Type 45 Destroyer HMS Defender deployed to Scotland’s Outer Hebrides for ‘Exercise Formidable Shield 2023’ to test weapons against ballistic, subsonic and supersonic targets, alongside 13 NATO and partner nations.
The Type 45 led the Royal Navy’s participation as a dedicated air defence destroyer designed to shield a task group, culminating in a firing of her Sea Viper missile system – the £1bn warship’s primary weapon – during a mission to locate, and destroy a drone designed to be difficult to track and intercept.
Petty Officer Cameron McDonnell controlled the Sea Viper missile fired from Defender against the highly-manoeuvrable drone – designated Bruiser 9384 – which travels at hundreds of miles an hour. ‘Bruiser’ is the NATO codeword for an anti-ship missile.
HMS Defender deployed to the Outer Hebrides for 'Exercise Formidable Shield 2023' to test weapons against ballistic, subsonic and supersonic targets. Here she is shooting down a drone. pic.twitter.com/50SGuDg1FD
— George Allison (@geoallison) June 2, 2023
McDonnell was quoted as saying:
“It’s my role to provide missile and air defence. We’ve been using experimental hardware and software to push our sensors to the limit, ready for the fight of tomorrow. We’ve tracked ballistic, subsonic and supersonic targets while working with our allies and partners. The final stage saw HMS Defender conduct a live missile engagement against an uncrewed aerial vehicle.”
HMS Defender provided an umbrella of protection, calculating that a threat was approaching using her distinctive radar systems: the Sampson (the spiked ball atop the distinctive main mast) and the Long Range (large black rectangle) which, combined, make the Type 45s world-leading air defence ships, giving them the ability to track hundreds of targets as far as 250 miles away.
According to a press release:
“All of this cutting-edge technology makes up the Sea Viper system, which gives Defender the ability to accurately find and track a target before firing the missile itself, known as an Aster 30. As they tracked Bruiser 9384, PO McDonnell sprang into action, launching a Sea Viper missile against the target, the Royal Navy said in a news release. With the order to launch given, the missile burst from its silo in a flash of fire, thunder and smoke, accelerating in a matter of seconds to more than three times the speed of sound as it arced into the Atlantic sky.”
“Five seconds to impact,” PO McDonnell relayed over the radio. “Viper assessed kill. Bruiser 9384 splashed. Destroyed. Destroyed. Destroyed.”
Each Type 45 destroyer carries up to 48 missiles, each held in a vertical-launch silo on the forecastle at the front of the ship and capable of taking out aerial threats at ranges up to 75 miles away, manoeuvring for the kill at G forces no human can withstand.
Defender also helped push the boundaries of missile and air defence – and her Sea Viper system, ensuring its abilities against a variety of difficult-to-intercept incoming targets.
The ship used a special ‘link’ network to provide target details to an RAF Typhoon and shared a target ‘track’ with frigate HMS Kent, via satellite.
Lieutenant Commander Carl Marin-Ortega, HMS Defender’s Weapon Engineer Officer, said the successful firing was crucial not just for today, but for the future of the Fleet’s air defence.
The missile system is undergoing a £300m upgrade to ensure the Navy is protected from the latest threats, including anti-ship ballistic missiles.
Known as Sea Viper Evolution, the enhancements to both the radar and missile will support 54 jobs in the UK at sites from the Isle of Wight to Hertfordshire, Bristol and Bolton.
“Every year we try something new, something harder; to challenge ourselves and our equipment,” Lt Cdr Marin-Ortega explained.
“Not only do we work and train with our national allies and partners but we have furthered the development of our own sovereign capabilities – I was fortunate enough to work previously on the Sea Viper Evolution project which was announced last year and now, being the weapon engineer officer at sea, experimenting and gathering data for it is very satisfying.
It not only ticks the box as an engineer, but as a war-fighter we get to work with our allies and rehearse the reduced timescales we would see with supersonic and ballistic targets. The exercise culminated in the firing, which has been the highlight of my time on board so far.”
Reflecting on a visit to Formidable Shield last month, Minister for Defence Procurement, James Cartlidge MP, said:
“Formidable Shield is a hugely important exercise and I was honoured to see first-hand the cooperation between our Allied nations. Hosted in the Outer Hebrides, and bringing together aircraft, naval ships and more than 4,000 military personnel from 13 NATO nations, Formidable Shield truly demonstrates our effective collaboration in defending and deterring against emerging threats.”
Always impressive to see a Viper/Aster launch from one of our escorts, also impressed how the tech has moved on from SeaCat and Sea Dart. One of my thoughts about how drone swarms, made up of cheap, almost throw-away tech, are becoming a ‘thing’, it’s so important we keep a system like Phalanx, with cannon rounds, (or have a system like Bofors 40 with frag rounds) that will cost significantly less than a missile like a Viper. Good also that we have the multi-layer approach that gives the area controller options. Bring on the Aster 30 Block 1 ABMS for… Read more »
True, it’s inexcusable to not have the close in gun system in this day and age. It’s going to be all to easy to swarm a ship with cheap drones, exhaust the missile supply then follow up with the killer blow. That cheaper (though far from cheap…) system with plenty of ammo is going to be more essential than ever before.
Probably will swarm tactics are the Achilles heel of modern military equipment
What range do these cheap drones have regards a hypothetical GIUK gap scenario?
And how do they find the ship?
Once both of those issues are dealt with by an attacker, then yes, the ship will need extensive weight of fire.
Fair point with your GIUK gap scenario, no land controlled by our adversaries for a significant distance from one of our ships. Where the argument might be more relevant is the Red Sea, Straits of Hormuz or South China Sea?
Yes, certainly DP.
The T45 have CAMM to be installed yet, they are cheaper than the Aster 30 but could still perform this role. As you say Aster 30 block 1 will bring even further capability, T45 is truly a great set of ships.
Sorry Phil. Just read your same comments on Camm.
They really are. Just a shame we don’t have 10-12 of them.
The Navy requirement was for 12.
Hopefully with the Type 83 we can get 12, and hopefully they will up the T31 numbers up to 10 and maybe increase the T26 order to 10, so 32 escorts. Unfortunately though I think we won’t get to these numbers.
Possibly 10x Type 83, then 8 Type 26 and 10 Type 31/32, which would give 28 escort ships.
Then we’d need 10-12 AUKUS submarines, and we then have a very potent force.
With out a doubt
The ideal weapon to defeat Drone Swarms will be Shipborne DEW,they have some R&D to go but once the designers find the magic formular Drones shouldn’t pose much of a problem.
I totally agree that you need a CIWS to deal with multiple cheap threats and also to offer a last ditch defensive system. As you correct state more layers are better as it goes more options to the WO. And yes, Phalanx does have a very valuable role to play as does the 40mm system on T31. Personally I do get a bit bored with everyone who says ‘Phalanx no use against hypersonic missiles’ – whereas they should really be chirruping ‘Phalanx is very useful against glide / dumb bombs, subsonic missiles, UAVs and some supersonic missiles”. That is a… Read more »
With the Block B Thermal Camera on the side its also V Good for surface drones
It’s worth remembering that most of the cheap drones like Shahed don’t have very good guidance systems, because effective terminal guidance isn’t cheap. Also very easy to defeat simple GPS/Glonass guidance with EW. So these swarm attacks are more of a threat to big static targets (e.g. Cities) than a small moving target like a ship.
As a former weapon engineer I know that the missileers will break out the champers for this one.
Us Gunbusters used to have a coffee after ever shoot, clean up the mess and the weapons and maybe occasionally have a beer if the ships program allowed.
That’s because you WE’s were saving yourselves for ‘movie night’, just saying!!
Totally OT, do you by chance happen to know what ‘NATO compliant ASW level’ WRT to ships Signature Reduction criteria is, or indeed have you ever come across anything like that being a former inhabitant of said ‘grey funnel liners’?
It was something I read WRT IH class ships and this perpetual ongoing ‘debate’ that T31’s are totally unsuitable for ASW work. Any thoughts would be appreciated.
I’ve heard that the navy is looking at the Thales FLASH dipping sonar to add a ASW capability to the wildcats on the T31
They also could just order 5 more Merlin. Lol 😁. They should do the same for T45 Wildcats too.
That would be an interesting development, not heard that myself.
In isolation its a bit of a waste, Wildcat/Rotorcraft in general can’t really hunt SMs by themselves, they need cueing into a search point to have any chance of finding anything. The T31 would need a good Hull sonar as a minimum. Alternatively perhaps they will be used as part of a shipboard system of search systems, or indeed the first steps to generally up our ASW capabilities.
Do you know if the ships could be retrofitted with a hull sonar?
The IH class on which T31 is based has a Hull mounted sonar – something from Atlas I think, so can’t see why we couldn’t put our own one in. Wouldn’t know if all the plumbing is in place, so don’t know how big/small a job it would be. Fitting a Hull sonar is the easy bit, it’s just money – which we lack it appears, the difficult bit is getting the people to operate the system. T45s lost their sonar rates a while back to keep the T23s going. Unfortunately it’s ot something you can just open another box… Read more »
Yes, they do have a basic hull sonar as ordered. The question is can it be upgraded. If the internals are the same as the IH then absolutely they will already have the internal semi wet compartment and fibreglass dome in place. As @Deep32 says it is more about wether there are enough trained and skilled rates to operate that many sonars on a watch based system. To operate an effective sonar office you need 10 – 12 people to staff watches and possibly more if you are using a tail. That is a lot of crew when you start… Read more »
NATO will have the relevant STANAG online depending on classification. Available to search HERE. If Its there it will give broad brush guidance for what you need to do. Anything can do ASW. We once did ASW Commander on an LPD with no sonars, no helos and sounding like a car ferry. You can do that because of the LINK capabilities of NATO units which share the info between everyone. People are getting hung up on Passive. You dont need to only do passive to hunt subs. 2087 is LF Active but its a tail…very few seem to grasp that… Read more »
NSO Public Website (nato.int)
Only on steak night eh 😉🍻
Question, I know the type 45 and the Franco/Italian horizen class were originally part of the ship program which is why they share a lot of common features. I also know the program broke apart due to different requirements and I’m also guessing arguments between partners. However can someone explain what are actually the main differences between the two classes? As they are both AA destroyers equipped with the same missles and role of protecting the fleet. Is it mainly just the radar that differs?
My understanding is the UK wanted bigger radar and AA capability, The UK radar is more powerful and the T45 has significantly more electrical power due to its direct electric propulsion system.
That was my understanding as well apart from the more electrical power however I’m just going of Wikipedia so I thought I would ask on here. I read that one of the main differences was that the UK wanted a ship that could control the while theatre after its experience in the Falklands whilst the French and Italians just wanted a ship that could cover its carrier groups. I also read that CIWS was also a sticking point again due to the UKs experiences. Again I will hold my hands up and say this is all coming from Wikipedia.
CIWS was not a reason per se. The 76mm is the CIWS with guided rounds in Horizon. And you can exchange a 76mm for a Phalanx if that is the RN preference.
I think it was probably a compound of factors.
I also think the CIWS in T45 should have been placed along the ship centreline instead of sides, that way 2 could fire to same side if necessary.
CIWS Phalanx uses Threat Evaluation to determine which mount has the best chance of a hit and allocates accordingly…The mounts literally talk to each other sharing the threat table.
If on the center line you cannot use both mounts ahead or astern and it brings in firing arc issues over 360 degrees and hemispherical cover.
CIWS positioning is a swings v roundabout thing. Dont forget ships, especially FF/DD will be opening up firing arcs as required for the best engagement arcs for EW, Missiles and Guns whilst also presenting the smallest RCS/ IIR profile.
Oh I do miss ASM Tactics!!!
I don’t understand your argument. The Phalanx in T45 are side by side it will be rare that they need to talk to each other…
Hemispherical coverage. Targets from ahead or astern with the ship manoeuvring so weapon arcs open and close. The mounts swap engagement criteria and hand off the targets as they bear.
Another sticking point was where to put the wine storage…Not an issue for the RN but France and Italy…No Wine! A literal ship stopper.
What about propulsion?, one big differences between Horizon and T45 is that.
I think the less said about the propulsion system of the type 45 the better….
Chip….sizzle….snipe!
It is being fixed now so it is just news from the Sour Grapevine.
I know…I couldn’t resist a comment back. I should ignore, but why allow such behaviour to go unchallenged.
balanced as I think there’s a chip on both shoulders.
🥱🥱🥱🥱🥱, yawn….
I think the less said about anything by you, the better.
And the Zumwalt gun….
The Zumwalt copied the propulsion system from the T45, British engineers spent a lot of time on assisting US counterparts to avoid some of the same pitfalls. First use of a technology is always hard.
The twat is back.
Yes it’s unfortunate we fitted those faulty American intercoolers to the T45s…
The WR 21 was a good idea to reduce fuel burn of GTs by 30%, but had not been properly de-risked. Partially due to RR not having an effective bench testing facility for marine GTs at the time. Originally France, UK and US were in the programme, but only UK persisted on a reduced development budget. The intercooler and energy recuperation components were the innovative features but not nearly mature enough given the reduced investment in development.
The programme suffered as oil prices fell significantly in the ’00s (ironically due to greater flows of Russian oil), and soaring development costs.
To thin, we once had the NGTE but decided it was too expensive to run.
Ah the cuck is back! Do pipe down, grab your handbag and stop trying to avoid 2 PARA laundry!
Well they split for a variety of reasons including work share..so a lot was politics but the big difference is sensors…Horizon has an inferior radar in EMPAR and it’s set lower than the SAMSON on the type 45, the horizon holds a smaller small ship fight and is not designed to take rotor the size of Merlin. On the other side of things the Horizon has a bit more general utility..with a reasonable sonar fit vs the T45.
Changing the hull sonar on T45 wouldn’t be the bigger job in the world. All the internals are already there.
When T45 get NSM and Sea Ceptor it will be a lot more potent than Horizon?
Yes the T45 seems to be finally living up to it’s full potential
The T45 was designed like the the T31, with lots of room for growth. Smart move by the RN.
Personally I would like to see a better ASW fit on the type 45. I’ve changed my mind a bit on this as I think the RN heading to a point where only 40% of its escorts have ASW capabilities leaves things a bit fragile.
“only 40% of its escorts have ASW capabilities leaves things a bit fragile.” No that’s entirely negligent. We need every escort to have basic ASW capability(Hull sonar & ASW TT or Asroc/similar)as well as ASW capable helicopter. It seems mad to me that only Merlin can perform sub-hunt missions & only Wildcat can perform surface strike.
VECTAC!
T45 has a Torpedo Mag. It carries Torpedo’s for the Helo.
Wildcat can do ASW VECTACS.
But something somewhere has got to discover the vector to attack….?
In a CSG that isn’t an issue as there will be plenty of sonar about. The issue is more when on picket or other duty.
ASW is a team game. So you are not going to use T31 for ASW the same way that you wont use a Merlin for Surface Stike with Sea Venom ( Although it can do OHT) So a 2087 ship many many 10s of miles away gives a contact to a Merlin to prosecute. If its carrying its own MK75s it carries less fuel and has less time on station. A Wildcat doing the Pony part of a VECTAC travels the 150 + miles to where the Merlin is at 150Knts carrying 2 torps , drops them and leaves the… Read more »
I agree that team play is the best in terms of persistence and effectors etc.
Trouble is with a grey battle canoe fleet that is down to 16 ships that won’t be for every day.
Although I appreciate that either of the cabs could be flying from and Tide/Albion/Bay or anything certified for the munitions.
At what point is it a worthwhile capability? At what point a waste of resources? What do we need more? 2nd string ASW or load out for the Mk41’s coming into service? Or accelerating T45 offensive and defensive upgrades? The costs of the sonar itself borders on the trivial but the issue is more the number of bodies needed to staff a sonar office… Maybe it is really important to force up the number of sonar rates and officers so that everything is fully staffed? But we do at least have 8 really, really good ASW frigates on order and… Read more »
8 ASW Frigates that only 5-6 operational then a damaged or sunk one…type 26 is a mistake for the price. Might be a wonderful mistake, but still a mistake.
Uh?
SSN’s are hard to detect.
Do we want something that can detect them or not? Bearing in mind Russian and Chinese subs are getting better the detection margin needs to continue to improve.
Lashups with T45 and T31 might work but might not be future proof.
Given how long it takes to get a ship designed and into service T26 is the right answer with a serious offensive punch.
In one word, Sampson. BAe had a radar development program on the Isle of Wight. This was for the first UK made ship-borne active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar. The RN had a very good oversight on its performance and capabilities. The French and Italians wanted to use the European multi-phased array radar (EMPAR). However, this is a passively electronically scanned array (PESA) radar. Which has less performance and capabilities compared to an AESA radar. Furthermore, Sampson mounts two arrays back to back, which gives 240 degrees of continuous azimuth field of view. Whilst EMPAR only has the one array… Read more »
Thanks for the summation, very detailed.
Exactly so.
Unless you are in the know, most people don’t get how outstandingly good Sampson is at what it does. I received a detailed brief on it as part of my System Engineering courses. Ok its Pinkie stuff so not entirely my spec as a weaponeer but as it did everything, surveillance, tracking, data link etc its now in that grey cross-over area between Pinkie and Greenie. The only viable comparison will be against the Flight 3 ABs and its only now that they are they coming on line. Fixed arrays but nowhere near the height of Sampson so it will… Read more »
“ The ship used a special ‘link’ network to provide target details to an RAF Typhoon and shared a target ‘track’ with frigate HMS Kent, via satellite.”
I’m intrigued that nobody else has picked up on this…..
Probably the most significant part of the article….
Mention of the RN home brew CEC system methinks.
As someone else said, down the thread, T45 is about theatre control not a local umbrella. This is essential to theatre control in that it allows the best missile from the most appropriate unit to be deployed.
Could be Link 16.
Yes, I spotted that. Didn’t they do something similar with that Sinkex recently with the OHP, with differing assets sharing targeting data? Or am I imagining that?
Indeed – no great surprise as networking, in its broadest sense, assets has been an announced thing for ages.
What is the difference between Link 16 and the previously planned CEC?
https://www.navy.mil/Resources/Fact-Files/Display-FactFiles/Article/2166802/cec-cooperative-engagement-capability/#:~:text=Cooperative%20Engagement%20Capability%20(CEC)%20is,and%20integrated%20fire%20control%20capability.
An article that uses a lot of words to say very little.
Ta. Hmmmm.
Bandwidth mostly, it’s a bit like the F35 which can share data using link 16 with any platform but can share everything with another F35 using MADL.
Definitely link16 or whatever the latest version is called these days. Networked platforms are king.
In the maratime environment it was always termed Link11 which is slated to be replaced by Link22.
I would *guess* this was Link22.
Thanks for the update mate. 👍
Link 11 is not Link 16
This, copied and pasted direct from UKDJ, IKA Gabs Blog.
“Royal Navy has in its priorities development of its “Naval Strike Network”, but we know little. It is something other than the normal plethora of Links (16 and 22 above all, the latter rolling out under Maritime Multi Link program) and closely involves Royal Marines and drones.”
Indeed.
TBH I’d be keeping pretty quiet about it too as it would be high on Chinese and Russian hacking interests!!
Well, the fact that info was shared with fellow RN ships but not the other participants was clear as day.
Good to hear we’ve got something that actually works
Hi folks hope all is well.
As ever I rely on you experts to inform me on military military matters.
Could Seaviper tackle hypersonic missiles? I’m guessing probably with difficulty?
As a side issue, I’ve noticed upon looking at the current NATO charts for each country defence budget. The UK is down by a few £ billion. Wasn’t there going to be an uplifting of defense budget?
Cheers,
George
The SAMP/T missle system, which is the equivalent land based version of Seaviper, has been deployed in Ukraine. So it maybe capable of intercepting a hypersonic missiles.
I doubt the Hypersonics are that at lower low altitudes… there is more air resistance which slows the missile, also at that speed the air would form a plasma bubble around the missile that would block its sensors so it would need to slow to supersonic speeds to find its target. ASTER 30 block 0 has shot down US drones going at M2.5 – 3. It has also downed an Israeli Black Sparrow ballistic missile target going at high Mach numbers. So Sea Viper should be capable of hitting Russian ‘hypersonic’ missiles. The ones fired in Ukraine were not Hypersonic… Read more »
Rob N thanx for that insight whilst taking hypersonic threat seriously, have thought how feasible is it for sensors to survive and ability to hit a moving target.
Yes others have pretty much answered this accurately I think. Just want to emphasise the Kinzhal has been typically over hyped by Russia it’s effectively an updated Soviet design that’s somewhat faster than the original (which was no slouch) but is effectively a ballistic air launched missile with little to no added in flight manoeuvrability it seems so as such likely can be intercepted by Viper certainly the Block 1 version which has ballistic missile defence capabilities. True new generation hypersonic missiles of various types that in reality are/will Bea different beast to what Russia seems presently capable of fielding… Read more »
I think much ‘hype’ surrounds Hypersonic missiles, especially, as pointed out by Rob, the air resistance at lower altitudes is enoumous at high mach numbers, generating enoumous heat and blinding any form of onboard sensor, making it only able to hit a pre designated target, a fairly large one at that.
Talk of Aircraft Carrier killing is utter pie in the sky….
The USN Standard Missiles had to have some very exotic materials incorporated into it. The ray dome needs to be RF Transparent but still able to resist erosion from water droplets, particulates and manage the heat from friction. Same goes for any IR sensor. The warhead and electronics are heat shielded internally to resist friction heating. Look at your home PC/Laptop …how long does that last without the fan running…now imagine a missile with friction heating it to many hundreds of degrees. All of the above adds weight, which means bigger, heavier missiles which in turn need bigger and heavier… Read more »
A couple things to keep in mind. The US military has publicly stated that in their testing, the theorised plasma bubble has not been an issue when communicating with the weapon in their hypersonic testing. Can’t say if that’s the case for the Russians and their “hypersonic” programs. Another important point that gets lost very often when discussing the threat of hypersonic weapons is not so much the speed but the ability of the weapon to maneuver and change course at or near hypersonic speeds. This ability is what’s believed to make most current SAM systems near useless them. I… Read more »
It’s worth bearing in mind that the US hypersonic tests started at 45,000ft when launched from a B52. The test vehicles then gained altitude under rocket booster to at least 100,000ft. Where they then powered to sustained hypersonic speeds via RAMJET/SCRAMJET. Depending on the atmospherics, design and the speed, will factor in how much of a plasma sheath is formed around the vehicle. If we are talking low hypersonic speeds of below Mach 7.5. The plasma is predominantly generated starting around the vehicle’s nose and leading edges. As the speed rises the plasma can form to cover the whole body… Read more »
“So, it’s easy for the US to say they had no problems communicating with their test vehicle.” I was trying to find the original article to see if an actual speed was quoted(unlikely considering the sensitivity of the subject) but unfortunately I couldn’t find it. It’s important to note that the usaf, nasa, etc have been experimenting with hypersonics for decades and likely have loads of data when it comes to behavior of plasma at these speeds and I wouldn’t be surprised of they already had a good understanding of how to overcome a number of these technical challenges. ” There… Read more »
The higher the speed a missile travels the more difficult it is to change its course. Hypersonic missiles may be agile to an extent but I doubt they could be more agile then a dedicated SAM like Patriot or indeed ASTER. Also we have not seen any Russian missiles hypersonic in their terminal phase – this could be a function of their need to turn – lots of turning slows the missile. We have also not seen this much vaunted agility from Russian missiles in Ukraine. You would think if they are trying to kill Patriot they would pull out… Read more »
“The higher the speed a missile travels the more difficult it is to change its course. Hypersonic missiles may be agile to an extent but I doubt they could be more agile then a dedicated SAM like Patriot or indeed ASTER”
That right there is what the hype is all about. They supposedly are able to outrun and out maneuver all current SAM systems in theory. According to the US military, they are no known counter to these weapons currently available.
Ok so if that is the case why are Russian Hypersonics being shot down with regularity in Ukraine? If they are unstoppable why are they being killed by SAMs.
As I have said they are mot hypersonic in lower atmosphere.
I suspect the reason they are being shot down with regularity is, like everyone seems to agree, the kinzhal is not a hypersonic weapon in the modern sense. Its just an Iskandar ballistic missile that they modified to be air launched and touted it as an all conquering hypersonic weapon.
Well we have seen nothing from Russia that is all conquering yet – I suspect we will not see anything like that used in Ukraine and as they are using everything the can in Ukraine (minus nukes), I would suspect that the oh so scary unstoppable super weapons are not ready for frontline service yet. Also there is the question of their ability to maintain such high technology programmes given sanctions and what will become an increasingly questionable wcconomy. When the US say Hypersonics are Unstoppable they are oversimplifying for effect. They fail to point out the different phases the… Read more »
“When the US say Hypersonics are Unstoppable they are oversimplifying for effect.” They have stated this on numerous occasions and while this might be technically true, it should be taken with a grain of salt and more as a plea for more funding. It also makes sense that the west should work to develop a counter for hypersonics considering the amount of resources that China is throwing at the issue, we should assume that it will be a real capability at some point. “In the case of the RN at least in the short term they will face weapons of… Read more »
Also helped that the Patriot batteries were themselves he target.
There are no hypersonic missiles in Ukraine to intercept. If we count what Russia has as hypersonic then London was the first city to experience attack by hypersonic weapons in 1944.
Hi there George, always good to hear from you. Off topic, but did anyone catch Anthony Blinken’s speech, yesterday, in Helsinki? A first-class put-down of Vladimir Putin’s ‘special military operation’ and its’ effect on Russia. There’s a video on YouTube but here’s the full text, well worth a read:
https://www.state.gov/russias-strategic-failure-and-ukraines-secure-future/
Cheers!
That’s a good read.
If you make one off injections to a budget then when this has worked through subsequent years will be lower
Off-topic: There were clues that the RN was looking into CATOBAR but it went quiet. Now it has a project name Project Ark Royal. naval news (Link) Naval lookout (link)
Hopefully when CAMM is installed on the T45s it can take on some of this and leave the 48 Asters for higher tier threats. Even up the CAMM silos to 32-36. Is the UK purchasing extra Asters besides the upgrades? I believe France and Italy have done that.
They are transitioning the Aster 15s to Aster 30s. The Homing dart section is common to both missiles and wont change . The booster section is bigger on the 30 so the 15s will get software changes and bigger boosters but the dart will be the same.
Thanks GB. Just hope UK Aster stocks are always enough plus extras and even a possible use in a future UK GBAD system. Interesting read of possible upgrade of the carriers to hybrids with angled deck. Like to have seen the Aster 15s added to the carrier’s, like with the French and Italian carriers.
Hi all – As an ex RAF Telegraphist 1960’s Coastal Command, I’m finding the advances in missile warfare staggering. It’s great though to find forums to keep up to date with what’s new and innovative Personally I think some missiles in a war situation would get through and cause huge damage especially to aircraft carriers which would be knocked out even with one missile hitting the deck. Just my armchair thoughts.
A big carrier like QEC with VSTOL that isn’t such an issue as you don’t need the whole deck to be serviceable to carry out at least some flight operation. Sure the operational intensity is lowered but not stopped.
One of the first trials on the QE, was to launch a F35B over the stern. I guess in wartime if the ramp and forward section were too badly damaged. Then this would be a last ditch option, as it would mean more fuel could be carried compared to a vertical launch.
I’d be surprised if it wasn’t TBH – it is an obvious workaround if the ramp has an issue
Yes, we’ve come a long way since using pigeons as the guidance system.
Biggest threat is to traditional CATOBAR carriers, take out the catapults and no aircraft are taking off. After that, common to all are the lifts -usually located separately for obvious reasons – and the hanger deck itself.
Off topic but as it’s something that has had previous exposure here I will mention it where it might be spotted. The Patrick Blackett, as we saw mentioned on here, went off on its first mission recently but with no mention I believe as to what she was up to. Well it seems it is to do with Quantum Navigation testing sensors in liaison with Imperial College, a technology which will be vital in a non gps enabled environment. For those interested here is the (link) . One thing I didn’t know and is particularly poignant in this news is… Read more »
The Dutch have just designed a frigate with containerised weapon and communication systems fitout on a very similar looking vessel with low manning requirements to the Patrick Beckett. Naval News I think it was.
https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/cne-2023/2023/06/rnln-trific-low-manned-platform-to-augment-frigate/
It is slightly off topic but still Royal Navy related to lying things. It look like the MOD RN are regretting the STOVL only limitations of the new carriers. See the latest video from Ward Carrol for details.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wM7xTL65quo
It is of my opinion that the RN made the best decision with going for STOVL, with the option of going CATOBAR later. Getting the two carriers into service was critical. As any delays could have been seen as a problem with the concept especially politically and could have led to scrapping or selling off. Just as important operational is the time it takes to train crew and pilots on CATOBAR. With STOVL carrier training is a lot simpler but significantly faster for qualifications. Then there’s final issue. We thankfully dodged a bullet with EMALS. If we had gone down… Read more »
100% 👍🏻
Boom!
100%
Great to see the T45 showing what she’s capable of doing,and now there going to up armed them giving more punch .If only we got the original number of 12 would of give our Navy plenty more punch power . 🇬🇧
It would be good to see the T45 taking out something supersonic rather then a slow drone… the RN always seam to get the slow targets in these excursuses…
That was my thoughts too, modern threats are more likely to be supersonic / hypersonic.
Aster 30 is good step up though.
Don’t mess with the Navy
I note that the UK is now exploring ways to convert it’s carriers to a cats and traps configuration: I wonder whether this was the design all along. The intention being to minimise the risk and to put the financial bite on in stages.
Just goes to show how better we are than the Americans. They couldn’t even shoot a hot air balloon down
As a techy drone person. I can assure you that the ciws won’t stop drones. Happy to explain the maths of why to those interested.
Scare tactics. We dont need ANY war
One hypersonic missile could take out that ship.