Then they got it wrong.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
Then they got it wrong.
pm sent
protoplasm
Active Member
GF, would it be fair to assume that if we were going to send an LHD anywhere that needed anti-air and anti-surface protection that it'd be closely accompanied by 2 ASMD upgrade ANZACs and an AWD? It would seem that a fair degree of protection could be provided by other assets located near to an LHD.
without going into detail (as it would be inapprop in a public forum) when they establish the need for a platform its based around concepts of how that platform could be used. these are often modelled on various scenarios or vignettes.
a vignette might be a RAN only HADR requirement, a RAN only expeditionary mission to prosecute military interests say in the PACRIM, or South China Sea, Indian Ocean etc, or it could be a coalition scenario
in all of the above there are base plans on force level construct, timelined commitments, etc etc.... so yes, each force commitment requirement would see different assets attached so as to effectively provide the safest number and type of supporting force against the perceived and likely threats.
large capital assets will always be screened and escorted where a threat can be encountered. it could also include land based air (eg LRMP) or coalition overlap air (if needed)
protoplasm
Active Member
Thanks GF, don't worry I wasn't expecting the details, just the idea that you can get the overall protection for the capital asset that you want, without putting the sensors or effectors on the capital asset
the simplest and best case option is to have it entirely organic, but then reality issues like available real estate, core operational reqs, costs etc have to be factored in.
even "cash rich" (in comparison) services such as the USN don't get their preferred option. its always a trade off against competing requirements, capabilities or other service demands - the final build takes into consideration all those other influences.
the bottom line being that no navy sends their principle ships into contested or complex battlespace without some other support
The defense guns are really about dealing with asymmetric threats than ASM. For example LHD on an anti-piracy or what not mission they become more important/relevant.
Its more about layering than anything else.
I would be more interested in Choules, OPV or a JHSV type vessel that would at some stage may be out of the protected bubble.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
People need to keep in mind the overall role of the LHD when considering whether or not it is really "under armed". Yes, it would be nice to have some better self-defence capabilities, and in time that might occur, but they really need to first focus on carrying out their required purple tasks as an LHD.
Consider a USN Nimitz-class CVN, which is likely the single most expensive surface warship per vessel currently in service. By measurements, they are ~100 m longer, 2x the width, and have nearly 4x the displacement that the Canberra-class LHD's are expected to have, once in service. With all that real estate, and the importance of the ability to operate aircraft and service as a command vessel, the CVN is still only going to be mountin two or three 8-round box launchers for Sea Sparrow, and ~4 Phalanx or RAM missile launchers for CIWS.
The CVN could certainly sacrifice space and/or displacement for additional armament, but to actually employ that additional armament would likely have a negative impact on conducting air ops. Given the importance helicopter ops is likely going to be for the LHD, then I can understand there being somewhat less enthusiasm for adding extra missiles and guns.
Something which might be a good/workable idea for the future would be to incorporate a SeaCeptor launcher if some sort of additional defence is deemed desirable.
-Cheers
Consider a USN Nimitz-class CVN, which is likely the single most expensive surface warship per vessel currently in service. By measurements, they are ~100 m longer, 2x the width, and have nearly 4x the displacement that the Canberra-class LHD's are expected to have, once in service. With all that real estate, and the importance of the ability to operate aircraft and service as a command vessel, the CVN is still only going to be mountin two or three 8-round box launchers for Sea Sparrow, and ~4 Phalanx or RAM missile launchers for CIWS.
The CVN could certainly sacrifice space and/or displacement for additional armament, but to actually employ that additional armament would likely have a negative impact on conducting air ops. Given the importance helicopter ops is likely going to be for the LHD, then I can understand there being somewhat less enthusiasm for adding extra missiles and guns.
Something which might be a good/workable idea for the future would be to incorporate a SeaCeptor launcher if some sort of additional defence is deemed desirable.
-Cheers
TheRealist
Member
Lol, is that all
Not to mention the dozen or two Super Hornets in board. Face it, the fact that the LHD's have minimal self protection is a terrible look.Sorry guys not buying it. The overall role of the LHD is amphibious assault. Army prepares itself to conduct warfighting missions across the entire operational spectrum including high intensity combined arms combat - as it must - and is equipping itself accordingly (refer MBT, ARH, Land 400).
This would see the LHDs deployed in non-permissive environments with threat levels that may not always be of the ADF's or the Govt's choosing. The LHDs, however, are armed as if they are never intended to conduct anything more than humanitarian assistance or disaster relief missions.
This forum has pontificated about F-35B on the LHDs - to what end exactly? To provide options during combat operations against, potentially, a state enemy. Certainly not for HADR.
If there is an operation where organic fast air operating off the LHDs is required, there will be opposing forces with ASMs looking to take out that asset. The region to our north is full of them.
The protective screen provided by the accompanying surface combatants of an amphib task force is all well and good and is common in all blue water navies. The difference is that our navy sees fit to arm its amphib ships so lightly as to render them sitting ducks should a 'leaker' get through the screen.
This is in contrast to similar size ands smaller amphib assets in other navies (San Antonio, Ocean, Albion, Osumi, Dokdo); only the French Mistrals are more poorly armed than our LHDs.
Relying only on the protective screen provided by AWD and ANZACs is akin to driving into a firefight with a Bushmaster and expecting (hoping) the surrounding infantry can keep out anyone carrying an RPG.
Mounting a single SeaRAM on the LHDs is neither overkill nor excessive, either from a cost or capability perspective. It is merely adequate and prudent.
The 25mm Typhoons are not an "inner layer" against ASMs. They are no defence at all.
King Wally
Active Member
You would think so yes, or something similar to this effect. I can't help but recall a couple support ships that were hit in the Falklands War by lucky ASM's and I'd hate to ponder the effect if one were to slip through to slam into a LHD with 1000+ troops and equipment fully loaded.
Politically I wouldn't want to be the defence minister on duty the day this happens if the LHD were to be deployed with nothing more then 25mm Typhoons for self defence.
To put things in in context the Invincible class gave up Seadart for more deck space and three CIWS (Phalanx or Goal Keeper). While the LHD has space and weight for a VLS (so I understand) two (or four) SeaRAM systems in lieu of some (or all) of the Typhoon mounts (on at least one bow and one quarter) would provide pretty good all round cover.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
You are half right. The Typhoon mount is not to provide protection against any inbound AShM. They are to provide a defence/countermeasure vs. FIAC.
As has been mentioned before, the LHD's are believed to have space/weight set aside to include a Mk-41 VLS. Apart from cost and the potential need, one thing delaying inclusion of a VLS is the problems having a Mk-41 given where room is available, and especially launching missiles from it. To do so properly, the missiles need to be able to launch without interfering with other ship operations, like flight ops, sensors, comms, etc. If a SAM like ESSM is to be used, then illuminators would also be required.
Given the C4 capabilities that the ADF would have gotten used to having from the Kanimbla-class LPA (by reputation second only to that of dedicated command ships like the USS Blue Ridge), it is understandable that the RAN would want to pack in as much as possible in terms of sensors, computers, and comms. Given how different comm systems can interfere with each other, it is certainly possible that some of the plans may have had to be changed, becausing wiring and antennaes had to be changed or relocated.
The last bit is that it is expected that there are some mounting points for the Mk 15 Phalanx CIWS, much like was the case for the LPA's. This way instead of having a CIWS permanently attached to a particular vessel, they can be maintained as a weapons pool, to be aded when a vessel is likely to head into an area where a CIWS might be advisable. The LPA and FFG CIWS are (or were) maintained as a pool of weapons.
-Cheers
Was not suggesting for a second that Typhoons are for defence against ASMs. My point was exactly that - the ships have no defence against such threats at all. Agree with the RAN cramming in as much C4 capability as possible on the ships, but determining where the comms gear and sensors are located so they are compatible with self-defence systems is surely part of a balanced design and decided in the early stages of the design process.
I know the RFA had then Largs Bay fitted up for Phalanx. A "fitted for but not with" position for Choules might be in some way acceptable (remember she has NO armament) but not for capital ships like the LHDs.
Nor am I convinced that Phalanx is the best option either. Those 20mmm rounds don't travel very far (even less range than the 25mm) and only achieve highest hit probability at about 500 metres.
What modern ASMs don't give you is time to respond. SeaRAM has the ability to hit targets at greater stand-off ranges (out to 9km) and thereby the opportunity to land more rounds on target (close proximity will do - air burst) to increase hit probability.
That said, where would they mount Phalanx? I seriously can't see any available space on the superstructure. Swapping out the two Typhoons on the aft quarterdeck would be fairly simple but coverage over the front quadrant poor.
As for Mk 41 VLS - which to be honest I DO think is overkill for the LHDs - that's the first I've heard of it. But where would it go?
searam or sea ceptor
Possible options:
- using mk41 for sea ceptor...no illuminators required, vertical launch clear of ship presumably allows 360 degree coverage from one launch location without impacting help ops, 25km range so not just ciws but pdms as well, same as NZ...a good option surely.
- searam or ram on the starboard bow & port quarter (seem to remember seeing a line drawing of JC1 with this fit out at flight deck level)...presumably cheaper, easier to fit, easy to move around in a pool.
I've read somewhere that searam has a substantially shorter range than fully fledged ram due to the phalanx radar limitations...anyone confirm?
R99
Possible options:
- using mk41 for sea ceptor...no illuminators required, vertical launch clear of ship presumably allows 360 degree coverage from one launch location without impacting help ops, 25km range so not just ciws but pdms as well, same as NZ...a good option surely.
- searam or ram on the starboard bow & port quarter (seem to remember seeing a line drawing of JC1 with this fit out at flight deck level)...presumably cheaper, easier to fit, easy to move around in a pool.
I've read somewhere that searam has a substantially shorter range than fully fledged ram due to the phalanx radar limitations...anyone confirm?
R99
So where would you mount the SeaRam ? you will still have coverage and launch issues with it.
Space and weight for VLS has been reserved in the design in the superstructure, I don't see that an 8 cell VLS with say 4 quad packed ESSM and VL-ASROC etc is overkill, you are after all arguing for the need for defensive weapons for a large high value asset
Cheers
Actually just to clear that up there's several of us who have no interest in "pontificating" about the F-35 and would rather see the whole topic go the way of the dinosaur - maybe you could bear that in mind before you start making generalisations.
Sea Ceptor (Bleurgh) is available either in individual CAMM canisters or in special quad packable cells designed for CAMM. However because these are specifically for CAMM there is zero capability for anything else as the appropriate exhaust systems etc are non existent, meaning that compared to typical VLS it's very light.
Has a secondary anti-surface capability too.
I'm quite happy with the current self defence capability (matched to CONOPS) fitted to the LHDs.
If, its a big if, navy decided to upgrade then talk of Sea Ceptor or Mk 41 is illogical. The first because SC is not in the RAN's plans and the second because space and weight preclude Mk 41.
I suggest that if ever a solo contested operation developed and a defensive upgrade was required we would stay with ESSM and the Mk 29 launcher which could better fit the platform. But this is Dream World.
http://www.alternatewars.com/BBOW/Weapons/Mk29_GMLS.pdf
- Status