Interesting & obscure RAN discussions (not related to current capabilities)

[Todjaeger]

Yes, the missile would need one directional change following its vertical launch.
It was mentioned previously but i guess easily missed.
I suggest that that requirement is not overly burdonsome even in a modern basic missile.
Cheap does not exclusively imply useless.
Its cheap as it has no terminal guidance, it is pointed and flies and explodes.
It is effective cos its directed to a intercept by the combat system.
You wouldnt necessarily need traditional ww2 style flak barrage (tho mutiple staggered rounds would be plausible) because the combat system gives you Aegis quality intercept bearings.

At a minimum, that "one directional change" would be multi-dimensional. Further, as mentioned before, the missile would also be impacted by wind direction and velocity. This in turn means that either the missile would need a component which provides guidance to keep the missile on the correct course, or the missile will drift rendering any target plotting calculations provided at the time of launch useless.

In order for this cheap missile to be effective as proposed, not only would the launching vessel or system need to detect and track the hypothetical aerial target, it would then need to accurately calculate the location xx where the target would be at a given future moment nn in time. The targeting/tracking system would then need to set the flight profile and fuze of the "unguided" missile so that the missile is at time nn, close enough to location xx, so that the detonation of the missile warhead would effect the target. Given the outside forces which could and would influence the flight of a missile, I just do not see that as a workable solution.

Also, given the history of naval air defence missile development, with semi-active radar homing missile development dating back to the 1950's with the RIM-2 Terrier, SARH and beam-riding for the RIM-8 Talos, and beam-riding for the Seaslug missile, I would have expected that unguided missile or rocket ordnance for air defence would have already been looked at and discarded as unfeasible. Heck, even the short-ranged Seacat air defence missile, with a command line of sight guidance system was more than a simple point and shoot missile system.

 

[Wombat000]

Yes, there would be something like a internal gyroscope or inertial compass system.
like every other modern missile it would have initial electronic guidance input.
its cheap but it’s not a broomstick.

how many missiles today have a post launch directional system?
what Percentage of the missile cost is that facility?

this is a cheap missile concept, the cost of directing post launch flight, once, is akin to getting electric windows in your new Datsun.
what level of modern missile boffin is required to design a cheap unidirectional guidance system in a missile?

i think you are correct re guidance tho.
if Aegis and CEA-Far are so incompetent as to be unable to identify incoming trajectories and an intercept then there’s no point.

the fuse would be whatever is deemed suitable, be it timed, positional or proximity, or if it’s cheap, a mixture.
the trajectory would be consistent with the missile data in the combat system.

Mod Edit: You have pushed for a cheap missile idea that does not work. Over multiple posts, other members here have kindly explained to you, why it does not work.

so like a VLS launched ESSM-ranged flak round

Exactly.
because in a protracted scenario the gucci optimum hi-tech terminally guided option might be unavailable.
the VLS would otherwise be empty.

It provides the combat system a crude 2nd tier directed option of a flak screen for an incoming, which an otherwise empty cell could not.
It’s cheap. Make em by the dozen.

Can magicbandit7 and you give this hobby horse derail of this thread, a rest? Please relook at the scenario provided graciously by Takao, to develop it in a grounded manner.

How about some research to educate yourself on naval anti-air missiles before posting (as required under Rule 23)? From this point, we will start deleting purely nonsensical posts (like the 2, we have quoted as examples of nonsense).

Take note of Forum Rules, namely, 14, 15, 23 and 27. At this point, the Mod Team will stop at warning points issued to each of you, but kindly note that this is the end of our tolerance mode.

— OPSSG

 

[OPSSG]

Thread paused and reopened. This thread has not generated the quality of discussion expected. It is at the stage where the Mod Team, even with our tolerance mode-on, find hard to tolerate.

 

[76mmGuns]

Ok. When I was discussing Takao's study, I was looking at alternatives to ships which used high end weapons.

Looking at what exists in the world today, if we were to make a second tier of ships this, obvious changes would be:

- Arafura class built with 57mm guns instead of 40mm.

- Hunter Class built with 2 x 5 inch guns in super firing position. The second gun fills the space taken by the fore vls. The vls can move to the multi mission space, if you want them. Or you could have only 8-16vls instead of 32, so there's still space for 2 rhib and a drone or container in the MM space.

The Arafura solution is easy and quick. The Brunei ships already use 57mn so we know it can be done. ( I prefer 76mm, but let's stick with 57 for now) Arafura , given current specs, can also be built quickly.

The Hunter... well I can see some protests here. I'd love an engineer to discuss the difficulty or ease of foregoing the fore vls and putting a 5 inch gun there.

In fact, if this were a second tier ship, perhaps it's specs can be made similar to the Anzac class. That should reduce costs, and possibly speed of build.

So perhaps x12 front line guided missile ships, a number of second tier ships with main armaments being artillery - the Hunters with 2 x 5 inch guns, and all Arafuras upgunned to 57mm. May or may not still have 12 Arafuras, maybe more ( 20? 30?)

 

[76mmGuns]

I'd love to know if Oto Melara vulcano rounds work in Bae guns, how long it takes to make thousands of guided rounds, and is manufacturing at a point where thousands can be stockpiled.

Mod Edit: How about some research to educate yourself on BAE’s guns and ammo, by a simple google search, before posting (as required under Rule 23)?

Many thanks to oldsig127 who shared a link below; and I extract the relevant part.

Vulcano Range Specifications

Weapon	Ballistic Extended Range (km)	Guided Long Range (km)
127/64 LW	60	90
Mk 45	60	90
M777/M109	40	60
M777/M109 (5-inch saboted*)	50	70
M777/M109 ERCA	75+	100+
Mk 51 AGS	75	100
* 5-inch BER and GLR airframe saboted to 155mm caliber

3 warning points issued. From this point, we will also start deleting purely nonsensical posts from you.

As for Alamo for the 57mm..... that's just another LCS ongoing project, isn't it? None actually in service?

 

[magicbandit7]

As for Alamo for the 57mm..... that's just another LCS ongoing project, isn't it? None actually in service?

Yea i believe it is still ongoing but once its done, whatever ships that have the Mk110 will have this ammunition as well

What is interesting is that BAE is promoting both the vulcano and the hyper velocity projectile for the Mk45. Im not exactly sure what the difference is

 

[oldsig127]

I'd love to know if Oto Melara vulcano rounds work in Bae guns, how long it takes to make thousands of guided rounds, and is manufacturing at a point where thousands can be stockpiled.

Well that bit is easily answered.

Vulcano Precision-Guided Munitions

The Vulcano family of precision-guided, gun-launched munitions offers U.S. and allied military forces a range of low-risk, cost effective capabilities for advanced, large caliber weapon systems.

www.baesystems.com

As for Alamo for the 57mm..... that's just another LCS ongoing project, isn't it? None actually in service?

As for this, still in design phases from what published sources I've seen. However the USN has specified the Mk110 with ALAMO for FFG(X) so someone will be expecting it to be available soon. This includes BAE no doubt.

oldsig

 

[spoz]

I am under impression that ESSM were to be manufactured in AUS. I dont recall the source, but I read it around the time Nasam's were first being discussed and mention was made of ESSM being used from the Nasam. Anyone able to take this further?

Not so as I am aware. That may be a misreporting of our involvement in the ESSM user group. It is, however, quite possible that some Australian entity is involved in manufacturing parts as a subbie.

 

[spoz]

thThe Hunter... well I can see some protests here. I'd love an engineer to discuss the difficulty or ease of foregoing the fore vls and putting a 5 inch gun there.

The difficulties woul be very considerable - that would be a massive redesign and the Mk 45 is not a small bit of kit.

 

[ngatimozart]

Ok. When I was discussing Takao's study, I was looking at alternatives to ships which used high end weapons.

Looking at what exists in the world today, if we were to make a second tier of ships this, obvious changes would be:

- Arafura class built with 57mm guns instead of 40mm.

- Hunter Class built with 2 x 5 inch guns in super firing position. The second gun fills the space taken by the fore vls. The vls can move to the multi mission space, if you want them. Or you could have only 8-16vls instead of 32, so there's still space for 2 rhib and a drone or container in the MM space.

The Arafura solution is easy and quick. The Brunei ships already use 57mn so we know it can be done. ( I prefer 76mm, but let's stick with 57 for now) Arafura , given current specs, can also be built quickly.

The Hunter... well I can see some protests here. I'd love an engineer to discuss the difficulty or ease of foregoing the fore vls and putting a 5 inch gun there.

In fact, if this were a second tier ship, perhaps it's specs can be made similar to the Anzac class. That should reduce costs, and possibly speed of build.

So perhaps x12 front line guided missile ships, a number of second tier ships with main armaments being artillery - the Hunters with 2 x 5 inch guns, and all Arafuras upgunned to 57mm. May or may not still have 12 Arafuras, maybe more ( 20? 30?)

There is no engineering and buoyancy problem mounting a 5" gun in the B gun position behind A mount, so that you have two 5" guns up f'ord but why would you? The problem would be the 32 Mk-41 VLS cells, some of which will be strike length. That's a lot of weight to put up high topside, especially when the cells are fully loaded, plus you'll have anywhere from 8 to 16 AShM loaded in individual cannisters on the same deck level. That with lift your CoG really high, negatively impacting your buoyancy making the ship top heavy which is not a good thing.

If you wanted to go down that path then possibly the 57 mm gun and ammo that the USN are going to fit to their FFGX could be fitted to the Hunter class, 1 port, and 1 starboard. They are reasonably light so could be fitted above 1 deck, maybe on 02 deck or higher.

 

[Unric]

One other thing to consider though is that any platform has to survive the first 6 days (or whatever) of super intense warfare to be able to continue in the "low tech" war. If designs were simplified too much up front they would only be around due to being held in reserve or dumb luck.

 

[ngatimozart]

Yea i believe it is still ongoing but once its done, whatever ships that have the Mk110 will have this ammunition as well

What is interesting is that BAE is promoting both the vulcano and the hyper velocity projectile for the Mk45. Im not exactly sure what the difference is

IF YOU'RE UNSURE WHAT THE DIFFERENCE IS GO AND DO SOME RESEARCH . MR GOOGLE YOUR FRIEND. THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO, BUT IT'S MORE EDUCATIONAL FOR YOU TO FIND THAT OUT FOR YOURSELF. HINT SEARCH TERMS:
#HYPER VELOCITY PROJECTILE

#VULCANO AMMUNITION.

 

[ngatimozart]

One other thing to consider though is that any platform has to survive the first 6 days (or whatever) of super intense warfare to be able to continue in the "low tech" war. If designs were simplified too much up front they would only be around due to being held in reserve or dumb luck.

Why? What low tech warfare? Just because missile supply MIGHT be problematic, that doesn't mean that the peer level combat automatically reverts to low tech. That is a huge, false and potentially fatal assumption to make. You never ever assume anything, because assumption is the mother of all stuff ups and defeats.

 

[aussienscale]

OK so I will point out a few threads among many others that have been here over the decades !

Forgive my shortness ! I will point out every shortfall

Enjoy the short string !

Juan Carlos / Canberra Class LHD

EXCELLENT (long) article on Juan Carlos and Galicia class ships.Google : Amphibious Warfare Ships The Navantia Experience. Many diagrams , tables and photos.Well worthwhile.

www.defencetalk.com

Royal Australian Naval Force Enhancements

I thought I'd start a rolling thread outlining the enhancements to the Royal Australian Navy that are planned for the next few years. Quite a few new capabilities will be coming online in the next few months including upgraded FFG Frigates, upgraded ANZAC frigates, upgraded Harpoon 11 missiles...

www.defencetalk.com

A hypothetical carrier buy for the RAN?

Looking into what would a small navy like the RAN would acquire if the government of the day decided to increase in real terms the defence budget and wanted to get back into the carrier role. The next question is do they go the LHD route and expanded the bukerage and munitions storage...

www.defencetalk.com

Just for starters !!! FFS let talk a little reality !!

 

[Unric]

Agreed. Even though most of the good stuff might disappear very rapidly as per Takao's suggestion some is still going to kept back for special occasions or trickle in from new production. I think the answer is that systems have to have the flexibility to deal with the threat appropriately. E.g. Don't use a million dollar missile on a 500 dollar drone. But always make sure you can handle that Brahmos when you need to.

 

[ngatimozart]

EITHER THE QUALITY OF THE POSTS IN THIS THREAD LIFT SUBSTANTIALLY VERY QUICKLY, AND REFLECT REALITY OR THE MODERATORS WILL HAVE NO HESITATION IN PERMANENTLY CLOSING THIS THREAD AND SENDING SOME OF THE REPEAT OFFENDERS ON SHORT HOLIDAYS. OUR PATIENCE IS GONE .

 

[ngatimozart]

Agreed. Even though most of the good stuff might disappear very rapidly as per Takao's suggestion some is still going to kept back for special occasions or trickle in from new production. I think the answer is that systems have to have the flexibility to deal with the threat appropriately. E.g. Don't use a million dollar missile on a 500 dollar drone. But always make sure you can handle that Brahmos when you need to.

Only a fool wastes a bloody expensive missile on a small cheap UAV, which said missile probably won't hit anyway. Think things through before posting. Is it practicable, logical etc. Not even the US military can afford to throw stuff away willy nilly anymore and they used to.

Us Moderators and the Defence Professionals have a real dislike for fantasy crap and the Moderators get real cranky when the Def Pros chew our ears off about it. Remember that most of the Moderators are Def Pros as well and we try to run a professional forum because it's followed by professionals and we do have the reputation of the forum and its brand to uphold.

 

[Unric]

Apologies. I think that came across the wrong way. I wasn't trying to imply that we would. That's what the small calibre guns are for. I was trying to support the idea that we might like to explore a more graduated approach for something a little bit higher end than a drone but a little bit less than a top flight. I'll try and be clearer in future.

 

[south]

Yes, the missile would need one directional change following its vertical launch.
It was mentioned previously but i guess easily missed.
I suggest that that requirement is not overly burdonsome even in a modern basic missile.
Cheap does not exclusively imply useless.
Its cheap as it has no terminal guidance, it is pointed and flies and explodes.
It is effective cos its directed to a intercept by the combat system.
You wouldnt necessarily need traditional ww2 style flak barrage (tho mutiple staggered rounds would be plausible) because the combat system gives you Aegis quality intercept bearings.

this is not feasible.

An error of just 0.2 degree will translate to a miss of 600’ at 30NM, or 300’ at 15NM. Which i expect outside an ESSM lethal radius. And this problem gets harder if there is a crossing component to the threat vector.

Not to mention range error. Or the target changing its vector. Or electronic attack giving you a reduced quality track, or radar alignment/cal error, or weapon inertial nab drift, or weapon inertial alignment error.

 

[Wombat000]

Im commenting now, because a prev comment of mine was just referred to.
So this is last comment on the subject.

I accept the tirade of reasons why it wont work.
The missile in question is intended to merely be a 2nd tier SIMPLE air burst munition, that doesnt usurp anything but instead places a round in what would otherwise be an empty VLS cell.

Its basic, so if the target moves from initial tracked trajectory, it would miss, but then one could fire a second round.
Every feature of this envisioned missile round is common to other missiles used.

Being simple, it would be a basic foundation for industry to produce this defensive ships magazine filler. Perhaps something that more capable variants may evolve from?
Perhaps other classes of missile may expand australian industry further, originating from an idea to cheaply fill an empty VLS cell.

Thats it. If its not popular, or rubbish its dead. The hobby horse is dead.

Thanks for taking the time to engage in the notion.