The Ministry of Defence is to spend £405 million to upgrade the Sea Viper missile system recently used by the Royal Navy to down drones over the Red Sea.
Initial Operating Capability for the upgrades is scheduled for February 2028.
The information came to light in response to a Written Parliamentary Question.
Kevan Jones, MP for North Durham, asked:
“To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, when he plans the upgrade to Type 45’s Sea Viper Air Defence system to deliver Ballistic Missile Defence Capability will achieve initial operating capability.”
James Cartlidge, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence, responded:
“Sea Viper Evolution is the first stage of UK Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) with enhancements to the Type 45 Destroyer’s Multi-Function Radar, Combat Management System (CMS), Weapon Command and Control (C2), and the ASTER 30 Block 1 missile. Initial Operating Capability (IOC) is scheduled for February 2028, and the UK is currently in an Assessment Phase for future capability upgrades.”
Defence Secretary Grant Shapps was quoted as saying:
“As the situation in the Middle East worsens, it is vital that we adapt to keep the UK, our allies and partners safe. Sea Viper has been at the forefront of this, being the Navy’s weapon of choice in the first shooting down of an aerial threat in more than 30 years.”
We reported previously that Britain was set to become the first European nation to operate a ‘Maritime Ballistic Missile Defence’ capability that can detect and destroy anti-ship ballistic missiles.
An initial contract worth £300m was signed with MBDA last year. The upgraded defence system, using the ASTER 30 Block 1 missile previously used only in French and Italian land systems, will help UK forces combat the increasing threats posed by anti-ship ballistic missiles at sea by developing the missile into a maritime variant.
According to the Ministry of Defence here, the UK will become the first European nation to operate a Maritime Ballistic Missile Defence capability that can detect and destroy Anti-Ship Ballistic Missiles as it commits to a significant upgrade of Britain’s fleet of Type 45 destroyers.
“The upgraded defence system, using the ASTER 30 Block 1 missile previously used only in French and Italian land systems, will help UK forces combat the increasing threats posed by anti-ship ballistic missiles at sea by developing the missile into a maritime variant. The Ministry of Defence has placed an initial contract for this work with MBDA which, when delivered, will be worth more than £300 million and support more than 100 jobs across the UK – including highly skilled technology roles in areas such as system design and software engineering in Stevenage, Cowes, Bristol and Bolton.”
Defence Procurement Minister, Jeremy Quin said:
“As we face global uncertainty, alliances and greater defensive capability are more important than ever. Joining our French and Italian counterparts will see us collectively improve the cutting-edge technology our armed forces possess. It is another example of us delivering on the commitments from the Defence Command Paper, helping protect our service personnel when faced with the most severe threats.”
The signing of the tri-national agreement is the first formal step in the upgrade of the six vessels, which will include converting existing missiles to the ASTER 30 Block 1 standard, as well as updates to the SAMPSON multi-function radar (MFR) and Sea Viper command and control missile system, under the full Sea Viper Evolution programme.
The Sea Viper Evolution programme follows the recent contract awards to introduce the Common Anti Air Modular Missile (CAMM) into the Type 45, which will see the missile outload of the platform increased from 48 to 72 missiles. You can read more about this news here.
Last year, I reported that there was concern over the lack of anti-ballistic capability on Type 45.
The following comes from a formal meeting of the Defence Select Committee, an oral evidence session specifically, discussing the recent defence review whitepaper ‘Defending Global Britain in a Competitive Age’. Just so you know who’s who, Dr Sidharth Kaushal is a Research Fellow at the Royal United Services Institute and Rear Admiral Alex Burton is the former Commander UK Maritime Forces. Stuart Anderson and Mark Francois are both Conservative MP’s.
Stuart Anderson asked, referring to the Integrated Review’s ‘Defence Command Paper’:
“Do you see any particular areas of concern with what has been set out, doctor?”
Dr Kaushal responded:
“I would not necessarily state that the force structure laid out produced any particular areas of concern for me. The temporary trough in capability that the Navy will endure when the two Type-23s are retired will probably generate certain force generation issues, although in all likelihood not insurmountable ones. The Navy, however, will need to look at two key questions: first, the absence of a capability to counter anti-ship ballistic missiles on the Type-45 destroyer. That was discussed in the 2015 strategic defence and security review, as part of a wider ballistic missile defence capability for the vessel, but it was absent in this review, which I thought was noteworthy.”
Rear Admiral Burton also responded by saying “I would just reinforce Dr Sidharth’s view on the anti-ballistic missile defence, which I think was a wrong absence within the review”, he added later “one of the gaping holes within the defence review is an anti-ballistic missile defence mechanism, both at sea and ashore.”
Mr Francois pressed the point, asking “To be clear, a gaping hole, in your words?”
Rear Admiral Burton responded:
“There is a gaping hole in our ability to defend a carrier against a ballistic missile without the support of our allies, so there is mitigation there, but it is mitigation that is reliant on our allies.”
Burton later added:
“The Navy has been clear that there has been a national capability gap, for the last 10 years, at least, in an anti-ballistic missile defence capability. That can be mitigated by working alongside our allies, just like the Americans use our capabilities to mitigate their capability gaps. Firstly, this is known, and, secondly, it can be mitigated.”
Four years to IOC of an operationally urgent system!
Yes, the French & Italians have already developed it!
They have only developed the Aster 30 block 1 missile as part of the land based SAMP/T, it’s never been used at Sea. So the SAMPSON Radar has to be upgraded, the CMS has to be modernised etc etc. If we actually pull this off on time and on budget it will be an impressive achievement and may prove to be profitable. It also ties in very well with what France and Italy doing when they carry out the Mid Life refit / upgrades. But they need to design a new back to back AESA radar and also intend to… Read more »
Be grateful it’s only four years Bob. Look at some of the other gems we are waiting for.
Wow, that’s quick. The CR2 uppgrade (aka CR3) will take about 11 years to IOC (2027) – I was working on the Rheinmetall bid in 2016.
Good article. My rant again, sorry, but surely there’s a huge opportunity here too to also add two MK41s or up the CAMM to 36 or even 48 down the sides and or hangar roof.
They’re going to spend millions why not get some extra bang for the bucks. Having extra shots very useful for long deployments with CSG or even just for self defense.
Side note, The Netherlands is also wanting four AAW destroyers (Naval News I think it was) for 2030-40s, might be an opportunity for a T83 partnership?
These missile tubes are several meters long. If the space is not pre allocated there’s no room to install them in most cases. Not using mk41 is unfortunate but its not worth the cost if they don’t plan to integrate Fcasw onto the destroyers
Agree. Just to get some extra CAMM onboard, in the MK41space and maybe use the sides of the Aster silo. It’s not too hard to imagine. Even 6*6 for 36 is better than just 24.
Hopefully we want more than 4 type 83s. I think 10 is the golden number. Therefore bid for 12 or 14 and “allow” the treasury to knock the RN down to the minimum number of 10.
The government will probably say building 8,a year or two down the line it will be 6,even 6 is optimistic
9 is a sensible number, to ensure that 5 are always available to task, 6 on occasion.
An Ideal minimum RN escort fleet:
9 x T45 and future T83
12 x T26
12x T31 (fully armed for bear)
33 total, that gives you a flexible small surface combat fleet for the RN
Mr Bell, I love your healthy optimism!!! I thought the magic number was 8?!😁
(*was in Defense News today)
I’ve read this several times and I think some of it is very interesting. OK 4 years sounds a lot of time but in terms of developing and delivering IOC for the 1st European Maritime ASABM system it’s PDQ. And what I find really interesting is some of the detail from MOD in the statement it indicates just what achieving this will mean and also present operational limitations. UK will become the first European nation to operate a Maritime Ballistic Missile Defence capability that can detect and destroy Anti-Ship Ballistic Missiles. “The upgraded defence system, using the ASTER 30 Block… Read more »
Fcasw would fit in mk41 cells, thats how the new frigates will launch it. I think it’s more a case they don’t plan to integrate the missile onto the T45, for whatever reason.
It woukd seem that we are not alone France and Italy are carrying out a mid life refit / upgrade later this decade. Leonardo are developing a back to back twin AESA radar so they also get ASBM capability but will also use the Aster 30 1NT.
The Navy will be getting the 1NT version of Aster. But this comes as part of phase 2 of SVE. Phase 1 is more to get the CMS and radar modified. Along with an interim capability with the upgraded Block 0 to Block 1 Asters.
Thanks for the great reply Rodney! Yes A70s also an option depth of space permitting and allow for other missile types like the FCASW and maybe quadpackable CAMM. Not sure if missile loads in the MK41s are directly swappable with A50/70s and vv. Would be good to get an article on both. I was also thinking if the 6 pack CAMM was made similar to the 2*4 pack truckload mount that it then might be reloadable at sea maybe as a whole preloaded podded unit and just click into its space. The pod would also be it’s storage unit. Ready… Read more »
The strike length Mk41 is slightly longer (by 70cms)0 than the strike length Sylver A70. Though if France and Italy are fitting FCASW to their ships via A70. Then there’s still a bit of unused space with the Mk41. Wonder if MBDA will make use of it?
BAE’s Underwater Battlespace video includes a VLA-style torpedo being launched from the mk41 of a T26. Not sure if it’s just wishful thinking but would certainly help given the lack of MTLS on T26.
For a ship to engage a submarine, without using a helicopter. The ship must be able to engage the sub at a range beyond the sub’s torpedo range. Which could be around 30 miles away. So unless the sub is really close, weapons like the ship launched Stingray will be sadly ineffective. The ship could technically use similar size torpedoes, as those used by the sub, launched by a swing out or static side looking launcher. But the ship will have no advantage over the sub. As both sub and ship could suffer a mutual kill. The only way to… Read more »
An inordinately long process. Is it me, but all new UK programmes appear to be heading for one date, 2030! My cynical mind says the end of the decade is a safe target in which to aim but still miss ISD.
Considering the amount of work to be done and that it will be only the second Maritime ASBM to be developed and enter service in the West.
it’s bloody lightning fast, and I think you need to take on board that France and Italy are partners.
A lot of the concept work has been proven by the extant system. Both the Sampson and S1850M can track ballistic missiles. Plus I know both the CMS and Aster Block 0 can do a ballistic missile intercept. However, it can be a whole lot better. Without going into operational specifics. The Sea Viper Evolution Phase 1, will give the T45 a significant step up in capability, on par with the AEGIS ballistic missile defense program. The Phase 2 with the introduction of Aster Block 1NT, will again give the ship a boost in capability. Though sadly not in the… Read more »
Given the proliferation of drones I think we should be looking at gun upgrades too
Considering the Ukrainians probably just sank one of the Russians new patrol corvettes a few hours ago, I would say yes.
The Sergei Kotov is probably no more.
Looking at how the Ukrainians are targeting these Russian ships. There’s a definite pattern to the attacks. Which is something our Navy should be looking at seriously and how to counter it. As it doesn’t take the brains of a rocket scientist to figure out and therefore copy! There are now a number of videos available showing the attack on the Project 22160 patrol ship/corvette. Lots of machine gun tracer fire. Which seems to have been largely ineffective against the attacking unmanned surface vessels (USVs). Does make you wonder how effective an Arleigh Burke (AB) would be at defending itself… Read more »
What’s going on currently in the Red Sea with US/UK/EU navies and the Houthis, I am seeing a need for short and medium range fast tracking guns on ships…
And more of them . There was a lot of activity in the Red Sea today , cargo ship hit with two crew man killed and an anti ship missile was downed.
And the fact that the Italians just used 76mm Strales to shot down a drone in the Red Sea.
The Italian engagement was with new 76mm but with conventional rounds, said to be at 4km(some sources say 6km) at 1300ft altitude with 6 rounds.
The Germans also downed a drone with 76mm and this is the old model, that 76mm most likely came from German F122 frigates of 80’s and probably is 40 years old.
Should be noted that Italian ships have radar directors for their guns and the German frigate have only an electro optical one.
The Germans needed to use their gun because their SM2 don’t work 😀
It was not the same engagement. The SM2 were mistakenly sent against an medium to high altitude american drone.
Correct there as the mk 8s AA mode was removed if AA is reinstalled, you’d have a medium range weapon system that would be capable of dealing with Drones either Surface or Air
Indeed get rid of 4.5″ gun and put a 57mm or 76mm one
57mm would be most likely, if there’s any interest or funding in replacing the gun that is. Ships are already half way through their lives.
Of course, 57mm is BAE now.
Which is cheaper, cost of a new gun or several missiles fired? We d make the money back rather sharpish at £2M a missile
The Gun is not applicable to all intercepts. Only comes into play if the warship is being targeted. While you’re correct. There is also the cost of taking the ship out of service to install it and integrate it. Plus structural mods because its obviously a smaller mount and different loading system.
Hi Hugo no one has said for all intercepts, obviously the higher end munitions used against us would be more appropriate for missiles of that nature. I was thinking specifically for the lower cost and slower naval and aerial drones like the Houthies are employing. I believe the 57mm has a bolt on mount in the sort term that could be done quickly. There’s a number of containerised options as well as options that would attach to cwis emplacements that are unused. This isn’t just about cost because as we can see in the black sea the effectiveness of weapon… Read more »
I thought we were talking long term. Short term zero chance. They’re not going to change out the main gun in Gibraltar, or do it in an adhoc manner.
If we did then I’d save a bit of weight and go for the 76mm Strales rather than 57mm. The Italians never went down the CIWS route, they just love big guns. So just developed medium AA guns as far as they can go, they work well and they have some very interesting ammunition options.
That would make no sense. We’ve already adopted the 57mm. We don’t need a 4th gun system.
If you want my honest answer to that, it’s that the T31 needs a bigger gun as well. And there are way more users for 76 than 57.
Not gonna happen.
Also the US is picking up 57mm, the ships they’ll have it on will probably outnumber all those other users fleets combined 😅
Nah, USN only has the 57 into LCS which are in 20’s with decommissions, the big number will come with Constellations, there is also USCG but i am not seeing more than 100 guns for the next 10 years.
It just because have guided rounds while 57mm seems to be taken its time.
Also for me the 57mm is a caliber too much nearer 40mm.
The ideal solution -using space on the Type 45 Hangar roof – https://chuckhillscgblog.net/2022/07/17/new-76mm-gun-mount-solves-frequent-siting-problems/
As an interim can they just restore the AA ability of the 4.5″, software and hard ware? Better than not having it at all. Maybe the 2*30mm can be replaced with 40mm?
Maybe with current events in mind restoring AA Capability for the MK8 is being looked at,but with the T23’s time in service declining it has to be cost effective with a reduction in platforms
What those destroyers need is offensive weapons! It’s as if this people are lacking any military 🪖 education! All the way from Cyprus the RAF flies typhoons when cruise missiles launched from warships could have done the job and save money 💰
TLAM $2m a pop so not cheaper than a Paveway.
Presumably “the first shooting down of an aerial threat in more than 30 years” is a reference to the Iraqi Silkworm that HMS Gloucester shot down in 1991.
Must be the lad in the EWO position scanned it as a Silkworm and the warning was raised
It’s hardly a ballistic missile defence shield now is it, Mr Minister?
With just 6 type 45 destroyers we don’t really have a ballistic missile defence shield.
If we had 10-12 ships then maybe.
Lesson number 1 to carry over to type 83 programme. Build enough ships.
I would only require a few destroyers to cover the U.K. area. Even 1 could do it if the missiles are coming in the same direction from the same area.
I have said for a while we need a U.K. SAM/ABM system, but using a Destroyer to do it seems a bit OTT and limits its use.
Wouldn’t it be cheaper to just get SAMP-T instead or use what’s up on Portsdown and add some missiles. Just think of the carbon footprint and crew size.
It isn’t a Ballistic Missile Shield, that’s not what it’s designed for. It is a Naval Anti Ship Missile Defence system. Which is designed to intercept and destroy a short or medium range Anti Ship Ballistic Missile fired at a Targeted ship. No use what’s over trying to take out an ICBM. Unfortunately 6 is what we have and there is no capacity to build more. But I do have to wonder what Italy and France think about this development. They have 4 Horizon class, but have never mooted fitting them with Aster 30 Block 1, maybe they should think… Read more »
4 years.
Could have been a lot worse, I suppose…
It probably will be worse
The original announcement of contract award with MBDA was in May 2022 (linked in the article), so it’ll be close to 6 years for IOC.
No rush then. Let’s hope the Houties or Russia don’t get their hands on any of these. “DIMDEX 2024 — Iran has made a rare appearance at a Middle East defense show with an extensive stand here in Qatar, showing an array of arms, full-sized naval weapons and models of unmanned aerial vehicles, including one named “Gaza.” Representatives at Iran’s stand told Breaking Defense that the Gaza is a medium-altitude, low-endurance (MALE) UAV, has a payload capability of 500 kilograms and is purportedly already operational. According to officials at the stand, the drone has satellite communication capabilities and has a… Read more »
Well said Admiral Burton it’s time too plug the Gap but 2028 things need to be done now not just for the 45s
It took the mighty USN 21 years to develop, build and test a basic Maritime BMD system from the existing Standard and AEGIS systems and achieve IOC.
This will be only the second Western System with this capability and taking just 4 years, as a major project that’s Lighting fast.
We can question why it wasn’t done 10 years ago but as France and Italy didn’t progress it either despite having the missile shows what a Brain Dead attitude Europe had towards Defence.
It’s odd how the French and Italian didn’t trial both land and sea at the same time ,if my memory serves me the last time us Brits did this was with Seacat/Tigercat Bloodhound/Seaslug that’s over 60 years ago you would think that if it’s good on land then it should in theory work on a seaborne platform
Well they started with land based which I suppose as they are continental countries makes some sense.
The other reason is they opted for the cheaper and less capable EMPAR system rather than our back to back AESA SAMPSON radar. Italy and France are jointly planning a Mid Life Refit and Upgrade for their 4 Horizon class Destroyers. Spookily Leonardo are developing a back to back AESA radar so they can also intercept ASBM. And they will also have Aster 30 1NT which has greater range and capability than Block 1.
Thanks for that AB have too see what how this pans out over the coming months
As I mentioned earlier, the Navy will be getting Aster Block 1NT as part of phase two of the program. Phase 1 is giving the Navy a better interim capability with the upgrade of the current Block 0 to to Block 1. Along with the needed upgrades to Sampson and the CMS.
If understanding correctly the RN Aster 30s will be upgraded to Block 1 with the same upgrades as the ground launched SAMP-T Aster missiles, whereas the French and Italian Navies are also buying some of the Aster 30 Block 1 NT (New Technology) variant with its new Ka band seeker replacing the original Ku band seeker. The new seeker extends range against ballistic missiles with a range of 600 km to 1,500 km and is also capable of coping with TBMs with separable warheads. If correct the MoD has gone for the cheaper and less capable variant?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JG2B-Ot9SL4&t=3s
It has indeed so will be interesting to see by how much it beats the French/Italian option into service.
You need to look at the contractual agreement for Sea Viper Evolution (SVE). The program is being done in two phases. The first and perhaps more important part, is upgrading the ship’s CMS and Sampson. Also as part of phase 1, the current stock of Aster Block 0, will be upgraded to Block 1. This replaces the warhead for one more suited against ballistic threats. But also replaces a lot of the Missile’s electronics. The Missile’s engine stays the same. This is part of the reason why the integration of Sampson/CMS and Block 1 is approximately 4 years. On the… Read more »
I wouldn’t mind seeing Sea Spear 3 launchers on the ships.