Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Unric

New Member
Getting back to what (if anything) can be done for the Anzacs, it's a bit left field but would it worth considering replacing the mk 45 with some vls? Not a nice choice since it's a very handy system especially with some promising new tech in the wings (and it might not even be feasible) but at the end of the day you can only do so much with 4000 tons.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
ADMk2 in the ADF threads had this on the TLAM capability.
View attachment 48347

So it appears TLAM for the AWD is a possible. Personally I think that is, fine, 48 tubes, could always mix TLAM in for a long range antisurface weapon.

But the critical platforms are the subs. For both land and maritime strike capability.

The issue is I am not sure which platform is driving the acquisition, the subs or the awds.

The original announcement back in JAN was a bit ambiguous..
urity

With ranges in excess of 370 kilometres for anti-ship and surface-to-air missiles, and 1,500 kilometres for maritime land strike missiles, these new weapons will enhance the protection of our maritime resources and borders, and hold adversaries at risk at much greater distances.

Minister for Defence, Senator the Hon Linda Reynolds CSC said new investments would be made across the current and future submarine and surface combatant fleets, to provide the Australian Defence Force with more options to protect Australia’s interests.
TLAM for the Hobart-class (and/or the Hunter-class for that matter...) might be a possibility, but IMO such a loadout would be only under some fairly specific and irregular circumstances, or else the VLS cell count and air defence missile loadout options would need to be addressed in some fashion.

If we look at the number of currently planned vessels, the RAN will have 3 DDG's and 9 FFG's in service, once the Hunter-class build is completed many years from now. Given the Rule of Threes, this would indicate that a potential RAN TF might have a single DDG and a pair of FFG's acting as escorts. With such an escort force, a hypothetical TF would have ~112 VLS cells available for use. To provide some perspective, the Mk 41 VLS kitted aboard the USN's Aegis Ticonderoga-class CG have a total of 122 cells. Further, a USN CSG task force would have one or two such cruisers, plus two or three Aegis-kitted DDG's with 90 to 96 Mk 41 VLS cells each.

From my POV, a USN TF can afford to have some TLAM in the VLS load out for two reasons. The first is that USN vessels generally have a significantly larger VLS cell counts, enabling more options. The second reason is that the USN is just so much larger, so that a strike package loadout can be spread across a greater number of vessels, or a small number of vessels could be dedicated to a strike and be escorted by sister ships with appropriate defensive loadouts. With the RAN, such options just are not available. Going back to the mention of USN TLAM strike on Syrian targets with 23 missiles, such a missile loadout in likely RAN TF escorts would reduce the VLS cells available for air defence and/or ASW (VL-ASROC for example) by ~20%. If the reduction was essentially evenly split between RAN escort vessels, that would likely require eight VLS loaded for TLAM in each vessel. Now the Hobart-class might be able to manage with only 40 cells available to load with a mix of SM-2/-6 and/or quad-packed ESSM, as that should be sufficient to have up to 32 SM-2/-6 and 32 ESSM, for air defence duties. IMO trying to extend a TLAM loadout to the Hunter-class when it only has 32 Mk 41 VLS cells, becomes a bit more problematic. Eight cells dedicated to TLAM would leave only 24 other cells, which would be just enough to load 16 SM-2/-6 and 32 quad-packed ESSM into the remaining VLS cells. However, if the VL-ASROC or a similar design/capability is brought into service to support the FFG in the ASW role, then the available VLS cell count will be pushed down even further, before air defence missiles get considered.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Getting back to what (if anything) can be done for the Anzacs, it's a bit left field but would it worth considering replacing the mk 45 with some vls? Not a nice choice since it's a very handy system especially with some promising new tech in the wings (and it might not even be feasible) but at the end of the day you can only do so much with 4000 tons.
Not sure that would really be feasible. While an 8-cell Mk 41 VLS might be able to fit into the space currently occupied by a Mk 45 gun aboard the FFH's, AFAIK the change would likely reduce the displacement and raise the vessel's CoG.
 

chis73

Active Member
Not sure that would really be feasible. While an 8-cell Mk 41 VLS might be able to fit into the space currently occupied by a Mk 45 gun aboard the FFH's, AFAIK the change would likely reduce the displacement and raise the vessel's CoG.
I don't think the ANZAC class is very likely to get much in the way of further upgrades. Many of the class are more than 20 years old now. I expect what you have now will pretty much be it.

If you were really desperate though, the only thing I can suggest is perhaps removing the Mk 41 and ESSM, replacing it with say CAMM-ER (now known as Albatros NG in its naval form). It wouldn't offer anything in the way of an improvement in performance (or loadout) over what you have now, but it might claw back a substantial amount of topweight (the Mk 41 is something like 12 tons for the 8-cell self-defence version on the ANZAC, plus you could maybe save about 100+kg or so per missile). Perhaps you may be able to fit a few CAMM silos somewhere as well.
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Really? I thought LAND8113 was still a thing. Couldn't turn up much online but I imagine this guy knows the answer:


Just have to fight the urge to make Die Hard references...

EDIT: This is the most recent piece I could find on the subject. Language seems consistent with the MLRS program still being alive and kicking.

It remains an un-approved project so it is subject to change. The word I should have used is “potentially” not possibly, because that is the word the Land Commander used less than a month ago when he mentioned the employment of rocket artillery as part of a discussion about the combined arms system…

 

Unric

New Member
Not sure that would really be feasible. While an 8-cell Mk 41 VLS might be able to fit into the space currently occupied by a Mk 45 gun aboard the FFH's, AFAIK the change would likely reduce the displacement and raise the vessel's CoG.
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.
 

Boagrius

Well-Known Member
It remains an un-approved project so it is subject to change. The word I should have used is “potentially” not possibly, because that is the word the Land Commander used less than a month ago when he mentioned the employment of rocket artillery as part of a discussion about the combined arms system…

Gotcha. Seems like a pretty vital project TBH. Have faith AD! ;-p
 

Bob53

Active Member
I’ve no doubt it will be, that is it’s primary purpose, but numbers of VLS cells etc is primarily a budget decision, as seen recently with the T45’s that do have space reserved for additional strike length cells, but have opted for the cheaper soft-launch VLS for SeaCeptor. The mere fact we are putting AEGIS on these vessels and arming them with SM-2 / SM-6 shows they are intended to do far more than ASW…

I’m hoping the reserved space holds true for the Hunters (preferably fitted with of course…) because I’m really not sure in this day and age why we are buying 10,000t Destroyer sized vessels at an enormous premium and then arming them more lightly than in-service smaller vessels…
Always had me scratching me head. A brief comparison...
Korean ships
Sejong Great 11000 ton 128 VLS cell + 16 X ASM
Chungmugong 5000 ton 64 X Mk41 + 8 Harppon + 21 X RIM 116

Japanese
Maya/Ashai 10000 ton 96 X Mk41, 8 X ASM
Kongo 9000 ton 90 X Mk41
Ashai 7000 ton 32 X Mk41

China
Type 52 7500 tons 64 X VLS
Type 54 4000 tons 32 Cells

Just seems we put so much in we can't for the cells in.
 

t68

Well-Known Member
Always had me scratching me head. A brief comparison...
Korean ships
Sejong Great 11000 ton 128 VLS cell + 16 X ASM
Chungmugong 5000 ton 64 X Mk41 + 8 Harppon + 21 X RIM 116

Japanese
Maya/Ashai 10000 ton 96 X Mk41, 8 X ASM
Kongo 9000 ton 90 X Mk41
Ashai 7000 ton 32 X Mk41

China
Type 52 7500 tons 64 X VLS
Type 54 4000 tons 32 Cells

Just seems we put so much in we can't for the cells in.
Size might have more to do with it
Sejong the Great class length- 165 m Beam- 21 m
Chungmugong Yi Sun-sin-class Length 150m Beam-17.4


Anzac class Length- 118 m Beam- 14.8 m

Sejong the Great Class Guided Missile Destroyer | Military-Today.com

Chungmugong Yi Sunshin Class / DDH-II Class Destroyer - Naval Technology (naval-technology.com)

Anzac Class Guided Missile Frigate | Military-Today.com
 

Bob53

Active Member
Yes there is certainly a few larger ships there but they seem get get a lot more VLS into their ships that are of comparative size to our 7000 ton AWDs and 9000 ton Hunters.
 

Git_Kraken

Member
How much would the mission bay on the Hunter affect the achievable VLS count? It's the one notable feature that eats into available volume that is absent on comparably sized vessels.
CSC is placing 6 ExLS in the forward section of the mission bay. Given that measurement, you could probably fit another 8-16 VLS in that spot. Not entirely sure if they would be strike length, but that's not necessarily an issue if you are mixing ESSM into the loadout. ESSM would go in the mission bay spot where as foc'sle VLS would take the longer missiles.

There would be some engineering changes however as those VLS would be much higher above the waterline than ones flush with 1 deck. And you would need to re-design how the RHIB's are launched/recovered from the leftover space, as the mission bay is where they are normally located.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
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.
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.
 
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.
We're not allowed to discuss OPV's being up-gunned. Could they tow a sonar array though?
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
We're not allowed to discuss OPV's being up-gunned. Could they tow a sonar array though?
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.
 

spoz

The Bunker Group
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:

Stampede

Well-Known Member
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.
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
 
Top