Because in low-threat environments, the missiles on the escorts as well as the 3 phalanx systems to protect the task-force from UAVs and subsonic anti-ship missiles is just fine.”. Yeah you’re right, it’s metaphors that never get fired from carriers! So in principle it should make it easier to coordinate both carrier aircraft operations with air defence. mounts dropping only for your specific covenant is a poor design choice. There are things that I would want from it that it doesn’t have, believe me, but the more I look at it in comparison to other vessels of the same type the more I think it’s unfairly treated. “One thing is vital though, is that they are regularly updated and developed” Well, yeah, totally agree with that. During tests in 2009, it successfully destroyed incoming mortar rounds. I don’t think even you know what you’re talking about. T42 did help to provide additional to resource to the submarine screen. No idea what the practicalities are though! The helicopter is great at ferrying personnel, but when it comes to vehicles etc, it must be done by landing craft. That means that our launch platforms don’t have to be completely stealthy prior to launch. An attack of even a relatively small number of subsonic anti-ship missiles (2-4 say) would be a problem for any ship (especially support ships with no missiles), let alone supersonic or faster missiles. “Plus I’m sure there are already plenty of studies and implementation plans for things like SeaRAM to be acquired and fitted at short notice.”. Gavin, following comments are not aimed at you – just continuing the conversation. The argument that the Type 45s will protect them fails to consider the Carriers escorts being sunk, the Type 45 has serious deficiencies in ASuW and ASW that can and will be exploited. Other considerations with launching missiles is to make sure there’s no air traffic nearby, checking that the targeting systems for the missiles don’t interfere with the systems on board the carrier (RF signals in particular drop off with distance, so something that would be fine mounted on a T45 several hundred metres away may cause problems only 50 m from another antenna) and considering what other countermeasures your carrier is putting out. Unfortunately, anyone on this list who has not been verified should be viewed with skepticism. Once confirmed as hostile, the contact is passed to the tracking radar which locks on at about 8 km range. Fortunately in time of need it’s possible to rectify via a UOR, but obviously the lesson’s and tests from a proper weapons integration will not be in place which could compromise effectiveness. Also the Iver Huitfeldts were constructed in blocks in Estonia and Lithuania and assembled in Denmark. Press J to jump to the feed. All told, I don’t think that the T45 is any more a one trick pony than the Horizon class, and only a bit less broadly capable than a Burke because it lacks land attack options. But the AW609s would obviously need to modified to survive out at sea. There was a version that wasn’t bought by any country in late 80’s that included the possibility of start firing APFSDS when the enemy missile entered the last 1-1,5km. The more layers of defence you have the better and the more missiles and ammo you have the better. What if a saturation attack occurs and T45 and T23 are out? If you had seen a missile or three launched you would know that. 57mm over the bows at just over 4 rps; lighter 40mm of course by hanger but totalling 2 x 5rps over the stern. That’s utterly insane. WoW Classic Hotfixes -- Updated December 17, Analysis of Shadowlands DPS After Week 2 of Castle Nathria - Mythic Opening and Heroic Clears, Use Raidbots to Find Your Best DPS Upgrade in the Great Vault in Shadowlands, Mythic Castle Nathria Race to World First Livestreams and Raid Coverage, De Other Side Mythic+ Timer Increased to 41 Minutes in Shadowlands, Snowy Owl Battle Pet Now Spawned for Winter, Shadowlands Week 5 - Return Lost Souls for 5 More Redeemed Souls and Soulkeeper Upgrade at Renown 15, Covenant Renown Rewards Dec 22nd - Renown 15 Unlocks Soulbind Node, Legendary Power, Soulkeeper Upgrade, Instructor's Divine Bell On Use Mastery Trinket Now Up on NA Servers, Coldheart Interstitia and Mort'regar Wings Available in Torghast This Week, Double Potency Conduits from Dreamweaver Soulbind Unlock on December 22nd. Williams is supplying their knowledge of lightweight flywheels used in energy storage systems. Does my covenant matter in terms of what mounts can drop? – 50 cal: The Type 23s and Type 45s have 7.62mm GPMGs, not 50 cals. They should carry them as well as Aster 30 Block 2 BMD when they’re ready. That said, I’ve read that HVPs can be fired from existing main naval guns (at about Mach 3). They’ve got enough money to look after their own people. – Look into the feasibility of converting commercial off-the-shelf vessels into remote-controlled arsenal ships that would carry any or all of the following: Aster 15, Aster 30, Aster 30 Block 1NT, CAMM, CAMM-ER. You can see them pretty well in this slow-mo footage of the firing trials. And on the topic of range, I’d like to see an updated version of TLAM with far greater range, ideally longer ranged than the Chinese DF-26 (4,000km range). Once you’ve filled some of those VLS with TLAM, some with ASROC, then you actually have a pretty comparable anti-air/anti-missile loadout with a T45. What I’m proposing is significantly upgrading our ships to make them far more survivable against subs, torpedoes dropped by aircraft and anti-ship missiles. I expect I may need to justify that, and I’m happy to if you’re interested; it just diverts away from the specific discussion we’re having here into more general stuff. In my view, two out of three onion layers as used by any of the world’s best air defence vessels is sufficient for a vessel that isn’t primarily tasked with air defence. “I appreciate your concern about vessels being under-protected”. Every different weapon costs money to integrate, to maintain and to train on, on top of the acquisition costs. It’s mind-boggling. (5 … Although Raytheon manufactures the system in the US, the Royal Navy’s mounts are serviced and upgraded under a rolling contract with Babcock at their facilities in Devonport Dockyard. “and maybe by something like containerised CAMM-ER as a bolt-on for the RFAs in high threat environments.”. I can’t imagine it would be hard to modify IRIS-T so that it could shoot down anti-ship missiles. Remember that this is a warship, the UK made the mistake of overfocussing on ASW throughout the 1970s and then got a beating in 1982 by the Argentine Air Force. I just don’t get it. Yet again I’d like tests to be carried out to establish what they can and can’t take out speed-wise. I’m British and completely fail to understand the logic (or lack thereof) of building ships that cost over £3 billion each and then sticking on 3 Phalanx and calling it a day. The Andrea Doria Class (Type 45s Italian Cousin) with 3x 76mm Strales is a mean mother 😁 also with 48 Aster Missiles…all she needs is an AESA Radar (which is in her refit future) and gl trying to kill her with Aircraft, Missiles or Ship to ship gunnery (3x 120Rpm pew pew dakka dakka). IR homing on a missile doing Mach 5+ is also an issue . For something like a T26 which only has one primary radar. Would be much cheaper than using Asters or CAMMs. Getting Block 1NT is important to deal with ballistic anti-ship missiles, but the article refers to Aster 30 Block 1 (not 1NT). In some ways, I feel that we should try for commonality as boradly as possible across the armed forces, so I see some argument for the CTAS40 in a marinised mount! no detonation. That’s the main reason I suggested ADL. Other ships were hit during low-level bomb attack and the lack of close-in defensive capability was badly exposed. Likewise, if we pick up one of the models that has a land attack mode too, then we expand our surface fleet capability massively. Chinese ships can fire YJ-18 anti-ship missiles. I’m not interested in budget contraints, real or alleged. I also agree that there is No point in having StringRay launched from tubes. ), TLAMs and then quad-pack CAMMs in the remaining cells. – No way of refuelling the F-35s. In the NPCs category. This means the target must be continuously tracked and that the system can only attack targets one after another, rather than simultaneously. The primary ASW weapon on the T42 was the helicopter, the torpedo tubes with short range Mk46/Stingray were never used and as far as I’m aware have never been used on any type in anger. The system even took out 152mm shells fired from an artillery pierce hidden in a garage nearby in Ishaqi to the North. Yeah, all RN and RFA support ships could do with protection from torpedoes. “because just destroying control surfaces might not be sufficient against such targets as it is against subsonic cruise missiles and aircraft.”. I have also had this far out idea of removing the 4.5″ guns from T23/45 and fitting one each on the Bay, Albion class and future Littoral Strike Ship so they can provide an organic naval gunfire support. It’s propulsion was nearly identical. I’d assume it’s capable of blinding or burning out the sensors in anti-ship missiles and it can take out UAVs. Ideally they’d be deck penetrating with fast auto-reloaders, which would be essential in the event of a saturation attack of anti-ship missiles. I’d be happy with deck mounted systems, would almost prefer them in fact because they’d be easier to spread across the fleet considering the differing types and quantities of VLS we have in service currently. And maybe this would give commercial companies the incentive to properly defend their ships against pirates and nation states instead of complacently expecting navies to come to their rescue every time: https://www.marineinsight.com/marine-piracy-marine/18-anti-piracy-weapons-for-ships-to-fight-pirates/ Probably the most effective weapon (that isn’t on that list) is microwave weapons since they’d leave boats dead in the water. It would be nice to have, but it doesn’t even cover all the major English cities and doesn’t even go to Wales or Scotland. – Main gun: It would be a very lucky hit if one could take out an anti-ship missile. Yes same missiles. T23/T26 has a roughly comparable defence to the various threats as a US Nimitz battle group all things considered (1 No. Williams are very good at this tech and have been contracted by Rolls Royce with the Tempest project. It is hardly the Linus blanket it has made out to be by many – especially by the Admiralty. I think it might be fairer to say that both the Americans and French have missiles fitted to their carriers; they may well have test fired them, but not sure whether there are any operational consequences for doing so. It is all about penny pinching nothing more. The Type 45s don’t even carry Aster 30 Block 1NT to take out ballistic anti-ship missiles, which makes no sense for air defence ships. Other than ammunition lockers, the impact on the ship is minimal. And if it was stealthy that wouldn’t be a bad thing either. Reaching the levels of 20, 40, 60 and 70 provide access to a new type or speed of mount in World of Warcraft (WoW). A Hot spot deck STOVL carrier with F-35Bs close by, is the last place you would put RAM! Blackrock Depths : Bosses location Blackrock Depths is very non-linear: there's many ways to go through, and because of the sheer size, you'll probably want to pick and choose the encounters rather than running the whole thing in one sitting.. In some respects it depends on what the MoD do with the retired T23s. I’m pretty confident CAMM can be quad packed in Aster too. Everything that could be cut was cut for T45 to get Sea Viper to sea. Therefore any NATO ship can add and be part of a coordinated defence of a NATO group. – Develop far longer ranged ship-launched anti-air missiles to keep enemy aircraft at arm’s length so they can’t get into range to fire anti-ship missiles in the first place (there are several current anti-ship missiles that can be fired by aircraft beyond the range of Aster 30). And if/when we build our next carriers, build them with cats & traps. With quad-packed CAMMs I’m not sure Aster 15s are needed. Considering the article if a missile has reached Phalanx then EW didnt work. I don’t know if CAMM-ER can be quad-packed in Mk41 cells, but if it can all the better. Hinzugefügt in World of Warcraft: Classic. Not having AEW aircraft on our carriers put us at a huge disadvantage and not being able to launch supersonic fighters to intercept Argentinian jets no doubt cost us ships and lives too. Also it would make sense to look into non-frangible covers. If they are sold off great, if they are scrapped, then parts of the ship’s weapons system should be reutilised and fitted to the Bays and Albions. These suites should be easy to upgrade and be upgraded regularly. So much for never having to fire a simile from a carrier! Dragonfire also exists already. The Americans tried and failed to get anti-torpedo torpedoes working. Given that SeaCeptor is a soft launch system and combined with the QE class large magazines it may be possible to reload the launchers whilst at sea. “France and Italy have an ASROC-style ASW torpedo based upon their MU90- I’m willing to bet we could modify it for Stingray.” I don’t really see the point. Qinetiq have shown on some Dragonfire fire brochures that Williams are involved, so it’s a very good guess that they are using some of their F1 know how on the project as well. It’s not often mentioned, but EW is a very effective layer of defence; the engagements between USS Mason and the Yemenis would suggest that a larger number of the missiles either failed or were taken out by EW than were shot down by missiles. But the two mission sets are in many ways mutually exclusive for the reasons I’ve previously mentioned, so not sure why it makes any sense in fitting weaponry or equipment for it. (Sept 2019). I think you’re being too kind/diplomatic about our carriers. Illustrious was rushed into service to provide reinforcements for the Falklands War. Looked at the French 100mm and arrived at 17.5kg (13.5 projectile @ 1.3rps), so your point has merit, evidently. Interesting. Phalanx was first tested at sea by Illustrious on 20th June and again on 26th June, destroying the Rushton target with the first burst of fire. Phalanx is likely to be lethal against small, unprotected boats, USVs and UAVs, only a large ‘swarm’ attack could overwhelm it. Phalanx doesn’t carry enough rounds and only has an effective range of 1.5km. 2.1m members in the wow community. I would far rather we standardise one way or another though. Even their older ships could overwhelm our Type 45s and Type 26s with saturation attacks of even subsonic anti-ship missiles. They have a slow rate of fire though compared to CIWSes like the Oerlikon Millennium Gun or the Thales RAPIDSeaGuardian. A missile at Mach 5 could cover that distance in under 1 second. They also need to be FFBNW other weapons that could be fitted quickly if war breaks out (e.g. Even the USAF, which could hardly be called a poor air force, has said that the F-35 is too expensive to fly and maintain: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/21/magazine/f35-joint-strike-fighter-program.html “An important measure of the cost, sustainability and value of the new jet is its total operating cost. The French and Italians got that with Horizon. A missile travelling at Mach 1 could cover that distance in just over 4 seconds. Well that would be a massive improvement over the current state of affairs, but the base level imo should also contain Scutter to complement SSTD and microwave weapons to complement an EW suite and the guns. We could also modify a couple of Harriers to create dedicated EW aircraft to give us Growler-like capability which would make the F-35s and Harriers more survivable against enemy aircraft. And plenty of them. That’s a lot of content, but what I will say is this: I don’t necessarily disagree with the arguments you make regarding the cost of these things and government’s attitude towards debts and paying for them. Apart from the loading issues with the Sea RA, did the trial on HMS York show any other issues when compared to Phalanx? “So yes, whatever is chosen will have a negative effect on RCS. “To me, that would imply that our protections are in fact rather good as they currently stand.”. The Arleigh Burke that you mentioned has a 96-cell Mk41 VLS which a Type 45 would really benefit from having. That’s abysmal. “but has the problem that VLS fired missiles do in that it’s a through-deck mount, meaning placement is limited.”. While the Navy is not certain whether the first incoming missile was intercepted or it just fell into the sea, officials claim Mason successfully intercepted the second missile at a distance of about 8 miles” (12 Oct attack)    – “On 15 October 2016, Mason was targeted in a third attack by five anti-ship cruise missiles while operating in the Red Sea north of the Bab el-Mandeb strait. To have a laser based CIWS system that can not only take out small UAVs, anti-ship missiles and an aircraft that strayed too close, is going to take a lot of power necessary to generate at least 50kw required by a laser that can destroy a target within a radius of 10km on a clear day. If we’re not going to build ships properly, then why build them at all, especially considering how few of them we have and how long it would take to replace them if they’re sunk. I only suggested putting Sea Ceptor on the carriers for point defence, not a second missile-based system. With regards to alternate CIWS systems, a 76mm Melara is stretching the definition a bit, but has the problem that VLS fired missiles do in that it’s a through-deck mount, meaning placement is limited. They’re too underarmed and under-defended to be used anywhere else or to form part of a carrier group despite their size. Why is Tahonta on this list? (And also fit drop tanks to the F-35s to extend range.). I would say that they should be changed fleet wide though, and ideally no tbe deck penetrating, so that they can be easily switched between vessels. We should buy Ospreys for refuelling imo. As for a Type 23 or Type 45 using missiles to take out UAVs that’s a very expensive way to take them out. The purpose of the amphibious ships of the Bay and Albion class is get marines/army ashore or to recover them. The 4.5″ is still a useful weapon and although it hasn’t the range of the 5″ that the T26 is getting, it’s still enough to give anyone a bad day if they’re the target. All 3 cannons firing 3P programmable ammunition will be invaluable. This would be vital in the event of a saturation attack, especially considering how expensive anti-air missiles are and how few of them a ship can carry. I believe that the RN needs to have some IR guided missiles too like MICA which MBDA produce and use Sylver launchers too…perfect to have a few on the Type 45. which means that if space and weight can be found the Phalanx is an excellent candidate for ‘fitted for but not with’. When assessing the effectiveness of Phalanx, it should be seen as one part of a layered defence system. This has a proven ballistic missile tracking capability greater than 2000km. Its a part of the anti-countermeasure response. “thanks to frequent updates which is yet another benefit of it being non-deck-penetrating (which means it will be better maintained too).”. Aster 30 Block 1NT is designed to take out ballistic anti-ship missiles but the Type 45s don’t carry it. Maybe netting could be used to prevent the frangible cap fragments from getting onto the flight deck? Also, those ASROC are pointless, they’re a waste of space for a scenario that’ll probably never happen. Precious few I’d say. For the money, it’s hard to come up with something better (35mm is a better CIWS but more expensive, 40mm better general purpose & cheaper). And stopping things like foreign aid will kill people more surely than an under-defended carrier force in peace time. This is double the effective range of the Phalanx’s 20mm. The Navy Times reported the Mason fired a radar decoy, an infrared decoy, and several SM-2 Standard missiles in response, either neutralizing or intercepting four of the five incoming missiles. But you are simply confusing the excellent AAW system with the ship. (I write this as a civilian with no military service, but followed the war avidly in the news at the time, and I had no idea that incident happened). “Sea Viper is better than the AAW systems in those ships by a fair margin, but T45 isn’t as complete a package.”. Ideally though, all CIWSes and other gun-based defences for dealing with anti-ship missiles would be deck penetrating with fast auto-reloaders. T42 carried 2050 sonar just like T22. – Develop a ship-launched anti-ship missile that is far longer ranged than any existing ship-launched anti-ship missile. Fixing the crammed commuter services at peak times would be far more important I’d have thought as well as making the trains run on time as well as reliably (so no more bus replacement services). What the RN wanted for T45 was an all round escort with a specialised AAW fit out. Hey there lads and gals, Maybe that's just me, but holy moly, the fact that we don't have a healer troop or companion is just bonkers. – Only 3 Phalanx. I think the key difference is that they are tied to, and require, the ships sensors and fire control system – in other words are tied to plan A – whereas Phalanx is a closed loop back up system, giving you a plan B so that if a HARM/ALAM/Kh58 type of missile has just ripped your Artisan off it’s mounting then you are still a mission kill, but Phalanx means you have a fighting chance of living to fight another day, whereas the 57 and I think even the 40 are just as dead as the Artisan, which mens that with the next salvo so are you. That’s because ALL current surface ships are woefully under-defended. Why, if your missiles are at the stern, would you angle them forward? There are better gun-based defences than Phalanx. The Type 26 frigates will be stretched to protect 2 carriers plus any RFA ships from Sibs as well as protecting the Type 45, the Type 31 has yet to to have steel cut. The RN selected to go for the Phalanx 1B update instead. F-35s are meant to be first-day-of-war aircraft to perform SEAD/DEAD missions but I can’t see them surviving in hostile airspace with a sophisticated IADS and faster, more numerous enemy fighters with IRST and plenty of air-to-air missiles. But there are other anti-torpedo torpedoes available like SeaSpider, MU90 Hard Kill, SSTD CAT and TORBUSTER. The video of land based Phalanx intercepting incoming Iranian missiles is awe inspiring. It would also make sense for us to build more Astutes since they provide a very good layer of defence against enemy subs and ships (and fit them with Scutter). So there will literally never be a point where it should be launching a missile and blowing debris all over it’s flight deck. By replacing the GaAs components with GaN ones, the radars range will be increased, but more importantly stealthier targets become easier to discriminate from background clutter. These non-deck penetrating mounts can deliver 5 rounds per second out to about 12.5km and are designed to respond rapidly at a wide range of elevations. Chris Carlson told USNI News on Monday the damage on Swift appears to be from the warhead used in a Chinese-built C-802 anti-ship missile (NATO reporting name CSS-N-8 Saccade). Then … Imo all RN and RFA support ships should have at the very least: Containerised CAMM-ER is definitely a good idea, although ideally these ships would have CAMM-ER on board at all times since you never know when a support ship might be sent to a high-threat environment. It’s not always been this way, it’s just a money-saving exercise, nothing to do with sound tactics. Main naval guns firing HVPs at Mach 3 and at a range of over 80km (50 miles) (from what I’ve read) would provide another very useful layer of defence against anti-ship missiles. ), but I think your concern of being “woefully” under-protected can be set to rest. Sea Viper is the RN name for the Aster system that are in Horizon class. I hope this is a case of us not wanting to let the enemy know Aster 30’s true capabilities and not a case of Aster 30 being sub-standard. Phalanx has an atrocious effective range, just 1.5km. How is having access to more ammo not a good thing? Or RBS-15s for that matter. I don’t disagree, the more Merlins we have for ASW the better. By delivering heavier shells further away from the ship, in the CIWS role, the Mk 4 is superior and more flexible than Phalanx in some ways, able to use a variety of specialised munitions, depending on the target.  (Photo: BAE Systems). There is no technical reason QE could not be fitted with Sea Ceptor. Despite the claimed ability against such targets, 3P seems best suited to peppering slow moving targets at range. Why would coming over the bow reduce the rpm? – Fit the Type 23s and Type 45s with Mk41 VLS for quad-packed CAMMs and (once they’re developed) long ranged anti-air missiles, anti-ship missiles and anti-sub missiles. So you build a world beating carrier and you spend billions doing so but you can’t manage the few million to defend it properly. If they wanted to fit LRASM, they could. 25 AHEAD rounds detonating in very quick succession to each other would throw out 3,800 tungsten projectiles. Another layer of defence worth looking into is anti-torpedo torpedoes: SeaSpider, MU90 Hard Kill, SSTD CAT, TORBUSTER. As I said, we’re 2 trillion in debit. No land attack missiles, and a smaller main gun. “but what with budgets the way they are, we’re lucky to get the ships at all.”. There is no hard-kill anti torpedo system in service that could be considered an equivalent to SeaCeptor for removal to make your analogy applicable. silo, but SAMPSON is more capable than EMPAR (and needs better supporting software). I’ve been wondering what launcher Perseus will use for some time now. Well I think using them for AEW and refuelling is a no-brainer. For RFA ships Phalanx is still very viable as a result of the RFA lack of appropriate Radar (Fire control, surveillance etc). Since Aster 15 and CAMM are so similar in terms of speed and range, I’d remove some of the Aster 15s and quad-pack CAMMs in their place. Warrior is the best tank in WoW Classic, being the only class that receives tanking bonuses from their set items. And then we’d magically find the money to upgrade the ships like we magically found the money to bail out the banks. Well as I said, if a new system is placed on a ship at short notice, then there are going to be teething problems and the crew won’t have time to familiarise themselves with the system. But the T45s will be protecting the carrier and the T26 will be searching for subs. Have they all got it wrong? Kolink Phalanx Review. A T23 with a tail can do everything a T23 can do, so how it is less GP? As far as ADL goes, my understanding is that it’s basically a Mk41 cell on its side, so that it’s modular and doesn’t have to penetrate into the ship? The Germans and Dutch with the Sachsen-class frigate De Zeven Provinciën-class frigate. Neither the NSM, JSM, LRASM, nor the RBS-15 will fit internally on an F-35B, although I did read somewhere that Konnesberg may be working on that. This mount … “partly because the RN prefers to separate out their capabilities and I defer to their experience on the operational side”. If only they would swap out the 57mm on the T31 for basically anything, 76mm or better. They’d potentially have long endurance and presumably wouldn’t be susceptible to threats like IDAS missiles (or equivalent). Ships pitch and roll and even yaw. “As far as ASMs go, you’re right that LRASM is quite something, but I think it’s too close to whatever FC/ASW is going to come up with” Well there’s no reason why we couldn’t buy some LRASMs now and complement them with Perseus missiles when they’re ready. I’d like all our RN and RFA ships to be fitted with it, as well as all new ships. If you are playing as any race other than an orc, you will also need to have Exalted reputation with Orgrimmar. And I’d like to see IRIS-T fitted to the F-35s because they’re able to shoot down air-to-air missiles (and SAMs). And these CIWSes could be complemented by other gun-based systems like the Bofors 40mm Mk4 or the OTO Melara 76mm. You need to reach level 26 to be able to use it.. So to future fit ExLS to launch CAMM-ER on T45. Australia recently ordered 12 Leonardo Oto Marlin 40mm systems for its under construction 80m OPV’s. I’m sure if the people who made these decisions had sons or daughters serving in the navy they’d think about these things differently rather than as just numbers in a spreadsheet. Of course the only way to know which system works best against anti-ship missiles is to test them all against a variety of missiles: Improved Phalanx, Oerlikon Millennium Gun, Thales RAPIDSeaGuardian, OTO Melara 76mm, Bofors 40mm Mk4, Bofors 57mm Mk110, HVPs fired from main naval guns. In a longer run war, missiles are slow to replace. As missile technology evolved, Raytheon has developed the Phalanx System in response. Do Type 45s currently carry Aster 30 Block 1 as well as Block 0 do you know? And a temporal discombobulator! We guarantee cheap price with safe and instant delivery for all kind of WoW Mounts. Any chance of a follow-up comparing and contrasting Phalanx with the BAE Bofors 40 Mk 4 as they will enter service with the T31? ☺️. (RFA Tidespring, April 2020), The Mark 244 Mod 0 Armour-Piercing Discarding Sabot (APDS) 20mm round.