Boagrius
Well-Known Member
Yes, the ESSM Blk II is "quad-packable" - it uses the Mk25 Mod 1 ESSM canister to this end.
https://www.dacis.com/budget/budget_pdf/FY18/PROC/N/2307_17.pdf (p2)
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
https://www.dacis.com/budget/budget_pdf/FY18/PROC/N/2307_17.pdf (p2)
When is a door not a door?
When it's a Jar.................................................Boom Boom!
Looks ESSM Blook11 is CIWS / Medium Area defence missile and a light ASM rolled into one system.
Expensive platform for taking out a fishing boat but a flexible system none the less.
Trust it meets expectations.
In a layered response to an incoming missile I still feel you would want a rapid fire cannon.
The old question is what will replace the 20mm Phalanx.
We probably all have our fantasy answers, but it would be nice if ESSM was good enough not to warrant the question.
Trust the upgraded ANZAC class get the latest ESSM, ASAP.
Regards S
When it's a Jar.................................................Boom Boom!
Looks ESSM Blook11 is CIWS / Medium Area defence missile and a light ASM rolled into one system.
Expensive platform for taking out a fishing boat but a flexible system none the less.
Trust it meets expectations.
In a layered response to an incoming missile I still feel you would want a rapid fire cannon.
The old question is what will replace the 20mm Phalanx.
We probably all have our fantasy answers, but it would be nice if ESSM was good enough not to warrant the question.
Trust the upgraded ANZAC class get the latest ESSM, ASAP.
Regards S
Boagrius
Well-Known Member
I believe that is the plan:
Huge boost for missile program | Defence News
New anti-ship and surface-to-air missiles are being considered as part of a $1 billion investment announced by the government.
It looks like you have probably enunciated it quite well.
20mm Phalanx for fishing boats and the like, and ESSM Blook11 for CIWS / Medium Area air defence
MB
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
ESSM (Block 1 or Block 2) might be expensive vs. the cost of a smallcraft, but most likely not nearly as expensive as a RAN warship getting rammed by a speedboat packed with explosives, similar to what happened to USS Cole on 12 October, 2000.
Me being me, I am a firm believer in the truism that it is better to have a capability or specific piece of kit and not need it, than to need it and not have it. What I would prefer though, would be for the RAN to adopt a small/medium-calibre gun and round to standardize the current and future warships (minor and major) on. Given some of the choices available in the 30 mm to 40 mm range, there are rapid fire gun/programmable ordnance options that would provide both aerial and anti-surface/FAC CIWS capabilities.
Last edited:
Total agree
If you send a ship into harms way then you'll use whatever weapons available to neutralize a threat.
A standardized small / medium gun across the fleet would be ideal.
Want happen over night, but my two bobs worth is the 40mm on the Arafura will be the long term trend.
30 mm for the Hunter Class would not be my choice and hopefully with the OPV coming online shortly we see what this caliber does ( Again ) and rethink the decision.
Regards S
The hunter already has 2 x 30mm mounts. However, I do not see ever mounting 2 x 30 GAU-8 based CIWS being on the hunter or any other RAN surface combat ship. Historically the goalkeeper had twice the mass of the Phalanx, and required a whole floor space underneath it and carried less rounds than Phalanx does. So engaging things like drones, surface threats, missile fragments, rpgs, shore fired mortars/artillery, the Phalanx has more engagements.
IMO on larger ships, a GAU-8 gun makes a bit more sense, one could imagine two being fitted to the back of a carrier, where there is room. Phalanx may still be fitted at the front for coverage. There is more space and weight for such a beast. Carriers or LHD. Even then, part of a layered defence. I'm not sure the answer to CIWS is a bigger gun.
ESSM is quite good. the only issue is the number of missiles. Taking up mk41 vls limits how many can be carried. CAMM has an advantage, having a much lighter and more flexible launcher. It can be placed elsewhere on a ship, even near windows/doors, or up high on the structure. It doesn't tend to takeway from the mk41 general load out capability. But its really up to each navy to work out what balance works for them.
IMO on larger ships, a GAU-8 gun makes a bit more sense, one could imagine two being fitted to the back of a carrier, where there is room. Phalanx may still be fitted at the front for coverage. There is more space and weight for such a beast. Carriers or LHD. Even then, part of a layered defence. I'm not sure the answer to CIWS is a bigger gun.
ESSM is quite good. the only issue is the number of missiles. Taking up mk41 vls limits how many can be carried. CAMM has an advantage, having a much lighter and more flexible launcher. It can be placed elsewhere on a ship, even near windows/doors, or up high on the structure. It doesn't tend to takeway from the mk41 general load out capability. But its really up to each navy to work out what balance works for them.
Without getting into the back forth of which guns we could replace the phalanx with just to simplify the discussion what are the existing none deck penetrating guns around and what ones are under development at present?
Makes it easier to compare possible alternatives that are on or will be on the market that could potentially fit within the area where a phalanx usually would be.
Cheers.
Makes it easier to compare possible alternatives that are on or will be on the market that could potentially fit within the area where a phalanx usually would be.
Cheers.
cdxbow
Well-Known Member
Wish John Clarke was still alive to feast on that.
The lady would have better been named Ms Lols.
How do you fit 384 ESSM into 48 MK41 Cells? Isn't quad packed meaning 48 X 4 = 192?
Also...50Km range on ESSm is about 20-30sec flight time for a hypersonic missile and thats if engaged at the max 50km range...so not a lot of room for error there.
Boagrius
Well-Known Member
ESSM isn't really your weapon of choice against hypersonics - SM6 and, eventually, GPI will be. ESSM is much more directed at subsonic and supersonic weapons like YJ100/83/12/18. These will remain a threat for many years to come.
Git_Kraken
Active Member
Depends on the type of hypersonic you are talking about. Hypersonic cruise missiles are a different type of missile than ballistic hypersonics. Hypersonic cruise missiles currently (though this may change in the future) need to come down below hypersonic speeds at sea level due to air friction, thus making them basically a top-end supersonic.
This means hypersonic anti-ship missiles become supersonic anti-ship missiles in their final stages of the attack. Difficult to deal with but if you can get tracking an ESSM can shot them down. Hypersonics are an evolutionary not revolutionary technology for cruise missiles IMHO. Hypersonic ballistic missiles however are as you stated. SM family and GPI will be engaging those as they have the range to get them.
Here's a pretty good primer on hypersonic tech and limitations. Made by an Australian as well (seems appropriate for the thread)
Boagrius
Well-Known Member
Yes, thanks I actually posted that video myself in the hypersonics thread. Insofar as I understand it, the term "hypersonics" currently refers to four main technologies - hypersonic glide vehicles (HGVs), hypersonic cruise missiles (HCMs), various types of ballistic missiles and hyper-velocity projectiles (HVPs). The video I posted above shows a proposed way of dealing with the first type (HGVs). That said, it strikes me as likely that SM6 and GPI will be the weapons of choice against HCMs and anti-ship ballistic missiles (ASBMs) as well.
The idea that hypersonics need to slow to below hypersonic speeds to eliminate the blackout caused by the plasma sheath is a common one, but I'm not 100% sure it is true - it has been suggested in the past that the plasma sheath is not a showstopper (presumably for RF guidance), so it strikes me as conceivable that some of these weapons may be able to achieve terminal speeds greater than Mach 5. If not, then yes, they would be fair game for an ESSM interception.
Last edited:
Git_Kraken
Active Member
The thing that scares me regarding a hypersonic would be a diver. Get up over the task group and come pounding down at Mach 4+ from 50,000 ft. I'm not sure modern ships are designed to look up very well, but I suppose that's why they invented CEC.
Is Hunter class implementing that capability?
Boagrius
Well-Known Member
Yes high divers seem pretty nasty, not just because of the elevation limits inherent to shipborne radars but also due to the radar losses incurred at extreme elevation angles (IIRC). That said, I do think CEC ought to help address this and I would be completely shocked if the Hunter class didn't come packaged with a robust CEC capability to go with its Aegis CMS and extensive suite of CEC-enabled weapons.
CeC has already been requested and approved, but BMD capability remains a “growth option” for the Hunter class I’m afraid…
Boagrius
Well-Known Member
I'd be very surprised if it stays that way but time shall tell I guess. While SM-3 is probably surplus to our requirements, I suspect SM-6 will go from a "nice to have" to a "need to have" weapon by the time the first Hunters start to hit the water, especially in our region.CeC has already been requested and approved, but BMD capability remains a “growth option” for the Hunter class I’m afraid…
I’d argue they already are, but we know the steady as she goes policy of the ADF acquisition process in these declining strategic times…
Boagrius
Well-Known Member
True. On the bright side; given that the Hunters won't be with us properly for over a decade, there is still plenty of time for the powers that be to green light the SM6 on them. ;-p
Last edited:
A question re the ANZAC Class
How difficult would it be to add a black extension to this class of ship?
At a guess, I'd suggest just forward of the Bridge.
Given the ship appears to have "maxed out" and yet will still be in service for many years to come is this feasible?
HMAS Perth is now scheduled to retire in 2043.
That's over two decades away!
With the first of the Hunter Class over a decade away, the ANZAC's will be shouldering much of the load and be asked to perform in a maritime realm beyond their design and size.
They will to asked to be a Hunter Class performer in a 4000t hull.
They need help!
Suggest some growth over and above their current refits.
Compared to the Hobart / Hunter Classes they lack Phalanx and a pair of medium cal cannons.
A towed array is yet to be fitted and their SAM capacity could and should be improved with an additional Mk 41 VLS.
Missile load out is a BIG part of the ADF short and long term calculus.
Space and weight is needed.
To keep costs to a minimum, what sized block could be added, without the need to tinker with the ships power plant/ electric etc.
Ideally the Block would be sufficient to house the VLS, additional berths ,hotel services and provide buoyancy for the deficient weapons to be distributed appropriately across the ship.
Is this a big ask or not?
The alternative is the fleet as is in the 2020's and at best half a dozen destroyers in the 2030's.
The ANZAC's will look challenged in this decade if not, realistically now.
Regards S
How difficult would it be to add a black extension to this class of ship?
At a guess, I'd suggest just forward of the Bridge.
Given the ship appears to have "maxed out" and yet will still be in service for many years to come is this feasible?
HMAS Perth is now scheduled to retire in 2043.
That's over two decades away!
With the first of the Hunter Class over a decade away, the ANZAC's will be shouldering much of the load and be asked to perform in a maritime realm beyond their design and size.
They will to asked to be a Hunter Class performer in a 4000t hull.
They need help!
Suggest some growth over and above their current refits.
Compared to the Hobart / Hunter Classes they lack Phalanx and a pair of medium cal cannons.
A towed array is yet to be fitted and their SAM capacity could and should be improved with an additional Mk 41 VLS.
Missile load out is a BIG part of the ADF short and long term calculus.
Space and weight is needed.
To keep costs to a minimum, what sized block could be added, without the need to tinker with the ships power plant/ electric etc.
Ideally the Block would be sufficient to house the VLS, additional berths ,hotel services and provide buoyancy for the deficient weapons to be distributed appropriately across the ship.
Is this a big ask or not?
The alternative is the fleet as is in the 2020's and at best half a dozen destroyers in the 2030's.
The ANZAC's will look challenged in this decade if not, realistically now.
Regards S
- Status