Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I couldn't remember and I couldn't locate one on the sat pics... Right now just the Adelaides available.
I'd imagine that the RAN Anzacs would be the same. Thanks for the info.
-Cheers
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
I'd imagine that the RAN Anzacs would be the same. Thanks for the info.
-Cheers
This is part of the ASMD upgrade and particular attention is being given to stability issues identified in Phase 2A which presumably included the trials in Arunta.
Agreed, especially considering the supposed 400 ton margin mentioned by Todjaegar!
The VLS cells are offset to starboard with space (but perhaps not weight!) on the port side.
Cheers
AWD and LHD decision s in July
In an interview in The Australian the Defence Minister, Brendan Nelson, said he expected "simultaneous government decisions" on both the air warfare destroyers and the amphibious ships projects by July. He said:
I was pleased to see the mention of capability as that will help the G&C evolved design counter the cost and schedule advantages of the F100. It should also help the BPE in the LHD battle.
Cheers
In an interview in The Australian the Defence Minister, Brendan Nelson, said he expected "simultaneous government decisions" on both the air warfare destroyers and the amphibious ships projects by July. He said:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21710738-31477,00.html
I was pleased to see the mention of capability as that will help the G&C evolved design counter the cost and schedule advantages of the F100. It should also help the BPE in the LHD battle.
Cheers
Last edited:
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Something to consider for the Anzac FFH
To my understanding, the Anzav FFHs are supposed to remain in service until ~2020 when the replacement frigates will get under way (pardon the pun)
If there are stability issues with adding additional equipment onto the Anzacs now... Could these concerns be addressed by removing the Mk 41 VLS and replacing it with 16 Mk 56 VLS cells? That would maintain the 32 ESSM capacity, but might reduce the weight of the launcher... Unfortunately my Google-fu hasn't been good enough for me to locate something listing the weight of the Mk 56 launcher... I've come up with an estimate on the per-cell Mk 41 VLS weight, ~1,860 kg. This is the empty weight, no launch cannister or missiles.
Also I have to wonder if having the VLS arranged fore to aft on the starboard side helps the stability or makes it worse.
-Cheers
To my understanding, the Anzav FFHs are supposed to remain in service until ~2020 when the replacement frigates will get under way (pardon the pun)
If there are stability issues with adding additional equipment onto the Anzacs now... Could these concerns be addressed by removing the Mk 41 VLS and replacing it with 16 Mk 56 VLS cells? That would maintain the 32 ESSM capacity, but might reduce the weight of the launcher... Unfortunately my Google-fu hasn't been good enough for me to locate something listing the weight of the Mk 56 launcher... I've come up with an estimate on the per-cell Mk 41 VLS weight, ~1,860 kg. This is the empty weight, no launch cannister or missiles.
Also I have to wonder if having the VLS arranged fore to aft on the starboard side helps the stability or makes it worse.
-Cheers
Stability would be an important consideration in the arrangement so I am confident there would be compensating weight in the space on the port side that was set aside for a second VLS! Maybe one of our RAN members could tell us what is in this space but I expect it would be classified info.
Cheers
You would hope so.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
A potentially interesting mental exercise
Given that construction of the last Anzac has been completed, I think it likely that project definition for the follow-on to the Anzac-class has started. With that in mind, and with the requirement that it be equal or smaller than the impending AWD... what sort of size and fitout does one anticipate for the follow-on to the Anzac?
Some general requirements I would have regardless of size.
1 127mm main gun with ERGM (Mk 45 Mod 4/62 or similar for NGS)
8 Harpoon Block IIs
a phased radar array (either CEA-FAR or a version of SPY)
provision for at least 2 SF 300 containers (for RAM/Phalanx or similar)
range of ~6,000 n miles
towed & active sonar
minimum of 6 324mm torpedoes
ability to carry SAM for self and at least limited area air defence
Interested in other's thoughts on this, as well as the size of platform needed.
-Cheers
Given that construction of the last Anzac has been completed, I think it likely that project definition for the follow-on to the Anzac-class has started. With that in mind, and with the requirement that it be equal or smaller than the impending AWD... what sort of size and fitout does one anticipate for the follow-on to the Anzac?
Some general requirements I would have regardless of size.
1 127mm main gun with ERGM (Mk 45 Mod 4/62 or similar for NGS)
8 Harpoon Block IIs
a phased radar array (either CEA-FAR or a version of SPY)
provision for at least 2 SF 300 containers (for RAM/Phalanx or similar)
range of ~6,000 n miles
towed & active sonar
minimum of 6 324mm torpedoes
ability to carry SAM for self and at least limited area air defence
Interested in other's thoughts on this, as well as the size of platform needed.
-Cheers
If we build the evolved AB hull there seems to be sense in using that as the basis of the next ship but perhaps with a varaition on the upper works.
In so far as SAM's I wouel put this as a must along with an effective ASMD system
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
The question of which hull/what size is why I just listed some general requirements for the fitout. I would expect that an Anzac replacement using the larger hull of the "Baby Burke" would include things (or at least more of them) that would be found of a MEKO D modelled hull.
If the hull were to be as large as that used for the AWD, that I'd have a number of ESSM (naturally) along with a few SM-2/3 and some ASROC for an extended ASW role. If the vessel is smaller, there might not be enough room to fit in that many VLS so the missile/ASROC load would likely be reduced. I'd personally have first the number of SM reduced, then ASROC before reducing the numbers of ESSM.
-Cheers
A non AEGIS version of the baseline F100 would provide 48 VLS cells and in the case of a non AEGIS "Baby Burke" there would be 64. I can't see what would be gained by reducing these as they provide enormous flexibility. What I would change compared with the AWD would be the mix of missiles. I agree that ESSM should be a priority. With 48 VLS cells I would outfit 16 with ESSM for a total of 64 missiles. I would suggest 16 for SM-2 and the other 16 could carry a mix of ASROC and a land attack missile. If the "BB" was chosen and an extra 16 cells were available I would be inclined to split them between additional SM-2s and land attack missiles, depending on the mission.
It would be a bit ironic if a version of ASROC finally ended up in the RAN as it was rejected in the 1960s for the Adams class DDGs when Ikara was chosen instead.
Cheers
Don't forget the G&C hll has a growth out to 80 cells. Having the ability to fire and control SM-2 or SM-3 would require the full aegis system, in other words an AWD.
The follow on frigate would probably be sufficient with systems like CEAFAR and associated FCS rather than SPY1D and aegis. This would allow the top hamper to be cut down by setting the bridge down and puting the CEAFAR above it.
The additional cells could be retained and employed for SM-6 (which should be compatible with a non aegis system being fire and forget, TLAMs (if we ever get them), ASROC as suggested (if ever put in the load out) as well as ESSM. It also gives you the option of SM-2 storage for on command launch by the AWD.
The hull size also permit the adoption of a much more comprehesive self defence system for litorial operations and perhaps something like the 155mm AGS.
The follow on frigate would probably be sufficient with systems like CEAFAR and associated FCS rather than SPY1D and aegis. This would allow the top hamper to be cut down by setting the bridge down and puting the CEAFAR above it.
The additional cells could be retained and employed for SM-6 (which should be compatible with a non aegis system being fire and forget, TLAMs (if we ever get them), ASROC as suggested (if ever put in the load out) as well as ESSM. It also gives you the option of SM-2 storage for on command launch by the AWD.
The hull size also permit the adoption of a much more comprehesive self defence system for litorial operations and perhaps something like the 155mm AGS.
SM-2 is currently being retrofitted to the FFGs which do not have AEGIS! How are they operating it?
Cheers
The Dutch LCFs & German F124s don't have Aegis, & they can fire & control SM-2 (done it in tests), & should be able to fire & control SM-3. They have Thales SMART-L & APAR radars & a Thales combat system.
No arguement but SMART-L & APAR provide a full AAW capability...... at the appropraite cost.
Hi Lo mix for future RAN surface combat force
Presuming that the RAN does not incorporate a new type such as the LCS or a corvette type vessel as part of its future mix, I've wondered what sort of ratio there should be between fully air warfare capable destroyers and non AEGIS frigates. I had been thinking along the lines of a 1:2 ratio with 4 x AWDs and 8 x FFGs as a minimum number for the future RAN surface combat force. However, bearing in mind the comment posted by alexsa of the need for AEGIS (or equivalent) to fire and control SM-2 and SM-3 I'm now starting to think that the ratio should be 1:1.
With top weight being identified as an issue that is likely to restrict future upgrades of the Anzacs I think we ought to be planning now for their replacement. What do other members think would be a desirable future surface combat mix for the RAN?
Cheers
Presuming that the RAN does not incorporate a new type such as the LCS or a corvette type vessel as part of its future mix, I've wondered what sort of ratio there should be between fully air warfare capable destroyers and non AEGIS frigates. I had been thinking along the lines of a 1:2 ratio with 4 x AWDs and 8 x FFGs as a minimum number for the future RAN surface combat force. However, bearing in mind the comment posted by alexsa of the need for AEGIS (or equivalent) to fire and control SM-2 and SM-3 I'm now starting to think that the ratio should be 1:1.
With top weight being identified as an issue that is likely to restrict future upgrades of the Anzacs I think we ought to be planning now for their replacement. What do other members think would be a desirable future surface combat mix for the RAN?
Cheers
To clarify, Aegis (or equivlent system) is necessary for SM-3 (to be confirmed for other systems as I though only the most recent iteration of Aegis had this capability at present). For the AAW role Aegis,or equivlent system, provides the mangement of any engagement while the frigates can provide support, including on command lauch of SM-2 if they are so fitted.
1 to 2 sound fine in such a situation, especially if you have an AEW asset (helo based perhaps) allow weapons such as SM-6 to be utilised by the frigate.
In the Australian context a task group with an LHD (or two), two AWD and two 'frigates' (each with up to 80 cells) would have a credible capability (better still of the LHD has its own Mk 41 launcher, system and ESSM).
Indeed. Just making the point that there are equivalent systems that can control SM-2: it's not restricted to Aegis.
Once again the capability of the "Baby Burke" stands out. A task force of two 80 cell AWDs each with a load out of say 16 SM-3, 32 SM-2 or SM-6, 64 ESSM (16 cells) and 16 TLAMs backed by two 80 cell FFGs each with say 32 SM-6, 64 ESSM (16 cells), 24 TLAM and 8 ASROC, would be a powerful force to support one or two LHDs in an amphibious operation.
Cheers
well, it wouldn't be SMART-L & APAR now, get the Sampson + S1850M combination, probably the best sensory suite out there.
Although it remains to be seen if the Sampson+S1850M is better than the -i dare say- great SMART-L+APAR combination it shows that there are 2 serious alternatives to AEGIS, the least proven to work within the ESSM/SM family perfectly well + ICWI capabilities.
But I guess chosing the radar/combat system-suite is a political decision as well. Availability, full support in wartime situations etc. Given Australia's strong defence ties with the US i can understand they chose the AEGIS system long time ago.
As for the FFGs in my opinion the RAN should learn from the ANZAC "platform first and systems then approach" and chose a more consistent and systematic approach for a successor design. I think that the topweight issue is an outcome of acquiring a platform with a certain outfit and capability envelope and then wanting too much.
- Status