CREF Assails response
In addition, ESSM also acts in an anti-cruise missile role - and that includes supersonic cruise missiles. CREF my comment earlier re "Roboship"
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
In addition, ESSM also acts in an anti-cruise missile role - and that includes supersonic cruise missiles. CREF my comment earlier re "Roboship"
the road runner
Active Member
I read an article on CEA website that was similar,talked about the trial at the pacific missile range in Hawaii.
http://www.cea.com.au/News+Media/Attachments/2013-0004.pdf
justsomeaussie
Member
Here they are using it in South Africa as a part of a Ground Based Air Defence system. So it's certainly a very flexiable system.
Diehl Defence: Air Defence System demonstrated in presence of international audience
The best part of CEAFAR is that because it can digitally form beams, it doesn't have to wait for another turn of the radar like other rotators. So in effect it can scan and detect something, then with a smaller beam stare at the target. Very very smart indeed. Also unlike APAR is S band so isn't tied up giving guidance and has a longer range and far less attentuation than X band.
Lockheed used a LCS mocked up with CEAFAR on top as their international varient.
Diehl Defence: Air Defence System demonstrated in presence of international audience
The best part of CEAFAR is that because it can digitally form beams, it doesn't have to wait for another turn of the radar like other rotators. So in effect it can scan and detect something, then with a smaller beam stare at the target. Very very smart indeed. Also unlike APAR is S band so isn't tied up giving guidance and has a longer range and far less attentuation than X band.
Lockheed used a LCS mocked up with CEAFAR on top as their international varient.
I asked a similar question once and from what I recall the answer depended on both the sensor system and details like weapon fusing etc. I know ESSM can hit surface targets (if the target is small enough to get sunk via ESSM it's probably an extremely expensive way to go plinking though), and both Standard and RAM can too.
Sea Ceptor I have no idea, though I assume the same principles would apply. Although once again cash-wise I suspect it would be an extremely costly method of doing business.
I think it was Abe who gave me the info but CB90 would probably be able to give you a great answer if he's lurking (or no answer at all
)Pure speculation but would a scaled up CEAFAR be a suitable system to retrofit to the DDG 1000 to flesh out the long range volume search capability? Its a MOTS system available from a close ally so it would make sense, especially as there are only three hulls to be considered and those three hulls should have more than enough growth reserve for the system.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
From memory the ESSM has been tested and approved for use vs. FIAC, in much the same way as the Phalanx CIWS Mod 1b for anti-surface use.I asked a similar question once and from what I recall the answer depended on both the sensor system and details like weapon fusing etc. I know ESSM can hit surface targets (if the target is small enough to get sunk via ESSM it's probably an extremely expensive way to go plinking though), and both Standard and RAM can too.
Sea Ceptor I have no idea, though I assume the same principles would apply. Although once again cash-wise I suspect it would be an extremely costly method of doing business.
I think it was Abe who gave me the info but CB90 would probably be able to give you a great answer if he's lurking (or no answer at all
Granted that is an expensive way to damage/destroy a hostile small boat, it should still be less expensive (in a number of ways) than a re-enactment of the USS Cole bombing.
Of course, appropriate ROE's would still be required, as well as a crew with proper training and readiness to make use of the capabilities.
From my perspective, it would be very interesting to see if a CAMM/Sea Ceptor or other very small VSHRAD missile could do the same as a secondary function. I know RAM is able to.
On a somewhat related note, would CAMM/Sea Ceptor be a potential candidate for deployment aboard the LHD's? IIRC the JC1 does have space and weight to fit a Mk 41 VLS, and the FCS is (I believe) able to utilize the ESSM. With CAMM/Sea Ceptor being smaller and not requiring as much resources to fit aboard ship, it would seem to make sense to fit them as a last line of air defence, and if they can operate vs. FIAC all the more so.
Similarly, could they be potential candidates for an OCV air self-defense capability?
The_Wrecker
New Member
The attachment within The Road Runners last post (12158) answers your question.
Arunta is to be handed back to the Navy in June 2014, Anzac in November 2014 and Warramunga also going into docking December last year.
Just wish we had donr some of the mods adopted by the RNZN for their ANZACs as well. The updated top ends for the MTU propulsion diesels would have been good, increase power, improved reliability and cut fuel consumption, increasing cruise speed and reducing operating costs.
I am curious as to whether the AN/SPS49(v)8 is going to be replaced as I remember reading something about this some time ago but nothing recently.
I am curious as to whether the AN/SPS49(v)8 is going to be replaced as I remember reading something about this some time ago but nothing recently.
Thanks. Sea Ceptor is able to take out a fast moving surface target at IIRC 2000 yards. I was just thinking in terms of if RNZN went RN Type 26 as ANZAC replacement.I asked a similar question once and from what I recall the answer depended on both the sensor system and details like weapon fusing etc. I know ESSM can hit surface targets (if the target is small enough to get sunk via ESSM it's probably an extremely expensive way to go plinking though), and both Standard and RAM can too.
Sea Ceptor I have no idea, though I assume the same principles would apply. Although once again cash-wise I suspect it would be an extremely costly method of doing business.
I think it was Abe who gave me the info but CB90 would probably be able to give you a great answer if he's lurking (or no answer at all
justsomeaussie
Member
I think 2018 is FOC for SEA1448 Phase 2b. The SPS49 is going to be replaced under SEA1448 Phase 4b IOC somewhere between 2017 and 2020.
Reference: Defence Capability Plan 2009 - Public Version - December 2010 Update
Regarding detecting and engaging small boats or FIAC I think CEAFAR provides targeting level information into the 9LV CMS so there is no reason why the ship's guns couldn't be slaved onto the radar tracks if the link exists.
Reference: Defence Capability Plan 2009 - Public Version - December 2010 Update
Regarding detecting and engaging small boats or FIAC I think CEAFAR provides targeting level information into the 9LV CMS so there is no reason why the ship's guns couldn't be slaved onto the radar tracks if the link exists.
blackknight
New Member
Recently the Royal Australian Navy visited Myanmar;
"The foreign interest in Myanmar’s navy (Tatmadaw Yay) is hardly surprising given its strategic maritime position in the Indian Ocean. Myanmar has its own desire to modernize and update its maritime security forces as its lucrative oil and gas reserves in the Bay of Bengal are set for major exploration.
These visits were meanwhile coinciding with initial steps being taken by the U.S. and U.K. towards reengagement with the Myanmar military. Looking to broaden their Myanmar cooperation, the U.K. and U.S. have offered Myanmar military officials classroom-based courses focused on the proper functioning of a military in a democracy."
"The foreign interest in Myanmar’s navy (Tatmadaw Yay) is hardly surprising given its strategic maritime position in the Indian Ocean. Myanmar has its own desire to modernize and update its maritime security forces as its lucrative oil and gas reserves in the Bay of Bengal are set for major exploration.
These visits were meanwhile coinciding with initial steps being taken by the U.S. and U.K. towards reengagement with the Myanmar military. Looking to broaden their Myanmar cooperation, the U.K. and U.S. have offered Myanmar military officials classroom-based courses focused on the proper functioning of a military in a democracy."
I remember reading somewhere several years (or longer) ago that the Italian Cavour design was a contender or being considered for JP2048 Phase 2 that resulted in the BPE Juan Carlos 1 design being selected to become the Canberra Class LHD and I cant find that reference anywhere now.
Just curious as it stuck me that the original requirement was outlined in the 2000 white paper and that following events, such as the war on terror, would likely have made the Cavour or even the America class LHA(R) a more attractive proposition.
While I understand the US options were not considered, LHD and LHA due to size and cost, LPD due to insufficient aviation capability, I would like to know if the Cavour was considered or evaluated and if it was, why was it eliminated prior to the RFT?
Just curious as it stuck me that the original requirement was outlined in the 2000 white paper and that following events, such as the war on terror, would likely have made the Cavour or even the America class LHA(R) a more attractive proposition.
While I understand the US options were not considered, LHD and LHA due to size and cost, LPD due to insufficient aviation capability, I would like to know if the Cavour was considered or evaluated and if it was, why was it eliminated prior to the RFT?
Canberra to Commence Sea Trials
Looks like HMAS Canberra is going to put to sea scheduled for departure on Feb 28th. The flight deck is clear of all construction huts, the final Satcom antennas have been installed on the mid mast, and a flurry of stores and material trucks have been loading her up. Wonder if a flotilla of smaller vessels is going to follow her as she steams for the heads and out into Bass Strait.
Looks like HMAS Canberra is going to put to sea scheduled for departure on Feb 28th. The flight deck is clear of all construction huts, the final Satcom antennas have been installed on the mid mast, and a flurry of stores and material trucks have been loading her up. Wonder if a flotilla of smaller vessels is going to follow her as she steams for the heads and out into Bass Strait.
Phase 2B is done, that was the under the ASMD upgrade already being rolled out across the ANZAC class. Word is the Phase 4B has been green lighted, and by 2020 all being good you should see the last of the ANZACs having an evolved mid-mast carrying both CEAFAR/CEAMOUNT and AUSPAR, as a proof of concept for implementation under SEA5000. It will he a heck of a job to jam it all in a circa 3000t platform.
That's precisely why we should have bought the Kidds instead of upgrading the FFGs when the US offered them to us. With NTU they were already more capable than the FFGUP and, with their size and stability, would have been perfect for CEAFAR/CEAMOUNT and AUSPAR as well as anything else we decided to trial. I believe buying the four would have been cheaper than the FFGUP.
If I remember correctly the excuse for not getting them as replacement for the DDGs was that it would have required the early retirement of two of the six FFGs due to manning constraints forcing an unacceptable reduction in hull numbers. This was back when it was still assumed the DDGs would be replaced not sure on what numbers the government had in mind but it appears to have been anywhere between 14-18 major combatants and the Kidd's, with their large crews, didn't fit that picture.
As it was the DDGs were retired without replacement, two FFGs were retired early due to cost and schedule overruns in FFGUP and the three planned AWDs became replacements the four remaining FFGs. Sounds familiar as the reason for not retaining the Phantoms when the F-111 were finally delivered was manpower limitations would have required the disbanding of one of the four Mirage Squadrons and possibly the last Canberra squadron. It happened anyway because of aging platforms and the need to increase the maintenance pool for the Mirage to keep it in service longer, doh!
Yes I know the real reason was cost cutting and internal politics but those were the publicised reasons.
Imagine a RAN with eight ASMD upgraded ANZACs, four ASMD + AUSPAR upgraded Kidds and three or four Hobarts replacing the FFGs.
If I remember correctly the excuse for not getting them as replacement for the DDGs was that it would have required the early retirement of two of the six FFGs due to manning constraints forcing an unacceptable reduction in hull numbers. This was back when it was still assumed the DDGs would be replaced not sure on what numbers the government had in mind but it appears to have been anywhere between 14-18 major combatants and the Kidd's, with their large crews, didn't fit that picture.
As it was the DDGs were retired without replacement, two FFGs were retired early due to cost and schedule overruns in FFGUP and the three planned AWDs became replacements the four remaining FFGs. Sounds familiar as the reason for not retaining the Phantoms when the F-111 were finally delivered was manpower limitations would have required the disbanding of one of the four Mirage Squadrons and possibly the last Canberra squadron. It happened anyway because of aging platforms and the need to increase the maintenance pool for the Mirage to keep it in service longer, doh!
Yes I know the real reason was cost cutting and internal politics but those were the publicised reasons.
Imagine a RAN with eight ASMD upgraded ANZACs, four ASMD + AUSPAR upgraded Kidds and three or four Hobarts replacing the FFGs.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
Except that the USS Kidd was first commissioned into the USN in 1981, it would now be a 31 year old, maintenance and crew heavy ship, hardly an ideal candidate for upgrades and continued service I would have thought.
Even in 1997 they had already spent 15-16 years in US Navy Commission.
The RAN should have been given the funding to replace the DDG's in the late 1990's, though it presumably would have reduced the number of ANZAC's, probably by being built in place of the first 3 ships of the class.
Even in 1997 they had already spent 15-16 years in US Navy Commission.
The RAN should have been given the funding to replace the DDG's in the late 1990's, though it presumably would have reduced the number of ANZAC's, probably by being built in place of the first 3 ships of the class.
As a late 90s DDG replacement the Kidds could have been bought and upgraded instead of upgrading the FFGs. As mining boom mk1 hit RAN retention rates all FFGs could have been sold off and the far more capable Kidds retained, or we could have offered the first two ANZACs to NZ as a knock down price and kept Melbourne and Newcastle while selling the first four FFGs. In terms of jobs an industry support it doesn't matter if the upgraded ships were twenty something year old FFGs or teenaged DDGs, in terms of capability for the RAN and hence the nation there is no comparison between a FFG and a DDG.
AWD goes ahead and replaces the DDGs instead of the FFGs but due to them being younger, better maintained, less abused hulls this gives far greater flexibility in terms of schedule and designs being considered, i.e. a full evaluation could have been conducted on F-105, Daring, KDX III etc. Also one or more of the Kidds could have been used to trial CEAFAR / CEAMOUNT and / or AUSPAR and those systems could then have been specified for the AWD.
Buying and upgrading the Kidds thus delaying the AWD project (unless of course the government of the day had also retained the FFGs and wanted to replace them too) would have relieved the stress on the shipbuilding sector permitting the full local construction of the more urgent LHDs prior to rather than concurrently with the AWD.
Possible timeline had the Kidd's been acquired:
-Kidds acquired and upgraded one at a time during the late 90s early 2000s
-Corvettes to replace Fremantles and FFGs after last ANZAC, then
-Westralia replaced with local build AOR/AOE , then
-2x LHD full local build, then
-Success replaced with 1 or 2 local build AOR/AOE , then
-AWD (more proven design options) replaces Kidds, then
-Strategic support ship, Choules not needed and first LHD in service in time
-ANZAC replacement full local build and local design input, then
-Corvette replacement (LCS type concept?), local design, platform and combat system, showcase of Australian expertise, export success.
End result, much more capable RAN, similar or less money spent, no valley of death, sustainable shipbuilding industry exporting designs and ships.
Just where in Australia would up to 20k ton ships be built? The last time Australia built a large ship it took twice as long and thrice as much to build. Currently the shipyards in Australia are unprepared to build ships much larger than 7k tons or so. The expertise isn't there, and won't be until the government decides to end the boom and bust cycles of shipbuilding. And since the government has no intentions of maintaining a shipbuilding cycle of construction, there is no need to build so many ships. Maintaining the expertise, maintaining the shipyard with skilled workers, is not cost effective if you don't buy enough ships.
Thought that was Volks point though? That it was a hypothetical timeline of the past and how it should have done rather than something which would be feasible now due to the very reasons you outlined?
- Status