.
Some of the John Wayne twin pistol cowboys have even talked about arming our LHD's and OPV's with missile cells.
All of a sudden billions of dollars are rolling around eyeball's.
Maybe it is better to be fitted for but not with?
Cheers Chris
Distributed lethality.
Just because a platform is fitted for it doesn't mean they actually have to be fitted with VLS, medium calibre gun, ASW torpedo tubes, multiple Typhoons, Phalanx/RAM SeaRAM/Sea Ceptor, Hapoon, RBS15, Longbow Hellfire, Romeo, Sierra, Firescout, CAEFAR, VDS, UUV/USV etc. Just because the ship is fitted with the systems doesn't mean it needs to have full magazines or the latest greatest iteration of the available ordinance.
But if things were to hot up the required systems would be acquired and the magazines filled, the caveated being if they are available. If the platforms acquired are not capable of being easily fitted with these systems then the entire concept of distributed lethality falls over.
Other factors to be considered are the thinking behind an expeditionary ABM capability is to protect an amphibious landing from ballistic missile attack making, for the USN at least, LPDs an attractive future ABM platform, they would also be attractive land attack missile carriers for similar reasons. As for defensive missiles on LHDs, its actually quite common in other navies because one of the hardest targets is a crossing sea skimming missile, i.e. it is easier for a ship to defend itself than it is to defend another ship against leakers. Again there needs to be available space, weight and reserve stability, plus suitable sensors, combat system and or data links/CEC. Not cheap but if you happen to have a pool of suitable systems made surplus to requirements and a compatible combat system, not impossible, nor as expensive as starting from scratch (the LHDs have the same combat system as the ANZACs).
I don't know how many cells the new frigates will be completed with as many os designs were actually delivered with only a fraction the possible number of cells. Eight instead of a possible 24 (may even be 32) on the Nansen class, space and weight reserved on the type23, type 45, type 26 and type 123 class frigates to name a few. It is possible the SEA 5000 Ships may initially only have 24 cells but be designed for 32, 48, or even 64 cells.
As for minor combatants the reasoning is again distributed lethality and Australia was planning corvettes with a near ANZAC baseline combat system, including an 8 cell Mk41. Now the corvettes are long gone in terms of future capability but as the FFGs then ANZACs retire the RAN will have access to a pool of 12 8cell Mk41 VLS, 4-6 Mk75 76mm guns, 8 Mk45 127mm guns, 24-28 Mk 32 tripe torpedo tubes, 8 near new ANZAC ASMD systems, plus various other sensors, directors, generators, propulsion diesels and GTs. This is stuff the Commonwealth owns that either definitely, or most likely will not be used on the new frigates and is worth stuff all on the second hand market, assuming permission / end user certificate can be obtained. As I understand some, if not all the OPV contenders can be fitted / for many of these very systems with no or little cost.
Recent news shows the LCS mission modules to be proceeding quite well now. I am curious as to how expensive it would be to configure the OPVs and/or other ships to be compatible with these mission modules. Looking outside the square here but also recalling the COOP mine hunter program of the late 80s early 90s, not so much for the Craft Of OPportunity taken up from trade, but the deployable MCM capability designed to be operated by reserve divisions, I wonder how difficult /expensive it would be to buy a small number of LCS mission modules to maintain a training cadre.
The idea would be that in the event of a conflict or increasing tensions, we hook into the USN reserves and supply chains acquire as many missiles to fill the empty VLS, and as many mission modules to equip our OPVs (or potentially other ships too) as possible. This is not about spending extra billions on the RAN, its about looking at future proofing what we can afford within the current budget, its not so much for but not with like on the ANZACs but rather meeting current requirements but with an eye on possible future needs.
nfloorl:
