By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.
Discussion in 'Navy & Maritime' started by icelord, Feb 13, 2007.
I think there are 2 main issues here namely:
1) should ships be fitted with surface launched LWT for ASW:
I think this is a no brainer given the marginal cost is very low given the weapon is already in service for a/c use and ship fitted equipments are typicaly low complexity and/or low cost. Last resort capability definately passes the value for money test in his case.
2) How should ship fit be implemented:
Assail touched on this but i dont agree for a few reasons.
My contention is that the cheapest and best way to implement Ship Launch is from tubes in a common use air/surface magazine.
This redues handling, improves safety, reduces maintenance (potentially signifiantly) and reduces top weight and provides a reload capabiity at nil cost vis a vis these other plusses. An SVTT system apart from being potentially one(6) shot due to bad location (looking at u ANZAC ship) offers nothing positive and has the inverse of the positive things above.
Now if u want to talk 400mm SLT and a 2 weapon system then we are talking a different ball game. But given a common 324mm weapon, magazine launch and consequential reloadable capability is the only game in town.
I doubt that a common-use aircraft (helicopter) and ship magazine for LWT's would be an easy or more importantly practical design feature for a warship.
Any potential magazine to support helicopters would need to be accessible from either within the hangar, or the helipad.
Any magazine supporting a Mk 32 LWT launcher (or similar type launcher) would also need to be accessible from the Mk 32 launcher.
If the same magazine was supposed to support both helicopter-carried and Mk 32 LWT launchers, then that would likely require mounting the Mk 32's on the helipad, or next to/atop the hangar and passing the LWT's through the hangar to the Mk 32 launchers. From my perspective neither layout is appealing, since Mk 32 LWT launchers on the helipad would likely impact helicopter operations, while adjacent to/atop the hangar while passing LWT's through the hangar would likely negate much of the purpose behind having a magazine. Namely to safely store and contain warheads/explosives, while also having fire containment and prevention methods just in case.
Well, it may seem to have its challenges but that is exactly the situation with the F100 design, including the Hobart class. There are other tubes besides the standard upper deck mounted triple Mk 32s such as the Mod 9s, and they can be operated internally.
Several ships have common use magazines, so it can't be that much of a problem.
Hobart ha just docked at GI in part so Thales can upgrade her torpedo magazine so she can carry both LWTs
Sorry folks my mind is not working, I’m in hospital to redo a shoulder replacement that didn’t work and I can’t post the link from RAN fb from Mar 11
And to make the necessary mods so the ship can operate the 60R together with a routine docking.
Sorry to hear about the shoulder Chris.
Trust the shoulder replacement goes well.
Best wishes S
Tod the surface tubes are in the magazine
Type 45 is an Air Defence Destroyer, Type 26 is an Anti-Submarine Frigate. On a ship such as T45, 'self' launched
torpedoes are 'a hail Mary', a last ditch attempt to attack a submarine that will effectively be within a short distance from the ship. Now I'm not saying that having that odd shaped spanner that you'll use for a single task in your tool box isn't a good thing and from memory TLS was an IPMD 'future fit' (i.e. when the UK MoD has the funds & deems it's a requirement), but Stingray only has a short, effective range. That's part of the reason having a helo that can do ASW activities & drop the same, short range torpedo is a 'GOOD THING' for T45, as it gives it the capability, without the expense.
I see elsewhere in the thread that there are comments / concerns about whether a TLS system should be independent of the main Air Weapons Magazine, or fully integrated into it.
Many ships use on deck launchers for Torpedoes, Type 23 ASW Frigates have their MTLS fully integrated. Stating that one is better than another is not comparing apples with apples, as each Navy operates their ships as they see fit. Cost of equipment / upkeep, physical foot print / available space & dozens of other issues can all have an effect on whether a particular class of vessel needs that capability or not.
I also noticed in the x2 part article on T26 that while it mentions an available space for a single TLS, it doesn't explain where they believe the actual Air Weapons magazine is intended to be located (understandable as they were discussing the benefits of the Mission Bay, not Air Weapons & most Navies really don't like everyone knowing which explosives store is located where on a ship !).
Purely based on the image shown in the article, I would say that you are looking at the launcher facility, rather than a full blown AW magazine. The ship is approx 20m wide on the beam (Type 26 frigate - Wikipedia) & with the hanger going to be about 50% of that (about 10m wide), it logically leaves you circa 25% either side. So a 5m wide magazine (Port to Stbd), with a torpedo that is less than 3m long (Sting Ray (torpedo) - Wikipedia), really doesn't leave you much room to store the weapon & the handling / delivery system to get it into the tube.
I think that's why the 2nd article about ASROC is interesting, as if you have a silo big enough to accept VLA, it makes for a much more appealing capability, as the launcher can deposit the torpedo up to 20Km from the ship, leaving the torpedo the ability to travel up to 8 - 11Km further.
All of this obviously depends on the weapon / delivery system & whether the ship has the room / facilities to accommodate the equipment.
Without speculating on the capabilities current version of the mark 48 torpedo used by the R.A.N its worth noting that the P.L.A.N YU-6 torpedo was reversed engineered from a then current mark 48 recovered by Chinese fishermen in the late seventies early eighties , the YU-6 has a reported range of 45 kilometres with a maximum speed of 65 knots
Are they that last ditch? I see them as part of a system. Sure it is probably part of an inner close range system, but still valid. It is also a system the enemy has to respond to.
Even with ASROC, I think having a ship launched system would still be useful, particularly on ships with limited VLS. Again, I see it as a layered system. ASROC is also probably not going to be that useful as a decoy or hard kill system. Also if a single ship is operating alone, and there isn't a massive ASW screen, subs have shown a lot of interest in getting quite close. When a sub acoustically maps a ship I hear they can get quite close and we have seen photos of props through periscopes.
I guess, it depends how fast the target is moving and what type of sub is hunting. Obviously the chances of a diesel sub (the most common type) of chasing down a ~25-30kt surface ship and firing its torpedoes at maximum range, in the open ocean would seem to be unlikely.
I think a (diesel) sub is more likely to be hanging around a choke point, or underwater feature or hiding underneath commercial shipping. Wire guiding it to ensure a kill. I think it would be unlikely a sub gives up its position for an over the horizon hail mary launch in a big exposed location at the surface.
I also think there may be valid reasons why the RAN has both the MU-90 and mk54 in operation. The 54 still suffers the same performance issues of 46, in that deep water performance will become significant restricted in both speed and range, perhaps enough a target could simply move away at depth. The MU90 can dive to over 1000m, and suffers no performance loss at depth. So would be good at hunting deep submarines/drones, that may be using depth rather than distance to hide.
Mk54 for the helicopter and P8's and asroc to attack shallower subs over wide distances, MU90's for the ships to attack/pressure deep subs and decoy/hard kill. Is that right? Although I don't hear much if anything about mu90's hard kill capabilities, it would be at least theoretical for the enemy.
I find the type 26 curious as it isn't clear if they will be fitting stingray or mk54 or nothing at all or some other future system, or perhaps none at all. Obviously they can fit something, but again, it was billed as the ultimate ASW platform, so I am interested in what the poms actually integrate into that ship. Not just what could be fitted.
Stingray I think u nailed the MU90 strengths (puting aside i dont endorse any empirical figures) but the RAN largely has 2 LWT because the appetite to integrate MU90 on air platforms wained. However, the RAN ran 2 LWT for years so i dont think it is a big deal. You are correct in identifying that MU90 is fast, vlong range, deep diving etc but another important capability is that it is much better in shallow water than the MK 46 and I suspect MK54 but i am making an educated guess on that. Relevant is that Mu90 is so dynamic that it almost brings a VLA capability without the rocket compared to its competitors.
Saw a heading on another group that the RAN is holding an exercise starting in Colombo.
Not being a member of that group reading further information was restricted to paid up members!
Are you talking about Colombo Sri Lanka? HMA Ships Leeuwin and Diamantina are currently in Sri Lankan Waters looking for the Wreck of the HMAS Vampire(1) sunk by Japanese Aircraft in early 1942
Looks like it's Indo-Pacific Endeavour 19 - Australia begins third iteration of Indo-Pacific Endeavour
HMA Ships Canberra, Success, Newcastle, and Parramatta plus a P-8
Hopefully the next Indo Pacific Endeavour will have one of our new Hobart class destroyers.
For this current exercise India will certainly take a look at HMAS Canberra as they have ambitions of acquiring some LHD's for their Multi Role Support Vessel Program.
Spains Juan Carlos 1 is one of the offerings
Would be interested as to what aviation compliment is carried in HMAS Canberra.
I suspect it will be the same as Adelaide last year, the Army does not have the Helicopter numbers to be able to deploy more than 1or2 for an extended period on board the LHDs. We have only ever seen the LHDs with a decent Aviation compliment for short periods on Exercises.
L02 has two embarked MRHs for IPE19.
As per IPEs 17 and 18 they are not AAvN but Navy, from 808 Sqn.
Wouldn’t be surprised if Army was providing MRH Air and Ground Crew though.