As a long term lurker with an interest in but no experience of the military, I have become fascinated by the insight provided by the defence professionals who contribute to these forums. I apologise in advance if the questions or comments I make are simplistic or ignorant.
The first matter is the acquisition of the MR60 helicopters, which with dipping sonar will increase the capability of all RAN surface combatants ASW. The chief criticism of the choice seems to be the range of the Hellfire missiles the platform currently carries. Given that the Americans are developing JAGM missiles with larger warheads and greater range, is it likely or possible that Australia might purchase same ?
Should Australia purchase JAGM this could mean that in any ship to ship action Anzacs could deploy Harpoon and JAGM as well as the 127mm main gun. The 127mm together with JAGM would also provide the main land bombardment capability. If land bombardment is considered a major part of the Anzacs role is it possible that Australia might consider the purchase of OTO long range Volcano munitions? Alternatively in the modern World is the 127 mm a heavy enough round for serious land bombardment given that in other forums there is discussion of 155mm alternatives ?
Alternatively, could the 127mm be replaced with the OTO 76mm
rapid fire gun with DAVIDE anti-aircraft system and the various long range smart ammunition. I appreciate that this might mean a reduction in surface to surface effectiveness but would be interested in the comments of more knowledgeable contributors on the possibility that the total weight of shot could make up for the lack of individual shot weight. There advantages of the 76mm are in the AA/missile and asymmetric roles and in the reduction in the ships top weight .
Hey mate, welcome to the forum, had to merge the thread with the existing Royal Australian Navy thread, in a (probably) vain attempt to keep the forum somewhat tidy.
1. It is possible Australia might choose the JAGM at some future point, with that weapon primarily increasing range and targetting options, rather than lethality as I understand it. Our MH-60R's will come with Hellfire air to surface missiles, Mk 54 Torpedos and 12.7mm and 7.62mm machine guns to start with however.
Hellfire would provide an air to surface missile capability in support of land forces, however I have an inkling RAN has some reservations about using the MH-60R as a "gunship" in support of Army. They might (like me) wonder exactly why the Tigers were bought if the MH-60R's were to be used in that role...
There might be some occasions where the MH-60R's fired Hellfire against land targets in littoral warfare roles, but I tend to think it would probably be in a strike type mission, rather than a close air support style mission, still time will tell.
JAGM would improve the air to surface range of the MH-60R's and would appear to be a suitable weapon that addresses a range of capability gaps for other ADF platforms (Super Hornets, AP-3C Orions / P-8A's and Tigers immediately spring to mind) but the winner of the JAGM program hasn't yet been decided in the USA, let alone the weapon introduced into service, so I think we are many years off getting such a weapon, even if ADF is interested.
I know of some of the criticism's of the "short range" of Hellfire (what short range? Compared to the current in-service RAN missile, ie: none, it actually has a pretty useful range) but RAN has a requirement for short range anti-surface missiles just as it does longer ranging anti-surface missiles.
The problem for some of the competitors to the MH-60R and their longer ranging missiles is that RAN already has Harpoon Block II to conduct long ranged anti-ship missile strikes, but prior to the MH-60R being selected it didn't have a weapon suitable for employment against small sized "swarm" boats from it's helicopters and employing a Matre Mk II, Penguin missile or something similar, is that they aren't a suitable weapon for the short-ranging mission, plus they've royally screwed up their previous helo wins and as we saw from Defmin Smith today, in future that is going to work against potential tenders. I think it may have in this instance too...
2. The 127mm does provide a naval gunnery support capability as you've alluded to and this was evidenced most obviously back in 2003 in Iraq during "Five Inch Friday".
RAN has an announced intention to acquire long ranged land attack projectiles for the 127mm guns that will be fitted to the Air Warfare Destroyers, however that weapon is the longer and more capable 62 Cal weapon, rather than the shorter and less capable 54 Cal weapon as fitted to the ANZAC Class, so it may be the case that these projectiles aren't suitable for the ANZAC Class. I guess we will have to wait and see.
If it ends up being the Vulcano range of projectiles, then I can't see any real reason the ANZAC's couldn't employ them, but gun magazine racking and loading issues and perhaps some fire control system upgrades would probably have to be addressed. So far there is no publicly known program for such.
As to the 76mm guns, RAN was originally intending to fit 76mm guns to the ANZAC class. It reconsidered the idea and ended up opting for the 127mm guns, even though they were more expensive. Because of this, the overall reduction in capability and the cost, I don't think we'll be going back to the 76mm gun for the ANZAC's any time soon...
AMT - ANZAC Magazine
Out of interest, RAN has done a fair few studies on the 127mm gun and long ranged land attack issues. So far it hasn't followed up on them as far as is publicly known.
AMT - MOD4 Gun
3. The problem with 155mm is the blast and shock loadings of such large weapons on existing designs that don't really have the space and weight margins for them. Other nations have looked at it, most notably the British. So far nothing really workable has been identified. But it is being pursued. I doubt we'll see the RAN looking at it, until an in-service weapon is proven elsewhere.
Naval Guns - Naval Shipbuilding Northwest England
4. I'm not sure the RAN is really looking for more anti-aircraft artillery fire capability from the ANZAC's. The 127mm gun is reportedly highly underrated in that role anyway and with the anti-ship missile defence program providing much improved situational awareness and the ability to create multiple channels of fire and thus employ multiple ESSM's simultaneously. RAN looked at a second tier air defence system (the Mistral/Simbad SAM system was reportedly the front-runner) but they opted for the phased array radar of the ASMD project and greater use of ESSM and Nulka EW systems instead.
Plus it must be remembered the ANZAC's rarely work alone and definitely won't be in a high threat environment. They'll be working at least with our FFG's and later our AWD's.
As ANZAC's have or will have an advanced phased array radar and multiple channels of fire for ESSM.
Our FFG's have SM-2, ESSM and Phalanx. Neither work in a vacuum, both will work together and possess quite a capable solution for overlapping long and short ranged air defence capabilities.
The AWD's will possess all 3 and more (when SM-6 and whatnot come along...)
Good times...
