Italy will also be replacing their S1850M radars with SMART-L/MM in 2026. We could do worse than adding the radars to the T31s if we want to reposition them as second tier AAW frigates. It won’t matter if the QEC and T45 classes already have good radar if the T31s are expected to act independently. However, I also agree we need to look again at CAMM missile… Read more »

Last edited 2 months ago by Jon
Tomartyr
Tomartyr (@guest_814405)
2 months ago

You mean use the AAW T26/32 as an arsenal for the T45 to use?

The other question is if an escort ship has an escort ship is it still an escort?

SailorBoy
SailorBoy (@guest_814098)
2 months ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

Would personally prefer AAW T31 as the Iver Huifeldts already use the Smart-L radar that can do BMD and wide area AAW (shouldn’t cost much to bend the funnels out to avoid exhaust gases in radar).
Then keep the 32 mk41 and have a mix of CAMM, -ER and -MR types. Would be perfect for what the Diamond is doing at the moment and if Aster were to go in mk41 would do BMD as well.

Mr Bell
Mr Bell (@guest_814314)
2 months ago
Reply to  SailorBoy

Issue for me is the combat experience of the Danish Iver Huifeldts in the Red Sea. They had missile failures and their combat information system as a sensor fusion seems to have failed on several occasions leading to the ship returning home after it’s deployment for some urgent work. The Danish navy was actually really disappointed in the vessels first combat deployment. That info was widely reported on Janes and in Warships IFR as well as commented upon by the Danish navy.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_814517)
2 months ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

This is more a systems issue not an issue with the actual ship and its design. Having 3-4 AAW T31s could assist with air cover for the RN LRGs, and be in more than one location, as well as coastal/ regional UK air defence and in CSGs. And as someone said earlier they could be ideal for a Red Sea environment.

Last edited 2 months ago by Quentin D63
Mr Bell
Mr Bell (@guest_814309)
2 months ago
Reply to  Jim

There is options. The RN could get the proposed type 26 hull form optimised got missile carrying and fit it with Sampson and Aster 30NT. Or alternatively use the type 31 hull, fit it with Sampson and use either Aster 30NT or the mk41 vls and US standard block 3s for intercept. Although the standard missiles are chuffing pricey.

Rowan Maguire
Rowan Maguire (@guest_814025)
2 months ago
Reply to  Paul.P

The only practical and realistic option (in the sense we can actually afford to do it and maybe even have the will to do it) to get and increase in ships able to perform wider area defense to task groups and civilian shipping would be to follow the Poles plan to integrate CAMM-MR missiles into the MK-41 VLS system on their Arrowhead 140. It can daul pack into the cells so one 8 cell block can carry 16 missiles whilst another block carries 32 standard CAMM missiles with room spare for cruise missile. Both the T-31 and T-26 could carry… Read more »

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke (@guest_814030)
2 months ago
Reply to  Rowan Maguire

This is all very possible.

UK & Poland are collaborating on the MR variant so I think it likely we will see some on UK assets.

And I agree we will see a mix of standard and MR CAMM in RN service.

I think T45 will be all ASTER A30 in the 48 cell SYLVER silo. Although I think a row of those will get the fancy new Anglo French super duper anti surface missiles.

Rob N
Rob N (@guest_814074)
2 months ago

There is no evidence that the T45 will be fitted with anything other then the NSM in deck launchers. To use valuable VLS slots on an air defence destroyer is missing the point. T45 carries too few SAMs as it is.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke (@guest_814106)
2 months ago
Reply to  Rob N

We will see.

the new fancy Anglo – French missiles will have to go somewhere.

I see T45 as having a mixture of CAMM & CAMM-MR in the new soft launch tubes.

As well as NSM in the deck mounts.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_814075)
2 months ago

Is this MR version the same CAMM being proposed for the UK GBAD?

SailorBoy
SailorBoy (@guest_814096)
2 months ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

CAMM-MR would work quite well for GBAD. It’s about the same size as PAC-3 and had similar range but no ballistic missile defence (which is less useful for us anyway with nuclear deterrence).
You might be able to fit 4 of them on the current CAMM launcher or more in a static battery.

Jon
Jon (@guest_814169)
2 months ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

It’s proposed for Polish GBAD to supplement and possibly replace Patriot PAC3.

Nobody knows what the larger UK GBAD will be, although there’s a lot of speculation. Bits of the picture get filled in over time, such as automatic sighting on small arms for counter drones, but to see how it all slots together we’ll have to wait. We know a lot more about Poland’s plans than our own.

Last edited 2 months ago by Jon
Mr Bell
Mr Bell (@guest_814316)
2 months ago

Those new super duper anti surface missiles coming to a friendly warship sometimes in 2250s around the same time as my 3rd life cycle total regeneration and the development of transporter technology and phasers/ quantum torpedoes?

DJ
DJ (@guest_814080)
2 months ago
Reply to  Rowan Maguire

I would ditch the 40mm at B & go for 36 CAMM in stand alone ExLS (9 cells – 3 sets). This would then allow all the 32 mk41 strike length cells to be available for longer range missiles (CAMM-MR dual packed, CAMM-ER quad packed, strike missiles). Also at least 8 NSM in deck canisters. It would be a good idea to upgrade the radar. Putting standard CAMM in strike length mk41 is rather wasting capability IMO.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_814090)
2 months ago
Reply to  Rowan Maguire

Like it. That makes two of us!

Robert Blay
Robert Blay (@guest_814028)
2 months ago
Reply to  Paul.P

Nobody has said T83 will result in more ships. T83 will be one part of a future Air dominace system.

AlexS
AlexS (@guest_814041)
2 months ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

The T83 project did not even started, you can wait 10-15 years for that if at all. The world and UK will be very different by then.

Robert Blay
Robert Blay (@guest_814055)
2 months ago
Reply to  AlexS

And T45 will still be one of the world’s most capable AAW Destroyers in 15 years time.

Frank62
Frank62 (@guest_814004)
2 months ago

Great job Diamond. Fingers crossed that if the UK was attacked by missiles we’d have time for our T45s to deploy in the N sea, if enough were ready for service at the time. With just 6 T45s, some usually in refit, some deployed elsewhere, we’d be damn lucky if we had 2 or 3 ready in place at the right time!

AlexS
AlexS (@guest_814013)
2 months ago
Reply to  Frank62

With Sea Viper range i doubt they could cover in ABM capability more than 15km radius.

Last edited 2 months ago by AlexS
Robert Blay
Robert Blay (@guest_814029)
2 months ago
Reply to  Frank62

But knobody is firing missiles from the North Sea at the UK. That’s a article 5 trigger straight away. The threats are in the Red Sea and Ukraine. Not the North Sea.

Frank62
Frank62 (@guest_814059)
2 months ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

I could see it happening if Putin over reaches or over reacts, or if NATO finally decides to engage Russian forces within UKR. I’d think an equally likey direction of atteack from the N or NW from subs or Bears.

Last edited 2 months ago by Frank62
Robert Blay
Robert Blay (@guest_814097)
2 months ago
Reply to  Frank62

Finland and Norway have F35. Sweden Gripen. Bears wouldn’t get anywhere near the UK.

Expat
Expat (@guest_814222)
2 months ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

I doubt Russia would attack UK with bombers, they’d probably start with attacks that a plausibly deniable. Wind farms would be my go to, not at all secure and can be targeted in a number of ways, even in ways that wouldn’t be apparent immediately as failure would happen days or weeks after.

Robert Blay
Robert Blay (@guest_814274)
2 months ago
Reply to  Expat

Wind farms are monitored 24/7. Any interference would be picked up immediately in wind farm control rooms. The whole air/sea space is monitored around wind farms, and many have Service operation vessels on site 24hrs a day. Guard vessels are also in place, AIS tracking, and ADS-B tracking. Nothing moves In or around the North Sea without us knowing about it.

Expat
Expat (@guest_814318)
2 months ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

That’s not the case. The MoD has a project to figure out how to stop.wind farms interfering with the very radars that are supposed to protect them. AIS isn’t mandatory either, it’s regularity switch off by those wanting to avoid detection. And as it relies on GPS it can be spoofed to put a vessel.in another position. I spoke to RN representative at a conference last year and they had identified hundreds of ways off shore energy could be targeted, its a huge concern. As for those guard vessels then how did a Russian spy ship get so close last… Read more »

Robert Blay
Robert Blay (@guest_814332)
2 months ago
Reply to  Expat

I’ve worked on offshore wind for 7 years mate.I know how it works. The MOD knows exactly where Russian vessels are as soon as leave port or even fire up theirengines. Guard vessels are to warn vessels away from entering wind farms, especially during construction. But legally, they can. Its just not advised.

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker (@guest_814341)
2 months ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

I’ve heard also that there are ways the U.K. and allies know when a sub or ships is getting ready and does leave Russia. Same with the aircraft.
There is no way for Russia to get anything away without nato knowing.

Robert Blay
Robert Blay (@guest_814406)
2 months ago
Reply to  Monkey spanker

That’s why we have satellites, and err, other means…Same with the Bear flights. We get a very big heads up long before they get to the UK area of responsibility. Plus, they are escorted by Norwegian QRA F35’s well before Typhoons rock up. Reading some people’s comments, you would think we are clueless about how to do all this stuff. The reality is, we are experts at this stuff, with decades of experience playing cat and mouse in the air, on our sea, and below the waves. 👍

Expat
Expat (@guest_814352)
2 months ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

Robert, I like a lot of what you post but I’m afraid I disagree. I from time to time get to attend conferences and other events as part of my job and I get great insights, some members of dstl and armed forces attend. They’re not that confident. I appreciate it’s your bread and butter, so your going to be massively pro off shore energy.

Robert Blay
Robert Blay (@guest_814402)
2 months ago
Reply to  Expat

It is vulnerable, like so much of our infrastructure. But so is the bad guy’s. And taking out a wind farm isn’t as easy as it may seem. You could take out one string of a wind farm, but to take out the whole thing would take a monumental amount of planning it would not escape our intelligence services across the West.

Jonathan
Jonathan (@guest_814018)
2 months ago

Well that clears up the arguments on whether the T45 can already engage ballistic missiles.

Netking
Netking (@guest_814021)
2 months ago
Reply to  Jonathan

I was reading an interesting discussion just about a month ago between two people very experienced with ABM tech and they both agreed that it was likely the version of aster as currently in UK service probably had some capability against srbm but the limitation was that the defended area would be very small. Meaning the ballistic missile would need to be travelling almost directly in the path of the ship for a decent chance of interception.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke (@guest_814022)
2 months ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Short to medium range ballistics only – if the stated max altitude and range of A30 are even close to true.

That said it does prove the point that SAMPSON can track ballistics in its current mod state.

Things will only improve with A30 enhancements.

Expat
Expat (@guest_814224)
2 months ago

I think Sampson was proven to track BMs 6 years ago when we did an exercise in the pacific with the US.

Patrick C
Patrick C (@guest_814043)
2 months ago
Reply to  Jonathan

like others said it can do short range ballistic missiles. the longer the range of ballistic missiles the faster they travel and higher they fly. interceptors like SM-3, Arrow 3 and THAAD all have exo-atmospheric kill vehicles which means they manuever outside the atmosphere (or extremely high altitudes) using rocket thrusters. traditional control services don’t work where the air is that thin. so aster would need an entirely new kill vehicle at the front replacing the warhead… i imagine aster 30 could be modified to kill hypersonic or medium/long range ballistic missiles but only at very limited distances, after the… Read more »

Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_814091)
2 months ago
Reply to  Patrick C

There’s also option of “ghost (drone) ships” with MK41s or other vls types. The RAN here is getting six Large Optionally Manned Surface Vessel (LOSV) which it’s co-developing with the US. I imagine the RN would be looking at this.

Last edited 2 months ago by Quentin D63
DaveyB.
DaveyB. (@guest_814353)
2 months ago
Reply to  Patrick C

THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defence) is an endoatmospheric weapon just like SM6. Its designed to intercept ballistic missiles/re-entry vehicle as they re-enter the atmosphere. Both THAAD and SM-6 initially had an engagement altitude of around 125,000ft. This is being pushed up to over 150,000ft, so that they can engage hypersonic glide vehicles (HGVs).

Patrick C
Patrick C (@guest_814448)
2 months ago
Reply to  DaveyB.

thanks for the correction, i was thinking THAAD used the same kill vehicle as SM-3. can THAAD intercept low altitude targets if needed like SM-6?

Gunbuster
Gunbuster (@guest_814453)
2 months ago
Reply to  Patrick C

Aster homing dart doesn’t use control surfaces. it uses PIF/PAF which are small impulse jets of gas top shove the dart L, R up and down at ridiculously high G

DaveyB
DaveyB (@guest_814138)
2 months ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Earlier in the month, the French frigate Alsace, took out 3 ASBMs launched by the Houthis, with its Aster 30s. This was the first time Aster has done this in combat. I must also point out both Diamond and Alsace use the same Block 0 Asters. Alsace is an air defence frigate, that was procured as a cheaper alternative to the Horizon class. She does not have a separate 3D search radar like the T45 and Horizon. But instead uses Thales Herakles, a PESA radar mounted fairly low in a mechanically rotating pyramid on top of the bridge. She is… Read more »

Nathan Paxton
Nathan Paxton (@guest_814019)
2 months ago

For all the whining about the vulnerability of the aircraft carriers, the only UK assets that have any medium-range surface to air missile defence are those wherever the operational T45s happen to be, which is usually the carriers.

Perhaps time to also invest in some land-based missile defence. An extra 0.2% of GDP by 2030 doesn’t seem quite enough to address the urgency of the situation.

AlexS
AlexS (@guest_814023)
2 months ago
Reply to  Nathan Paxton

Well why is that whining, it seems a very valid criticism. It is also another misguided UK choice that do not have Aster 30 in other naval combatants. US have chosen to have area air combat capability in their frigates. Italians have Aster 30 in their 1st class frigates FREMM – equivalent to Type 26 – also in their 2nd class frigates the PPA – equivalent to Type 31. —– Concerning carriers… French CVN Charles de Gaulle fired recently Aster 15 and Aster 30. Picture are on twitter taken from flight deck that some here said would be full of… Read more »

Last edited 2 months ago by AlexS
Nathan Paxton
Nathan Paxton (@guest_814024)
2 months ago
Reply to  AlexS

It’s news to me that every Italian and French frigate and carrier has the same area AAW capability to use Aster 30 as a T45 but my, clearly badly worded, point was meant to be that, whatever vulnerabilities our forces at sea might have, the critical home bases are in a much worse state and essentially undefended.

Jim
Jim (@guest_814026)
2 months ago
Reply to  Nathan Paxton

There is a massive difference in carrying Aster 30 missiles and having the same area AAW capability as a T45.

The SAMPSON radar is an awesome capability and it’s an uplift over even AAW versions of FREMM which operate PESA radar instead of an AESA like T45.

Nathan Paxton
Nathan Paxton (@guest_814027)
2 months ago
Reply to  Jim

Quite so.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke (@guest_814033)
2 months ago
Reply to  Jim

Exactly.

AlexS
AlexS (@guest_814034)
2 months ago
Reply to  Nathan Paxton

PESA radars can detect BM’s just fine, they certainly have less redundancy than AESA, less resistance to ECM and in some circumstances less discrimination and are not capable of simultaneous diverse operations.

French frigates only the last 2 have Aster 30 and they downed 3 BM’s. that with an Herakles PESA radar.

AlexS
AlexS (@guest_814036)
2 months ago
Reply to  AlexS

My point, detecting and destroying a sole unsophisticated BM is not the most complex operation.

1991 Patriot also hit Scuds. We are 30 years later and a large evolution in electronics.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke (@guest_814035)
2 months ago
Reply to  Nathan Paxton

He’s being a bit disingenuous…..

Carrying A15 or A30 doesn’t mean it has tremendous AAW capabilities. You need a whole ship system for that.

Until you have done the FOD plod – you are looking for any small objects that might get sucked into a jet engine that would trash it – you don’t know the joys…

Patrick C
Patrick C (@guest_814045)
2 months ago

the US has for a long time had ESSM and RIM missile launchers on their carriers. they’re located below the flight deck. i’ve never heard of FOD being a concern with those. interestingly the USN is planning on purchasing patriot PAC-3 and sticking them in mk-41s, no doubt quad packed. but i wonder how difficult it would be to stick some patriot launchers (same ones currently mounted on trucks) onto platforms like ESSM use. after seeing their success in ukraine i’d feel extremely confident on a ship with a few dozen PAC-3s mounted on it! with the rate they get… Read more »

AlexS
AlexS (@guest_814047)
2 months ago
Reply to  Patrick C

I doubt PAC3 can be quad packed into a MK41, is that so thin?

Patrick C
Patrick C (@guest_814083)
2 months ago
Reply to  AlexS

PAC-3s seem pretty small. 16 fit on the same launcher that 4 PAC-2s fit on. ESSMs are quad packed so imagine it would be the same.

DanielMorgan
DanielMorgan (@guest_814072)
2 months ago
Reply to  Patrick C

The US Navy has studied Lockheed Martin ‘s proposal to fire PAC-3 missiles from MK41s after LM demonstrated that they will fit, but the US Navy has made no commitment to go any further with the proposal.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke (@guest_814093)
2 months ago
Reply to  Patrick C

Poland want to use CAMM variants in the PATRIOT system as it is sooooo much cheaper…..almost knock off a zero.

DJ
DJ (@guest_814154)
2 months ago

That idea was one of the reasons for systems like Sylver & mk41. Stop building unique launch systems unless there is a reason to do so. One system, multiple missile options. Mix & match to suit the occasion. At least, that was the dream.

Andrew D
Andrew D (@guest_814038)
2 months ago

Well done to the crew of HMS Diamond .. Royal Britannia rules the waves 🇬🇧 well deserved Beer 🍺 guys or Rum

Rob N
Rob N (@guest_814076)
2 months ago

Does this indicate that the T45s have been fitted with ASTER 30 Block 1 as it is this missile that has a short range anti-ballistic missile capability. Or was the Block 0 always capable against short range missiles such as these.

Paul T
Paul T (@guest_814157)
2 months ago
Reply to  Rob N

The latter – the Missile destroyed was dealt with within the current capability of Sea Viper.

DJ
DJ (@guest_814195)
2 months ago
Reply to  Rob N

Basically any SAM can hit a ballistic missile. The problem is that if you hit most at short range, you will likely be hit by the kinetic effects of remaining parts of the missile & if your SAM is not big enough in reference to the incoming you will have little effect on the warhead anyway. So you need to either hit it far enough away to cause it to miss or destroy it. CAMM-ER & ESSM are basically Hail Mary range against quality missiles. It goes up from there. You want to hit it further away, you need a… Read more »

Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_814077)
2 months ago

Hopefully they’re getting the locations of the launchers of these Houthi sites and can send some return messages. 🚀

Levi Goldsteinberg
Levi Goldsteinberg (@guest_814121)
2 months ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

I wouldn’t be surprised to hear the launch sites once identified are given a visit by raiding parties of SOF

Paul.P
Paul.P (@guest_814167)
2 months ago

Trouble is the launch sites are mobile, even the ballistic missile ones I think.

Mr Bell
Mr Bell (@guest_814320)
2 months ago

Reassuring to see the type 45s taking down short ranged ballistics.
Pity we only have 6 type 45s. Imagine how comfy we’d all be feeling now if the RN had just gone ahead and built the planned 12 vessels. Just shows defence reductions and cutting programmes back always leads to regrets and dangers. Short sighted and stupid.
Type 83 and type 32s needed and in adequate numbers. Maybe the proposed 2.5% GDP to defence spend will help with that?
Although wait…that’s not until 2030, after the Tories have been booted out.

Gunbuster
Gunbuster (@guest_814454)
2 months ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

Delete RN and insert UK Govt
Build was reduced by the Govt not the RN.

Donaldson
Donaldson (@guest_814356)
2 months ago

Diamond has now fired roughly a dozen Asters, Is it likely Royal Navy will replace these missile with fresh orders?

Is it known how many were purchased overall in UK inventory?

Gunbuster
Gunbuster (@guest_814455)
2 months ago

It was a SRBM. Viper can engage those type of targets without issue. Viper replaced Sea Dart which could engage a high diving cruise missile. A high diver is no different than a Ballistic missile in the dive. Fast, steep angle small ish window of opportunity to track and shoot at. What Viper cannot do yet is engage far longer ranged, higher flying BMs as the Arrow3 and THAAD systems can. That is a whole different engagement envelope. It can track them but not shoot at them in the middle part of the flight which is obviously at a longer… Read more »