...and that the RN is building eight, not in batches? I don't buy it. YMMV but I'm hypersensitive to careless errors of fact or misleading information and just one is enough to trigger my jaundiced eye.
oldsig
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
oldsig
It's simple, compact and inexpensive (as these things go) and has the massive advantage over launching a drone of fast reaction time. I'm certain drones can be used, but not much convinced of the advantages.
oldsig
If you're launching Nulka in a shooting match the last thing anyone on board will be caring about is recovering a decoy.
That’s what we said about orbital boosters until not long agoIf you're launching Nulka in a shooting match the last thing anyone on board will be caring about is recovering a decoy.
it’s intriguing to imagine, say, 4 drones that launch at a time. They perform the decoy function and then automatically land back on the vessel.
Last edited:
Just to add further to the source of the previous article of Asian Military review, I have downloaded further articles from this source featuring Dr Thomas Withington with some other interesting articles
www.asianmilitaryreview.com
Dr. Thomas Withington, Author at Asian Military Review
www.asianmilitaryreview.com
The actual Magazine is in bowels of the ship. The gun house is directly below the gun. The magazine is below the CoG.
Bulbous bows are an efficiency tool and need to be optimised to the intended speed (or speed range) of the vessel. It is not always of benefit. The use of a bulbous bow on the LHD makes sense … the DDG have a bulbous bow to support the sonar dome. The FFG62 has no bulbous bow.
Horses for courses.
When I last thought about this in depth the only place on the DDG I thought could even potentially work is somewhere either side of the existing hangar. Given Navantia proposed the same base design with a dual hangar for SEA 5000, it does suggest that there's wriggle room in the internal layout of the hangar section of the superstructure. Tactical length cells would largely fit the height of the hangar superstructure with only a small ~1.3 metre protrusion above.
Obviously an oversimplification of things, but It's the only location that I could possibly see even potentially working. With the intended addition of TLAM to Hobart's VLS, being able to free up even just 8 of the existing strike length cells would certainly have its benefits in maintaining the existing AAW missile load out.
Fair Call
Afraid not. Without going into the actual locations and uses, the area alongside and under the hangar area is packed out, and not with things that could be relocated. Not that there is a anywhere to relocate them too, anyway. So is the area surrounding the existing Mk 41. If you want to indulge in redesigns of the ships you are going to have to give something up.
1- And by relying only on those assets they ended up like this:
France Is Dropping Concrete Chunks on Libya
Six hundred pounds of plummeting concrete is a lot less likely to kill civilians
www.theatlantic.com
They said that was to save civilians but we all know how dry European bomb stock ran during the Libian invasion.
Let's also remember that their deep strike in Syria last time failed.
:quality(70)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/archetype/TRILIRKKFVGQRH655I5NC2QYPI.jpg)
France turns to plan B when missile launch fails during Syria airstrikes
When a French multimission frigate failed to fire its salvo of three naval cruise missiles during last weekend’s joint airstrike on Syria, the military drew on a backup plan.
www.defensenews.com
2- Again Lybia.
Both French and Brits shelled over 500 rounds during 50 different missions over the Lybian coast. It doesn't sound irrelevant.
3- yes it is an increased risk but as many said not all objectives are on a well defended coast. And I would also add that if you are able to fire a deep strike missile probably the enemy will still have AShM in range of you. Yes the risk will be less thanks to the distance but it isn't a safe bet.
4- Guided munition are already developed the problem would be just adapting them from the 76mm in case of DART munition
Or you can use the HVP from the US. A type of munition that I would bring it over regardless (giving Army 155mm and others ability to intercept cruise missiles IMHO is quite relevant)
I stand corrected regarding my earlier post indicating that the VLS on the Anzacs could only take ESSM. I spoke to a former VLS maintainer we have on staff & he has confirmed that the VLS is the tactical length so in theory could take SM2. There is still space onboard for the 2nd VLS, whether there is the weight, that is for smarter people than I to work out. He did also confirm that Captain Matchbox is correct, as part of the original FFBNW plan, there was the space for a 8 cell self-defence length VLS on the now Harpoon/chaff deck below the bridge. It would have penetrated down into the current chart room. I personally think the option for this VLS has well & truly passed. Cheers.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #31,174
Having worked in a chart room in the MEAO, would gladly move it to somewhere cooler as inside compartment reach 35°C.
I have questions about the concrete bombs...so how much compared to normal munitions? Have they figured out the answer to the old question, why does a $1 Million dollar missle, launched from a $80 Million dollar plane, landing on a $10 tent make a whole lot of sense? If they launched concrete bombs in Afghanistan then im sure alot of that 3 Trillion dollar war might have been saved
Git_Kraken
Active Member
Concrete munitions commonly are training stock. A side effect of the war in Afghanistan was the discovery that training bombs were very good a dropping grape huts on insurgents and training ammunition at punching through mud walls when fired from a 25mm. Oh, and it's super cheap. I wouldn't read to much into the French using those, it's a pretty practical solution. Sometimes it's just best to drop a rock on someone's head.1- And by relying only on those assets they ended up like this:
France Is Dropping Concrete Chunks on Libya
Six hundred pounds of plummeting concrete is a lot less likely to kill civilians
They said that was to save civilians but we all know how dry European bomb stock ran during the Libian invasion.
@icelord see above. The disadvantage is that the kill radius is very very small. Which is also their advantage. Also really good at penetrating and damaging infrastructure/vehicles.
Last edited:
We ran out of bombs in Europe
Fair enough. Interesting times. I think L-M has discontinued the Mk.41 SDL anyway on top of all the other issues, though perhaps refurbished ones ‘could’ be found if we were absolutely adamant…
But I suspect you are correct and that time has passed. If they can manage to add the second VLS at the stern along with the new towed sonar and perhaps one day get around to deciding on a new ASM, I think the amazingly versatile ‘little‘ ANZAC’s would be very well equipped heading into their twilight years…
On a somewhat related note, does anyone know if there is any substantial physical / weight difference between ESSM and ESSM Block II? Or are they more or less the same, being able to mix and match perhaps with existing ESSM rounds?
Yep LM discontinued the SDL in 2013 and replaced it with the Mk-56 VLS for ESSM and ExLS.
Git_Kraken
Active Member
There is a weight and shape difference. I don't think you quad pack with a mix. Unsure if they come from Raytheon that way or if the Ammo Dept packs them for install into a VLS.
Last edited:
Git_Kraken
Active Member
Laser-guided is different than concrete. Concrete refers to the payload, not the guidance method. Bombs exist that are laser-guided with a concrete payload. Of course, there are also GPS-guided concrete bombs and dummy (unguided) concrete bombs.
It doesn't diminish your statement however, Europe's war stock was exposed by the Libyan campaign.
- Status