RN Type-4X Poll: Anti-Ballistic-Missile capability

Getting Strike MK41 or Sylver 70 and a radar capable of doing ABM, while the main focus of this class should be ASW?!
EXPENSIVE, EXPENSIVE

Forget it…

If the RN wants to start doing ABM, fit another 16 Strike MK41 on the Type 45 class and then buy a few dozens of SM-3.

1. F – Aster 45, a notional PAC-3 class (unlike SM-3ish option D) ATBM based on the Aster dart with a bigger booster and (probably) software enhancements.

2. A

3. E

EDIT: Didn’t think of the SM-2 Blk IV missile. Can’t really say, how it compares to PAC-3 SME. It’s twice as heavy (almsot like THAAD), while still operating with SARH/IR and datalink (PAC-3 employs ARH).

Block IV is a bit of an odd duck. The original Block IV is a long range anti-aircraft missile that is hamstrung by being SAR homing. (The SM-6 is a Block IV with an active seeker to be able to use the full range capability of the Block IV.) The original Block IVA was to be used for the terminal ATBM role but got cancelled due to cost increases. It had the dual mode (SAR/IR) seeker of the SM-2 Block IIIB. The “new” Block IV for the ATBM role is an ORIGINAL Block IV with some modifications (probably just software and maybe warhead/fuse). It doesn’t have the dual-mode seeker of the cancelled Block IVA. It has a LOT more range than a PAC-3 MSE (which will only be about 18 miles even in the MSE version) but it probably won’t have the manueverability of a PAC-3. And if China ever gets those ballistic antiship missiles figured out you’d want PAC-3 IMO.

There really is a plethora of missiles you could use in the Mk41. You could use SM-3 Block I or IA, Block II or IIA (with MKV or not, with a large KV or the smaller, faster, one) for the anti- ATBM/ICBM/satellite role. SM-6 for long range anti-air and medium range ATBM (not ICBM or satellite). SM-2 IIIB (the new ones with vectoring thrust) or the top stage of SM-6 (also with vectoring thrust?) for medium range anti-air. ESSM for killing air-breathing antiship missiles. (PAC-3 MSE could do that too but it’s MUCH more expensive so you won’t have a ton of them- save them for the ballistic missiles.) And PAC-3 MSE for close in ATBM. THAAD would probably be better for medium range ATBM (and it’s Block II version will supposedly have ABM capability) but you’d still need SM-6 for anti-air.

I think that’s about it. 😮

This what you’re looking for? 😉
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/mfc/PAC-3_Product-Card.pdf

Cool thing about these is they could be quad-packed like ESSM.

(THAAD has also been kicked around in the past. It’s shorter than SM-3 and would easily fit in a Mk41 VLS).

Yip! Confirm I have my problem with the SM/PAC dualism/tribalism, and have hoped SM would get a dedicated terminal phase interceptor, but — the toy in your link is just fine. Should become part of the missile mix of the USN asap.

Since we are talking RN here, I don’t think that putting a strategic system like orbital-killer SM-3 onto their ships is a needed/realistic capability. Would never use it without the U.S. anyway. Terminal phase intercept on the other hand is useful and probably needed.

EDIT: Didn’t think of the SM-2 Blk IV missile. Can’t really say, how it compares to PAC-3 SME. It’s twice as heavy (almsot like THAAD), while still operating with SARH/IR and datalink (PAC-3 employs ARH). We didn’t vote on the primary anti-air missile yet? And the radar and bands? Guess I’l stick with PAC-3 SME nevertheless.

EDIT II: Of course it wouldn’t be practical to deploy two different missile families. SM-3 as exospheric mid-course interceptor, SM-2 Blk IV as (quite long ranged, how long??? what is the cross-shot capability???) endospheric terminal-phase interceptor (like THAAD), and SM-6 with and without booster against the usual aerial targets. But then we are talking escorts here (do we still?), and the need for an escort to have area-terminal defence capability (SM-2 Blk IV) vs more point-terminal defence capability (PAC-3 SME) is – what? THAAD lower limit is said to be 40km, SM-2 Blk IV said to be 70km, PAC-2 SME doesn’t have one (at least it’s not seeker limited, I guess) and its range of 30km (?) should be sufficient for convoy operations. I still stick with PAC-3 SME.

Note @ quad-packing: Yes, maybe. But they – at least the Army during ops tests – usually fired them in pairs, so divide by two.

Since we are primarily talking about an escorts with certain secondary capabilities here, and not a strategic platform, I assume a terminal phase interceptor, not a SM-3 type mid-course interceptor. Two things to think about before the vote: 1 – the question of radar compatability (esp for THAAD); 2 – the issue of VLS cell length (for THAAD); 3 – the lack of any “European” solution (as for very strange reasons Aster has only 18cm diameter).

1 – “F”, a navalized PAC-3 MSE (baseline MEADS missile)
2 – “B”, but only if the radar question can be solved, otherwise delete
No other options.

This what you’re looking for? 😉
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/mfc/PAC-3_Product-Card.pdf

Cool thing about these is they could be quad-packed like ESSM.

(THAAD has also been kicked around in the past. It’s shorter than SM-3 and would easily fit in a Mk41 VLS).

Future evolution of the ASTER…

d is the only one which is plausible unless you can cram any of the others into a A70 launcher

a
d
😎

a using a mk41

Hmmm,

I would vote for A only, as I have previously selected other Mk-41 LS compatible weaponry and the others are not compatible.

Unicorn

Since we are primarily talking about an escorts with certain secondary capabilities here, and not a strategic platform, I assume a terminal phase interceptor, not a SM-3 type mid-course interceptor. Two things to think about before the vote: 1 – the question of radar compatability (esp for THAAD); 2 – the issue of VLS cell length (for THAAD); 3 – the lack of any “European” solution (as for very strange reasons Aster has only 18cm diameter).

1 – “F”, a navalized PAC-3 MSE (baseline MEADS missile)
2 – “B”, but only if the radar question can be solved, otherwise delete
No other options.

1:A
2:A
3:A 😉

D would be great if we could integrate it onto the T45’s and leave more room on the T-4X, but lacking that, go with the proven winner.

Matt

My vote is:

D, C, A