Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Wombat000 said:

I can appreciate the value of VLS systems,
High rate of fire, likely convenient on the drawing board to have neat vertical boxes in your design.
But really, we have VLS because that's simply where the thinking is at the moment.
Whatever loadout we guess is loaded, in expected practice you would imagine that they should never ever intentionally all be used.
The ship needs to leave the AO, and dock in order to re-arm.
So for that return transit, to avoid being a lame duck, a (you would guess) reasonable percentage of munitions would need to retained.
Simply because, no one (as yet, that I'm aware of) can be bothered dreaming up a solution to reloading on the ship itself in the AO.
I think of the Mk13 launcher, it has a magazine of 40.
How much space does that take up?
What about a Mk13 fore AND aft? = magazine of 80 rounds, how much space does that dictate.
Perhaps, for munitions that will not require rapid rate of fire reactions we could use Mk 13s and leave the VLS dedicated for the quick stuff?
Thoughts?

Click to expand...

Actually the original plans for the Mk 41 VLS anticipated replenishment at sea. The realities of handling ordnance of that size and weight while underway in open waters intruded though and it was deemed unfeasible (at least with a reasonable level of safety).

As for VLS... These systems exist at present because they are viewed as superior to older missile launching systems like the magazine-fed Mk 13 launcher. Aside from a VLS having a potentially faster launch rate, is also eliminates many potential points of failure that exist in mechanisms like the Mk 13 launcher. A electrical or mechanical failure in the feed system within the magazine below decks could occur and keep the entirety of the magazine out of action. In a VLS, that sort of failure would most likely only impact a single VLS cell.

hauritz said:

One of the big mindset problems I think people have is that if you build a ship capable of being fitted with 128 VLS then you must immediately fill it with 128 VLS. Personally I am good with the idea that Australia buys a ship the size of the Sejong the Great and just equipping it with 48 VLS. The old adage of steel being cheap and air being free is true enough ... so long as you leave those spaces full of air.

Having a ship that size will of course leave you with a lot more options in the future.

Click to expand...

There is another mindset problem people have with respect to a high number of VLS cells though. And that is what is the relevance in acquiring so many VLS cells, or even the potential capacity to fit so many VLS cells, if there is a never a plan to use them. I readily admit that I do not know the state of the RAN's SM-2 Block IIIA or ESSM warstocks. I would not be surprised if it was sufficient to arm every RAN vessel fitted with the appropriate launchers and then have some available in reserve to reload at least some of the vessels. That would mean in the neighborhood of 80+ SM-2 Block IIIA, and 320 ESSM, then some additional missiles for the reloads (does not include the AWD's since they have not reached FOC yet). Given the 128 VLS cells available on a single Sejong the Great-class DDG are greater than the VLS capacity of all the ANZAC-class FFH's and Adelaide-class FFG's combined...

In some respects it would be nice if some RAN vessels could fit 128+ VLS cells, but not if that would mean most/all other RAN vessels are essentially unarmed & defenceless. IMO a primary justification for and driver of additional VLS cells for RAN vessels would be the entry into RAN service of new (to the RAN at least) VLS-launched munitions. Examples of what I mean would be weapons like ASROC (which IIRC the USN is working on developing a newer version to carry a Mk 54 LWT) and/or LACM's and the situation would be not unlike that of some USN Arleigh Burke-class DDG's where IIRC approximately half of their 90- or 96-cell VLS capacity depending which build flight is for air defence missiles, with the rest for ASW or land-attack roles.

EDIT: Just saw Alexsa's post on VLS which went up while I was composing mine.

Wombat000 said:

I can appreciate the value of VLS systems,
High rate of fire, likely convenient on the drawing board to have neat vertical boxes in your design.
But really, we have VLS because that's simply where the thinking is at the moment.
Whatever loadout we guess is loaded, in expected practice you would imagine that they should never ever intentionally all be used.
The ship needs to leave the AO, and dock in order to re-arm.
So for that return transit, to avoid being a lame duck, a (you would guess) reasonable percentage of munitions would need to retained.
Simply because, no one (as yet, that I'm aware of) can be bothered dreaming up a solution to reloading on the ship itself in the AO.
I think of the Mk13 launcher, it has a magazine of 40.
How much space does that take up?
What about a Mk13 fore AND aft? = magazine of 80 rounds, how much space does that dictate.
Perhaps, for munitions that will not require rapid rate of fire reactions we could use Mk 13s and leave the VLS dedicated for the quick stuff?
Thoughts?

Click to expand...

Agree with the points Alexsa and Tod have made.

Apart from the single arm Mk13 launcher, the USN has also had twin arm launchers too, Mk26 and also the earlier the Mk12 on the Albany class for example.

The problem with theses types of launchers (single or twin arm), is that they are potentially a single point of failure, you can have as many reloads as you like in the magazine, but if the launch system fails, well basically, you are screwed!!

I think the beauty of the Mk41 system is that it has now been in service for 30+ years (very well proven), and there is no sign of some new 'wiz bang' system to replace it, why re-invent the wheel when the current wheel appears to be working more than satisfactorily?

And as far as 'reloading' a ship, what does it matter what type of launcher is used on the ship? Mk41 VLS, Mk13, etc, etc?? How is one system better than the other when it comes to reloading at sea? Sorry I don't get that.

How is it 'simpler' to reload the magazine of a ship with a Mk13 launch system any easier than reloading a ship with a Mk41 system?

Todjaeger said:

There is another mindset problem people have with respect to a high number of VLS cells though. And that is what is the relevance in acquiring so many VLS cells, or even the potential capacity to fit so many VLS cells, if there is a never a plan to use them. I readily admit that I do not know the state of the RAN's SM-2 Block IIIA or ESSM warstocks. I would not be surprised if it was sufficient to arm every RAN vessel fitted with the appropriate launchers and then have some available in reserve to reload at least some of the vessels. That would mean in the neighborhood of 80+ SM-2 Block IIIA, and 320 ESSM, then some additional missiles for the reloads (does not include the AWD's since they have not reached FOC yet). Given the 128 VLS cells available on a single Sejong the Great-class DDG are greater than the VLS capacity of all the ANZAC-class FFH's and Adelaide-class FFG's combined...

Click to expand...

Regarding to the 128 VLS on the KDX III, I would like to point out that, one reason of that is because more than 1/3 of them are not MK-41, but their own VLS systems for their own indigenous weapons (which are incompatiable to MK-41). They need "the number" for both systems, an issue RAN does not have.

@Todjaeger In regards to war stocks while no clue on the ESSM's we did seek or order 80 SM-2's in 2016 or so exclusively for testing with the AWD's.
FMS: Australia Seeks 80 SM-2 Block IIIB Standard Missiles

Actually if figures are accurate on that site then we are well down on stocks with orders totalling

1994 - 89 SM-2 Block II
1996 - 15 SM-1 MR
2005 - 175 SM-2 Block IIIA requested under FMS
2008 - Unknown number of SM-2 Block IIIA (2005 FMS?)
2010 - 17 SM-2 Block IIIB requested under FMS for AWD test's/training
2016 - 80 SM-2 Block IIIB requested under FMS for AWD test's/training
2017 - Raytheon announces reopening SM-2 production due to international demand
2020 - Earliest delivery dates.

I imagine any remaining SM-1's or Block II's will be either updated (if possible, Not in my wheel house), or sold on to another nation (Poland with the Adelaides perhaps?). But I imagine we will have to consider seriously increasing our stock pile even if the majority still remains it leaves very little reserves considering the future Frigates having a 300 - 500% increase in missile capacity over the Anzacs.

You could RAS ships fitted with Mark 13, striking the missiles down via the launcher - we did it in Hobart in ‘86. I seem to remember each round took about two hours.......so while possible it wasn’t very practical!

Interesting conversation.


If the RAN can get a dozen 7000 t ships, each with 48 cells then that's still a very potent force for both attack and defence. Assuming one does not send a single ship into harms way intentionally, then a not unrealistic task force of three ships complete with a collective 144 cells is going to make most adversaries have a very bad day.
Depending on the mission and how the Mk41 cell are utilised, such a task force would offer many options to Government.
Add a supply ship and a LHD or HMAS Choules and you have a very impressive long range capability.
Instead of adding extra cells to the Destroyers, maybe there is scope to add a single light weight 8 cell MK41 to carry ESSM for the LHD's and the future Cantabria class supply ships.
An extra 32 / 64 missile's for a task force would not go astray and we spread the launchers across the fleet!

Thoughts


Regards S

spoz said:

You could RAS ships fitted with Mark 13, striking the missiles down via the launcher - we did it in Hobart in ‘86. I seem to remember each round took about two hours.......so while possible it wasn’t very practical!

Click to expand...

Yeah, as I understand it the additional weight of the canister, and then the need to have the canister go into a VLS cell was considered too problematic/dangerous to do at sea. Early versions of the Mk 41 did have a crane to facilitate replenishment at sea, but this was dropped...

vonnoobie said:

@Todjaeger In regards to war stocks while no clue on the ESSM's we did seek or order 80 SM-2's in 2016 or so exclusively for testing with the AWD's.
FMS: Australia Seeks 80 SM-2 Block IIIB Standard Missiles

Actually if figures are accurate on that site then we are well down on stocks with orders totalling

1994 - 89 SM-2 Block II
1996 - 15 SM-1 MR
2005 - 175 SM-2 Block IIIA requested under FMS
2008 - Unknown number of SM-2 Block IIIA (2005 FMS?)
2010 - 17 SM-2 Block IIIB requested under FMS for AWD test's/training
2016 - 80 SM-2 Block IIIB requested under FMS for AWD test's/training
2017 - Raytheon announces reopening SM-2 production due to international demand
2020 - Earliest delivery dates.

I imagine any remaining SM-1's or Block II's will be either updated (if possible, Not in my wheel house), or sold on to another nation (Poland with the Adelaides perhaps?). But I imagine we will have to consider seriously increasing our stock pile even if the majority still remains it leaves very little reserves considering the future Frigates having a 300 - 500% increase in missile capacity over the Anzacs.

Click to expand...

In checking the DSCA site, I could confirm the FMS requests for the SM-2 Block IIIB, but a few things need to be noted. Being FMS requests, these are just part of the process, and it is possible that less than the number requested could have been ordered. I sort of suspect the 17 SM-2 IIIB's requested in 2010 for AWD testing were never actually ordered, given that the build programme was slowed and IIRC the first AWD did not get underway for any testing until 2015...

Also in checking the DSCA site, I could not find any references to any requests for SM missiles for Australia, apart from the two requests for the SM-2 Block IIIB, thought the site had info archived from 2004, it completely skipped any records from 2005.

I would not be surprised if Australia had ordered upto 175 SM-2 Block IIIA for use aboard the FFGUP Adelaide-class frigates, though how many would still be available after a decade or more of service and the associated firings during training, exercises, and testing is hard to predict.

I suspect if all 80 of the SM-2 Block IIIB missiles are ordered, some will be 'used up' during weapons trials and qualifications, but a stockpile will likely remain once that has been completed.

So what that potentially means is that once the AWD's are fully in service (and the Adelaide-class frigates are decommissioned) there could be up to ~175 SM-2 Block IIIA and ~97 SM-2 Block IIIB Standard missiles in stock for 120 Mk 41 VLS cells. Personally I rather suspect the numbers in inventory will be somewhat lower.

Stampede said:

Interesting conversation.


If the RAN can get a dozen 7000 t ships, each with 48 cells then that's still a very potent force for both attack and defence. Assuming one does not send a single ship into harms way intentionally, then a not unrealistic task force of three ships complete with a collective 144 cells is going to make most adversaries have a very bad day.
Depending on the mission and how the Mk41 cell are utilised, such a task force would offer many options to Government.
Add a supply ship and a LHD or HMAS Choules and you have a very impressive long range capability.
Instead of adding extra cells to the Destroyers, maybe there is scope to add a single light weight 8 cell MK41 to carry ESSM for the LHD's and the future Cantabria class supply ships.
An extra 32 / 64 missile's for a task force would not go astray and we spread the launchers across the fleet!

Thoughts


Regards S

Click to expand...

I would be concerned about just where a Mk 41 VLS could be fitted aboard the LHD and/or AOR without having it, or the use of it, interfere with ship operations. IIRC while the LHD did (at least initially) have space and weight set aside for a Mk 41 VLS it was determined that the space available to either have it fitted, or the illuminators needed for ESSM use would interfere with helicopter operations, and I would not be at all surprised if there were concerns about negative impacts on comms. If firing off a salvo of ESSM were to end up damaging some of the antenna arrays (with the LHD acting as a flagship/command centre...) then it would be better to have other vessels in the screen doing the launches. There may still be some space for mounting a couple of SeaRAM launchers in place of the Typhoon or Phalanx mountings though.

Todjaeger said:

I would be concerned about just where a Mk 41 VLS could be fitted aboard the LHD and/or AOR without having it, or the use of it, interfere with ship operations. IIRC while the LHD did (at least initially) have space and weight set aside for a Mk 41 VLS it was determined that the space available to either have it fitted, or the illuminators needed for ESSM use would interfere with helicopter operations, and I would not be at all surprised if there were concerns about negative impacts on comms. If firing off a salvo of ESSM were to end up damaging some of the antenna arrays (with the LHD acting as a flagship/command centre...) then it would be better to have other vessels in the screen doing the launches. There may still be some space for mounting a couple of SeaRAM launchers in place of the Typhoon or Phalanx mountings though.

Click to expand...

VLS on the LHD's has been discussed before, while the parent design does have space and weight for an 8 cell Mk41 (Juan Carlos i) it is not the case for the Canberra Class, as the internal changes made to the super structure in the configuration of the internal spaces.

I have never seen any reference to the Cantabria's having any reserve for an 8 cell, and don't see any need for one.

Cheers

Lets be realistic, While every ship being armed would have its benefits (Distributed lathality, over lapping defences etc) building such modifications into non combat ships that already have a key role to fulfill is difficult to say the least and very risky.

If we decide we want those assets to have a VLS capability then lets just play the long game and have them designed and built into future assets. Leave current ones as is only upgrading with bolt on upgrades (RAM launchers?). Anything more and we risk losing use of the assets for years with no garauntee it will work an a good risk that it will effect them in a negative way.

I'm not sure if Australia needs that many VLS.

Unlike countries like Korea or Japan, they are at risk of strike even at home port. However unlikely, it is possible that Chinese, North Korean or Russian forces could strike ports with those ships. They really don't have the luxury of space to choose their engagement. If you think about Korea, they currently only really have three large Aegis ships. But they do have a larger number of smaller ships with 64 VLS and are intending to build more.

Australia is able to choose its engagement. There are only a handful of bombers capable of making to the most remote of Australia's territory and we would see them days ahead, and they would have to travel over other nations. So we don't need a huge number of VLS as we can choose where we want to engage, we have to travel there. It is highly likely that our other allies (US and Japan for example) will be operating with us in that space, then taskforce capability is all that matters.

That said, 48-64 is the sweet spot. I think <48 will mean hard decisions regarding role type and capability. With 48 you have a fair bit more flexibility. It isn't impossible there is some growth in shorter range self defence capability with things like additional self defence VLS, SeaRAM, various future CIWS.

Even the US is thinking smaller ships might be the way to go.

Anyone else notice how defensive focused warships are?

One thing about most warships is they tend to only have 8-16 offensive missiles... Above deck anti ship missiles. The USA also loads tomahawks, but they aren't antiship .

Most vls seem to be used purely for anti missile, perhaps anti warplane, use.

Naval ships seem to be extremely defensive these days.

Am I wrong?

@StingrayOZ Spot on, Our greatest asset is our location. Too far away from any credible threats and any credible threat is generally to the North North/West allowing us to concentrate our assets and pick and choose when and where we want to fight.

@76mmGuns Ships have always been heavy on the defence since the increase in aviation assets against ships. In WWII it was based around dozens or more AA guns of various sizes covering various ranges, These days its dozens of missiles of various types covering long, medium and short range. Post WWI I believe this started, The only difference from then to know is the weapons, the concept though is the same.

For the most part, surface combatants are about sea control. Simply by floating somewhere they are controlling that part of the sea and, of course, denying it to the enemy. The ship exerts a bubble of control out to the limits of effectiveness of its weapons. All those ‘defensive’ weapons are enable it to survive and continue to control the sea. The only for an enemy to contest sea control is to fight through all those defensive weapons and disable/destroy the ship.

Todjaeger said:

I would be concerned about just where a Mk 41 VLS could be fitted aboard the LHD and/or AOR without having it, or the use of it, interfere with ship operations. IIRC while the LHD did (at least initially) have space and weight set aside for a Mk 41 VLS it was determined that the space available to either have it fitted, or the illuminators needed for ESSM use would interfere with helicopter operations, and I would not be at all surprised if there were concerns about negative impacts on comms. If firing off a salvo of ESSM were to end up damaging some of the antenna arrays (with the LHD acting as a flagship/command centre...) then it would be better to have other vessels in the screen doing the launches. There may still be some space for mounting a couple of SeaRAM launchers in place of the Typhoon or Phalanx mountings though.

Click to expand...

Thanks Todjaeger,

While I'm a firm believer that ships should stick to their core role based upon their design; it does not preclude the need for some self defence on all blue water vessels. Making the assumption that the destroyer and Frigates will always be gunned up I still see a need for the Supply /amphibious ships to have some clout.
Now will their armament be restricted to 50 Cal , Bushmasters / small SAM's or into the realm of ESSM SAM'S really remains a mystery to be answered in the future.
I wonder if the restriction is so much one of engineering or budget.
You mentioned SeaRAM, and I agree that this is a missing class of system that needs to be incorporated across much of the fleet. Certainly if ESSM is not viable for the support ships I'm sure SeaRAM has a place. I wouls suspect the space and weight can be
accommodated

Regards S

76mmGuns said:

Anyone else notice how defensive focused warships are?

One thing about most warships is they tend to only have 8-16 offensive missiles... Above deck anti ship missiles. The USA also loads tomahawks, but they aren't antiship .

Most vls seem to be used purely for anti missile, perhaps anti warplane, use.

Naval ships seem to be extremely defensive these days.

Am I wrong?

Click to expand...

Consider the of most warships, which is usually that of an 'escort'. Often of a high value asset like a CV, an amphibious assault vessel, AO/AOR, of even commercial shipping. The escort is supposed to protect the high value assets while they are en route to wherever their destination is, and while they (the high value assets) are doing whatever their tasks are.

A frigate or destroyer kitted out with AShM's could potentially wreak havoc upon a hostile nation's naval units, task forces, or even their commercial shipping. That same frigate or destroyer escorting an amphib could potentially contribute to the hostile nation losing control of a harbour, port, or naval base. A warship (in peacetime) could potentially be replaced in a couple of years, with a crew probably taking about as long.

An assault which seizes control of a hostile port can then establish a position to operate from within hostile territory, or if they wish to just damage or cripple their enemy's capabilities, the assault force could damage the port facilities. Imagine how long it would take a port to return to some semblance of normal operations if the harbour and especially the channels were choked with scuttled vessels, the docks, quays, wharves, warehouses, and shops were all fired and/or demolished, and any/all fuel storage, refining and transfer facilities were breached and demolished. Repairing that sort of damage could take years, with the economic impact felt even longer. Also, if the port had been used to support military operations, it would be unable to do so in the fashion it had until the repairs were completed.

Also as a side note, given the capabilities of a half-way decent submarine with a good crew, they tend to be much more capable in terms of eliminating hostile shipping and especially warships, than a surface vessel. At the same time, as WWII proved, combat aircraft are very capable in either attacking shipping, or forcing warships to adopt a posture to respond or defend against aircraft. Given that those same aircraft can be easily re-tasked or other combat missions against from 'just' against shipping, it would seem better to have warships concentrate on what they are the 'best' assets for, instead of becoming a one-trick pony trying to replicate a capability which more versatile assets can already do.

76mmGuns said:

Anyone else notice how defensive focused warships are?

One thing about most warships is they tend to only have 8-16 offensive missiles... Above deck anti ship missiles. The USA also loads tomahawks, but they aren't antiship .

Most vls seem to be used purely for anti missile, perhaps anti warplane, use.

Naval ships seem to be extremely defensive these days.

Am I wrong?

Click to expand...

Seeing this is a thread for the RAN I'll confine my comments to it.
As mentioned by others our surface combatants are "escorts" they are defensive, they protect high value targets from threats from all three spheres, air, surface and sub surface and they have capabilities to do just that.
RAN Concept of Operations - CONOPS, gives our submarines the offensive roles whether they be land attack, surface attack or anti submarine attack and this precisely why they are so important to Australia and why the government has increased their fleet towards 12 units.
Submarines also have a variety of other roles, ,SPECOPS, ISR, SIGINT and so on but that was not your query.

Stampede said:

Thanks Todjaeger,

While I'm a firm believer that ships should stick to their core role based upon their design; it does not preclude the need for some self defence on all blue water vessels. Making the assumption that the destroyer and Frigates will always be gunned up I still see a need for the Supply /amphibious ships to have some clout.
Now will their armament be restricted to 50 Cal , Bushmasters / small SAM's or into the realm of ESSM SAM'S really remains a mystery to be answered in the future.
I wonder if the restriction is so much one of engineering or budget.
You mentioned SeaRAM, and I agree that this is a missing class of system that needs to be incorporated across much of the fleet. Certainly if ESSM is not viable for the support ships I'm sure SeaRAM has a place. I wouls suspect the space and weight can be
accommodated

Regards S

Click to expand...

As I understand it, some of those RAN assets are to (or can) be fitted with Mk 15 Phalanx CIWS as deployments require. Also it is my understanding that the SeaRAM mounting is of similar size/weight to the Sea Phalanx, and in fact was developed from and shares many of the sensor and control systems. With these factors in mind, SeaRAM launchers seem to be able to be added and removed from a ship with the appropriate mountings as needed, with there being a central 'pool' of launchers which vessels could draw against as needed depending on where their areas of deployment are going to be.

With respect to fitting and utilizing a more capable missile like ESSM, that is much more involved. There needs to be space, weight, and clearance to fit a VLS loaded with ESSM which can then be safely launched clear of the vessel. A quad-packed Mk 41 VLS in the self-defence length is going to be somewhere greater than 21 tonnes (21,160+ kg) when fully loaded. In contract, an 11-missile SeaRAM launcher is less than 8 tonnes (~7,683 kg). Given the launch arcs, or specifically straight up for the VLS for the first few hundred feet) consideration has to be given to what could be effected by either the missile passage, or the hot gases from the missile launch and exhaust. A steel or marine-grade aluminium hatch might suffer very little from exposure to hot gases, but the same cannot be said for sensitive electronics and cabling like antennas, SATCOMM dishes, radar arrays, or the feedlines to them. Those concerns would in turn dictate that engineering work has to be done to ensure the sensitive systems will not be exposed during a launch, and this would likely be accomplished partially by protecting the sensitive areas, and partially by siting the launching so that the exhaust will be away from any delicate components. Given where radar and comm arrays need to be located to work best though (usually as high/exposed as possible, and not clustered too closely together otherwise there is crosstalk/interference) that does introduce some engineering issues on where things can be sited to work effectively and not be damaged, and then where/how to connect the arrays or antennas to the appropriate workstations to make use of them while also ensuring that the connection is protected, and then maintenance can be done on all parts of the systems if/when needed.

As a side note having done some systems integration work, at a certain point budget and engineering restrictions become one and the same. An inexpensive engineering solution to permit adding a VLS to something like the LHD stops being inexpensive if leads to an LHD needing to be taken out of service while conduits are opened up so that a fitting can be replaced that previously could have been routinely maintained.

In addition, if an ESSM capability were added to the LHD's, additional systems and workstations would need to be fitted to the LHD (or any other vessel for that matter) to provide target detection and tracking, target illumination, and missile launch controls. All of these systems would need to be fitted alongside the existing systems and workstations without having them interfere with each other. Imagine the impact of either systems confusion, or even just a spurious transmission, if there was a missile launch while the illuminator was painting a friendly helicopter being guided in by the on-board ATC system. While these are not likely situations, they need to be considered given the potential amount of electronic noise some of the systems can generate when in close proximity to each other.

Submarines are going to be much better projecting power against naval assets.

In Australia's case it looks like we will have a large surface fleet with very capable anti-air capability, and a level of protection against sub surface threats. But that is always going to be in combination with subs.

Also remember that the subs will have 6 strike length VLS as well. In combination to the 28 odd torpedos/mines/missiles (Harpoon or NSM).

Australia has already ordered 80 SM-2 Bk IIIB and already has stock of SM-2 Blk IIIA (we requested up to 175 SM-2 Block IIIA not sure how many we actually got) from the FFG's. Throw in an order of SM-6 and you are building a pretty decent load out across the fleet. Obviously we will need some sort of land strike, which will be most likely capable of long range anti-shipping as well. Might be some possible room for a dozen or so SM-3.

I don't think the LHD is well suited to ESSM. As it is likely to be in the middle of any task group, not sure ESSM is the ideal weapon for it.

StingrayOZ said:

Submarines are going to be much better projecting power against naval assets.

In Australia's case it looks like we will have a large surface fleet with very capable anti-air capability, and a level of protection against sub surface threats. But that is always going to be in combination with subs.

Also remember that the subs will have 6 strike length VLS as well. In combination to the 28 odd torpedos/mines/missiles (Harpoon or NSM).

Australia has already ordered 80 SM-2 Bk IIIB and already has stock of SM-2 Blk IIIA (we requested up to 175 SM-2 Block IIIA not sure how many we actually got) from the FFG's. Throw in an order of SM-6 and you are building a pretty decent load out across the fleet. Obviously we will need some sort of land strike, which will be most likely capable of long range anti-shipping as well. Might be some possible room for a dozen or so SM-3.

I don't think the LHD is well suited to ESSM. As it is likely to be in the middle of any task group, not sure ESSM is the ideal weapon for it.

Click to expand...

Thanks to StingrayOZ and Todjaeger for your efforts in providing a detailed response.

Much appreciated

Regards S