Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.

Pusser01

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Considering the difficulties Australia has suffered with their most comprehensive upgrade, other nations may skip the VLS ESSM upgrade.
To be fair though, the VLS installation has probably been one of the more successful and problem free areas of the FFG-UP. Yes, with Sydney there were originally some issues with cracking and the area needed some substantial strengthening. With Melbourne and Newcastle they didn't have these problems. Apparently the Aussie built FFG's were built to a stronger standard and with a higher capacity for weight upgrade. If you note the Aus builds don't have the need for the strength members down the sides and are also fitted with a second boat deck.
Cheers
 

icelord

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
To be fair though, the VLS installation has probably been one of the more successful and problem free areas of the FFG-UP. Yes, with Sydney there were originally some issues with cracking and the area needed some substantial strengthening. With Melbourne and Newcastle they didn't have these problems. Apparently the Aussie built FFG's were built to a stronger standard and with a higher capacity for weight upgrade. If you note the Aus builds don't have the need for the strength members down the sides and are also fitted with a second boat deck.
Cheers
always good to see when we are parked next to sydney, the size and perticulars in many of the ships extras make the difference. 2nd RHIB allows more options, especially if one is down, and the mess's feel a little better on newe compared to Syd, it may just be me but i'm at home on FFG, take it over the oversized corvettes(Anzacs) any day, real warships:nutkick plus the spare garage we have out the back makes it easier to store gear when at sea, cramped when helos come on but we adjust, hate to have two helos on these days, but would be interesting to see
 

Pusser01

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
always good to see when we are parked next to sydney, the size and perticulars in many of the ships extras make the difference. 2nd RHIB allows more options, especially if one is down, and the mess's feel a little better on newe compared to Syd, it may just be me but i'm at home on FFG, take it over the oversized corvettes(Anzacs) any day, real warships:nutkick plus the spare garage we have out the back makes it easier to store gear when at sea, cramped when helos come on but we adjust, hate to have two helos on these days, but would be interesting to see
Two helos!!!, heck we are lucky to even get one nowadays :)
Have only ever had 2 wokka wokkas onboard once, back in 2001 off the Solomon's for a month. The second hanger does come in handy though especially as the second gym. In the past we have had a 10ft freezer container or the accommodation module in there which gives you an extra 12racks depending on the setup.
Cheers
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
The way I read that paragraph is that the FFG-UP(which included the VLS cells and not removing the launcher) was complete, all be it over budget and over due and now Australia and Taiwan are also considering removing the MK13's and fitting VLS cells.
No they aren't.

RAN is keeping her Mk13 launchers and will be re-equipping the FFG-UP's with the SM-2 missile within the next year or 2, to replace the life-expired SM-1 missile.

Tactical length VLS cells have been fitted forward of the Mk13 launcher, in order to carry ESSM missiles.

Sm-2 can't fit in "tactical length" Mk 41 VLS launchers, AFAIK.
 

Vivendi

Well-Known Member
Sm-2 can't fit in "tactical length" Mk 41 VLS launchers, AFAIK.
SM-2 block II and III can fit in tactical length MK41, however it seems SM-2 block IV requires the strike version:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/systems/mk-41-vls.htm

Info on dimensions etc. here:

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/corporate/press-kit/MK-41-VLS-Brochure.pdf

Does MK56 have any advantages compared to MK41 self-defence-version? AFAIK, the MK56 can only dual-pack whereas the MK41 can quadpack the ESSM, so even if the MK41 is heavier the difference may not be that significant since you need twice the number of MK56 cells compared to MK41.


V
 

AegisFC

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Does MK56 have any advantages compared to MK41 self-defence-version? AFAIK, the MK56 can only dual-pack whereas the MK41 can quadpack the ESSM, so even if the MK41 is heavier the difference may not be that significant since you need twice the number of MK56 cells compared to MK41.
The only real advantage of the Mk-56 appears to be they can be mounted pretty much anywhere on the hull in any configuration. Mk-41 is limited to 8 cell modules and can't be externally mounted wherever there is space.
 

Salty Dog

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
SM-2 block II and III can fit in tactical length MK41, however it seems SM-2 block IV requires the strike version:

Does MK56 have any advantages compared to MK41 self-defence-version? AFAIK, the MK56 can only dual-pack whereas the MK41 can quadpack the ESSM, so even if the MK41 is heavier the difference may not be that significant since you need twice the number of MK56 cells compared to MK41.
The MK56 is built by Raytheon and made for the RIM-7/ESSM only. The big advantage as pointed out is lighter weight so it will be highly suited for smaller vessels.

MK-48/MK-56 NATO Seasparrow Vertical
Launch Systems (VLS)


An advantage of MK41 is will allow SM-2 and NSSM for a mix.
 

Vivendi

Well-Known Member
The MK56 is built by Raytheon and made for the RIM-7/ESSM only. The big advantage as pointed out is lighter weight so it will be highly suited for smaller vessels.

MK-48/MK-56 NATO Seasparrow Vertical
Launch Systems (VLS)
Notice I compared the MK56 with the MK41 light-weight version. If you look at the document you linked to, MK56 with 32 EESM weighs in at 26.4 mtons for mod 0 and just below 30 mtons for the other mods. I may be wrong, but I doubt that this would be much lighter than an 8-cell MK41 with 32 quad-packed ESSM. I could not find the weight of the self-defence MK41 but notice that the tactical version, which presumably is heavier than the light-weight MK41 version seems to be 24 tons w. 8 Sea-sparrows. Add 24 more sparrows and you get another 5.8 tons, for a total of 29.8 tons. Since the self defence MK41 may be even lighter than the tactical version it seems to me it's in the same ballpark weight as a similar config with MK56, or did I miss something?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/systems/mk41-tactical.pdf

However the MK56 has other advantages, as pointed out by AegicFC; more options in where to mount it, and also, if you want less than 32 ESSM you can configure the system to take advantage of that -- I guess I did not really consider that somebody would want a ship with less than 32 ESSM...:)

Also, it seems to me the MK56 is shorter than even the self-defence version of MK41.

V
 

PeterM

Active Member
what are the main differences between the NATO SEASPARROW MISSILE (NSSM) and EVOLVED SEASPARROW MISSILE (ESSM)?
 

PeterM

Active Member
so the NSSM is pretty much the original RIM-7 then

I had a reasonable understanding of what the ESSM was

thanks for the help
 

Vivendi

Well-Known Member
Yep. See the US Navy factsheet, which clearly says "the RIM-7 NATO Sea Sparrow missile".
Swerve, thanks, you triggered me to check things further. deagel.com claims that ESSM weighs in at 225 kg:

http://www.deagel.com/Surface-to-Air-Missiles/ESSM_a001158001.aspx

which I now realize is wrong -- it's the Sea Sparrow that weighs approx 225 kg, the ESSM is heavier as you said. I then found this:

http://www.raytheon.com/businesses/rids/products/rtnwcm/groups/public/documents/content/rtn_bus_ids_prod_mk29_pdf.pdf

If I did my math right, the ESSM is approx 280 kg (283.5), which is 26% heavier than the Sparrow.

Is deagel.com considered unreliable?


V
 

Xavier56

New Member
RAN as it should be.

This is going to seem really random but I've been waiting a while to have my say here goes... :D

First of all,
The Hobart Class AWD, in my opinion is not up to scratch.
With only two fire control channels it would be unable to properly defend itself and other ships in normal operations and would definitely not be able to defend itself against a saturation attack. Why are we spending so much money on the Aegis combat system and SPY radar when we have been developing one of the only two fourth generation phased array radar right here in Australia?
I am of course, talking about the CEAFAR from CEA technologies, which can effectively, when paired with the latest SAAB Combat System provide up to Ten fire control channels simultaneously. This system is already being fitted to the ANZAC Class and has been VERY successful in sea trials. Versions of this system should be fitted to every surface warship and should be sold to the navies of other nations as well.
Why do we continuously buy overseas designs not suited to our requirements when we are perfectly capable of building and maintaining our own designs and systems. Look at what we did with HMAS Jervis Bay and HMA ships Kanimbla and Manoora (admittedly there were problems due to our inexperience).

My Ideal (if not fanciful :D) Royal Australian Navy:

1 x STOVL Carrier (based on Cavour of the Italian Navy) to be named HMAS Australia, operating F-35B and Seahawk Helicopters.
Secondary role as LPH operating MRH-90, armed exactly the same as the Cavour but with Mark 41 VLS equipped with ESSM and CEAFAR/SAAB combat system.

1 x Canberra Class LHD operating MRH-90 and Tiger helicopters armed with CEAFAR/SAAB combat system, 2 x CIWS and 8 cell VLS with 32 x ESSM.
With the retirement of Kanimbla, Manoora and the upgraded Adelaide class FFG's we will have an additional 6 x Phalanx CIWS (block 1B) and 4 x 8 cell Mark 41 VLS which could be fitted to (for example) the Canberra Class.

3 x Supply Ships, able to operate several MRH-90 in a secondary LPH role armed with 2 x CIWS and 1 or 2 X SeaRAM.

8 x ANZAC Class, 5 inch gun, 8 cell VLS with 32 ESSM and Harpoon anti-ship missiles.

4 x Hobart Class, a larger more capable version of the ANZAC class, armed with a 48 cell Mark 41 VLS with SM2 and ESSM, 5 inch gun, 2 x CIWS. CEAFAR radar and SAAB combat system. Essentially a larger ANZAC with more VLS cells and more capable version of the SAAB Combat system and CEAFAR. Also equipped with Harpoon anti-ship missiles and Tomahawk cruise missiles.

6 x Collins Class, with Harpoon anti-ship missiles and tomahawk cruise missiles.

18 x Armidale Class Patrol Boat, as is now but with four of the ships upgraded with the edition of 1 x SeaRAM and anti-submarine capabilities in order to act in a secondary role as lower level anti submarine ships, escorts and offshore patrol vessels.

6 x Huon Class (As Is)

Ships separated between east and west bases like so:

East Base (Sydney);
5 x ANZAC Class
3 x Hobart Class
1 x HMAS Australia - STOVL Carrier
1 x Canberra Class LHD
2 x Supply ship
2 x Upgraded Armidale Class
4 x Huon Class

West Base (Perth):
3 x ANZAC Class
1 x Hobart Class
1 x Supply Ship
6 x Collins Class
2 x Upgraded Armidale class
2 x Huon Class

Northern Approaches (Cairns, Broome, Darwin)
14 x Armidale Class
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
This is going to seem really random but I've been waiting a while to have my say here goes... :D

First of all,
The Hobart Class AWD, in my opinion is not up to scratch.
With only two fire control channels it would be unable to properly defend itself and other ships in normal operations and would definitely not be able to defend itself against a saturation attack. Why are we spending so much money on the Aegis combat system and SPY radar when we have been developing one of the only two fourth generation phased array radar right here in Australia?
I am of course, talking about the CEAFAR from CEA technologies, which can effectively, when paired with the latest SAAB Combat System provide up to Ten fire control channels simultaneously. This system is already being fitted to the ANZAC Class and has been VERY successful in sea trials. Versions of this system should be fitted to every surface warship and should be sold to the navies of other nations as well.
Why do we continuously buy overseas designs not suited to our requirements when we are perfectly capable of building and maintaining our own designs and systems. Look at what we did with HMAS Jervis Bay and HMA ships Kanimbla and Manoora (admittedly there were problems due to our inexperience).

My Ideal (if not fanciful :D) Royal Australian Navy:

1 x STOVL Carrier (based on Cavour of the Italian Navy) to be named HMAS Australia, operating F-35B and Seahawk Helicopters.
Secondary role as LPH operating MRH-90, armed exactly the same as the Cavour but with Mark 41 VLS equipped with ESSM and CEAFAR/SAAB combat system.

1 x Canberra Class LHD operating MRH-90 and Tiger helicopters armed with CEAFAR/SAAB combat system, 2 x CIWS and 8 cell VLS with 32 x ESSM.
With the retirement of Kanimbla, Manoora and the upgraded Adelaide class FFG's we will have an additional 6 x Phalanx CIWS (block 1B) and 4 x 8 cell Mark 41 VLS which could be fitted to (for example) the Canberra Class.

3 x Supply Ships, able to operate several MRH-90 in a secondary LPH role armed with 2 x CIWS and 1 or 2 X SeaRAM.

8 x ANZAC Class, 5 inch gun, 8 cell VLS with 32 ESSM and Harpoon anti-ship missiles.

4 x Hobart Class, a larger more capable version of the ANZAC class, armed with a 48 cell Mark 41 VLS with SM2 and ESSM, 5 inch gun, 2 x CIWS. CEAFAR radar and SAAB combat system. Essentially a larger ANZAC with more VLS cells and more capable version of the SAAB Combat system and CEAFAR. Also equipped with Harpoon anti-ship missiles and Tomahawk cruise missiles.

6 x Collins Class, with Harpoon anti-ship missiles and tomahawk cruise missiles.

18 x Armidale Class Patrol Boat, as is now but with four of the ships upgraded with the edition of 1 x SeaRAM and anti-submarine capabilities in order to act in a secondary role as lower level anti submarine ships, escorts and offshore patrol vessels.

6 x Huon Class (As Is)

Ships separated between east and west bases like so:

East Base (Sydney);
5 x ANZAC Class
3 x Hobart Class
1 x HMAS Australia - STOVL Carrier
1 x Canberra Class LHD
2 x Supply ship
2 x Upgraded Armidale Class
4 x Huon Class

West Base (Perth):
3 x ANZAC Class
1 x Hobart Class
1 x Supply Ship
6 x Collins Class
2 x Upgraded Armidale class
2 x Huon Class

Northern Approaches (Cairns, Broome, Darwin)
14 x Armidale Class
A few points on this... With regards to the Hobart illuminators, I would expect that additional illuminators can/will be added as a part of spiral development of the design and/or additional developments in illuminators which would allow the illuminators to rapidly shift between inbound targets.

Also, AFAIK the CEAFAR system is not as capable as the SPY-1D(V) system in terms of output and detection abilities. While the CEAFAR system is good, the collection of smaller T/R modules which make up an array panel is not able to what the much larger T/R module in the SPY-1D panel can do. Coupled with the Aegis combat system, the Hobart will have the best detection and tracking capability in the RAN. It is possible that the follow-on system to CEAFAR, AUSPAR (joint Australian & US development) might equal or exceed Aegis/SPY-1D, and is a possible contender for use aboard the Anzac follow-on frigate. Something to keep in mind about the CEAFAR is that it is expected to be included in an Anzac-class upgrade starting ~2010 or thereabouts. This leads me to believe that the CEAFAR system would be ready for deployment by then, particularly since it was tested aboard the HMAS Arunta IIRC. Therefore, if it was not selected for service aboard a frigate/destroyer due to commission roughly 3 years later, it leads me to believe that the expected service performance of the CEAFAR is not sufficient for the role envisioned for the Hobart-class.

As for only having once Canberra-class LHD... That is very much a problem. Ideally the RAN would have three Canberra-class vessels, to ensure that one is always available for deployment, with a potential surge capacity of up to three vessels depending on training and maintenance cycles. By cutting the number back to only one, then the RAN would only be able to provide a lift capacity as long as it does not conflict with maintenance and/or training cycles.

A similar sort of problem would be introduced with the re-introduction of an aircraft carrier into RAN service. The vessel would only be available for use part time, again based upon training and maintenance cycles. Also, the vessel would require significant protection from escort assets whenever deployed in a potentially hostile area.

Lastly, I have my doubts as to whether the Armidale-class patrol boats could be realistically upgunned in any fashion. The boats are lightweight, aluminum vessels which were not designed to accomodate weaponry heavier than the 25mm Bushmaster included in the design. Adding in additional guns or torpedoe tubes, etc would cause additional stress on the hull and likely be of limited use in light of the restrictions as to where & when the patrol boats can travel.

-Cheers
 

AegisFC

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
TFirst of all,
The Hobart Class AWD, in my opinion is not up to scratch.
With only two fire control channels it would be unable to properly defend itself and other ships in normal operations and would definitely not be able to defend itself against a saturation attack.
You don't seem to understand how Aegis works, there are not just 2 "fire control channels" the FCS only provides terminal illumination during the final few seconds, the actual fire control radar for the system is the SPY-1 radar itself, and it can handle many missiles in flight at the same time.

There are plenty of posts on how the MK-99 FCS and the SPG62's in this thread and one opened during the AWD evaluation period. A simple search will provide you with all the information you need.

I am of course, talking about the CEAFAR from CEA technologies, which can effectively, when paired with the latest SAAB Combat System provide up to Ten fire control channels simultaneously.
Just 10?:rolleyes:
That's not really very good for a modern air defense ship.
 

battlensign

New Member
Excellent.....so we are all in agreement then! The RAN clearly needs:

2x Cavour Class (CVL)

3x Canberra Class (LHD)

x# Death Stars

:D:p::cool:

Brett.
 

Sea Toby

New Member
But the Queen Elizabeth CVFs carry much more aircraft with nearly the same amount of crew. :rolleyes:

I rather have the larger air group....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top