Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.
Unric said:
If it does save weight that might improve the chance of the second mk. 41 being installed in the space originally reserved (if that still exists). But I think chris73 is right. The Anzacs are pretty maxed out. I'm just trying to think laterally if you were desperate. CEAFAR seems a brilliant system to only be hooked up to 8 cells. Thank goodness for CEC. I reckon that's the real answer to making better use of the Anzacs.
Click to expand...

I could be mistaken, but I believe the displacement reduction which would happen by removing the 'A' position 127 mm gun and replacing it with another Mk 41 or some other type VLS in the same location would actually exacerbate displacement issues. My reasoning behind this is that IIRC concrete ballast had to be added to spaces in the hull, to counteract increases in topweight brought about by quad-packing the ESSM, adding the Harpoon AShM quad-launchers, plus the new masts, CEAFAR radar panels and their associated ancillary kit. By reducing the displacement low down flush with Deck 1, that would cause the CoG to rise, triggering a need for more ballasting to be done. In some respects, it might be easier (and lead to a better outcome) if some of the planned Arafura-class OPV's were built with a greater combat focus and were fitted with a Mk 41 VLS, and the necessary illuminators and other bits and bobs. Another possibility to increase the air defence loadout options for RAN vessels was if the RAN were to adopt another missile in addition to the ones already in service or planned, namely adding Sea Ceptor into the mix.
 
Todjaeger said:
I could be mistaken, but I believe the displacement reduction which would happen by removing the 'A' position 127 mm gun and replacing it with another Mk 41 or some other type VLS in the same location would actually exacerbate displacement issues. My reasoning behind this is that IIRC concrete ballast had to be added to spaces in the hull, to counteract increases in topweight brought about by quad-packing the ESSM, adding the Harpoon AShM quad-launchers, plus the new masts, CEAFAR radar panels and their associated ancillary kit. By reducing the displacement low down flush with Deck 1, that would cause the CoG to rise, triggering a need for more ballasting to be done. In some respects, it might be easier (and lead to a better outcome) if some of the planned Arafura-class OPV's were built with a greater combat focus and were fitted with a Mk 41 VLS, and the necessary illuminators and other bits and bobs. Another possibility to increase the air defence loadout options for RAN vessels was if the RAN were to adopt another missile in addition to the ones already in service or planned, namely adding Sea Ceptor into the mix.
Click to expand...
We're not allowed to discuss OPV's being up-gunned. Could they tow a sonar array though?
 
Gryphinator said:
We're not allowed to discuss OPV's being up-gunned. Could they tow a sonar array though?
Click to expand...

My reference to the Arafura-class OPV was actually quite deliberate. People keep seeming to want to add 'more' to the current and planned RAN vessels, whilst also wanting such additions to be accomplished prior to an expected increase in hostilities and/or outright combat in ~five years time.

What seems to keep being forgotten is the time it actually takes to carry out some of these modifications. If one were to completely ignore both the cost and manpower limitations, only focusing on the time limitation to bring a new/upgraded capability into service, I would expect most such capabilities to require more than five years to acquire and integrate. That is just the nature of complex kit, as it is neither instantaneously available, not automatically compatible and integrated.
 
In any case, it would not be possible to fit Mk 41 in the Arafuras without a total redesign of the ship which would probably mean it would end up quite a lot bigger; and if you are going to do that you might as well build something like the Sigmas which has been designed to be able to support such a capability from the beginning.

You might be able to fit a clip on towed array if it was totally self contained, but that of course would mean removing the larger sea boat which sits in a runway in the stern; and which is one of the major tools for them to do their real job.

Looking at the Hunters, and without going into any detailed analysis, the deck area available in the mission bay would seem to be large enough to support many more than 32 VLS cells. Whether the hull depth, margins etc would be able to would be another question. I rather doubt it; the mission bay is as I understand it meant to have “stuff” sitting on it, not penetrating the deck. I don’t know what’s below it, but as it is in roughly the middle third of the ship it’s unlikely to be vacant, or even reconfigurable, space. And I have no idea what the impact on stability would be.
 
Last edited:
Todjaeger said:
My reference to the Arafura-class OPV was actually quite deliberate. People keep seeming to want to add 'more' to the current and planned RAN vessels, whilst also wanting such additions to be accomplished prior to an expected increase in hostilities and/or outright combat in ~five years time.

What seems to keep being forgotten is the time it actually takes to carry out some of these modifications. If one were to completely ignore both the cost and manpower limitations, only focusing on the time limitation to bring a new/upgraded capability into service, I would expect most such capabilities to require more than five years to acquire and integrate. That is just the nature of complex kit, as it is neither instantaneously available, not automatically compatible and integrated.
Click to expand...
Agree that complex kit takes time to integrate.
The starting point to adding "stuff" is to make the decision to start the process.
If the perceived threat is sooner rather than later then make the call.

I think we are still working out the threat perception and how and when to respond to it.

New build vessels present an opportunity as does any margin of space and weight across the existing fleet.

All vessels regardless of role should be critiqued.

Suggest the process started yesterday!


Regards S
 
spoz said:
In any case, it would not be possible to fit Mk 41 in the Arafuras without a total redesign of the ship which would probably mean it would end up quite a lot bigger; and if you are going to do that you might as well build something like the Sigmas which has been designed to be able to support such a capability from the beginning.

You might be able to fit a clip on towed array if it was totally self contained, but that of course would mean removing the larger sea boat which sits in a runway in the stern; and which is one of the major tools for them to do their real job.

Looking at the Hunters, and without going into any detailed analysis, the deck area available in the mission bay would seem to be large enough to support many more than 32 VLS cells. Whether the hull depth, margins etc would be able to would be another question. I rather doubt it; the mission bay is as I understand it meant to have “stuff” sitting on it, not penetrating the deck. I don’t know what’s below it, but as it is in roughly the middle third of the ship it’s unlikely to be vacant, or even reconfigurable, space. And I have no idea what the impact on stability would be.
Click to expand...
I started a conversation re the ANZAC's need for additional weapons. In particular the need for an additional VLS to add volume to the single 8 Cell launcher currently installed.

While like many I'm some what confused why such large vessels in the new Hunter class have less VLS Cells than the smaller Hobarts, they are still a massive increase over the ANZAC's.
I'm also mindful to a lay man like myself that their would be reasons for it. I would assume it's their emphasis on ASW and what the flexibility of their large and impressive mission bay brings to a contingency that is maybe the point of difference.

Anyway 32 VLS may seem small to some of the massive ships recently mentioned, but it is still a good load out for a single ship.

Potentially
22 SM2 and 40 ESSM
or
128 ESSM

Take your pick.

If someone is actually hurling nasties at us, most likely the ship would be apart of a combined taskforce and that task force would not realistically hang around too long, if the threat continued without the opportunity to neutralize it.

The Hunter Class will be OK.


Regards S
 
Once NASAM's are in production for the Army, will it be possible to cram module or two onto the Anzacs and or the Arafura classes?
And is anyone working on a modern Ikara?
 
In short, no. To be honest the existing ESSM capability eclipses anything NASAMS could do anyway. I remember reading a piece from CSBA calling for an ultra-long range ASROC (I think they mentioned strapping an LWT to an SM6 motor/booster or some such) but have heard no solid plans to this end as yet.
 
Boagrius said:
In short, no. To be honest the existing ESSM capability eclipses anything NASAMS could do anyway. I remember reading a piece from CSBA calling for an ultra-long range ASROC (I think they mentioned strapping an LWT to an SM6 motor/booster or some such) but have heard no solid plans to this end as yet.
Click to expand...

The USN does have the RUM-139C VL-ASROC which carries a Mk 54 LWT and a max range of somewhere between 16 km (USN fact file) or 22 km, depending on the source used. Ikara had a max range of ~19 km, but carried the Mk 44 LWT.

From my POV, while a ship-launched standoff ASW does have some useful applications, these would mostly involve launching such ordnance to support ASW helicopters which have detected a suspected or likely contact and has already expended it's onboard ordnance.
 
Todjaeger said:
The USN does have the RUM-139C VL-ASROC which carries a Mk 54 LWT and a max range of somewhere between 16 km (USN fact file) or 22 km, depending on the source used. Ikara had a max range of ~19 km, but carried the Mk 44 LWT.

From my POV, while a ship-launched standoff ASW does have some useful applications, these would mostly involve launching such ordnance to support ASW helicopters which have detected a suspected or likely contact and has already expended it's onboard ordnance.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I think the CSBA rationale was for a weapon with much greater range, so that surface vessels could promptly engage detected subsurface targets right out to the periphery of a task group's sensor footprint. The argument was that ASROC's range has become a bit anaemic in light of advances in sensor performance.
 
icelord said:
The ANZACs were top heavy when the VLS was installed before they went through major upgrades to the tower.

Packing anymore behind the bridge has been discussed for many years including closing the GDP for increased EW. Since they haven't it is perhaps to much on top of what has always been an "oversized patrol boat"
Click to expand...

Agree and part of the issue ... as I understand it (happy to be corrected) is the need for range. Meaning more fuel meaning more tanks. Tanks tend to be low down in double bottoms. Fuel ... like anything else chews up deadweight but having fuel low down lowers the CoG ....this is great when they are full .... a problem when they are empty ... worse when they are partially filled as you then have a free surface moment to content with. This effectively increases the CoG in a dynamic manner. In extreme cases a vessel will end up with an unstable equalibrium which results in an angle of loll.

This is a big issue in merchant ships as the deadweight (cargo and stores capacity is quite high) but less in warships as the 'cargo' capacity is minimal by comparison and you can deal with the expected stability range in design. This should also ensure the vessel is not too stiff or too tender as neither is desirable for a bunch of reasons. Messing around with the design means that has to be address which is why I understand the ANZAC got more permanent ballast and a deeper draft along with an enclosed quarterdeck (to increase the buoyant volume).

As an example of the possible differences between MEKO's .... the Greek Meko 200 (pretty close to layout as the ANZAC) has a range of 4100nm. The ANZAC is around 6000nm depending on which source you use. By ditching range the Greeks were able to fit two LM2500 GT's and I think they have a simpler machinery layout that the ANZAC with the bloody great gear box dealing with two MTU and one GT driving two props. The Greek vessel has a speed of 31 knots and shorter legs which is fine for their operations. For the RAN range is an important factor.
 
Todjaeger said:
The USN does have the RUM-139C VL-ASROC which carries a Mk 54 LWT and a max range of somewhere between 16 km (USN fact file) or 22 km, depending on the source used. Ikara had a max range of ~19 km, but carried the Mk 44 LWT.

From my POV, while a ship-launched standoff ASW does have some useful applications, these would mostly involve launching such ordnance to support ASW helicopters which have detected a suspected or likely contact and has already expended it's onboard ordnance.
Click to expand...
But again it gets back to the number of Cells the Ships are carrying, the Burkes have 90-96, so can afford to give up some to the ASW Mission, while the new FFGs have only 32 they won’t be required to carry Land Attack Cruise Missiles and with 16 SSMs planned in seperate Launchers, won’t need to carry VLS-SSMs when and if they become available.
 
Redlands18 said:
But again it gets back to the number of Cells the Ships are carrying, the Burkes have 90-96, so can afford to give up some to the ASW Mission, while the new FFGs have only 32 they won’t be required to carry Land Attack Cruise Missiles and with 16 SSMs planned in seperate Launchers, won’t need to carry VLS-SSMs when and if they become available.
Click to expand...

Indeed, that is exactly the point. A Flight II AB has twice as many Mk 41 VLS cells as a Hobart-class DDG, and can therefore be fitted with the missile loadout of a RAN DDF, and then have 48 VLS cells remaining to carry additional air defence missiles, land attack, ASW, etc. Given the comparatively small number of VLS cells available to the RAN, it would IMO require some long and hard thinking before changing the VLS loadout to a secondary or tertiary role for a given RAN vessel.
 
Subs would be great but if it's a matter of getting more cells in the water for cheap, would something like a usv be an option? You don't need a full blown warship if it works in tandem with an existing unit. Like a loyal wingman that exists just to haul missiles. Usv tech might be going too far but even a stripped down vessel with minimal crew ?
 
hauritz said:
Absolutely agree. There is only so much you can do with a 20 year old ship that is about half the size you require. Additional P8s could be in the air well before the 2030s and add a lot of all round capability. Perhaps reinstate the plans for a couple of additional KC-30s as well.

Some pressure could be taken off the escort vessels if the self defence capability of the the two LHDs was also upgraded. I note that the Spanish were considering VLS for the Juan Carlos and of course the USN operate ESSM off their own Assault ships. At the very least they could consider one or two RAM launchers.
Click to expand...
I would not write them off just yet. The SAAB 9LV combined with the CEAFAR combination and 32 ESSM (with block II coming) still gives these vessels a potent medium range AAW capability. This reflects the fact the combat systems, missile and radars are very capable by modern standards. True there are only 8 cells but that is still 32 ESSM block I or block II. Nulka remains an effective active decoy system compared to contemporary systems.

Harpoon is likely to be replaced during their remaining service noting the replacement will have to be integrated on the Hunters who use the SAAB 9LV as the tactical interface. Hopefully integrating that missile should not be a significant issue. If NSM is selected (which appears possible) then that is also a capable missile. I believe the NSM may be a tad lighter but I have not looked at the combined missile and cannister weights.

The fitting of towed array will certainly help in the ASW capability. Tactical information and data links to improve situational awareness are necessary for any unit to be effective and I don't see the RAN failing to keep the ANZAC's up to date in this aspect.

In short ..... the considerable work that went into the ANZAC's has taken them from a 'patrol' frigate to a capable warship (certainly better than a number of other of the MEKO 200 derivatives out there).

What may be handy is additional rotary assets as these are a force multiplier.
 
One thing that hasn't really been looked at is something between the OPV and the FFG. What about corvettes in the 3,500 tonne displacement range? Slightly smaller than the ANZAC in displacement:
  • Similar range to ANZAC FFG,
  • 76mm main gun,
  • 16 Mk-41 VLS on fore deck,
  • 4 Cannister AShM,
  • 2 x 30mm autocannon,
  • CIWS,
  • Hangar and flight deck for 1 Romeo,
  • 2 x twin LWT launchers,
  • Hull sonar
  • Crew of 60
  • CEC?
  • Non AEGIS radar that won't make it top heavy.
  • IRST.
  • Decoys etc.
That would certainly bulk your surface force out and would provide convoy escorts for most areas outside of the immediate battle zone. If the Oto Melera 76mm gun was acquired then you have all the advantages of its AAA capabilities and then you could follow the Italian naval practice of mounting asecond above the hangar.

Something to think about.
 
ngatimozart said:
One thing that hasn't really been looked at is something between the OPV and the FFG. What about corvettes in the 3,500 tonne displacement range? Slightly smaller than the ANZAC in displacement:
  • Similar range to ANZAC FFG,
  • 76mm main gun,
  • 16 Mk-41 VLS on fore deck,
  • 4 Cannister AShM,
  • 2 x 30mm autocannon,
  • CIWS,
  • Hangar and flight deck for 1 Romeo,
  • 2 x twin LWT launchers,
  • Hull sonar
  • Crew of 60
  • CEC?
  • Non AEGIS radar that won't make it top heavy.
  • IRST.
  • Decoys etc.
That would certainly bulk your surface force out and would provide convoy escorts for most areas outside of the immediate battle zone. If the Oto Melera 76mm gun was acquired then you have all the advantages of its AAA capabilities and then you could follow the Italian naval practice of mounting asecond above the hangar.

Something to think about.
Click to expand...
I just don't see this being possible in the time frame between now and the Hunters entering production. I suspect you will have the same issue as the ANZAC in that all that capability is at the expense of something else .... and that will most likely be range.

Added to that is the fact this would not be a cheap vessel to build within our budget.
 
alexsa said:
I just don't see this being possible in the time frame between now and the Hunters entering production. I suspect you will have the same issue as the ANZAC in that all that capability is at the expense of something else .... and that will most likely be range.

Added to that is the fact this would not be a cheap vessel to build within our budget.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. I chucked it out there as an idea. That's all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top