Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[aussienscale]

I read there are also going to use off board sensors too, including the P-8, Wedgetail and f-35, so i guess that individual sensors aren't that critical when it's all working as a system

Absolutely they will ! the term has been coined "netcentric" and there are other terms for it as well, but they will all share not only information, but sensors, systems and weapons in a way that will be very impressive, this is why you can't just take one system, platform, weapon etc only on its merrits, you have to be able to see and comprehend the whole picture and how it works, this is why people who bag certain projects etc don't get and understand why we defend them. Its not that some of these programs don't have problems ! they do, and some bigger and more expensive than others, the problem is if we let them slip and fall by the wayside, the flow on effect on the big picture is the issue and why these things need to be seen through

 

[Tee_Centre_10]

Atlantic Conveyor could have used a containerised 8-cell Mk 41 loaded with ESSM and Nulka and fitted with a couple of SRBOC launchers taking cues from an escort.

 

[MickB]

Also, since the HSV's are typically aluminum-hulled vessels, they seem to have ~half the service life of traditional steel-hulled naval vessels and have limitations in terms of tonnage available for cargo/weapons/systems.

Thanks for the reply. But I must admit the above comment leaves me wondering why the LCS are of aluminum construction.

 

[SASWanabe]

Thanks for the reply. But I must admit the above comment leaves me wondering why the LCS are of aluminum construction.

because its lighter, means less structural weight so more payload

 

[Todjaeger]

Thanks for the reply. But I must admit the above comment leaves me wondering why the LCS are of aluminum construction.

LCS-1 is aluminum, LCS-2 has a steel hull and aluminum superstructure IIRC.

Aluminum is stronger and lighter than steel. Given the speed requirements of the LCS programme, measures to reduce the entrant's weight were utilized.

The reason why aluminum is not more utilized for naval construction is that it is also more brittle, which means that it is more likely to deform and break, whereas steel could flex.

-Cheers

 

[AegisFC]

LCS-1 is aluminum, LCS-2 has a steel hull and aluminum superstructure IIRC.

Other way around.

 

[Todjaeger]

Other way around.

<insert facepalm here> D'Oh!

Somehow I always manage to switch which one's Liberty and which one's Independence...

 

[MickB]

Would the use of CEC allow for specialized ships to extend the magazine capacity of the AWD.

A HSV fitted with multiple launcher cells could keep station with the AWD. By using the missiles aboard the HSV first, the load on the AWD could be retained for later use, thus extending its time on station.

Once its load is depleted the HSV would make a fast transit to the nearest base to replenish.

If fitted with limited self defense the crew required would not be large.

I understand that fitting the launcher cells would be easier and cheaper by venting down between the hulls of a catamaran.

I know such a vessel is unlikely in the extreme but was interested in its practicality.

Given that the HSV is wrong hull form for this mission could:

1 - A bare bones monohull perform this task

2 - Is it a usefull capability to have

 

[Todjaeger]

Given that the HSV is wrong hull form for this mission could:

1 - A bare bones monohull perform this task

2 - Is it a usefull capability to have

I suspect the answer to both questions is, "No."

For #1, a 'bare bones' hull would need to have at least sufficient comms and electronics to be a CEC-receiving platform. Without that, the platform would not know what to fire, when to fire it, or what vector to fire it at.

For #2, I suspect that the cost and capability is respectively too high and low. In addition to the VLS and computers/comms, there is the cost of the vessel itself as well as any munitions ans self-defence suites, the crew required to operate the vessel, maintain the weapons and electronics systems, etc.

While this would likely be a fair bit less that a dedicated warship with a comparable number of VLS cells, by virtue of not having any of its own air/surface search radars, illuminators, etc. the vessel is nothing but an expensive target if a/the CEC-broadcasting and illuminating platform is not available for any reason.

It would IMO make far more sense to fit VLS cells to another vessel which due to mission role is already going to be part of the CEC network and task force if/when more VLS cells are desired as part of the overall force package.

Potential candidates for these VLS cells/modules would be the LHD's, the Sealift ship (not HMAS Choules), possibly the replacements for HMAS Success and HMAS Sirius, and depending on just exactly how the OCV requirements are handled, the OCV's.

-Cheers

 

[swerve]

LCS-1 is aluminum, LCS-2 has a steel hull and aluminum superstructure IIRC.

Aluminum is stronger and lighter than steel.

-Cheers

It's not stronger and lighter. It's stronger in proportion to its weight, so you can build a lighter structure of the same strength. But it doesn't flex as much before it breaks, so you need to design aluminium structures to be stiffer (why aluminium bicycle frames have to have fatter tubes than steel frames, & give a harsher ride than a good steel frame), which loses some of that weight advantage.

 

[rip]

I suspect the answer to both questions is, "No."

For #1, a 'bare bones' hull would need to have at least sufficient comms and electronics to be a CEC-receiving platform. Without that, the platform would not know what to fire, when to fire it, or what vector to fire it at.

For #2, I suspect that the cost and capability is respectively too high and low. In addition to the VLS and computers/comms, there is the cost of the vessel itself as well as any munitions ans self-defence suites, the crew required to operate the vessel, maintain the weapons and electronics systems, etc.

While this would likely be a fair bit less that a dedicated warship with a comparable number of VLS cells, by virtue of not having any of its own air/surface search radars, illuminators, etc. the vessel is nothing but an expensive target if a/the CEC-broadcasting and illuminating platform is not available for any reason.

It would IMO make far more sense to fit VLS cells to another vessel which due to mission role is already going to be part of the CEC network and task force if/when more VLS cells are desired as part of the overall force package.

Potential candidates for these VLS cells/modules would be the LHD's, the Sealift ship (not HMAS Choules), possibly the replacements for HMAS Success and HMAS Sirius, and depending on just exactly how the OCV requirements are handled, the OCV's.

-Cheers

The idea of the use of missile trucks has been around for a while now. I know of no dedicated platforms that have been made to preform that task ether for air or sea operations but it is an idea that will not go away.

As long as we are generally at peace, the military of every reasonable country will put its scarce resources into primary full service platforms of which they will reasonably argue they never have enough. But if a long war were to come about, things would change.

Here is the general driving idea, the most modern platforms, both in the air and on the sea have the sensor, computing, and fire control capacity to track and kill many more targets than they can carry the weapons to engage. While newer missiles weapons now often have longer effective ranges than the targeting capacity of the platforms that carry them. Launch on remote (that is the separation of the controlling platform from the launching platform), as a doctrine becomes not only possible but desirable starting in the use of the buddy system of cooperation between first line platforms. Later these tactics would be extended to axillary platforms who would be farther behind the lines but whose missiles would have sufficient range to enter the fight even though the auxiliary platforms ability to control them is limited. Especially for the rare but often decisive large scale engagements that we haven’t seen for a while but have in the past determined the outcome of wars.

What would happen is that in the case of air power, it would be the older, slower, less stealthy, and almost obsolete air craft or even large patrol craft that would act as the axillary platforms (the trucks). They have the hard points and most of the communication gear already. At sea it will be the common everyday container ships, where groups of containers placed on top will contain both the missiles and the Communications gear. The missile firing containers would be, use only once then discard kind. Some of these container designs have already been tested and are for sale in the simpler shore bombardment and anti-shipping modes. Others will follow and when they do, don’t expect that there will be allot information available about them in the open press for obvious reasons. But it is unlikely that specifically built platform for this task will ever be made when other cheaper alternatives available.

But all first line platforms in the future will be able to seamlessly plug in to the net centric environment and play a part. That is just one reason why it is even more viral than ever before that allies’ communication and control nets are fully compatible.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

2 - Is it a usefull capability to have

If there a need for more missiles? The AWD will put to see with 96 anti air warfare (AAW) missiles in its first version. That's more than twice as many of any previous RAN warship (40 SM1s or Tartars on DDG and FFG before Harpoon). When we add the land attack cruise missile (LACM) to the boil things get more complicated. But you are more likely to find space and weight to displace the ESSMs from the strike length VLS than go and build a whole other missile carrying ship.

Especially since the RAN's requirements for surface ship launched LACM will be very different to the USNs. The later uses TLAM (Tomahawk) as part of an operational strike complex integrated with TACAIR. The RAN's need is not to destroy a rival military force but to shape the 'anti access' capability of a medium intensity level threat via strikes on air bases to destroy AShM carrying aircraft. This requires a far less number of missiles. 24 per task force being quite sufficent to severely damage an airbase or two.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

xxx xxx

 

[hairyman]

Is it expected that the load out will be 16 x 4 ESSM, and the remaining 36 all S2 or S6? You are leaving no room for Land Attack Cruise Missiles, which these ships are supposed to be armed with.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Is it expected that the load out will be 16 x 4 ESSM, and the remaining 36 all S2 or S6? You are leaving no room for Land Attack Cruise Missiles, which these ships are supposed to be armed with.

They won't be armed with SM6 or LACMs when they are first in service. Which is what I said:

in its first version

Integrating the SM6 and LACM into the task force unit of fire will come later in the AWD's lifespan. This can be via ensuring the S5K ship has a large strike length VLS launcher and/or displacing the ESSMs from the AWD's strike length VLS launcher to more space/weight efficent SDSS lenght VLS down the aft somewhere.

 

[rand0m]

They won't be armed with SM6 or LACMs when they are first in service. Which is what I said:



Integrating the SM6 and LACM into the task force unit of fire will come later in the AWD's lifespan. This can be via ensuring the S5K ship has a large strike length VLS launcher and/or displacing the ESSMs from the AWD's strike length VLS launcher to more space/weight efficent SDSS lenght VLS down the aft somewhere.

Ahh yes getting back into the "fitted for but not with" routine with our navy.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Ahh yes getting back into the "fitted for but not with" routine with our navy.

Well its pretty hard to "fit with" a capability that hasn't been developed (SM6) or even defined (LACM) not to mention approved 1st and 2nd pass by government and paid for. The timeframe for SM6 in service is 2021-24 and for LACM on the AWD 2022-25.

 

[OpinionNoted]

Is'nt there a ban on exporting crusie missiles that exceed 400 klm range?

 

[StingrayOZ]

A few points

I don't think Abe added the harpoons to the AWD, and I would assume the FF could also carry harpoons if required. That would be another 8 missiles per ship, adding another 24 missiles to a three ship force.

What about ABM capability, wasn't that looking at being delivered by PAC-3? Can these be quad packed and could if required fill the area of ESSM (ie perform the same role as ESSM thus be deducted from the ESSM load)?

 

[AegisFC]

Ahh yes getting back into the "fitted for but not with" routine with our navy.

There is nothing to fit. The version of Aegis Australia is getting currently does not support SM-6 and will not for several years.