The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[Volkodav]

The ANZACs were fine with NSSM and even had sufficient space and weight for a second eight cell module, the issue was when they were upgraded with ESSM, quadrupling the number of rounds, then received the ASMD mods which increased the weight high up in the ship.

On the length of the Mk41 employed, I had always assumed it was PDM length but then read somewhere it was actually tactical length, i.e. SM-2MR compatible.

 

[the concerned]

So is it sensible to keep all VLS cells in one place or would trying to separate them be better.

 

[ngatimozart]

So is it sensible to keep all VLS cells in one place or would trying to separate them be better.

Tactically speaking it is better to split your VLS into 2 with one section up fo'rd and the other aft. Each section will basically replicate the capabilities of the other. This is so that if one VLS section suffers damage and becomes unserviceable, then the ship can still be fought. If you only have 1 VLS group and it is damaged becoming unserviceable, then the ship cannot be fought apart from the main gun and smaller weapons. Not much good if you are fighting an enemy 40 miles away and you're still well within their range.

 

[ASSAIL]

The Type 31e is a far larger ship with quite a bit more displacement and stability to play with. The OMT F370 was designed with a significant amount of weapons capability in that position. Where the RAN ran in problems with the ANZAC class was when after the ships were in service, they installed the 8 Harpoon box launchers on 1 deck behind the 5 in gun and then added the CEAFAR radars etc. That moved the ships c of g higher, increased displacement and negatively impacted upon stability. Not good on a ship because it increases the risk of them turning turtle and joining the submarine service. Reckon they'd roll like hell on wet grass now.

I’ll leave the expert commentary to Alexsa but remember that the Anzacs SPS49 has been removed and that there’s a large tonnage of ballast added. This results in the ship being just as stable but puts her right on the edge for buoyancy because of the extra displacement. They have less freeboard, are therefore slower and have to be wary about WT openings on the main deck as deck edge immersion angles are less.
This is all conjecture on my part as I’ve never been on an Anzac, after my time, just my observations so feel free to correct me those in the know.

 

[swerve]

Interesting that the Type-31e has its VLS "high in the middle" as well.

Doesn't make sense given the RAN's experience with the ANZAC's.

Regards,

Massive

I think that Sea Ceptor launchers are a fair bit lighter than even self-defence Mk 41, the missiles are lighter, & the ship's a lot bigger. I doubt it'll be a problem.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I think that Sea Ceptor launchers are a fair bit lighter than even self-defence Mk 41, the missiles are lighter, & the ship's a lot bigger. I doubt it'll be a problem.

Ball park napkin calculations

CAMM/CAMM-ER are between 100-160kg.
ESSM are 280kg a piece, at least.

CAMM launchers would be loads lighter as well, as they cold launch, and are launching a much smaller missile and mk41 are designed for much larger payloads but shrunk down. MK41 vls would be ~400kg per missile for a 8 cell quad packed (32 missile min 12 ton+ for the VLS module + 12t+ for the missiles) and would be more than that due to additional auxiliaries like water dousing, fire fighting, power, computers, etc . ExLS - for example, is 99kg for 3 missiles. So the VLS weigh per missile is closer to 30kg.. Cold launch solves a lot of problems.

Putting quad launchers high up of ESSM would be nearly a magnitude more demanding than CAMM. Getting close to 1 metric ton per ESSM verse <200kg for CAMM. There would be plenty of situations where you could easily squeeze a useful load out of CAMM into a design but ESSM would be a no go.

Basic CAMM is much closer to RIM(ed: SeaRAM as Tod and Spoz) in size and weight. 100kg verse 75kg. CAMM-ER is about twice the mass, but ESSM is still twice the size of CAMM-ER and goes into launchers generally designed for much larger missiles in 700-2000kg range.

 

[spoz]

As others have observed, in the case of the ANZACs the location of the Mk 41 and its weight did not significantly compromise the original design in its operational context; it even had pretty good growth margins. The addition of a whole bunch of additional capabilities used up that margin and eventually required addition of ballast and the plating in of the quarterdeck (due to the concern Assail mentioned re deck immersion) but the buoyancy remains adequate. However, as also noted the ships are more deeply immersed that originally contemplated, and that has affected speed.

Many modern designs have the VLS built into the superstructure including sometimes to the 02 or even 03 levels; as it appears, the Canuck version of the T26 does. True, this is normally for a lighter system than Mk 41, such as that used for Sea Ceptor, which is the case for the RCN, However all versions of T26 have their Mk41s reaching the 01 level forward of the bridge.

All ship design is a compromise,

 

[StingrayOZ]

There are issues launching hot missiles from where the Type 26/CSC are placing their CAMM launchers near the funnel. Its not just about weight. Launching a missile is like a small explosion on the deck (and is a large explosion if it missfires). The bow is a place usually pretty clear, open and the only thing usually up front is something quite solid like a 5" which has its own requirements.

Even the Type 26 for the RN has really quite dispersed missile layouts. The more I look at the Type 26 design the more I am impressed with the layout and the design choices. I am also very impressed with CAMM. It may be very beneficial not to paint your deck/bridge with red hot missile exhaust while launching self defense missiles. Having cold launch missiles from the funnel is going to hide the launch much better. You can also launch multiple missiles at the same time with no interference and redundancy. Also launching decoys like Nulka from there would also likely be useful.

However, launching traditional heavy missiles from those positions wasn't really possible, and older missile systems (like RIM[ed:SeaRAM]) were much more limited and last ditch layers of defence. The type 26 takes advantage of the newer missile technologies in its design.

NZ went with CAMM on its ANZAC's. Which probably suits their needs better on a ship of that size.

In talking about VLS being built into the super structure the Burke has quite a large Mk41 module quite high at the rear. Fully loaded that would be a significant amount of mass. I imagine it is still in the metacentric height sweet spot. Its not always about having it all at the lowest possible height.

 

[Todjaeger]

However, launching traditional heavy missiles from those positions wasn't really possible, and older missile systems (like RIM) were much more limited and last ditch layers of defence. The type 26 takes advantage of the newer missile technologies in its design.

Just to clarify, when you mention RIM, do you actually mean RAM, for the RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile? Under the US missile designation system, the RIM prefix of RIM-116 indicates a ship-launched aerial/space intercept guided missile. An archived PDF from the USAF can be found here which lists the US systems for designating aircraft and missiles.

 

[spoz]

All the USN’s surface to air missiles have RIM designations - SM2 for example is designated the RIM-66 family, with SM2MR Block IIIC being RIM-66M-6; SM6 is RIM-174.

 

[alexsa]

I’ll leave the expert commentary to Alexsa but remember that the Anzacs SPS49 has been removed and that there’s a large tonnage of ballast added. This results in the ship being just as stable but puts her right on the edge for buoyancy because of the extra displacement. They have less freeboard, are therefore slower and have to be wary about WT openings on the main deck as deck edge immersion angles are less.
This is all conjecture on my part as I’ve never been on an Anzac, after my time, just my observations so feel free to correct me those in the know.

The plating in of the quarter deck was done to increase inherent buoyancy. The vessels were also designed with longer range than other MEKO 200 derivatives so any calculation needs to address the change in CoG as fuel is burned and the dynamic impact on stability caused by free surface moments in part filled tanks. No point in having lots of fuel if it cannot be used and catering for this required ballast as top weight was added.

As noted by others the ESSM was not about when the ANZAC frigate was designed so this ‘addition’ of an additional 28 missiles (over the 8 in the original load out) makes quite a difference. That and the new sensors etc.

You get what you pay for and the ANZAC was envisaged as a light patrol frigate will limited systems. What it is now is a very capable medium range anti air and anti missile platform ...... getting to that point used up all the growth margin and then some. Hence ballast, deeper draft and enclosed quarterdeck to recover the stability margin.

 

[alexsa]

I thought on most modern ships the VLS were located in front of the bridge. The ANZAC's has them stupidly located up high in the middle but that's far from standard practice.

Sorry .... why is it far from standard practice ..... there are a lot of vessels with VLS aft including all the AB destroyers. In this case the VLS are between the hangers .... which is pretty well where the ANZAC VLS are. it provides a very clear location for launching missiles.

The issue is it is a small ship compared to contemporary designs and the upgrade it has been given was never contemplated when they were designed. What’s more, batch build was not an option (as all the hardware was bought upfront .... meaning Perth was essentially obsolete when she was commissioned) so significant changes could not be incorporated in later builds.

For what they were the ANZAC have been modified to a very effective unit, however, it was difficult to do and compromises needed to be made.

 

[StingrayOZ]

All the USN’s surface to air missiles have RIM designations - SM2 for example is designated the RIM-66 family, with SM2MR Block IIIC being RIM-66M-6; SM6 is RIM-174.

Yes, RAM.... late night, aldi whiskey, defence posting... They are all RIMs, all Rocket - Interception - Missiles.. I am glad people are still able to translate the slurred postings of a madman.

 

[t68]

Looks like the RN isn’t taking any chances with the QEC next lot of training work ups, very sensible precaution

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1253305465049579521

 

[Rhin0]

Does anyone have any idea what this box/hatch thing is, pointed out with a red arrow in some pics? It's always somewhere next to the main 4.5" Mk8 Naval Gun on ships armed with this weapon, but can't work out what it is for?
On the hatch (/ Escutcheon) it says:

TRUNK
ESCUTCHEON MUST BE KEPT SECURELY SHUT
ONLY TRAINED PERSONNEL TO USE THIS HOIST

I'm also wondering what this other box/hatch is, pointed out with a green arrow, which isn't on every ship using this gun, pointed out in green. Seems to be on most ships using the original version of the Mk.8, but it differs from ship to ship quite a lot more than the other one and the Type 22 Batch 3 doesn't appear to have it at all, along with the Type 45. The red arrow points out the original box I have questioned above.

Thanks for any help!

 

[Todjaeger]

Does anyone have any idea what this box/hatch thing is, pointed out with a red arrow in some pics? It's always somewhere next to the main 4.5" Mk8 Naval Gun on ships armed with this weapon, but can't work out what it is for?
On the hatch (/ Escutcheon) it says:

I'm also wondering what this other box/hatch is, pointed out with a green arrow, which isn't on every ship using this gun, pointed out in green. Seems to be on most ships using the original version of the Mk.8, but it differs from ship to ship quite a lot more than the other one and the Type 22 Batch 3 doesn't appear to have it at all, along with the Type 45. The red arrow points out the original box I have questioned above.

Thanks for any help!

I readily admit this is a guess on my part, but I would think that the hatch pointed out with the red arrow, the one which has the message about a hoist, might very well be an access hatch and hoist to reload the magazine for the gun. It would be interesting to see if vessels in service with other navies have similarly looking hatches in approximately the same location behind the main gun. Or perhaps one of the DT members who actually work with ship designs or in construction might be able to chime in.

 

[StobieWan]

asked an RN friend of mine and he's not 100% but said he believes it's a shell hoist as Tod indicated and used for transferring rounds in their canisters to the magazine.

 

[Rhin0]

Cheers, that sounds about right to me!

 

[ngatimozart]

Cheers, that sounds about right to me!

@Rhin0 Welcome to the forum. We do have a rule about one line posts being a no no. We have expectations of posts being at least two lines of considered thought in length. We look forward to your contribution to the ongoing discussions here and we hope that you enjoy your time here .

 

[StobieWan]

Cheers, that sounds about right to me!

No worries, bloke I spoke to is in Warfare but he's the bloke allocating targets, not the bloke shoving shells into the magazine - seems a sound guess based on the location etc.