On 8 December 2022, the Ministry of Defence signed an amendment to a contract with Eurosam, a consortium of companies managed by MBDA, for the production of Aster 30 Block 1 missiles.

The contract, which was signed by the OCCAR-EA Director on behalf of the UK MoD, will see the UK join a multi-national partnership with France and Italy for the production of the Aster missile system.

I previously reported an initial contract worth £300m had been signed with MBDA. The upgraded defence system, using the ASTER 30 Block 1 missile previously used only in French and Italian land systems, to help UK forces combat the increasing threats posed by anti-ship ballistic missiles at sea by developing the missile into a maritime variant.

Type 45 Destroyers getting anti-ballistic missile upgrades

The new contract amendment will oversee the conversion of Aster 30 missiles to the Aster 30 B1 Naval UK standard, as well as the development of autopilot software and logistics updates.

The munition assembly will take place at Defence Munition Gosport in the UK.

OCCAR say that the close collaboration between OCCAR, the UK MoD, and DE&S, as well as the efforts of DGA in France and SEGREDIFESA in Italy, played a key role in the signing of this contract after a lengthy and complex negotiation period.

“The close collaboration between OCCAR, the UK MoD and DE&S in particular, plus the great level of effort from DGA (FR) and SEGREDIFESA (IT), played a key role in the achievement of this major milestones after a lengthy and complex negotiation period with industry. Representatives from the Participating State could not join the ceremony in person but expressed their high satisfaction at the accomplishment of this long-awaited achievement.”

This programme, the organisation says, strengthens the strategic cooperation between France, Italy, and the UK in the ammunition domain and opens the door to future tri-national partnership opportunities.

Tom Dunlop
Tom Dunlop
Tom has spent the last 13 years working in the defence industry, specifically military and commercial shipbuilding. His work has taken him around Europe and the Far East, he is currently based in Scotland.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

125 COMMENTS

    • China ballistic missile anti ship missile have changed the game. You can no longer have the word premier anti air warfare destroyer with out ABM capability.

      • This upgrade is more focused on intercepting short range ballistic missiles in their terminal phase. These targets are much more common and easy to employ.

    • Jeremy Hunt allowing some flexibility on how the already agreed budget lines are spent year to year would be my guess.

      That was he can say that there is no budget blow out but at the same time allow necessary programs to get going and in some cases save money by allowing them to run at the maximum level of financial efficiency.

      Could common sense be breaking out?

      Next would be scrapping some of the capital items charges that hampers MOD from keeping more reserve equipment.

  3. Is this not a seismic shift in policy? Are we now saying that Russia might attempt to use balistic missiles despite the apocolyptic consequenses which might well result..

    • Hi Mark,

      My understanding is that these missiles are effective against Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles, not ICBM’s. Not entirely sure why, but speed would be my first guess…

      Jim, above mentions the Chinese Anti-ship ballistic missile which is considered by many to be a carrier killer. As such it is possibly the kind of thing they are concerned about with this upgrade.

      Cheers CR

      • Whenever this topic comes up I always immediately think nuclear weapons. Upon reading further it beomes clear that the use will be against ballastic anti-ship missiles for instance. I’d like to be corrected on that. Additionally Russia has roughly 6000 nuclear missiles (how many are viable may differ) and how many of these may split into seperate warheads is another matter. Assuming that there won’t be a 100% kill rate and that Asters can be used for that purpose, thats alot of Asters needed by NATO.

        • Defending against an ICBM is extremely difficult, and even the US with their huge investment in the technology have dubious intercept rates. I remember seeing one analysis that said under optimal conditions they might be able to to stop about 30 missiles launched from North Korea. And that’s assuming they had good early warning and that there were no tricks like dummy warheads and advanced countermeasures.

          It remains to be seen how much easier it will be to stop short-range anti-ship missiles, but even then, I suspect the world will soon be divided between those countries with the technology and will to invest in this extremely difficult capability, and those that need not bother pretending to have a credible navy

          • Hmmm…pure speculation, based on little but intuition, but perhaps space will offer a DEW and possibly kinetic based ABM platform over the next 10-30 yrs. ICBMs may become almost obsolete by end of period. Space is the high ground, and it is always better to hold the high ground. Look for renegotiation or abandonment of existing space treaties. AUKUS will obviously be a player (UK increasing pace and level of space activity follows as an intuitively obvious development). Relatively soon, anticipate Aussies will initiate some form of defense based space program. Scum sucking, slimeball ChiComs will seek parity, at least. Uncertain what role a post Putin autocratic Russia will play or indeed afford. Ludicrous idea and timeline? Recall how quickly aircraft evolved from start of WW I to end of WW II.

          • There are a number of treaties banning weapons in space. Though both China and Russia have shown that some of their satellites have a kinetic kill capabilities for “self defence”.

            I would imagine the World in general will want these treaties kept. As like you said it’s better to hold the high ground. Plus the person who does hold it may use it to their own benefit.

            It’s amazing to think of the progress in aviation in those 20 to 30 years between the start and end of the two World Wars. From a stuttering flimsy biplane that could just reach 100 mph in a dive. To all metal monoplanes knocking on the sound barrier. A truly holders period in research and design.

          • As you state, both Russia and China have demonstrated both ground based and on-orbit ASAT capability. Both have stockpiled weapons. Russia has demonstrated non-compliance w/ treaty obligations in the case of Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. Firmly believe existing treaties will either be renegotiated to include stringent verification protocols or declared null and void. Space will definitely become the next military frontier.

          • It’s one of the reasons for basing Arleigh Burke’s with SM3s and SM6s in Japan. Plus Japan’s AEGIS ashore permanently watches in the North Korean direction. So they would provide one part of the early warning. The US also has a number of satellites watching that country for just that reason.

            Unfortunately, ballistic missile interceptions are not guaranteed. However, by conducting lots of life firing trials and modeling simulations the pk value can only get better.

        • Starting trying to defeat incoming Russian ballistic missiles just results in an arms race again. I think mutual assured destruction still applies. We just have to have enough missiles survive a first strike to ruin the Kremlin’s day. A small anti missile system will be tolerated protecting an area Against limited attack.
          France has spent at least €4 billion on land aster so far. It gets very expensive very quickly and nothing works all the time, every time.

          • Big difference is this time the Russians are f**ked and can’t afford an arms race, they can’t even afford to maintain what they have now much less build more and the only card they have left to play is their historic arsenal which is largely of dubious quality. ABM systems are getting better all the time. Now is really the time to invest even if it starts an arms race because the Russians won’t be able to win or even compete.

            The UK a is small and densely pact. it’s a perfect location to defend with ABM systems.

          • Disagree with you there Jim. At the capped rate of $60 a barrel, Russia still has an oil income of $1bn a week. They have no compulsion in wasting most of that on weapons.

          • The Russians neither have the technology or the industrial capacity to enter that arms race.

            I’m sure they could build some nice models. They will have the **theoretical** tech but not even the money to do the R&D.

            Just look at the SU57 project and the Indian involvement if you want to understand just how strapped for cash the Russian military actually is.

            The next problem is that the Russians would need access to a lot of dual purpose bits and pieces that they cannot procure and can’t make.

          • Russia main problem is corruption and lack of openness. Loss of money through corruption is easy to seein Ukraine. But openness has meant that people don’t talk up when things aren’t right and that has led to development of gear that isn’t suitable and also has helped fuel the corruption. Until they fix that they won’t be able to recover from the Ukraine war. No amount of money will solve it, more money will just mean more corruption and more money being wasted on useless projects.

          • “Starting trying to defeat incoming Russian ballistic missiles just results in an arms race again.” 

            Should be interesting in that case!

            “Ukraine has been calling for the US to send the advanced long-range air defense system that is highly effective at intercepting ballistic and cruise missiles as it comes under a barrage of Russian missile and drone attacks that have destroyed key infrastructure across the country.

            It would be the most effective long-range defensive weapons system sent to the country and officials say it will help secure airspace for NATO nations in eastern Europe.”

            https://edition.cnn.com/2022/12/13/politics/us-patriot-missile-defense-system-ukraine/index.html

        • I don’t think ICBMs are typically used to target ships, or even flotillas of ships. They’re usually intended for wiping out cities or other land-based infrastructure, no? But I guess the government can also see a wider ABM interest in our Type 45s, since we don’t have any land-based ABM capability, to protect the UK?

      • Hi CR, and nterestingly enough the French and Italian”s arm their carriers with Asters. I won’t ask why we don’t do the same… Lol 😁

          • With you on that Frank. Beats me why this area is seemingly and intentionally neglected. Even the upgrade of the T45s, could do with an extra 24 CAMM giving 48+48 Asters. The RAN AAW Hobart’s and Dutch Tromp class have 32 Standard+64 ESSM fitout so why they can’t go just a little bit extra on the T45s? Next they’ll need to improve the ASW suite on the T45s to keep any subs at a distance. And there’s a ready made slot there too for MK41s. With another 10+ years of life I reckon, as do others here, why not maximise the upgrades pending the arrival of the T83s? Haven’t even mentioned the US, Japanese, Korean ships.
            I’d better stop my rant. Hope everyone isnt too frozen out (or in) in the UK. Sunny 24 degrees here in Sydney. 😎

          • No.. T45 is a dedicated AAW platform. Its 48x Aster will be a load out of Aster 30 and Block 1 NT. These have a killer atmosphere of 1:1. ESSM other than SPY7 have a kill ratio of 2:1 meaning that you need two Missiles for a one kill. That means you need 96 Missiles to have the same effect as Sampson / Aster. Add to that the 24x CAMM added as self defence (also 1:1) and you have in effect 72 Missiles to take out 72 AShM’s, the equivalent of 72 incoming or 144 ESSM.

            As for ASW, this is why we have Frigates T23 / T26 purpose built for the task. RN doctrine isn’t about having lots of multi role ships. We’ve been there and done that (Falklands) we have purpose built ships which make a screen around the CSG and provide layered defence.

          • Sorry that was meant to say kill ratio not the predictive rubbish that it came up with (killer atmosphere 🤣)

          • “These have a killer atmosphere of 1:1. ESSM other than SPY7 have a kill ratio of 2:1 meaning that you need two Missiles for a one kill. That means you need 96 Missiles to have the same effect as Sampson / Aster.”

            I think I understand what you’re trying to say here and I think we can safely put this internet lore to rest. The US fires 2 missiles per target because that’s always been there shot doctrine. Even now with their most advanced missiles like the SM-6, there is no indication that this has changed. There was a study a few years ago that tried to find the amount of SAMs you needed to fire that would have the highest kill probability and if I remember right the number was 1.x.(I don’t remember the exact number off the top of my head)

            Besides, if anyone believes that a weapon exists (SAM or otherwise) that has a 100% interception rate then I’m sure that person would be also interested in some lovely beach front property I have to sell them in Afghanistan.

          • Hi Alan, I appreciate your reply and I am aware of the 1:1 kill ratio and CSG concept. Not arguing about any of that, nor trying to multi-role every ship. Just with the T45s they could IMHO be made even more potent with extra 12-24 CAMM and an improved ASW suite/capabilities for her own self defense and not having MK41s. It all just seems to be a wasted opportunity for further upgrade and the remaining 10-15 years of service life. And recently a single T45 was employed in the LRG. Yes, other ships, subs, aircraft, helos will have and do their roles.

          • Sorry, im not trying to be rude, but I am quite sure you do not understand layered defence. The T45 will have 24 CAMM added in mid life refit. There are 6 of them. They are designed as AAW assets because they are designed to be a close combat escort to a CSG. You dont want either your carrier or T45 near enemy shore as this represents too much of a risk. Adding a ASW suite makes the ship a multi role asset and is a considerable waste of money and space. Likewise with Mk41, adding Tomahawk Cruise Missiles for example is making it multi role and again closing its range to enemy shore to enable to deploy. It would make much more sense launching a F35 with a cruise missile rather than putting a T45 within 500km of the enemy coast. Or alternatively from a sub or frigate that is designed to work independently.

            The whole purpose of layered defence is that you have your key assets (carrier, support ships etc) closely together and your T45’s on the inner perimiter. ASW assets are on the outer perimeter. Even with double the defence budget I would see adding ASW and Mk41 to T45 as defing logic. You don’t want to put ASW on a T45 because of several reasons:

            1) The wash of the screws on carrier and support ships is considerable. The noise generated effectively makes any towed array redundant. That’s why helos with dipped array and sonor bouys able to deploy across great distances are much better, or the use of Frigates further from the carrier with ASW specific equipment.

            2) Even if the CSG didn’t make any noise at all (let’s say it was stationary or anchored) you don’t want a sub anywhere near. As a T45 is designed to be close, having an enemy sub within range to deploy torpedoes is game over. You want enemy subs as far from the carrier as possible, not within close range.

            3) If you’d ever been in an ops room, reducing the space for the designated equipment (in this case Sampson and AAW specific kit) would reduce its effectiveness. This is the primary reason you have layered defence and specific assets to do a specific job.

            I’d prefer adding Mk41 to the T31 which would work as a MCMV escort and attack vessel.

          • Yes I am well aware that the The Falklands was over 40 years ago. My father was PO on-board HMS Invincible at the time. I had the pleasure in serving on the same ship some years later, although fortunately not with my father.

            The Falklands War represents the last proper naval combat battle and still defines our naval strategy to this day.

          • Quite, and they’re very good assets. I would prefer them to our own T26 but with primary focus on ASW.

        • Because the debris caused by firing Missiles from a carrier could make these foreign objects exhale into an F35 engine and make it unflyable..

          • Hi again Alan, I’ve been on this site a while so I do understand the reality and risk of FOD with air ops.
            Yes, if you put the missile mounts in the wrong place you will definitely get this. I’d expect CAMM/CAMM-ER would have minimal FOD if any. Placement of missile sysyems would be restricted but as has been pointed out my many of us here other navies don’t appear to have an issue with SAM on carriers regardless of CSGs. I’m just a distant observer and will leave this to the experts. I just think in this day and age of missiles, torpedos and EW, it would good and prudent to definitely have a bit more than less self defence on each individual ship which are incredibly expensive assets plus there’s the safety of the crew. More per ship means more when in a group.

          • I concur and agree with needing more than self protection. As I said, RIM would be my preference but is a PDMS. CAMM can be deployed via either Mk41, SYLVER or mushroom farm. Seeing as the carriers have limited space in which place a VLS, or impact deck space, this would limit the VLS to mushroom farm which does create significant FOD. In my opinion having served on HMS Invincible, this would restrict air sorties. Whilst it looks good on paper, it doesn’t work well in practise. The smaller the missile, the less potential FOD.

          • Edit: to add to this, non VLS like ESSM or SeaWolf in sextuplet or octuplet horizontal launchers are heavy and cannot be fired over a T45 on your Starboard and Port Side. Your escort directly interfers with the line of site.

            As such, the only benefit in doing so would be if your escort has used all of its load out. In a real way scenario like this, the CSG would bring us outer defence layer closer to the ship and be sailing away from enemy contact, using its F35’s or helicopters to push the enemy further away.

          • I think that is very unlikely and tired excuse. Why does everyone else have AA missiles on their carriers? Mounted on the stern all the debris goes overboard at 25kn speed of the ship.

          • As long as you have a deck team collecting FOD, it’s not a problem. However, if you are flying continuous sorties it is. I would have RIM Missiles on port and starboard but it isn’t a platform that’s integrated into RN ships. Aster and CAMM are significant upgrades but would have significantly more FOD being bigger assets. I would not have a VLS system anywhere near a carrier, its why SeaDart was removed from our carriers in the 90’s. This is the reason why we have escorts.
            I don’t remotely like Phalanx either as they open up on the target and don’t see a ship in front of it. Plus add in the fact that they have never successfully hit a target, its overpriced rubbish. A 40mm Bofors with directional rounds would be the logical solution.

      • An ICBM when transiting exoatmospherically, ie in low earth orbit can travel between Mach 15 and 20. As the launch platform deploys the multiple independent re-entry vehicles (MIRVs), these will also deploy decoys, which are all traveling at these high hypersonic speeds. As they re-enter the atmosphere, the drag will start to slow them down. By the time they reach the surface, some designs might only be going just above Mach 4. Some though, may be close to Mach 10.

        A missile such as SM3 is designed to lob a kill vehicle into low to medium earth orbit. So starting at altitudes from 200,00ft (61km). To reach these heights you need a huge missile with a huge volume of fuel. The latest SM3 is a 4 stage rocket, measuring around 6.5m long with a diameter just over 50cm. Aster 30 by comparison is a 2 stage rocket, measuring just under 5m long, but only 38cm diameter for the booster, whilst the dart is 18cm in diameter. This allows Aster 30 to reach a published height of 20km (65,500ft).

        What this means is that Aster doesn’t have the height to reach an ICBM before it deploys. If it’s close enough to the launch site it might intercept as it takes off as it is accelerating from standstill. But it should be capable of intercepting it, as it returns to earth, once it reaches it height threshold.

        A medium range ballistic missile in most cases doesn’t reach low earth orbit. But reaches an apogee of around 150,00 to 200,00ft similar to a hypersonic glide vehicle (HGV). This was just below the max height of SM6. But Raytheon have made a bigger booster, so it can close the gap. Where China boasted its HGVs were unreachable. Not any longer it seems. The SM6 like Aster is a two stage rocket. It is 6.5m long and just over 50cm in diameter for the booster and 34cm for the dart.

        Aster 30 is more in line with SM2 ER. To make it compete with SM6 it will need a substantially bigger 1st stage booster.

        Which brings us back to the ship killing ballistic missile. These are similar to medium range ballistic missiles. Except the payload unlike MIRVs is much more maneuverable in relative terms. It will be falling on its target at speeds between Mach 4 and 6. The more it maneuvers, the more energy it uses, the slower it will fall.

        In theory, Aster 30 should have no issues. The main problem is the decent angle that the ship-killer falls. As it will be falling at an angle greater than 70 degrees depending on the target’s range. At some point it will pass through the ship’s radar maximum elevation. If the ship such as an Arleigh Burke (AB) fitted with the new SPY6 AESA radar. Has a maximum look up angle of around 70 degrees. So it has a 60 degree blind spot cone directly above it. Therefore, it’s imperative to intercept the ship-killer, before it reaches the ship’s radar dead zone. Hence the the Lu reach of SM6.

        A T45 will have a similar and possibly worse issues. Like the AB the two back to back Sampson arrays have a blind spot directly above them. However, unlike the AB, a T45 does not have SM6. The Aster 30 has a shorter engagement height, meaning the ship-killer could pass over it and into the ship’s radar dead zone. This is one of the reasons why there are rumors of fitting a third Sampson array but fixed pointing upwards. This array would fill in the ship’s radar dead zone. Thereby allowing the ship to intercept threats diving down on the ship.

        Yes, speed is a factor. But there are also other considerations at play. Radar limitations is one of them and how the ships missiles interact with it.

        • Why would a third upward-facing array need to be something expensive like Sampson? That seems like an exquisite solution, using older technology, where a cheap and cheerful more modern AESA radar would be almost as good, not to mention affordable. Surely it wouldn’t need to track thousands of targets and it wouldn’t even have to go on a mast.

          • The Soviet era AS 6 Kingfish was a +4 Mach top diver designed to defeat the Sea Dart system. You could detect it on launch from a Badger/Bear/ Backfire using long range search radar. Then you lost it as it climbed to its cruise altitude above the radar envelope and you then got a small chance of re-aquirring it in its terminal dive phase using medium air search radar… it gave you a few seconds to get a Dart away almost straight up as the Kingfish IR or radar homing head took it straight down the funnel into the engines.

            That was a 1960/70 era missile. High speed top divers are nothing new but using a ballistic missile be it short or intermediate ranged is. No need for bombers , air to air refuelling assets, mid course guidance although you still need to know where the target is to stand a chance of getting it.

          • SPY isn’t a great radar, until you get to SPY7. Fixed array AESA still has a blind spot as your directing smaller but more powerful rays in a certain location. If you have it open to all angles indefinitely, it becomes much less powerful. With Sampson, it rotates so quickly that it touches every bit of sky, but the rpm means there is still a blind spot. It can go much quicker and has increased range to detect and launch before it becomes an issue.

            I do however like the thought of upgrading the T26 to S200 with the Aussie FLIR radar kit as this provides dual capability / GAN.

          • SPY-6 and SPY-7 are very similar radars from different companies that compete for the same contracts. They are both scalable, so you really have to differentiate what version you are talking about. The SPY-6(V)1 on the Flight III DDGs are vastly more powerful that the SPY-6(V)2 and (V)3s and (V)4s that are going on other ships. Both SPY-6 and SPY-7 are fully modern AESA radars that utilize GaN. The individual radar elements (RMAs in the SPY-6 for example) can be programed for different functions. Even the older PESA SPY-1 series has been upgraded so much over the years that they can prosecute missile targets in space and destroy missiles and aircraft inside the atmosphere simultaneously.

          • Thanks Paul, I am well aware of the capability. I should have added SPY6 also. I concur a great radar. The old PESA SPY1 despite upgrade aren’t in the same league as Sampson / S1850M is what I’m trying to say. Ultimately SPY6 and 7 are significant improvements.

          • Fixed AESAs don’t have blind spots. Phased arrays get 120 degrees of coverage but 4 arrays only need to cover 90 degrees each.

          • Nope, AESA arrays used in SPY1-4 have a couple of seconds processing gap. Seconds count when intercepting inbound AShM’s. That processing speed / time is a blind spot. The point of AESA fixed arrays is that if you are searching for contact across a wide search area, it limits the range. Condensing the output to a smaller search area means that you can target further. It’s why AEW is so critical to a USN CSG.
            And hence why T45 was requested to accompany USN CSG’s as T45’s could detect and launch against incoming before a Burke even knew it was there. SPY7 is a significant step up, but Sampson / S1850M has also been improved.
            I’d have preferred AESA on the T26 and am sure they will be upgraded in due course with an S200, however they will still not be AAW assets in comparison with T45. Both platforms will compliment each other as opposed to one being better than the other, T45 is a very credible platform and will remain so well into the 2050’s.

          • …

            Couple seconds of ‘processing gap’ between what? Beam positions? If that’s what you’re implying it’s incorrect, there are plenty of papers documenting the rate at which AESAs can scan (Sampson included).

            I’d love to know where you’re getting the idea that the USN requested a T45 specifically because of its radar performance.

            Artisan on the T26s is an AESA.

          • Hi Jon, the simple answer would be logistics and to some degree the life cycle cost. The T45 already has two Sampson arrays, introducing a third means no new training, spares, contracts etc. Plus it can be plugged in to the extant combat management system (CMS), without the need for additional software and integration costs/testing, though there will be need to be some, due to new capability. Therefore in the long run, it would work out cheaper to use a third Sampson array.

            As part of the T45’s mid-life upgrade. Both the S1850M and Sampson are being upgraded. The MoD have been cagey about what the upgrades to the radars are. Could we be seeing the Sampson arrays getting new transmitter-receiver modules (TRMs) that use gallium nitride (GaN) components replacing the legacy gallium arsenide (GaAs) components?

            GaN component generate less self-induced noise and can handle way power. Meaning that the radar’s sensitivity gets better plus it can transmit at higher power outputs for longer. Thereby increasing its detection range, but also increasing the range it can detect stealthier targets. Therefore it will also help detect a true target amongst decoys.

            Could we also be seeing the S1850M being replaced with the SMART-L MM radar? This would replace a PESA radar with an AESA radar. One of it he MM’s main roles, is to detect and track exoatmospheric targets. Where it has already proven that it can provide targeting information used by SM3 interception. This radar would allow the T45 a better anti-ballistic missile capability. But it would need the missiles to fulfill that capability. Aster 30 Block 1NT is too short ranged. You would need SM3 and SM6 or their equivalent.

            You are quite right the third array can be mounted to the ship’s roof superstructure. It doesn’t need to be rotated, it will just need a clear view upwards.

          • Which reduces the CoG / metacentric issue but also impacts the coherence issue and leaves the software to make the radar picture seamless and coherent.

          • Thanks, Davey

            At least one of the S1850s has already had its mid-life refurb (can’t remember which and too tired to Google), and it was denied that, despite an almost complete rebuild, it had been upgraded to an MM front end standard. I remember thinking what a wasted opportunity.

            It would be a good idea if even one or two of them were, just to test out, get an idea of how it operated and/or could be operated. The Type 83s will be on us sooner than we think and if they are to take on an advanced ABMD role a little bit of practice ahead of time will do no harm.

            As for a GaN rebuild of Sampson, that sounds like an entire new radar. Maybe wrap two things together; get two ships with new GaN Sampson radars, and the other four get the old antennas for upward facing duty.

          • Thanks, Davey.

            At least one of the S1850s has already had its mid-life refurb (can’t remember which and too tired to search), and it was denied that, despite an almost complete rebuild, it had been upgraded to an MM front end standard. I remember thinking what a wasted opportunity.

            It would be a good idea if even one or two of them were, just to test out, get an idea of how it operated and/or could be operated. The Type 83s will be on us sooner than we think and if they are to take on an advanced ABMD role a little bit of practice ahead of time will do no harm.

            As for a GaN rebuild of Sampson, that sounds like an entire new radar. Maybe wrap two things together; get two ships with new GaN Sampson radars, and the other four get the old antennas for upward facing duty.

          • The S1850M radar is a collaboration between BAe and Thales based upon the SMART-L radar. The front end of S1850M is a SMART-L radar, the back end and signal processing is where the collaboration took place. Thales refer to the radar as a PESA multiphase radar. The newer SMART-L EWC or MM is an AESA radar. Thales use some of EWC’s front end array modules to make up the array of the NS100 and 200 radars, just scaling the number of modules to suit the need/price.

            The SMART-L is a PESA radar made up using 24 stacked linear array modules arranged in a rectangular array antenna. Each module contains the beam forming elements. These are not the combined transmitter-receiver modules as found in an AESA radar, but are separate transmitter and receiver entities within the linear array. Each of the 24 linear arrays can operate independently from each other or collectively using mutual interference to increase the beam’s range or make the beam narrower.

            However, Thales only use 16 of the 24 arrays for transmitting. Which is probably the center field of the antenna array. As this will generate a tighter rounder beam pattern. When the array is set to receive, the whole array can be set to receive. This increases the receiver’s gain and increases its sensitivity. Each of the 16 transmitting stacked arrays can generate an independent beam, where the array’s beam forming will phase delay lines to control the beams transmitted direction. This is how a PESA can generate multiple beams.

      • Hmmm ..almost as though someone in a position of authority w/in MoD has begun reading and heeding Intel briefings? Heretofore, an almost incomprehensible concept.

        This is indeed a step forward, but will not be the only upgrade of Aster required during the coming years.

        • True enough, thankfully they have Block1NT, Block1NT Enhanced Capability, and Block 2 all being referenced as in the works!
          B1NT is supposed to hit IOC next year, and has a different seeker- gives it a longer range and higher definition of detection, which allows it to engage targets further out.
          Enhanced Capability seems to just make it better at hitting the targets already covered by B1NT, and bringing the missile up to take full advantage of the newer radars being purchased for the AD systems.
          B2 is supposed to be a new missile completely, built as wide as the booster, to give it far greater range etc. Probably closer in capability (and cost) to an SM-3 at a guess. It’ll still be launchable from the same Sylver and SAMP/T launch cells as the rest of the Aster missiles though, so can be integrated into everyones’ existing systems.

      • Hi chariot, it’s short range ABMs only. Aster 30 does not have ability to engage medium range ABMs let alone intermediate range weapons. you need a two stage launch vehicle with an exoatmospheric kill vehicle as a payload to engage intermediate range weapons, the apogee is to high and reentry vehicle to fast for anything else.

      • Hi CR, one of the key problems with intercepting ICBMs in particular, is the height. The majority of ICBMs have their apogee (maximum ballistic altitude) traveling through sub-orbital space, which can be over 1000km high.

        Only the Raytheon SM3 has the range and demonstrated capability to reach these heights. SM3 has been designed to kill the ICBM before it can deploy its multiple re-entry vehicles. Though it can intercept these as well. Missiles such as THAAD and SM6 can reach heights nearer 130,000ft. Though both are being upgraded to go beyond 150,000ft to counter hypersonic glide vehicles (HGVs). As these fly a quasi-ballistic path between 150,000 and 200,000ft

        Aster 30 Block 1NT has a published engagement altitude of 80,000ft. It is a lot smaller missile than either SM3 or SM6. Hence the lower engagement altitude.

        Some of the issues with intercepting ballistic missiles is when do you intercept the missile, especially an ICBM? Ideally it would be during the boost phase just after take-off. As the missile is at its heaviest and accelerating slowly. However, your intercept missile must be fairly close to the launch site, which is unlikely.

        Once the ICBM has got rid of it boost stages and is in the transition phase, it reaches its highest apogee, before falling back to earth. But when transiting through low earth orbit it can be traveling between Mach 15 and 20. So far only SM3 has publicly shown that it can intercept an ICBM in this phase. Though it went through nearly a decade of firings before it got repeatable hits. Both China and Russia claim they can shoot down a missile in the transition phase. But neither have produced any evidence to back this up.

        As the ICBM’s re-entry vehicle/s properly re-enters Earth’s atmosphere in the terminal phase, it starts to slow down due to atmospheric drag. If the re-entry vehicle has a maneuvering capability, each time it uses its deployable flaps, it will slow down further. Where it could be hitting the ground at speeds between Mach 4 and Mach 10.

        Both THAAD and SM6 have shown they have the capability to intercept re-entry vehicles traveling at speeds around Mach 10 in the terminal phase. In theory Aster should also be able to intercept a re-entry vehicle in the terminal phase. But only when it breaches the maximum height envelope of the Aster.

        Aster has shown it can intercept ballistic missiles. Shooting down a number of Black and Silver Arrow ballistic missile target “drones”. These were developed by Israel to mimic the flight profiles of Scud and other Iranian ballistic missiles. Which fall in to the category of short range to medium range ballistic missiles.

        These reach a height up to 500km, they are also sometimes called theatre ballistic missiles and do cover the intermediate range category. They have a range anywhere from 500 to 3000km. Plus have a lower terminal speed. Only a few can deploy multiple warheads, though that is becoming more popular. The majority keep a single warhead as part of the final stage.

        The anti-ship ballistic missile comes in this category, Such examples are the Chinese DF21D with a range of 1500km and the Iranian Zulfiqar with a range of 700km. Both China and Iran have shorter range ballistic missiles with an anti-ship capability. Plus both are developing longer ranged weapons. It remains to be seen how Iran can find let alone target a moving ship over 500km from its coast?

    • Hi Mark, I think the concern is with the “conventional” ballistic missiles that Russia and Ukraine have been using by their hundreds, and potentially more specifically for the RN, the apparently more accurate anti-ship versions. There’s not really a viable defence for ICBMs with MIRVs and decoys yet.
      I still hold some reservations about the ability of a ballistic missile kill chain to accurately find, fix, get a targetting solution, launch and prosecute a strike on a moving target, in the middle of the sea, from 600+ km away. But the capability is coming, so we may as well be ready for it. The bigger value I see in this purchase is that they’re the same missile used by France and italy’s GBAD system- SAMP/T. I think the British Army should be taking a hard look at getting some themselves to compliment Land Ceptor.

    • These weapons are absolutely no use against Russian strategic missile forces. It’s short range ABMs only so Russian 9k720 Iskander. It’s probably not even effective against the Chinese DF21 and DF26s as these are consecutively medium range and intermediate range missiles ( although I completely doubt any medium range or intermediate range ballistic missile will ever be able to hit a moving ship).

      Basically you cannot ever protect yourself against a strategic level attack, it’s not worth the effort. As it’s far more costly and resource intensive to defend against a nuclear attack than build a deterrent ( your peer enemy could always out build its offensive nuclear capability against your defensive capabilities). although the US keeps throwing billions into a system that at the most would defend against a handful of ICBMs.

      • Is that still true if you’re dealing with non-state actors who get control of nukes? It’s not like a Russian civil war is unlikely, the state could easily disintegrate and the country is packed full of nuclear weapons.

        • To be honest the chance of a non state actors being able access and use the strategic ballistic missiles armed with a nuclear warhead is vanishing small. It’s one of the reasons Ukraine and all the other ex soviet states gave up their share nuclear weapons that were on their territory. It was just too much to try and get access to them. But I agree we need some form of defence against short and medium range ballistic missiles as lots of people have those mainly the none nuclear type. But that’s better managed as planned by our T45 for expeditionary forces. I do think there is a case also to look at something like THAAD for our high risk land based targets like airbases and ports as a conventional crisis with Russia would mean the use of ballistic missions against high value targets. This is after all the plan around the bastion strategy for the Russian navy ( all is subs would just hang around a bastion lobbing missiles at high value targets).

  4. It’s desperately time we invest in a land based ABM/theatre level air defence capability and look at something bigger than Aster 30 block 1. We could develop a land based enhanced version of SAMPSON then role the technology in to Type 83. Potentially looking at an Arrow 3 purchase just now as part of the new European Missile Shield initiative before moving to something like and Aster 30 Block NT. If it’s a mobile system like SAMPT then we can potentially deploy it in Cyprus as well.

    The work we are doing with Poland on an enhanced CAMM missile with much extended range is a start for the theatre level but we need something more longer range to complement it.

    • I think the answer for the UK is a maritime ABM first and foremost. We re an island after all and it’s easier defending from the sea. Clearly platform numbers is the issue unfortunately…
      I can’t see us putting ABM on trucks yet. Would be nice, as would a more concerted effort to ensure valuable national infrastructure is catered for with a capacity to defend against the other threats such as cruise missiles et all. I fear that’s a ways off though.

    • I agree- the heavy use of tactical ballistic missiles in Ukraine, and the need for a wide-reaching AD umbrella to suppress enemy airforces is very clear (although the RAF is far more capable than the UAF, which would take some of the heavy lifting).
      SAMP/T seems an obvious choice to me- already uses a missile we’re getting for the RN Sea Viper upgrades, and from the same supplier as Land Ceptor (not exactly, but MBDA is a partner in EUROSAM). Gives us easy opportunities for having seamless integration between the systems, which would be ideal.
      It seems that France an italy are already working on a further development of Aster 30 B1NT, capable of dealing with MRBMs, but not sure what the size of the ‘bubble’ that it puts up is. An enhanced/bigger booster may be required…

    • Arrow 3 is the only one that makes sense for UK (or an American one ) . Since enemies are at quite distance this means the attacking ballistic missile will not be a Scud but something quite bigger.

  5. Can someone explain why we are specifically developing the land based version for naval use rather than use the naval version that the French/Italians use? I did go through the various versions a few years back but this seems to complicate matter further.

    • Perhaps the land version is the latest version, so the UK Naval version will have the more up to date tech.

      Just guessing…

      Cheers CR

    • I know it’s part of a refresh we are doing with the Italians specifically. I’m guessing the naval version is waiting for the Aster 30 NT that France and a Italy are co developing. This will have an new seeker operating in the Ka band instead of KU. Where aster 30 blk 1 is suppose to deal with a Scud type missile with a range if 600km the blk 1 NT is suppose to be able to deal with 1500km range SRBM.

      No idea why we are not pursuing the blk 1 NT at the moment, there was trials with T45 operating SM3 which would have been a superior ABM capability but now we have decided not to include the mk41 that own NT happen any more.

      • That seems to tie in generally with what I remember reading perhaps. We had not upgraded to the latest block1 but a decision was still in the offing. I suspect we subsequently are upgrading to improved block 1 that they already use but that the land version may presently be a little better via some form of mods v the present naval set up. But of course Fr/It are of course headed for NT the more advanced upgrade at a later date. It allows us to claim we have a more advanced anti ballistic missile set up momentarily while hiding the fact we are essentially playing catch up, while deflecting the reality that in a few further years they leap ahead again while we claim we already have a ballistic defence system operating and have no immediate need to upgrade further at least for some further time. Sounds a bit smoke and mirrors to me, but at least it’s still positive I guess compared to previous delaying tactics.

        • The NT is still in development so this is the best we could do also the NT I believe will not be an upgrade of existing stock as a new missile. This is a sensible move but should not be the end or the ABM upgrade but just the start.

        • A bit confusing the Ka band radar on the 1NT is better then the Ku on the current block 1 and B1. So as far as I can see the block 1NT will take over from the previous versions. I think eventually ships will mount the 1NT for general targets and the block 2 for ABM specific use. I suspect this capability will come in with the type 83 destroyer which will probably have strike length VLS. The block 2 will only fit into strike length VLS.

    • From what I read the french/Italians only use the block 1 missile in the land systems. I only had a quick look so maybe wrong.
      There is the block 1, block 1NT. Not sure if the NT is just called block 1 now.
      Then there is the block BMD that is maybe in development.
      Hitting very fast missiles is very hard but luckily also hitting a moving target with a very fast missile is difficult aswell. Hopefully the enemy doesn’t have more than 48 missiles🙈

      • They probably wouldn’t just be attacking RN ships?

        They would be attacking NATO which would need a bit more than 48 missiles.

      • We currently have block 0. The French/Italians have the land system block 1 – with a missile seeker software update. We are now getting this block 1 for T45 destroyers. Ours will have the software update and a new warhead block B1. There is a block 1NT in development with a new improved radar. We hopefully will eventually upgrade to this too. There is a specialist block 2 ABM missile in development but it needs a new longer strike length launcher to use the missile.

    • VLS tube length?

      The Aster 30 fits into the tubes we have.

      The other version(s) needs strike length tubes: I recall?

      Maybe

      • I did see somewhere that there’s still space for additional silos that will be used for expansion. It also looks like it’s deeper for the future strike missiles. The available silo currently holds a gym. Found the (link) Sorry, if you know this already.

        • That space is going to be used to put 24 sea ceptor missiles in. As they are short that may leave enough room for the gym underneath. So the max air load out will be 48 aster 30 and 24 sea ceptor.

          • Been said before, but just think of they’d put in even one MK41, 32 CAMM, two, 64, or other “useful” missiles. Could be a weight issue and more costly but why go lite when you can go the full cream!

        • Yes, sure there is space set aside for Mk41 VLS – this is being used for Sea Ceptor and may still have enough height for a gym underneath it! Given Ceptor is quite short.

          I **suspect** the reasoning for this decision is twofold
          – the A30 length tubes are there; and
          – there was not significant enough difference in performance to warrant changing from A30 to Standard missiles?

    • It’s not really a land based version. But a multi-platform version. A missile that has better environmental protection etc, even though it’s sealed in an environmentally sealed container. SAMP/T were just the first customer requirement. MBDA are making sure this missile can also be used from ships. As it cuts down on different versions of the same missile, so aids their manufacturing and logistics.

    • I think there is a deal to refurbish 1000+ missiles of the uk and Italian stock over the next 13 years and I presume the changes will be made when this is being done. It’s mainly software for block 1. Don’t quote me on that time frame as I’m going from bad memory and it seems long.

  8. Really good to hear the work will be done locally at Gosport. Didn’t know they was a facility there. Surprisingly refreshing news. My taxes are not going overseas for a change.

    • Gosport has always looked after and maintained RN Complex Weapons. Been on tours around it in the past and the capabilities they have are very good. Those facilities are needed as not every missile has a ten year shelf life and they need to be checked and upgraded on a regular basis.

    • Look north of Gosport on GE, the sites big. The cross shaped buildings are the IWCs – Integrated Weapons Complexes.
      It’s an MoD site and the site at Beith in Scotland also deals with Complex Weapons, as I assume does DM Ernsettle, the Devonport equivalent.

  9. Excellent news, some history and information can be found via this link.

    Also, Block 2.

    “ASTER 30 Block 2; is yet to be developed but is reportedly a new (and wider) missile capable of high-endoatmospheric BMD interceptions. There is some confusion about this often being termed Aster 45, but Aster 45 was another concept for a larger booster but one that still used the Aster 30 missile.”

    https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2022/11/aster-surface-to-air-missile-sea-viper/

  10. That is a great Xmas present for UK security. Must have a land based one too. Defence on the cheap gave us the Ukraine war.

    • Basically because it doesn’t exist yet. It’s currently in development and there’s not much news regarding an expected in service date. Luckily the Aster family of missiles all use a common missile section, with the only difference being the size of the booster. This means we can refurbish our entire existing stock of Aster 15 and 30 Block 0s all to Aster 30 Block 1 standard, and in the future, Block 1NT without having to purchase more missiles which makes it much more attractive financially so I expect it will happen when the development cycle and budget allows.

        • The Block 2 is also in development but won’t bear any fruit until a decade at least. But unlike the Aster 15/30 it’s a completely new missile and will require the full strike length Sylver A70 cells rather than the Type 45’s current A50 cells. So unless the MoD are willing to fund a total replacement of the Type 45’s VLS, I doubt Block 2 missiles will be adopted until the Type 83 comes online if we’re still committed to the Aster/Sylver family at that point and haven’t switched over to the Standard/Mk41 family.

      • The development road map has changed a little over time, what was previously referred to as Block 1NT a big upgrade of the missile is now Block 2NT while a new interim Block 1NT now exists which simply replaces the seeker radar with a longer range one in a slightly different wavelength. So the Aster 30 product family now looks like this:

        Block 0: Original missile, what RN presently uses
        Block 1: Add range & thrust vectoring to improve manoeuvrability. Present French Navy.
        Block 1NT: New seeker radar. Currently used by French/Italian land forces as the Samp/T but RN will beat them into maritime service by a year.
        Block 2NT/BMD: larger diameter body but same length missile which gives more range. Still fits same Sylver A-50 launcher. In development.

        Cancelled: Aster 45, a Block 0 Aster 30 with a 2m booster extension for more range, only fitted in the Sylver A-70 launcher.

  12. HMS Dauntless is the 1st T45 to complete the PIP and rejoin the fleet, as part of her major refit and update her Radars were removed and sent to BAe at Northwood for refit and updates.
    Does anyone know if this included the work necessary to fully exploit the Astor Block 1 capability ?

    • I do not think the radar needs an upgrade to operate block B1. It is a missile software update and some minor missile updates.

  13. Another piece of good news it seems. No doubt the Ukraine war has spurred things on a bit. But tbh I also suspect that the likelyhood of a Labour victory at next GE has led to getting contracts signed now so as to make it difficult to cancel projects.

  14. This is good news. There are a lot of SCUDs and its derivatives around in the hands of irresponsible bad guys; Iran, Houthi, N Korea …

  15. This is good news.
    With the addition of CAMM later in the decade I believe all Aster missiles are being upgraded to block 1.
    The new developments are interesting.
    Block 1-120km+ range and ability to shoot down SRBM with a maximum range of 600km
    Block 1NT-150km+ range and ability to shoot down MRBM with a maximum range of 1,500km
    Block 2 BMD- unclear range but designed solely as ABM. Can defend against 3,000km range ballistic missiles.
    Block 1NT is quite far along in development. The RN has already expressed interest in this so hopefully it can fit in A50 Sylver cells.
    Block 2 BMD is quite a new concept and the assumption is it will need A70 Sylver cells. The radars on T45 have shown the ability to track ballistic missiles but I’m unsure if that is all range classes. Hopefully they can at minimum track SRBM and MRBM.

  16. Will the British isles be protected by an anti-ballistic missile defense shield akin to the Israeli Iron Dome?
    This is way outside my comfort zone.

    • No, short range and medium range ballistic missiles. Mot ICBM’s but definitely more than Scuds (SRBM).

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here