So, if I was a bad guy, I,d want those ships to expend as many SAM,s as possible before I actually attacked the ship, probably send in as many cheap drones mixed in with Anti ship missiles before I launched a proper attack....
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
Boagrius
Well-Known Member
Yes, my main concern originally was the fact that, over the service life of the Hunter class, the other side is likely to have a pretty vast arsenal of AShMs (this is without getting into drones/decoys etc). Even cheaper subsonic weapons like the C802 could be problematic due to their ability to simply deplete onboard SAM reserves via massed attacks. That said if there is, in fact, a cost issue associated with additional VLS cells then that makes sense and it is a good thing we are at least getting a vessel with solid growth margin built into it.
These “massed” attacks need to be delivered within range and with real time target information, not an easy accomplishment when a TG deploys layered defences over very long range.
I think we also need to inject some reality into the possible scenarios, the RAN will not be taking individual action against “the other side” ,whomsoever that be but as part of a coalition TG which will have adequate defences.
Given the RAN’s CONOPS and budget the Hunters’ capability strikes a good defensive balance.
Boagrius
Well-Known Member
Fair enough. Thanks for the clarification.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I believe the current doctrine calls for firing two missiles at each inbound, in an effort to increase the probability of a successful intercept. A 32-cell Mk 41 VLS could potentially accommodate up to 128 ESSM or ESSM Block II, which would provide a fair amount of persistence against potential threats within a ~50 km radius of the "frigate"... However, some of that VLS cell space could start getting eaten up by ASROC-VL, NSM depending on the type of launcher used, or even other, larger air defence missiles like examples from the Standard family (SM-6 specifically). I too would prefer that more VLS cells be available, just so that the RAN has the option of increasing the missile loadout prior to a deployment. Time will tell whether not that is something the RAN can do, or if it can, would need to.
I wonder whether our radar, various electronic information gathering systems and EW systems provide the CMS with the ability to discern a cheap drone from an ASM and react appropriately?
Naaah. Clearly the West wouldn't have even given it a thought.
oldsig
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
There are a couple of areas where I could seen the potential for a RAN vessel to be targeted by a massed attack, but not be operating as part of a task force or within the defensive coverage of a task force. I am specifically thinking of transits through the Strait of Hormuz, and/or between the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden, though there are a few other possibilities.
In the scenarios I have in mind though, if a RAN vessel were to be targeted, it was because it was in the wrong place, at the wrong time, as opposed to being targeted because it was a RAN vessel specifically.
I think the trick is not to put your fleet in a position where it is likely to be subjected to mass missile attacks. If a fleet finds itself fighting off wave after wave of missile attacks then they are pretty much dead anyway.
I believe submarines still pose a greater threat to surface fleets than mass missile attacks. It would still be easier to sink a ship with a torpedo from a few thousand meters than it would be firing a missile from several hundred kilometres.
I believe submarines still pose a greater threat to surface fleets than mass missile attacks. It would still be easier to sink a ship with a torpedo from a few thousand meters than it would be firing a missile from several hundred kilometres.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
The problem within something like the above, is that there are a few natural choke points to some of the most important SLOC in the world. Some of those choke points can and have at times had land-based AShM launchers positioned to cover the SLOC. Now yes, a navy could decide not to have a fleet operate within range of those AShM covering the choke point, but then that leaves control over that SLOC to whomever controls the AShM launchers. An intact fleet or task force is not doing much good if shipping in essentially blockaded due to a loss of access through a SLOC. Consider the Tanker Wars during the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980's. The world is sort of there, or at least has the potential to go in that kind of direction now.
There are SLOC Choke points where the threat of AShM can be quite easily neutralised if a hot war situation arose, I’m thinking specifically of the South China Sea where the artificial island bases would be the first casualty with zero chance of either survival or replenishment would be possible. It would be a little more difficult in the straits of Hormuz but I believe those sights could be neutralised with persistent air attack.
Naturally the problem is far more acute when rogue action is taken in the build up to conflict or simply to test the resolve of those protecting FON
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I had in mind less that a hot shooting war had broken out, and more someone with authority over the AShM launcher batteries might decide to use a nearby vessel as an object lesson. Once an actual conflict has broken out, then I would expect some of the usual international participants to take action to permit FON and keep the SLOC open.
As for the islands in the SCS, I think any strikes originating from them would be after a further decline in the security situation, and the chances of a commander deciding on their own to order launches to be less likely. It does raise the interesting question of what does it look like when you sink an island? Also, how would one mark that 'kill' on the side of a ship or aircraft?
Clearly, I'm no expert.
When considering question of persistence, I don't think the vessel will leave the AO to reload, unarmed.
So therefore a budget of the magazine will theoretically, all things going spiffy, SHOULD never be used.
But it also impacts on the usable numbers of rounds available.
Historically, since the VLS launch system has been used, western navies have had the luxury of independent operations without pressure on ammunition supply.
The whole concern rests on the lack of innovation in addressing the 'reload at sea' capability, "havnt needed it yet so let's not bother"
When considering question of persistence, I don't think the vessel will leave the AO to reload, unarmed.
So therefore a budget of the magazine will theoretically, all things going spiffy, SHOULD never be used.
But it also impacts on the usable numbers of rounds available.
Historically, since the VLS launch system has been used, western navies have had the luxury of independent operations without pressure on ammunition supply.
The whole concern rests on the lack of innovation in addressing the 'reload at sea' capability, "havnt needed it yet so let's not bother"
I appears integration of NSM onto the MH-60R is included in the FMS case cleared for sale to India - see the inclusion of an NSM emulator and inert training round as part of the FMS list:
US approves MH-60R sale to India | Jane's 360
Like everyone else I to think more is better, but not if the cost makes us give up something else.
Would you still want more if the initial cost per ship forced a reduction of numbers from 9 to say 7.
As you pointed out there is a growth margin to allow more to be fitted later.
When you talk of "over the service life of the Hunter class" you must remember upcoming tech such as HVPs and ramjet assisted shells are not that far away from service. These will replace missiles in many actions. Thus reduce the total load out needed.
Maybe this was the plan all along.
Last edited:
Boagrius
Well-Known Member
That's a fair point. You could probably add directed energy weapons and railguns to that list. Whether the Hunter class will ever be able to accommodate the latter I'm not sure but I do see where you're coming from. Probably sensible to leave some wiggle room for the addition of new technologies further down the track than max out the design right out of the gate.
Nice little but important win for NSM.
The issues with the Arab militaries and particularly the Saudis go way, way beyond this.
I know this will not happen, and the RAN is currently replacing one for one, but what if....
For the same money, make the Hunter's more ASW focused, and thus reduce the cost of building each ship. This might allow an extra 1-2 ASW focused ships to be built.
eg reduce VLS to, say, 24 or 16 cells, and reducing the electronic/sensor suite from World leading, to something like Sea Giraffe or what is rumoured to be placed on the Type 31. Instead of $1.8-2bn per ship, it might be $1.2-1.5bn. (guesstimate only). 8 x $300-500m saved per ship, means an extra 1-2 ASW warships. From what I read, ASW - the more assets the better, if you want to even the advantage subs currently have. By being more ASW and less AAW/all round, they can use ESSM's instead of SM2's, and so still have a decent AAW protection and have ASROC's. The weight saving might allow greater range/loiter time as well.
Later on, you can build Hunter's with 48+ Mk 41 cell for AAW, which is already semi in the pipeline.
For the same money, make the Hunter's more ASW focused, and thus reduce the cost of building each ship. This might allow an extra 1-2 ASW focused ships to be built.
eg reduce VLS to, say, 24 or 16 cells, and reducing the electronic/sensor suite from World leading, to something like Sea Giraffe or what is rumoured to be placed on the Type 31. Instead of $1.8-2bn per ship, it might be $1.2-1.5bn. (guesstimate only). 8 x $300-500m saved per ship, means an extra 1-2 ASW warships. From what I read, ASW - the more assets the better, if you want to even the advantage subs currently have. By being more ASW and less AAW/all round, they can use ESSM's instead of SM2's, and so still have a decent AAW protection and have ASROC's. The weight saving might allow greater range/loiter time as well.
Later on, you can build Hunter's with 48+ Mk 41 cell for AAW, which is already semi in the pipeline.
Boagrius
Well-Known Member
Not sure that cutting the VLS count will make them any better or more specialised as ASW ships (?). AFAIK they should be pretty exceptional in that role as currently envisaged. Then there's the issue of crewing the extra vessels... others would know more about that than me.
Personally I'd like to see us get the ball rolling on one day fielding an SSN fleet but that's a WHOLE other conversation
Personally I'd like to see us get the ball rolling on one day fielding an SSN fleet but that's a WHOLE other conversation
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Assuming the T26 program is successful for all three national versions (I think this will be the case), I would like to see a possible joint SSN program post Astute. Probably a fantasy though.
The more I read on HVPs and ramjet assisted rounds the more I see what a game changer it will be to smaller combatants.
This tech will greatly improve the usefulness of the Anzacs in their final years of service.
The ASMD upgrade sets them up to make full use of these new rounds.
It leads one to speculate if a DDG along the lines of the of a modernised Daring class could be reintroduced.
Small-3000t give or take, Small crew- with modern automation, Low risk-5" gun is known tech
Capable of putting 40-50 high speed, long range guided projectiles in the air every minute.
This tech will greatly improve the usefulness of the Anzacs in their final years of service.
The ASMD upgrade sets them up to make full use of these new rounds.
It leads one to speculate if a DDG along the lines of the of a modernised Daring class could be reintroduced.
Small-3000t give or take, Small crew- with modern automation, Low risk-5" gun is known tech
Capable of putting 40-50 high speed, long range guided projectiles in the air every minute.
- Status