Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[swerve]

When Chile had its Type 23s modernised in Canada & CAMM integrated, they also got CMS330.

But Sweden's ordered CAMM for the Visby class. Guess what CMS they have? Yes, that's right - 9LV.

CAMM & CAMM-ER are also on order or delivered for ships with TACTICOS, the German/Brazilian CMS of the Brazilian Tamandaré class, the BAE CMS of Type 23, & ships with the Turkish Havelsan ADVENT CMS. Integration doesn't seem to be a major issue.

 

[SammyC]

Navy's Fight in Red Sea Used 220 Missiles, But Officials Say That's Changing

To go back to an older discussion in this thread on the optimal ship based drone defence, the USN recently released some statistics about munitions expenditure from the Red Sea operation. See the attached article. I'll keep this to its relevance to the RAN.

In total USN ships had 380 separate engagements (drones, boats and missiles combined). They used 220 missiles and 160 5 inch shells during these. The figures exclude shore bombardments, so this specifically relates to defence.

The missile break down is 120 SM2, 80 SM6 and 20 ESSM/SM3.

Unsurprisingly SM2/6 were the most used missiles. Did their job well. Cost in the order of US$500 million.

I am suprised by the high use of the big gun, perhaps it is more effective than given credit. The article also indicates that the gun is effective against drones, not only for ship point defence, but also for convoy protection, given its 30-40km range. Lets assume those 160 5 inch shells offset an equal number of SM2 missiles, then that's a saving in the order of US$300 million and probably a years worth of missile production. The numbers aren't too different for ESSM.

Interestingly they combined the ESSM and SM3 quantities together. The two couldn't be more different if they tried. I suspect the SM3 might have been related to some balistic missile protection to Israel fired from ships in the Red Sea.

ESSM was the least used, which was a theme discussed earlier.

The data suggests that for standard drone attacks within the 30-50km envelope, the 5 inch gun is just as effective as ESSM. For missile attacks, the SM2/6 are used predominantly, presumably to maximise the range at which they can intercept.

For ships, such as the Constellation Class and the Type 31s, which have downsized the main gun to a 76mm size with a shorter range, they possibly loose out on this advantage the 5 inch has with range. They might have to rely more on missile defences, particularly when defending convoys. Perhaps larger calibre guns might come back into fashion as a medium range low cost drone defence.

I also don't think it reflects the all round benefit of the ESSM, just it is not as useful in this type of engagement (lots of drones and periodic small missile volleys). I suspect in a large advanced missile attack, the munitions consumption rate would be different, and ESSM would have a more useful place.

Horses for courses comes to mind. Big guns are evolving in their function and reducing the cost to defend against drones.

 

[iambuzzard]

Navy's Fight in Red Sea Used 220 Missiles, But Officials Say That's Changing

To go back to an older discussion in this thread on the optimal ship based drone defence, the USN recently released some statistics about munitions expenditure from the Red Sea operation. See the attached article. I'll keep this to its relevance to the RAN.

In total USN ships had 380 separate engagements (drones, boats and missiles combined). They used 220 missiles and 160 5 inch shells during these. The figures exclude shore bombardments, so this specifically relates to defence.

The missile break down is 120 SM2, 80 SM6 and 20 ESSM/SM3.

Unsurprisingly SM2/6 were the most used missiles. Did their job well. Cost in the order of US$500 million.

I am suprised by the high use of the big gun, perhaps it is more effective than given credit. The article also indicates that the gun is effective against drones, not only for ship point defence, but also for convoy protection, given its 30-40km range. Lets assume those 160 5 inch shells offset an equal number of SM2 missiles, then that's a saving in the order of US$300 million and probably a years worth of missile production. The numbers aren't too different for ESSM.

Interestingly they combined the ESSM and SM3 quantities together. The two couldn't be more different if they tried. I suspect the SM3 might have been related to some balistic missile protection to Israel fired from ships in the Red Sea.

ESSM was the least used, which was a theme discussed earlier.

The data suggests that for standard drone attacks within the 30-50km envelope, the 5 inch gun is just as effective as ESSM. For missile attacks, the SM2/6 are used predominantly, presumably to maximise the range at which they can intercept.

For ships, such as the Constellation Class and the Type 31s, which have downsized the main gun to a 76mm size with a shorter range, they possibly loose out on this advantage the 5 inch has with range. They might have to rely more on missile defences, particularly when defending convoys. Perhaps larger calibre guns might come back into fashion as a medium range low cost drone defence.

I also don't think it reflects the all round benefit of the ESSM, just it is not as useful in this type of engagement (lots of drones and periodic small missile volleys). I suspect in a large advanced missile attack, the munitions consumption rate would be different, and ESSM would have a more useful place.

Horses for courses comes to mind. Big guns are evolving in their function and reducing the cost to defend against drones.

Both the RN Type 31 Inspiration Class and the USN Constellation Class are using the 57mm Mark 110 gun, not 76mm.
This in the case of the USN is due to the use of smart munitions (Advanced Low Cost Munitions Ordinance).
As a layman this seems too small a calibre to me. Are smart munitions available in 76mm?

 

[Todjaeger]

en Chile had its Type 23s modernised in Canada & CAMM integrated, they also got CMS330.

But Sweden's ordered CAMM for the Visby class. Guess what CMS they have? Yes, that's right - 9LV.

CAMM & CAMM-ER are also on order or delivered for ships with TACTICOS, the German/Brazilian CMS of the Brazilian Tamandaré class, the BAE CMS of Type 23, & ships with the Turkish Havelsan ADVENT CMS. Integration doesn't seem to be a major issue.

IIRC the Visby-class MLU which among other things is to add CAMM, is supposed to start some time this year with the first upgraded vessel expecting to be delivered sometime in 2026 (or at least according to releases dating from Nov 2023...)

As I see it, the issue with integrating a missile or weapon system into a new/another CMS is not so much whether it can be done, but more about how much it will cost, how long will it take, and would a prospective buyer be willing to pay for it or not.

If (big IF) Australia were to seriously look at adding Sea Ceptor into/onto the Canberra-class LHD's, that is a pair of vessels running some version of the 9LV CMS. With the five Visby-class corvettes (are they really corvettes, or large patrol boats?) that might make up a total of seven vessels running some version of 9LV and CAMM missiles, hence the question about cost.

TBH what I would really like to see, would be for someone (the Danes, MDBA, SH Defence or someone else) to develop a CAMM/Sea Ceptor missile silo module which could then be fitted aboard important naval vessels to provide a self-defence capability as needed.