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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.