UK Defence Forum

Jdam wrote: ↑29 Nov 2022, 14:31

Interesting we seem to be going to an all Aster 30 configuration.

I don't see Sea Ceptor getting added to the 45's anytime soon.

Ron5 wrote: ↑29 Nov 2022, 15:52 Maybe all of the missiles will be upgraded to Block 1.

The now fully funded Sea Viper Evolution (SV-E) Capability 1 will see the Type 45’s current Aster 30 ‘block 0’ missiles retrofitted to block 1 standard at the Munition Maintenance Installation Facility at Gosport. This involves new guidance software and electronics to enable the interception of ballistic missiles and a new dual AAW/BMD warhead to enhance the probability of Kill (pK) upon intercept.

Ron5 wrote: ↑29 Nov 2022, 17:41So yes they will?

tomuk wrote: ↑29 Nov 2022, 17:58 There is nothing to say they are keeping Block 0. I think a more interesting question is what happens to the Aster15s do they get thrown away or do they get refurbed with an added booster into more Aster 30 B1s.

Jdam wrote: ↑29 Nov 2022, 18:01 Needed a bit more from me on that one when posting the news.

I was more interested in the point we were upgrading all of our missiles to the Aster 30 block 1 configuration before the ships have started to receive the retrofitted needed for Sea Ceptor, not that we were never getting Sea Ceptor on the 45's. I have not seen anything else on when the upgrades for Sea Ceptor was going to happen after the initial announcement, so my thinking "I don't see Sea Ceptor getting added to the 45's anytime soon" was a belief that this upgrade is some time away.

I would have thought both would have been done at the same time to continue to give both short and long range missile defence to ships.

wargame_insomniac wrote: ↑29 Nov 2022, 20:46

tomuk wrote: ↑29 Nov 2022, 17:58 There is nothing to say they are keeping Block 0. I think a more interesting question is what happens to the Aster15s do they get thrown away or do they get refurbed with an added booster into more Aster 30 B1s.

From article:
"It will also either see the shorter range Aster 15 missiles discarded or upgraded to Aster 30 B1 standard by replacing the first stage booster (currently the only difference between Aster 15 and 30). The gap in very short range (1.5-3km) engagement envelope created by eliminating Aster 15 will be filled by the addition of 24 Sea Ceptor missiles in the space originally left for 16 strike-length VLS (Vertical Launch System) cells."

donald_of_tokyo wrote: ↑29 Nov 2022, 15:37 The same information: from https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploa ... o-2032.pdf

p.20 Capabilities not included in the 2022–2032 Plan

- Type 32 frigates and Multi Role Support Ships (MRSS): In July 2022 Navy Command withdrew its plans for Type 32 frigates and MRSS because of concerns about unaffordability. The revised costing profile is likely to be significantly higher.

- Enabling Landing Ship Dock Auxiliary: The enhancement option funded by the Integrated Review has been cancelled. The Ministry of Defence (the Department) decided to extend RFA Argus, based on the Navy deeming it cost-effective and offering greater utility.

- Type 83 destroyer: Given that the Department needs to replace the Type 45 destroyer between 2035 and 2038, it is unlikely that it will not need funding before 2032. The Plan does not include allocated funding as the project is in concept phase, meaning that detailed cost estimates and profiles are not yet available.

- Mine Hunting Capability Block 1 and Block 2 : Mine Hunting Capability equipment support remains unfunded.

donald_of_tokyo wrote: ↑01 Dec 2022, 15:04

donald_of_tokyo wrote: ↑29 Nov 2022, 15:37 The same information: from https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploa ... o-2032.pdf

p.20 Capabilities not included in the 2022–2032 Plan

- Type 32 frigates and Multi Role Support Ships (MRSS): In July 2022 Navy Command withdrew its plans for Type 32 frigates and MRSS because of concerns about unaffordability. The revised costing profile is likely to be significantly higher.

- Enabling Landing Ship Dock Auxiliary: The enhancement option funded by the Integrated Review has been cancelled. The Ministry of Defence (the Department) decided to extend RFA Argus, based on the Navy deeming it cost-effective and offering greater utility.

- Type 83 destroyer: Given that the Department needs to replace the Type 45 destroyer between 2035 and 2038, it is unlikely that it will not need funding before 2032. The Plan does not include allocated funding as the project is in concept phase, meaning that detailed cost estimates and profiles are not yet available.

- Mine Hunting Capability Block 1 and Block 2 : Mine Hunting Capability equipment support remains unfunded.

So, T45 life extension program must come soon. It is must.

1: SeaViper enhancement = radar upkeep, Aster-30 blk1 upgrade, and what? Will it include also CAMM system integration?

2: 24-CAMM addition = when shall it happen?

3: Shall the 4.5' gun be replaced? (I think it must be). If yes, but what? (I prefer 57 mm gun, which will be with not only 3P, but also ALaMO anti-surface guided rounds (already fielded in USN), and possibly MAD-FIRES (under development).

Fr0sty125 wrote: ↑16 Feb 2023, 15:02 They should continue to invest in upgrading PAAMS this class has so much more to give. Upgrade the S1850M and Sampson along with Aster Block 2.

Ron5 wrote: ↑16 Feb 2023, 15:04 Doesn't aster block 2 need significantly larger VLS which might be problematic to retrofit.

Timmymagic wrote: ↑16 Feb 2023, 17:06

Ron5 wrote: ↑16 Feb 2023, 15:04 Doesn't aster block 2 need significantly larger VLS which might be problematic to retrofit.

Yes. Aster 30 Block 2 requires Sylver A70, the 'Strike Length' silo. T45 currently has A50 fitted. A70 is 2 metres longer. Upgrading all 48 silos on T45 to A70 over A50 would add around 24 tonnes as well, just in the silo alone.

If we don't move to A70 at the point of upgrade (which has never been mentioned) T45 will only ever be capable of fielding the Aster 30 1NT at most, no chance of getting the proposed 2 BMD variant in the future.

If the RN decided it wanted to field 2 BMD in the future....now would be a good time to insist on Mk.41 integration and ditch Sylver and go to Mk.41 Strike Length fleetwide for commonality...of course they won't...the worst of all worlds would be to keep A50 and limit our options, 2nd worst would be to pay to upgrade to A70, and still buy Mk41 for T26 and T31... and then be left with 2 different VL systems with incompatible stocks of missiles into the future...when we could have used the funds to standardise on either Sylver or Mk.41....personally I'd go to Sylver A70 and standardise T26 and T31 on it as well....1 VL standard and size across the fleet...we could use the redundant A50 at the MISC at Portsdown Hill and actually protect our most important naval base permanently....

Or we could just add 16x A70 for BMD where the Mk.41 was planned to go, lift out some A50 and replace with CAMM...2 blocks of 8 removed would give easily enough space for 24 CAMM...