Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.

MickB

Active Member
In regard to the Drumbeat (which appears to be approx 2 years or 24mths)
Unsure of why the drumbeat is set at this figure.

My understanding of the continuous build program had two major points.
First to prevent any future "valley of death" in shipbuilding.

Second to replace each ship after approx 20 years service to do away with the need for a mid life upgrade.
Minor upgrades during the build cycle coupled with refitting earlier builds during regular maintaince would serve to keep the fleet current.

To do this and maintain a fleet of 13 destroyers/frigates requires a drumbeat of approx one every 18 months.
If the first of class (as in the case of the Hunter) takes longer than this to build then the rate of construction may need to be sped up for later units to maintain the expected average service life.
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
It's always interesting when the subject of the build schedules (drumbeat), for the FFGs, OPVs, Submarines, etc, comes up. Comments like, 'should be sooner', 'reduce the drumbeat', etc.

The Catch 22 for the current Government (and future Governments), is finding the balance between the needs of Navy and the needs of the Shipbuilding Industry. On the surface the Drumbeat of two years between each of the nine Frigates and each of the 12 Submarines is great for industry, and especially with the promise of follow on orders beyond the current projects, eg 'continuous build program'.

On the other side of the coin is the issue for Navy to ensure that the ships and submarines being replaced can be sustained and kept relevant, probably not so much a problem at the beginning of the build programs, but towards the later stages of the build programs when the remaining 'older' classes are getting rather long in the tooth could be an issue, to say the least.

In regard to the Anzac replacements, it's worth looking back at the 2009 DWP as a starting point, at that time, the Rudd Government proposed the 8 large Future Frigates (which was news welcomed by most of us interested in Navy and Defence, good news!!), but if you dug a little further and had a look at the accompanying 2009 DCP, SEA 5000 didn’t get a mention as it was ‘outside’ of the usual 10 year scope of DCPs, eg, ‘beyond’ 2019 for a decision.

If you then roll forward to the 2011 DCP, SEA 5000 is listed, but the ‘year’ of decisions had a lot of rubber room, first pass approval was set for anywhere between 2018-2019 to 2020-21, and a year of decision between 2021-22 to 2023-24.

If that schedule set out in the 2011 DCP for SEA 5000 had been kept in place, we still wouldn’t know (2019) what was going to replace the Anzacs! (who’s complaining about ‘should be sooner’ now?).

By the time of the 2016 DWP and accompanying 2016 DIIP (which is the new name for the DCP), the eight Future Frigates has been increased to nine ships. In April 2016 the three competing designs are shortlisted and in June 2018 the Type 26, Hunter class, is announced the winner with a cutting steel date of 2020.

And as we know now, 2020 will be the start of construction of a number of prototype blocks and the ‘real’ block work is scheduled for 2022.

Compared to where the replacement plan started in 2009 and to where it is now, the timing of the ‘start’ of the Anzac replacement is pretty reasonable, in my opinion.

In regard to the Drumbeat (which appears to be approx 2 years or 24mths) for delivery of each of the new Hunter class, it’s also worth going back and looking at the build history of the 10 Anzac class (and yes including the two Kiwi ships).

The 10 Anzacs commissioned between May 1996 and August 2006, on average a bit over a year between each commissioning, 13-14mths (yes they fluctuated a bit, but still that was the approx average). The RANs first three Anzacs ships are actually 1, 3 and 5, the two Kiwi ships are 2 and 4.

The Drumbeat of approx 24mths for the Hunters will align with the replacement of the first three RAN Anzacs of approx 24mths, but from ship 4 onwards that’s where things will get a bit pear shaped, the latter Anzacs will certainly be a very long in the tooth by the end of the replacement of ship 8 and the 8th Hunter.

My understanding is that the UK T26 ships will have a drumbeat of 18mths, and that the Australian build can also be sped up to match that same 18mth drumbeat. But of course this is the Catch 22, if you take approx 36mths out of the overall build program, great for Navy to get it’s ships sooner than later, but then there is a gap to the next project (the DDG replacement), damages the continuous build program.

So what does the Government do? Keep the artificial ‘go slow’ in place? Bring the DDG replacement forward? Or maybe there is another way?

Maybe add a 10th ship to the program? From the delivery of ship 3 onwards reduce the drumbeat to 18mths, maybe the cumulative cost of the 36mths ‘go slow’ might well be better spent on that additional ship?

Food for thought?

Cheers,
I think it has to be a bit quicker then 24 months, first Hunter starting 2022 last one delivered 2042 and first Hobart replacement due to start 2038. Even if the final Hunter is laid down in 2038-39 that would bring the Drumbeat down to 21-22 months
I think we are looking at a drumbeat of every 21 months.
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
I think at peak drum beat it would be more like 18 months.
But it is expect, early in the project that kind of tempo is unrealistic, with a more realistic 24 months. They build has to be realistic. This is also an ambitious project, there is significant integration work required and technological development.

If we continue these positive trends we may have the opportunity (in the medium term) have a string of offshore basing options stretching from Butterworth in Malaysia through Cocos Is, Christmas Is, East Timor, Manus / Lombrum and then finishing perhaps in the Solomons and New Caledonia. If we could get the Kiwis to do the same for Vanuatu and Fiji this would provide us with fantastic strategic depth and enhancement of the security of our SLOCs.
I wouldn't rely on what older relationships were like going into the future. At lot of nations are taking fairly neutral positions. ET had their new defence building and an armed patrol boat built by the Chinese. PNG has seen significant Chinese funds pouring in, and are likely a key factor in the Prime Minister resigning. Fiji has also seen a massive increase in Chinese investment. There is tremendous pressure China can apply to these pacific nations.

Should we do this, the follow on questions to my mind are then:

1) How much would we invest in facilities in each of these locations? Is it simply access to existing infrastructure? Or significant port and runway construction including hardening measures? How stable is the political environment? How defensible would the location be?

2) How would we get the Indonesians comfortable that Butterworth / Cocos / Christmas / Timor are not a threat to them?
IMO Lombrum should be a major base navy and air force. Able to handle up to the LHD (perhaps not peerside but with specific support measures). Subs and major surface ships could operate from here. As could our 737 based wedgetail and P8's. I think it should be a joint facility, PNG, AU, US, JP? All providing funding and support. I don't think they really need to be hardened, but simply expanded to a good commercial level. PNG would most likely want to see it evolve that way. Both as a tourist destination and as a naval/air base.

I don't think the Indonesians are terribly worried about Australia currently. Other than the heat we attract when we operate together. I think we should have some more very specific joint AU/ID ops on a regular basis to facilitate joint deployment.

The Chinese are up our bum every time we deploy now, a constant visible shadow. That is actually useful. It shows we understand the situation and the Chinese find us interesting enough to follow.

IPE19 showed that Australia conducting missions across the region isn't a problem. Nobody is fearing us. Our presence has a different effect to that of say the US whom appear with many complexities. Our capabilities are broad and go beyond high intensity conflict, and will endure past the current geopolitical situation as we are of the region. Nations are gladly welcoming our visits even ones historically that haven't.

It did stop by Indonesia. No problems, welcome with open arms at the highest levels.
Defence Connect

The operation with India was also quite impressive. C17's flying in tigers, P8's, Tigers on LHD's, ASW operations with romeos and Indian subs. But that same task force can roll out turf, build houses, do school visits, set up womens shelters, do rescue and recovery training, medical training etc. You can bet this is going to happen absolutely every year.
 

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
I think part of the reason for the 24 month drumbeat did come down to industry capability. We are trying to build up a shipbuilding industry to a scale that I don't think we have ever really have before even except for perhaps WWII while increasing the capabilities and by extension complexities of said ships to rival in part some of our allies not to mention possible adversaries. When you truly think about it it is a massive national undertaking for something effectively starting from scratch almost that will have repercussions (positive as long as plan is stuck to) for decades into the future. What needs to be taken into context is it isn't just the Hunters we are building, Its also the Attack's. We aren't building 1 highly capable ship ever 2 years, No we are building 1 highly capable ship or submarine every year. For us to achieve a new high capability asset every 12 months is actually a good thing.

Throw in the other ships/vessels we are getting and the RAN will on average be getting a new ship every 6 months or so built in Australia (At least the vast majority of them) once everything is fully up and running to efficiency. This is bloody excellent!!
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
It's always interesting when the subject of the build schedules (drumbeat), for the FFGs, OPVs, Submarines, etc, comes up. Comments like, 'should be sooner', 'reduce the drumbeat', etc.

The Catch 22 for the current Government (and future Governments), is finding the balance between the needs of Navy and the needs of the Shipbuilding Industry. On the surface the Drumbeat of two years between each of the nine Frigates and each of the 12 Submarines is great for industry, and especially with the promise of follow on orders beyond the current projects, eg 'continuous build program'.

On the other side of the coin is the issue for Navy to ensure that the ships and submarines being replaced can be sustained and kept relevant, probably not so much a problem at the beginning of the build programs, but towards the later stages of the build programs when the remaining 'older' classes are getting rather long in the tooth could be an issue, to say the least.

In regard to the Anzac replacements, it's worth looking back at the 2009 DWP as a starting point, at that time, the Rudd Government proposed the 8 large Future Frigates (which was news welcomed by most of us interested in Navy and Defence, good news!!), but if you dug a little further and had a look at the accompanying 2009 DCP, SEA 5000 didn’t get a mention as it was ‘outside’ of the usual 10 year scope of DCPs, eg, ‘beyond’ 2019 for a decision.

If you then roll forward to the 2011 DCP, SEA 5000 is listed, but the ‘year’ of decisions had a lot of rubber room, first pass approval was set for anywhere between 2018-2019 to 2020-21, and a year of decision between 2021-22 to 2023-24.

If that schedule set out in the 2011 DCP for SEA 5000 had been kept in place, we still wouldn’t know (2019) what was going to replace the Anzacs! (who’s complaining about ‘should be sooner’ now?).

By the time of the 2016 DWP and accompanying 2016 DIIP (which is the new name for the DCP), the eight Future Frigates has been increased to nine ships. In April 2016 the three competing designs are shortlisted and in June 2018 the Type 26, Hunter class, is announced the winner with a cutting steel date of 2020.

And as we know now, 2020 will be the start of construction of a number of prototype blocks and the ‘real’ block work is scheduled for 2022.

Compared to where the replacement plan started in 2009 and to where it is now, the timing of the ‘start’ of the Anzac replacement is pretty reasonable, in my opinion.

In regard to the Drumbeat (which appears to be approx 2 years or 24mths) for delivery of each of the new Hunter class, it’s also worth going back and looking at the build history of the 10 Anzac class (and yes including the two Kiwi ships).

The 10 Anzacs commissioned between May 1996 and August 2006, on average a bit over a year between each commissioning, 13-14mths (yes they fluctuated a bit, but still that was the approx average). The RANs first three Anzacs ships are actually 1, 3 and 5, the two Kiwi ships are 2 and 4.

The Drumbeat of approx 24mths for the Hunters will align with the replacement of the first three RAN Anzacs of approx 24mths, but from ship 4 onwards that’s where things will get a bit pear shaped, the latter Anzacs will certainly be a very long in the tooth by the end of the replacement of ship 8 and the 8th Hunter.

My understanding is that the UK T26 ships will have a drumbeat of 18mths, and that the Australian build can also be sped up to match that same 18mth drumbeat. But of course this is the Catch 22, if you take approx 36mths out of the overall build program, great for Navy to get it’s ships sooner than later, but then there is a gap to the next project (the DDG replacement), damages the continuous build program.

So what does the Government do? Keep the artificial ‘go slow’ in place? Bring the DDG replacement forward? Or maybe there is another way?

Maybe add a 10th ship to the program? From the delivery of ship 3 onwards reduce the drumbeat to 18mths, maybe the cumulative cost of the 36mths ‘go slow’ might well be better spent on that additional ship?

Food for thought?

Cheers,

Hi John and thanks for a constructive post.
Suggest you nailed it with
" finding the balance between the needs of Navy and the needs of the Shipbuilding Industry.
My real concern is with the ability of the ANZAC class having relevance for their remaining service lives.
Compared to the Hobart and future Hunter Class they are small in size and limited in what they can carry / contribute.
Inner defence I would suggest is a concern with no CIWS or Medium Cannon.
Certainly a must for a layered defence when placed in harms way and not something you would depend on other ships for when defending that last couple of KM's.of in incoming threat.
Not sure if this deficiency has an answer.
I trust it is never tested.

The hunter class will be a massive improvement on the ANZAC's but as you said it will be a balance between the needs of the navy and the needs of the shipbuilding industry.
Is there a way to find more grunt in our 11 ship combat fleet in the 2020's

Thoughts

Regards S
 

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
Hi John and thanks for a constructive post.
Suggest you nailed it with
" finding the balance between the needs of Navy and the needs of the Shipbuilding Industry.
My real concern is with the ability of the ANZAC class having relevance for their remaining service lives.
Compared to the Hobart and future Hunter Class they are small in size and limited in what they can carry / contribute.
Inner defence I would suggest is a concern with no CIWS or Medium Cannon.
Certainly a must for a layered defence when placed in harms way and not something you would depend on other ships for when defending that last couple of KM's.of in incoming threat.
Not sure if this deficiency has an answer.
I trust it is never tested.

The hunter class will be a massive improvement on the ANZAC's but as you said it will be a balance between the needs of the navy and the needs of the shipbuilding industry.
Is there a way to find more grunt in our 11 ship combat fleet in the 2020's

Thoughts

Regards S
No more grunt to be gotten from the Anzac's beyond system upgrades re radar etc. Already got as many weapons as we can on them. For the Hobart's well they are limited in number and going forward we will rely on them more and more over the Anzac's until the Hunters start arriving so any major work on them is risky as any delays or mishaps in such work to get more out of them would have a detrimental impact on the fleet as a whole. We really only have two options, Take the hard yards and look towards the light at the end of the tunnel or we see if we can lease some ships from abroad. No I don't believe we would lease them but if we want more grunt till the new ships arrive then that is the only safe option and would be dead set against buying some interim ships as some politician would use that as an excuse later on to scale back the Hunters -_-
 

hauritz

Well-Known Member
Hi John and thanks for a constructive post.
Suggest you nailed it with
" finding the balance between the needs of Navy and the needs of the Shipbuilding Industry.
My real concern is with the ability of the ANZAC class having relevance for their remaining service lives.
Compared to the Hobart and future Hunter Class they are small in size and limited in what they can carry / contribute.
Inner defence I would suggest is a concern with no CIWS or Medium Cannon.
Certainly a must for a layered defence when placed in harms way and not something you would depend on other ships for when defending that last couple of KM's.of in incoming threat.
Not sure if this deficiency has an answer.
I trust it is never tested.

The hunter class will be a massive improvement on the ANZAC's but as you said it will be a balance between the needs of the navy and the needs of the shipbuilding industry.
Is there a way to find more grunt in our 11 ship combat fleet in the 2020's

Thoughts

Regards S
With the new frigate program getting off to a slow start maybe the navy could partly cover this by beefing up the defensive armament of the LHDs and other ships. Adding a couple of RAM launchers could be a good start. I know the Juan Carlos has provision for a VLS so perhaps ESSMs could be carried on the Canberra class as well.

This could at least partly compensate for less capable escort vessels.
 
Last edited:

Systems Adict

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I think it has to be a bit quicker then 24 months, first Hunter starting 2022 last one delivered 2042 and first Hobart replacement due to start 2038. Even if the final Hunter is laid down in 2038-39 that would bring the Drumbeat down to 21-22 months
I think we are looking at a drumbeat of every 21 months.
I'd like to address the 'drumbeat' comments on here & the timescales being paraded / reduced / increased & seeing more action than a prostitutes undergarments on a busy Saturday night !

Firstly, lets look at things practically - For those involved in any recent, technically advanced warship manufacturing projects (Like AWD / T45), the 1st ship takes longer than all the others, as it is a prototype. The 2nd ship will not be as long, but will still be close to the 'stated timescale'. The 3rd ship is where most of the snags / build issues have been removed & timescales can initially start to be 'reduced'. If you maintain a build programme, building multiple ships of the same class, by the time you get to 6th ship, you are probably at maximum speed.

One of the key factors on the actual speed of the drumbeat is the resources available. IF you start with 1000 shipyard workers to build the 1st ship (including all levels of management / designers / quality control / inspection & test), you have about 600 people who are actually 'on the ship' with the rest being office based. To maintain a 'drumbeat, you have to start the 2nd hull, before the 1st hull is complete as a steel-work ship (i.e. ready to be put into the water, with major components fitted, but not really a ship that can go sailing anywhere). That 2nd hull will take about 300 of the 600 available.

As ships are often built from the stern, going forward, it makes sense that the next ship is constructed that way too, as you can take the guys from the 1st hull & transfer them across onto the 2nd hull, as they've done it all before, so will have a good idea of how it goes together & where the problems are.

To 'increase' the speed of production, at this point the shipyard has to take on more staff. The reality of this is that if you want to go from 24 to 18 months you need to find about 300 bodies. Throw into that mix that most large engineering firms lose about 50 - 60 staff a year, between retirement / deaths / sackings & people moving onto new jobs, you will have lost about 200 bodies from the workforce

All these facts start to mount up, they drive drive up costs, in-build issues can appear as new staff do things different from 'regulars' who've been on the project from the start. Then there's the 'Customer Wish List' of adding changes / improvements into a hull as the class progresses. The shipyard will be wary of costs & budgets, so will aim to do 'more with less' by the time they get to ship 5, as management will be looking at reducing the biggest overhead in any major engineering project, labour costs.

The practicalities of a construction project of this type & size, is that 24 months between hulls leaving the build yard / entering the hands of the navy, IS about as fast as you really want the ships (unless you're going to war / have lost a hull from the fleet, due to incident / accident). Building faster means the navy needs to find more sailors, they have to be trained, fed/watered/housed & all the other factors that influence fleet numbers of staff. Population numbers in most 1st world, Westernised countries are actually reducing, as we have less children than our grandparents generation, so there are less bodies available to become 'NEW' sailors. Most of our population is at or over 50, so more sailors are leaving, than the Navy can recruit.

So...

Does it REALLY make sense to go beyond the 24 month drumbeat ???

Rant over

SA
 

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
I'd like to address the 'drumbeat' comments on here & the timescales being paraded / reduced / increased & seeing more action than a prostitutes undergarments on a busy Saturday night !

Firstly, lets look at things practically - For those involved in any recent, technically advanced warship manufacturing projects (Like AWD / T45), the 1st ship takes longer than all the others, as it is a prototype. The 2nd ship will not be as long, but will still be close to the 'stated timescale'. The 3rd ship is where most of the snags / build issues have been removed & timescales can initially start to be 'reduced'. If you maintain a build programme, building multiple ships of the same class, by the time you get to 6th ship, you are probably at maximum speed.

One of the key factors on the actual speed of the drumbeat is the resources available. IF you start with 1000 shipyard workers to build the 1st ship (including all levels of management / designers / quality control / inspection & test), you have about 600 people who are actually 'on the ship' with the rest being office based. To maintain a 'drumbeat, you have to start the 2nd hull, before the 1st hull is complete as a steel-work ship (i.e. ready to be put into the water, with major components fitted, but not really a ship that can go sailing anywhere). That 2nd hull will take about 300 of the 600 available.

As ships are often built from the stern, going forward, it makes sense that the next ship is constructed that way too, as you can take the guys from the 1st hull & transfer them across onto the 2nd hull, as they've done it all before, so will have a good idea of how it goes together & where the problems are.

To 'increase' the speed of production, at this point the shipyard has to take on more staff. The reality of this is that if you want to go from 24 to 18 months you need to find about 300 bodies. Throw into that mix that most large engineering firms lose about 50 - 60 staff a year, between retirement / deaths / sackings & people moving onto new jobs, you will have lost about 200 bodies from the workforce

All these facts start to mount up, they drive drive up costs, in-build issues can appear as new staff do things different from 'regulars' who've been on the project from the start. Then there's the 'Customer Wish List' of adding changes / improvements into a hull as the class progresses. The shipyard will be wary of costs & budgets, so will aim to do 'more with less' by the time they get to ship 5, as management will be looking at reducing the biggest overhead in any major engineering project, labour costs.

The practicalities of a construction project of this type & size, is that 24 months between hulls leaving the build yard / entering the hands of the navy, IS about as fast as you really want the ships (unless you're going to war / have lost a hull from the fleet, due to incident / accident). Building faster means the navy needs to find more sailors, they have to be trained, fed/watered/housed & all the other factors that influence fleet numbers of staff. Population numbers in most 1st world, Westernised countries are actually reducing, as we have less children than our grandparents generation, so there are less bodies available to become 'NEW' sailors. Most of our population is at or over 50, so more sailors are leaving, than the Navy can recruit.

So...

Does it REALLY make sense to go beyond the 24 month drumbeat ???

Rant over

SA
Few small points I disagree on though I do understand and respect the sentiment you are coming across with.

  • Job losses - You give an example of 1000 workers, The need for 300 more to increase the drumbeat from 24 through to 18 months and 200 lost due to various reasons. The problem is Feb 2018 ABS data indicates that the issue of retaining staff is on average 8.1% with technicians and trades workers being slightly higher at 8.5%. Statistically that is a big difference as your claim would be between 15.38% and 20% (Depending if using 1,300 or 1,000)
  • Building ships faster means more sailors - How exactly is this the case? There would still be the same number of hulls in the fleet but rather a change in the age of the ships. Older they get the more stuff breaks, the more time laid up and less time at sea. Under the discussions taking place the median age of a ship would drop from 13 years (Based on 24 month drumbeat) to 9.75 years (18 month drumbeat). In no way would the navy require move bodies as more positions would not exist but rather they would stay the same.
  • Age of the population. I can speak to other nations didnt check into it but regarding Australia the median age at the moment is 37 which is a bloody long way from 50 that you stated.
The 24 months isn't because it is the most optimal build time but rather it is the maximum we can space it out under a continuous build program. Yes going too low on the gap between each build will result in it becoming more expensive as we would have to retire them before there time or run into another gap in production down the track however an 18 month gap as commonly proposed among a fleet of 12 gives you an 18 year service life which historically was close to the common age of warships before governments started to try and force them to stay around longer to save some dollars. 18 year service life allows you to skip the final decade of decline in the ships capability where the level of maintenance starts to sky rocket increasing cost and available ship days while potentially putting us in a position to nix major midlife upgrades and works.

Not saying that an 18 month is 100% the best way forward however there is another works in the benefits of it to warrant it in the future being considered and more closely investigated once the Hunter and Attack builds are underway.
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
Forum went weird, double post and doubled up on images as well.

The original RAND report explored different drum beats.
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR1000/RR1093/RAND_RR1093.pdf

It was also explored by others in the wake of the report.
https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/RAND-report-analysis-RELEASED.pdf

Once we actually have the new shipyards up and running more options are available. But I don't expect anyone to mess with the drumbeats, short of war breaking out. Changing plans is going to be expensive and problematic. Now the coalition is in for another 3 years I don't imagine any of the plan will change.
 
Last edited:

Stampede

Well-Known Member
With the new frigate program getting off to a slow start maybe the navy could partly cover this by beefing up the defensive armament of the LHDs and other ships. Adding a couple of RAM launchers could be a good start. I know the Juan Carlos has provision for a VLS so perhaps ESSMs could be carried on the Canberra class as well.

This could at least partly compensate for less capable escort vessels.
With the new frigate program getting off to a slow start maybe the navy could partly cover this by beefing up the defensive armament of the LHDs and other ships. Adding a couple of RAM launchers could be a good start. I know the Juan Carlos has provision for a VLS so perhaps ESSMs could be carried on the Canberra class as well.

This could at least partly compensate for less capable escort vessels.
Agree very much with beefing up the defensive armament on the support ships.
The Canberra class, HMAS Choules, and the two ships of the new Supply class should all have some defensive weaponry.
The existing Phalanx and Typhoon bushmasters should be installed with a adequate number of systems to provide a true 360 degree coverage for each ship.
These five ships should have the weight and geography for these guns and the expense of additional systems should not break the bank.
As another India /Pacific Endeavour comes to a close, it reinforces the fact that we have a very active navy that travels a long way from home.
As to ESSM well lets start with the above first, but I'm still open to its installation down the track.

Regards S
 

Joe Black

Active Member
Agree very much with beefing up the defensive armament on the support ships.
The Canberra class, HMAS Choules, and the two ships of the new Supply class should all have some defensive weaponry.
The existing Phalanx and Typhoon bushmasters should be installed with a adequate number of systems to provide a true 360 degree coverage for each ship.

Regards S
I would love to see that RAN start investing in SeaRAMs as well, and equipped each of these big ship with a set at least, plus Nulka, and advanced soft-kill systems.
 

seaspear

Active Member
I have attached an article about the deployment of a laser based system on a U.S.N ship because the article refers to using this against targets in the future and leaving expensive missiles for more sophisticated targets ,my thoughts were if the R.A.N does not deploy ships with the same amount of vls as U.S.N ships perhaps should consider that the storage capacity of generating power for beam styled weaponry is possible in the Hunter class ships
USS Preble to Be First Destroyer Equipped with Laser Defense System
any thoughts ?
 

Mattshel

Member
I have attached an article about the deployment of a laser based system on a U.S.N ship because the article refers to using this against targets in the future and leaving expensive missiles for more sophisticated targets ,my thoughts were if the R.A.N does not deploy ships with the same amount of vls as U.S.N ships perhaps should consider that the storage capacity of generating power for beam styled weaponry is possible in the Hunter class ships
USS Preble to Be First Destroyer Equipped with Laser Defense System
any thoughts ?
This is something where that space in the mission bay may come in very handy, you could put a containerized storage system in there for excess generated electricity.
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
I would love to see that RAN start investing in SeaRAMs as well, and equipped each of these big ship with a set at least, plus Nulka, and advanced soft-kill systems.
What we don’t know is what CIWS they are going to put on the Hunters, that could be the most interesting choice.
 

hauritz

Well-Known Member
I have attached an article about the deployment of a laser based system on a U.S.N ship because the article refers to using this against targets in the future and leaving expensive missiles for more sophisticated targets ,my thoughts were if the R.A.N does not deploy ships with the same amount of vls as U.S.N ships perhaps should consider that the storage capacity of generating power for beam styled weaponry is possible in the Hunter class ships
USS Preble to Be First Destroyer Equipped with Laser Defense System
any thoughts ?
Colour me skeptical about laser defence systems. Even if the technology is perfected it seems an easy weapon to counter. A bit of heat shielding or a chrome plated missile and its done.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top