Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Air Defense Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Aster v Standard for RN
EssexBoy    7/31/2007 2:43:14 PM
The recent slag-fest between FS, Herald and Bluewings re the Aster missile started me wondering why and how the UK came to select Aster. Firstly, does anyone know why we chose to get involved in the Horizon project (which effectively meant we had to go with the Aster) rather than the much looser collaboration with the Germans/Dutch/Spanish (who all chose the Aegis/Standard combo)? Secondly, it seems odd to me that, after withdrawing from the Horizon project, the UK chose to stick with Aster even though it offered our industry very little benefit, particularly when we could have bought an existing system off the shelf from the US. Also we could have used Mk 41 launchers (manufactured under licence in the UK) which are compatible with Tomahawks instead of the Sylvers (which aren't). Anyone know why this happened? All we seem to have done is waste a lot of time and incur a lot of unnecessary expenditure. I'd guess we could have had Aegis/Standard equipped destroyers in service by the end of the 1990s ie ten years earlier than the T45s, and we could have afforded more of them. Is this yet another clasiic MoD -up? (BTW I was thinking of starting a "your nation's worst ever procurement decision" thread (I felt like a rant)- has this been done before?) Cheers Essex
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
streaky bacon       8/1/2007 3:41:32 AM
All to do with politics. UK were conned into buying the Aster when the Horizon consortium selected the French Sylver Launchers instead of the MK.41. UK ended up paying the majority of the Aster missile costs but did not receive any of the industrial benefit! All that went to France and Italy! Very good European partners! We shouldve pulled out and gone with the US Standard and wouldve received just as capable missile and more of the work share! I hate this type of pan-European "co-operation" too much political in-fighting and not enough open minded-ness! Most Euro projects are a rip off and never meet the original spec! How much has been wasted on the Eurofighter through duplication of systems and German mis-management! Uk needs to get some balls!
 
Quote    Reply

stingray1003       8/1/2007 3:57:43 AM
But the Spanish, Norwegians, Dutch all going Aegis the UK seems to have made a rather silly jump, even within european navies, Aegis seems quiet common. Add to it that Australia has also gone Aegis it seem that many key partner navies are using a different system.
 
 Not to mention the largest navy is of course Aegis.
 
 Seems a little silly, I hope the UK builds lots of them other wise it may cause issues as another navies ship won't intergrate into their fleet.
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege       8/5/2007 1:41:37 PM
UK stayed with ASTER simply because it is the best missile for evolving missile threat.
Only ASTER can protect a ship vs multiple maneuvering supersonic missiles whatever disinformation/misinformation Herald can provide .
-Aster has active autodirector and so can cope with missiles without needing an illuminator.SM2 is semiactive
-Aster is able to maneuver to 60 g and can intercept by direct hit to kill (thank to lateral trusters) supersonic missiles maneuvering at 15 g.It accelrate also far more at launch to rally quicly the target.
SM2 has not similar kinematic performance by FAR.
UK, like Italy, like Singapore ... has simply chosen the best missile even it is far most costly than a SM2 or an ESSM.
Comparing a ASTER to a SM2 is simply comparing a F4 Phantom to a F16 on maneuverability.
SM2 is a legacy missile derivated from older modeles since the SIXTIES. Aster is a brand new missile.
The only good point of SM2 / ESSM is that they are cheap ammunitions.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald1234       8/5/2007 1:47:10 PM

UK stayed with ASTER simply because it is the best missile for evolving missile threat.

Only ASTER can protect a ship vs multiple maneuvering supersonic missiles whatever disinformation/misinformation Herald can provide .

-Aster has active autodirector and so can cope with missiles without needing an illuminator.SM2 is semiactive

-Aster is able to maneuver to 60 g and can intercept by direct hit to kill (thank to lateral trusters) supersonic missiles maneuvering at 15 g.It accelrate also far more at launch to rally quicly the target.

SM2 has not similar kinematic performance by FAR.

UK, like Italy, like Singapore ... has simply chosen the best missile even it is far most costly than a SM2 or an ESSM.

Comparing a ASTER to a SM2 is simply comparing a F4 Phantom to a F16 on maneuverability.

SM2 is a legacy missile derivated from older modeles since the SIXTIES. Aster is a brand new missile.

The only good point of SM2 / ESSM is that they are cheap ammunitions.

 

FS has his assertions. I have presented my arguments with specific EVIDENCE.

You decide for yourself. I know upon what I would stake my LIFE.

Herald.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics