T26 main engines are not mounted above the waterline.
Fantasy RAN thread (Surface Ships & LHDs only)
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
- Status
I've often wondered how "future proof" the 2 x 4 canister type missiles are going to be given the replacement of the Harpoon is on the horizon. Is there any possibility of replacing these with additional VLS cells?
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Italy plans new destroyers for 2028 delivery
Fresh from a burst of shipbuilding spurred by the retirement of old vessels, the Italian Navy is now back at the drawing board to design what it considers the cornerstone of its fleet — new destroyers.
www.defensenews.com
Given that the entire thrust of this thread is around how to increase the number of VLS cells, you might profitably read back a couple of pages. Getting rid of deck launchers is probably the opposite of what would need to happen. That is, ADD more box launchers- topweight, clearance etc issues permitting
oldsig
I think that it's a bit soon to look at Hunter variants when the first of the class hasn't even kissed the water yet. However there maybe a case that the RAN is short a DDG, possibly two. So it may be pertinent to look at a DDG option using the Hunter Class as the template. There are two options as I see it.
Option One:
In reality to create the DDG option all that is required would be to double the Mk-41 VLS cell complement from 32 to 64.
Build a lengthened variant of the Hunter Class to include 64 or more Mk-41 VLS cells plus 16 or more AShM canisters. The Mk-41 VLS would be split with half forward of the bridge and the second half somewhere behind the main radar mast. The AShM could be split the same way to ensure survivability.
The only difference between the DDG and the FFG would be the number of Mk-41 VLS and AShM canisters. If the second option is chosen then the DDG hull will be longer. But everything else, weapons, sensors, decoys, comms, machinery etc., remains the same between the two.
Which one is the least risky option but also would be the better option for the RAN? My view is that whichever one it is, the first tranche of one or two ships, have to be built in conjunction with the Hunter Class frigates. This is the only way that I can think of you increasing your DDG numbers quickly.
Something to think about.
Option One:
In reality to create the DDG option all that is required would be to double the Mk-41 VLS cell complement from 32 to 64.
- Could this be done on the current hull by fitting 32 Mk-41 VLS cells somewhere aft of the main radar mast?
- If so what could / would be relocated / removed to enable this?
- Would this be technically feasible?
- Would such a modification negatively impact upon the stability, seaworthiness, and / or the performance of the ship?
- Would such a modification leave enough room and reserve buoyancy for future upgrades?
Build a lengthened variant of the Hunter Class to include 64 or more Mk-41 VLS cells plus 16 or more AShM canisters. The Mk-41 VLS would be split with half forward of the bridge and the second half somewhere behind the main radar mast. The AShM could be split the same way to ensure survivability.
The only difference between the DDG and the FFG would be the number of Mk-41 VLS and AShM canisters. If the second option is chosen then the DDG hull will be longer. But everything else, weapons, sensors, decoys, comms, machinery etc., remains the same between the two.
Which one is the least risky option but also would be the better option for the RAN? My view is that whichever one it is, the first tranche of one or two ships, have to be built in conjunction with the Hunter Class frigates. This is the only way that I can think of you increasing your DDG numbers quickly.
Something to think about.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
You could probably afford to lose some of your mission Bay with a DDG variant, lose the ability to launch USUVs but of course i have no idea if it can be done on a Type 26.
As I understand it, the Type 26 was designed to be the best ASW ship that the RAN could buy, & because of that it incorporates a lot of silencing measures which add significantly to the cost, & perhaps the weight, & perhaps other ASW optimisation.
Is it really the best basis for ships built to carry as many VLS as possible?
Is it really the best basis for ships built to carry as many VLS as possible?
For an ASW asset, I imagine the most capable shipborne (excluding the helo) weapon to prosecute a ranged submarine contact is an ASROC type munition.
ASROC is VLS launched, correct??
Considering the VLS magazine capacity and competition for various munition load types, I reckon the VLS number available is crucial to the vessels persistence in the forward AO.
Assuming that the ship would not intentionally leave the AO to re-arm, unloaded with an empty magazine, a % of the magazine is already probably considered optimally ‘unusable’.
ASROC is VLS launched, correct??
Considering the VLS magazine capacity and competition for various munition load types, I reckon the VLS number available is crucial to the vessels persistence in the forward AO.
Assuming that the ship would not intentionally leave the AO to re-arm, unloaded with an empty magazine, a % of the magazine is already probably considered optimally ‘unusable’.
Not sure if option 1 is feasible. The only place that might be a possibility would seem to be the mission bay, and AFAIK that is only one or two decks high and would look to be well above the CofG of the ship. From memory, strike length Mk 41 penetrate at least three decks so there would be a height problem I'm not sure what's under there, but it's around the middle of the ship so you'd expect things like the cafe, engine rooms etc to be in the general area. Rearranging those would I should think be a non trivial exercise.
Reading the post about number of missiles on the Hunters. I'm putting it down to male disease "mines bigger than yours". I trust the Navy to balance out weapons requirements. Fifth generation warfare is about situational awarness and sensor fusion. The new mantra is he who sees first shoots first. The ships in my mind have the finest suite of sensors we could afford. Unfortunately they take up weight and space. I'm sure the Navy was aware of this and chose this balance between missiles and sensors.
Besides with co operative engagement means the Hunter can direct other assetts to destroy targets without using their missiles. We all need to think fifth gen and realise technology has changed warfare forever. We are lucky to have a defence force funded to transistion to this new world.
Besides with co operative engagement means the Hunter can direct other assetts to destroy targets without using their missiles. We all need to think fifth gen and realise technology has changed warfare forever. We are lucky to have a defence force funded to transistion to this new world.
Git_Kraken
Active Member
Agreed. Burkes were designed with the Cold War mentality and technology. You needed multiple Air Defence missiles to shoot down one anti-ship missile. The design and technology of the T45 showed that if you can achieve closer to a 1:1 ratio of Air Defence missile to anti-ship missile you don't need to fill your ship with VLS. Your sensors/FCS/ordinance tech allow you to get that ratio. This means space spent on CMS/sensors can reduce space for the ordinance.
And of course, lets not forget ships work in teams. 2 Hunters and a Hobart are going to be a potent TG package.
Unmanned arsenal ship concepts are becoming more common now to supplement the magazines of manned warships. Separating the sensor from the shooter may also reduce the risk to the manned platform.
I believe the concern is that the hull narrows significantly starting around the position of the Mk 41 so there's a lot less usable room than it appears especially 3 decks down.Before having to consider other locations, it's worth noting there's quite a bit of room forward where the existing 32 VLS are located. This model of the CSC illustrates this quite well:
Depends on layout of the forward section. Just because a model shows room on top, doesn't mean the rest of thar section isnt already mapped out.Before having to consider other locations, it's worth noting there's quite a bit of room forward where the existing 32 VLS are located. This model of the CSC illustrates this quite well:
Anzacs being am example, the section forward under harpoons is Chart house, Armourey with Forward Magazine. Looking at a model looks like plenty of space.
Also the models are only representational of the first flight.
The design is expected to change and evolve, and most certainly the weapons and sensor fit out will evolve as well.
It may be after the first 3 ships, we replace phalanx with 24/32 CAMM launchers, and perhaps reconfigure some of the other ships where we do not need 9 x copies of that configuration.
32 vls strike for a frigate seems fine. 48vls would seem to be an upper design goal on a "Frigate"
I wonder if we would be so concerned with missile load if the Hobarts had 64 or 96 VLS.
The design is expected to change and evolve, and most certainly the weapons and sensor fit out will evolve as well.
It may be after the first 3 ships, we replace phalanx with 24/32 CAMM launchers, and perhaps reconfigure some of the other ships where we do not need 9 x copies of that configuration.
32 vls strike for a frigate seems fine. 48vls would seem to be an upper design goal on a "Frigate"
I wonder if we would be so concerned with missile load if the Hobarts had 64 or 96 VLS.
Lolcake
Active Member
Is there scope to increase the Hobarts capacity to minimum 64 VLS? I recall reading somewhere, where a minister said it wasn't needed as we would not be "fighting WWIII". Well it seems with the acquisition of the SSN's that is now needed in lieu of the current and looming Chinese aggressions in the South China Sea, we would be better off having it than without.
There is some indication that it may be possible. But any design margin is likely to be consumed with the radar upgrade. Certainly if we were going to look at upgrading the Hobarts, performing it with the Radar and combat system upgrade would be the only sensible time to do it. Again, any increase in VLS isn't free you trade off room/facilities/capacities elsewhere.
Takao
The Bunker Group
My major problem with many of our new concepts is the assumptions based above.
Historically the person who shoots first usually wins. At least for land combat. For sea combat, that's not yet been proven any way. It used to matter that ships had armour, so it may be true now, but the amount of self-protection a SAG has is ne hell of a hard nut to crack. The lessons off the Falklands still hold true - and some of those RN ships took a hit and could continue.
Which leads to the second bad assumption, that mass doesn't matter. Makes sense, if you have the better sensors then you shoot first and hence win first. Except....that's not how it works. Because of the self-defence capability a SAG has, you need to throw a hell of a lot at them. Those 32 cells get emptied pretty damn quick...
Fifth gen tech hasn't changed warfare forever. The majority of concepts aren't new. I challenge anyone to point to something fundamentally new as opposed to incremental growth. Especially for naval combat. Fifth gen generally relates to stealth (limited for ships), speed (hasn't changed since the 1930s) and sensors. Those work - right up until weather or the enemy play havoc with them. Does anyone honestly think that a modern naval threat won't have significant EW behind it? How do those magic CEC links work? How do they work if HMAS Hunter is 1000 nm from land? Good luck getting a P-8 out there when you need it. How did the superior Allied sensors go in the first battle of Guadalcanal? Modern warfare is quick? Tell that to the crew of HMAS Canberra.
In our chase of the shiny new we have forgotten a few things. Chaos and enemy action are going to tear through our comms. The bad guys are going to be smart and will know our doctrine better than us. We won't always have the initiative and so we better be able to take a hit. We also need to be able to throw out something.
If HMAS Hunter can comfortably handle, say, 4x YJ-62, how many AShM does she have to throw at the Type 052C to get through _it's_ air defence? At least 8. But now Hunter has only 24 SAMs (less if it's quad packed some ESSM for SHORAD) that can do something. So maybe handling 4x YJ-62 gets a bit hairier. And yes, I know one v one is meaningless. But these REDFOR ships are going to carry a greater quantitively advantage as the SAG increases in size. Furthermore, while HMAS Hunter is intended for ASW (noting of course you can't pick the fight she's in), a Type 093 can probably carry a dozen AShW. That's 24 cells required for a 50% hit rate (immensely greater than any missile has achieved in actual combat) leaving 8 for ESSM, strike and AShM. Now all of a sudden the ship that is meant to be the most flexible - isn't.
Takao
The Bunker Group
Where has that success rate for Type 45 been shown?
I can lay hands on impressive hit rates for Patriot, Sea Dart, Standard, Sparrow, AMRAAM, etc etc right up until used in combat. Yes, a Type 45 + Aster 30 is more technologically advanced than any of those. But the threats are too. I'm going to be surprised if, in a no kidding strike against a RN/RAN/USN SAG, our missiles have a better than 50% hit ratio.
So does the threat. Navies were the first to use combined arms, the PLA-N will be no different. We know they aren't, with a CVBG already practising. Note that we have had to learn how to do that again after so many single ship deployment through the 90s and 00s, so that means in many respects the PLA-N have a head start on us, especially seeing as they have been operating SAGs for a while now. Furthermore, adding more ships highlights the disadvantage we have anyhow. Weapons-fitout wise, a Type 052D is slightly ahead of a Hobart and a Type 054A is slightly ahead of a Hunter. Putting a SAG together of them means that the PLA-N SAG is more ahead of the RAN SAG.
Boagrius
Well-Known Member
Agree broadly that, all else being equal, Mk41 VLS cells are good and more are better (unless you want to save space for something bigger to house hypersonics ;-p).
That said with your example above I have a few thoughts:
- The experience of USS Mason in the Red Sea is consistent with the idea that more than one interceptor would be needed to stop even subsonic ASMs, the likes of which the PRC has in plentiful supply.
- That said, you'd expect that a given Hunter class ship would have 8 x topside canister launched ASM (I'd hope LRASM, but maybe NSM) in addition to the 32 notional VLS cells. With quad packed ESSM you might get something like 32 x ESSM + 24 x SM2/6 for 56 SAMs or roughly ~28 "stowed ASM kills" per vessel in addition to your own ASM volley, so the situation might not be quite so bleak, especially once soft kills are factored in (EW, Nulka etc).
- I suppose the other question is CONOPS. Is an enemy SAG the pacing threat for these ships? PLAN vessels clearly need vast VLS cell counts because they find themselves in range of enemy airpower while in home port. The same is not true of our ships - how does this affect requirements? Perhaps H6 with YJ100, ASBMs or SLCMs are a bigger issue? Not sure, but all of these could dictate different demands on VLS space, although I again agree that - all else being equal - more of it can scarcely hurt.
Last edited:
- Status