Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Wombat000]

Just thinking out-loud (perhaps i shouldnt!?)
Modern naval warfare summed up:
The expectation that your defensive capability will out number the meagre antiShM battery of the opponent.
That whilst your defences will work flawlessly, your own meagre antiShM battery will be capable to make it through.
If everyones defensive layers work, whoever has the most capacity to replace the retiring ships will win.

.....am i right?

 

[Milne Bay]

Just thinking out-loud (perhaps i shouldnt!?)
Modern naval warfare summed up:
The expectation that your defensive capability will out number the meagre antiShM battery of the opponent.
That whilst your defences will work flawlessly, your own meagre antiShM battery will be capable to make it through.
If everyones defensive layers work, whoever has the most capacity to replace the retiring ships will win.

.....am i right?

There is no substitute for numbers - all other things being equal.
The Chinese have clearly grasped this fact and it is the rationale behind their extraordinary naval output.
Quality will only get you as far as your load out lasts
MB

 

[alexsa]

There is no substitute for numbers - all other things being equal.
The Chinese have clearly grasped this fact and it is the rationale behind their extraordinary naval output.
Quality will only get you as far as your load out lasts
MB

Situational awareness is a massive force multiplier. If you opposition can share and merge the tactical picture they are at a massive disadvantage. You can waste a lot of rounds

 

[Blas de Lezo]

Sm-6 has already been flagged as a purchase I think. I think Raytheon has said they expect Australia to field SM-6 before 2025. It would make sense to look at that after or during the baseline 9 upgrade as that is where you are really merged to do BMD and regular AA.

As mentioned the priority is to get all handed over, commissioned, IOC/FOC. There is quite a lot to do there, particularly when you think about also the CEC component.

There is also a bit of adapting and conops/doctrine stuff that may need to be addressed. In the Australian context the AWD are more like cruisers in one sense. As I understand it they will control and command regarding taskforce air defense. Hence the space to C&C and the CEC capability. They have a real leadership role. Something the RAN has been missing for what seems like a generation (did the FFG's ever do this? Wasn't this why we needed a US cruiser in Timor?).

How many other navies have fully networked and CEC capabilities and fielding a larger modern fleet of 12 ships with are all approximately capable?US models I imagine might need some tweaking, for what the RAN does, its capabilities, the different radars and the different threats.

I don't seem SM-3 in the immediate future, there are other priorities. Plus if you put in 9, work out the detail of Sm-6, that is going to lay the ground work for Sm-3 if we ever want to go there.

> U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE > Contract View

Given the current prices (as published) for the SM-3 block IIA on the above contract (24 units 1.1 billion US$ ) and that, apparently, they are fired on a 3 unit sequence salvo it seems prohibitive for any country but those with an immediate threat. Possibly 4 units to Japan.
Those missiles have to be on the right place at the right time and on the right vessel so either they move around a lot or they stay on a dedicated vessel!!

I can't help but thinking that half of the VLS capacity of an AWD full of those babies costs as much as the vessel, or that every time you fire a sequence is like shooting an F35 to the stars.

 

[Stampede]

No, they’re in Storm Grey. The contract was signed, and the paint bought, before the decision was made to change. I believe some at least of the ACPBs have been repainted, not sure of any others yet.

Thanks Spoz

Some what surprising that a new ship would not reflect the fleets new colour scheme.
Probably not a deal breaker but would have been nice to have uniformity across the fleet.
Just wondering how often do ships get a complete paint as part of their upkeep.

Regards S

 

[Todjaeger]

Again, I agree.
There's lots of reasons why it's been thrown to the 'too hard basket'. Especially as to date everyone's been able to cope because they've been tactically allowed to.
If it takes (using the model of) a squadron of aircraft to exclude a DDG from the AO for 2-3 weeks, they have won the battle havnt they, especially if there is no replacement at hand to take the role of the retiring asset.
I'm not saying it won't take innovation, but the ability to mount sustained combat endurance through access to a replacement magazine and the ability to reload is a force multiplier, effectively adding extra ships worth of tactical value.
But, I guess that's thinking outside the VLS box.

It is not really thinking 'outside the box' IMO, as early versions of the Mk 41 VLS had cranes built into the arrays taking up the space of three VLS cells. They ended up not getting used and therefore deleted in later versions of the Mk 41 VLS because of the very real practical limitations involved in loading something the size and weight of a VLS canister into a VLS cell while a vessel is underway in a blue water environment. It is basically like trying to fit a 7 m long straw that can weight up to 4 tonnes into a 70 cm x 70 cm hole, while the hole is bobbing up and down, and the straw is swaying back and forth. If the ship ups upwards while the canister is being lowered, especially if the canister sways the wrong way, then the canister and/or the VLS cell could be damaged when they impact together.

Until the canisters can be made smaller and lighter (which means a smaller and lighter missile) I just do not see a safe, practical way to reload a VLS while underway.

 

[Stampede]

Just a quick thought... I know this is re-iterate something we have discussed before, I find that Hobart is really lacking in sufficient self defence against multiple AShMs - especially the supersonic AShMs.

The current Hobart DDG include the following hard kills and soft kills options against AShMs:
1. ESSM
2. Mk15 Blk 1B
3. Nulka
4. Mk 137 SRBOC
5. ECM/ESM

One could argue that these are good enough to fend off 1 or 2 simultaneous attack, but come multiple AShMs, I am not confident that they will be sufficient. The DDGs also lack the same multiple channel of fire found on the Anzac class CEAMount X band radar. Yes, the two Mark 99 fire-controlwave illuminating radarscan time share, I get that, but they are not as capable as the CEA Mount radar. I also understand the the next upgrade of ESSM Blk 2 will have an active seeker which will improve and increase the number of simultaneous engagement.

I would love RAN to consider replacing the Mk15 on top of the hanger with the SeaRAM and/or perhaps add a pair of 35mm Millennium gun space and weight permitting.

I suspect some of you will argue that the DDG will never work alone, and they will be surrounded by the current Anzac FFH (and in the future, Sea 5000 Frigates) and the CEC capability will allow the ships to fight cooperatively increasing lethality, etc etc etc. I get that too, but always nice to know that if we can afford to arm each ship more, they will be even more capable to defend not just individual ships but overall the entire fleet.

Same argument also applies to the LHDs, can't wait till they get their Mk15s, and would love to see at least 1 SeaRAM on each of them too.

I feel Navy need to lock in a future CIWS that will handle both the traditional anti ship missile treat, and also have the ability to counter surface and small UAV intrusions out to 2 - 3 km's.

Suggest Mk15 lacks range and may prove lacking to multiple threats at one time.
Not overly confident one system per ship is adequate.

Sea Ram appeals for anti missile threats but its expensive and still doesn't counter many of the other close in threats.
Suggest the way forward would maybe to keep with ESSM for most of the AIR threats until close in where ship defence is handed over to 35/ 40 mm cannon with modern ammunition and fire control systems.
This would seem the way forward.
They seem to be able to tackle a wide range of threats and offer the best solution to the on going challenge of space and weight aboard ship.
What ever is selected, it needs to be in sufficient numbers on each ship for true 360 degree defence for each individual ship.
It will also need to not be just restricted to the destroyers, but also to the supply and amphibious ships.



Regards s

 

[Todjaeger]

I feel Navy need to lock in a future CIWS that will handle both the traditional anti ship missile treat, and also have the ability to counter surface and small UAV intrusions out to 2 - 3 km's.

Suggest Mk15 lacks range and may prove lacking to multiple threats at one time.
Not overly confident one system per ship is adequate.

Sea Ram appeals for anti missile threats but its expensive and still doesn't counter many of the other close in threats.
Suggest the way forward would maybe to keep with ESSM for most of the AIR threats until close in where ship defence is handed over to 35/ 40 mm cannon with modern ammunition and fire control systems.
This would seem the way forward.
They seem to be able to tackle a wide range of threats and offer the best solution to the on going challenge of space and weight aboard ship.
What ever is selected, it needs to be in sufficient numbers on each ship for true 360 degree defence for each individual ship.
It will also need to not be just restricted to the destroyers, but also to the supply and amphibious ships.



Regards s

This is part of the reason I have been an advocate of the Millennium Gun for the RAN over the last few years, and why I have been so baffled about the weapon spec for the OPV. The 35 mm gun arrangement is non-deck penetrating and just requires connections for power (to recharge an onboard battery) and then to the ship's sensors and FCS. Some of the 40 mm options are also non-deck penetrating, whilst others are. Other areas of concern are both the ROF and weight/volume of fire.

As a side note, it appears that the displacement of a Millennium Gun system is about half that of a Mk 15 Phalanx. This probably is not enough to permit fitting a Millennium Gun in place of a Bushmaster/Typhoon weapon mounting, though that might also be something to explore.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Sm-3 is expensive and also a bit of a development platform. But then again, you can have a go at stopping an ICBM (which is also pretty expensive and destructive). I think capability to fire it is more important at this stage for Australia, than having it in inventory. However, Australia has blown up that much cash just with a short term missile.. Our wonderful Havenap/popeye purchase from Israel. So having a small buy of 3 to have if required is not impossible.

Sm-6 will really give us everything we need. I do believe we requested up to 80 brand new SM-2's IIIB's.

Australia –SM-2 BLOCK IIIB Standard Missiles
We may end up mixing and matching SM-2's that were acquired for the FFG's, a large stock of SM-2IIIA's (same as japan used in the Kongos).
http://www.australiandefence.com.au/E5A83040-F806-11DD-8DFE0050568C22C9

Up to 175 of those. So you might want to round out the DDG's load with some SM-2IIIA's, and sprinkle some SM-2IIIB's across the future frigates. Then add SM-6 to both the FF and the DDG.

While I think reloading SM-2/SM-3/Sm-6 at sea is not practical. It may be practical to reload ESSM/CAMM/SeaRAM/NSM (say helicoptered aboard then handled into reload) and you still have a 5". I would imagine a depleted ship that is still afloat would be withdrawing very quickly, and would come under cover from the RAAF or USAF or other ships.

I agree with Alexa. Situational awareness is absolutely the key. The idea isn't that our a small fleet ships will meet a fleet of 48 chinese ships including a carrier in the open ocean and have to defend themselves and also take them out. Our fleet of what, 15 P8's plus the E7's and the g550 aew things, backed by JORN and all the US and friendly data we get.

The F-105 was meant to had an advantage over other Burke based ships with its radar being mounted higher. I would also assume the FF are also going to have long sensors given the proposed configurations. For Australia, we have lots of ocean to cover. For South Korea and Japan, the second the war starts, those VLS tubes will be emptied. There space is heavily contested, ours isn't.

However, we may need more than 32 ESSM in the future.

We are talking about some sort of land strike capability too.

 

[hauritz]

Just a quick thought... I know this is re-iterate something we have discussed before, I find that Hobart is really lacking in sufficient self defence against multiple AShMs - especially the supersonic AShMs.

The current Hobart DDG include the following hard kills and soft kills options against AShMs:
1. ESSM
2. Mk15 Blk 1B
3. Nulka
4. Mk 137 SRBOC
5. ECM/ESM

One could argue that these are good enough to fend off 1 or 2 simultaneous attack, but come multiple AShMs, I am not confident that they will be sufficient. The DDGs also lack the same multiple channel of fire found on the Anzac class CEAMount X band radar. Yes, the two Mark 99 fire-controlwave illuminating radarscan time share, I get that, but they are not as capable as the CEA Mount radar. I also understand the the next upgrade of ESSM Blk 2 will have an active seeker which will improve and increase the number of simultaneous engagement.

I would love RAN to consider replacing the Mk15 on top of the hanger with the SeaRAM and/or perhaps add a pair of 35mm Millennium gun space and weight permitting.

I suspect some of you will argue that the DDG will never work alone, and they will be surrounded by the current Anzac FFH (and in the future, Sea 5000 Frigates) and the CEC capability will allow the ships to fight cooperatively increasing lethality, etc etc etc. I get that too, but always nice to know that if we can afford to arm each ship more, they will be even more capable to defend not just individual ships but overall the entire fleet.

Same argument also applies to the LHDs, can't wait till they get their Mk15s, and would love to see at least 1 SeaRAM on each of them too.

We only have a dozen Phalanx so we are going to have to buy something else for the future frigate. It wouldn't surprise me if this ended up as a fleet wide replacement of the Mk15 Blk 1B.

I think both the Type 26 and FREMM designs have provision for 2 X CIWS. I guess an argument could also be made for buying additional systems for the OPV.

 

[ancientcivy]

Possible CIWS solution.

With Army set to acquire 30mm cannon in 30x173 caliber together with developing a supply chain for a variety of rounds , including AMB, one possibly solution presents itself. Buying a number of the latest 30c version of the Typhoon weapons mount for use on the majors as well as possibly on the OPVs, though using a different 30mm cannon both fire 30 x173 rounds.
Though there maybe more effective options like the Rheinmetall 35mm Millenium gun or some of the 40mm mounts, there are some obvious advantages to this solution. Navy is a long time user of the typhoon so conversion to the new model should be relatively easy with little additional training required. The range of munitions, additional weight of shot and range over the existing 25mm mount provide a real incremental change. Finally being able to maintain a common caliber with Army offer cost advantages in the supply chain.
I would greatly appreciate any comments by those more qualified .

 

[CB90]

Sm-3 is expensive and also a bit of a development platform. But then again, you can have a go at stopping an ICBM (which is also pretty expensive and destructive). I think capability to fire it is more important at this stage for Australia, than having it in inventory. However, Australia has blown up that much cash just with a short term missile.. Our wonderful Havenap/popeye purchase from Israel. So having a small buy of 3 to have if required is not impossible.

Sm-6 will really give us everything we need. I do believe we requested up to 80 brand new SM-2's IIIB's.

Australia –SM-2 BLOCK IIIB Standard Missiles
We may end up mixing and matching SM-2's that were acquired for the FFG's, a large stock of SM-2IIIA's (same as japan used in the Kongos).
SM-2 for the FFGs - Australian Defence Magazine

Up to 175 of those. So you might want to round out the DDG's load with some SM-2IIIA's, and sprinkle some SM-2IIIB's across the future frigates. Then add SM-6 to both the FF and the DDG.

Block IIIA and IIIB are designed to be better at different things. SM-6 is your "silver bullet." Expensive but does it all.
For cost reasons, always good to have a mix, and US does that same mix and match game accordingly.

Australia is probably better off waiting for the US to mature its SM-3 program. Right now, there's everything from IA, IB, to IIA, and again, all offer different thresholds of capability. Wait until the US (and Japan) stabilize all the designs, then figure out which capabilities and threats you really care about.

In the meantime, buy Baseline 9 and some additional BMD hardware and you're essentially just short of buying the rounds to be up on the capability.

While I think reloading SM-2/SM-3/Sm-6 at sea is not practical. It may be practical to reload ESSM/CAMM/SeaRAM/NSM (say helicoptered aboard then handled into reload) and you still have a 5". I would imagine a depleted ship that is still afloat would be withdrawing very quickly, and would come under cover from the RAAF or USAF or other ships.

USN is looking real hard at VLS reload. Naturally, that capability will easily trickle down to every other VLS user as well.
That said, actual reload capability wouldn't surprise me if required US logistical support, but the hardware compatibility should be a given (mostly).

However, we may need more than 32 ESSM in the future.

We are talking about some sort of land strike capability too.

If you actually NEED more than 32 ESSM's...things have gone horribly wrong.

TLAM is a fairly easy retrofit. But whether land strike is really a requirement for Oz or not is another question entirely.

 

[Boagrius]

A few things occurred to me after reading through the most recent posts in this thread:

* Saturation attacks from supersonic, sea skimming AShMs seem to put a premium on how much ordinance the defending vessel can bring to bear simultaneously and at short notice. I would have thought the solution to this potential "firepower bottleneck" for the RAN might take the form of:

- AESA based fire control radars capable of generating multiple fire channels each
- Shifting to autonomously guided rather than SARH interceptors where possible - SM6, late model SM2, ESSM Blk II and Sea Ram spring to mind
- Bringing the vessel's main gun to bear on the problem - HVP rounds and guided rounds like the Italian Vulcano spring to mind
- Investing in more modern CIWS systems. Eg. the 35mm Millenium gun w/ AHEAD as has been mentioned.

* Softkill measures could take up some of the burden too. Nulka and SRBOC are the obvious occupants of this area, but I am curious as to what ECM capabilities an RAN vessel (be it Hobart, ANZAC Class or SEA5000 winner) is likely to possess. Is it possible to also use the newer phased array radars in a jamming/electronic attack role? This is already being done in smaller radars like APG79/77/81 - surely something like CEA FAR or AMDR could be extremely potent here with the sheer quality and quantity of EM output they can generate?

* Superior (than enemy) SA/data sharing and CEC could take up some more of the burden as well. Being able to target the incoming weapons (and preferably their launch platforms) from a great distance rather than as they crest the radar horizon would go a long way to reducing the pressure on the defending vessel in terms of both reaction time and required rate of output of defensive measures/firepower.

 

[ASSAIL]

A few things occurred to me after reading through the most recent posts in this thread:

* Saturation attacks from supersonic, sea skimming AShMs seem to put a premium on how much ordinance the defending vessel can bring to bear simultaneously and at short notice. I would have thought the solution to this potential "firepower bottleneck" for the RAN might take the form of:

- AESA based fire control radars capable of generating multiple fire channels each
- Shifting to autonomously guided rather than SARH interceptors where possible - SM6, late model SM2, ESSM Blk II and Sea Ram spring to mind
- Bringing the vessel's main gun to bear on the problem - HVP rounds and guided rounds like the Italian Vulcano spring to mind
- Investing in more modern CIWS systems. Eg. the 35mm Millenium gun w/ AHEAD as has been mentioned.

* Softkill measures could take up some of the burden too. Nulka and SRBOC are the obvious occupants of this area, but I am curious as to what ECM capabilities an RAN vessel (be it Hobart, ANZAC Class or SEA5000 winner) is likely to possess. Is it possible to also use the newer phased array radars in a jamming/electronic attack role? This is already being done in smaller radars like APG79/77/81 - surely something like CEA FAR or AMDR could be extremely potent here with the sheer quality and quantity of EM output they can generate?

* Superior (than enemy) SA/data sharing and CEC could take up some more of the burden as well. Being able to target the incoming weapons (and preferably their launch platforms) from a great distance rather than as they crest the radar horizon would go a long way to reducing the pressure on the defending vessel in terms of both reaction time and required rate of output of defensive measures/firepower.

What you have briefly outlined is what Warfare Officers study and train for.
The problems are defined and counter measures developed for various attack scenarios. These are gamed in simulators and practised ad finitum, from a ships initial sea training through to participation in multi national exercises.

The art/skill of defending against these threats is what defines the professional competency of the Warfare cadre of officers and their support staff and is what defines professional competence or lack of it in various navies.

You have made a tiny scratch on the surface of the Warfare skill set but it serves to illustrate what Naval Warfare profession does.

 

[Boagrius]

Yes as a layman imagine there is far more to this than could possibly meet my eye. Sounds like much of what I described is more or less in the pipeline anyway. I sure do enjoy learning about it all though - it is certainly encouraging to know that I am basically "keeping up".

Would still be interested to know whether ship based AESA could/should be used for softkill purposes mind you... As I say it's no secret in the public domain that this is a function available to suitably equipped fighter aircraft.

 

[Stampede]

Possible CIWS solution.

With Army set to acquire 30mm cannon in 30x173 caliber together with developing a supply chain for a variety of rounds , including AMB, one possibly solution presents itself. Buying a number of the latest 30c version of the Typhoon weapons mount for use on the majors as well as possibly on the OPVs, though using a different 30mm cannon both fire 30 x173 rounds.
Though there maybe more effective options like the Rheinmetall 35mm Millenium gun or some of the 40mm mounts, there are some obvious advantages to this solution. Navy is a long time user of the typhoon so conversion to the new model should be relatively easy with little additional training required. The range of munitions, additional weight of shot and range over the existing 25mm mount provide a real incremental change. Finally being able to maintain a common caliber with Army offer cost advantages in the supply chain.
I would greatly appreciate any comments by those more qualified .

Certainly a lot more capability out of the Typhoon system going from 25 to 30 mm.
I would so like it to work for all the roles I intended but have doubts in its ability for defence against anti ship missiles.
Others better qualified could advise.

One system that can cover the existing Bushmaster and Phalanx roles plus add some extra range and the ability to cause havoc to a swarm of small UAV's is the challenge.

The 35mm Millennium gun looks the ticket, as do potentially some 40 mm options.
Not wanting to be seduced by the glossy sales pitch of their manufacturers, I guess the success of sales or lack of, is a testament to respective gun systems creditability and the confidence the worlds Navy's have in them.
The Millennium Gun is still relatively new with three customers so far in Denmark,Venezuela and Indonesia.
I do sometimes wonder however IF Rheinmetall was a US Company would it have greater success.
Get a 35 or 40 mm on the USN ships and I'm sure many other fleets will take note and follow suite.

Regards S

 

[Stampede]

What you have briefly outlined is what Warfare Officers study and train for.
The problems are defined and counter measures developed for various attack scenarios. These are gamed in simulators and practised ad finitum, from a ships initial sea training through to participation in multi national exercises.

The art/skill of defending against these threats is what defines the professional competency of the Warfare cadre of officers and their support staff and is what defines professional competence or lack of it in various navies.

You have made a tiny scratch on the surface of the Warfare skill set but it serves to illustrate what Naval Warfare profession does.

Professional staff and training is a must.
However I'm sure many of our Warfare officers would prefer to have more defence hardware on there ships than what some of our ships have today.
ANZAC's - no CIWS or Bushmaster systems ( Yes some 50 Cal )
Canberra Class - No CIWS-Yet! / 25mm Yes
Choules - Fitted for but not with. At this stage - Ziltch
Success- Phalanx only ( on rotation ) / 50 Cal
Sirius - Ziltch but for 50 Cal

Future ships will watch this space.

Apologies in advance if I sound a bit over the top as I like your posts and you always bring well constructed voice to the conversation, but I feel the fleet has a lot of defence hardware gaps.

I wonder if this concern is shared by the Warfare officers.

Regards S

 

[StingrayOZ]

If you actually NEED more than 32 ESSM's...things have gone horribly wrong.

TLAM is a fairly easy retrofit. But whether land strike is really a requirement for Oz or not is another question entirely.

There are plenty of credible discussion regarding Australia seeking long range antishipping and land attack capability.

Nocookies
The LRASM also comes in a ship-launched variant, and that would offer a very advanced and stealthy dual-role anti-ship and land strike capability for the navy. However, whether it is TLAM or ship-launched LRASM, the
challenge in realising long-range land-attack capability is surface ship survivability in a contested operational environment.

The navy’s move towards SM-6 naval air defence missiles and enhanced Baseline 9 Aegis for its AWDs enhances, but does not guarantee, the likelihood that an AWD will survive the types of advanced anti-ship cruise missiles likely to be available to future adversaries by the late 2020s. Those are likely to include hypersonic weapons.

Land-attack cruise missiles such as TLAM or LRASM represent an entirely new type of capability for the ADF, which would enable Australia to act more independently to deter and dissuade a major power in Asia. That would be a valuable contribution to coalition operations, as well as reinforcing defence self-reliance. Acquiring such a capability would also strengthen US-Australian defence co-operation.

That final benefit may strengthen our deterrence capability most of all.

I think LRASM is a likely candidate, Australia doesn't need the huge range of TLAM, and I don't think TLAM is viable any more in our region, but the smarter, harder to detect, more advanced LRASM is definitely something we should be looking at. If we were to add 8 of those to DDG or FF then things start too look a bit tighter. Eventually retire harpoon or shift it off major combatants, replace with NSM in box launchers or use the top weight and space for longer ranged ciws.

China these days is capable of offering quite modern and innovative missiles. They aren't just old soviet sluggers. They will have their own sensors, countermeasures, decoys, multiple attack components, dismounts etc. Flying complex flight profiles that may require multiple engagements. Chinese doctrine is different. They are also likely to have superiority in numbers in the immediate region.

They are also conducting fleet operations with more ships than we have VLS. Backed by land bases, long range aircraft, etc. Chinese ships also have quad packed weapons, and large numbers of VLS. They have far surpassed soviet or modern Russian implementations.

While firing a single ESSM means things are decidedly pear shaped, 32 ESSM may not be credible in the future in 10 years time. It would also seem somewhat wasteful to have the ESSM in strike length vls, while balancing needs of SM-2IIIA, SM-2IIIB, SM6 and LRASM.

 

[swerve]

It is not really thinking 'outside the box' IMO, as early versions of the Mk 41 VLS had cranes built into the arrays taking up the space of three VLS cells. They ended up not getting used and therefore deleted in later versions of the Mk 41 VLS because of the very real practical limitations involved in loading something the size and weight of a VLS canister into a VLS cell while a vessel is underway in a blue water environment. It is basically like trying to fit a 7 m long straw that can weight up to 4 tonnes into a 70 cm x 70 cm hole, while the hole is bobbing up and down, and the straw is swaying back and forth. If the ship ups upwards while the canister is being lowered, especially if the canister sways the wrong way, then the canister and/or the VLS cell could be damaged when they impact together.

Until the canisters can be made smaller and lighter (which means a smaller and lighter missile) I just do not see a safe, practical way to reload a VLS while underway.

Presumably it'd be possible to build a crane which can be locked in place & clamps the container, so the whole thing moves with the ship instead of swinging around. I think it'd be heavier & bulkier than the original cranes, though.More VLS cells sacrificed.

 

[Meriv90]

Deleted post wrong info by me