Depending on the CMS adopted ExLS could be an option with its low platform impact and soft launch compatibility with RAM Block II, Seaceptor, Nulka, Griffon etc. A pair of triple quad packed launchers would be fairly easy to fit to any of the three short listed OPV options.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
Depending on the CMS adopted ExLS could be an option with its low platform impact and soft launch compatibility with RAM Block II, Seaceptor, Nulka, Griffon etc. A pair of triple quad packed launchers would be fairly easy to fit to any of the three short listed OPV options.
If it was desired to fit ASMs on the OPVs for hot war combat I would have thought that helo mounted Hellfire would fit the bill. Conversely if an OTH weapon was needed NSM is the likely successor to Harpoon and would have the added advantage of commonality to the JSM.
However, being realistic, the RAN would have to be in dire straits for either option to be exercised. The OPVs would not have a role in expeditionary ops.
Article from the ASPI Straegist on ASW. Worth the read.
Want to hunt a submarine? Ping loudly and carry a small torpedo
Link to report it quotes:
Alliance Airborne Anti-Submarine Warfare
Want to hunt a submarine? Ping loudly and carry a small torpedo
Link to report it quotes:
Alliance Airborne Anti-Submarine Warfare
Its quite interesting what the ACPBs are doing in Talisman Sabre, emulating a swarm / suicide boat threat is a no brainer but they are also being used as screening elements for the majors which is a bit dubious. If we are running our exercises on the assumption that we will have such escorts aren't we actually deluding ourselves?
By all means pretend the PBs are better armed and equipped than they are to provide a realistic OPFOR but what is gained from pretending they can do things they, nor their successors, were ever designed or intended to do? They will virtually be nothing more than very costly stand off decoys, with their limited sensor fit meaning they are of little if any use as escorts, or pickets. What possible use is their getting them to simulate a capability the RAN will likely never have, we may as well pretend our F/A-18s are F-35Bs deployed from the LHDs, that oyr Wedgetails are Crowsnest AEW helos, or that our two squadrons of tanks are actually three fully equipped and manned Armoured Brigades (in the 80s the training pams had two full regiments of leopards despite the realities)
Is 9LV listed for the OPV's?
I guess like anything it depends what the use is. I know conventional wisdom has these OPV's performing regular patrol ops around the Australian coast. I am sure that is what most of them will be doing most of the time.
But I can see where they maybe useful in the Persian gulf or around SEA or SCS. This reduces the needs on the front line combatants that aren't really suitable for that role either.
This is where having space and weight and compatibility may be useful. If you had fitted NSM, Nulka, a 76mm, and embarked a helicopter with either torpedo or/and hellfire capability you would have a very capable platform that would deter small/medium threats or could support other OPV's against lower threats. Plus you are talking about items we already have in inventory or likely to or have local production of. So cost wise, could be pretty neutral in purchase and support. In many cases actual weapons wouldn't need to be fitted to ships until they actually needed them.
If you were operating an OPV in the Persian gulf, I would be looking at range of defense measures. The Saudi frigate hit by that small boat, the HSV hit by a missile, USS Cole, abductions of boarding parties by Iran. Not all Patrol areas are completely benign. It is quite possible we will see such tactics in SEA in the future.
I wouldn't be forcing the requirement but I would be asking what can and can't be fitted.
The ease of intergration is an often cited attribute of CAMM.
Unless you wish to tell me that you think Swerve (RN thread post 11734) and Ngatimozart (RN thread post 11715), just to name a few, were both talking BS.
Not talking BS, but not talking about the RAN environment either. We have been going down the US weapon fit approach for many years now; there are appropriate USN weapons whose design, operating and maintenance philosophies have been developed in an environment which is familiar to us and whose integration into our ships would at least follow processes, NAVSEA in origin, which we understand. Why, unless we were forced to, would we depart from that?
But that is not the environment that the RN has been operating with, and both the posts you quote refer to the RN situation. Nor have the Kiwis; they effectively took the basic ANZAC integration that caame with the build and have no real skin in the game; so they go to Canada who can do it for them. If you want the appropriate RN comparison, think about them picking up Mk 41 and Aegis - while the former might get a guernsey in the Type 26 or 31 integration will be an issue; and the latter would be a total departure from their norms.
But that is not the environment that the RN has been operating with, and both the posts you quote refer to the RN situation. Nor have the Kiwis; they effectively took the basic ANZAC integration that caame with the build and have no real skin in the game; so they go to Canada who can do it for them. If you want the appropriate RN comparison, think about them picking up Mk 41 and Aegis - while the former might get a guernsey in the Type 26 or 31 integration will be an issue; and the latter would be a total departure from their norms.
Joe Black
Active Member
I have the same sentiment and concur with your suggestions. The Sea 1180 OPVs could have a cut down version of 9LV couple with a good enough air-sea search radar, plus to be fitted for and the ability to carry something more akin to tier 1 work when and if necessary, eg. additional guns (eg CIWS), a couple of OTH skimmers, Nulka, etc.
During peacetime, a 35mm, 40mm or 76mm gun in the A gun position plus a pair of 0.5 HMG (possible mini Typhoon) would suffice.
The RN examples you cite (as discussed by Swerve and others) relate to compatible radars and compatible systems. So for the QE CVF .... yes it will be simple. In the case of the NZ the vessel is being retrofitted with a new combat system and associated sensors.... so again it should not be a problem.
For our LHD's the missile is not integrated into the combat system and the combination of combat system and sensors not set up for this missile. So while it may be 'relatively simple' it is not free. The open architecture system fitted during the FFGUP was supposed to provide simplicity but reality was somewhat different.
Finally, why would we bother with CAMM-L when the ultimate focus for the RAN will be the ESSM block II for which our systems are designed and we have a supply chain in place. It would make no sense noting ESSM Block II will provide both semi-active and active seekers combined with more range and increase agility..... and our systems are designed around it.
To bring in CAMM-L with the need to integrate the missile and establish a supply and maintenance process and is a nonsense idea from an RAN perspective.... hence my comment
If we wanted to bolt something on then SEARAM with the Block II missile make more sense as it can be used within the exiting footprint and power supplies fitted for the CIWS without the need for integration and with reasonable engagement range.
Thank you for taking the time to reply.
The (flawed?) reasoning was the CAMM-L is portable and non intrusive, ESSM is not.
Thus launchers from a central pool could be added to ships as required. Saving the the cost of permanent fittings on every ship.
You could replace existing CWIS with SEARAM and get a better longer ranged point defence or or you could keep CWIS (already fitted and paid for) and add CAMM and have a layered defence.
But I must admit a lot of this hinged on my understanding (or lack of it ) of the ease of intergration of CAMM.
You should be able to fit ESSM as required on to ships such as the LHDs, OPVs etc., using ExLS. It has a standalone capability designed into it as well as being a host in the MK-41 VLS.
You'd still need the space and weight to fit a Mk41 or 57 VLS even with Exls I believe though? Even tactical length Mk 41 is heavy and needs a lot of room...
MK 48 Mod 3 / Mk 56 launchers for RIM-162 ESSM, OTOH, can fit into many above deck spaces, with only minimal below deck penetration and no reliance on existing ship services apart from power...
http://www.alternatewars.com/BBOW/Weapons/Mk56_VLS.pdf
With something like and OPV, the advantage of something like SeaRAM is that you can move it around as required. The OPV's will be pretty tight for space, putting something permanently on them is likely to take away from the flexibility of the platform.
As much as I would love to see a decked out opv with 76mm, mk56 with essm, NSM, I think that will be a unlikely situation.
Some of the OPV contenders don't even have a hanger!?
I do think the LHD should have ESSM, and a mk56 could be fitted to other large ships. LPD, AOR, etc.
No. As said by alexsa, this was in regard to the QE class carriers, which have radars & combat systems which are identical or closely related to those which CAMM is already integrated with, & are in a navy which already has CAMM in inventory. In that case, CAMM is the obvious choice.
A navy which currently operates ESSM is in a different situation.
CAMM is pretty lightweight in terms of the foot print on the ship - it needs some sort of radar, a data link and a bit of space, so, yes, if you're starting from scratch or if you're using a ship with a lot of commonality with an AWD (like the QE, which has the same CMS as the Type 45, barring some Aster integration) then CAMM is very straight forward.
Taking it to a Navy with pre-existing kit, there's almost always more persuasive arguments in terms of using the existing weapons already in service. Particularly if ESSM block 2 lives up to the promise - which means you'd not need a target illuminator.
ESSM is heavier and has a few more restrictions in terms of where you can site it but those are less challenging obstacles than absorbing a new weapon into service.
Australia and the RAN have been one of the biggest proponents of ESSM. Australia has considerable stocks of ESSM, considerable experience with ESSM. Australia seems very confident in the performance of ESSM. Australia also seeks high commonality with the US and its allies (like Japan) which also operate ESSM. ESSM is on the Anzac frigates and the FFG's and the AWD's. It is a very tested missile in Australian and US service. BkII will have ESSM catchup on a lot of CAMMs advantages.
I see CAMM (which is a lovely option) being impossible to sell to Australia. If Australia is serious about becoming self sufficient in its military production capability, then local production of the ESSM is certainly something I would be looking at. We would nearly be doing that anyway with all the refurbishment and maintenance and rebuilding.
Is there a possibility of using deck parked HIMARS on an LHD?
Would have thought this was possible and would add an interesting new capability.
Regards,
Massive
Not sure this is a big issue - suspect they just need to be present & able to defend themselves - 35mm, stabilised 20mm, Searam and Nulka likely sufficient - while feeding information from their sensors into the net.
NSM can come from an F-35, P8, or be substituted with a ATCAMS from a shore based HIMARs launcher if available.
It will have a hangar though - any other decision makes no sense.
Thoughts?
Massive
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Honestly I could see Sea Ceptor (CAMM-M) having a place in the RAN, assuming the integration costs and risk could be dealt with. Keep in mind that the Sea Ceptor is really replacing the Sea Wolf VSHRAD missile and has performance comparable to the RIM-116 RAM, albeit with longer range IIRC (25+km vs. 9km).
With the potential for non-invasive, modular, pooled box launchers, I could see the
potential for some to be fitted on an ad hoc basis to RAN vessels deployed to potentially threatening which do not already possess an organic air self-defence capability. Something similar could be accomplished with SeaRAM, but the capability would only have about a third of the range.
I do not see any rational reason for the RAN to look at the CAMM-ER, since the capability outcome from the programme is similar in a number of ways to the RAN's existing ESSM capability (50+km).
As for the Phalanxes in RAN service... I have decidedly mixed feelings about them. Given a choice, I would like the RAN to retire/sell them and convert over to the 35mm Millenium Gun as a CIWS. A potential advantage there would be that could be the main/most common armament aboard an OPV for most missions.
Me too and I say the same for the RNZN. Whilst its rate of fire is slower than the Phalanx 20mm, until the Phalanx windes up their rate of fire are similar. Also the 35mm AHEAD projectiles are smart projectiles and they have a longer range destroying those nasty enemy ASCM further away from the ship.
The other thing I believe that is a pity is that there is no way of reloading the Mk-41 or other VLS from the bottom. I wonder if it is possible to make them breech loading giving the ability to undertake automatic reloads at sea in relative safety.
- Status