The new UK government has reconfirmed plans to equip Type 45 destroyers with ballistic missile defence capabilities, following an inquiry by Conservative MP James Cartlidge regarding the future of the Sea Viper missile system.
The confirmation, which comes from Labour’s recently appointed Minister of State for Defence, Maria Eagle, marks the first public acknowledgement under the new government that this critical upgrade to the Royal Navy’s warships will proceed.
The programme, known as the “Sea Viper Evolution,” is intended to enhance the Type 45’s Multi-Function Radar, Combat Management System (CMS), Command and Control (C2), and Aster 30 missile systems.
The upgrade is being rolled out in two stages, with the first already in the Demonstration and Manufacture Phase and the second currently under Assessment, expected to complete by 2025.
“The enhancement of Sea-Viper is named Sea-Viper Evolution, which includes upgrades to the Type 45 Destroyer’s Multi Function Radar, Combat Management System (CMS), Weapon Command and Control, and the Aster 30 missile,” Eagle said, reaffirming the Ministry of Defence’s (MoD) commitment to strengthening the destroyer’s capabilities.
Originally announced by the previous Conservative government, the Sea Viper upgrade includes plans for the UK to become the first European nation to operate a maritime ballistic missile defence (BMD) capability.
This will allow the destroyers to detect and intercept advanced anti-ship ballistic missiles, an increasing threat in modern naval warfare. The defence system will use the Aster 30 Block 1 missile, previously only available in land-based systems, and will be adapted for maritime use.
A £300 million contract for the initial stages of this upgrade was signed last year with MBDA, the European defence company tasked with converting the Aster 30 missile for use on the UK’s destroyers. This contract supports over 100 jobs in the UK across several key locations, including Stevenage, Cowes, Bristol, and Bolton.
As the Labour government prepares for its upcoming Defence Review, this confirmation of continuity underlines the importance placed on addressing longstanding concerns raised about Royal Navy vulnerability to ballistic missile threats.
“Joining our French and Italian counterparts will see us collectively improve the cutting-edge technology our armed forces possess,” said previous Defence Procurement Minister Jeremy Quin at the time of the initial contract announcement.
I thought it was the Aster B1 NT. A good candidate for a land-based solution.
The British military never imports anything to a standard and always insists on tweaking. I believe RN is upgrading to Aster B1 with a new warhead. So strictly neither B1 nor B1 NT.
Not quite. The T45s are currently equipped with the Block 0. Sea Viper Evo;lution is going to be carried out in two phases. The first upgrades our missiles to Block 1 standard. Which includes a new software for the active radar, new insensitive munition warhead and improvements to the flight control system and signal processing. The second phase is where we purchase new Block 1NT missiles.
This was reported about two months ago in Janes, Navy Lookout and here on UKDJ.
The Missile the RN has chosen is a variation of the one used in SAMP-T.
Totally Coll. It’s an absolute no brainer. The French have just order 8 sets of new SAMP/T and Italy another. Obvious synergies with RN and shared inventories too. And if they add MK41s to the T45s they’ll have even more options and capacities. Leave the CAMM silos for other ships, RFAs, for exports.
Italy has sea and land Aster and CAMM-ER, something the UK can also do.
Uk is developing CAMM-MR with Poland. CAMM-ER is still in development stage.
CAMM-ER is in service.
Edit: it was certified for it in 2023.
“CAMM-ER is in service.”
Not true! Only Italy’s armed forces has announced it’s intention to procure CAMM-ER. A contract amendment was signed this April, but still no sign of any deliveries, for operational deployment yet
CAMM-ER is in service in new Babur Pakistani corvettes under commercial name Albatros NG.
No need for Mk. 41 on T45. A mix of CAMM and Aster B1+, and NSM for ASuW,
is better value for money for the T45 AAW vessel.
It’s a colossal waste of forward space putting just 4×6 for 24 CAMM where you can put 2 x MK41s . For me a 48 CAMM and 4 ASROC to keep any subs at a distance would be more useful. Admittedly it would likely be expensive and may cause further delays.
I’ll correct myself, i think it’s France up to 20 sets and Italy 10 sets.
SVE1 which is being developed includes Aster blk 1. SVE2 which is less advanced will consider the use of block 1nt.
Isn’t Block 1NT the more advanced missile? It has a new seeker and a longer range than Block 0 and Block 1 (>150km for the 1NT compared to >120km).
Aren’t SVE1 and SVE2 essentially at a “guaranteed” implementation status w/ contracts already placed w/ MBDA? The really intriguing question will be potential RN participation in the Aquila programme, which presumably will address maneuvering ballistic missiles, and hpersonic cruise missiles and glide vehicles. That could prove to be a very sporting proposition from multiple perspectives (resource, technical, time sink, etc.). Strictly personal speculation, but that may prove to be the final phase of development, before DEW becomes a viable complementary system. 🤔
Yes the contracts were placed with MBDA earlier this year. Doesn’t stop the Government from pulling out and cancelling the upgrade! Think of Aster Block 1NT as the equivalent to Patriot PAC 3 MSE. Whilst the current Block 0 and 1 are similar to the USN’s SM2 or Patriot PAC 2, but with better terminal performance. The Aquila project will be a competitor to THAAD and SM6, as it is an endoatmospheric interceptor, i.e. engagements over 100,000ft but below 250,000ft. Sadly it will be at least 10 to 20 years before we see it at IOC let alone FOC. The… Read more »
Thanks, stated timeline for Aquila is disappointing. 🤔😳☹️
My understanding the MOD saved money and only funded the B1 software upgrade which still uses the lower definition Ku seeker and not the new higher definition wave band Ka seeker fitted in the B1 NT, New Technology, as France and Italy, which enables defence of 1500 km range TBMs vs only 600 km with the B1.
Saving money on something like this and the T45s still having another 10+ years of service life? Seems a bit short sighted…by about 900km. Hopefully the higher grade will follow on.
Seeing as the carriers are defenseless and very sinkable why wasn’t it taken Into account two decades ago
The carriers are ‘extremely’ vulnerable in this era of mass missile and drone attacks. T45 was conceived in an era when you might face 3 or 4 missiles fired at you. Today, in a high end war with China (by example) with their huge (and growing by the month) fleet of highly capable missile armed destroyers, fielding the Chinese equivalent of Mk41 vertical launchers, an Aircraft carrier battle group could find itself being targeted by 30 or more supersonic sea skimming missiles in one sitting!! We need ships with 80 plus SAM’s on board (long range and point defence) and… Read more »
The issue is that is already out of date. The way both Ukraine and Russia have operated is combine expensive missiles with cheap drones in their hundreds to completely saturate air defences. It won’t be long before that figure becomes thousands.
The T45 was conceived for multi supersonic missile attacks. Thats why it has a system capable of engaging well over 16 targets simultaneously over 360 degs of arc at various altitudes.
Fitting CAMM releases the ASTER 15 VLS tubes to be used by ASTER 30. So the RN will have 48 ASTER 30 and something like 32 CAMM per T45. CAMM can take supersonic targets as well but not as far out as ASTER 30 and it covers 360 degs at various altitudes as well for again over 16 targets simultaneously.
Morning Gunbuster, I listened to another excellent Hypohystericalhistory youtube blog while on a long flight, ‘War in Indo China’. Highly recommend, an extremely detailed hypothetical war situation in the Indo Pacific between the West and China in the early 2030’s. It makes for a ‘very’ sobering listen, the ability of China to launch waves of dozens of supersonic sea skimming missiles at time is truly terrifying. The main takeaway for me is the absolutely vital capability of SSN’s, to take on an enemy task group, many hundreds of miles ahead of a surface task group. The other take away is… Read more »
24 CAMM on the T45.
I stand corrected!😀
Hi GB, isn’t it only 24 CAMM for the T45s? If they gave the six silos a stretch and made them 8’s for 4×8. An 80 missile shot load sounds pretty decent.
Mentioned above and by others here, installing quad CAMM in MK41s or ExLS will give you 32 if you wanted it. Current RAN Hobart’s and Dutch Tromps already do this with their 2×32 ESSM.
Not so sure on the very sinkable side, the US had problems sinking one of its carriers. Made inoperable is a whole different topic.
Sinkex have all exploding stuff taken out, all electronics etc. It is irrelevant except for engineers looking for specific particulars they are testing.
Second mission kill is often enough.
Why can’t the Type 45 intercept these missiles already? I’ve read that the sea viper missile system can Detect/ track & intercept an object the size of a cricket ball travelling at twice the speed of sound 30 miles away, why should ballistic missiles pose such a different level of threat?
Look at the deployment of HMS Diamond in the Red Sea, that revealed what Sea Viper is capable of even in its current form.
I’m aware of what HMS Diamond has been doing ( successfully) in the gulf region, but I ask again, surely the Type 45 is already capable of intercepting ballistic missiles, why the upgrade?
I’m no expert but I understand the current radar is capable of detecting objects in or at the minimum in near space. It would be even better with a third top upward looking unit as was offered some time ago. The combat system and the current missiles though capable are not optimised or sensitive enough to handle the job of interception at sufficient range, in particular fast and/or manoeuvring objects certainly at sufficient range. Upgrading all three areas gives a far more capable and reliable interception capability up to medium range ballistic missiles at extended range giving wider cover to… Read more »
Thanks for the reply, what you have to say makes sense, cheers.
Because those were short range Ballistic missiles, on a relatively low trajectory arc, Not medium or long range ones, with a much steeper & faster arc, That keeps them out of range of most anti-air missiles until they plunge back towards the surface..
The upgrade gives the T45 more reach due to increased range of the Missiles.
They can already. This is just the usual dismal propaganda.
The French already destroyed an Houthi ballistic misiles with their FREMM frigate Aster.
This is a better missile than current one, but it is an incremental capability.
Not necessarily, there are Ballistic missiles and then there are Ballistic missiles, in the same way a Robin reliant and a Ferrari Enzo are both cars..
Ballistic missiles travel a much different path, A high arc. Typically they arc down towards the target from high above and at hypersonic speed, Although atmospheric friction as they decend back into thicker atmosphere does tend to slow the terminal phase back down into the supersonic range.
It can and has hit a ballistic target but it was a low end TBM. Medium range Ballistic missiles are a whole different target. Range and flight profile, curvature of the earth, exo-atmospheric target engagement, speed of re-entry. Viper can take Soviet era (still being used ivan) ASMs such as Kitchen. M4.5 at over 80K feet altitude doing a high angle death dive at you. TBMs have higher speeds and altitudes. Its a system of systems issue being able to take such targets. A long-range target detection radar (Smart L, the big flat panel rotating radar aft) that can reach… Read more »
I honestly don’t know why the RN is not going for aster 30 block 1 NT..when you consider it’s going to be a far better missile. I was actually looking at the planning and orders around the Italian navy and it’s starting to make the RN and RAF a bit anaemic to be honest… so air defence wise air from a airforce point of view, 1) they are ordering new typhoons to replace their tranche 1s..so they will be keeping 90 tranche 2,3,4 typhoons ( 20 of them brand spanking new) 2) and upping their f35 orders..for a total of… Read more »
Why would you think the RN’s carriers would have significantly higher running costs over and above those of the 30,000 ton Italian equivalents.
Because of the facts mate, the Cavour cost around 1 billion vs 3.3 billion for an Elizabeth.. between 2 carriers thats 4.6 billion pounds of capital spending ( or around 11 modern well equipped frigates). Crew wise ( just basic crew needs not air wing) ..485 for a Cavour vs around 700 for an Elizabeth.. So you can argue the value of getting an Elizabeth vs a 30-40 thousand ton carrier..as that’s an opinion ( and my opinion is they are a good assets) but what you can’t do is deny the facts of the costs and how that has… Read more »
I’d also add Sealift is something the RN does much better than the MM. Trieste really represents their only current Landing Capability (there are the San Giogrgios but they’re very small), while the RN has the Bays, Albions, Points, and Argus.
If we look to the Future, the Italian Sealift is going to be two LxD’s vs Six MRSS, and the Points (you can add Trieste in there as well if you want to not count it as one of the MM’s carriers).
Nuclear certified facilities have eaten a large chunk of change and focus for sure.
I don’t really see how the carriers ate my tanks/aircraft/frigates argument works.
They weren’t that expensive in the grand scheme of things.
The problem is the massive roster of niche capabilities and enablers. As well as the way some things are done and resourced.
I personally think the Elizabeth’s are a good asset..but an Italian 30,000 ton carrier cost 1 billion vs 3.3 billion for each Elizabeth..or basically 4.6billion of capital spend…that’s 11 decent well equipped GP frigates. That was a choice and that 4 billion would have made a difference…they also essentially ate the entire naval building capacity as well as the capital budget.
So in this case I would say the yes the state of the escort fleet is probably causal with the Elizabeth class.
The only reason the program ballooned in cost was the decision to push it to the right so often.
If they had been built to the starting spec at £1.8(?)Bn each they would have been a steal.
I wouldn’t over estimate that Italian carriers they aren’t really all that. They would be useful for Libya2 or something like that. But useless in a peer situation.
T45 is at a whole different level to FREMM.
Indeed and I’m not as I said making a judgment of right or wrong, simply pointing out the choices that were made and the compromises and consequences.
but the big thing for me that the RN needs to consider is how the Italian navy is setting up all its escorts to be part of a more diffuse air defence capability…every escort from its modest 4900 ton patrol frigate, it’s ASW frigates, GP frigates will all provide Aster 30 B1 NT, and aster 15s to any task groups air defence, lead by its higher end AAW destroyers.
RN is going diffuse too. T26/31 will have VLS. Which across the fleet is very substantial.
It will be interesting to see what goes in the Mk41 VLS.
The RN problem is how much of the budget goes on things nuclear as there was a distinct lack of capital invested for decades. Add to the the escort buying holiday….
That is not what Jonathan is pointing out He is saying ABM diffuse .
I can’t believe you are comparing that diffuse level with a short range missile like CAMM.
That is like saying every navy is diffuse because every combatant ship has a SAM.
Indeed. I checked again the numbers in the 10 year equipment plan. Nuclear- submarines, warheads- will account for nearly 40% of expenditure. Ring fenced, that will increase pressures on other programmes. Even allowing for that, Italy does seem to get a lot, equipment and personnel- for its more modest budget.
Going to throw some shade at your numbers there. A Type 45 carries 48 Asters and 24 CAMM in it’s upgraded form. That’s considerably more than even the Horizon AAW destroyers, let alone the FREMM’s and PPA Light+’s (remember that the PPA Lights are FFBNW Aster, the objective is to fit them at some later date and even the Light+’s don’t have ASuM’s). Far from 21 Ships with better Air Defence than the 6 Type 45’s that’s… 2 that are better, and that’s if the Italian Navy goes with the DDX concept, which is a big if. And then we… Read more »
Just going to do a bit of maths here. For simplicity I’ve counted the Type 31 and DDX VLS cells as all being SAM, even though both will probably carry a mix, (although I’ve only counted the Type 26’s 48 CAMM Cells and not it’s 24 Mk41’s which certainly will be filled with something else). So, adding up the Type 45’s, 26’s and 31’s you end up with, 976 VLS tubes, with Aster 30 and CAMM. (400 on the Type 45’s, 384 on the Type 26’s and 160 on the Type 31’s). For Italy it’s 288 on the Destroyers, 224… Read more »
Hi Dern, yes but you also need to be look at the when and timelines…the big difference is the Italian navy never had the same likely 15 year pause between escorts being commissioned that the RN did..in reality until 2028ish the RN has 240 silos that can take and advanced medium to long range area defence missile on 6 ships..the Italian navy has 336 spreed over 17 ships..and that’s discounting the 80 standard missiles on the two older Durand de la Penne class.. it’s also go to more FREMM being commissioned in 2025 adding another 32 silos..with another 2 likely… Read more »
The problem is you can’t discount CAMM because in the Italian navy Aster fills both roles. Effectively you’ve got an extremely cherry picked number to get to 288 (um no?) on one hand and 336 on the other. ie Assuming that every missile is an Aster 30 in it’s latest upgrade configuration. That’s something you absolutely can not do if you are trying to do a fair comparison between the two navies. Even if you decide to do run with that extremely cherry picked number the simple counter is that the RN is much better prepared for a saturation attack… Read more »
True, but I was focused on the high end longer range elements, so ballistic missiles and the launch platform ( naval aviation), with a range of 16 miles CAMM is able to defend against the effector, but not target the airborne launch platform. It’s a good short range air defence missile, but it’s not an area defence missile, which means the RN only has the six ships with area defence capabilities…where as every Italian escort can throw into they fight. When you’re taking swarm attack..you cannot discount the difference paradigm in gun armament. At preset the RN does not have… Read more »
Okay but then we’re talking the future in which the RN has 8 Type 26’s with an AA capable 127mm on the Type 26’s and the Type 31’s with 57s and 40’s). (on the 25mm’s you are cherry picking again as your counting those but not the RN’s phalanx mounts, which fill the same role).
Ultimately the only thing that’s holding the RN’s AA gunnery back in a future scenario is reintegrating the AA capability into the 4.5’s. So again, I think you’re really overstating the difference here.
Hi Dern but again it’s timelines and reduced capability, that’s common across a number of facets and that all adds up. If we look at the timeline of gunnery based AAW ( still pretty bloody important). The RN for at least the next 4 years is completely limited to 30mm, now both 30mms are good guns on good mounts but in the end their effective range for anti air is 2000-2750 meters ( depending on type) and they are using very limited ammunition types ( I will leave phalanx as its is a 1km last ditch self protection only capability,… Read more »
Again I’m fine not counting Phalanx, but you can’t go ahead and mention the 25’s on FREMM and then just discount Phalanx, sorry. And your “Well the RN is in a bad place now with guns.” Is where my issue lies, because you’re swapping between looking into the future for the MM and looking at now for the RN to try and pick whichever suits you best. Stick with one or the other. If you want to argue that the MM has a better gun armament right now, fine, but then you don’t get to argue that they have a… Read more »
If you talking about the future then the PPA light will not exist.
DDX already have been approved
I think the point of DDX are for large ABM.
The future is a big time. Maybe a day will come when I want an uniformed opinion. I’ll make sure to ask you when that day comes.
Your informed opinion is full of mistakes as usual.
Oh dear, how sad, Mr Dunning and Kruger has an opinion, let me check to see where I care about it.
Nope not found.
Bore off. Find someone who cares about what you have to say.
As mentioned in earlier post my understanding is that the RN will not be upgrading to the Aster 30 BI NT which is roughly equivalent to the PAC-3 MSE which said to have max range of 160 km but against ballistic and hypersonic missiles due to their much higher speeds the max range is limited to a short 30 km even with its very high definition/Ka waveband seeker. The NT quoted ability to take out 1500 km ballistic missiles makes its problematical even if it can take out the Chinese DF-17 / DF-21 anti-carrier missiles with range said to be 1600 km plus (remember seeing the sat pics of… Read more »
Needs the Sea Ceptor insertion first in order to make room for more Vipers