Yep, but following Newton‘s Third Law of Motion, when the gun is fired the recoil will force the mexeflote half a NM astern.The real question is can you get an M777 set up on a mexeflote and then fire it without sinking.
Yep, but following Newton‘s Third Law of Motion, when the gun is fired the recoil will force the mexeflote half a NM astern.The real question is can you get an M777 set up on a mexeflote and then fire it without sinking.
I wondered the same thing. If they are crewed and unprotected then they would be escorted If there was a threat (Not all potential adversaries have anti surface capabilities though).I am curious about what happens with these launch vessels once their stock of missiles is depleted.
Do they hang around the fleet as a defenceless vessel requiring protection or do they require an escort to take them to a reloading port.
I think things have changed. The US is finding its destroyers are intercepting multiple targets a day. US planning and briefings about the future are terrifying, even if things are pretty good over the 2030 period. We are already seeing global shipping being disrupted. Commercial ships being sunk. And that really isn't directly connected to the major conflicts in Ukraine or the upcoming around Taiwan. That is just frayed edges of geopolitics.Some of the commentary on the Tier 2 selection seems similar to the SEA1180 discussions on OCV and then OPV that I read. At the times some posters advocated for the most heavily armed, capable warship in its weight range.
While money and crewing are still real and hard limits, there seems to be some understanding that we are going to grow.And to address the elephant in the room, how are we going to crew all these magical ships and boats (subs)? We are effectively tripling or more the number of hulls in the water. Most people can't see past the destroyers and frigates and forget the support craft. They will need to have a degree of self defense so that will require extra crew. Plus a degree of electronic defence systems. That will require a lot of crewing.
We will effectively be bigger that the Royal Navy.
If minimum viable does come to be 32 VLS for a small GP frigate, what does that say for the huge Hunters I wonder?Some of the commentary on the Tier 2 selection seems similar to the SEA1180 discussions on OCV and then OPV that I read. At the times some posters advocated for the most heavily armed, capable warship in its weight range.
Nothing wrong with that (as an argument about what government should do as opposed to what it will do) but according to AusGov‘s stated approach in accepting DSR recommendations they will not be looking for the most capable ship, or the ship with the biggest growth margins for future refit, but for the minimum viable capability that can be delivered on time and budget (to minimise strategic risk).
We know what the government think the time line for the first three and the total number of ships will be, we also know that the government has an idea as to how much it intends to pay for the first three. If all contenders can meet the schedule and price and deliver the minimal viable capability then they would all still be in the frame but that does not mean the selection would be for the best, most capable, most adaptable ship (I don’t have any problem with posters advocating for such but they are likely to be disappointed).
So to take the debate about 32 vs. 16 VLS. If a ship with 32 VLS is selected that will not because 32 is better than 16 but because 32 VLS will have been identified as the minimum necessary for the capability (a general purpose frigate optimised for undersea warfare) during its likely service life. My guess is the view has already been formed that 8 VLS will not be viable in the 2030s (hence no TRANSCAP).
That could change but the most likely way for it to change in the Australian context is following a change of government or prime minister (Just as we have seen most recently with the Hunter and Arafura numbers).
edit: corrected “ASW“ to “undersea”
The Hunters will have a top-of-the-line sensor-CMS fit, with Aegis and an extremely powerful CEAFAR radar. The GP Frigates will almost certainly not get Aegis (too expensive) and if they get CEAFAR it will be a scaled down system. No matter how many missiles you put on a ship, they are only ever going to be as good as the information they are being fed.If minimum viable does come to be 32 VLS for a small GP frigate, what does that say for the huge Hunters I wonder?
I suspect the same will happen to these vessels when they expend their missiles as will happen to any other surface warship, They will have to head back to port for reloads.I am curious about what happens with these launch vessels once their stock of missiles is depleted.
Do they hang around the fleet as a defenceless vessel requiring protection or do they require an escort to take them to a reloading port.
Let's wait and see.If minimum viable does come to be 32 VLS for a small GP frigate, what does that say for the huge Hunters I wonder?
It's a concept that could take many forms.I suspect the same will happen to these vessels when they expend their missiles as will happen to any other surface warship, They will have to head back to port for reloads.
I think there are more questions than answers at the moment. For example these ships would need to be defended. I doubt they will be fitted with the extensive anti-missile, anti-aircraft and anti-submarine systems of a frontline warship. In fact they would probably struggle to defend themselves against a boatload of determined fisherman wanting to board them. As far as damage control is concerned forget it, if they have a crew they will need to keep up with those abandon ship drills.
Effectively I see these vessels as expendable missile barges that will deliver their payload and if they survive make their way back to port for rearming. Perhaps they could be fitted out for other missions but really I would struggle to categorise them as warships. What they will mostly do is just give warships such as the Hobart access to an additional 32 VLS.
I honestly had never considered this option before. I wonder if the Canberra's would be used as supply and hospital ships if most of the crew was shifted over to crew the tier 1/2 ships.In that case we may get 3-8 new ships in that time. If we are short crewing, we will de-crew older, less effective ships and platforms. That may include LHDs, Anzacs, etc.
Why would you not want it to sink? Better for everyone to have M777s as a reef....The real question is can you get an M777 set up on a mexeflote and then fire it without sinking.
Will the Hunters have the anti-ballistic capabilities of the Hobarts?The Hunters will have a top-of-the-line sensor-CMS fit, with Aegis and an extremely powerful CEAFAR radar. The GP Frigates will almost certainly not get Aegis (too expensive) and if they get CEAFAR it will be a scaled down system. No matter how many missiles you put on a ship, they are only ever going to be as good as the information they are being fed.
I don’t think that there’s any information available publicly that could answer that question but, this pic (courtesy of Reddit) was posted earlier in this thread and, if it is accurate, it shows radar panels (the small green ones) towards the top of the mast facing skyward which are possibly there to detect ballistic threats.Will the Hunters have the anti-ballistic capabilities of the Hobarts?
My understanding of how LOCSVs will operate is that while in company of the Hobart/Hunter they would obviously come under the defensive umbrella of that ship.I suspect the same will happen to these vessels when they expend their missiles as will happen to any other surface warship, They will have to head back to port for reloads.
I think there are more questions than answers at the moment. For example these ships would need to be defended. I doubt they will be fitted with the extensive anti-missile, anti-aircraft and anti-submarine systems of a frontline warship. In fact they would probably struggle to defend themselves against a boatload of determined fisherman wanting to board them. As far as damage control is concerned forget it, if they have a crew they will need to keep up with those abandon ship drills.
Effectively I see these vessels as expendable missile barges that will deliver their payload and if they survive make their way back to port for rearming. Perhaps they could be fitted out for other missions but really I would struggle to categorise them as warships. What they will mostly do is just give warships such as the Hobart access to an additional 32 VLS.
That pic still has the CAMM launchers Fwd and Aft, as well as the Naval Decoy system, both in use by the RN, not the RAN.I don’t think that there’s any information available publicly that could answer that question but, this pic (courtesy of Reddit) was posted earlier in this thread and, if it is accurate, it shows radar panels (the small green ones) towards the top of the mast facing skyward which are possibly there to detect ballistic threats.
View attachment 51194
The Reddit site (see post #7,675) indicates that the source of that graphic is CEA and the CEAMOUNT illuminator arrays are shown in Red. The Green arrays including the smaller ones at the top of the mast are claimed to be L band.That pic still has the CAMM launchers Fwd and Aft, as well as the Naval Decoy system, both in use by the RN, not the RAN.
However if that is a correct CEA mast then those top little panels are more likely to be the Illuminator panels.
My understanding is that the Hunters, like the Hobarts will be BMD capable, at least for in atmosphere threats.That pic still has the CAMM launchers Fwd and Aft, as well as the Naval Decoy system, both in use by the RN, not the RAN.
However if that is a correct CEA mast then those top little panels are more likely to be the Illuminator panels.
The Arafura Class are yet to enter service so at this stage they are somewhat a unknown.So I’m perplexed as to what the 6 Arafura class OPV will be tasked with.
It does look like they could be on rotational deployment offshore.. Lombrum perhaps.. Fiji perhaps?
but what will the be actually good at?
Where is the MCM/Survet vessel at now that the Arafura class has been cancelled?
will Lurssen still undertake 8 further vessels to preform the MCM/Survey as planned or has this been cancelled too?
It’s just really hard to find anything on these potential vessels and much needed ones!
Yes, I understand that. What I was trying to question though, is if they come to the conclusion that a small, tier 2 GP frigate needs 32 VLS minimum, what does that say about a large tier 1 combatant, possibly twice the displacement, fitted with the best of the best, being AEGIS and CEAFAR? Does that mean that they are horribly under armed? If 32 is seems as a minimum for a small tier 2, then what’s right for large tier 1s?The Hunters will have a top-of-the-line sensor-CMS fit, with Aegis and an extremely powerful CEAFAR radar. The GP Frigates will almost certainly not get Aegis (too expensive) and if they get CEAFAR it will be a scaled down system. No matter how many missiles you put on a ship, they are only ever going to be as good as the information they are being fed.