Apparently yes but only at the ESSm range which is about 50 km and about 15km altitude leaving only a very small amount of time to intercept a projectile travelling at 5000kmh Or approx 1.4kms per second.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
The Germans appear to put a lot of faith in RAM.
They put it on everything, and its the main SAM system on some rather major platforms.
SeaRAM and Phalanx are not the only defences against drones. There is also soft kill, and there have been VT fuses for 5 inch since WW2. But quite frankly, the best defence against drones might well be lots of good old 40/60s (or their modern equivalents). STAAG anyone?
Its small, light, compact, and completely defensive focused. Its also super expensive, with limited rounds, limited engagement range, has to see the target, not suitable for all targets. I think it suits some ships, perhaps AOR, or a corvette which has just seaRAM and a gun.
After what we have seen in the red sea, 2 x Phalanx sounds like a good idea, particularly if you have a bunch of SM-2/6 and ESSM. IMO some of the development of ESSM has fixed some of its short comings that made SeaRAM more useful on a ship with other engagement systems.
High missiles are easily seen
Low missiles are less easily seen
Fast missiles aren't usually accurate missiles. They tend to be for large, ponderous targets, like carriers. P800 or P700 or P500 probably wouldn't be ideal against a small profile of something like frigate. Most of those aren't at mach 5, but more like mach 2-3.
Ballistic missile can certainly travel at mach 5+, but often follow very clear ballistic trajectories, which makes detection and interception easier. 50-120 seconds may be long enough to allow the ship to change direction. Very fast missiles tend to be fairly blind in the atmosphere (3m22 at mach 9 and the surface of the missile will be 700+ degrees) . So often are designed to work cooperatively, firing a volley in a pattern. So you are talking multiple expensive and rare munitions against, high value targets, like US aircraft carriers.
Also presumably these days, we aren't really just reliant on ships radar for detection, space, UAV, E7, JORN can detect launches, give time for counter measures and intercepts. Its not just poor able seaman Timmy, manning a non-computer radar console having only seconds to react. The platforms that launch such munitions are typically, high value platforms or coastal based. These days such threats, would be picked up by multiple sensor platforms, and cued to multiple manned consoles with multiple redundancies and computers managing everything.
ESSM is pretty good for the threats that Australia will likely face. SM-2/SM-6 is very good against threats against an airspace.
But gee wizz, it sure would be nice for some ships to have them and be at sea.
IMO a bigger threat is smaller stealthy munitions. That can be launched in significant numbers, carry smaller warheads of <50kg, subsonic, completely passive. Flying very close to the surface, with the radar return of a <tennis ball and the visual profile of a football. They could be launched from UUV's, making the launch platform, also extremely hard to detect.
d-ron84
Member
"Ponderous: slow and clumsy because of great weight."
Carriers are anything but slow and clumsy on the open ocean, I've been on an FFG being plane guard, the carrier left us for dust, we were pushing 30 kts
I guess I meant ponderous because they are large and generally predictable, particularly while launching and retrieving aircraft.
Top speed of a nuclear power carrier is probably around 40kts.
A hypersonic missile is moving at perhaps 4000kts.
Interception of a US carrier by another ship other than a SSN, is very unlikely. However, ships aren't faster than missiles. A carrier can still probably out turn a hypersonic missile or glide vehicle, they are notoriously difficult to control with in the atmosphere.
The limitations of Hypersonics, would seem to indicate they are more likely to target high value ships like carriers, than smaller ships like destroyers and frigates.
Both western and Chinese sources seem to indicate that hypersonics are likely to be used this way.
Chinese hypersonic missiles 'can destroy newest US aircraft carrier'
Beijing forces 'sank' USS Gerald R Ford fleet in recent war game with a volley of 24 anti-ship missiles in a three-way attack
China lab simulates attack on US warships using space weapons, hypersonic missiles
Laboratory that works on electronic warfare equipment for the PLA shows how satellites and missiles might be used to strike an aircraft carrier group.
www.scmp.com
Chinese scientists war-game hypersonic strike on US carrier group
Military planners conclude the Gerald R. Ford and its fleet could be destroyed ‘with certainty’ in rare published report.
www.scmp.com
MDA: U.S. Aircraft Carriers Now at Risk from Hypersonic Missiles - USNI News
This post has been updated to correct the spelling of the first name of the director of the Missile Defense Agency, Vice Adm. Jon Hill. U.S. aircraft carriers are already facing risks from hypersonic weapons that are now entering the inventory of American adversaries and the Navy has developed...
news.usni.org
But the fact that it is moving still makes it much harder to hit, just from a targeting perspective.
China’s hypersonic missiles threaten US power in the Pacific – an aerospace engineer explains how the weapons work and the unique threats they pose
China’s newest hypersonic missile, the DF-27, could sideline US aircraft carrier groups in the Pacific, while missiles in the works in China, Russia and the US threaten global security.
theconversation.com
AFAIK hypersonics are more able land targets and large high value targets.
Hypersonics generally require very large rockets to get them up to speed and altitude, which makes them generally very bulky to deploy on ships. I'm not sure they are something we really have to be overtly concerned about for a tier II or perhaps even tier I ship. They exist, there are weapons that can likely intercept them. But they are likely to only be fired at high value targets Australia doesn't operate or have in range.
Yes, e.g. F125 - two RAM launchers with 21 missiles each. I don't know if there's provision for reloading them at sea. Also, 2x27mm remote-controlled guns, & 7x12.7mm guns, of which 5 are RC & 2 manual.
The K130 corvettes have the same RAM & 27mm fit.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
Wikipedia has an image of a RAM mount being reloaded at sea on a US Aircraft Carrier using a block and tackle mounted to what looks like a temporarily mounted platform.
So it looks like it can be reloaded at sea, but would be quite a lengthy evolution that would presumably take the mount offline while being reloaded.
There must be a reason the Rolling Airframe Missile is employed by a good number of professional navy’s
So why has the RAN not adopted this system?
Space and weight may be a consideration for some of the fleet, but certainly all of it.
So what would you prefer if you had space for one or the other
Phalanx or SeaRam
Cheers S
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
A replenishment ship or OPV with no other anti missile defenses, definitely SeaRAM or RAM.
For something like Hunter or Hobart, Phalanx might still be useful against drones, but I have doubts about how beneficial it would be at taking down modern supersonic or hypersonic threats given the short engagement distances. Would the target have time to breakup before hitting the targeted ship? And even if it does, how much damage will be taken from fragments?
Going Boeing
Well-Known Member
Bluey 006
Active Member
Moving this over here from RAAF thread
For context
While the LHDs will likely eventually become a platform for UAVs they still are needed to perform their primary functions – transporting, deploying and supporting soldiers, vehicles and equipment as per the comments below
A few different concepts have been thrown around Drone Carrier or Hanwha interpretation
Although Turkey did it with the Juan Carlos class, Portugal has done it with MPV all be it with a different mission set, and China is also getting in on it with the Mysterious Drone carrier
Of course, it needs AWD/ Frigates to help defend it and with Australia's limited numbers of surface vessels, long list of pressing needs, fiscal and manning challenges it becomes difficult.
Given the ongoing narrative about how drones are changing warfare that Interesting that a forward-looking document like the DSR/ SFR didn't recommend something like this (the public version at least).
Beyond the power projection, strike and surveillance missions these drone carrier ships could perform, what will be even more interesting - is to see how these types of vessels impact anti-submarine warfare. Where previously a small number of ASW helicopters (operating off frigates/ destroyers and the like), MPA and Attack submarines work in conjunction to defend the task force from the submarine threat ( a difficult task even for the very best), in the future with the advent of drone carriers we may see very large numbers (30+) ASW rotary wing platforms (manned and unmanned), MPA, UAVs, and Submarines (manned and unmanned) forming protective screens around the fleet, performing the ASW mission.
How will this impact manned submarine's ability to threaten surface ships? (if there are many more layers of detection and strike platforms between it and its intended target).
The other thing worth considering is that with difficult-to-detect XL-UUV starting to become commonplace and the success of unmanned surface vessels recently, one would think the feeling would be you need a much more comprehensive anti-submarine screen, and many more platforms dedicated to the task than in the past. Improved sensors are part of it. However, the limited number of rotary wing platforms on our destroyers and frigates can't be in all places at once, and they also have other missions. The tier two vessels will potentially increase the number of ASW helicopters available, but will it be enough?
Interesting times ahead.
For context
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the LHDs will likely eventually become a platform for UAVs they still are needed to perform their primary functions – transporting, deploying and supporting soldiers, vehicles and equipment as per the comments below
What would it be preferable, is a dedicated UXV Through Deck Cruiser to support and protect the LHDs and other high-value ships. An aviation-capable ship that can deploy and control the full suite of unmanned systems (UAV/UCAS, USV, UUV) and large numbers of anti-submarine helicopters. Possibly a trimaran design, with its own VLS and self-defence systems.
A few different concepts have been thrown around Drone Carrier or Hanwha interpretation
Although Turkey did it with the Juan Carlos class, Portugal has done it with MPV all be it with a different mission set, and China is also getting in on it with the Mysterious Drone carrier
Of course, it needs AWD/ Frigates to help defend it and with Australia's limited numbers of surface vessels, long list of pressing needs, fiscal and manning challenges it becomes difficult.
Given the ongoing narrative about how drones are changing warfare that Interesting that a forward-looking document like the DSR/ SFR didn't recommend something like this (the public version at least).
Beyond the power projection, strike and surveillance missions these drone carrier ships could perform, what will be even more interesting - is to see how these types of vessels impact anti-submarine warfare. Where previously a small number of ASW helicopters (operating off frigates/ destroyers and the like), MPA and Attack submarines work in conjunction to defend the task force from the submarine threat ( a difficult task even for the very best), in the future with the advent of drone carriers we may see very large numbers (30+) ASW rotary wing platforms (manned and unmanned), MPA, UAVs, and Submarines (manned and unmanned) forming protective screens around the fleet, performing the ASW mission.
How will this impact manned submarine's ability to threaten surface ships? (if there are many more layers of detection and strike platforms between it and its intended target).
The other thing worth considering is that with difficult-to-detect XL-UUV starting to become commonplace and the success of unmanned surface vessels recently, one would think the feeling would be you need a much more comprehensive anti-submarine screen, and many more platforms dedicated to the task than in the past. Improved sensors are part of it. However, the limited number of rotary wing platforms on our destroyers and frigates can't be in all places at once, and they also have other missions. The tier two vessels will potentially increase the number of ASW helicopters available, but will it be enough?
Interesting times ahead.
Last edited:
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
Tony Stark aside, that's a valid question.
I think it rolls back to the "can't have it all conundrum". Can't have an endless fleet of ships holding every weapon for every mission. So there are necessary choices. To afford 11 GP frigates, we must stick to a budget and production schedule. Weapon systems will be central to this as they are the expensive and complicated bit.
In regards to the point defence capability, the choices are ESSM, RAM or Phalanx. There are some derivitives, for brand preference, but ultimately they are the options.
I would view that the best point defence is the ESSM by a substantial margin and a GP frigate should have as many of these as possible. If it has a 16VLS, then the entire VLS should hold ESSM. I would be tempted to also say if it had 32 VLS then still fill it up with ESSM. Short of the full on exo atmospheric ballistic missile attack (which is unlikely against a GP frigate) its going to provide solid protection against anything.
I kinda view that ESSM and RAM overlap too much. If you have ESSM I'm just not sure where you would use RAM. A missile gets through the first ESSM, send another ESSM. Perhaps RAM has a role if all ESSM are expended, but that is either a bad day in hell, or you did not to have a full magazine to start with. RAM are not cheap either, costing about the $1 million per shot.
Phalanx, Bofors40 or Oerlikon Millenium, I think are more complimentary with ESSM (i.e some form of 30-40mm cannon). They are good out to the 3-5km range and deal with the drone style threats at a lot less cost than either ESSM or RAM. They are easily reloadable too and you don't need a massive armoury to store spare ammunition. I personally like the Oerlikon the best, but would suggest the Phalanx because it is already in our system.
So, for a GP frigate I would suggest ESSM and Phalanx, as the combined point defence, as the best package for the lowest cost.
In regards to magazine depth, and the ability to use SM2/SM6 and other strike weapons, then get a couple of LOCSV tag alongs. I would prefer a smaller and cheaper GP frigate with a simple 16VLS, that can utilise these craft en mass, than a big GPF with all the bells and whistles but limited to itself.
Use the LOCSVs as SM2/6 batteries, and send them home when they are exhausted. Have a new one sent to you fully loaded to meet in transit. Do this as many times as you need. Interchange with USN/Japanese/Korean LOCSVs if ours are not close by.
Keep your own GPF based ESSM for what the LOCSV based SM2/6 can't intercept, and for when the LOCSVs are expended. Even have some ESSM on the LOCSVs so you don't need to use your own.
As an expanded option, the LOCSVs could also be fitted with Phalanx (with its own radar and Aegis remote link) to provide a wider area anti drone coverage.
Picture a convoy of merchant ships protected by one 16VLS GPF, accompanied by 2 x 32 VLS LOCSVs (78 VLS total). Lets say the GPF is entirely ESSM (64), and the LOCSVs each have 32 ESSM, 4 ASROC and 20 SM2/6. That's a convoy total of 128 ESSM, 8 ASROC and 40 SM2/6. Plus any NSM and lightweight torpedo holdings on the three platforms. For argument's sake each vessel has a Phalanx, so three drone defences as well.
In my mind that is a better overall package than a single GPF loaded to the hilt with VLS, RAM and Phalanx. And better bang for buck. And it resolves the missile replenishment at sea problem. And it should be able to cope with the bad day in hell event.
Last edited:
From the tiny amount of information available on a program for the 2030s LOCSVs will operate in RAN with Tier 1s (which will have Aegis) and will be for strike not air defence.
I agree. LOCSVs must have an Aegis/CEC link to function, which at present the GPFs will not have (only the Hunters and Hobarts will have this). Yes they will be ideal Tomahawk loadouts in combination with the Hunters/Hobarts.
I don't however think it is much of a stretch to expand the principle to other missile types and other roles. LOCSVs will be a general purpose missile platform based on the Mk41 (or equivalent) VLS. There would be no real configuration change required to switch out Tomahawks and load ESSM for instance.
While the GPFs will not have Aegis as standard on procurement, and would never be upgraded to the same specification as the Hobarts/Hunters, the Virtual Aegis package (as to be fitted to an LOCSV), is much simpler and smaller than the traditional Aegis. It is intended to be retrofitted to platforms that otherwise would not be able to house a full Aegis (such as an LOCSV). Its a much lower cost, space and weight solution if you only need the basics (in particular the control and communications interfaces necessary to remotely operate another platform).
Virtual Aegis is still in late prototyping, early rollout within the USN, however it is a game changer for small vessels, and I would suggest a relatively simple upgrade for a GPF at some point in the future.
My comments are premised on Virtual Aegis becomming more common and easily retrofittable to small frigates. I'm sure there will be some issues to work through with this, so perhaps its an if. It is also based on the LOCSV principle becomming more mainstream and produced cheaply in volume. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. If it does I would view it will be used for a wide range of purposes, and broader than is currently being considered (or at least publically announced).
I would view that it's a possible future forecast that could be achievable in the late 30's.
Last edited: