Read the forum code of contact
By: - 17th September 2006 at 21:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
This has been a major issue in the development of the type 45, in the end it inherited many of the systems chosen for the horizon program including the Sylver/Aster combination.
For a while the RN was quite interested in purchasing SM2 Standard with Mk41 and integrating it with local radar and systems but they couldn't sell it to the Italians and French who were keen on Aster.
There is room on the Type 45 for extra strike length Mk41 VLS is needed and DCN France are developing a larger A70 Sylver launcher allowing the integration of missiles like Tomahawk and naval SCALP.
Here is a link to Beedalls excellent page which far better explains this all:
By: - 17th September 2006 at 21:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Seems to me the biggest weakness of the Aster SAM is that it's Sylver VLS is very limited, meaning the T45's and other vessels using this VLS will need additional weapons handling systems for Harpoon, Tomahawk etc. whereas the Mk.41 can be used for a wide range of missiles. Given that the RN uses Tomahawk and Harpoon this seems a major weakness of selecting the Sylver/Aster system, I know the Aster/Sampson combo is a superb air warfare system but so is SPY/SM, it seems to me that the Mk.41 is a much better VLS. Any opinions?
Depends on which version of Sylver. A43, A50, A70? A70 will be able to handle anything up to Scalp Naval, so in theory should be capable of handling a wide variety of missiles. A43 is just for Aster 15, A50 for Aster 15 & 30.
Mk 41 also comes in different sizes, capable of handling different missiles - http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/mk-41-vls.htm
By: - 17th September 2006 at 22:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Cheers, the T45 was built from outset with reserve bouyancy, power and space for upgrades and fitting additional weapons (a big lesson learned from the T42...), but if they'd gone with the mk.41 it'd have been a lot easier. I also hope we don't end up being pressured to adopt scalp over tomahawk for a combination of politics and because it's easier to integrate into Sylver.
By: - 18th September 2006 at 17:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
One aspect of this is that if Sampson and it's battle field management system had been integrated with Mk.41 VLS and SM-2/3 it'd have much stronger export prospects, as most navies are going to go with the Mk.41, SM/ESSM/Harpoon and why look at a sensor/control suite with no track record of working with these systems when the APAR and AEGIS systems are proved and offer equivalent (in some respects better) functionality?
By: - 19th September 2006 at 13:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
True, it would be re-inventing the wheel, but in a sense the whole project is re-inventing the wheel by bridging the capability gap between the T42 and Aegis destroyers. Now I'm not saying Sampson/Aster is bad, it promises to be a superb system, but realistically in it's primary air warfare role it's capabilities are pretty similar to the latest SPY/SM combo or APAR/SM with the massive exception it has no theatre ABM defence capability (Europe may claim it doesn't want ABM capability, but if they had access to the option offered by SM-3 they'd bite your hand off to get it). The Germans/Canadians/Dutch have developed their own radar/battle field management system but integrated it with the Mk.41 VLS, this has retained an industrial base and expertise in high technology along with controlling costs and minimising risk to at least some extent, as well as having a much more flexible weapons system and probably better access to missile upgrades in the future by piggy backing USN programs. Most of the Navies in the market for this type of hardware not usually Russian customers do seem to choosing the Mk.41 and it's weapons (Japan, South Korea, Australia, Germany, Denmark, Spain, Norway and any others escaping my mind at the moment) and if the UK had developed a radar/battlefield management system to work with these it'd be a lot easier to pitch on the export market.
By: - 19th September 2006 at 15:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
In the end the Royal Navy is desperate for a Type 42 replacement and there isn't much money in the pot. The type 45 Aster/Sylver combination does what they need and the vessel has growth potential when there is more money available.
By: - 19th September 2006 at 16:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
True, and I've said on here before I think the decision to optimise the air warfare capability at the expense of ASuW/ASW makes sense, as those capabilities can be added whereas compromising the AAW capability to afford a wider range of systems would comprmise the ships primary role and would be dificult to recover later. However, in a way that is one of the reasons I'm thinking the RN would have been better off going for a off the shelf answer, if the RN had gone with Mk.41 VLS and SPY Aegis they'd have gotten the capabilities they need, more flexibility and been in a position to get the ships sooner (wasting all those years on the failed horizon joint venture) and probably cheaper. True there is a question over maintaining the industrial base, but rather than reinventing the wheel the UK defence industrial base might have been better served by investing in new technology, BAE wants to be on the leading edge of UAV/UCAV development, that seems to offer greater rewards for British industry than spending a lot of money to develop systems already available elsewhere IMO. At the end of the day the UK wated time and money on Horizon, and it seems the RN's first choice would have been with the Mk.41 VLS anyway.
By: - 19th September 2006 at 17:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Maintenance of a local hi tech defence capability was an important fact along with the inheriting of decisions made during the Horizon program.
The RN did want Mk.41 but compromises had to be made with the joint program. It works both ways the UK got improvements in the Aster30 design to give it the long range performance the RN wanted as well as the local Radar. The SAMPSON radar is a big deal for Bae systems as the government was funding the development of next generation radar technology which can be inserted into other programs. Technology from SAMPSON is being developed in a program for the US which is now a big Bae Systems customer.
The deal for PAAMS had been signed before the Horizon program had been ditched so it was carried over to type 45.
I think as time goes on we will see a great deal of change in the basic fit of the standard Type 45. I also think it will probably form the basis of a Stretch variant to replace the Type 22 batch 3 and a shortened variant to suppliment and eventually replace the type 23. Of course all bad news for VT who will need to push the corvettes they seem to be good at doing these days.
By: - 19th September 2006 at 19:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
i'm wondering how much are talking about streched and shortend versions of type 45. i do not know how much a type 45 will cost but i think they are to expensive for replacing the type 22/23. steel is cheap, the radar and all the other electronic systems makes up a large part of the unit cost. so either the streched/shortend type 45 will have nothing in common with the aaw type 45 or they will be to expensive. sampson for exapmle is a nice system even on a non aaw ship but there are a lot of other rotators which may be a lot cheaper and which will do a good job on a asw/asuw/general purpose unit.
By: - 20th September 2006 at 09:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If Aster could be integrated with the Mk.41 VLS for the sake of TLAM, what would stop SM-3 from being used? SM-2s require illuminators for the terminal phase of their flight, but isn't the guidance system on SM-3 totally different (it's a dedicated ATBM afterall)?BTW, on a more modest scale Aster should be quite capable of becoming a decent ATBM with some minor upgrades. It's very accurate (hit-to-kill capability) with a sophisticated warhead and it should be quite maneuverable at high altitudes thanks to its PIF-PAF thrusters. Given a larger booster and better software it should do fine (not in the league of SM-3 or THAAD but potentially similar to PAC3, which is a start).
I've heard it said that Aster 30 has a very modest ATBM capability, but I don't know if that's right. There was a proposal for a real ATBM version, the Aster 45 (bigger booster, exactly as you say), but AFAIK it never got past design studies. Could easily be revived, though, if the will was there. Just needs some money.
By: - 20th September 2006 at 11:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What exaactly defines a Vertical Launching System? How can we compare them outside the max length of the missile and the raw size of the egg-crate silos? Does it have any intelligence buit into it besides opening the top doors at the right time? Is there a limit to the number of firings a single silo can withstand during its operational lifetime? If it's nothing but simple steel structure why not buy it from the shipbuilder instead of Lockheed? Is there some kind of preffered loading/firing sequence in order to maintain the ship's balance? Should heavier missiles be poositioned in the center silo rows?
In my understanding one of the most intriguing aspects of the VLS is it's ability to fool the enemy's inteligence gathering apparatus. A ship might carry 100% anti-air mississiles or 100% Tomahawk/SCALP surface to surface or even 100% Anti ship missiles as well as each and every possible combinations of these three weapons, The enemy only will be sure after the full missile complement is fired, or in a another way: "too late".
How far are the Russian progressing on this area of VLS missiles?
As you can see I have no idea on how this thing works, thanks for the enlightenment. :)
Regards
Hammer
By: - 20th September 2006 at 23:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
This has been a major issue in the development of the type 45, in the end it inherited many of the systems chosen for the horizon program including the Sylver/Aster combination.For a while the RN was quite interested in purchasing SM2 Standard with Mk41 and integrating it with local radar and systems but they couldn't sell it to the Italians and French who were keen on Aster.
There is room on the Type 45 for extra strike length Mk41 VLS is needed and DCN France are developing a larger A70 Sylver launcher allowing the integration of missiles like Tomahawk and naval SCALP.
Here is a link to Beedalls excellent page which far better explains this all:
It would also cost quite a bit of money to intergrate Tomahawk into the A70 version of Sylver and I cannot see the French helping in nay way.
From what I have seen over the years, Richard's site says it all with regard to joint ventures with the French - be afraid, be very afraid (and still our politicians think its a good idea..........)
:mad:
By: - 22nd September 2006 at 10:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Considering that it is only a matter of time before the UK will be in range of Iranian nuclear weapons (short of action to stop the Iranian nuke program that'd be just as dangerous as them getting nukes anyway) the decision to overlook a true ABM capability looks very short sighted, and unlike Japan that has a very easy upgrade path via AEGIS and SM-3, giving the T45 this capability will cost serious money and time to develop.
By: - 22nd September 2006 at 11:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It would also cost quite a bit of money to intergrate Tomahawk into the A70 version of Sylver and I cannot see the French helping in nay way.From what I have seen over the years, Richard's site says it all with regard to joint ventures with the French - be afraid, be very afraid (and still our politicians think its a good idea..........)
:mad:
If the UK needed to go down the international joint venture route then we'd have been far better off either pursuing a joint venture with the USN or joining the German/Dutch F124/De Zeven Provincien program IMO.
By: - 22nd September 2006 at 12:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Considering that it is only a matter of time before the UK will be in range of Iranian nuclear weapons (short of action to stop the Iranian nuke program that'd be just as dangerous as them getting nukes anyway) the decision to overlook a true ABM capability looks very short sighted, and unlike Japan that has a very easy upgrade path via AEGIS and SM-3, giving the T45 this capability will cost serious money and time to develop.
Thats true but ABM systems are never 100% effective especially when more missiles are fired at you saturating defenses, thats why the UK maintains an independant nuclear retalitory capability with Trident.
The RN needs an improved AAW capability the ABM issue is just window dressing. The nuclear capability has been Britains preferred deterrent against missile strikes after Suez.
America has been throwing big money at ABM systems for many years and has frankly had more failures then successes for all the effort. Anyway ABM systems become less effective the more targets they have to deal with the headache becomes even bigger when you throw in a mirv capability. Countries like Iran have weapons programs which develop over time, the easiest thing for them to do is produce more missiles and improve their capabilites. Of course a MIRV capability or penetration aids would be a long way off but certainly would be examined as part of a development program. As for Japan - well the public there need to know that something is being done in response to North Korean developments, SM3 is an effective way of showing this.
By: - 24th September 2006 at 23:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
http://www.navyleague.org/sea_power/july_02_32.php
DCN Ruelle also is working on an A70 Sylver module, which is intended to be a versatile multiple missile-launcher. The weapons with which it is intended to be compatible include the ship-launched variant of MBDA's Scalp naval land-attack missile, the Aster Block 3 theater missile-defense system, Raytheon's Tactical Tomahawk, and/or a vertically launched anti-submarine missile round.
Granted, the article is over four years old but at least it seems DCN have offered that option for the UK and Italy if they want the capability.
Btw, isn't the Aster essentally a larger Mica on a booster, plus those midships rockets? Would it seem feasable that MBDA would do a similar job with the Meteor?
Posts: 847
By: Turbinia - 17th September 2006 at 19:44
Seems to me the biggest weakness of the Aster SAM is that it's Sylver VLS is very limited, meaning the T45's and other vessels using this VLS will need additional weapons handling systems for Harpoon, Tomahawk etc. whereas the Mk.41 can be used for a wide range of missiles. Given that the RN uses Tomahawk and Harpoon this seems a major weakness of selecting the Sylver/Aster system, I know the Aster/Sampson combo is a superb air warfare system but so is SPY/SM, it seems to me that the Mk.41 is a much better VLS. Any opinions?