Actually Fed, I was talking of using a proper Meteor missile, and simply quad-packing it, not the ESSM body option. As I stated, it’s entirely possible that this could be packed into the Sylver launcher. If this is the case, it could represent an attractive alternative to the Aster 15 missile, but by the same people, so it is win-win. I am not trying to suggest that the French are going to go out and buy Mk41, what I am saying is that the Mk41 could be better for the UK. The Sylver is far from flexible, and the UK should not buy it simply for political reasons.

But it’s a bit late for the T45. AFAIK you can’t simply take out a Sylver & slot in a Mk41, as the Sylver is smaller & quite a bit lighter. T45 is committed to Sylver, unless you want to suspend construction, do some redesign, & modify the ships already under construction, meanwhile qualifying Aster 30 for Mk41 launch (that would be interesting 😀 ). Probably not the best move at this stage.

As far as I can see, the advantages of the ESSM over Aster 15 are 1) the ability to quad-pack it into Mk 41 launchers, & 2) the dedicated ESSM launchers (Mk 56?) are smaller than Sylver A43. i.e. its advantage is it’s slimmer, so needs less launcher.

The advantage of the Mk 41 over Sylver depends on which model: Mk 41 is more flexible, but not as much some seem to imagine. If you want to launch cruise missiles, you need strike length. It doesn’t make sense to use strike length for ESSM except as a secondary use. If what you really want is to launch short/medium range missiles (e.g. as self-defence weapons on a carrier), you’d fit a shorter, lighter, & less flexible launcher, or you’d be wasting a lot of space & weight.

BTW, I like the idea of quad-packing Meteor into Sylver, if it can be done.