Agreed hence the sense in using the 'evolved AB' hull for the follow on frigate. To quote a recent maxim, steel is cheap (relativley anyway) and air is free. Using the AWD hull for the frigate lowers risk, improves comonality and permits growth.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
Agreed hence the sense in using the 'evolved AB' hull for the follow on frigate. To quote a recent maxim, steel is cheap (relativley anyway) and air is free. Using the AWD hull for the frigate lowers risk, improves comonality and permits growth.
well, you can go with S1850M + APAR too, but S1850M is supposedly the followup to Smart-L. I think having a volume search radar is more important for ANZAC than Burke.
contedicavour
New Member
A question I'd have is : how much sense does it make to have up to 80 VLS cells when the costs of the missiles are so high that often most VLS cells will be empty ??
Scenarios such as resisting a sudden attack by a dozen SU30s launching 30 Kh35s at your ship seem to me unlikely enough to justify limiting installed VLS to 48 or 64 at maximum... Buy an extra supply ship instead to reload the VLS cells...
cheers
Scenarios such as resisting a sudden attack by a dozen SU30s launching 30 Kh35s at your ship seem to me unlikely enough to justify limiting installed VLS to 48 or 64 at maximum... Buy an extra supply ship instead to reload the VLS cells...
cheers
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
At least for the AWD, it isn't initially expected to be fitted with 80 VLS cells, just 64 (depending on design selected). The appeal for a growth path to 80 cells is that ability to carry/fire more in the future. Future areas where additional cells might be worthwhile is if the AWD became BMD capable, or were deployed on missions where they would also carry TLAM. Not all 80 cells would necessarily be used for area air defence missiles.
-Cheers
My understanding is that it is very difficult to reload VLS cells at sea. I remember reading about this in a report on RAN naval bases and the need for specialist facilities to reload the VLS in Anzac class frigates but I can't find the source. A paper in the RAN website refers to the fact that:
http://www.navy.gov.au/spc/maritimepapers/piama16/missiles.html
A specially fitted supply ship could probably resupply missiles in a port or anchorage but I am not sure that underway replenishment is practicable. It would be good to hear from some of our navy members about this.
Cheers
Last edited:
Some VLS-equipped ships were fitted with reloading cranes when VLS was a new idea. IIRC it was dropped because they were hardly ever used, & it was thought better to use the space for more VLS cells (got about 3 more in, IIRC). I'd say that was mostly because the missiles rarely got fired, but the difficulty of doing it underway may have been a factor. If you have to anchor & bring a supply ship alongside, might as well have the crane on the supply ship.
contedicavour
New Member
Interesting remarks thanks.
I remain convinced FFGs need 32 VLS max and DDGs 64 max.
Unless you start adding Tomahawks and ASROCs as well.
With 64 Aster-15/30 or ESSM/SM2s you have more than enough to counter a dozen SU30s firing 4 ASMs each... leaving aside the CIWS.
cheers
Considering the fact that the Anzacs only have 8 cells I would have to accept that even 32 in a replacement would be a vast improvement. However, if either the F100 or G&C "Baby Burke" is chosen for the replacement frigate program it would still make sense to me for them to carry at least the same number of cells as the baseline design of their big sisters (the AWDs), which would be 48 and 64 respectively. At some stage in a future conflict it may be handy to have the extra capacity. In a Gulf War type scenario, for example, a large number of cells fitted with TLAMs would be in demand, providing of course that the RAN actually acquires TLAMs at some time in the future!.
Cheers
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I agree that 64 cells would provide an adequate number (generally) of missiles for an air defence role from the AWD. I believe the desire to maintain an option on a further 16 cells is to allow future expansion for other, non-air defence missiles.
As for the Anzac replacement, that depends somewhat on what the replacement is. If as suggested, the same hull as the G&C design is used for commonality issues, that I see no reason not to make use of additional cells. Such a design, with so many missiles available but not using the Aegis or a similar combat data system, could be roled primarily for ASW and anti-ship/land attack missions. Air defence could then be secondary using only some of the 64 (or 80) VLS cells available.
-Cheers
... In a Gulf War type scenario, for example, a large number of cells fitted with TLAMs would be in demand, providing of course that the RAN actually acquires TLAMs at some time in the future!.
Cheers
The USN has more TLAM launchers (sub tubes & strike-length VLS cells) than missiles to fill them. No need to think in terms of helping out the USA.
contedicavour
New Member
Ah-ha interesting. This reinforces my doubts about the logic of having so many VLS cells is there aren't even enough TLAM (and SM-2 III ?) to fill them...
I understand that steel (ie larger sized ships) doesn't cost much. However the Mk48 or Sylver launchers are anything but cheap and take up space for other useful systems, such as RAM (Burkes would for isntance need a RAM instead of a few VLS cells)
cheers
RAM can easilly be fitted in place of the CIWS as SeaRAM. Additional rounds (be it ESSM, SM-2 SM-6 etc can be flown in if necesary. If harpoon goes VL (for DDX 1000) that adds another benifit.
Fitting more cells is a much longer term prospect (read dockyard and quite a bit of work) and not one you can do in an emergency.
Finally you may not have ll your ships ready for sea at one time but can transfer their weapons. It would seem a greater pity to have rounds available in a confilict and not ahve room for them.
Short answer fit as many as possible in the beginning because in realtive terms the cast of the module is not that great.
I think if we choose the F-100's sticking F-35B's on the LHD would justify the lower cell count.
Being able to perform long range strike, air defence with easily rearmable aircraft would mean those cells left would be able to be used more effectively. Given the AWD and a ANZAC would be near the LHD anyway there would be no loss of capability in reality.
TLAM's would be a nice thing to have anyway.
Being able to perform long range strike, air defence with easily rearmable aircraft would mean those cells left would be able to be used more effectively. Given the AWD and a ANZAC would be near the LHD anyway there would be no loss of capability in reality.
TLAM's would be a nice thing to have anyway.
I agree with you that F-35Bs for the LHDs could certainly make up for having 16 fewer cells in the AWDs. Unfortunately I doubt that the F-35B will be anywhere near being on the table for consideration when cabinet makes up its mind between the two contenders.
Cheers
Don't forget even JSF will need to be backed up by AEW to maximise its capability and tasking efficiency.
And given the relatively low cost of the Mk41 modules ...... why bother event if you get the F-35B. Having he capacity to be a little more liberal with missile expenditure is not a bad thing.
I agree with both comments.
The point you make about the VLS modules is a good one. Apart from fact that they are comparatively cheap, having them installed when the ships are built would help avoid the inevitable stability problems that arise with mid life additions when we find that the 'space and weight' allowed for in a design has already been used up with ad hoc additions that always seem to find there way into available spaces. Even my aluminium runabout suffers from this problem!
To allow for the possible future purchase of both SM-3 and TLAMs it makes a lot of sense to fit the cells during construction.
Cheers
just a question i know that AEW is essential for most carrier groups to have air born early warning but if you primarily using the cambarra class as LHD and placesing about 10 JSFs every so often for air defences and fixed wing CAS would it just be better to not bother with AEW and use AGEIS as primary queing for the JSF. i know AEW is vastly superior but it would be much cheaper if you were going to have JSFs on deck of the camberra
AEW would be useful even without the F-35B's.
I belive JORN, AGEIS and other sensor networks can be linked together to provide more than adiquate coverage. JORN is being linked to AGEIS anyhow for inital SM-3 guidance as part of the missile shield, AFAIK.
Not to mention AEW would enhance AGEIS and search and rescue, anti submarine warfare etc. Each F-35 can also be linked, and help perform the above missions.
The Additional cost of F-35B's (over F-35A) and AEW would be almost nothing concidering the cost of the purchases of the LHD and F-35 procurement. Pocket change. What a extra $5-$10 million for the B vairents, and $10 million for a AEW helo.
I belive JORN, AGEIS and other sensor networks can be linked together to provide more than adiquate coverage. JORN is being linked to AGEIS anyhow for inital SM-3 guidance as part of the missile shield, AFAIK.
Not to mention AEW would enhance AGEIS and search and rescue, anti submarine warfare etc. Each F-35 can also be linked, and help perform the above missions.
The Additional cost of F-35B's (over F-35A) and AEW would be almost nothing concidering the cost of the purchases of the LHD and F-35 procurement. Pocket change. What a extra $5-$10 million for the B vairents, and $10 million for a AEW helo.
SPY will not be on all the time, either due to maintenance, equipment problems or if the tactical situation requires it, in those cases you will really want an AEW asset.
Besides a high flying AEW with a decent surface search radar will have a much better surface picture than any ship will.
I agree with Stingray that AEW is very worthwhile and that AEW helos would be useful even without F-35Bs. It was a missing factor in Melbourne's air group in the good old days when the RAN had a carrier. The problem with Melbourne was the difficulty in finding room for the 3-4 E1B Tracers that the RAN would have liked to have had to back up its S2E Trackers and A4G Skyhawks. When the RAN was looking at the possibility of an ex USN Essex class carrier in the mid 1960s the purchase of 8 E-1B Tracers was proposed together with 28 F4B Phantom IIs and 24 S2E Trackers. Unfortunately the Modified Essex was never purchased and the RAN had to make do with a mix of S2Es and A4Gs (in lieu of the Phantoms).
Source: FLYING STATIONS, A Story of Australian Naval Aviation, Australian Naval Aviation Museum, Allen and Unwin, St Leonards, NSW, 1998.
The LHDs (particularly the BPE design) seem to have plenty of deck and hangar space and the addition of AEW helos would be both feasible and worthwhile, IMO. It seems that it would be possible for two LHDs operating in the amphibious role to deploy with something along the lines of 3 AEW helos, 6+ F-35Bs , 4+ Tiger armed recce helos, 16+ MRH-90s and 2 CH-47Ds. If a Canberra was deployed in the sea control role without troops and their equipment embarked it should be able to easily operate an air group of 12+ F-35Bs, 4+ S-70B Seahawks and 3 AEW helos.
Cheers
- Status