d-ron84
Active Member
I agree, I think there definitely is still a need for a main gun, I’m just crystalballing it And what they can do with the FFHs until the Hunters come online
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
I agree, I think there definitely is still a need for a main gun, I’m just crystalballing it And what they can do with the FFHs until the Hunters come online
Create a new missile loaded with drop bears primed to open up over the target and rain terror from above
If the second VLS option were to proceed, I wonder if that were to be used for ESSM or something ‘else’? Obviously a shed-load more ESSM would significantly boost the vessel’s combat persistence and self-defence capability and perhaps free up cells on other vessels for other weapons types, with ANZAC’s responsible for close in defence…
Alternatively sure it’s only 8 missiles per vessel, but if SM-2 Block IIIC for example were to be carried it wouldn’t need an illuminator (on-board the ANZAC vessel itself at least) and it would give the ANZAC’s a genuine area-air warfare capability and add depth to the AAW magazine depth in a task group.
Alternatively a vertically launched SSM would increase the utility of the vessels in a number of roles depending on weapon selection...
An interesting possibility…
There are extended range guided rounds like Volcano - if you could fire from far enough out that the shore batteries can't launch a direct line of sight attack and need other elements in the kill chain, you're at least making it interesting for them.
Obviously if we could get a system to launch drop bears, that would be best.
Git_Kraken
Active Member
Agreed. Any shore-based missile system is going to be priority #1 to an amphibious landing which is where Australia is likely going to be using NGFS.
You find them first, suppress or destroy those missiles somehow (airstrikes, your own missiles, SOF) then land your own forces. NGFS then helps the troops win the ensuing land battle. The old saying is that "A ships a fool to fight a fort", so you take actions to mitigate or eliminate the risk.
In the Libya conflict but there were no weapon systems the Libyans had that could reach out and touch NATO ships outside of ~12nm. Those that could reach 12nm were prime targets for airstrikes. The UK made great use of the 4.5" for shore bombardment to help the rebels against Khadafi's army.
You find them first, suppress or destroy those missiles somehow (airstrikes, your own missiles, SOF) then land your own forces. NGFS then helps the troops win the ensuing land battle. The old saying is that "A ships a fool to fight a fort", so you take actions to mitigate or eliminate the risk.
In the Libya conflict but there were no weapon systems the Libyans had that could reach out and touch NATO ships outside of ~12nm. Those that could reach 12nm were prime targets for airstrikes. The UK made great use of the 4.5" for shore bombardment to help the rebels against Khadafi's army.
The RAN's ANZACs have already had to have modifications to allow for increased topweight, which have increased draft & reduced top speed. Another VLS full of missiles, in exactly the wrong place, is probably going to be too much to cope with. I doubt it's practical.
It makes you wonder at the progress of the BAE Hypervelocity guided Projectile round for the 5 inch, of which we have heard nothing after it was test fired by the USN in 2019. With its range it seemed a variable backup for the ESSM without any need to undertake any work on he ANZACs
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
According to this link, progress on a variety of HVP options seems have stalled. A shame really, certainly less expensive than missiles and more magazine capacity. Same applies to the now dead in the water railgun.
USA 5"/62 (12.7 cm) Mark 45 Mod 4 - NavWeaps
As a coincidence our current 5 inch gun and a loaded Mk 41 with ESSM are ruffly about the same weight and foot print both above and below deck.
Makes for an interesting choice for the Anzac Class.
With limited real estate what our the priorities?
As to a small / medium cal weapon I'd suggest they will always have a place.
The 57 mm and VLS forward may be a weight/space challenge.
The lighter 40 mm Leonardo as used on the Arafura class would probably be achievable mounted just forward of a VLS replacing the current 5 inch cannon.
The much lighter Sea Ceptor missile and launcher also have appeal.
Regards S
If it does proceed I would imagine it would only be for ESSM. The VLS installed on the Anzac is of the short variety which can only take missiles the length of the ESSM. Cheers.
I am not sure much can be done with the ANZAC class. It is pretty close to its weight limit and swapping around various weapons systems is akin to moving deck chairs around on the Titanic. As hard as it is to accept Australia has dropped the ball with both the frigate and submarine replacement programs the fact is that we have. Probably the best we can do is upgrade the Hobart class.
Perhaps we could also add a VLS to the LHDs as well, perhaps also add a couple of RAM launchers. I know that the Spanish made allowances for those weapons with the Juan Carlos.
There are apparently bucketloads of unspent money as a result of delays in both the frigate and submarine programs so perhaps some other planned projects could be brought forward. Problem for the navy is that I think most of those funds would be better directed to the airforce.
Perhaps we could also add a VLS to the LHDs as well, perhaps also add a couple of RAM launchers. I know that the Spanish made allowances for those weapons with the Juan Carlos.
There are apparently bucketloads of unspent money as a result of delays in both the frigate and submarine programs so perhaps some other planned projects could be brought forward. Problem for the navy is that I think most of those funds would be better directed to the airforce.
According to this link, progress on a variety of HVP options seems have stalled. A shame really, certainly less expensive than missiles and more magazine capacity. Same applies to the now dead in the water railgun.
USA 5"/62 (12.7 cm) Mark 45 Mod 4 - NavWeaps
www.navweaps.com
Here the cynic within wonders how much of the HVP cancellation is due to pressure by companys like Raytheon worried about loss of profit.
Still this could be an opening for Australian industry.
The 'Canberra's' had the hull made overseas and then were shipped to Australia for outfitting.
Is there any reason why the same could not be done with a new vessel?
Which brings up the question about what has happened to the CIWS for the LHD’s, a project that has been quiet for a while? This time, with the extra money apparently available, adding RAM launchers as well as Phalanx would seem to be a really good idea.
I hope there is a project to review CIWS through the fleet, particularly for the Hunter Class, given it’s weight limitations.
Long In Development Hypervelocity Rounds For Navy Railguns And Deck Guns Killed Off In Budget
Well it is a low cost program. Since 2018 US spent $15 million on it which is small change all things considered. The cancellation for now will save them all of $5.9m USD FY22. Apperantly it did not work well enough compared to the cost of a round (circa $100k each). Potential according to link the US army may pick it up.
More of the cynic in me suggests pork barrel politics. Not enough in it for Congress critters votes.
Probably correct, that said makes it a perfect program for an advanced mid tier country (ie: Australia) to pick up, get working and start manufacturing. Might be small for Congress but for other nations between domestic and exports makes it worthwhile
There was talk of a 127mm naval variant of Excalibur PGM being worked on a few years back… Killed as well I am guessing?
EDIT; According to Raytheon, naval Excaliber is still being work on and brings precision guidance to more than double the existing range of 127mm fires…
Shoulda done my own research first…
www.raytheonmissilesanddefense.com
EDIT; According to Raytheon, naval Excaliber is still being work on and brings precision guidance to more than double the existing range of 127mm fires…
Shoulda done my own research first…
Excalibur Projectile
With more than 600 rounds fired in theater to date, the Excalibur® munition is the revolutionary precision projectile for the U.S. Army and Marine Corps artillery
www.raytheonmissilesanddefense.com
Whilst I understand that NGS is very nice indeed to have when your storming the beaches, as noted on this forum many times in the past, D-Day style landings are not in our CONOPS, and the demand for NGS is possibly pretty low compared to other competing requirements. So why are we dedicating so much space and weight to it?
I suspect that part of the reason the USN is adopting the 57mm main gun is the smart ammo being developed for it, particularly Mad-Fires, which would essentially provide a Phalanx replacement with significantly longer reach and a much deeper magazine, without requiring a dedicated system occupying precious real estate.
The last online information I can find on Mad Fires is here (DARPA contracts Raytheon for third phase of MAD FIRES program development) which suggests that development is still ongoing...unclear when an operation system would be available.
Alamo guided anti ship rounds (FACs etc) are also being developed, but less recent news on that program.
If these guided rounds become operational, the 57mm becomes a very attractive option as a CIWS (against both missiles and small boats) and far superior to the soon-to-be antique Phalanx, and also allows space and weight to be allocated to other things...ie potentially additional VLS.
Worth considering?
I suspect that part of the reason the USN is adopting the 57mm main gun is the smart ammo being developed for it, particularly Mad-Fires, which would essentially provide a Phalanx replacement with significantly longer reach and a much deeper magazine, without requiring a dedicated system occupying precious real estate.
The last online information I can find on Mad Fires is here (DARPA contracts Raytheon for third phase of MAD FIRES program development) which suggests that development is still ongoing...unclear when an operation system would be available.
Alamo guided anti ship rounds (FACs etc) are also being developed, but less recent news on that program.
If these guided rounds become operational, the 57mm becomes a very attractive option as a CIWS (against both missiles and small boats) and far superior to the soon-to-be antique Phalanx, and also allows space and weight to be allocated to other things...ie potentially additional VLS.
Worth considering?
- Status