I've been rabbiting on about this for years, we replaced nine multirole mid level combatants with three.
The anzacs we promoted to gp frigates by default.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
The anzacs we promoted to gp frigates by default.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
How much need is there for escort ships against drones and aerial threats?
There are multiple AEW&C aircraft in play, there are shore based SAM's that theoretically can be networked with these platforms.
Missiles such as Hellfire and Martlet are (relatively) low cost and can be used against Drone targets.
Missiles such as Hellfire and Brimstone can be used against IRGC speedboats if they decide to be suicidal.
This is all assuming that the local air forces can keep Irans IADS suppressed.
----------
Ignoring all this, are Lloyds (and alternatives) even offering War Risk insurance for ships running the gauntlet?
There are multiple AEW&C aircraft in play, there are shore based SAM's that theoretically can be networked with these platforms.
Missiles such as Hellfire and Martlet are (relatively) low cost and can be used against Drone targets.
Missiles such as Hellfire and Brimstone can be used against IRGC speedboats if they decide to be suicidal.
This is all assuming that the local air forces can keep Irans IADS suppressed.
----------
Ignoring all this, are Lloyds (and alternatives) even offering War Risk insurance for ships running the gauntlet?
Something has to carry the Hellifre, Brimstone or whatever; and Merships don’t - and generally, won’t. They don’t have the sensors to employ them, and with the lousy vis in the Gulf you need sensors - and not optical or infrared ones either.
The land to the south (non Iranian) side is a desert island- there is effectively nothing there other than rock, certainly no infrastructure - and certainly no SAM batteries (or anything else for that matter).
Yes, aircraft are useful against drones and bog hammers but they have to be there, and the one thing an aircraft able to deal with drones isn’t at any distance from a base is persistent. Then, the iranian coast runs the full distance of the eastern side of the Gulf, which is about 200 nautical miles wide at its widest point and averages about a hundred. The Iranians can threaten the lot, so you would need constant aerial patrols over all ships to provide any level of security; and preferably more than one aircraft to allow for attacks for more than one direction. That would require a lot of aeroplanes.
Escort would require a lot of ships of course, but not nearly as many. A ship is persistent - it can just stay with the Merships, unless it exhausts its ordnance, so one or two ships can cover a number of merchant ships all the way. But, the number required is one of the reasons it isn’t presently being done.
War risk insurance is available, but is incredibly expensive. However, even if insurance can be obtained, most ship owners are unwilling to risk their ships and the people in them without a fair expectation that they won’t be harmed. For an explanation of the merchant navy’s view of the world, follow Sal Mercogliano’s What’s Going on with Shipping:
or https://x.com/mercoglianos?launch_app_store=true&ct=google-seo
The land to the south (non Iranian) side is a desert island- there is effectively nothing there other than rock, certainly no infrastructure - and certainly no SAM batteries (or anything else for that matter).
Yes, aircraft are useful against drones and bog hammers but they have to be there, and the one thing an aircraft able to deal with drones isn’t at any distance from a base is persistent. Then, the iranian coast runs the full distance of the eastern side of the Gulf, which is about 200 nautical miles wide at its widest point and averages about a hundred. The Iranians can threaten the lot, so you would need constant aerial patrols over all ships to provide any level of security; and preferably more than one aircraft to allow for attacks for more than one direction. That would require a lot of aeroplanes.
Escort would require a lot of ships of course, but not nearly as many. A ship is persistent - it can just stay with the Merships, unless it exhausts its ordnance, so one or two ships can cover a number of merchant ships all the way. But, the number required is one of the reasons it isn’t presently being done.
War risk insurance is available, but is incredibly expensive. However, even if insurance can be obtained, most ship owners are unwilling to risk their ships and the people in them without a fair expectation that they won’t be harmed. For an explanation of the merchant navy’s view of the world, follow Sal Mercogliano’s What’s Going on with Shipping:
or https://x.com/mercoglianos?launch_app_store=true&ct=google-seo
Last edited:
Regarding an ANZAC hypothetically deployed to the mid east, was wondering how good the CEAFAR actually is? Perhaps the under armed ship (compared to some contemporaries) would still be useful as a piquet of sorts, like a maritime AWACs?
Question for those with experiance, with regard to expected sea states within the straits of Hormuz.
The CWIS was removed from the Anzacs due to top weight and stability issues,
Does this only apply to open ocean operations?
Could the gun be shipped as cargo and then married up to the ship when in theatre?
Does this present an unacceptable risk?
From my WEEO friends it is top shelf.
The things that factor into good AESA radar design include:
- Number of panels. A six panel is better than a four panel, as it reduces the oblique angles where AESA style radars are weakest. More panels means more sectors can be simultaneously scanned, so improved multi vector attack awareness.
- Number of bands. The ANZAC system works in the S, L and X band. SPY1/6 only works in S band. It means it is far more flexible and jam resistant.
- Energy. Emmission strength relates to panel size. The ANZAC panels are smaller than a SPY1/6, but still large for a frigate installation. The increased number of panels goes a long way to compensate for this.
- Material. ANZAC uses the more modern gallium nitride, which enables higher emmited energy, reduced heat generation and therefor lower power and cooling. I think SPY6 uses GaN, but SPY1 does not.
- Software. The coding behind a radar is massive. More than all of the above features is this factor. This is all secret, but there are reports available in the public domain regarding the ANZAC systems capability against sea skiming missiles. Apparently it greatly impressed the Americans.
I think it was less sea state related and more a damage control problem. Under worse case damage scenarios there was insufficient margin for a CIWS post the CEAFAR upgrade.
I'm not sure Phalanx was ever fitted by the way. I was on them in the early 2000's with the classic radar and weapon system. It was not on then.
I am less hung up about CIWS. 32 ESSM, 500 odd 5 inch shells (with a good proportion being air burst types), 8 NSM and at least two automated typoon stations is still a lot of firepower. Not to mention the EW capabilities and Nulka.
All matched to a world class radar.