MOD confirms Sea Viper upgrade initial operating date

” Buy some Arrow 3 and Plug into our existing Radar network” ?
Jim other than the Navy and the SAAB Giraffes tgecArmybhas for CAMM we don’t have Radars that can detect, track and provide targeting info for SAM or ABM missiles. Why would we ? The last ones were Bloodhounds.
Fylingdales is fixed and is literally a distant and space Early Warning system.

The nearest thing we actually do have that can detect, track and provide Targeting is Sea Vyper at Portsdown. It would need upgrading and 3 or 4 others around the UK. Job done !

Fixed is a way better option than mobile as it’s easier to maintain, has more power, range and accuracy and is far cheaper.
As for Mobile systems I don’t disagree that the Army / RAF need more than CAMM but Aster is being developed to be a real, alternative to Arrow or PAC 3. And it’s in service already and you may have noticed France and Italy aren’t in the German Club either.

Yes it does have ballistic missile defence radar on order, this will likely be our main contribution to sky shield.

“The UK is set to buy Ballistic Missile Defense Radar (BMDR) and other associated equipment from the US.
The $700m possible Foreign Military Sale (FMS) was approved by the US State Department. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) was also informed the US Congress regarding the potential sale.“

Jim BMDR is effectively the replacement at Fylingdales it isn’t a Tracking or Targeting Radar. It literally is a warning radar of what is en route and where they are going. It’s also a fixed panel system.
And if you read the actual FMC the base reason for approval is it contributes to US Homeland Security.
The reason we pay for one of them is because it’s our contribution to the cooperative agreement which includes the joint warning system for the US Triad and our CASD release (remember the Golf Balls).

The US has separate Tracking and Targeting Radar systems for their ABM missiles, Patriot, THAAD and Land based Aegis systems. We don’t have those at present, nor do our Lords and Masters seem that bothered.

I’ve never figured out why no one hasn’t just thought about it other than it’s only 1 Site.

The range of the S1850m can be modernised to detect / track 2000km. And Sampson with even the existing Aster 30 can cover most of the South of England. As you say it’s up on a damn big hill.

And it’s right next to one of the most nationally important sites we have. It is, on paper, a no-brainer. One issue could be that the site, according to Google, is owned by Qinetiq so would need to be purchased by the MoD to be used. Would probably have a Navy crew given the system and its role protecting Portsmouth.

I think this every time I drive past it. I presume there are plans in place to rapidly convert the site into a useful air defence asset should such an escalation occur.

After the death of those 3 US soldiers it shows now that even small bases in non contested space need kinetic kill capability though and we will have lost of those even in a time of relative peace.

Not that small a base, around 1-1.5k soldiers. It seems the attackers were very clever and followed a US drone back to the base and so it’s own defences thought it was friendly. But yeah shows the need as a UK equivalent would have nothing.

That’s fundamentally what I read a US drone was due to return and they thought that the Shahed was that drone. It’s the sort of clever tricks the Ukranians have become famous for so no surprise others have upped their game.

Yeah somehow they knew it was due, and followed it in. Either intel leak or they have some form of radar. Doing it by visuals alone would be insanely hard as it takes time to get a drone up and US drones can be out for any amount of time from minutes to tens of hours.

There could be allocations to each and then a shared pool and then hopefully some more on order.

That’s the stupid answer that’s causing him and others in his situation to look abroad to do his IT work, losing the treasury his and others contributions🙄 that’s ok though I’m sure you can take up the slack.

I’m sorry, I’m not trying to offensive but I don’t know the circumstances and, anyway, it’s none of my business. I am well aware of the struggles of many enterprises. The point is that the rich must pay because, oddly, they have the money. The poor can’t pay so much because, well, they haven’t so much. But I also see the poor paying, sometimes disproportionately too much, for the economic downturn too. We pay for NHS, police, education defence etc by tax, and the wealthier we have become the more we owe the nation that allowed us to make money, in my opinion. I don’t buy the ‘feckless poor” argument as I’ve seen plenty of feckless rich too! Being successful and hard work seem to have a curiously unfair relationship. Ask all those whose businesses have failed no matter how hard they worked whilst others prosper without doing much at all. I wish your son well, these are tough times.

You fail to understand an inconvenient truth. The Rich are mobile. If you tax them too greatly – they leave and take a substantial economic contribution with them in the form of investment and jobs. I’ve never seen a poor person single handidly employ anyone.

I’m afraid I don’t buy that old chestnut, sorry. The whole point I’m making is that the rich always get away with it. They don’t care who wins or loses, or who is in power, because they always make money. But they are the ones with the real responsibility to pay up for extracting money from the rest of the population. Please let’s not act out the old fashioned “grateful serf doffing our caps to the nobility”. They fleece us at every opportunity. Creating jobs is just a by-product of making money. “Washback and trickle down” are at best unreliable and and worst a complete myth. And no, I’m not a socialist either (don’t get me started on that). Just economically cynical!

I am no Socialist and if someone is making a decent living and paying their dues then fine we need Enterprise and it has to be nurtured.
But there are folks out there who make Millions and some even Billions who probably pay less than your Son does,
One thing that is monstrously unfair is the present Council Tax System.
What we have is the same cobbled together temporary replacement for the Poll Tax that MT brought in PDQ, it was supposed to be reviewed.

It never got reviewed and when you think a Band H pays 260% more than a Band A there is something wrong.
But I doubt there is a single MP, Minister or Senior Civil Servant who lives in a basic Band H !🤔

Many Band H aren’t anything fancy or huge and the folks living there aren’t rich so the amount for most is probably about right.
However Band H has no ceiling, so you have some very Rich Folks who just buy multiple very expensive properties or Massive Estates and just pay the same as you, me or your son ! Their wealth is invested and hidden in plain sight.

We have a huge housing shortage in UK but 2nd homes are endemic, is that right when the locals have all had to leave ?

Some things are just plain wrong !

You make us important points. Thanks.

So we are to blame for teaching them duplicity then – Oh thats OK then….

Not true.
Lightweight Seawolf (GWS26Mod2? (Type 911 and 4-barrelled trainable launcher firing conventional launch missiles) was going to go onto the Type 42s. It was cancelled as a part of the end of the Cold War peace Dividend.

The trainable launcher version was not full fat Sea Wolf as was fitted to T23.

It had a much poorer range and the cut down computer system (tested on T21) was not all that useful or reliable.

Nobody had figured out how to fit the Wolf backend system into T42 and the conversation was going round and round in circles…..

Fitted to T22 it had the full computer system so was a very different beastie.

It was junked because ultimately it wasn’t that good. I know that first hand.

I do not know what ‘full fat’ means. There were 3 variants of CLSW, two of which went into service (T22 (2 different trackers) and Leander (one tracker type)) and one on the T42 which did not. There was one version of VLSW which went onto the T23s, I assume that might be your ‘full fat’ variety.

The VL system on T23 [full fat] had a much greater range and was much more effective than any of the trainable launcher versions.

There was an attempt to make a very cut down version of Wolf to keep T21 in service. That was the version slated for T42.

The two systems were like chalk and cheese to each other.

Again wrong.
The widebeam Leanders used GWS25 Mod 0 (T910 and single 6 barrelled launcher). The T21 never had Seawolf fitted.
The T42 option used a variant of the T911 tracker, very different from T910, but similar to the T23 version.
Vertical Launch used a very different missile to the original Conventional Launch missile, although it from the outside the Dart looked similar.

Thanks, I know all that.

I’m not quite sure what we are debating here?

As I said above, in this thread, the VL missile had much greater range than the trainable version. It would have to be as the VL launch element uses more energy than horizontal.

VT originally proposed a new build version of T21 back in the late 70’s with Sea Wolf fitted. There are plenty of drawings and images from VT around.

This thinking was revived as the missile threat from EXOCET became clearer.

A version of Wolf was chopped down to fit the existing T21’s – space, power and cooling were major issues. I recall one was trialled – hazy memory can’t recall which ship. This became known as the ‘Lightweight’ system as it only had 4 missiles rather than 6.

I know, for sure, it went onto a trials barge.

The other thing that killed the ‘lightweight’ system was the end of the GWS-27 project – as with the 27 missiles the tracker system didn’t have to do terminal phase. That simplifies what the computer tracker had to do an awful lot.

GWS-27 was killed off in 1985(ish? Hazy memory) in favour of starting the MODULAR project(s) that ultimately lead to what we now know as Sea Ceptor.

Agreed, a p*****g competition, but is stretching the grey matter which is good on a grey Friday afternoon.
I have no idea about VT T21 concepts, before my time.
I do not remember GWS27. Certainly never got of the concept board in Bristol or Stevenage. Maybe it was a part of the ‘Wolverine’ concept. Not sure that got beyond air show models.
The T42 was to take the Lightweight system (T911 & 4 barrelled launcher) as described earlier. Indeed, I think that was the start of this ‘competition’.
The CLSW trials ship was HMS Penelope (I think, also before my time).
The only Trials Barge I remember was Longbow which was used for VLSW development and later Sea Viper trials.
Have a nice day.

It’s did, it shit down a silkworm missile headed for USS Missouri however it shot at it in a tail on configuration I believe which made the shot easier. Sea dart did well enough but I think it was more a testimony to the crew of HMS Gloucester that made the engagement successful.

Sorry shot down, don’t drink and type 😀

I think both Mk 41 and ExLS are overpriced for the cold-launched CAMM family and a high-density lower cost CAMM VLS is preferable.

There is conflicting information, but there’s a possibility that’s exactly what we are going to get. The Royal Navy website has the following descripription of the T26 missile silos.

“These consist of 12 vertical launch system (VLS) cells for the Sea Ceptor surface to air missile (and another 24 multi-purpose MK 41 VLS cells). Each cell can house four Sea Ceptors, giving each ship a total of 48 missiles, and the MK 41 VLS provides flexibility to utilise a further choice of missiles to counter threats as they emerge.”
Royal Navy

I realise this is different to the visualisations we’ve seen from BAES and Babcock regarding the new 6-cell modules; however, it seems to say that the new Sea Ceptor VLS is capable of being quad-packed. If so that’s tremendously good news and only the stupidly low number of 12 cells is preventing an excellent fit-out.

Having the same quad-packable VLS on T31, T45 and T26 seems pretty good to me! I’d like to hear some explicit confirmation at some point.

Have we lost some posts? I’m pretty sure I responded to a question about Mk41 and XLS which no longer seems to be here.

Looks like it ! How odd maybe someone didn’t like my post but I still think that going back to fitting 2 MK41 where they were designed to go is the right move. And if you do that with ExLs then you have 48 Aster, 48 CAMM and 8 NSM and that’s fruity for an AAW ship.

Defender came out of PIP how long ago?

Defender has only just Started PIP, which will be combined with receiving CAMM.

My mistake HMS Daring.

She’s not finished yet, due back sometime this year.

That’s my point, she was back in the water after PIP installation last January.

Defender only started its PIP upgrade late last year – she won’t be out for a while yet.

I thought it had just gone in. Back out 2026 I think?

Rethink? Mk41 and Exls?

I’m not sure.

My nose is that the threat dial has shifted quite a lot.

Contrary to a lot of the chat on here RN admirals are not sat in overstuffed armchairs sipping port – there will be good if/then plans.

The total snag is funding.

Shapps and Key were over in the US for a reason and it is reasonable guess it is to do with the missile drone attacks as well as how UK can best help.

Which is why I’d speculate that one of the UK asks in return for a QEC and T45 rotations is for expedited access to Mk41 cells.

So I’m now really, really reaching but my nose tells me that the Mk41 might be back on the cards.

All speculation and guesswork on a Friday!

In the short term I’d still expect to see NSM on most platforms this year.

Future proofing. We are putting Mk41 on T31 and T26 so got to make sense. T45 is getting more PIP power and Aster Block 1 in the Sylver cells. Use Mk41 for Ceptor ….initially. NSM isn’t Tomahawk but you are almost getting another 6 Arleigh Burkes.

Interestingly Poland has ordered sufficient LM MK41’s for 4X8 VLS on each of their T31 versions and they also bought the eXLS to quad pack CAMM. I bet their next little shopping item will be TLAM
To me going back to plan A from the original build was 2 MK41, and with eXLS that makes huge sense that’s 48 CAMM !
Which all of a sudden makes the T45 a very potent Air Warfare ship with 96 AD missiles. Just need the NSM and updates to the S1850m (SMART L MM(N) ?) and SAMPSON.

Hi DavyB, Some very useful information as always.

What particularly interests ms me is how countries are starting to invest more heavily in homeland defence, something I’ve been mentioning over a long period of time on here and more recently, would it not be prudent for us to do the same?

I agree. For me the biggest shocker was when Germany signed the contract to purchase Arrow 3. Sort of out of the blue, as Germany is part of the EU program, investigating and conceptualizing very high altitude and sub/orbital missile defence. I have read somewhere that some of the Baltic states will be paying Germany for their defence, by buying additional missiles.

The other question is why Arrow over the SM3/6 Aegis ashore? As SM3/6 has had more time/experience with decades of development.

Sadly MBDA are a long way behind the drag curve. As Aster is primarily led by the French/Italian arm of MBDA, the UK has very little say in its development. Aster could quite easily mirror SM6. As SM6 was originally SM2 with the 1st stage booster from SM3. This basically took advantage of the extra length available from the longer strike length Mk41 VLS.

Aster could very easily take advantage of the longer Sylver A70 strike length VLS. Which would allow adding nearly an additional 2m worth of propellant to the Aster A30’s 1st stage. Again like the newer versions of SM3 and SM6, the diameter of the 1st stage could be maxed out to squeeze into the cell.

By doing so, Aster would reach similar interception height’s to SM6, I.e. over 125,000ft. The next stage would be maxing out the diameter of the Dart. So there’s more propellant for the 2nd stage motor. Which is what the next version of SM6 is doing, so it can reach the heights hypersonic glide vehicles (HGVs) reach.

Aster would be a better interceptor than SM6, for two reasons. Firstly it uses a Ka-band radar which operates at a higher frequency than the one used in SM6. This will give it much better target resolution. So it can deduce which is the target amongst decoys much easier. Secondly, Aster uses mid-body reaction jets for terminal maneuvers. Whereas SM6 relies on aerodynamic surfaces. At very high altitudes where the air is thinner Aster will have better control authority as it closes with a target.

Agreed, for such an expensive project it will require multi-national funding. Not sure Europe has the stomach for it. Especially as Germany and some other Nations have banded together to purchase the Arrow system.

👌

Thanks 🕵️.

It’s a fair point though mate. Some contributors here do know certain things and you have to catch yourself.
But yes, Qs question was nowhere near that level.

👌…… I see this stuff all the time on these places…… nothing to worry about…. nothing to learn either…..

And thanks Frank.

Well, we could keep the T45s on, with their missile upgrades, so that they can act as BMD barges with a secondary OPV role. A very expensive way of doing OPVs, but quite a cheap way of doing BMD.

To be blunt, for all round ABM defence. The T45s will need the strike length Mk41 or Sylver A70 VLS cells. The current Aster farm uses the shorter Sylver A50 launcher. You need the longer cells to operate missiles in the same class as SM3 and SM6.

So could ASTER be made longer? In Sylver A70, could you fit an “Aster 50” with a much longer range?

Could the then two MK41s spaces on the T45s theoretically be converted to A70s?
Has the MK41 even been brought up for the T45s? Okay, it’s more money but they’re buying 3*8 and 5*4 for the T26/T31s already. Isn’t it worth having this extra silo ability right now and over the next 10-15 years?
I’d like to see them make the 6 silo CAMM into an 8 (if there’s room) to give the T45s a 32 CAMM loadout … and then I’ll shut up about the MK41s and side silos… Lol 😁

3*8? There are 4 mk41 sets each for the T26s and 4 each for the T31s, I think
It might be 3 for the 26s. Sylver 70 will certainly be worth thinking about for T83 given we would have our own ASM and potentially ASROC-style for the FLT.

Yes, the A70 launcher is 7m in length, whilst the A50 is 5m. So you could add nearly an additional 2m of booster. In this game size does mean everything!

So what do you think the range of “ASTER 50” would be? I thought the booster of the 30 was only about 3m long, so a serious increase?
You could probably fit the same thing in the longer editions of mk41.

Aster 30 Block 0, is 120km range, and Block 1NT 150km.

I know, but DB is advocating an extension of the booster rather than other upgrades, which would also increase range.

Aster 30 is comparable to the active radar version of SM2. However, if you add the SM3 booster to the active SM2, you get SM6. Again by adding near enough an additional 2m worth of propellent, to the Aster 30 booster. You will have a missile comparable to the early version of SM6. Which means an interception height of around 100,000ft.

You could go further by either changing the form factor of the dart. Basically make it wider to make more volume for propellent. Or you keep Aster 15’s booster as is and introduce a 2nd stage booster, but change the rocket to a ramjet. This should increase you range across the ground. But also increase you interception altitude. Where as the ramjet burns out its fuel, the dart’s rocket then ignites to push it higher still.

So does the dart have propellant? I didn’t know that, I thought it was just a hittile like StarStreak. You could have a Meteor style ramjet, but you would be the expert on its effect on performance.

Aster 15/30 is a two stage missile. The Dart contains the 2nd stage, whilst the booster is the 1st stage, which drops away after it has burnt out. In both stages the exhaust uses thrust vectoring. There are also four mid body reaction jets, that exhaust through the mid-body strakes. These are used to adjust the missile’s flight path to match erratically manoeuvring targets.

Aster is considered a hittle, in all the published trials it has conducted, it has either been a direct hit or where one of its mid-body strakes has sliced into the target. It does have a fragmentary warhead that can be initiated by either an impact fuze or a proximity fuze.

A ramjet assisted Aster would have similar benefits that Meteor has. Where it can throttle its burn rate to “cruise” towards a target. Then throttle up again when it gets closer. Or it can be wide open throttle for its burn duration. But because its not carrying an oxidiser and is using the air. There will be more propellent to use for the burn for longer. Thereby accelerating the missile for longer. Where the Dart’s final stage can be delayed, Again allowing the missile to accelerate faster and for further.

The advantage is the Dart at closer ranges will have a much higher kinetic energy. But also at distant ranges, the missile will have retained a lot more energy, thereby increasing it Pk chances.

Aside from the loss of maneuverability, would just sticking Meteor on an Aster booster have the same effect?

Yes in theory. Using either the Aster 15 or preferably the Aster 30 1st stage booster. The booster will critically push Meteor past the sound barrier towards Mach 1.5, to allow the ramjet (throttleable ducted rocket) to operate. It will likely push it to Mach 3+, before Meteor’s engine is started. When you consider the terminal speed of Aster 30 is over Mach 4. Meteor will be just as fast, potentially faster!

The Meteor itself is 3.65m long, which is about a metre longer than the Aster’s Dart 2.62m, but is about the same diameter. So in theory it should require only minor changes to fit to the Aster’s booster.

The upside is that Meteor is itself a two stage missile. Where it contains a booster rocket in the Ramjet’s exhaust, the same as Sea Dart. This rocket only lasts for a couple of seconds. Its job is to ensure the missile is travelling supersonic, before firing the ramjet. In this scenario, the Aster booster has done all the hard work. So the small booster is just an added bonus. The Meteor’s ramjet will operate a lot longer on full throttle than the Aster Dart’s rocket engine, as it contains a lot more fuel, plus without the oxidiser. So in theory it should reach a lot further, go a lot higher and probably a lot faster depending on its throttle settings.

It does mean however, a Meteor/Aster 30 booster combination will be too long for the Sylver A50 launcher, being 5.93m long. Therefore you would need either the Sylver A70 or the strike length Mk41. At which point you might as well increase the booster’s length by a metre to make use of the additional available space. Which would definitely put the combination in the same league as SM6!

The down side is that Meteor is not as manoeuvrable as Aster. Aster uses the mid-body strakes to generate lift during turns. Which decreases the turning radius and increases the rate of the turn (also increases drag). Plus the mid-body reaction jets can push the missile towards the target. Though depending on the interception range, Meteor should have more kinetic energy in the terminal phase of the engagement. Both Aster and Meteor are getting radar upgrades. Though Meteor may be getting an AESA sooner than Aster, so it should have the sensor advantage. Meteor would also need modifying, so it can talk to and control the booster. But this should be fairly simple!

I have two main questions.
1. How does AESA on a missile work? I’ve seen references to Aster getting an “imaging seeker”, but surely the resolution of the image would be limited by the number of elements, severely so on such a tiny platform?
2. How far could such a seeker “see”? There has been conversation on this site on the advisability of providing, say, the Bofors 40mm with its own fire control radar. Would a similarly miniaturised AESA panel have the required range and accuracy to provide a CIWS with targeting info after the main radar spots the target?
As ever thank you very much for your easy-to-follow replies to a very interested young person!

Hi Sailor Boy. Sadly this is not a yes/no answer and will need a bit of background info. I won’t give any specifics away, but use published information.

An AESA radar on a missile will pretty much operate the same as one fitted to an aircraft. However, on an aircraft you have much more available space for signal processing. Whereas on a missile you are quite limited. The other issue is cost. You can spend a fortune on really top notch signal processing. But as the missile is a one shot deal, is it really necessary?

The size of the antenna is a key factor, as the diameter of the missile determines the area of the antenna. Therefore, to get the most efficiency out of the antenna, you need the radar to operate at a really high frequency, as you need a really small wavelength. Take the Aster missile, it is 180mm in diameter, as per ASRAAM and Meteor. If we take X-band (8 to 12GHz) that is used by most fighter radars, then its wavelength is 3.75 to 2.5cm.

For a flat plate antenna, there will be a number of transmitting elements. Which can be made up using dipoles, slots, horns etc. There are a number of antenna inefficiencies, the key one being the standing wave ratio. This is where the length of the antenna does not match the transmitted wavelength, so you get the signal bouncing back. Which interferes with the signal and reduces its power and puts noise on to the signal. Another is feedback, where the signal from one element is picked up a neighbouring element, which again can distort the signal by putting noise on it.

To overcome these issues, the antenna element must try to match the transmitting wavelength. However, you can get away by using a 1/2 wavelength length or even a 1/4 wavelength length. Though they won’t be as efficient. But crucially the elements must be at least 1/2 wavelength apart to reduce the feedback.

For maximum antenna gain (power output) and receiver sensitivity, you need to cram as many antenna elements in to the available space. With these general rules in place you can now see why aircraft and missiles in particular require very high frequency radar.

Pre-PESA/AESA radar, aircraft used mechanically scanned radars. The Typhoon Captor-M is pretty much the pinnacle of mechanically scanned radars. The flat plate antenna, is mounted to a two-axis gimbal. That can move to the max and min of its limits within 0.5 of a second. Which means it has a full hemispherical field of view. However, the gimbals do wear out over time due to the high loads placed on them.

Ignoring PESA for a moment, AESA (active electronically scanned array) radar, is basically an array made up with lots of individual radars. Where each element can be a combined transmitter and receiver put into an individual modules, known as TRMs. By clumping these TRMs together in to an array. Then delaying the transmit time ever so slightly, between each TRM. You can add the signal together and cause the generated beam to lean over. By varying the delay in the direction you want the beam to look, you can now electronically steer the beam. But now the beam can sweep to its left/right and up/down extremes in tens of milliseconds not half a second as per a mechanically scanned radar.

PESA and AESA radars in general are mounted as a fixed plate on aircraft. As the AESA puts the TRMS in the antenna array, these actually weigh quite a bit. A mechanical two-axis gimbal would need seriously beefing up to handle the acceleration loads.

However, one issue with AESA, is that it doesn’t provide a full hemispherical view like the legacy mechanically scanned ones. They are generally limited to a field of view of +/-60 degrees in azimuth and +/- 45 degrees in elevation. These limits are due to how the beam is formed by the TRMs using constructive interference. Where if two signals transmitting next to each other match, they add together to amplify the signal. As the beam is angled over towards its limit, there are less TRMs forming the back of the beam. So the beam not only gets wider, but starts to suffer from self-induced interference.

With modern filtering and signal processing you can help to mitigate this limits. But you are facing the cost vs benefits issues. Where the further you go the cost significantly ramps up for less and less benefit. To overcome this, Leonardo have placed the CAPTOR-E (Radar 2) antenna array on a swashplate. This is the similar to a helicopter’s swashplate. In that it is a bearing, where one part is fixed to the aircraft and the other to the antenna. The swashplate allows the antenna to move +/- 30 degrees in azimuth and elevation. Thereby giving the radar a full hemispherical field of view.

So what does this have to do with missiles? Well currently there is only one missile that has come into service that mounts an AESA radar. Which is the Japanese AAM-4B. All other air to air radar guided missiles use a mechanically scanned radar. As the antenna must have the ability of following the target in respect to the missile. Which generates the interception angle, for the missile to cut the corner for the intercept. If the target moves out of the field of view of the missile’s radar. Then the missile looses lock and has to try and find the target again with its remaining energy. So expect to see missile’s using an AESA radar with a swashplate etc. There is very little information on the Japanese missile. Such as does it use some form of mechanically device to alter the AESA base angle?

But why AESA? AESA has a lot of advantages over legacy radars. Some are low probability of intercept (LPI), wider operating bandwidth, better at countering electronic countermeasures and a much tighter beam pattern.

Going back to Aster, the Block 0 and 1 uses a Ku-band (12 to 18GHz / 2.5 to 1.67cm) radar. On the Block 1NT this is replaced by a Ka-band (24 to 40GHz / 1.11 to 0.75cm) radar (Any radar with a wavelength below 1cm is generally classed a millimetric radar). Why the change? As the transmitting frequency goes up, the returning signal off the target gets better resolution. This can also be due to the diameter of the beam when it hits the target. There is some proportionality between the diameter of the beam and the wavelength. With a smaller wavelength you can have a smaller diameter beam. Therefore, as the beam hits one part of the target, it gets reflected. As the beam is swept across the target, the shape of the target can be determined. The beam’s diameter will be also determined by the type of antenna used and the distance to the target, but it will diverge over distance.

With some signal processing, you can put together the received data to form an image. The better the resolution the clearer the image. For example you can use S-band to form an image, but the details look fuzzy. You can make out that’s a car etc. X-band, you can tell the car is a hatchback. Ka-band you can see details of the hatch back and probably tell what make it is, W-band is getting close to photo quality.

The signal processing in Aster 1NT won’t be needed to define specific details of the target. As there isn’t space in the missile for the signal processing. But it will be able to be used to tell the difference between a decoy and the actual target. Especially useful against ballistic missiles that are dropping decoys. This is using a legacy mechanically scanned radar. If Aster was using an AESA, the target resolution would be better still, due to the tighter beam pattern.

There is a caveat of using higher frequency radars though. Which is from atmospheric attenuation. Basically the air absorbs the transmitted radio (radar) wave. The higher the frequency the greater the affect. Where at K-band the air significantly absorbs radio waves. Which is why a S-band radar transmitting at say 1kW will transmit significantly further than an X-band using the same power output.

For an active radar guided missile, this doesn’t matter so much. As the missile is initially guided to the target via its on-board navigation system, given target updates from its launch aircraft or a 3rd party (AEW&C). Before it gets within a determined distance of the target, to activate its own radar. Which could be as little a 5km. But as the antenna is better matched to the operating frequency, maximum gain can be used to generate the signal. So if the radar was only pumping out 150W it should be enough to see the target at 5km or so.

Going back to your second question. The Bofors Mk4 40mm and the Mk110 57mm, should have their own independent sensors. This not only means that their is battle damage redundancy, but also means the primary radar, such as the T31’s NS100, isn’t using up resource time allocated towards gun direction. I am one of the advocates for getting radars mounted to these weapon systems.

Both weapon systems are turreted and fairly large. There is available space to mount both a radar and an Electro-optical sensor. Sticking with the radar, although mounted lower than the mast mounted radar. By the time the threat has been detected, verified and action required. The target will likely be in view of the turret mounted radar.

An example would be Leonardo’s Osprey 30, which admittedly is overkill for this role. But dimensionally the antenna array measures 200mm (h) x 500mm (l) x 140mm (d). The radar is an AESA that operates in the X-band. To increase the field of view, you could mount the array on a swashplate. This radar has true multi-role capabilities can do multiple roles simultaneously using multi-beam transmissions. But it does have a detection range of 200NM against really big targets.

But realistically, you would ideally use an AESA operating in the Ku-band. Where the panel array can be 1/2 to 1/3 the size of the Osprey, operating at less power. Being AESA it could have multi-beam capabilities. Where it could not only track the target and the outgoing shells. But also scan the skies for other threats simultaneously. As it’s Ku-band it will have better resolution of the target and its position in space relative to the ship. It could easily see targets popping up over the horizon. For the Mk4 40mm and Mk110 57mm, that’s all that’s really required.

Yes, I had intended the radar idea to be for CIWS role only, with main radar used for surface engagement over the gun’s horizon. It had occurred to me that with such tiny radar as a missile has it would be almost inconspicuous if you had a pair of them like ears on either side of the 57mm turret.
I keep wondering who you work for, DB. I have a conversation with you on GMLRS on one thread and you speak like you work on it, then your missile/radar stuff is wonderful.
Thanks as ever for taking seriously the musings of a teenager!

Being as the missile’s radar is fitted to the turret. The signal processing unit is no longer constrained by the requirement to fit inside a missile tube. You can expand its capabilities by replacing it with something with more processing power. Likewise with the antenna array, now that you have more space to play with, you can ramp up the power output of the antenna array. But now you have the space to actively cool the array. Therefore it can operate longer at full power.

For durability though, you would want the array to operate at a max power output of 75%. Which means the missile radar is not really practicable. It really needs a bigger array and better signal processing. But the missile array would be a good starting point.

There’s the Aster 30 Block 1NT in development, and the proposed A30 Block 2NT awell, which the RN could take up.

Indeed.

At least with the upgrade UK has something fully developed and worked up.

So the tech is there to be rolled out to land assets.

Which is a lot better than waiting for the next good idea…..

If Russia did manage to get a sub in to the North Atlantic when the sabre rattling looks like its about to turn kinetic. I would hope a “NATO” sub would be trailing it.

Its not the SSBNs that we should be primarily worried about. But the 11 cruise missile carrying Oscars and Yasens. The Oscars are being replaced by the Yasens. A modified Oscar can carry around 72 cruise missiles, whilst a Yasen can carry 32. Park one of these off the West Coast of Ireland. The whole of the UK would be in range of a cruise missile strike. With very little warning and next to no defence.

Indeed but that’s a different step and a different set of requirements…one is not dependent on the other. aster 30 block 1 mod 0 is for the missile nothing more than a change of seeker head and warhead..then maybe some integration work with the PAAMs…they are not developing anything new or having to do major refits for this….I suspect it’s because they don’t want to pay the money to do it quickly.

👍Agreed!

T23 was never designed to fit CIWS, almost nill they’d take them in for refit just to add that at this point in their lives.

No in the case of the aster30 block1 mod0 the booster and body are all the same as a normal aster 30, the changes are in the seeker head and a new duel purpose warhead..

isn’t there an EM version proposed?

+ I thought those seeker improvements had already been made and implemented (isn’t it similar to brimstone?)

if that’s the case I am thinking CAMM really become a light TLAM /brimstone replacement (as the RN have already tested but didn’t buy the software upgrade from what I understand)

Hi no there have been no modifications to the Aster missiles so far..

“MBDA source explained that the main differences between legacy Aster 30 and the Block 1 variant are in the seeker software and missile computer software. There are also some minor hardware modifications such as the warhead: It combines a proximity fuse with blast fragmentation warhead. While Aster 30 is limited to “air breathing target” or ABT”

thanks for info and responses

There’s also a stretched Brimstone style thing that MBDA are putting forwards for the Land Precision Fires role after GMLRS, which could probably be adapted to launch vertically with 60+ mile range. In addition, MBDA have produced CGI of a SPEAR 3 coming out of a CAMM quad-pack. Both of these would probably fulfil the idea that you put forwards and be a really useful capability.

I’m a bit disappointed that MBDA haven’t looked at fitting Brimstone or Spear-3 to a M28 rocket used in the MLRS and HIMARS. If they can do the same for the US small diameter bomb (SDB). Then why not Brimstone or Spear?

Well, if you look up the UKDJ article “Requirements for future British anti-armour revealed” from 2021 there is an MBDA concept image of what looks like a multiple launch rocket coming out of a Land Ceptor pallet attached to a Boxer with CAMM rear fins and a Brimstone seeker. (You may remember it, you have comments under that article)
This seems like it would be a mighty useful piece of kit as a combination of Mounted Overwatch and a more conventional artillery role, with more depth than ordinary Brimstone.

Cheers, must have been having a brain fart!

It ain’t Rocket Science mate………… 😂

It bloody is! Give me infrastructure or installations any day, or ORBATs.
How’s the beard getting on? After your previous incarnation I see a mix of Captain Haddock and Captain PW, on a motorbike with an old tent!

😆☝️!! You’ll need to try harder if you’re going incognito. I’ve been around here long enough mate, with a long memory!

There are two parts to an Aster missile. The 1st stage booster rocket and the Dart that sits on top of it. The Dart contains the second stage rocket, warhead, sensor etc. Aster 15 and Aster 30 use the same Dart. The only difference is the1st stage rocket booster, where Aster 30’s is just under twice as long as Aster 15’s. To turn Aster 15 in to 30, you just replace the booster motor. So that part of the exercise is relatively painless.

Its the bit changing a Block 0 into a Block 1. Where the Dart has to be broken apart, to replace the warhead and other parts. Normally the “energetics” (warhead, rocket motor and electrical explosive devices) are separated from the body a missile in a safe location. Then the remaining body can be safely worked on in a lab environment. This again shouldn’t take too long.

This is day to day maintenance level stuff.

It will be done as the missiles are rotate through the ammunition depot.

As you say no big deal at all.

As I have said missiles are not my field, so perhaps you can explain something to me.
Rather than buying New Builds we are updating the existing 30’s and upgrading the 15’s to the same Block 1 standard.
As I understand it the Booster / propellant have a certain life expectancy and these are already @10 years old.
So do they reuse the existing components in the case of the Aster 30 or replace and zero hour the updated / upgraded missile ?
The 15 to 30 would be more complex as you need to fit the new bigger booster.
I’m retired now but still ask the same question I did when an Apprentice here in Derby, “how does that object / process work ?”

You are correct that when the missile reaches its shelf life or its air carriage life. The missile will get stripped. The rocket motor’s propellant will be sent for disposal, as it can’t be reused. The warhead will be the same. It’s very difficult to determine the chemical decomposition of the warhead. So it’s safer to assume it’s time expired and dispose of it. The missile’s battery is likely to be timex as well, so that will get binned.

The forward body will be examined and if it’s within tolerance, cleaned up painted and reused. This goes for the fins as well. The electronics, actuators and sensors will be tested and if within tolerance reused.

A fair bit of the missile can be reused when it reaches its shelf life.

Mmmm That’s fine providing we bought sufficient Aster 30 in the first place to convert for a full load out in 6 ships ! I doubt we did that as these things aren’t exactly cheap.

remember we don’t keep all six vessels filled up with the missiles, they are loaded in and out as they come on and off refit..the missiles themselves are maintained etc..which is why I don’t understand why they cannot be simply refitted as block 1 as a normal part of maintaining them…it’s should not be outside the possibility of man that as the T45s come out of refit they they get the block 1 upgraded missiles.

That still doesn’t mean we have sufficient 30’s to convert for a full 100% load. Just do Math if the present load out is a 50/50 split 30s / 15s that’s not a lot to work with. The number of Asters purchased has always been a nebulous number, but I’d be surprised if the MOD bought any more than the bare minimum (as per everything else).

I’m not talking about a 100% load out of aster 30 block 1…we will still be using the 15 for a while….where did I say 100% load out of aster 30 block 1 ?

That’s the implication of the announcement. “Sea Vyper to have existing missiles upgraded to Aster 30 Block 1”. There is no mention in it anywhere about 1 NT as a 2nd phase (nor anywhere else I can find. The upgrade of the 15’s is when they replace their role by CAAM, What else would they do with them and that is a full load of 30s !
Or am I missing something ?

I think we are getting confused, I have suggested that it should not take four years to field a number of Aster 30 as block1 mod0 as it’s a simple change…as it is it looks like the RN will not be fielding any block1 mod0 capabilities for at least 4 years..which means they are going to do the CAMM modification before moving to Mod 0..which to my mind is an unnecessary delay..as they could simply move to a mod0 aster 30 capability very quickly.

And a new paint job….. Have you seen her rust !!!!!

Just a cosmetic touch up can’t have too much highly inflammable paint on board

A Freeman or Freeship sort of thing! 😄

The Stripes awarded are for efficiency something like that

😂 love it !

🤞fingerscrossed another “Good will gesture”

He was doing something useful with that improvised underslung crate.

Can’t have been much fun as the foward airspeed wasn’t going to much with that lump dangling underneath. So it was a very vulnerable situation to be in.

And he could of spilt the pilots Cup of Coffee very risky holding a flask of coffee with a Radome swinging beneath you

Never r had a Frigate I served Hunts,Destroyers and Carriers Type 42s could manage Phalanx and Carriers had Goalkeeper a cheaper version of Phalanx I do believe 23s have Auto tracking and firing 30mm as Ciws with a lesser firing rate of either Phalanx, Goalkeeper

Is it POW then… ? I can’t seem to recall which Carrier is which ATM….They are both tied up but only one is being worked on….. either way, it looks like something will be happening soon.

If not a 4th Phalanx at least something extra!!! Lol. 😆

Morning mate, believe that QE had all her work done just after she got back from Glen Malen a while ago.
Think since then everyone has been on leave and she is stored ready for the off so to speak. Suspect that she may well top up her ‘fresh’ food today in preparation for sailing.

Cheers mate, I just had a look and still no activity but the view is somewhat obscured by the Museum buildings. plenty still going on with POW though.
The Draught thing was mentioned a while back when it was thought that POW might have touched the btm when her Prop broke and many years back there was some Dredging work carried out. I shall look forward to seeing the tell tale puff of smoke !

I’ve been really lucky to have spotted both a few times Whilst on Portland… Had a great view a few months back, POW was sailing past Portland Bill really early and I spotted her by accident whilst just looking out to sea from the heights… got some great pics.

Pompey has a split tide range due too the Isle of Wight so high tide lasts longer by 1 hr compared to other places along the south coast either time on Sunday it won’t be light when she sails

I agree mate… we are part of a Team…. luckily !