At present no, but even the older semi-active guided ESSM Blk1 has been test fired successfully from NASAMS in the past using an MPQ-46 illuminator from Norway's older 'Hawk' systems. The US 'Typhon' Strategic Mid Range Fires system (with the B.O.C linked to an appropriate radar/s) would seemingly fit the bill for both the RAAF's AIR 6502 'Medium Range Ground Based Air Defence' & AIR-6503 'Advanced High-Speed Missile Defence' projects using SM-6 & SM-3, with the added capability of being able to fire TLAM if desired.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
OldTex
Well-Known Member
Perhaps the proposed littoral lift groups won't be 3 "cookie cutter" groups with exactly the same equipment issued. It would make more sense to tailor the issued equipment for the lift groups to the requirements of the supported brigades (especially as we no longer have 3 "cookie cutter" brigades). So 3 Bde with all (or most) of the heavy armoured vehicles would likely get more of the LCHs than 1 Bde which is effectively light scales/littoral manoeuver focused (which would be needing more combat boat/riverine boat capabilities). 7Bde as the motorised brigade would be the only one that might be close to a 2:1 LCM/LCH ratio.
Understand they may be escorted but I was seeing a prospective strike use that these might get 2-300km ahead and get into missile range well ahead of any escort…or lie in wait well ahead of any escort.
True, I think there is some merrit to the JSS concept. I still think they end up a bit of a jack of all trades though, and I think this is one of the reasons they have been cut from the program (budget as well). The Fassmer 120 for instance still has the same RORO space as the LCH, but it is now a 6,000 tonne vessel.
Likewise conducting a RAS with a crew of 60 people seems a bit tight. There are ropes and hoses going everywhere during these evolutions, and it was all hands on deck for an ANZAC sized crew of 180 people.
I have a feeling the 8 number for the LCHs might be 2 for each location, and 2 in maintenance. I'm thinking two home port crews per location, with the hulls rotated as required for maintenance.
Yes, you are right. I could see a small stealth drone creeping autonomously into a hostile area to launch an attack. Perhaps accepting that it might be sacrified to achieve the outcome.
I'm wondering if this type of mission is better suited to the ghost shark style of platform. The Government has stated that will be fitted for strike and have alluded this includes some form of missile, such as NSM. Could be three or four ghost sharks with a couple of NSMs each, maybe a couple more with torpedos to make the picture complicating for an opponent. Perhaps some surface drones to go with it all for robustness or decoys.
It will be interesting as to what the LCM design eventually looks like and get a sense of its capabilities.
I still have mixed feelings with this vessel
Same with the LCH
At what point do you have a vessel that’s realistically too big to park and extract from a beach. Is this such a vessel
Would we in fact be better off getting three to four smaller LPDs rather than 8 LCM.
many of the above have been mentioned recently.
A vessel with two landing spots hanger, connectors and decent lane metres.
LCH looks a bit WW11.
cheers S
The LCMs i get, the LCHs (or actually LSTs), not so much.
THe LCH isn't that much smaller than Tobruk, and my understanding was that she rarely beached due to the (literal) impact on her hull. Furthermore, I remember reading (where ???) that the proportion of beaches that are suitable for large vessels to beach is actually quite small. If the DAMEN 100s can't, beach, have no embarked helicopters, and no vehicle capable landing craft, it appears they might have limited wartime flexibility...
CMN Naval have a nice in service Landing Craft that is a combination of LCM/LCH. 70m, 200ton capacity.
Also a slightly different design, 80m, 250ton cargo + flight deck, no working prototype though…
Both good speed, long range, low crew.
aus army wanted something that can operate in the riverine environment, so we end up with 2 classes.
Heres is the new LCM design… pic from indo pacific 2025, drone deck alot smaller, also looks like the wheelhouse has been moved further forward.
Attachments
Last edited:
I think the LCH's strength is low cost, meaning simple. If it sticks to this then I think it will be successful. Low cost is important as I would view this is a platform that could be produced in numbers if required. I liken it to the WW2 liberty ship. A simple mass produced platform that moves stuff around in volume.
I don't actually see beaching as its main function. My reading indicates that there are about 10% of global beaches suitable for this purpose. So not enough to make this a mainstay. I think it will be more used from austere ports with rudimentary facilities. Small fishing wharves comes to mind, as there are thousands of these throughout SE Asia.
If it can do that then it is probably good enough.
Basic , agricultural and vessel numbers are the appeal.
Your suggested use may well be the case.
A pier to wharf to port logistics vessel.
Mind you there’s also a place for a basic small LSD.
Indonesias mix of logistic vessels is interesting.
A good range of capabilities and numbers on a budget.
As for the LCM , let’s see what load it can carry and its range.
Hope it does justice to the coin spent and human resources to crew said vessel.
cheers S
This might be a trial or a training exercise perhaps but while definitely doable there is a bit to it and you’d probably not want to be in too rough a sea state, nor actually in action…
Good observation
RAM is not a MANPAD
Interestingly when RAM initially came out there were many proposals for launchers beyond the current 11 and 21 capacity options.
Some were integrated gun and missile combinations
Many what if’s with weapons and platforms over their lifespans.
Cheers S
Last edited:
Not having done it, I imagine handing and reloading belt lengths of 20mm phalanx rounds must be heavy, awkward and time consuming task as well.
Perhaps the performance envelope of the SeaRAM makes it worth the effort.
…..and it’s nice to see naval missile system able to be reloaded organically when needed.
Perhaps the performance envelope of the SeaRAM makes it worth the effort.
…..and it’s nice to see naval missile system able to be reloaded organically when needed.
d-ron84
Active Member
It Sucks!
The links and feeder assembly are prone to jamming, moving and cycling in live rounds whilst storing the dummy rounds cycling out means needing more hands then available, plus if you take too long the boat will up revs and you get a face full of stack gas, definitely not fun times.
Sea Ram actually looks easy, just a bit of equipment to set up, but no need to time the gun, drum and feeder assembly to avoid misalignment.
And if it came down to needing it loaded quicksmart, then two sailors could lift it in with a third guiding it, they're only 70ish kg and long enough that its not awkward.
Sort of. You'll need more than 2-3 though. An example of that can be found here: https://www.war.gov/Multimedia/Photos/igphoto/2002055923/
I reckon if I was on board, and under missile attack, I could re load the thing myself quick smart!
(Just a point that a lot of rules go out the windows in some scenarios)
A general question
Have large calibre naval guns had their day?
Ships operating near the coast needing to fire a five inch round now look very problematic.
Close proximity to a coast is a very dangerous space even against third rate militants and rag tag militias.
Even with extended rounds there are probably other alternatives not to mention these shells are very expensive and complex.
57 and 76mm have excellent dual purpose capabilities particularly in the self defence role against aerial threats.
Can see this as the best way forward
They also are relatively light weight and of a smaller footprint compared to a heavy weight gun system.
I believe it was suggested the Hunters could accomodate more VLS if the Five inch was substituted for a light weight gun.
So are we at that stage of conversion.
Would the RAN be better of diverging its ships of the heavy five inch gun for the benefits of a medium cal weapon with hopefully an
increased VSL count.
Hobarts, Hunters and GPF.
It would be possible for these ships to have two guns each.
Five inch replaced forward with a lighter non deck penetrating mount above the hangar.
360 degree self defence and eight additional VLS looks a good deal better than the status quo.
Thoughts S
Have large calibre naval guns had their day?
Ships operating near the coast needing to fire a five inch round now look very problematic.
Close proximity to a coast is a very dangerous space even against third rate militants and rag tag militias.
Even with extended rounds there are probably other alternatives not to mention these shells are very expensive and complex.
57 and 76mm have excellent dual purpose capabilities particularly in the self defence role against aerial threats.
Can see this as the best way forward
They also are relatively light weight and of a smaller footprint compared to a heavy weight gun system.
I believe it was suggested the Hunters could accomodate more VLS if the Five inch was substituted for a light weight gun.
So are we at that stage of conversion.
Would the RAN be better of diverging its ships of the heavy five inch gun for the benefits of a medium cal weapon with hopefully an
increased VSL count.
Hobarts, Hunters and GPF.
It would be possible for these ships to have two guns each.
Five inch replaced forward with a lighter non deck penetrating mount above the hangar.
360 degree self defence and eight additional VLS looks a good deal better than the status quo.
Thoughts S
If shore bombardment with ye olde HE was the only use for a 5in gun I'd agree... But the roughly 80-100% range advantage a 5in has carries over to AA/drone/anti-missile defence (being able to start knocking drones down at 16km rather than 8km with proxy-fused HE or 80-100km rather than 40km with advanced guided ammo like Vulcano or HVP is useful) and ER guided munitions (again Vulcano...) make it possible to do shore bombardment from far enough out that the risks are somewhat lessened.
Of cause, with 3 Hobarts, 6 Hunters and 11 GPFs as the future fleet there's probably a reasonable argument to keep 5in on the GPFs (available in number so somewhat more expendable, thus able to take the risk of getting close enough for NGFS) while dropping down to 57mm or 76mm on the Hobart, Hunters and any future AWDs.