Todjaeger
Potstirrer
"Pennant 157 is not the frigate you are looking for,"
<waves hand back and forth in front of your face while trying to do the Jedi mind trick...>
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
<waves hand back and forth in front of your face while trying to do the Jedi mind trick...>
Joe Black
Active Member
LOL
The answer is 42 - the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe and everything (Pennant 42)
There is a Baseline 10 in development for the Flight III ABs. Given potential configuration differences whether it could be backfitted to replace versions fitted in earlier ships must be a moot point. If you look at the timings for the fielding of Baseline 9 in the USN and extrapolate that across to when an FMS sale might have been approved, Baseline 8 was the best available to us for initial installation in the DDGs given the schedule as it was anticipated; Baseline 7, the then current US destroyer fit, was not a COTS based processing system.
As previously noted, Brisbane is due to be delivered to the CoA in a couple of months; she won't be commissioned for some time after that.
As previously noted, Brisbane is due to be delivered to the CoA in a couple of months; she won't be commissioned for some time after that.
Looking good. Image from linkedin.
I wonder how long it will take the RAN to recognise that eflux from a diesel or GT is similar to a steam boiler and begin to paint the masts, and pergolas on the Anzacs, black.
Looking good. Image from linkedin.
Hobart already looks grubby and the Anzacs look atrocious as it seems impossible to clean.
Looking good. Image from linkedin.
Last edited:
Some of that in the photo above is the conditions of the light, the weather was rather strange that day. OTH, I totally agree that the upper parts of masts should be painted black, the ANZACs do indeed look rather grotty. Mind you, to one of my age and Naval generation, the overall ship’s husbandry of modern western Navies is well below what it should be.
Jack Wyatt
Member
[
What other upgrades would be undertaken on the AWDs other than to Baseline 9? The article flags the possibility of SM3 or SM6 ort both.
Sm-6 has already been flagged as a purchase I think. I think Raytheon has said they expect Australia to field SM-6 before 2025. It would make sense to look at that after or during the baseline 9 upgrade as that is where you are really merged to do BMD and regular AA.
As mentioned the priority is to get all handed over, commissioned, IOC/FOC. There is quite a lot to do there, particularly when you think about also the CEC component.
There is also a bit of adapting and conops/doctrine stuff that may need to be addressed. In the Australian context the AWD are more like cruisers in one sense. As I understand it they will control and command regarding taskforce air defense. Hence the space to C&C and the CEC capability. They have a real leadership role. Something the RAN has been missing for what seems like a generation (did the FFG's ever do this? Wasn't this why we needed a US cruiser in Timor?).
How many other navies have fully networked and CEC capabilities and fielding a larger modern fleet of 12 ships with are all approximately capable?US models I imagine might need some tweaking, for what the RAN does, its capabilities, the different radars and the different threats.
I don't seem SM-3 in the immediate future, there are other priorities. Plus if you put in 9, work out the detail of Sm-6, that is going to lay the ground work for Sm-3 if we ever want to go there.
As mentioned the priority is to get all handed over, commissioned, IOC/FOC. There is quite a lot to do there, particularly when you think about also the CEC component.
There is also a bit of adapting and conops/doctrine stuff that may need to be addressed. In the Australian context the AWD are more like cruisers in one sense. As I understand it they will control and command regarding taskforce air defense. Hence the space to C&C and the CEC capability. They have a real leadership role. Something the RAN has been missing for what seems like a generation (did the FFG's ever do this? Wasn't this why we needed a US cruiser in Timor?).
How many other navies have fully networked and CEC capabilities and fielding a larger modern fleet of 12 ships with are all approximately capable?US models I imagine might need some tweaking, for what the RAN does, its capabilities, the different radars and the different threats.
I don't seem SM-3 in the immediate future, there are other priorities. Plus if you put in 9, work out the detail of Sm-6, that is going to lay the ground work for Sm-3 if we ever want to go there.
we all should learn from the JMSDF, their ships are immaculate.
weegee
Active Member
I really like the look of the Hobarts! I think they're a damn good looking ship
Joe Black
Active Member
Just a quick thought... I know this is re-iterate something we have discussed before, I find that Hobart is really lacking in sufficient self defence against multiple AShMs - especially the supersonic AShMs.
The current Hobart DDG include the following hard kills and soft kills options against AShMs:
1. ESSM
2. Mk15 Blk 1B
3. Nulka
4. Mk 137 SRBOC
5. ECM/ESM
One could argue that these are good enough to fend off 1 or 2 simultaneous attack, but come multiple AShMs, I am not confident that they will be sufficient. The DDGs also lack the same multiple channel of fire found on the Anzac class CEAMount X band radar. Yes, the two Mark 99 fire-controlwave illuminating radarscan time share, I get that, but they are not as capable as the CEA Mount radar. I also understand the the next upgrade of ESSM Blk 2 will have an active seeker which will improve and increase the number of simultaneous engagement.
I would love RAN to consider replacing the Mk15 on top of the hanger with the SeaRAM and/or perhaps add a pair of 35mm Millennium gun space and weight permitting.
I suspect some of you will argue that the DDG will never work alone, and they will be surrounded by the current Anzac FFH (and in the future, Sea 5000 Frigates) and the CEC capability will allow the ships to fight cooperatively increasing lethality, etc etc etc. I get that too, but always nice to know that if we can afford to arm each ship more, they will be even more capable to defend not just individual ships but overall the entire fleet.
Same argument also applies to the LHDs, can't wait till they get their Mk15s, and would love to see at least 1 SeaRAM on each of them too.
The current Hobart DDG include the following hard kills and soft kills options against AShMs:
1. ESSM
2. Mk15 Blk 1B
3. Nulka
4. Mk 137 SRBOC
5. ECM/ESM
One could argue that these are good enough to fend off 1 or 2 simultaneous attack, but come multiple AShMs, I am not confident that they will be sufficient. The DDGs also lack the same multiple channel of fire found on the Anzac class CEAMount X band radar. Yes, the two Mark 99 fire-controlwave illuminating radarscan time share, I get that, but they are not as capable as the CEA Mount radar. I also understand the the next upgrade of ESSM Blk 2 will have an active seeker which will improve and increase the number of simultaneous engagement.
I would love RAN to consider replacing the Mk15 on top of the hanger with the SeaRAM and/or perhaps add a pair of 35mm Millennium gun space and weight permitting.
I suspect some of you will argue that the DDG will never work alone, and they will be surrounded by the current Anzac FFH (and in the future, Sea 5000 Frigates) and the CEC capability will allow the ships to fight cooperatively increasing lethality, etc etc etc. I get that too, but always nice to know that if we can afford to arm each ship more, they will be even more capable to defend not just individual ships but overall the entire fleet.
Same argument also applies to the LHDs, can't wait till they get their Mk15s, and would love to see at least 1 SeaRAM on each of them too.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
IMO the Mk 15 Phalanx CIWS has gotten rather long in the tooth, honestly. The upgrade to the B mod which provides an anti-FAC/smallcraft capability does give the gun some additional functionality and potential use, but at this point the range and weight of fire is just too limited when compared to other CIWS options.
However you also left out a very big area air defence weapon, which is the SM-2 Standard Missile. While I have not been able to determine exactly which SM-2 version the RAN has, though some sources seem to suggest it is the SM-2 IIIB, which has a dual mode semi-active/IR seeker, with the whole missile intended for use vs. distant targets.
Likely of lesser importance but still of potential relevance would be what the munitions load for the Mk 45 127 mm gun is. If the gun has a load of DART rounds, those could provide an additional layer to the air defence umbrella.
As a side note, I read the likely air defence missile loadout being either 40 SM-2 and 32 ESSM, or 32 SM-2 and 64 ESSM. Yes, if a hypothetical hostile nation were to launch a saturation attack upon a Hobart-class AWD with 50+ missiles, then the AWD's defences would most likely be overwhelmed. One also has to keep in mind what would be required to carry out such a saturation attack, who actually has such a capability, and where they can project power to launch such an attack.
Also related to that, while the RAN could have specified a larger missile loadout like an 80-cell of 96-cell Mk 41 VLS like found aboard some USN, JMSDF and S. Korean DDG's, that would just mean that more missiles were required to saturate the defences, and not that the defences could not be saturated and overcome. Also the RAN vessels would have had a higher cost to fill such a loadout.
Presuming a reasonable percentage of the magazine will be required for the return voyage (assuming logically that an expended magazine would leave a retiring vessel impotent), a mission kill would possibly involve less resources even if the defence layers were effective.
The ship would still need to retire from the AO to re-arm.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
True, but that type situation would exist regardless of how large the VLS cell count. The only time it would not was if the VLS cell count was higher than the attacking nation's AShM warstocks.
At some point, someone has to make a decision on how many VLS cells is "enough"? Given that most of the aircraft which can be tasked with a maritime strike mission can carry 4+ AShM, a single squadron of such aircraft could likely be close to the saturation point. Even if the missile loadout was doubled for the vessel, then the attacking nation would just need to double the number of launching platforms armed with AShM.
I agree.
I think this 'numbers game' has come about because to date no pressure has been placed on ship availability or magazine size, ineffect, there has been no larger contemporary naval missile conflict....yet.
This has allowed the lack of underway re-loading capability to perpetuate.
In the end of the day, it may quite come to 'not how big a ships magazine is' but how many ships are available to replace those forced to retire from the AO?
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Early in the development of the Mk 41 VLS, it was planned for them to be RAS. As I understand it however, the size and weight of a loaded VLS canister was to the point where it was impractical and/or unsafe to attempt to RAS. Keep in mind that one is talking about an aperture that is ~ 71 cm by 71 cm, and fitting an underslung load 7 m long and weighing up to four tonnes into it. All while the vessel being rearmed is rising and falling and the VLS canister is twisting and swinging beneath a helicopter hovering over the VLS.
The only way around these sorts of problems were if the VLS canister was smaller and lighter, which would in turn require a smaller missile.
Again, I agree.
There's lots of reasons why it's been thrown to the 'too hard basket'. Especially as to date everyone's been able to cope because they've been tactically allowed to.
If it takes (using the model of) a squadron of aircraft to exclude a DDG from the AO for 2-3 weeks, they have won the battle havnt they, especially if there is no replacement at hand to take the role of the retiring asset.
I'm not saying it won't take innovation, but the ability to mount sustained combat endurance through access to a replacement magazine and the ability to reload is a force multiplier, effectively adding extra ships worth of tactical value.
But, I guess that's thinking outside the VLS box.
- Status