OCCAR confirms £1.3bn Horizon frigate upgrade deal

…NL article (to be specific)…🙄

Here’s the link – Royal Navy to be the first European force to field maritime ballistic missile defence capability | Navy Lookout

It is not confirmed.

The SAMPSON upgrade is being done in the standard dry docking and insertion periods as it the Thales air search upgrade.

The A15 -> A30 + Sea Ceptor has a budget line and the first ship is about to start receiving that upgrade package.

The A30 upgrades are also funded.

One of the reasons that may be taking so long is to change the cells from A50 to the A70 version to take the longer missiles.

These are all necessary spiral steps to add the ABM capability to T45.

I meant not confirmed it will be the first ABM.

I even believe that current Aster already have ABM capability,, obviously not up to top performance and long range BM but i believe it is vastly better than Patriots in Gulf War.

ASTER is definitely up to taking out Scud type missiles.

Apart from anything the radars and the software are vastly better.

A shoot off between THADD, ASTER, AEGIS-SM & PATRIOT would be very interesting.

I would speculate that Sea VIPER is actually the best of the bunch in certain scenarios.

Patriot missiles aren’t even in the right ball game. How about the Arrows for your shoot-off instead? Following German selection, Arrow 3 could become the ABM missile system of choice for Northern Europe. Although as far as I know the Germans aren’t planning on anything maritime with it, I believe Israel originally tested the system from a ship, and having ported Iron Dome on to the Sa’ar corvettes, Arrow ABMs are their next logical step.

Arrow is a very long range very heavy ABM plus the radar. I don’t think it will fir in one of Israeli corvettes.

“Patriot missiles aren’t even in the right ball game”

Keep in mind that the Patriot, although designed for short and medium range missiles as a key requirement, the pac2 missile actually has a longer advertised maximum range than the aster30. I state this while acknowledging that maximum range is not the only or best gauge of capability.

ASTER is a 360 system and the PK is likely higher as the ASTER darts are likely more agile.

I guess it depends of what missile specifically you are comparing as the patriot has several different missiles. pac2, pac2 gem-t, pac3, pac3-mse, the latter of which is the most modern and uses a htk interceptor. All we’re doing is speculating at this point since all the performance data is highly classified.

The whole upgrade program seems stupidly planned. We only have 6 and so best case realistically 3 available if needed. We have then made that number lower by engine upgrade, followed by Camm, followed by astar. Guessing budget restrictions means that can’t afford to combine these but it does result in significant gaps for long periods of times

Hi,

Did not know the A50s would be upgraded for A70. I thought that A50 was good for the ASTER 30, block 0, 1 and 1NT only block 2 ABM ASTER 30 needs the bigger cell.

I don’t *know* it.

But it is a likely upgrade pathway.

Thanks, still haven’t mastered technique for posting links. 😊👍

We can post links😱😂😂😂

Congratulations.

Hi look up the sea viper evolutionary capacity 1 (SV-E 1) program. Which is the upgrade of the radar and Aster to block 1 standard as well as bringing in CAMM. This will support optimising for ballistic missile interception.

Also there will then . Be SV-E 2 which is the upgrade the Aster block 1NT.

Cheers 👍

Indeed. One for Gunbuster to answer but a welcome addition none the less for added protection.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C1Zvel3XEAAhfQC.jpg

Exactly.

SAMPSON is very heavy and the mast has to be engineered specifically for it.

Though, EMPAR and Sampson are at similar heights above sea level. It is probably too expensive to look at a main mast strengthening redesign. Which means that at range, the Kronos system will have more disadvantages compared to Sampson.

Having the two 76mm’s at the higher level won’t help with the overall meta centric weights either.

I suspect they are a bit stuck with spiral options limited.

3 76mm for Italians. But they aren’t that heavy.

The thing with ships is that: it all adds up.

There will be a topweight margin that leads to the metacentric roll / yaw curves. So if you are OK on those curves and you start changing things then you can rapidly get to a stage, by making quite minor changes higher up, that things are getting quite marginal.

For instance SAMPSON is very heavy but for it to be effective the roll /yaw rates cannot exceed certain figures in certain sea states.

So whilst the ship won’t invert due to the changes it will make it a less fightable platform.

It does, but to be fair: the OTO Malera 76mm weighs 7.5t while the BAe Mk 45 5in gun weighs about 21t. So they’ve got almost the same weight of gun.

76 are bit higher 1 in hangar and the bow ones a bit elevated, still i don’t think that is the issue and it is one of those so detailed issues we can’t know what would be done and the reasoning.

Yes they should remove the main gun from T45 and replace it with the 57 off the T31. Also remove Phalanx and replace them with 40s like T31. This would give commonality and better anti-air capability.

Hi SB, sadly it gets pretty complicated quickly. For a ballistic threat, the missile’s engagement envelop will depend on the location of the launcher and the ground distance away from the launcher on which the ballistic target is going to hit. Clearly you would want this distance to be as close as possible. The reason for this is due the missile’s performance envelop. The further ground distance it is away from the launcher. The more the missile has to fly through denser air, which then degrades its performance. Whereas if the missile is falling directly upon the launch then there’s less dense air for the missile to fly through.

Secondly engagement height is a key requirement, as the higher you can engage a ballistic threat. Then there’s more time to fire a second or even a third missile if the first misses. Also the further up the interception there’s a greater chance the debris will be broken up/burnt up by the atmosphere.

Hypersonics threats again face a similar issue. These will normally be flying well above 100,000ft (hypersonic glide vehicles (HGVs) will be around 150,000 to 200,000ft), until the terminal stage. So if the launcher is in the path of the target, there is more time for the missile to get to altitude and intercept it. However, if the threat is passing some distance away, then not only does the missile need to gain height to reach the threat through denser air, but also depending on the direction that the threat is flying might have to out accelerate it to make the interception. This is one of the reasons both SM6 and THAAD are getter substantially bigger 1st stages. One to intercept HGVs, but also to deal with passing threats better.

I agree it gets complicated.

But SM3/6 havn’t been that amazing and come across as 1st Gen ABM’s.

I am guessing that the plan is to let the research mature a bit more and for a slightly more mature missile to be developed.

If the ASTER 2-NT version becomes a thing then it is likely to be a competitor for the ABM SM’s and probably at a more digestible price point and sharing the architecture of the ASTER family of missiles so keeping maintenance a bit simpler.

I can’t really see RN buying a very small number of SM3 or 6’s that will be orphaned.

There is a general European push to develop proper ABM capabilities and there is the tech available to do it. I also don’t think that Europe will want US to be a monopoly supplier of AMB missiles.

Of the two I would say SM6 has performed better in tests than SM3. However, only THAAAD has been successfully combat tested.

There is another player in town which is Israel’s David’s Sling/Arrow, which although land based has shown good results in tests. Both Germany and Finland are looking at the system as an off the shelf purchase.

The EU has been funding the Twister program, which is part of a larger project for a European based system for countering ballistic missile and hypersonic threats. As I said below, MBDA have signed a contract with the EU for the Hydis project. This is a concept development stage for endoatmospheric interception. Which I believe the Aster Block 2 BMD has become part of under the Aquila program. Their CEO was talking about a multi-stage missile, that could also incorporate a ramjet/scramjet as one of the stages.

Admittedly I can only see the RN purchasing SM3 or SM6 as an interim purchase, if the MoD/Government decided there was an urgent need. Which would also require the T45’s to be actually fitted with Mk41. Otherwise I think they will gain anti-ballistic/hypersonic capability through evolving steps, starting with the Block 1NT Aster.

I do know there’s a bit of a issue within MBDA at the moment, with the joint Japan/MBDA Meteor JNAAM upgrade, which includes the Japanese AESA. There have been calls for Aster to also get it. But MBDA (France) have put their oar in, as they have been developing an AESA specifically for Aster. In either case the AESA will improve the missile’s interception accuracy. Which is vitally important when engaging small MIRVs and other ballistic threats.

The fact that T45 isn’t getting Mk41 tells us that the development curve is heading in another direction.

That said, there have been a lot of hints in press releases about control of missiles being handed off, between platforms, in testing.

So I do think it is, more than theoretically, possible for a T45 to tell a T26/31 where to fire it’s missile and then take control of the missile once in flight before the onboard terminal radar takes over.

“So I do think it is, more than theoretically, possible for a T45 to tell a T26/31 where to fire it’s missile and then take control of the missile once in flight before the onboard terminal radar takes over.”

I think this is already likely to a limited degree through Link 16, which is in very widespread use.

Cooperative Engagement Capability in conjunction with Link 16 would be better though, it’s just a more capable solution.

Here is a video of the Maya class using CEC and Link 16:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twRjyZSfBvU

CEC is widespread in the USN, Duncan has it (not sure if it is operational or not) the Japanese have it on the Maya class, the Australians have it on the 3 Hobarts and it will go on the Hunters, and the Canadians will use it on the CSC ships.

I think the French are developing their own version of CEC, and the Japanese have a smaller homegrown version for their small destroyers, even while their AEGIS equipped Maya class use CEC.

I think you might be confusing missiles here. The SM3 testing record has actually been pretty impressive, with the last test in 2020 taking out a simulated ICBM for the first time in history. I can only find about 2 test failures over the past decade of publicized test. What’s most fascinating to me and is well known but somehow not spoken about often is its ability as an anti satellite weapon. Every AB roaming around the oceans armed with SM3 are capable of killing satellites if a war ever gets to that level. Scary stuff.

The SM6, well it sort of speaks for itself. Its the do all missile for the US military. ABM, soon to be anti hypersonic, air breathing threats, it kills them all.

I am not sure on the actual progress of Aster Block 2 BMD as its own entity. As it has been very quiet on that front for at least 5 years. However, all is not lost. The EU has just signed a contract with MBDA to develop the Hydis concept for a very high altitude anti-missile missile. There is some confusion over its actual altitude capability, as they describe the missile’s as endoatmospheric (which is within the atmosphere), but show imagery of exoatmospheric interceptions (which is outside the atmosphere). This is all part of the overall Twister program which is designed to counter both ballistic missile and hypersonic threats.

From what I have heard is that the Aster Block 2 BMD has evolved into an expanded role to take on the hypersonic threat as part of the Aquila project. I believe it will have a similar capability to the evolved SM6/THAAD.

The range capabilities are a bit of red herring. For example the N.Korean Hwasong 18 is a multi-stage ballistic missile. Yet in tests it has only flown reached a height of 6648km but only travelled a distance of just over 1000km. Yet if you extrapolate this information it means the missile can send a warhead to reach any part of the continental USA. The missile’s apogee gives a false sense of the range it can reach. But crucially for intercontinental weapons purposes, the Hwasong-18 can easily reach earth orbit, therefore can reach the USA.

Furthermore there are some ballistic missile that can fly a quasi-ballistic flight path, such as the Iskander-M. Qasi-ballistic means that the missile doesn’t fly a traditional up then down flight path. Iskander-M flies to a set height then levels off, cruises for a while, then descends. It does this to extend its range.

The more critical performance factor is the anti-missile missile’s maximum engagement height. Aster 30 is supposed to be capable of reaching a height of 20km (65,000ft). Which means it should be capable of intercepting short range ballistic missiles that fly up to these heights.

However, it can intercept substantially more. As I explained to SB above it all depends on the ground level distance from the intended target and the launcher. Aster for example should be able to engage any ballistic missile that is falling directly onto the launcher. Where it gets complicated is when the ballistic missile is falling on to the target over “x” distance away from the launcher. As the missile has to also account for travelling distance as well as altitude, which is done through denser air.

After a couple of seconds the 1st stage booster has used up all its fuel and is jettisoned. The second stage motor kicks in, but that also runs out in a few seconds. So after reaching a terminal speed of above Mach 4, the missile will start to slow down. The further it has to travel through the denser air towards a passing target the more it will slow down.

However, the main weapon system’s computer, would have worked out the predicted intercept point from the tracking radar following the ballistic missile’s path and the known parameters of the Aster. The weapon’s computer would have directed the missile to follow a slightly ballistic path to the intercept point. This is again to gain range. However, there will be a cut-off point at where the Aster cannot out-accelerate the falling ballistic missile to reach the interception point. This is really the maximum effective engagement range. The best way to look at it pictorially is to imagine a fully open umbrella. This admittedly is a bit simplistic, but the outer curvature of the umbrella is effectively the maximum engagement range.

“From what I have heard is that the Aster Block 2 BMD has evolved into an expanded role to take on the hypersonic threat as part of the Aquila project. I believe it will have a similar capability to the evolved SM6/THAAD.”

It would seem that the Aster Block 2 BMD will have to be completely redesigned with a new booster stack to get dramatically more rage, do you agree? How much would the missile have to grow to max out the space available in the Sylver A50 Cells that these ships carry?

For instance, the main missile bodies of the SM-3 Block IA/IB and SM-6 Block I/IA are 13 1/2 inches, while the new SM-3Block IIA grew to a 21 inch wide booster stack that now maxes out the space in a strike length MK 41 cell. Apparently the next version of the SM-6 (the Block IB) will use a similar 21 inch wide booster stack. I suspect the up coming Glide Phase Interceptor will also use the same booster stack, but not much is known about that program yet.

It seems that the Aster Block 2 BMD would have to do something similar to get more range/altitude.

Yes, to get more range, the quickest and perhaps cheapest option, would be for Aster to get a bigger 1st stage or an additional stage. Recent talk has been of an additional stage. A ramjet/scramjet has been mentioned for the 2nd stage, following a solid rocket 1st stage booster. Which means it can go further and faster. As the fuel doesn’t need to contain an oxidiser, so more volume can be used for fuel. The dart final stage would remain using a solid rocket and keep the mid-body reaction jets. Which will help for very high altitude interceptions.

However, the Aster 30 currently fills the length of the A50 launcher. So one option would be to cut down the size of the 1st stage to allow space for the 2nd stage. Or try to incorporate the solid rocket in the exhaust of the ramjet/scramjet as per Meteor. Or fit external solid rockets to the ramjet/scramjet stage, that drop off after launch. Or keep the existing 1st stage, build the new ramjet/scramjet full length second stage, but fit the missile in the longer A70 launcher.

The other option for Aster, would need a redesign that used a wider diameter body, which I believe Aster Block 2 is built around. As this would also allow more fuel to be carried, so would look more like the SM3 Block 2 modification for better aerodynamics, rather than what was done for the SM6 modification. This is probably a more long term option, as it then maximises the available launcher space. Realistically you would still require the longer A70 over the A50 launcher, as it means the missile can carry more fuel.

If the RN required a very high altitude anti-missile capability for the T45, the only off the shelf option available would be SM6 for endoatmospheric or SM3 for exoatmospheric. It would also need the Mk41 strike length (7.7m long) VLS being fitted. The Sylver A70 is shorter at 7m, but would hold both SM3 and/or SM6. However, it has not been integrated with either of these missiles, so the MoD would have to pay for the integration process. I am sure I have read somewhere that Aster had been integrated with Mk41 at some point.

I think you nailed it there.

It is the uncertainty of the dimensions of the missile.

So rather than fit Mk41 and rip it out they have fitted the cheaper Sea Ceptor system used across the rest of the fleet.

The space can still be reclaimed for ASTER 2-NT (or whatever it is called this week).

ASTER30 Block 2 was set to have a much bigger boaster requiringthe strike length A70 VLS.

That’s the best explanation I’ve read , always wondered why you can’t just take ballistic missiles out on the way down (surely even a kill at 30000ft will have little risk of debris).
So Aster 30 as is should be able to take out Ballistic missiles fired at the ship it’s hosted on but defending a carrier a mile/miles away is a whole different ball game ?

Like I said earlier, with the umbrella explanation. the umbrella shape is the missile’s performance envelop. However, the radius of the envelop is not fixed, as the threat also has a vote. If the threat missile is extremely fast, i.e. faster than the Aster’s terminal speed, Aster will have to be fired a lot earlier to reach the intercept point. Plus there is a difference in how range is affected by a head-on, a passing or tail chasing engagement. Therefore, the Aster’s effective range will vary, as it depends on the target’s speed and path direction.

In reality there are two umbrellas for a surface to air missile system, one is the maximum effective range/height, the other is the minimum. The minimum is fixed, as this is determined by when the missile’s warhead is fused, when it can manoeuvre, when the seeker starts working, etc post launch. For example RF seekers can start to work almost immediately after power-up, whilst an IR based missile, requires the seeker to be cooled down, which takes longer. Which can be done using high pressure gas, a Peltier or a Sterling engine.

Also CAAM with it soft launch and reaction jets can be used as a point defence weapon along with local air defence, as it minimum engagement range is very short post launch (a lot shorter than stated in Wiki for instance). Because once it reaches its launch apogee, it is pointed towards the target by the reaction jets, at which point it is free to manoeuvre, the warhead will be fused and the active radar seeker can be turned on to look for the target. Something like MICA-NG-M or ESSM has a large minimum engagement range. Because it is hot launched via a single all or nothing rocket motor. Therefore it has a pretty high apogee, before the missile can turn and dive onto the target. It’s one of the reasons why US Navy ships still use Phalanx or have Rolling Airframe Missile to cover the point defence aspect.

If a missile threat or re-entry vehicle can be detected and tracked by the T45’s Sampson, it can direct an Aster towards it, so long as its within its engagement envelop (believe the S1850M can also be used). Once Aster gets close enough, its active radar seeker will start emitting and look for the target. If it can lock onto the target, it will hit it.

Again if the carrier/task group is within the Aster’s protective umbrella, it will be protected. Also bear in mind that with a carrier task group, there will be a minimum of two T45s, so the umbrella will be effectively much wider.

I’m really enjoying your replies, great stuff.

“Therefore it has a pretty high apogee, before the missile can turn and dive onto the target.”

I’m not arguing CAMM’s better point defense capability than ESSM, but the apogee of ESSM, or at least the ESSM block 2 in the attached video clip doesn’t seem to be that high? It seems to turn over not far above masthead height of the ex-Spruance class missile test ship at about 1:35 in. It’s a cool clip anyway, it shows the very flamey hot-launch (that CAMM avoids), how the ESSM quad-pack works, and cool hits at the end:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6rBbLR0aks&list=PLuP_G7YDPHGPDE1936ZQ1iqL9iNoI-v8F&index=23

Hi Paul, I was always led to believe that ESSM couldn’t do tight turns just after launch. Well every day’s a learning day, cheers!

I did look for some other videos to confirm it could do tight turns and found the following link. It clearly shows the missile doing a skid turn (due to the tail fins moving) just after launch.

(332) The Navy’s Evolved SeaSparrow Missile Keeps Getting Better – YouTube

As it can do a reasonably tight turn after launch, it should be capable of point defence. You have to wonder why a ship also needs RAM. Though just as per Type 26 and 45 having Phalanx, that last layer of defence can only help.

It’s interesting that the Burkes that are (or have previously been) based in Rota, Spain on BMD duty have a phalanx in the forward CIWS spot and a SeaRAM in the rear spot, I think it was an artifact of the pre-Baseline 9 days, but they kept up the practice. DDG 117 is pretty new with all the bells and whistles and was posted there sporting a SeaRAM.

8 Burkes now have a SeaRAM, but it won’t be class-wide.

Those 8 ships have defensive capabilities starting out at exoatmospheric range with SM-3, then moving in to SM-6, then SM-2, then ESSM, then RAM, then Phalanx. Many layers:)

Oops. I was just checking my spam folder & saw that my GMail spam filter had been intercepting UKDJ reply notifications. (I find that GMail spam filtering sometimes has a brainstorm for a week or so and starts filtering out all sorts of completely valid stuff.)

Anyway, I just wanted to say many thanks Davey for the really comprehensive reply. Comments such as your one really add so much to this site. Sorry it took me a while to spot your reply and say thanks.

OMFG. I did those as well. Never ever ever used em again. However stuffs from Tiffs course and a good set of Zeus tables I use at least 3-4 times a week…

Yes, that make me feel my life choices weren’t that bad after all….

RN should look to fit 8x MBDA MILAS ASCROC Launchers – used on FREMM with MU90 and MBDA would be more than happy to integrate stingray on it.