Aster 15/30

[Waylander]

I've got a question regarding the Aster 15/30.
Does the Aster 15 has any advantages over the Aster 30 besides the length (being able to use an A30 VLS) and probably the price? As I understand it the only technical difference between the 15 and the 30 is the booster.

So what is the point in equipping for example a Daring with a mix of Aster 15s and 30s? Why is one accepting the smaller range of the Aster 15 without any benefit as a trade-off?

The combination of single packed SM-2/3/6s and quad packed ESSMs seems much more reasonable to me as the reduced rane of the ESSMs is offset by them adding allot of additional missiles.

 

[kato]

Aster 30 leaves a layer gap between its minimum range and gun close-in weapon systems, Aster 15 bridges exactly that gap. This is further exacarbated by the different ballistic flight paths in the boost phase.

French frigates don't have this problem as they've got (or at least are ffbnw) Mistral in that gap, British destroyers have this problem even more since the close-in layer isn't covered at all.

 

[StobieWan]

Aster 30 leaves a layer gap between its minimum range and gun close-in weapon systems, Aster 15 bridges exactly that gap. This is further exacarbated by the different ballistic flight paths in the boost phase.

French frigates don't have this problem as they've got (or at least are ffbnw) Mistral in that gap, British destroyers have this problem even more since the close-in layer isn't covered at all.

Well, Phalanx 1b reaches out to beyond the minimum engagement range of Aster-30 - and I suspect going forward we'll see CAMM installed on T45 - that's got a very short minimum range, rather less than Aster 30 and well within Phalanx 1b.

At least, I'd understood that Aster 30 had a minimum range of 1.6-17km?

 

[kato]

That's Aster 15, Aster 30 has 3 km absolute minimum...

 

[Waylander]

Thanks for the info. I didn't know about the difference in minimum range.

Nevertheless having a missile which covers the gap between a CIWS and the Aster 30 occupying a whole VLS per missile seems a bit wastefull...

 

[StobieWan]

Sorry - yes, just looked it up, age related memory failure I'm afraid.

For the OP:

MBDA - e-catalogue

Same dart, looks like both are boosted but the 15 has a shorter, lighter booster, which presumably shuts off and separates more quickly than in the 30's case. That makes it a relatively large and heavy system for point defence.

CAMM definitely looks a better bet for the RN in the point/local area role.

 

[1805]

The French/Spanish ships do have 76mm cannon with the potential of guided rounds for short range cover and a useful DP capability. Its interesting the USN plans return to AAA with the 57mm guns, even though one would assume they will quad pack ESSM aswell.

I have always felt it was a great mistake the RN prematurely abandoning 3" AA guns, before robust SAM capability existed. It does seem to have a real mental block on AAA, even the adoption of Phalanx seems to be without much thought/review of alternatives. 35mm Millennium guns seems to offer more potential.

I do wonder if the RN will ever quadpack CAMM in Sylver.

 

[RobWilliams]

Quad packing CAMM on a T45 is an interesting concept, one i'd like to see being worked on.

Pack out 8 silos of quad-CAMM and you've got quite a nice loadout, 32 CAMM + 40 Aster 30 I think, certainly more interesting than the 16:32 ratio of Aster 15/30 I reckon.

Considering the main role of a T45 is fleet defence, increasing its stock of Aster 30 whilst retaining a handsome point defence component can only be a good thing IMO. Although I won't be totally convinced until we see what CAMM can do.

 

[1805]

Quad packing CAMM on a T45 is an interesting concept, one i'd like to see being worked on.

Pack out 8 silos of quad-CAMM and you've got quite a nice loadout, 32 CAMM + 40 Aster 30 I think, certainly more interesting than the 16:32 ratio of Aster 15/30 I reckon.

Considering the main role of a T45 is fleet defence, increasing its stock of Aster 30 whilst retaining a handsome point defence component can only be a good thing IMO. Although I won't be totally convinced until we see what CAMM can do.

It might be better just to fit a small number of CAMM specific launchers and retain 48 Aster 30s (16/48). How much is realistically going to get through and then we have Phalanx.

 

[StobieWan]

I'm quite sure CAMM will quad pack in Sylver launchers:

http://www.mbda-systems.com/mediagallery/files/CAMM_ds.pdf

It's the same seeker as ASTER, in turn based on MICA so it's as dependent on the guiding radar - which in Daring's case is very good.


The 3inch thing - yeah - I did read about the dual 3 inch mounts on the Tigers and did feel that if they'd been fitted instead of say, SeaCat, they'd have been more effective but c'est la vie.

 

[1805]

I'm quite sure CAMM will quad pack in Sylver launchers:

http://www.mbda-systems.com/mediagallery/files/CAMM_ds.pdf

It's the same seeker as ASTER, in turn based on MICA so it's as dependent on the guiding radar - which in Daring's case is very good.


The 3inch thing - yeah - I did read about the dual 3 inch mounts on the Tigers and did feel that if they'd been fitted instead of say, SeaCat, they'd have been more effective but c'est la vie.

I also think they will be able to quad back, but it might just be cheaper/better use of space to fit the custom built CAMM launchers.

I don't think the 3" Mk 6 was very reliable, maybe a bit more than the US equivalent, but then neither was the Italian's first attempt, but they persevered, and now have an outstanding weapon. The USN has dipped its toe back in a few times and doesn't ever seem to have been so anti AAA at the RN; one would assume they have done a thorough evaluation and decided the 57mm is the way to go over 76mm. I don't know which is right, but I think there is validity in the case, hard proven in battle (ok 70 years ago) that hitting something large/travelling fast with small shells may not destroy it. So I would rather the Type 45 carried a couple of 57mm & CAMM. I am not fussed the UK dropped development of 76 guns, I doubt we would have produced better weapons than currently available, although I do wish we had adopted OTOM in the 70s. I do think moving to 76mm in the 60s might have forced the debate on a medium/heavy calibre weapon. The Italian adoption of the USN 5" & 3" calibres was certainly a sound move.