iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
Do they want to defend the ships or not.
I'm just a stupid layman hobby shop owner but even I can see the stupidity of having them undefended.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
I'm just a stupid layman hobby shop owner but even I can see the stupidity of having them undefended.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Some of it would come down to the threat assessments. If the LHD's never deploy to an area where someone might target them with AShM, say by the RAN only deploying them to support ADF and AusGov ops in & around the S. Pacific, and no conflict involving Australia is going on, then fitting CIWS is overkill. OTOH if the LHD's were to deploy to the Persian Gulf, or even have to transit the Red Sea, fitting CIWS would make perfect sense.
Much depends on what gov't would want to do with the ships, and what potential threats they would face whilst doing it.
Not sure I directly commented on the DDGs combat system, tactics or SOPs just their inner kinetic defence.I just have to say that your thoughts and scepticism on the DDG combat system and weapons ability as well as tactics and SOPs in handle incoming threats, as well as your perceived limitations of Phalanx Block1B are a little bit unfounded.
and that's all I will say about that
The later as I’m sure you’re aware is a part of many layers of soft and hard kill options.
For the last few kms you would need 360 degree coverage. A single CIWS does not do that hence why most navy’s have a pair of such weapons or alternatively a missile based system . Eg gun based phalanx evolving to missile based RAM
Note Hunter and Mogami.
Re 25mm bushmaster this is not the calibre of choice employed by new build ship’s globally.
There’s a reason for that. It’s inadequate in many domains. Hence toy!
With regards to the combat management system I’m sure it’s very good.
Yet we are still to upgrade this element of the Hobarts at the expense of many billions of dollars.
Apparently very good is not good enough!
Even if the Hobarts were the best ship in the world it also comes down to numbers.
Hence my comment about only having two in the water today.
Which in sad reality is our total realistic fleet response to a major real threat.
Premise being the ANZACs for all their attributes also have significant limitations.
Most of my commentary was about the fleet currently and it’s sad state of options it gives to government.
Yes yes , yes I’m on the negativity bus.
But as a long term observer of defence matters over the decades it’s been both evident and frustrating looking at decisions made in the past and today seeing the consequences of those decisions.
Cheers S
All of the 'unsurvivable' commentary seems to involve the very unlikely scenario of a single Australian Anzac frigate operating alone in the Hormuz Strait as the sole target of all of Iran's potential missile/drone focus. I seriously doubt that would be the case, and even so an Anzac's radars would be very efficient at detecting airborne threats and her ESSM 2s (32 of them) would be a serious obstacle for any ASM cruise missile, let alone her gun which is the current 'go to' response to most Houthi ASMs and drones.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Might just be me, but the above seems to be a serious mis-reading of the situation as well as the very real potential issues that a RAN ANZAC-class frigate could run into if deployed in/around the Strait of Hormuz, the Persian Gulf and/or Gulf of Oman.
The upgraded radar system should be quite good at detecting aerial threats at elevation, but will likely still encounter problems detecting small, low-flying aerial threats, with some of the smaller drones being potential examples. AFAIK the RAN frigates do not have the ability to participate in CEC targeting, so the ability to get advanced warning from other offboard assets would be more limited than might be possible aboard the RAN DDG's.
This could become a significant problem given the volume of strikes Iran has been launching, though as time marches on, Iran's ability to have such a volume of missile and/or drone attacks will likely decline. From news articles dated 2 March, there was reporting that over 1,000 drones had been launched by Iran at targets around the Gulf. From this story in the Guardian, the UAE had been targeted by 689 such drones, and downing approximately 94% of them, with 44 getting through. However, that is sort of the issue. The RAN frigates only can carry and launch up to 32 ESSM before the VLS is empty. Now it would be unlikely that Iran would target a RAN frigate with such a large volume of drones, but even the leakers through UAE air defences would be sufficient to completely exhaust the VLS and still have leakers. If such a frigate was deployed to escort shipping like tankers, the RAN might find itself needing to make daily (or even several times per day) port calls just to reload the VLS.
There is also the reality that all Iran would need to do to overwhelm any air defence umbrella that an ANZAC-class frigate might provide for itself as well as nearby shipping would be to simply launch 33+ drones, something which IMO Iran has certainly demonstrated an ability to do.
Last edited:
I think the presumption is that any RAN vessel ( let alone an Anzac) would not be required to patrol alone.
I think an Aussie frigate would be teamed up with another from a EU or SEA country.
If done right the combined strengths would overcome individual weaknesses.
The combination could then be used to free up a US AB or a UK Type 45.
The channel in the Strait of Hormuz is barely 2nm wide. It's not the ASM threat you have to worry about, it's the small boats/USVs that Iran has deployed already to great effect. As someone who has closed up and transited that strait, I can tell you that you have very little warning when small boats appear particularly on low visibility days (which is pretty regular given the deserts that surround the waterway). There isn't much room to actively manoeuvre to evade fast moving threats either, which can mitigate the strength in numbers concept of defence. Thus is the complete folly of Trump's grand plan of escorting tankers through the channel.
Takao
The Bunker Group
Why would we?
The DSR/NDS (which is held up as the best strategy ever) explicitly removes our focus on the Middle East and returns it to the local region. It also builds a focused force - looking at a specific threat (that isn't Iran).
Even putting an E-7 into the Gulf goes against the NDS.
devo99
Well-Known Member
Ultimately the ADF's job is to defend the nation AND its interests, which definitely includes fuel supply lines. That job always overrides any doctrine in place even if they're not particularly compatible. The barrier to sending ships is that what could be sent wouldn't sufficiently affect the situation enough to overcome the risk involved, rather than anything to do with the DSR.
The presidents plan was rejected by the USN.
It would be a pretty brave decision to go into the space and do that, without the USN, on a mission the USN has rejected. Particularly with the capability we have currently. Given the history.
Which was interesting. I suspect there is more happening than what is at face value on how that came to pass.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
E-3s are tired which is why the US has instructed the USN to deploy available Hawkeyes as a backup. The E-7 would be most welcomed.
What I've read is that's the width of the two deepwater channels, one in & one out, each 2nm wide, plus a similarly wide buffer between them.
That's about right, which is still sweet FA space when ships have to tactically manoeuvre. Hence the reason it's so high risk to attempt to escort ships through there.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Perhaps, though I really question what capabilities a RAN ANZAC-class frigate would realistically be able to bring to the table so to speak. With a 32-missile VLS count when quad-packed, a RAN frigate might have sufficient resources for self-defence in the event of a drone swarm or AShM attack., OTOH it also might not be enough. In terms of offensive capabilities, that same FFH could possibly strike up to eight land targets using the NSM or Harpoon depending on what is fitted., and of course NGFS.
However, if the RAN frigate was to be tasked with either escorting merchantmen, or providing an area air defence umbrella that other ships could take shelter under, does 32 really sound sufficient?
I'd look at it slightly differently. If needed it would use all of its missiles on a single transit. It may well end up empty after an engagement.
It would need to withdraw following an engagement to reload.
I think an ANZAC can however provide a very effective point AD bubble against cruise missiles, and ESSM would be restricted for this threat only. It has a shallow draft so I suspect it has more maneuverability options than a tanker in the straight (it can if needed go outside the channels). It also only has to defend from one shore not two.
Speed is its advantage, tankers can do a good 20 kts, and the ANZAC more. A small boat would have to be close by to intercept at that speed. I'm thinking any boat in the vicinity is going to very quickly be a five inch target. Even in a sand storm, radar would still detect these (even if the Russians can't seem to do this)
A lot of the Iranian drones are still the more simple Shahed type, which do not have active tracking. They can't hit a moving target, doesn't matter how many are in the air. Again speed is the advantage, with the majority likely to naturally miss.
I am also led to believe that the main gun is good for anything of a Shahed size and speed (and an ANZAC has somewhere around 500-600 shells), which would be prioritised over ESSM.
So then its just the small drones. Half of them won't make the distance from shore.
Also by the looks of things, there is signigicant air cover available for any ship in this region.
The MH-60R would likely also be available with APKWS / Hellfire for defensive operations against drones as well as allied airpower and not to mention any UoR kit they might procure for such a deployment…
An ANZAC class might not have the SWAP or top weight available for a high naval defense system in addition to it’s current fitout, but that doesn’t mean NO additional kit would be carried for a particular deployment, witness the “mini-typhoon” RWS mounts which are not carried routinely but are fitted for operational deployments when required.
I’d not be the one to argue that it is beyond the realm of possibility that RAN has considered the need for a kinetic drone interceptor that can launch from it’s ships. Perhaps employing APKWS or Hellfire missiles in the role, given these weapons exist within inventory already and have demonstrated counter-UAS capabilities.
We know also that RAN has been actively seeking a specialised Counter-UAS munition for it’s Mk.45 127mm gun fleet, so it is clearly aware of these threats and has been taking at least some steps to address them. Whether that included a more radical step of employing existing guided weapons in such a role is publicly unknown at present.
But we know Army is…
And we know RAN has bolstered deployed forces to the Gulf previously with additional defensive capability…
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I could be misreading this, but it appears as though one is assuming that the RAN frigate is the primary target. My assumptions were that a deployed RAN frigate would be either assigned a zone/area to detect, track and attempt to intercept hostile inbounds, or to accompany/escort merchant vessels (tankers carrying liquid dinosaur in particular) to detect and intercept hostiles targeting the shipping.
Depending on just where the RAN frigate was positioned, as well as what the assigned role is, there is the potential for many inbounds, ranging from dozens up to hundreds. Most of these likely would not be targeting the frigate itself, but high value targets like laden oil tankers or perhaps petroleum facilities ashore like tank farms or terminals. From where I sit, at least some of the difficulty would come from the number of inbounds which potentially could need intercept. As we have seen roughly three weeks ago, even with over 90% of inbounds getting intercepted, dozens still managed to penetrate all the air defences available covering places like the UAE and Kuwait.
With that in mind, I do not really see the value a RAN ANZAC-class frigate would have trying to contribute to secure the regional airspace. The vessel itself would become a potential target (either deliberately or accidentally) without either the range or scale of defensive options available to something like an Arleigh Burke-class DDG. One of the USN DDG's could easily have 6x the number of VLS cells set aside to hold air defence missiles, including quad-packed ESSM and still have VLS cells available for LACM. The vessels also include CIWS, either Phalanx or SeaRAM depending on the vessel. This is in addition to the Mk 45 5" gun and 25mm Bushmaster Mk 38 guns.