Royal Navy Type 83 Destroyer (Type 45 replacement)

[Reuben James]

But Aster has never actually been adapted for the Mk 41. If they are ditching Sylver, I'd lay money that they plan to drop Aster for the longer-ranged CAMM derivatives (especially the CAMM-MR, which is actually longer ranged than CAMM-ER).

I would agree, but I don't think CAMM-MR is an interceptor of the same calibre as Aster-30. It would require significant changes in requirements as specced to compete, given that it was always meant to be a 'second tier' missile, with PAC-3MSE forming the most capable level.

So, if CAMM-MR is used, I think that it won't replace Aster-30 exactly, but would need to be complemented by something else, which could be PAC-3MSE. Unless of course, CAMM-MR is upgraded to give Aster-30 performance.

 

[Ainen]

I'd guess this number of mk 41s almost guaranteed to point towards Standard series order.

 

[Reuben James]

I'd guess this number of mk 41s almost guaranteed to point towards Standard series order.

Not necessarily. The Standard series is certainly capable, but the UK has its own MR-SAM planned for Mk41 launch, the CAMM-MR. Whilst not suitable currently, given that it is specifically being designed as a second tier to the BMD-capable PAC-3MSE, it could provide a pathway to a useful MR-SAM. Mentioning PAC-3MSE, that will also be Mk41 capable, if the RN go down that path.

Aster-30 is reportedly also capable of being launched from the Mk41, but would require integration work. Whether the French would sacrifice the main selling point of the Sylver VLS by allowing Aster to become Mk41 capable is also debatable.

There are a host of other options as well. There's at least a decade to choose, integrate or develop a suitable missile. Mk41 gives that flexibility by entering into an ecosystem dominated by the most capable interceptor-developing nation. So, Mk41 does not necessarily point to a Standard Missiles order.

 

[Ainen]

Thesis: for the first time installing world level radar system, together with large number of cells, points to two things:

-desire to engage at extended ranges, including ABM with some footprint (provide area/theater umbrella). Increased footprint increases responsibility, i.e. number of AA engagements we're expected to prosecute.
-combine it with significant strike potential, utilizing full cells. Quad packing is secondary (otherwise there's no need for proposed cell numbers).

I.e. for the first time they are probably not looking at MR SAMs in the first place. Type 83 is geared towards problems beyond that type 45 can do.
The only missile checking all the boxes is SM-6.

 

[Grey Havoc]

On the other hand, this smells of the classic HM Treasury 'Pennywise, Pound-foolish' approach. Which would mean that logic is right out the window now with this design.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

The only missile checking all the boxes is SM-6.

Aster 30 ticks all the boxes that SM-6 does. The Offensive Counter Air/Strike role will be filled by FC/ASW/SPEAR-5.

It's pretty obvious given current global events that Britain is not going to adopt American missiles, so PAC-3 MSE and SM-6 are not viable choices, especially when MBDA has potential options like Aster 30 Block 1 NT, CAMM MR and AQUILA under development.

 

[zen]

The Offensive Counter Air/Strike role will be filled by FC/ASW/SPEAR-5

This.
The strike back at the attacker and even preemptive strike suggests that the RN is swinging round to the supersonic and hypersonic missile concepts.

 

[Reuben James]

Thesis: for the first time installing world level radar system, together with large number of cells, points to two things:

-desire to engage at extended ranges, including ABM with some footprint (provide area/theater umbrella). Increased footprint increases responsibility, i.e. number of AA engagements we're expected to prosecute.
-combine it with significant strike potential, utilizing full cells. Quad packing is secondary (otherwise there's no need for proposed cell numbers).

I.e. for the first time they are probably not looking at MR SAMs in the first place. Type 83 is geared towards problems beyond that type 45 can do.
The only missile checking all the boxes is SM-6.

The Aster-30 Block 1NT can defend against the same kind of ballistic threats that the SM-6 can currently. It is also far cheaper whilst offering improved P(K).

I'm more inclined to expect a development of CAMM-MR to take Aster-30's place onboard these new destroyers. From the designs seen, the CAMM-MR has the room for improved propulsion and seeker tech to fulfil the terminal phase BMD requirement.

My money is on a two-tiered system - British CAMM and CAMM-MR (future variants) form a dense, multi-packed layer to defeat ABTs and terminal BMs, whilst American/jointly developed missiles such as the SM-3 and GPI form a high altitude BMD and HMD screen.

 

[Reuben James]

This.
The strike back at the attacker and even preemptive strike suggests that the RN is swinging round to the supersonic and hypersonic missile concepts.

Potentially fitting the American Dark Eagle to the AUKUS SSN?

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

My money is on a two-tiered system - British CAMM and CAMM-MR (future variants) form a dense, multi-packed layer to defeat ABTs and terminal BMs, whilst American/jointly developed missiles such as the SM-3 and GPI form a high altitude BMD and HMD screen.

Replace "SM-3 and GPI" with "potentoal developments of the Aster Block 2 concept and MBDA AQUILA" and I'd agree entirely with this point.

I just don't see the UK adopting US SAMs and ABM systems, Britain didn't do that when the US was a much more dependable ally and when US systems offered some advantages over UK and European alternatives, now that the US cannot be depended on and the Complex Weapons Partnership is offering increasingly capable alternatives there is even less reason to.

I'd expect Aster 30 and CAMM-MR to complement each other, the former has much greater range than the latter, whilst the latter still offers fairly decent range, plus twice the magazine depth.

 

[Reuben James]

Replace "SM-3 and GPI" with "potentoal developments of the Aster Block 2 concept and MBDA AQUILA" and I'd agree entirely with this point.

I just don't see the UK adopting US SAMs and ABM systems, Britain didn't do that when the US was a much more dependable ally and when US systems offered some advantages over UK and European alternatives, now that the US cannot be depended on and the Complex Weapons Partnership is offering increasingly capable alternatives there is even less reason to.

I'd expect Aster 30 and CAMM-MR to complement each other, the former has much greater range than the latter, whilst the latter still offers fairly decent range, plus twice the magazine depth.

Those were very much my thoughts prior to this new information. It's tough to decipher from the NL article as to whether Mk41 is actually confirmed, or merely the expectations of the article's author.

However, I don't see MBDA France and Italy being particularly willing to cripple exports of their new A70-NG by allowing the widespread integration of European SAMs into the Mk41. That's why, should the Type 83 only use Mk41, I don't expect Aster-30 to be carried through, not for Aquila to be utilised.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

Perhaps we should expect a CAAM LR then.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

However, I don't see MBDA France and Italy being particularly willing to cripple exports of their new A70-NG by allowing the widespread integration of European SAMs into the Mk41. That's why, should the Type 83 only use Mk41, I don't expect Aster-30 to be carried through, not for Aquila to be utilised.

What's more valuable, the export chances of the missile or of the VLS system? It could conceivably argued that by not being integrated with Mk 41, the export chances of Aster 30 are being crippled by French insistence on the use of Sylver. Aster 30 being integrated with Mk 41 suddenly opens up a much wider range of platforms able to use it, and given it is an ARH missiles, I wouldn't be surprised if it is fairly combat system agnostic.

 

[Ainen]

Aster 30 ticks all the boxes that SM-6 does. The Offensive Counter Air/Strike role will be filled by FC/ASW/SPEAR-5.

It's pretty obvious given current global events that Britain is not going to adopt American missiles, so PAC-3 MSE and SM-6 are not viable choices, especially when MBDA has potential options like Aster 30 Block 1 NT, CAMM MR and AQUILA under development.

Aster-30 is a missile almost 6 times lighter than SM-6, with warhead 5-6 times smaller than the soon coming SM-6 Ib.

It's range is notionally ~3-4 times smaller(against equal air targets), altitude reach is ~50% less, and speed on trajectory is also 30-50% less. It produces correspondingly lesser aa footprint, and disproportionately lesser ABM footprint (effectively one engagement attempt due to large dead zone, only local defense).
As a dual purpose weapon it's essentially a non-starter.

At the same time, it's surprisingly large(volume inefficient). This is not to say aster-30 is somehow bad - it's just not nearly in the same class. it won't be able to match the sensor suit current graphics show. It's a fine weapon for Darings. More? Not enough.

Let's see, but my bet, shall this continue, UK will buy American.

The Aster-30 Block 1NT can defend against the same kind of ballistic threats that the SM-6 can currently. It is also far cheaper whilst offering improved P(K).

This is true, though arguably neither of them is a terribly good abm missile. They can do it to a degree, just have something to back them up.
The problem is a footprint. Why bother extremely potent destroyer sensor suit, if you're going to use it for aster-30?

 

[Reuben James]

Perhaps we should expect a CAAM LR then.

That would be my thinking. An upgrade to the CAMM-MR to offer increased terminal phase agility and P(K), as well as a modest increase in range to around 135km-150km, as well as BMD capability in the terminal phase. Essentially British PAC-3MSE, though, at that point, one might question whether it would be more prudent just to purchase PAC-3MSE in the first place. If dual-packing can be retained for the CAMM-MR (as has been proposed on certain PAC-3MSE naval concepts, showing that it is possible to have a multi-packed, high performance MR-SAM), then all the better.

Just for a few quick ideas:
- Variable pulse/throttleable rocket motor to retain terminal agility, much as PAC-3MSE does.
- Improved seeker: the concepts for CAMM-MR show space for this.
- Improved, BMD-capable warhead
- Maybe a booster? You'd likely lose dual-packing though.

I'd wait to see if the SDR signals a long-range GBAD procurement for the British Army. That would be a good indicator of the potential future missile for the Type 83.

 

[Reuben James]

What's more valuable, the export chances of the missile or of the VLS system? It could conceivably argued that by not being integrated with Mk 41, the export chances of Aster 30 are being crippled by French insistence on the use of Sylver. Aster 30 being integrated with Mk 41 suddenly opens up a much wider range of platforms able to use it, and given it is an ARH missiles, I wouldn't be surprised if it is fairly combat system agnostic.

It's a valid point. However, how many of those who operate the Mk41 are likely to operate the Aster-30? The vast majority of operators have no desire to use Aster-30, and already operate SM-2/3/6 and Aegis. The integration work would be being funded essentially only for the RN - there are very few other viable customers.

We should also acknowledge that very few foreign missiles have ever been integrated into the Mk41; I believe the Japanese Type 07 is the only example (CAMM is technically only rated for the ExLS). Whilst this is expected to change, it is worth mentioning.

 

[Reuben James]

Aster-30 is a missile almost 6 times lighter than SM-6, with warhead 5-6 times smaller than the soon coming SM-6 Ib.

It's range is notionally ~3-4 times smaller(against equal air targets), altitude reach is ~50% less, and speed on trajectory is also 30-50% less. It produces correspondingly lesser aa footprint, and disproportionately lesser ABM footprint (effectively one engagement attempt due to large dead zone, only local defense).
As a dual purpose weapon it's essentially a non-starter.

At the same time, it's surprisingly large(volume inefficient). This is not to say aster-30 is somehow bad - it's just not nearly in the same class. it won't be able to match the sensor suit current graphics show. It's a fine weapon for Darings. More? Not enough.

Let's see, but my bet, shall this continue, UK will buy American.

I don't believe the upcoming SM-6 Block IB is actually rated for surface-to-air intercepts. USN sources suggest instead that it is a purely surface strike/anti-ship weapon.

The price of the SM-6 is also considerably higher than that of the Aster-30. The RN does not have the budget of the USN, and financial pressures will influence the choice. If American missiles are procured, I doubt the RN would choose the SM-2 or ESSM, given there are perfectly suitable British systems available.

But overall, I would not be surprised to see a two-tiered system as I have mentioned above, split between British CAMM and CAMM-MR for ABTs and additional terminal phase BMD, and American SM-6, SM-3 and GPI for high altitude defence. I would be surprised if an all-American suite is chosen.

 

[timmymagic]

What's more valuable, the export chances of the missile or of the VLS system? It could conceivably argued that by not being integrated with Mk 41, the export chances of Aster 30 are being crippled by French insistence on the use of Sylver. Aster 30 being integrated with Mk 41 suddenly opens up a much wider range of platforms able to use it, and given it is an ARH missiles, I wouldn't be surprised if it is fairly combat system agnostic.

The wider question is....would the US allow integration into Mk.41....

See my post #261....

The South Korean's went and developed K-VLS....despite being a Mk.41 user.....now why on earth would they do that? I think I can guess....

Anyone seen a contract between MBDA and Lockheed Martin to integrate FC/ASW to Mk.41 yet?

The RN and their Mk.41 choice are living in a fantasy world....they should have gone all in with Italy on A70NG and got a stake in it themselves...even buying a licence for K-VLS II would make more sense...more adaptable due to size than Mk.41 as well...

 

[zen]

Perhaps we should expect a CAAM LR then.

Essentially the technologies of CAMM can be applied to larger, longer ranged, faster and more capable missiles than current CAMM designs.
So I've been expecting CAMM-ER prior to it's announcement and similarly with something like CAMM-MR prior to that revelation.
So a CAMM-LR or CAMM-ABM or CAMM-HVM is entirely plausible.

Much as I've expected LPS to end up as a British 'Jumper' to conventional Hades type set of artillery missiles.

 

[Reuben James]

This is true, though arguably neither of them is a terribly good abm missile. They can do it to a degree, just have something to back them up.
The problem is a footprint. Why bother extremely potent destroyer sensor suit, if you're going to use it for aster-30?

I think that they fill different roles. Unless you intend to use SM-3, having both Aster-30 and SM-6 greatly boosts your shield against BMs, as well as offering better protection against supersonic sea-skimmers through Aster-30. It's also more economical to use both, saving your SM-6 for long range shots against ABTs and adding a second layer against ballistics.

If you're using SM-3, your layer begins significantly higher, and therefore you might be able to only uses Aster-30. If not, you might want both Aster and SM-6.

 

[Reuben James]

Essentially the technologies of CAMM can be applied to larger, longer ranged, faster and more capable missiles than current CAMM designs.
So I've been expecting CAMM-ER prior to it's announcement and similarly with something like CAMM-MR prior to that revelation.
So a CAMM-LR or CAMM-ABM or CAMM-HVM is entirely plausible.

Much as I've expected LPS to end up as a British 'Jumper' to conventional Hades type set of artillery missiles.

Indeed. There is still more than decade to go till the Type 83 enters service. I expect the CAMM family to grow in that time.

 

[H_K]

The wider question is....would the US allow integration into Mk.41....

Anyone seen a contract between MBDA and Lockheed Martin to integrate FC/ASW to Mk.41 yet?

The RN and their Mk.41 choice are living in a fantasy world.

This. For the UK, my biggest worry would be the US's ability to block (or slow down) integration of non-US missiles (FC/ASW, Aster, CAMM MR/ER), and to make integration so complicated (especially if the UK want bells and whistles like Cooperative Engagement Capability etc) that it basically only works if the UK buys into the entire US ecosystem, including the AEGIS CMS and radar suite.

So you go from "hey we bought Mk 41, you don't mind if we integrate our own missiles on our own dime right?" to "Hey we bought Mk41, now you're saying we need to buy AEGIS, SPY-6/7, and Standard missiles... can you please ask Congress to fast-track FMS approval and give us a friend's & family discount because Lockheed & Raytheon are going to charge us billions of $?

 

[Hood]

We've often discussed the RN's love relationship with the Mk.41 and the paucity of weapons we actually have to go in it. It doesn't entirely make sense but that seems to be the way they are leaning.
I don't see Aster being integrated into Mk.41, it's been decades now and it's never happened yet or even a sign of it happening.

CAMM-ER or CAMM-MR would be a nice addition to the Type 83 and a CAMM-LR could be possible. Aster is approaching (believe it or not) its 30th anniversary in the not too far future. When looking ahead to a class of ships not likely to be built for another decade it is probably wise to keep options open. MBDA may already have their thinking caps on for an Aster successor for all we know. Of course that doesn't solve the Mk.41/Sylver conundrum.

I wonder what radar suite BAE has in mind? Developing a new system in that kind of short timeframe would seem highly ambitious.

 

[Ron5]

Lockheed paid for CAMM integration into ExLs & Mk 41.

 

[Reuben James]

This. For the UK, my biggest worry would be the US's ability to block (or slow down) integration of non-US missiles (FC/ASW, Aster, CAMM MR/ER), and to make integration so complicated (especially if the UK want bells and whistles like Cooperative Engagement Capability etc) that it basically only works if the UK buys into the entire US ecosystem, including the AEGIS CMS and radar suite.

So you go from "hey we bought Mk 41, you don't mind if we integrate our own missiles on our own dime right?" to "Hey we bought Mk41, now you're saying we need to buy AEGIS, SPY-6/7, and Standard missiles... can you please ask Congress to fast-track FMS approval and give us a friend's & family discount because Lockheed & Raytheon are going to charge us billions of $?

In defence of the USMIC (please don't bully me), CAMM has already been integrated onto the ExLS, and that didn't take especially long, not was it incredibly costly.

But, you raise a good point and a real concern. If the glacial pace of integrating European weapons into the F-35 is anything to go by, this could be a major issue. However, if balanced by a purchase of American missiles, it might encourage more rapid work.

 

[Ron5]

wonder what radar suite BAE has in mind? Developing a new system in that kind of short timeframe would seem highly ambitious.

10 years and they're not starting from standstill?

 

[Ron5]

the glacial pace of integrating European weapons into the F-35

The glacial pace is also impacting US weapons. The problem is the amount of effort to change F-35 software with a huge stack of upgrades that are years late.

BTW, ASRAAM was one of the first weapons to be integrated. Meteor & Spear were negatively impacted by the UK's wobble toward the F-35C and back again.

 

[TinWing]

Unless the construction of the Type 83 immediately follows Type 26 for reasons of maintaining BAE employment, I could easily see over a decade of slippage in delivery dates. The Type 45s have been dock queens, with far lower utilization rates than the American, French or Dutch equivalents. Moreover, the real value is in the sensor and weapons fits. Is the UK really just going to buy in their radar or embark on the usual collaborative make work scheme, extending timescales and costs? I suspect that integrating Aster 30 into MK 41 is just an exercise in justifying continued investment in the missile during inevitable years of delays and service overlap? Or, is there a sufficient stockpile of Aster 30 missiles to last into the 2040s or 2050s? I somehow doubt that.

Everyone seems to forget that the Type 31 is based on a successful AAW Frigate design and can definitely has the stability to support the top weight of AAW radars and higher capacity genders. I can only suppose that the RN and BAE Systems would just as soon have the His Majesty’s Treasury forget that as well. Personally, it if I was Starmer, I’d have them cost out the option of building 6 Type 31s with the retrofit of current Type 45s radars and Sylver VLS - if all 48 cells don’t fit amidships only fit 32. Or better yet, cost out 12 Type 31 AAW derivatives fitted with Dutch radars and MK41 VLS, especially if Aster 30 can supposedly be integrated.

 

[Reuben James]

We've often discussed the RN's love relationship with the Mk.41 and the paucity of weapons we actually have to go in it. It doesn't entirely make sense but that seems to be the way they are leaning.
I don't see Aster being integrated into Mk.41, it's been decades now and it's never happened yet or even a sign of it happening.

CAMM-ER or CAMM-MR would be a nice addition to the Type 83 and a CAMM-LR could be possible. Aster is approaching (believe it or not) its 30th anniversary in the not too far future. When looking ahead to a class of ships not likely to be built for another decade it is probably wise to keep options open. MBDA may already have their thinking caps on for an Aster successor for all we know. Of course that doesn't solve the Mk.41/Sylver conundrum.

I wonder what radar suite BAE has in mind? Developing a new system in that kind of short timeframe would seem highly ambitious.

Sylver A70-NG does seem to be the better option. Aster-30 will surely be maintained, and Aquila will presumably come later down the line. Furthermore, given the Franco/Italian participation in the FC/ASW, that missile is almost guaranteed to be integrated into A70-NG from launch. CAMM could either be integrated directly into A70-NG, or could use SVL cells alternatively. The RN's desire to standardise on the Mk41 to me suggests an as of yet unannounced desire to switch from Aster-30 and replace it either with American or British missiles, or a mixture of both.

I had fully forgotten the Aster is aging. By the time the Type 83 is set to enter service, Aster will be 37 years old. That said, the Block 1NT is a significant upgrade, and the American Standard has served in various forms for six decades, so I expect it has some life in it yet.

According to NL, the radar is both already under development and will be a fixed-panel AESA.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

I wonder what radar suite BAE has in mind? Developing a new system in that kind of short timeframe would seem highly ambitious.

Some notional development of Sampson (possibly with fixed arrays) using GaN and making use of technology and software developed for ECRS Mk 2?

A future radar suite using arrays of different bands seems possible given dual-band radars seems increasingly in vogue, and a notional X-Band component could quite literally be a scaled-up development of ECRS Mk 2.

 

[Reuben James]

Some notional development of Sampson (possibly with fixed arrays) using GaN and making use of technology and software developed for ECRS Mk 2?

A future radar suite using arrays of different bands seems possible given dual-band radars seems increasingly in vogue, and a notional X-Band component could quite literally be a scaled-up development of ECRS Mk 2.

NL claim in their recent article that the radar will be a fixed panel AESA, and that the overall system may mix a high-placed rotating array for range and large fixed panels for power and volume. They also say that BAE has already begun development on the new system.

 

[TinWing]

10 years and they're not starting from standstill?

But there are viable Israeli, Dutch, Italian and two competing US options, not to mention the Australian option that’s already being developed for a modified Type 26 hull.

 

[timmymagic]

The glacial pace is also impacting US weapons. The problem is the amount of effort to change F-35 software with a huge stack of upgrades that are years late.

BTW, ASRAAM was one of the first weapons to be integrated. Meteor & Spear were negatively impacted by the UK's wobble toward the F-35C and back again.

Liam Fox was Defence Secretary from 2010 to October 2011....

MBDA Spear wasn't selected as a programme until 2016....

The decision to integrate Meteor with F-35 was made in 2017...

Asraam, Paveway IV, Brimstone and Storm Shadow were in the 2001 and 2003 SDD Baseline Threshold Weapons list for F-35....by 2005 in an effort to get somewhere Brimstone and Storm Shadow were ditched (along with a load of US weapons). There was never a sign of 'Spear' or Meteor on the integration lists until the dates above...

Mind you external tanks were in the 2005 list...and according to the documentation then the UK would have received all 138 by 2027...

 

[timmymagic]

Lockheed paid for CAMM integration into ExLs & Mk 41.

How's that actually going....have they actually fired a missile at sea...or from an ExLS mounted inside a Mk.41....

Nope. MMSC seems to be an even bigger disaster area than Constellation...which incidentally its slowing down...

Or, is there a sufficient stockpile of Aster 30 missiles to last into the 2040s or 2050s? I somehow doubt that.

RN recently announced a new order...as did Italy and France.

In addition the entire RN stockpile of Aster 15 are being relifed to Aster 30 standard with upgrades to Block 1 as well, which will effectively double the RN's long range missile stocks. RN also likely to be first to integrate Block 1 NT onboard ships. France and Italy are also investing heavily in Aster production (they need to as the Ukrainian SAMP/T have run out of missiles...). Aster will be around for the next 20 years at least in RN service.

Everyone seems to forget that the Type 31 is based on a successful AAW Frigate design and can definitely has the stability to support the top weight of AAW radars and higher capacity genders.

I'm guessing you meant generation...rather than genders...although there an awful lot of those to be accommodated if the RN goes down that route....they might need a cruise ship sized vessel...

But T31 is not going to have the electrical generation capability for larger radars AND Directed Energy weapons....

In defence of the USMIC (please don't bully me), CAMM has already been integrated onto the ExLS, and that didn't take especially long, not was it incredibly costly.

Integration was led I believe by LM UK at Ampthill. And CAMM is designed for easy integration. But...it was still just a couple of shots from an early standalone ExLS module on land. Not from a ship, or from an ExLS mounted inside a Mk.41 or attached to a combat system...just launch trials only, no guided firings....thats just the beginning of integration....

We've often discussed the RN's love relationship with the Mk.41 and the paucity of weapons we actually have to go in it. It doesn't entirely make sense but that seems to be the way they are leaning.
I don't see Aster being integrated into Mk.41, it's been decades now and it's never happened yet or even a sign of it happening.

See the RN's recent (albeit Treasury forced) decisions around cannons/guns.....7 different types in service...don't look for logic when there isn't any to be found...

Why bother trying to integrate Aster to Mk.41? It would be an orphan installation as no other Mk.41 users are going to buy Aster and then go to the trouble of integrating to their US combat systems....just additional cost for zero benefit as you're always going to be sailing with a certain number of SAM's.

 

[zen]

2027 is slated as the year for GBAD funding by the MoD. That I read in 2023.

Whatever has been progressing in UK radar technology is likely still surrounded by secrecy. But we can be certain UK radar theory or simulation efforts do not significantly lag behind the US.
The lag has only ever been prototype, and production.

Much network stuff has progressed, but I would suspect since the porting of PAAMS elements into FLAADS, there's been a debate between exquisite high end and a more sustainable modular approach.
Talk of networks suggests the latter, which would have gained ground in examination of sources of production and sustainability in the face of degradation due to wartime.

 

[timmymagic]

This. For the UK, my biggest worry would be the US's ability to block (or slow down) integration of non-US missiles (FC/ASW, Aster, CAMM MR/ER), and to make integration so complicated (especially if the UK want bells and whistles like Cooperative Engagement Capability etc) that it basically only works if the UK buys into the entire US ecosystem, including the AEGIS CMS and radar suite.

So you go from "hey we bought Mk 41, you don't mind if we integrate our own missiles on our own dime right?" to "Hey we bought Mk41, now you're saying we need to buy AEGIS, SPY-6/7, and Standard missiles... can you please ask Congress to fast-track FMS approval and give us a friend's & family discount because Lockheed & Raytheon are going to charge us billions of $?

Ultimately delivering something like Type 83 is about planning and risk management....follow your plans, deal with your risks and you should deliver on time and on budget....

And if Mk.41 doesn't have a great big RED marker next to it....the RN are not doing their job....

 

[zen]

Considering current UK CAMM doesn't use Sylver or Mk41.....

It may yet be that these silo systems be an easy cut from the program.

On Aster.....
Issues attended actually loading and handling the missile for the RN and for a period, this had to be done in France. To some consternation I understand.

If the infrastructure is now in place and production ramping up, there's likely a UK argument for domestic production to distribute and increase further.
This is where MBDA wins either way.

 

[timmymagic]

Considering current UK CAMM doesn't use Sylver or Mk41.....

The advantage of UK Soft Vertical Launch is that you could prop the canister up and it would still work. But the original documentation around it had an upper weight limit of 250kg. It wasn't clear if that was a hard limit though.

On Aster.....
Issues attended actually loading and handling the missile for the RN and for a period, this had to be done in France. To some consternation I understand.

That may have been when the new UHAF was being built in Portsmouth Harbour. But might also have been a training issue. I'd be very surprised if they couldn't load pierside in a pinch with a mobile crane.

there's likely a UK argument for domestic production to distribute and increase further.

Given that the UK is the biggest user there has always been an argument for assembly and UK component supply (which there will be anyway due to the MBDA centres of excellence approach). The wider question around Aster is should the UK demand involvement and a seat at the table for further development....and use its continued use of Aster as a negotiating tool....

 

[Scott Kenny]

On the other hand, this smells of the classic HM Treasury 'Pennywise, Pound-foolish' approach. Which would mean that logic is right out the window now with this design.

Very much agreed.

Once again, the single greatest threat to HMArmed Forces is HMTreasury.


=======================================
A question for the Brits in the forum: Why exactly does Treasury get to say how much money a project can cost, or saying "you can't have a ship that big"? Why isn't Treasury in charge of figuring out how to pay for what HMGov needs to do the job?

 

[timmymagic]

A question for the Brits in the forum: Why exactly does Treasury get to say how much money a project can cost, or saying "you can't have a ship that big"? Why isn't Treasury in charge of figuring out how to pay for what HMGov needs to do the job?

The Treasury is the second power base in the British form of government, after the Cabinet Office, which does the Prime Ministers bidding.
The PM is overall in charge, and chooses the Chancellor of the Exchequer (the head of the Treasury). Who is effectively the number 2 in Government (despite the fact we have a Deputy PM, that's a relatively new position and isn't always given the same credence).

The Chancellor is usually a very high ranking MP, one who the PM is forced, to a degree, to live with as sacking them or moving them is seen as a huge sign of weakness. That's why you end up with the Blair/Brown or Cameron/Osborne position. At the same time if a PM has enough power to change the Chancellor at whim its usually a sign of a Government with not long to live...

We all like to pile on the Treasury and blame them....and in many ways they actually deserve that blame. But it has to be said they're often the only adults in the room as well....particularly when confronted with incompetence like they see in MoD....

What the UK really needs is long term defence planning and agreed funding, with funding being allowed to roll over if unused (to avoid the dreaded in year spend). The crazy thing is that there is usually fairly broad agreement across the 2 main parties about what needs to happen....more so than in other countries where such long term funding and aims are the norm...