Despite what would appear to be years of minimal action, the Government insist they are continuing to ‘investigate the potential’ of operating Type 45 Destroyers in a ballistic missile defence role.
The information comes from a written Parliamentary question.
Julian Knight, MP for Solihull, asked in a written Parliamentary question:
“To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what steps his Department is taking to modernise the UK’s missile defence capability; and if he will make a statement.”
Stuart Andrew Assistant Whip, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence, replied:
“Further to the commitments in Strategic Defence and Security Review 2015, and subsequently endorsed by the Modernising Defence Programme, the UK is investing in a ground-based radar, which will enhance NATO’s Ballistic Missile Defence system. We are also investigating further the potential of the Type 45 Destroyers to operate in a Ballistic Missile Defence role. We will continue to support research and development initiatives and multinational engagement through the UK’s Missile Defence Centre.”
British officials at a summit in March last year said that the Royal Navy is considering arming its destroyers with the new Aster missile version, dubbed Aster 30 Block 1NT.
The missile, a wide area defence missile capable against 1500 km-range ballistic missiles, was again discussed at a recent defence industry panel in Glasgow.
At the UK-France Security Summit, the two nations pledged to work jointly on complex weapons. According to a joint statement:
“We are fully supporting the long term strategy to jointly deliver effective military equipment in the most efficient manner while minimising national constraints and strengthening our common defence technological and industrial base.
In support of this, Defence Ministers signed in September 2015 an Inter-Governmental Agreement enabling full implementation of Centres of Excellence into MBDA, a key step towards creating inter-dependence between us around key missile technologies.
We also intend to develop in 2016 a portfolio approach to strengthen our industrial links and jointly address the current and future operational requirements of our forces. In that respect, France is for instance considering Brimstone 2 for next standard of Tiger combat helicopter and the United Kingdom is considering the Aster Block 1NT for equipping its T45 Destroyers.”
The programme also aims to “extend the range to hit incoming ballistic missiles”.
At the start of last year, Italy also joined the ‘Aster 30 Block 1NT’ programme.
This is an essential role for the T45, particularly with out of area deployments.
Agreed. With the T45s being almost singlehandedly responsible for defence of the carrier group from air attack, they need to be equipped to handle emerging threats like hypersonic and ballistic missiles. Sea Ceptor and Phalanx aren’t physically capable of stopping either of those, so its weapon the fleet seriously needs
this kind of article reinforces the need for more destroyers, even if they they are not quite the vessel that the t45 is
Agreed.
If the T45 is still at the head of its game, which we are led to believe it is, not just by our own forces. Then I wonder how much new ones would actually cost. From memory they were £1.045m each, BUT this was partly because the order was halved and so the R&D had to be amortised across 50% of the hulls. To order new ones now would not have any of the original cost attached to it. Clearly systems and equipment make up a large amount of the overall spend, but they should be well under the billion each.
Navy struggling to pay for 5 type 31’s so no chance of more 45’s!!
But it’s the government not the navy, we British had navy’s far bigger when we weren’t as rich as we are now… We were far poorer actually.
here here!
Given that the government is going ahead with the T31 programme and there’s potential for more than 5 ships, whether a second batch could include some more specialised for air defence.
Tell me if I’m wrong but I think it would be feasible for a T31 to be fitted with Aster 30 missiles, say 32 of them, and be given the same radar as a T45. If this is too expensive then possibly it could piggyback off the T45s own radar and sensors via data link; it could use the info gathered from the T45 to track and target enemy aircraft or missiles. The T31 would be Robin to the T45’s Barman but the two together would be a potent fleet defence, especially if we can’t scrape together a pair of T45s for fleet defence.
I don’t know how possible that would be, any thoughts?
*T31 would be Robin to the T45s Batman. Stupid autocorrect!
A huge gap in our capability. Defence of the UK should be paramount and come before offensive capability. A welcome step forward…but we should have a system like patriot for land deployment!
a big purchase of the land ceptor system around the uk would be a major step forward the nations ability to defend itself.
I would prefer Aster over Sky Sabre. And an OTH radar system like the French NOSTRADAMUS or the Oz Jindalee Operational Radar Network to look out for the Russians.
I always thought this is what the TA / AR / ‘citizen reserve’ should have been doing…
Neither Patriot nor Aster can intercept ballistic missiles with the speed – and so range – to reach the UK from any likely launch point. They’re not the answer for the defence of the UK itself. As for Land Ceptor, it has no capability against ballistic missiles. For ‘conventional’ air defence you’d need so many around the UK the cost would be prohibitive – and to defend against what? It’s needed to defend particular high-value targets when the threat assessment warrants its deployment, but no more. To defend the whole of the UK against BMs, the only sensible answer is SM3.
This is a serious question, but what are the chances that anyone would launch ballistic missiles at the UK that were non-nuclear?
Our protection against nuclear attack comes from our deterrent. I’d have thought that any ballistic missile attack against the UK may be perceived as a nuclear strike and therefore we’d respond in kind. Any potential enemy knows this and also that it is impossible to know if ballistic missiles flying at us are nuclear or conventional until they hit. I doubt anyone would launch conventional ones at UK mainland as they risk of us believing it’s a nuclear attack and nuking them in retaliation would be too high.
Just my thoughts, anyway. I may be wrong and if so tell me.
For defence of our fleet however, that is a real possibility and yes we should get Aster 30 1NT missiles to protect our fleet against ballistic missiles. Also the land-based Aster 30 to medium to long range SAM capability.
You could bring the country to a standstill with 200 conventional cruise missiles.
True but it wouldn’t necessarily need anti-ballistic missiles for that; regular Aster 30 missiles would be sufficient defence against cruise missiles.
My point was more about homeland protection against ballistic missiles.
Is Aster 30 really the best missile against terrain following cruise?
How many countries poses 200 cruise missiles? Excluding allies, not many- Russia and China perhaps. If one of them chucks that number of missiles in our direction were probably going to end up going nuclear.
I could actually scupper the country with 40 cruise missiles. But as we are only talking theory does it matter?
Dont the Russians have sub launch capability from clodser to our shores… Or are proclaiming they will have shortly?
No amount of missile defence will counter the scale and sophistication of Russia’s capabilities which is why, as Steve R points out, we have to rely on deterrent threats of retaliation. As to Steve’s point about nuclear v. conventional threats, having a secure second-strike capability means we don’t have to threaten ‘launch on warning’ in order to deter others. We would never want to launch a retaliatory nuclear strike only to find out that the original attack was a conventional one. Missile defence for the UK homeland is about deterring and defeating non-Russian threats where we have a less stable and mutually understood strategic relationship. That said, it’s a NATO-wide problem rather than a purely UK one.
The question is would any PM nuke a Russian targets if Russia took out say 50% of the UK’s generation capacity?
How do you define close? 3M-54 has a range of 600km.
Aster 30 can intercept short range ballistic targets.
Spot on.
Not enough of the type 45s to offer viable ballistic missile defence and screen a task force from air attack. If the RN is going to be the country’s only BMD then we better order another 4 at least. Maybe a type 50 destroyer based on type 26 frigate hull but with Sampson and aster 30 1NT
A T26 based AAW ship with Sea Viper would be a useful complement to the T45 and eventually a full replacement. In meantime, T45s need to get additional SYLVER 50 (or 70) launchers and Aster 30 Block 1NT with the necessary software upgrades to Sampson, etc, to tackle the ballistic missile threat.
Is it me or does Europe have a half-hearted policy when it comes to protecting its peoples; from the ultimate weapon system? Yes, we all know about the need for deterrent and by nullifying the ‘Bomb’s’ effect; we ultimately increase the likelihood of war, by destabilizing the balance. But what about rogue states or terrorists, should we not be actively spending on antiballistic systems to counter that threat?
The short answer Maurice is yes. When does defence expenditure actually apply to defence activities….rather than macho-strutting mine is bigger than yours capability?
I actually agree with Herodotus. While I support Britain having expeditionary capability what is spent purely on supporting and defending the home base? Which should not be ignored, especially if Russia is indeed the threat many make it out to be.
What assets do we have that are purely defensive? The RAF Radar ASCS, QRA assets, the MPA capability when it arrives could be construed as such, the Fishery Protection Squadron, various Army reserve units, fixed infrastructure like the varied C3 facilities, small elements of SF with a home CT role, radiation and bio detection systems…
Not a lot.
I believe that our latest bunch of Politicians have absolutely no interest in the protection of the very people that contribute to their comfortable retirements.
Totally random thing, but I think we should stop calling them destroyers. There are no torpedo boats for them to sink, and they aren’t the primary defence against subs any more.
They have an immense armament and are the primary AA defence for carriers. In WW2, battleships held that function and form. Give ’em a good last-ditch anti-ship armament like the Americans do their Arleigh Burkes, and they’ll represent a WW2 fast-battleship quite well.
We should either give them a sensible new classification…. or call them battleships. Yeah yeah, I know everyone will disagree, but it would be nice to have battleships back again.
Back in the day a certain Batch 3 T22 sailed into Guz and unrolled a big capital C over the ships side to cover the F.
The powers that be had a major sense of humour failure.
The UK does not do cruisers or battleships.
ASW is done by Frigates and Anti Air is done by Destroyers, irrespective of their size, displacement or armament.
If the RN start calling stuff a cruiser or battleship they get into a world of hurt because they then become capital class ships and that entails commanding them with 4 ring captains and Heads of Departments who are 3 ring commanders.
The whole command structure becomes overly top heavy.
I apologise for my ignorant and childish fantasd fleet comment. Thankyou for educating me.
If you look at their capabilities and size they (T45 and T26) are more accurately cruisers.
Problem is, they’re supposed to stay with the carriers (or at least the Type 45 is). That sort of mission profile forbids cruising.
The Type 26 might be closer to a cruiser though if it can sail independent of a task force.
Defence issues were never focussed in the past on the British people….it’s more about national interests than the personal security of our citizens. Our defence services are more about political projection than the security of Bert Bloggs!
Feck Me, HERO, I think we just agreed on something. In a round about sort of way.
I suspect that we are both cynics…of slightly different political persuasions!
I’ve never voted for any political Party, Just Brexit. It’s my Belief in the Independent Stupendousness of this Country based upon our enormous History and Success against all adversity.
Nothing Racist, Sexist, Political or Subversive.
For me, It’s all about being able to Breath, Express our thoughts, make our own Laws, Rules, Decisions and plot our direction of travel.
As a self Employed, Business owner, I’m maybe a tad Biased/Ambivelent as to the workings of Tax Payer Funded Career Work shy/Avoiding Privileged, Hoorey bloody Henries/henrietta’s.
I also believe, we are seeing the True Colours of our So Called Leaders In all their glory.
They are acting in a way I last saw as a Kid In a Playground some 50 years ago.
Anyone with half a brain cell would do better than Voting for any of these Idiots, In my opinion.
Time for a total Overhaul of our So called Rulers me thinks.
Now, where did my great, great, great grandad hide that Guillotine ?
You could do pretty much all of those things by being in the EU… If people bothered voting properly in European Elections… But as a self employed business owner I might be a tad biased… 😉
Hmmm. The more borders and the greater the diversity of currency the greater the potential for the worlds true powers… The financial industry… to charge us for forex commissions, travel insurances and build justifiable hedge and hidden profits into transactions as well as facilite speculation and risk.
Is EU perfect… Far from it… Does it make life easier and provide a check and balance to other global entities… (national and multi national)…. Certainly does.
Cultural identity, values and freedom /diversity of thought dont come with a border. (a walk through say Inverness compared to west end of London will demonstrate that)
Wider the mkt, the greater pitential for the quality in that market to grow and flourish.
Just an opinion from a self employed busness owner
P
Palmerston might disagree there.
Hmm but Palmerston was an odd individual. Go look at his ‘Follies’ ….magnificent but a great example of ‘Francophobia’.
I hope the type 45s do receive it, we should have Ballistic missile defences considering we are a nuclear Ballistic missile holding country!. And let’s hope they might receive the small number of MK 41 VLS silos that they were fitted for but did not receive. The Ozzie’s Hobart destroyers have 48 mk 41s and also have torpedo tubes, they do seem like nice destroyers. You would have thought cutting our type 45 destroyers from 12 to 6 they would have all the bells and whistles… it’s a shame whats hapend to the Royal Navy.
“minimising national constraints”
IMO this could be far more efficiently achieved for a medium power like the UK by having export potential a major factor in all national procurement programs, rather than participating in similar disastrous multinational programs that have resulted in such huge waste, delay and bureaucracy in the past, all in the name of avoiding risk while creating more.
Good good good, let’s maximise the potential of the T45’s, they have cost a small fortune so would be senseless to not fully kit them out. Does anyone know the costs involved? Are we talking launch tubes, the missiles and some software to work with Sampson, or is there a lot more to it?
The MBDA press release says the Aster 30 Block 1NT is the same size as the exisitng Aster 30 soo it will fit in the current Sylver launcher. There must be a lot of software changes to locate, track and engage a ballistic missile. Those in the PAAMS C2 will be very similar across the French, Italian and UK versions but the Sampson changes are obviously UK specific. Given the development costs and the small market the missiles will be very expensive.
The Aster 30 Block 1 as used on the French land system is the same as the RN missile just with a software update. This system has some ABM capability. We should implement the update on our ships. Then we should buy Aster 30 Block 1NT that has an enhanced radar for more ABM capability. We should buy a land system to cover theUK and not us T45 for UK land defence.
This “ground based radar” quoted which the MoD mentioned ages ago, any further news on what and where this will be?
Will it be like the two deployed by the US at Menwith Hill for tracking?
Or could we use the existing Sampson radar atop Portsdown at the LBTS?
With every passing year the decision to truncate the T45 program at 6 is looking more and more like a major strategic error. There is no way that operational ships at any given time are going to be able to provide simultaneously area defence of a carrier strike group out of area and also BMD defence for the UK itself.
Then we really will have bugger all escorts to do anything else!
If the government wants to keep piling more and more tasks on the RN, which is great, then we need more ships to be able to meet that requirement! With the RNs traditional tasks in the Atlantic, tasks in the Med, Gulf, South Atlantic, Home waters, West Indies, and even more growing tasking the the Far East more ships will be needed, quick.
There is this recent talk of ‘ASW Corvettes’, which of course replacing the entire RN escort fleet is terrible but if the can supplement the main escorts (T45s/T26/T31(?)) then it isn’t the worst idea, although perhaps a ‘colonial corvette’ would be more suited to its tasks, although you could say that is essentially what the T31 is already!
But I will say BMD is necessity, but is adding to the very limited Type 45s really the best option??
Indeed, I reckon the Gosport Ferry would be a Valuable Asset and Launch Platform In times of need, together with the Torpoint Ferry and that other one on the Clyde.
3 amazing Defensive Options providing direct cover for our few remaining RN Sites.
It’s not like we have much else left, is It ?
My point is, there are 6 Type 45s, at least one is required for the carrier group, that leaves one or two others for other deployments, if one is expected to patrol the UK for BMD that leaves only one or none for other duties. The fact is 6 was never enough, ships are a lot more powerful today but they still can’t be in more than one place. The RN was expecting 8 Type 82s for the one carrier expected in the 60s-CVA-01.
19 escorts is not enough for a nation with ‘true’ ‘global ambitions’, at least not if you want strong home defence as well!
What is there to discuss? Ballistic missile defence capability is a must-have for anybody possessing a carrier.
Here Bloody Here mate.
It would appear that the most practically ‘useful’ application of bdm on Type 45, at least in the medium term, would be as a defence against ship-killer missiles; this being an intrinsic extension of the vessels’ task force duties.
A steady drumbeat of the type 26 hull form would appear to be a very cost effective way forward for the UK. Too late for T45 In that role, but in any case T26 is probably a better long term solution – it is virtually the same size as T45, after all. Produced regularly in both an ASW formatted hull and a ‘simpler’ AAW / ASuW hull format, as required, it is difficult to envisage any major drawbacks. Type 31e was the export concept that T26 has already clearly fullfilled to a great extent. Type 31 increasingly appears a relatively minor escort, at least in UK design, of the type that usually comes to the fore during wartime. For peacetime and current asymmetric threats OPVs seem OK to me. Any increased intelligence gathering requirement would still be covered by the more numerous T26 formats we’d have available (in my wishful thinking).
I believe the Navy are going done the same route with the Type 31 as they did with the Type 21s. When it mattered, they were found to be seriously flawed and used as sacrificial pawns when providing support for the San Carlos landings.
It’s all very well putting numbers back in the fleet. However, I really hope whichever design is used that the focus is providing a ship that can properly defend itself when the time comes. A ship on patrol will need to fight with whatever is fitted at the time and hope it has enough to respond to multiple attacks. A medium calibre gun and a few light guns is all very well dealing with pirates. But as the USS Mason soon found out whilst patrolling off Yemen, protagonists can get modern(ish) anti-ship missiles. She was attacked at least 3 times and managed to fend off the attacks with a combination of countermeasures and anti missile missile launches. She then directed a Reaper strike against the coastal radars that had been used to target her.
The T31 must be more than just a glorified gunboat or we’ll end up in the same situation as we did with the T21s in Falklands.
Hello, David.
Yes, I did have Yemen in mind to some extent when I posted. Certainly, patrolling a war zone is not to be conflated with piracy operations, and indeed HMS Daring subsequently covered a similar role with credit. My final comment was a somewhat lightweight allusion / potencial ‘solution’ to same. Still, there are numerous law-enforcement / presence opportunities out there to consider dividing a fleet between low level and high level assets, I think.
As with yourself, I feel that Type 31 could end up as neither one thing of the other, if we’re not careful. Furthermore, it appears revealing that the export potential of a highly complex and thus highly expensive design is what has actually achieved success among major navies facing a doubtless growing peer threat.
Regards.
If we have only 6 and say 4 are operational at any one time, would there be a spare T45 for UK BMD defence if the 4 we have are deployed with the fleet? Using a 45 sitting in the Thames Estuary, North Sea or where ever is in many ways a waste of a very precious resource.
Nail, Hammer and Head spring to mind.
As long as London Is Protected then Feck everywhere else.
Personally, I’ve developed a long term Theory (based on decades of observation) that London Is the Centre of the entire Universe and everywhere else Is just, well, not even that Important.
Saw It in 82 and I’ve seen It ever since.
R.I.P. To all the Service Men and Women who have paid the ultimate Price.
Makes you wonder at the calculus in the MOD to have decided hitherto not to invest in BMD. No doubt it has been looked at and discounted in favour of other priorities on what seemed to someone like good grounds – probably still does given the wishy washy answer.
It’s articles like this that make me wish more people cared about defence. Do most people even know that they are relatively defenceless in comparison to many of our neighbours? I very much doubt it. When did it stop being something we care about?
Younger generations not being taught respect and admiration for our military from the get go in school, or even our history. Some exceptions of course.
Pride in our armed forces and their history has flowed in my veins since childhood.
General lack of patriotism, linked to PC.
No defensive wars in modern times save the Falklands.
No Cold War to concentrate the mind, and peoples fears, though that is changing and arguably never really left.
Wars of intervention into Iraq and the the mess that has made.
Smaller armed forces leading to less exposure of British population with the
armed forces.
Neglect and endless cuts by HMG of the forces. If HMG who’s priority is defence of the realm don’t care, and neither do many of those trough swilling MP’s currently fiddling their expenses and second homes as we speak, then why should the country?
Proportion of the UK population being economic migrants arrived in the last 20 years, and increasing constantly, of whom many who settle here may have little interest in the military of the country, or even the actual country itself.
Above answer linked to the general PC situation that puts up with the above and all the arguments that that entails, I’m not going there.
General lack of knowledge of the state of the UK military regarding numbers and capabilities, due to the modern generations being more interested in what benefits they can get, what car is on their drive, celebrities, what celeb is sleeping with who, and when is I’m a Celebrity, get me out of here on?
Just some reasons.
Once again Daniele, I have to agree. The 1982 “Adventure” was a mere blip In the mindset of recent History being taught In Schools all over this Country though. Despite the Enormous Effect and effort, not to mention Sacrifice so many made.
I wouldn’t be at all, surprised If we were made to feel Guilty In future years, either.
What strikes me Captain, is the reverse in the USA. The admiration and adoration of their armed forces, and their nation, and flag. The Stars and Stripes are on show in peoples gardens and yards, openly, without shame or apology.
Here? How many times have I read of incidents where a flag has to be taken down to avoid offence?
To whom exactly?
This is Great Britain, or have people not noticed.
Yup, once again Daniele, We are having to Apologise, Time and Time again for the mistakes of our Forefathers.
Personally, I’m done with all that stuff, Way before my time, Way before my Kids time too.
Much rather concentrate on the Future and all the Positives that We might just be able to add to said Future, Given the Chance.
Proud Brit that I am, but , Excuse me when I come across as a bit nostalgic.
The World has not Known anything like the British Empire, Ever, Before, Or after.
And just look at the state of It now.
A Snippet of Info for anyone remotely Interested, Britain, England, The Empire, has had an Interest/influence/Presence , In all but Twenty of all the Countries That Ever Existed.
Mostly for the good.
‘Mostly for the good’, people always forget that bit and focus solely on the few bad stuff it did! I am from the younger generation than many here(I believe anyway), and although being brought up between England and Ireland I was always taught in the British education system about how bad the empire was and how we should feel ashamed of ourselves really(subtly), but when I began to actually read what this nation and the empire has done.
We were taught about the empire and slavery but barely any mention of the fact that the Brits were the first people in human history to end it, it also makes out that only whites have ever done slavery!
I have met many people from the ex colonies, not just the ‘white ones’ and many have said how they loved that they were part of the British Empire and are fully aware of what it did to help them.
There are exceptions of course, many are of course happy with independence but I’ve met a few who said they wish they were still part of it! One from Jamaica I recall vividly.
Of course colonialism in of itself by 21st century morals is wrong but it did a lot of good but by god the British Empire was incredible and so many places would be much better today had it been aloud to continue, with modernisation of course, like modern overseas territories.
You have to remember that the empire was in a completely different time, standards were different, but if you look at the British Empire compared to all other empires/great powers at the time then the British really do come out on top. For such a large population its actually amazing how few mistakes there were, there are exceptions, but they are the only ones people care about today!
And you have to notice that the most well off nations today are the ones that were under British influence, even the African ones!
Anyway, what I have learned is that history isn’t as simple as black and white, despite what many would like to think today!
“And you have to notice that the most well off nations today are the ones that were under British influence, even the African ones!”
I generally agree, but I don’t think Zimbabwe ( the once bread basket of Africa ) are doing too well.
It was the bread basket of Africa when it was in the empire. The problem with Zimbabwe is that it got in the hands of Mugabe, a man who Britain supported, who stood in front of the UN many times, a man who destroyed his country and its institutions, set up by Britain! A man who committed mass genocide on his own people!
Agree Keith.
The biggest test is the rule of law and democracy, a test that shows a big difference between the British empire and all others. The British empire created more democratic nations that follow the rule of law than all the other European nations put together.
Historical events should always be judged within the moral context of the time in which they occurred. Was the event inappropriate within its own context or forward thinking and enlightened ?
Effectively nothing in human history can be considered enlightened through a modern lense, so you can’t use the modern lense to judge historic actions.
We are (generally) a far less brutal and cruel population than ever before seen in history. Only 2 lifetimes ago our decendents would have happily sat and watched a child hang for steeling, slavery and killing were normal activities. This means we can only judge what was “good or bad” for the time by stepping into a disturbing mind set and world view.
But against the lense of the time many things the British empire did were guided by enlightened self interest. Especially when compared to others empires. All other empires ( ever ) have been guided only by absolute self interest without any element of enlightenment, leading to extreme examples of mass murder.
The fact you can even debate that the British Empire did as much good as bad is a remarkable thing.
As a test, try and find the wider good in:
French, German, Belgium, Spanish, Portuguese, Russian,Middle Eastern or Japanese imperialists adventures.
None of this will change until we have people in Parliament, MSM and other key positions who are thinking differently (with a few exceptions) from the present bunch.
Guilt.
Like the ongoing campaign of guilt over the Slave trade? To which Corbyn was in schools a few months back spreading the word to the easily influenced. Or those wanting Nelsons Column torn down, because he supported the trade in that time in history when standards were different?
Here’s one for you by comparison. How many Italians want all the Roman ruins of Rome torn down due to the depravity, wickedness, child molestation, and all the rest of many a Roman Emperor, like Tiberious, like Trajan?
None I’m aware of. It. Is. History.
Exactly.
Ask Mongolia when they are going to tear down the statues of Ghengis Khan? Expect to be asked to leave town rather quickly.
oh just saw this! I made very similar points in my reply as well!
For all those wanting to restart the T45 production, I don’t see it happening. The last was commissioned 6 years ago and was launched 9 years ago and the place they were built was on the Clyde which is busy with the T26. To me a follow on ship to the T26 specialising in AAW comes too late to provide a solution.
Now one of the entrants in the T31 competition is based on an existing AAW destroyer, if we are serious about increasing the AAW protection of the fleet surely we should go with this option, obviously this will increase the cost but what option for a capability increase doesn’t.
To me the way the escort fleet should go is at least 4 more AAW destroyers and a couple of extra T26’s bringing us to 20 escorts. 10 ASW, 10 AAW. To improve overall capability we need cooperative engagement capability. This has to happen if we are serious about unmanned vehicles of any type. Why no expand it to include the other ships.
Remember this is not about home defence, there is no realistic situation in which the UK is likely to be attacked by a limited number of theatre or intermediate range ballistic missiles.
If our home islands are attacked by ballistic missiles, it will be with ICBMs and probably many at once. It’s my understanding that is still only possible to stop an ICBM with an exoatmospheric interception, and I don’t think there is at present any shipborne missile deployed that can do this, only a very limited number of land based systems.
But it would be great if we could give any expeditionary force protection against theatre based Balistic missiles.
The only places on earth with ICBM defences are the continental US, Israel and Moscow and these ( at massive)cost are limited to stopping at most a tiny number of ICBMS.
The CASD is the thing that protects the British isles from nuclear attack.
Agree on CASD. Against other nations at least.
A terrorist with a dirty bomb or low yield backpack nuke, no.
The only defence against that are security and intel services, which I always think is a good spend.
Well in that field we are well provided, as we both well know.
Notwithstanding the argument against the practicalities of defending against an ICBM attack. The most likely attack would be by a rogue state or player who had access to a medium range ballistic missile. As an example, the distance between Algiers and London is 1659km. This puts us firmly in the range of a medium range ballistic missile such as the Shahab-3. I’m not saying we have any issues with Algeria, but as a theoretical example especially as there is a lot of empty desert and mountains in Algeria, where anybody can hide. Now imagine if a group of nutters got hold of one of these and fitted it with a dirty warhead. Wherever the warhead lands will be a no-go zone for decades. The latest version of the Shahab series are now able to carry multiple warheads that can do multiple targeting.
The only system that has shot down a ballistic missile in a real life event is the Israeli Arrow 2. However, this was actually a S200 missile that was fired at an Isreali aircraft that the Arrow system decided fitted the profile of a ballistic missile (so not sure if this was shot down in the ascent or terminal phase).
The T45’s S1850M radar has proven that it can detect and track multiple ballistic missiles over 1000km away. However, the Sampson is better at tracking the target because of it higher frequency, but it will have a shorter range. The French and Italians have deployed Eurosam which uses the Aster 30 missiles combined with the EMPAR or Arabel X band radar. The Eurosam is a fully mobile unit, much like Patriot, however, it doesn’t use a long range search radar like the S1850M.
The PAAMS training system at Portsmouth is the same same as found on the ships minus the missile launchers. It has a S1850M, Sampson and mission controls, which are used for crew training, but also for testing software upgrades before they are allowed on the ships. The Aster 30 Block 1 NT and Block 2 BMD with 1500 to 3000 km engagement ranges, could be easily paired with the training system to make a ground based ballistic missile defence system. This one system could cover most of Southern England up to Manchester. A second system near Fylindales would cover the rest of the country.
It is doable, just need the will and the funding.
Yep that was my thought too. Use the Sampson at Portsdown.
David the reality is it takes a significant effort in money and resources to have a medium range ballistic missile capability, look how hard Iran has had to work. Your also not going to be able to move these to the North African coast without being noticed. At which point the french would have a fit and blow it up.
I would be very worried if the MOD threw money at a resource because of a very low risk marginal threat. That can be managed in other ways (intel, political power and blowing it up in a strike).
If your talking defence against realist threats to our existence as a nation that need investing in, more fast jets, ASW ships, nuclear subs, food, water and energy independence, civil contingency in a case of pandemic and global warming are where the money should be spent.
Plan should be secure food, water, energy, Protection from disease, keeping trade routes open and keeping our own sky’s….that going to be the mid to late 21 century needs.
In this case I must disagree. We as a Nation have used the rest of Europe as a shield for to long. It’s one of the reasons that the Bloodhound successor was scrapped, as it was believed that to reach the UK first you have to go through Europe, with their myriad of air defences.
We do not have enough T45s to provide a constant UK based ABM defence. Their primary role is defending a task group, which would probably require at least two.
The T26 equiped with Sea Ceptor may be able to intercept a ballistic missile, but I don’t think it has the mass to destroy one in a hit to kill scenario. There is a thought that the Typhoon equipped with the Captor-E and Meteor may be able to intercept one if its in the right place. Again, I don’t think Meteor has the mass or explosive content to destroy a ballistic missile.
The Aster 30 has proven in trials it can destroy short range ballistic missiles. Therefore, the idea of upgrading the Portsmouth PAAMS training system with the missiles is a win-win for me. The majority of the system is operational and the additional cost of the missiles would not be massive compared to a totally new system.
The reason for this is that it adds additional layers of defence. I agree politics should endeavour to be used first to calm the waters in heated situations. However, when push comes to shove we should still be able to use the stick as well as the carrot. But more importantly have a means of defending ourselves against some rogue nutter with a grievance.
Forgetting defence. I’ve just seen the news. Jesus H Christ Notre Dame!
A treasure of culture, historic, irreplaceable, took centuries to build!
I’m almost in tears.
They have just announced that they have contained the fire so the structure should be ok. I’m sure they will rebuild and are saving much of the art. Hope no one was hurt. Awful sight.
The art! The statues!
This is one of those capabilities that joe public would assume we already have. Most seem to have no idea that we actually have very few assets dedicated to home defence.
Perhaps for BMD rather than tying up a sophisticated and expensive Type 45 destroyer, what we should have is an ‘armoury ship’. Same radar and tracking systems as per the Type 45 but basic hull and lots of VLS tubes for the Asters.
However, given the Type 45s radar can track objects over an area the size or Eire, surely two or three shore facilities, featuring the same radar and Aster launch tubes could cover the whole of the U.K. and at a cost of less than one Type 45?
1) ABM defences reduce the deterrent effect of nuclear missiles.
2) There aren’t enough Type 45s for this duty if they are to be focused on carrier escort.
3) ABM missiles for carrier escorts could reasonably counter Chinese DFS-21 ballistic anti-carrier missiles – if you think they may be a threat to our carriers.
Conclusion – Scarce defence funds would be better spent on other projects.
The big downside to being a BMD capable ship is you end up spending most of your time in 1 or 2 small areas going in circles in order to be in a position to shoot down a ballistic missile from either N. Korea or Iran. That’s basically all the US BMD destroyers and cruisers do.
With anti ship ballistic Missiles like DF26 ABM is no longer a nice to have capability on T45 but vital for defending the fleet.
Translation:
“We’d love to do it but we haven’t got the money”
An important step, as would having a land based, long range air defence system. I agree with previous comments: there are too many gaps in our defence capabilities. And the purchase of 2 unnecessary aircraft carriers has contributed to this lack of balance. Given the defence budget and current manning, these 2 white elephants will hamstring us for decades.
We don’t have enough frigates and patrol aircraft, we don’t have any SEAD platforms, we haven’t bought the more capable F-35 version and the list goes on.
Arguably, the army – albeit still too large – has a reasonably balanced construct.
Balanced? With a mass of infantry in 1 Division with no support, armoured brigades without organic recc assets save battalion recc platoons, Strike Brigades a mix of wheels and tracks with all the firepower tracked, negating the rapid mobility concept of wheels. 16 AA and 3 Cdo lacking in supporting assets.
I’d say the structure of the army is actually a unbalanced mess.
As for the carriers being unnecessary, that depends on what you might want your navy to be capable of doing.
But yes, too few escorts and MPA certainly.
Mr Mandelli, I couldn’t agree with you more, the army is in total chaos, Strike is a great concept if done properly, which we are most certainly not doing. We have 33 Inf battalions with only 4 being armoured, the rest are light or PM, why is that? Because Light inf is cheap and it’s a political nightmare to disband an Inf regiment.
We could be going down to 2 Challenger 2 regiments, the rest will be on CVR(T) (for now) or light Cav? Why? Because Recce regiments are cheap.
The entire combat strength if the British army will be represented by 4 inf battalions and 2 armoured regiments, that is a pathetic sized force considering our defence budget and will be completely depleted after a few days fighting. If anyone has worked on a brigade/Div level exercise you will see how utterly useless light infantry are, great in the jungle, not too bad in Urban but get wiped out in a conventional fight, artillery just rips them to pieces and they can’t manoeuvre under fire.
If all we are paying for is 6 armoured units then where is all the money going?
BV
I agree BV.
Defence companies pockets. CASD. SSNs. CVF. High tech C3, networks like DII. UKSF. ISTAR.
All top end stuff enabling interoperability with the US but leaving us lacking in the basics. Enough escorts, combat power in the army, artillery, and so forth.
Take the debacle leading to Ajax. Years of initial gates, appraisals, concept studies, followed by more of the same, which resulted in 1 billion spent by the British Army for not a single FRES vehicle procured at one time.
The end result as you say is 4 Warrior battalions, plus 4 Boxer Battalions in the Strike Brigades. 2 regiments of Tanks, 2 of AS90 SPG, 1 of MLRS.
Pure combat power lacking but plenty of Regiments about for the Cap Badge Mafia to protect!!
“CASD. SSNs. CVF. High tech C3, networks like DII. UKSF. ISTAR”
Most of that is Navy kit or joint services, out of the Army budget what are we spending taxpayers money on? it is not as if we are supporting huge stocks of armoured vehicles now.
Development wise, FRES was a cluster, Scout was infuriating, why are we so bad at procurement? I have sat in many a meeting with the defence industry and they all seem to have way too many overpaid lawyers and not enough real experts.
The British Army has reached a point where it is now mediocre, It cannot support a major operation, yes we can put a division in the field but it is so completely watered down it will be rather ineffective, other smaller countries are better at this than we are and spend vastly less than we do.
We should just bite the bullet, reduce the army to 60k, cut all land-based projects, no more tracks, just a stabilization and mentoring force, how many T-26s can we buy with the money saved?
BV
Yes fair comment they are Joint or non Army.
I really do not know. Some on here have mentioned much of the budget goes on the AAC, but is that really possible with around 70 helicopters?
Looking at the issue of Infantry Battalions.
4 Warrior, 4 MIV ( Boxer? ) 2 Para, 1 Gurkha in our 5 deployable Armoured Infantry, Air Assault, or Strike Brigades.
Another Para Battalion is in a useful role as forming the greater part of the UKSFSG and such is almost always engaged or with assets deployed.
So 12 out of 31 usefully employed in deployable formations.
Leaves 19.
3 Battalions as garrisons oversees including the Gurkha one in Brunei.
3 Battalions in Public Duties or ceremonial roles in or around the London area.
4 already trashed as major formations by being reduced to around 300 ranks for use as Defence Engagement units.
Leaves 9 Battalions in 1 ( UK ) Division doing very little to my, admittedly inexperienced eyes. Their parent “Brigades” are all supposed to be emphasising particular regions and roles – Jungle, Africa, and so on, but to me this is mere window dressing.
They are formed into 7 “brigades” that are paper tigers and arguably are simply replacing the old Regional Brigades in the disbanded 2 4 and 5 Divisions.
One of those is meant to be “deployable” though would need to nick other enablers to make that so.
They cannot be formed into deployable brigades without a major uplift in RS RLC RE RAMC RA REME RMP formations to make them into true Brigades.
Cutting 5 of that 9 and using the manpower for additional supporting enablers could give us another Brigade if the remaining Brigade was given proper transport.
Or put all emphasis into the RAF, RN, RM, Intelligence, and UKSF. I have suggested this here before.
We are an Island and the army cannot deploy without support of the other 2 services.
It does seem that half of the army is sat doing nothing and will be useless in an all-out war. Looking at some budget websites we spend billions on land equipment, not sure what land equipment it is referring to, nothing new has come online for years and that can’t just be the maintenance bill.
I have spoken to plenty of defence industry chaps over the years and they assure me that they are not ripping off the army, they can only make a certain percentage of profit ect. and blame increased costs on the MOD terrible contract writing.
We should stick to what we are good at then build on it so we are world leaders in that domain, chop the army and invest in more SSNs.
BV
Question for the knowledgeable. Is Aster NT able to intercept s supersonic AShM?
A French Horizon class frigate has shot down a sea skimming target drone travelling at mach 2.5, so yes. I believe the next phase of development is for an Aster BMD missile for hypersonic interception (mach 5 and above).
Thx
So I’m thinking that notwithstanding carrier based F-35B capability, in an expeditionary scenario Aster NT looks important for the RN to guarantee sea control in the face of an increasing number of longer range and faster ship launched, sub launched and coastal defence ‘cruise’ type missiles.
Its a question of maths and especially timing. The current Aster 30 has a published speed of Mach 4.5. This puts it in the low end of hypersonics, however the Kh15 is designed to dive on the targeted ship at over Mach 5, whilst the Zircon (3M22) is supposed to go up to Mach 8. This gives a combined meeting speed of Mach 9.5 or 12.5, which is bloody quick. As was shown during the Gulf War when the US deployed Patriot in Israel, a number of Scud got through. This wasn’t because the system couldn’t detect or track the Scuds it was because the early versions of the missile only used a proximity fuse. So when it detected the Scud and activated the warhead, the majority of the Scud had already passed it by. So an urgent update to the fusing was required. This was so that the warhead was detonated slightly ahead of the scud to ensure that the Scud entered the debris field. The latest Patriot missile use active RF homing and are so accurate that they are now classed as hit to kill missiles.
The Aster 30 uses its own active radar to home in on the target. It uses two types of fusing proximity and direct contact. It also uses a datalink to give course corrections in case it gets spoofed. Like the updated Patriot, the accuracy of the Aster’s RF seeker allows the missile to fly directly at the targeted missile.
Therefore, an Aster would be capable of intercepting a hypersonic missile, it all depends on the software. The trial where an Aster shot down an Israeli Black Sparrow ballistic missile target, proves that it can shoot down a hypersonic target.
Thanks David, very informative. For me this is vital to protect a RN carrier group. The T45s really should have this as soon as is practically possible. Sailing the QEC through the South China Sea in range of a whole load of ballistic missiles seems daft without better protection. Add MK41 VLS for good measure to allow for a greater number of Asters and other weapons too. We can hope!
Thanks. Very informative.
This is good news, if it actually leads anywhere, but I think there may be a greater priority in reinstating cooperative engagement capability on the T45s.
My understanding is that they’re currently unable to provide or receive target tracking data from other platforms, which as an air defence platform is pretty dire (considering some of the high volume, high speed threats they’re potentially going to be facing). In my opinion, we’re more likely to be needing our T45s to prosecute an air target identified by another RN/allied ship in a task group than we are to be knocking ballistic missiles out of the sky before they hit the UK.