all driven out of the CONOPS and subsequent JACIT mtgs
Then they got it wrong.
all driven out of the CONOPS and subsequent JACIT mtgs
pm sentThen they got it wrong.
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.all driven out of the CONOPS and subsequent JACIT mtgs
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.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.
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 assetin 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)
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.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 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.SeaRAM is an obvious choice to improve the LHDs' self-defence capabilities. It's self-contained with a small surface area footprint and is not expensive. The four 25mm Typhoons are simply inadequate (range just 1,500m and lethality against ASMs negligible) and the half dozen 50 cals token gestures.
.
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.three 8-round box launchers for Sea Sparrow, and ~4 Phalanx or RAM missile launchers for CIWS.
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
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.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.
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.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.
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.The 25mm Typhoons are not an "inner layer" against ASMs. They are no defence at all.
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
So where would you mount the SeaRam ? you will still have coverage and launch issues with it.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?
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.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.
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.Anyone aware of any of the lightweight launcher options (ie lighter than mk41) supposedly available for sea ceptor?
R99
I'm quite happy with the current self defence capability (matched to CONOPS) fitted to the LHDs.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