Given the recent events in the Red Sea involving HMS Diamond effectively utilising the Sea Viper missile system, we believe it pertinent for our readers to gain an expanded understanding of this technology.
HMS Diamond, in collaboration with US warships, played a critical role in thwarting what has been reported as the largest attack by the Iranian-backed Houthis in the region to date.
British warship ‘fires guns and missiles’ downing Red Sea drones
The coordinated effort involved HMS Diamond, the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69), USS Gravely (DDG 107), USS Laboon (DDG 58), and USS Mason (DDG 87). Together, they downed eighteen unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), two anti-ship cruise missiles, and one anti-ship ballistic missile. This operation was crucial in safeguarding numerous merchant vessels.
The Type 45 Destroyers, also known as Daring-class destroyers, are specifically designed around the Sea Viper (PAAMS) air-defence system. Each Type 45 destroyer is equipped with a 48-cell A50 Sylver Vertical Launching System. This system is designed to accommodate a mix of up to 48 Aster 15 and Aster 30 missiles.
What actually is Sea Viper?
The Sea Viper air-defence system, an advanced missile system deployed by the Royal Navy. Known formally as the Principal Anti-Air Missile System (PAAMS), it was developed as a joint venture by France, Italy, and the United Kingdom. The system is a cornerstone of the Royal Navy’s air defence capability.
The genesis of the Sea Viper dates back to the late 1990s, as part of the collaborative effort for the ‘Common New Generation Frigate’ programme, initially encompassing the UK, France, and Italy. After disagreements, the UK departed from the frigate project but continued its commitment to the PAAMS initiative. This led to the creation of a variant specifically for the UK’s naval needs, culminating in the Sea Viper system.
Components of Sea Viper
- Missiles: The system employs the Aster 15 and Aster 30 missiles, known for their precision and long-range capabilities, more on those below.
- SAMPSON Multi-Function Radar: A key component of the PAAMS(S) variant, offering exceptional target tracking and engagement capabilities.
- Sylver Vertical Launching System: This allows for rapid and versatile missile deployment, crucial for responding to fast-moving aerial threats.
- S1850M Long-Range Radar: Provides early warning and tracking of potential threats at extended ranges.
The Sea Viper system employs the Aster 15 and Aster 30 missiles.
- Aster 15: Weighing 310 kg and measuring 4.2 metres in length, with a diameter of 180 mm. It has a 15 kg focused fragmented warhead and a lethal radius of 2 metres. The missile is powered by a solid propellant, two-stage motor, and can reach above 30 km with a flight altitude of 13 km, achieving speeds of Mach 3.
- Aster 30: Slightly larger, this variant weighs 450 kg and measures 4.9 metres, maintaining the same diameter. It boasts an operational range above 120 km (150 km for the Block 1 NT variant) and a flight altitude of 20 km, with maximum speeds of Mach 4.5.
Both variants use an inertial guidance system with an up-link and an active RF seeker for precise target acquisition and engagement. Their design allows for high agility and precision, making them exceptionally effective against a range of high-performance air threats.
The real question though is how quickly these 48 missiles will be expended, It’s not like Drones were the intended threat at the time. Maybe i’m wrong but this seems to be a rather expensive way to shoot down rather inexpensive targets ? It also mentions Guns were used, Which ones and how close were these targets ? …. Oh and another thing, I much prefer MPH to KMH, It’s easier to imagine !
Cost is not the issue when resolving this matter. What matters first is protecting lives and ships and maintaining the trade route – classic RN stuff of course. Cheaper systems also can be less effective not least in range terms – but we are where we are and yes the only real issue is getting the ammo resupplied when needed! We are fortunate in having a good RN facility not too far away in Oman to help resolve that when needed.
Well that told me then !!!!. Seriously though, I was actually just highlighting the cost to kill thing….. obviously lives matter but we are not cash rich when it comes to defence…..
I agree with you mate. The action is necessary, but the cost efficiency is well off.
In the book “Red Storm Rising” the soviets made the USN waste their hundreds of ultra expensive Phoenix missiles on old missiles used as target drones while the real attack came from elsewhere.
As you say, how soon would they be gone and where is the reload.
Meanwhile the US and UK spends this money, yet no other European country is putting their hands in their pockets for keeping the sea lanes open. I’m looking at you France, The Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece, Germany, Belgium, Poland, Denmark etc etc.
We must be mugs!
France is in the region and has already engaged houthi missiles on two occasions or have you forgotten already ?
It just doesn’t get reported here so presumptions are made. Meanwhile of course very expensive missiles supplied to Ukraine are also being expended from many of these Countries so there is certainly a balance to be had.
I was thinking this earlier at the moment it looks like it’s all down to us and the US government . 🇬🇧 🇺🇸
There’s also italian and Spanish assets in the area, they just don’t want to be transferred under US command (like France btw) so they didn’t join officially operation whateverthename
As a huge chunk of this Trade is of Chinese origin, I personally see it as their problem too….. It would be a good time for this country to wake up and actually start weening ourselves off this terrible addiction….
It has always been the way!!
Interesting. This could be part of a grand strategy, but I doubt it. To make the US navy and RN use up interceptor missiles.
I’m hoping that our beloved MOD are going to immediately replace every single middle, canon shell and phalanx round used.
Maybe the Houthis and their Iranian over masters will get tired of firing stuff off and it all being intercepted ? Or is that massively unlikely and they will keep going until they hit something or the allied nations react with cruise missiles and air strikes?
Sorry, Mr Bell, the T45s will become ‘made for’ but not fitted with.
Or am I becoming totally sceptical of the UK Tory government’s commitment to the Defence of the Realm?
It’s all UK government’s commitment to defence.
Rather expand welfare and get votes for it
Could you imagine the cost to military or civil shipping if one of these drones or missiles got though. Its money very well spent.
Yes I can… I also see the bigger picture though. These Drones a re numerous and cheep/quick to produce so if they choose to go down this route on a permanent basis, we will have big problems. War is a game of numbers and numbers we do not have.
True. And I’m sure some clever bods are looking/developing at capability to take down mass drone attacks. But for today. The T45 is very well equipped to deal with any threats in the Red Sea.
Which is exactly what i said in my post and replies.
Not really. You said it’s an expensive way to shoot down drones. Which means you’ve got beef with us firing Sea Vipers at drones and ballistic anti ship missiles. I’d say its the best tool for the job.We have no idea at what ranges or how much warning we have to engage these targets. Drones also have very low radar signatures due to their relatively small size, which makes them difficult to track and engage. Fortunately, Sampson is up to the job. There may well be other more cost effective ways to take down drones. But if was sat on the Diamond. I’d be very happy to be surrounded by such high level capability. Re-arming has always been an issue. But it’s the same for every warship, of any nation. We have friendly ports in the region to restock. Other nations don’t have that option.
Mate, You are mis reading my comments, or i might have given cause for you to do so…. either way, I’m not trying to cause you any angst, I’m just saying what I think about current situation in regards to the costs involved in shooting down these relatively cheap Drones….. No beef as you suggested, just Concern at the disproportionate costs….. Not usually having a difference of opinion with you on here, well not this past ten years or so, normally we seem to be on the same Wavelength…… T45’s are Amazing and I really believe in those who had the gumption to design, order and build them, as you say, HMS Duncan is doing exactly what she was built to do, Wish we had them in 1982.
Apologies Frank. I didn’t mean yo get carried away. I’m sure a more cost effective weapon system designed for drones will be fitted in time. Those extra 24 Sea Ceptors would be handy too.
Damage to our trade and extra costs of Imports of course has to be set off against it and potentially hundreds of times more significant, lateral thinking is always Important in such matters.
My Lateral Thinking includes reality… Using these weapons against cheap and plentiful targets is not viable long term. Looking ahead is always Important in such matters too. Do you see the Expensive Tanks being destroyed by cheap Drones in Ukraine, who would have predicted that just a few years back ?
Can’t see any financial critique is likely to become a road block. Defence of lives and ships ought to outweigh any “think of the cost” . Especially when it’s life death or destruction/disable of a significant asset.
It’s a good point. I wonder if the commercial shipping companies could be asked to contribute towards their protection?
Or is that a complete none starter as it would push the price of shipping up which would be transferred to the price of the consumer goods they are delivering?
Still does seem that the UK and USA as usual are doing all the fighting. Come on EU allies get with the game plan.
France and Danish warships have already engaged Houthis…
Form a STUFT convoy arm them with CIWS for protection against Boghammer type boats if this drags on for longer than Israel is in Gaza for. Because at this present time insurance for ships transitting through the Red Sea is increasing so shipping companies would rather take the ships round the Cape and around Africa extending duration of passage time which will then cause a shortage of goods reaching the consumer thus increasing price If this Houtie problem isn’t dealt with .
I think it’s good bang for buck when you consider the economic damage of Houthis blockading the suez.
Indeed, the cost is minimal compared to that, which is why I am sure the Russians are greatly orchestrating all this with and through Iran. I’m more concerned about potential missile shortages. Does show that the sooner we get alternatives to expensive missiles for light to medium drones at the very least the better especially due to the Ukraine War drone technology is currently going through a transformation similar to technology inspired in WW2. The Iranians (and indeed the Russians with Ukraine too) are already adding hi res visual sensors that can lock into targets and make the drones all but immune to jamming certainly once a target is spotted.
I note in a related subject the Germans have just supplied the Ukranians with their latest anti drone platform a vehicle and cannon combo with intelligent ammunition that can take out up to 15 drones (if closely located) with a 5 second burst … and as long as they are within range of course. I think we are going to need a whole series of defences to take out different drone types and to mutually support each other.
Type 31 with 40mm, 57mm and camm is going to be a drone slayer.
Although I wonder, if terrorist drone attacks on shipping becomes more common, maybe this justifies putting camm on River Batch 2?
Why do you think these limited ranged guns will be effective over such an enormous area ? Too many people keep saying this yet they can only be affective if within range or if the Drones are directly aimed at the ship itself. Camm numbers are also rather low on T31.
My understanding is that the ships are escorting convoys. Either way guns have already been used and I doubt it was a 4.5 inch gun so they seem to be getting close enough.
Camm numbers are not huge but they aren’t exactly facing saturation attacks.
It may be a drop in firepower but I don’t think the Houthi threat justifies tying up our lone available destroyer.
In reality, one T45 cannot be an escort for the many hundreds of ships transiting the Area…. just take a look at Ship tracking sites and you’ll see the full picture and the enormous area having to be covered…. again it’s all about being in range, you don’y use a Shotgun to kill a rabbit 50 fields away.
I think better to put non deck penetrating bofors 40mm with P3 on rivers, more depth of magazine and get it to do convoy duty. then you get protection in batches and the range say effective to 4miles for fast misses and further for slow moving drones would be OK, one end of a convoy landward side should be good.
Yes if the Western navies face 48 in one day they will go through their arsenal in a week or two if the Houthi can keep this up. So does the RN have ability to reload at a friendly port like Al Or Dubai? The limitation of Slyver or Mk41 VLS is that it has to be reloaded in port with cranes and not from a RFA resupply ship.
The use of low level low speed UAVs or drones means the RN needs to be prudent due to turn around time. The benefit of the plan to replace the short range ASTER 15 missiles with SeaCeptor that are Quadpacked in MK41 or Slyver silos, is more available missiles that are also cheaper.
It would be interesting to see if the USN is firing 2-3 SM missiles at each target or whether they are firing one per target like the RN. At least our missiles are cheaper.
Overall I think the West will learn lots about this sort of low level aerial warfare protecting civilian ships.
Perhaps the Type 31 with more SeaCeptor and it trio of big guns are the right choice.
Exactly. With the new threat of Mass Drone attacks, i think we need to take note and come up with more answers.
It might be possible to get tge T45 alongside a friendly port and ship in extra missiles to load. The Type 31 would be good to use here if we had any yet. Its 3P ammunition would be good against the drones and cost effective. I would like to see the 4.5 on the T45 replaced by the RN’s new 57mm gun with3P.
In the longer term DEWs would be used for killing drones.
“ The Sea Viper air-defence system”
Strictly speaking everything AAW is linked to Sea Viper.
Sea Ceptor will be part of it and the 30mm is probably integrated too.
Question for those in the know:
Why are missiles’ altitude range so much less than their horizontal range? Aster is a rocket-powered missile, so why is its altitude ceiling only 20km and its range 120km? Surely if you fired the thing straight up it would get much higher than that. It’s probably some ballistic quirk with the booster and dart but still confused
Gravity and thinner air.
If you are fighting gravity then it requires more energy to go upwards.
Obvs ASTER isn’t air breathing but there is less to push against the higher you go.
That’s not how rockets work though
only a tiny proportion of the thrust is by pushing against air.
I get gravity but a shell fired 120km would go well above 20km, surely the most efficient flight path is roughly ballistic?
I’m just saying it is a finite component.
If you are doing AAW you don’t have the luxury of a ballistic trajectory….?
If you are doing land attack that is a different story.
Well, you do, right up until the missile goes active. It all depends on how much time you have to spare
If you see bandits incoming you could potentially throw a loitering munition up….
But that isn’t how ASTER works.
With most AAW there is very limited time to react.
The second someone Shouts “Alarm Aircraft” when at Action stations you swing round train on the bearing and let rip well we did with 20mm and 30mm I doubt if the Alarm procedure has changed
Ideally the 30mm(s) is(are) controlled by the CMS so they are aimed precisely.
Not filling the air with lead….
Yeah now most if not all 30mm are remotely operated I do believe that they can also if needs be be operates in local mode ie with an Aimer just make sure that the barrel is fully in and twist locked never lost a barrel but one of the Hunts during Granby had a BBC crew filming now there’s a barrel at the bottom of the Northern Gulf
All AAW missiles are ballistic. They don’t rely on aerodynamic lift to stay in the air.
Errr we were discussing ballistic trajectory…….
Not the fact that they are rocket powered through flight.
As soon as David Lloyd catches this one…
I’m no rocket scientist but AAW missiles are very fast near hypersonic in the case of Aster30, they also are as small as is feasible for obvious reasons. The result is thus a relatively limited Delta-V which means the more vertically it flies I suspect the actual distance it can fly becomes rapidly shorter though I am surprised it’s so great. It is a very different beast for instance from a rocket designed to reach orbit which is much larger has large fuel capacity (the Vulcan first stage just fired for over 5 minutes, second stage over 3) and takes a while to even hit supersonic speeds and of course such rockets still fly at an angle not straight upwards, to escape the effects of gravity effectively out racing through sustained active power gravity to skip out of the Earths atmosphere.
I think we can all appreciate however that a missile with around a hundred mile range could ever do that vertically as it would be in space and no one could imagine present gen Asters reaching orbit. That said to have a serious all in anti ballistic missile capability such missiles will have to get much closer to that point to successfully intercept I suspect.
True ballistic trajectories like a classic shell’s aren’t powered at all after the initial impetus. What we call ballistic in missiles is powered on the up and turns properly ballistic near the top where the fuel runs out. It’s accelerated for far more of its path than the shell. I have no idea what that does to the math as my brain is a bit fried by a tough morning, but you can’t superimpose the height-range proportions of one on the other.
Shell balistics are governed by external parameters such as wind speed ,humidity, temperature , Sea state, we used too have to fill in a form prior to conducting a shoot Excalibar rds uses internal parameters as do missiles thrust pitch course correction once a shell is fired that’s it you can’t change course speed ,Angle, abort ,
Balistic paths are great if your firing shells/ICBMs but this is an G-A missile. The std flight path for a guided ground to air missile tends not to be ballistic, think of it more as an initial course turn after launch then a straight-ish line (most direct route) with a series of corrections/alterations and a final run onto its target/final fast course changes to target. It will be under thrust all the time ( accelerating to about Mach3-4) as it will tend to use aerodynamic fins for attitude and course control and this requires a reasonable amount atmosphere to work effectively (20km altitude is about 65000ft so thats pretty much any aircarft, drone or cruise missile covered). Payload “only” needs to be a seeker/guidance system and a warhead consisting a proximity fuse, a few kilos of explosive and something that can be rapidly turned into a load of shrapnel but all of this must be nice and light and compact enough to not be affected too much by gravity/aero drag (I’ve massively simplified as its a lot more complex than this, Read DaveyB’s much better and more detailed explanation or the Aster below) . If my maths is correct an Aster30 can travel 120kms in 90-ish seconds (then the rocket is out of fuel so cant fly or change course effectively as it rapidly decelerates from that point onwards) , speed, control and accuracy are the key here so taking a very fast straight(ish) route to the target is better.
I’d forgotten about aerodynamic controls, well explained Mr Lurker
Ballistic trajectories much like artillery. A missile travelling up to 20km will travel along way over the ground.
As others have said below gravity is the main hurdle. However, with missiles the range that is given is not that clear cut. It kind of depends on the type of target and the distance to the target.
If a target is say within visual range, Aster like most modern surface to air missiles (SAMs) will fly a direct intercept path towards it. Which if the target is at 20,000ft and flying straight towards you. Will be a initially straight, and then starts to curve on to the target. As the CMS is continuously working out the interception point and directly the missile to the new calculated point. Aster with its active radar will take over the interception from the CMS as it closes. Which may alter the interception path to be more straighter or sharpen the curve.
However, if the target is way beyond visual range and at 20,000ft. Modern SAMs and air to air missile (AAM) will follow a quasi-ballistic path. This is where it will initially climb at say 45 degrees and then level off at 40,000ft or more. At this height, the air is thinner than at 20,000ft. So there is less air resistance to generate drag and therefore the missile doesn’t slow down as fast. At this point the missile is effectively a glider, as the engine has used up its propellent. It then adopts a cruising flight profile. Where it uses its body and any mid-body strakes to generate lift. There is a trade off though, as it generates lift, it will loose speed. But it does mean it can fly much further. As it gets to a point it will dive onto the target, using gravity to accelerate again. Or if you are a Meteor accelerate using your ramjet.
A rocket/missile flying vertically upwards cannot generate lift to augment its range. It is fighting gravity all the way, even if the air does get thinner the higher it climbs. This kind of shows why certain missiles have a much longer horizontal range compared to vertical.
It is a marked difference I agree, just watched Scott Manley detail why spacecraft re entry can’t happen significantly slower or more gradually to generate less heat. Very complex and relates to the rocket equation which applies to going down as well as up I now realise, though beyond my full comprehension, It’s a complex formula that explains the interaction between speed, gravity, drag and available fuel that I am sure is behind the limitation here. (Also affects the shape of wings but that’s not really relevant here, only things like lifting bodies). Indeed it appears the size of the Earth is getting close to the limit of chemical rockets to even easily escape gravity at all.
Hi George, a bit of a correction. Aster does not have a two stage motor. It is a two stage missile, that has a rocket motor in each stage. A two stage rocket motor, is where a single rocket motor has its propellent separated by a barrier. Which after the 1st stage propellent is used up, the 2nd stage is timed to ignite after a fixed or variable period of time. Thereby extending the achievable range and accelerating it again, AMRAAM 120D is “suspected” to use this method.
Aster, is a “hittle”. However it does use a combined point detonation and proximity fuse to set off the warhead. In lots of trials against target drones, where the missile does not carry a warhead. The missile has been shown to strike and destroy the drone. The Block 1NT Aster used in anti-ballistic missile trials has been shown to shred targets that it hits. The Aster dart (2nd stage) uses mid-body strakes to generate lift when manoeuvring. Which gives the missile a very rapid and tight turning circle. But also included within these strakes are piff-paff jets (reaction jets). These jets are basically throttleable (on-off) rocket motors, that help the missile to turn even tighter. But can also be used to make the missile “jump” towards the target, if it detects that it might miss.
Another point to note, is that the Royal Navy currently uses the Block 0 Aster on its T45s. Publicly they aren’t supposed to be capable of intercepting ballistic threats, but this has proven to be inaccurate (I can’t go into any more detail!). All the Block 0s are being upgraded to Block 1 standard, under phase 1 of the Sea Viper Evolution (SVE) program. This is a two phased program, specifically to give the T45 a better capability of intercepting ballistic missiles. The contract was signed between the MoD and MBDA last year.
The upgrade replaces the warhead with the one used by the Block 1. Which I believe, but need to check, is a non-sensitive munition and is slightly bigger. Secondly, the Block 0 is having its software and firmware upgraded to the Block 1 standard. This is in part to remove obsolescence, but it is also going to upgrade its capabilities against ballistic threats. SVE Phase 2 introduces the Block 1NT missile. This has a better radar, that operates in the higher Ka-band compared to the Block 0’s Ku-band. This means as its using a shorter wavelength it can differentiate between targets with a lot more resolution. Thereby it can better tell the difference between a decoy and the real warhead/missile.
Included in the SVE phase 1 are upgrades to the BAe Sampson radar and the PAAMS CMS. These upgrades are designed to allow the systems to better target ballistic threats.
Performance wise, Aster 15/30 is comparable to SM2. Though it has proven to be more accurate than SM2 Block 3 in trials. When the Block 3C with the active seeker, it will get closer. Aster’s manoeuvrability will stay ahead of SM2 due to the additional reaction jets. Thereby giving it a better chance of intercepting highly manoeuvring targets.
Thanks for an interesting post.
So is the definition of a hittile, a missile that uses its kinetic energy to attack the target and which may or may not have a warhead to finish the job, because I’m confused about where a proximity fuse fits in?
Hi Jon, one of the first “hittles” was the Rapier. It did great in trials against relatively benign drones. But during the Falklands, it had major issues. Well over 40 missiles were fired, but there have only been a few confirmed kills. This was due to the missile not having a proximity fuse. So as the missile missed rather than detonating, it went onto plough into the ground. Following on from the Falklands all the missiles were later upgraded with a proximity fuse.
During the first Gulf War, it was shown that Patriot could intercept the Scuds. However, the Patriot’s missiles only managed to knock a few down. This was due to the missile relying on a proximity fuse, the PAC 2 didn’t have a point detonation fuse. However, the timing of the detonation was off. So instead of the Scud flying through a cloud of shrapnel, The Scud had already past by the time the shrapnel reached where it thought the Scud would be. This was also an initial problem with SM6. To properly intercept a ballistic missile or re-entry vehicle carrying a warhead, you need to hit it directly.
The exoatmospheric SM3 is a true hittle, as it does not carry a warhead. It instead relies on directly striking the target and transferring its kinetic energy to destroy it. THAAD is also another hittle. The SM6 does carry a warhead, but it is also designed to strike the target. It was expected that the Patriot’s PAC 3 missile was also a hittle, but it does carry a warhead. That can be either point or proximity detonated thereby broadening the range of targets it can be used on.
Proximity fuzes are great at countering either very small or targets that are manoeuvring erratically. As they only need to get within a few metres of the target, to detonate. The proximity fuze sensor is usually either a small doppler radar or a laser with a relatively broad field of view. The missile’s warhead is encased within a metal tube, which fragments on detonation. The warhead’s concussive wave coinciding with the following debris cloud is normally sufficient to take out an aircraft, helicopter, cruise missile etc. But they can have real problems with very high speed targets, such as ballistic missiles. As you must time the debris cloud to reach the nose of the ballistic missile, so that the missile passes through the debris cloud. This is to ensure that the fragments can damage the guidance system and fuzing. But also to penetrate the skin to cause aerodynamic irregularities. Which may be enough to make the missile tear itself apart.
That makes sense. Cheers.
So then the question everyone is asking is, could Aster boosters be reconfigured to carry 3 StarStreak, which each then carry 3 hittiles. And could you make a rocket carry 3 Asters… I digress
It is wrong to describe Aster as a ‘hittile’. It includes both Proximity and Contact fuzes. The fact that it has hit many trials targets is does not make it a ‘hittile’, rather a very effective missile The proximity fuze is there to ensure the warhead detonates where a small miss does occur to ensure target destruction.
That’s for that insight DaveyB, it’s been widely shared over the years in press that Aster block0 can likely engage shorter range ballistic missiles.
It’s amazing how rapidly ballistic missile defence has give from a nice to have let’s leave it to the Americans to an absolute necessity. Now we have rebels launching Anti Ship Ballistic missiles.
I really hope we get onboard with the NT program.
Sadly at some point the Houthis will get their aiming right when firing the Iranian supplied anti-ship ballistic missiles. Not sure what they will do to a merchant vessel? But in theory it won’t be good.
From what I understand, the funding stream for Sea Viper Evolution Phase 2 has already been budgeted for. Phase 2 is the integration of the Aster Block 1NT missile on to the T45.
Are those piff-paff/reaction jets basically the same as the attitude control motors on Patriot PAC-3 missiles?
Yes, pretty much. The PAC 3 has the reaction jets much further forward, which is designed to push the nose. Aster’s are pretty much in the centre, which pushes the missile laterally. Aster uses a separate propellent tank, to supply the reaction jets. Whereas, I think the ones on the PAC 3 are one shot deals.
Both do pretty much the same effect off turning the missile, when combined with the moving tail surfaces. Though because Aster has them at the centre of the missile’s body, the pushing moment can be used to make the missile in effect jump. Which in reality is a form of rapidly controlled sideslip. This is something the PAC 3 cannot do.
Great posts Davey and others, good reads. Have the Asters ever been configured to launch from MK41s? And would they require a plug-in?
A bit O/T but do you reckon putting a Phalanx on the top of the hangar on the T23s would be useful? Would have great arc of fire and would complement the CAMM and 30mm.
Phalanx on Type 23 has never been an option,probably too late in their careers now to do it even if it was possible.
Phalanx is last line of defence. As the CO of a expensive warship do you really want to wait out for it to be that close before taking it down? Putting a crew at risk? No thank you.
As ever Davey B covers missile tech very well.
What some people miss is that for longer range engagement especially doing area defence you don’t fire at a target. If you do that you end up tail chasing (Sea Slug!) and it’s an inefficient and frankly 1960s way of doing an engagement.
Viper and Ceptor are active homers that only need a Search radar to do an engagement with no separate tracking /Illumination radar required. Thats why on T23 the old sea wolf trackers were removed and on T45 there are no seperate trackers fitted. Compare that to say the USN ABs even the latest block 3 versions still have trackers (3 in No) for the semi active SM2 versions
Anyway, on an RN ship the search radar sees the target. The computers know where it is in 3D air space and also its speed its down to simple speed, vector and trig calculations. It calculates a future intercept point in 3D space where the missile can go active using its own radar homing head to hunt down the target. That point where the missile goes active is close enough to ensure the target cannot escape the homing missile.
You Launch. The search radar tracks the target and the outgoing missile. You calculate the future intercept point and send updates over data link (which in Sampsons case is built in or over the data link aerials in Ceptors case) updating the missile to alter course to fly to a point in space where the target will eventually be.
The advantage of the system is simplicity. No trackers required so less to go wrong, just a search radar and data link. Its relatively simple Trig and vector calculations (just done really quickly!) The target doesn’t know its been shot at as there is no illuminating radar painting it. You can engage multiple targets (10+) simultaneously over 360degs or arc at various altitudes. One missile per target, you don’t need salvo (2 missile shots) per target to keep the Kill Probability up as you do with Semi Active homers.
One shot per target is important. T45 has 48 VLS tubes so in theory that’s 48 targets it can engage. A ship with just semi active homers needs 2 missiles per target (best practise to keep the kill probability high) so it needs say…96 VLS tubes… How many tubes does a USN AB have?
96!
Can the vertical launch system be reloaded at sea or does she need to beat feet for a suitable naval dock to re arm.
The Australian idea of doubling the VLS capacity on their version of the Type 26 is looking a lot more sensible,
Aster 15: Weighing 310 kg and measuring 4.2 metres in length, with a diameter of 180 mm. It has a 15 kg focused fragmented warhead and a lethal radius of 2 metres.
May I suggest a lethal radius of two metres for a 15kg warhead a trifle conservative?
After reading responses to cost, how do you shoot down a swarm of drones? The simple answer is with what you have to hand regardless of cost.
Its good to know RNUK has an effective weapon for any. Incoming air threat. These people are unlikely to have any air defence so a measured response should not endanger our aircraft.