The final representative of a program that dates back to the Aster 15 and the 90s, nothing distinguishes the Aster B1NT launched today from the B1 in service with the Army's SAMP/T Mamba batteries.
However, it was a completely new missile that was launched for the first time, this October 8, at the DGA Landes test site, in Biscarrosse in the presence of the Minister of Defense, Sébastien Lecornu, and the General Delegate for Armaments, Emmanuel Chiva, as well as a group of specialized journalists. Needless to say, the pressure was at its peak for the teams of the missile manufacturer MBDA, designer of the missile, a few minutes before the launch.
Fortunately, this first shot against a target drone that was flying at high subsonic speed at an altitude of 6000 meters and 20 km away went perfectly, and resulted in a direct hit on the target, causing its complete destruction. Several more will be needed to qualify the Aster 30 B1NT in order to equip, first, the new SAMP/T NG systems ordered by the French and Italian armies, then the FDI and PPA frigates of their two navies.
This process is something that MBDA missile manufacturer knows well, having designed and developed, with the Eurosam joint venture formed by MBDA and Thales, this family of exceptional anti-aircraft missiles, which have continued to demonstrate exceptional operational qualities since they entered service 24 years ago.
In this section:
It all started with a program to replace the French and German MIM-23 Hawks
The origins of the Aster missile date back to the early 80s, when Paris and Bonn launched a preliminary study with a view to developing a European replacement for the MIM-23 Hawk systems in service with the Army and the Bundeswehr.
The programme quickly attracted the attention of other European countries, including Italy, which also needed to replace its Hawk and Nike Hercuie, and the United Kingdom, to replace its Bloodhound medium- and long-range surface-to-air missiles.
In addition, the need to replace the Masurca, SM1-MR, Seaslug and SeaDart in service on board the frigates and destroyers of the four navies, was invited into the reflection. Quickly, however, Germany distanced itself from this European program, to turn to American systems, Patriot for the land forces, and SM-2 for its frigates.
On the British side, the end of the Soviet threat simply led to the withdrawal of the BloodHounds in 1991, with no plans to replace them, the British Army believing it could be satisfied with its new short-range Rapier systems in the face of the observed reality of the threat.
In fact, when the Memorandum of Understanding was signed in 1989, confirming the launch of the design of the Aster missile, only France and Italy remained in the running, even if London continued to be interested in the naval version.
2000: The Aster 15 to protect the French Navy's Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier
Although, from the beginning of the work, two versions of the missile were envisaged, the first with a long range, beyond 100 km, the other to replace the short-range self-defense systems Crotale Naval and Aspide, it was this last version that was developed as a priority, within the framework of the SAAM system, for Système Anti-air missile. It was to arm, as a priority, the new French nuclear aircraft carrier, the Charles de Gaulle which would enter service in 2000.
There are 75% of this article left to read, Subscribe to access it!
The Classic subscriptions provide access to
articles in their full version, and without advertising,
from €1,99. Subscriptions Premium also allow access to archives (articles over two years old)
"capable of engaging, theoretically, up to 200 targets"
I believe there might be an error in this description. If I understand correctly, Aster missiles used in PAAMS have active radar seekers, so EMPAR/SAMPSON radars only need to provide midcourse updates. In contrast, AEGIS systems need SPG-62 radars for target illumination.
From what I've read, DDG-51 can 'simultaneously guide' around 12 missiles (depending on the number of SPG-62 radars), CG-49 can guide about 16, and EMPAR can guide 16 as well. While their guidance methods differ, PAAMS seems to have an advantage since Aster uses active radar seekers, whereas SM-2 uses semi-active radar homing. Of course, I could be wrong about some details, so please feel free to correct me.
This is the pursuit capacity of the radar, not the guidance capacity. In this domain, another advantage of the Aster /PAAMS system, is the design of the SYlver VLS. It can fire missile at a fire higher rate, due to the heat exhaust design of the tube, which enable it to launch one missile per second, instead of one missile each 3 to 4 seconds, for MK41.
Note that SM-2 Block IIIc will have a terminal active homing system, but the missile is not yet in service.
Thank you for helping to clarify this.
If I’m understanding the context correctly, when you mentioned ‘« simultanée allant jusqu’à 16 cibles »’, you were likely referring to the ship’s ability to engage 16 targets simultaneously, while the later reference to AEGIS was about its radar tracking capability of 200 targets.
Would you mind confirming if my interpretation is accurate?
Quite, AEGIS SPY-1 can track 2000 targets simultaneously, while EMPAR can track only 50. But EMPAR can direct 16 ASTER simultaneously, while the 3 SPG-62 of the Burke have to share their time to direct several SM-2 at the same times. The number of SM-2 in flight simultaneously depends on very much of the geometry of the attack. Plus, very often, USN launches two SM-2 by target, which require only one SPG-62 beam. SPG-62 can direct several SM-2 against several targets at the same time, sharing their guiding time buy missile. But it creates limits for the final guidance. Generally speaking, you can admit that a SPG can guide missiles only to 3 to 4 targets simultaneously, meaning 9 to 12 targets engaged at once.
This article restores a little confidence in our industry and the performance of our equipment and engineers, for once it is welcome.
On the other hand, how do we explain the incontestable supremacy of the American Patriots in particular, who do not seem to weaken to the point of influencing all European defense policy and outdoing European companies like MBDA? Influence of the UAE in NATO, influence on Germany, etc.
It's disheartening to see our performance and the fact that we are cornered in the European Skyshield program. It's as if real performance is not recognized, only politics counts.
The homogeneity of air defense within NATO has a lot to do with it. We have also seen that confidence in the replenishment of missiles is decisive. However, in this area, it is true that Raytheon and LM have much greater industrial capacities than MBDA. Finally, for a long time, the Patriot benefited from a "combat proof" label that the SAMP/T did not have, and from a more powerful, but sectoral, radar compared to the Arabel.
Do we have any idea of the industrial production capacity of ASTER and MAMBA?
Wouldn't it be commercially beneficial to build up stock to reassure potential customers?
Are these materials part of the group purchasing program set up by France to facilitate access for customers who do not need large volumes?