The Royal Navy is assessing future missile options as it moves towards adopting the Mk 41 vertical launch system across its fleet.
Responding to a written question from Conservative MP Ben Obese-Jecty, Defence Minister Luke Pollard did not confirm whether the Aster missile is being considered for integration with Mk 41, but said the Navy is examining a broad range of capabilities.
“The Royal Navy has announced its intention to become a Mk41 Navy, to ensure that future combatants have a versatile missile launcher capable of deploying both offensive and defensive missiles,” Pollard said.
He added that the Navy is “currently assessing a range of effector options, including missiles, guns, lasers and drones as it develops the Hybrid Navy concept.”
The Mk 41 system, widely used across NATO navies, allows ships to fire multiple missile types from a common launcher, offering significantly greater flexibility than platform-specific systems.
While the response did not reference specific missiles, the Ministry of Defence is separately funding a study into whether the Aster air defence missile could be integrated with Mk 41 launchers. The work, led by MBDA UK under a contract understood to run through to 2027, is examining the technical feasibility of adapting Aster for launch from the US-designed system, including interface requirements, launch dynamics and broader integration challenges.
There is an ongoing, wider effort to harmonise the Royal Navy’s existing air defence capability with future launcher architecture, particularly as newer platforms such as the Type 26 frigate adopt Mk 41 as standard.
The way it’s going at present the UK should have a full selection of MBDA missiles that can be fired from the MK41 launchers.. nothing wrong with using US missiles but there needs to be a European option incase the US decides it does not want its missiles used in such and such a way and withholds stocks..
I never understood why the French didn’t essentially make SYLVER the European Mk-41. The Turks got it right with MIDLAS. The fact that Britain basically has to dump SYLVER is beyond sad.
It’s an odd one to be sure.. I think it’s because they simply did not want to integrate US missiles into to it ( or the US did not).. either way it’s a missed opportunity.
SYLVER is significantly smaller than Mk41, designed to fit the smaller French Frigates rather than large warfighters.
Wrong 🤦🏻♂️
No, he’s correct in the first statement. The internal volume of Sylver is smaller than that of the Mk41. 56x56cm or 56x60cm, I can’t remember exactly which. The Mk41 cell is something like 63x63cm in comparison.
To quote Dern:
Mk41 comes in 3 versions;
Self Defence; 2.6m long
Tactical; 6.7m long
Strike; 7.6m long
SYLVER comes in 3 versions
A35- 3.5m long
A43 – 4.3m long
A50 – 5m long
A70 – 7m long
Right, but he’s not just referring to the length of the VLS; SYLVER takes a narrower, slightly rectangular cannister vs the slightly larger, square-profiled Mk41 cells.
So practically, you could stick any SYLVER-capable weapon into Mk41 if you were willing to design a new cannister for it. However, there are no guarantees you could fit a Mk41-capable weapon into the dimensions of the SYLVER cannisters – Naval Group apparently claimed you could fit a Tomahawk, but no one has verified that as far as I can tell, and based on the dimensions available I question whether you could make a cannister to fit it.
Length and internal volume are two very different things. No matter how long your canister is, if its not wide enough, you’re not shooting anything out of it.
I think all of you miss the point. My point isn’t ‘why can’t they put US crap in their launcher.’ My point is why aren’t there more options for SYLVER so you don’t want to buy American crap? Ie if you can tri-pack missiles, you should be tri-packing them and shouting that capability from the rooftops. There is no excuse for SYLVER A70 to be only for the French Cruise Missile. A70 should be the universal length that all SYLVER armed ships use just like the USN only uses strike-length. Then you can mix-and match just like the USN does. It seems shortsighted to make the launchers be so limited.
The French (through Naval Group and MBDA) are actively working on integrating CAMM (Common Anti-air Modular Missile) family missiles into the Sylver Vertical Launching System (VLS), specifically to enhance the FDI (Frégate de Défense et d’Intervention) frigate’s capabilities.
Key Details on the Integration are:
Tri-Packing Technique: Naval Group is developing a “cold launch” process that allows three CAMM or CAMM-ER missiles to be packed into a single Sylver A50 cell (tri-pack).
FDI Upgrade Potential: This integration enables a potential shift from a standard 16-cell loadout of Aster missiles to a much heavier loadout, potentially up to 48–64 CAMM/CAMM-ER missiles in the FDI’s existing VLS capacity.
Export and French Navy Focus: While the initial push was driven by export market demands (e.g., for Greece and potential Swedish interest), this increased, dense, short-to-medium-range capability is seen as essential for defending against drone and cruise missile saturation attacks.
Differences from Mk 41: Unlike the Mk 41 VLS, which can quad-pack CAMM missiles (4 in one cell), the Sylver’s narrower dimensions require this specialized tri-pack cold-launch approach to avoid having to design an entirely new, larger VLS cell.
At the same time though whilst each Sylver cell is smaller they have bigger gaps between each cell than the Mk.41 so it doesn’t seem like there is much of a difference at all in size between the two when installing an 8 cell module
Yes but it’s still got the internal dimensions to take a tomahawk in the A70 version, it’s just nobody has integrated it…so it’s not a size issue it’s a none intergration issue.
Isn’t A70 cylindrical rather than square in cross section though? So they’d have to make entirely new canisters. The whole process is very strange, if even the Turks and the Koreans can make their own VLS a European consortium ought to be able to manage.
Sylver development started in the 80s by one not so large French company, give them a break. All the other VLS systems outside of the US and Russia came long after. Of course they have more time to study and copy the Mk 41 especially since some of them operate it like Turkey and South Korea). France, Italy and the UK had never operated the Mk 41 launcher on their ships before.
Sylver should have evolved faster though, their mistake was to stick with the same system for too long. France prefers using homegrown technology even if it’s not the latest and greatest, they try to follow the latest developments as much as they can though.
Bit late to be deciding on this when we have 6 or 7 Frigates already in build. Who is in charge? Seems like no one. Top people need to stay in their jobs for 5 years even if this messes up the Buggins Turn routine. At least you’d know who to hold responsible for the Cockups.
Is … fitted for but not with, on the list of options👀😒
Whoa! Hold your horses…need to have a comittee before deciding that!
AA
Of course we can’t possibly have a committee yet, because first we need a meeting to discuss whether a committee should be established at all. Then, once we’ve all agreed in principle that a committee might be a sensible idea, we’ll need another meeting to decide the committee’s remit, scope and purpose. After that, naturally, it would be far too hasty simply to appoint anyone, so we’ll need a separate committee to consider the process for selecting committee members. Only once that committee has met, deliberated and probably scheduled a follow-up meeting, can we begin the important work of deciding who should sit on the original committee.
A new committee will be formed to validate your procedural suggestion, Chris, and will let you know if anything that precipitous could be adopted even in the fullness of time. For now we would like to thank you for your efforts. You can expect to hear before the end of the decade.
At pace…it will be added to the list for the committee
Looking in to it, considering it, but nothing else, just like evey thing else. Same story day in day out but never any firm yes on any thing,might, should, could, assesing it, etc etc. Every day a MOD press release about something they are looking at but doing nothing about.
Because you don’t understand the technical implications of such a project is why you write the same comments day in day out.
I see and you do, i was trials team I know how long things take how they change and how the item asked for turns in to the item we can afford which normally means not as good as it was on paper. Plus some firms claim to be able build some thing then find they can not so get what they can make rather than what we asked for.
Do not insult me by saying I do not under stand Technical implications, I do, but just looking in to, thinking about is not the same user trials or even a full working prototype built. And trial version rarely match what is final accepted in to service and it takes years even if you rush unless its EOR.
Well you do understand the scale of a project like fitting mk41 and the complex weapon integration requirements when why the rant. That doesn’t happen over night or in a few weeks even with all the will and money in the world.
Not a rant, we seem in the MOD to be looking at endless things but never ordering any thing, it takes years yes but we are for ever assesing, thinking about and not a lot else.
I am totally for not rushing things as that when it all goes wrong and ends up casting more. There are so many open projects with most going no where, still looking at a light gun replacement, still looking at small arms replacement, still looking at Warrior replacement, years in on all of them but nothing ever selected let alone trialed.
We are for ever just looking, all that looking has to lead some where, we have no heavy tube Arty but still only just ordered some barrels and recoil parts. From an idea to even getting to trials is 3 to 5 years depending the item and ammount needed. I think most on here are frustrated at the lack of any thing but warm words on defence and long winded statements about not a lot.
When we all know things are needed now not 3 or 5 years time, even though any thing ordered today is 2 years away from likely even being built. let alone entering service.
On balance, with hindsight, and all the other qualifications, we should’ve held out for either A70-NG or a domestic solution.
On hindsight, in balance, SYLVER should’ve been designed from the start with all these capabilities. It’s not like the model didn’t already exist. I don’t understand why SYLVER was so limited to begin with.
Because its french and the french only wanted a surrender capability.
Satire? Hopefully?
SYLVER is significantly smaller than Mk41, designed to fit the smaller French Frigates rather than large warfighters.
You do chat some Rubbish.
Mk41 comes in 3 versions;
Self Defence; 2.6m long
Tactical; 6.7m long
Strike; 7.6m long
SYLVER comes in 3 versions
A35- 3.5m long
A43 – 4.3m long
A50 – 5m long
A70 – 7m long
Nothing “significantly smaller” in Sylver.
Wrong again….
Compare the installed weight of the two original options – Mk41 15 tonnes, and SYLVER 50 – 9 tonnes. You might alSo care to note the Sylver cell is significantly smaller internally then Mk41
Hey dumbass:
A SYLVER A70 weighs 12t not 9.
The internal dimensions of the cell itself are smaller. That’s the important bit, because it limits how large the inserted missiles can be. Sylver is 56x56cm, Mk41 is 63x63cm. This is partially why you can’t quad-pack CAMM into the current A50 launchers.
There no real reason to not be able to quad pack CAMM into Sylver.
Mk.41 manages to quad pack ESSM which is 6.5″ wide whilst CAMM is only 3.5″ wide.
Sylver is a smaller cell in width but not nearly that much smaller if you look at the widths you presented.
A CAMM canister is roughly 27.5cm wide. A Sylver silo is about 56cm wide. You get exactly 1cm of space, which is then taken up by a bunch of the technical bits, and the sleeve of the overall pack.
The Italians tested this pack in the 2010s. At best, they could dual-pack the CAMM-ER, which shares the same canister with the basic CAMM. By that logic, then, at best you can dual-pack CAMM by making use of the diagonals.
Its French so they build another Citroen which is very peculiar.
The South Koreans can do it, so can we. I agree, but so long as we retain the independence to integrate our own missiles without US political affirmation we should be fine.
Perhaps larger sovereign silos for the ELSA and assorted hypersonic missiles? The canister could do most of the work, it’s just exhaust ducting.
I just think about what we’re procuring, and realise that of the three missiles confirmed for future British naval use, none are integrated with the Mk41, and none are American.
Stratus and Aster are first and foremost European systems. They’ll be the launch items for A70-NG. CAMM would probably secure that important first integration slot.
Furthermore, we know we won’t see Stratus in service till the early 2030s. CAMM is fine in its dedicated cold-launch tubes.
So, despite procuring Mk41, we won’t actually have anything to fire from it until about the same time as we can expect the A70-NG to arrive.
So, genuinely, what’s the attraction? Commonality with the US means nothing if we do not intend to use their missiles.
ASROC is on the want list
No, it isn’t. A VL-ASWM is being considered, but it likely won’t be ASROC, given how spectacularly useless that system is.
Not often you are wrong, but you are wrong again….
Is ASROC even still in production? It uses a less-capable torpedo, one that the UK intends to phase out of use once the P-8 receives the Sting Ray, has a pretty useless range of about 20km, and is pretty ancient in its hardware. Even the Burkes barely carry them anymore. I think it was reported that maybe four would be carried regularly on a destroyer, and that was back in 2018, with larger stocks.
Pretty much every nation that has since attempted to build something comparable has been able to improve upon the concept.
BAE have their own concepts as well, and I’m sure MBDA do.
One option everyone is ignoring is MILAS. €500,000 for the missile plus torpedo costs makes it cheaper than the Japanese and South Korean VL-ASWM which are both around €2m (not sure if it include torpedo price but still cheaper). About a 50km range means it outranges all heavyweight torpedoes.
And it’s a cannister system so doesn’t use up VLS slots allowing us to fill it with more Stratus.
It’s like Mk-48. It’s on an as-needed basis. The USN hasn’t had to blast submarines in a bit. There’s a contract to update existing rounds from the Mk-46 to the newer USN torpedo. If we run low, they will put it back into production.
Agreed, and A70 has the advantage of not being American.
On balance,with hindsight there is still no money.On balance,with hindsight we still have the worst defence procurement procedures in the world and finally on balance,with hindsight we are always swindled on what we buy.And to think we used to run the world!!
What a strangely specific wording. A ‘MK41 Navy’. We will have Aster, we will have Stratus and we will hopefully have a VL-Stingray if somebody in the MoD remembers that that’s supposed to be a thing. It’s a bit of a strong way of putting it if that’s all they are suggesting because it sounds like they want some sort of wider plan for mk41.
At least they didn’t say studying the implications of what it means to be a Mk-41 Navy.
Type 45?… If only
Could have been, could still be if they pull out the CAMM farm on the ones already done. Even Exls.
Rewarding the US, what could possibly go wrong with that?
How many UK missiles are cleared for the Mk41? I can think of one.
Hardly rewarding the US. More like reacting to French shortsightedness. There was nothing and is nothing stopping the French from pursuing an improved SYLVER.
As far as missiles cleared for Mk-41, there is SeaCeptor. Quad-packed. ‘Clearing’ Aster wouldn’t be hard. Just get it done.
I mean they are upgrading A70?
I know, but apparently too late to keep the Brits as customers. You can’t complain about a European country buying American when there is underinvestment in the European solution by its developer.
One.
FCASW, now known as Statrus,is designed to fit both Mk 41 and Sylver VLS. It was a key user requirement.
I have to give you that one.
Two.
But not for several years.
I’m sure the government will find a way of explaining that when we have the launchers we don’t actually need the missiles. 🚀
There’s nothing new in this story at all.
Milestone….the UK makes a decision – Make America Great Again. Mk41 is the way to go for Artemis 2 😉
I thought there was some work done 2002ish when the RN was investigating using the Mk41 instead of Silver. This didn’t happen because under the PAAMS programme we were still required to pay our full share of the Silver costs!
As long as we only assess, examine, and consider – and the MOD does a lot of that, then we are safe from actually spending money and buying somthing! Someone in a comment above, naively said “just get it done’! Yeah. Right!
It would be nice if we actually got a move on and started placing orders. All we ever seem to do is assess, consider and explore the options. Look at other European countries, unlike us in a constant state of deliberation they’re ordering. By the time we do get round to it we’ll be at the back of the queue.