Ah so you know what it feels like then!
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
Is it too fantasy like to think that the RAN might retire ships more quickly, in order to increase build tempo yet keep the shipyards and skills ongoing for decades? The Japanese retire their subs after 20 years, instead of the more common 30+ years around the world, for example.
If you go to the link in my last post #31,194 and go to document 26, Open that PDF and it gives a drumbeat for the Hunter class at 2 years per a ship, With continuous building for a 12 fleet force (Seen no indication we will go to 14.. yet) that is a lifecycle of 24 years per a boat. They may go lower then that, they may not. It is something they will have to run the numbers on later on in the program to see if it financially and operationally benifits them.
ASC and other did a report circa 2006? that went through the numbers between the RAN, USN and a few others and they came to the conclusion that the optimal lifespan generally for surface combatants and submarines was in the 18-21 year lifecycle as if I recall correctly between MLU, more maintence intensive in the 3rd decade of life and lower availability it was cheaper to build a replacement then try and keep it going for another 10+ years.
At the moment we are heading that way, But how far down we go well only time will tell but at current rate we may end up eventually with one of the youngest fleets in the west.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Home - Defence Technology Review
IN THIS ISSUE ACCESS CURRENT ISSUE NEWS Land 400 Phase 3 latest The current status of the Australian Army’s Land 400 Phase 3 project and what the next few months may hold. Read the full article NEWS MRH-90 woes continue With poor rates of effort and climbing costs the MRH-90 trooplift helicopter...
dtrmagazine.com
Damen news from around the world | Damen
Stay informed with Damen's worldwide maritime news, covering the latest developments and trends in the industry. Explore now.
archive.damen.com
Unfortunately you need a subscription to access the DTR article now, the days of it being free are over.
There is some interesting chat happening about the Anzac class Transition Capability Assurance Program (TransCAP). Anzac is meant to start this towards the end of 2023. At this it is looking like the sonar & towed array sonar suite selected for the Hunters will be rolled out onto the Anzac's first. They are also getting a replacement for the Sharpeye nav radar. New AGE's have also been mentioned. The most interesting thing I've heard is that they are looking into the engineering challenges of fitting a 2nd 8-cell VLS next to the current VLS. Navy currently has the 2x VLS that came out of Darwin & Sydney in storage aswell apparently the 2 sets that came of the Kiwi Anzacs. Please note that there is nothing official at this stage. Cheers.
I still think the Navy will go for an existing vessel that is already afloat & modify it, rather than building from scratch overseas. I have nothing to back up my thoughts though, it's only my opinion.
Aren't the RAN Anzacs at or close to their safe weight limits now? I thought that they have already reached maximum safe buoyancy.
They are close from what I've heard. The idea is to apparently see if it is possible by looking at ballasting arrangements, weight reductions etc. It has also been mentioned that a new forward mast structure is going on, whether this helps with the stability, weight issues I don't know. Cheers.
Very interesting. An ANZAC carrying 64 ESSM would be very capable indeed.
Is it fair to assume that this same thinking (squeezing as many VLS as possible into the fleet) will be applied when the Hobarts are upgraded in 2024? There seems to be some free real estate for maybe another 8 or even 16 VLS between the existing array and the superstructure. I fully recognise that I have no idea what:
1. sits below this bit of deck. Probably something important. Maybe it could fit tactical but not strike length?
2. what this does re weight and stability.
It would also be consistent with the integration of Tomahawks into the Hobarts without compromising their central mission.
If both are acheivable this would be a dramatic increase in cells across the fleet - 64 from ANZACs (8 cells x 8 ships) and 48 from Hobart (16 cells x 3 ships) for a total of 112. More than an Arleigh Burke, and better distributed.
Again I have no idea whether this is actually doable. Perhaps some who have a better knowledge than me (ie none) about naval architecture could comment?
Good day
The ANZAC's already had space for the second Mk 41 VLS .... the limitation was top-weight. That is the issue they still have to resolve. For the DDG it is not a simple case of simply cutting a hole. The location you suggest is part of the strength structure of the vessel and chopping that out will have implications and I expect will need additional structure. This is not a simple process and I suspect that is not an option. I could not say if something like deck mounted Exls is an option but it add topweight but I don't think you will see 16 additional cells.
Others would be better able to advise.
It really is the mystery question.
The empty weight of the shortest self defence version of the Mk 41 VLS is over 12 tonne.
Add 8 x 4 =32 missiles at 280 kg each and that's close to another 9 tonne of missiles.
At least another 21 tonne all up
It would be great if it could be made to work.
However, if Phalanx or Sea Ram were deemed to weight excessive, an additional VLS does look problematic.
That said, some smart engineering and adjustment of operating expectations for the LCM-1e has permitted them to now carry the Abrams MBT.
The need for extra VLS systems across the fleet is certainly needed both NOW and within the next decade.
So maybe where there is a will there is a way.
Fingers crossed for a good outcome.
Maybe we should also look at the Sea Ceptor shorter range missile.
While I like to keep the inventory simple, I think a close in weapon system different to ESSM has a place.
I feel Phalanx has had it's day
Both Canada and the UK are introducing it for their respective fleets, including on the Type 26 destroyers which we will introduce as the Hunter Class.
Its both lighter in weight and cheaper to purchase than ESSM. It is currently used on New Zealand's ANZAC Class frigates .
As a soft launch platform it opens up opportunities for installing on many of our Major Fleet Units that both have and have not a VLS.
Our Amphibious and supply ships come to mind.
Just don't mention the OPV's.
Regards S
Here’s hoping it can be worked out.
Wouldn’t phalanx / sea ram generally be mounted higher up, causing a greater issue?
There's a big difference trundling an Abrahams ashore in a LCM and sailing an Anzac in the deep blue oggy with very large roughers and howling winds. Something that make landlubbers bring up last weeks lunch and real sailors live with. Some even live for.
The 5in gun is for NGS something that's a tad expensive to do with missiles. The grunts like NGS because it helps dislodge inconsiderate bods who are somewhat grumpy with them for some strange reason.
buffy9
Well-Known Member
The high fire rate is always appreciated vs regular artillery. So long as the initial safety distance is accounted for...
I believe the gun also provides some self-defence for the ship in terms of air defence - it's hard to say how effective that may be for close in engagements against supersonic systems though. It's hard to justify getting rid of it when the Anzacs don't really have any other form of CIWS against missiles.
Last edited:
Boagrius
Well-Known Member
Part of me wonders how viable NGFS would be in a peer environment when so many land based anti-ship systems would soundly out-range the 5in.
Not saying I know the answer, but suffice it to say that the threat environment is a far cry from the one encountered in the Battle of Al Faw...
Not saying I know the answer, but suffice it to say that the threat environment is a far cry from the one encountered in the Battle of Al Faw...
d-ron84
Member
I know what NGS is, done it on FFG’s (pretty pointless with a 76mm though) but if it comes to a contested SCS what do you need more of, essm for missile swarms or 5” for NGS, especially when the yanks will be lobbing TLAMs at any artificial island that looks at them the wrong way
The Royal Navy introduced the Type 22 Frigate in the late 70's .
Initially know as the Broadsword Class, they were slightly bigger than our current ANZAC Class and were notable for the omission of a main gun.
"It was the missile age"
Built in three batches the first two continued this trend.
The third batch was considerably bigger in length and tonnage and included a main gun.
The Falkland Conflict showed the utility of such a weapon.
Are we now truly in the missile age or are such things such as a main gun a relic of the past.?
I don't think so.
However you can only fit so much on any given sized warship, so choices have to be made to provide the optimum option of capabilities for any given range of contingency's'
So what will a forty year old ANZAC ship look like on retirement?
Puzzled S
Gryphinator
Active Member
If it can be done cheaply and quickly, do it. Grunts have better DFSW and mortars these days...
- Status