Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
GCS - Global Combat Ship (Type 26)
GFE - Government Furnished Equipment (The stuff the government contracts separately and provides to the shipbuilder / combat system integrator)
FMS- Foreign Military Sales (Stuff bought through the US Department of Defense / State Department, in this case, GFE systems such as the Mk-41 VLS, Mk-45 5" gun etc.)
marinelink op-ed on escorting of cristobal colon into sydney harbour - probably more like spanish news than RAN 
Cristobal Colon Arrives In Sydney
Cristobal Colon Arrives In Sydney
marinelink op-ed on escorting of cristobal colon into sydney harbour - probably more like spanish news than RAN
Cristobal Colon Arrives In Sydney
Marinelink are very good at rehashing Navy News articles. It was the same case of the last one posted.
Compare the two. You get more photos in the NN article!
Cristobal Colon arrives in Sydney | Navy Daily
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I would imagine that if the RAN were to load ESSM into a Mk 41 VLS, they would be quad-packed. It would make little sense to have a different configuration for the AWD and the Future Frigate, in terms of how ESSM are loaded.
Me being me, there could be a role in the RAN for Sea Ceptor, particularly for smaller warships in lieu of adopting RAM/SeaRAM.
I've come across a few external links where the closeness of presentation is borderline plagiarism...
I like RAM but as Sea Ceptor is compatible with Mk-41 / ExLS (both in Mk-41 cells and stand alone twelve round versions for ships without a large or purpose designed VLS) plus its versatile land based version, I would hazard Sea Ceptor being the better long term option.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Plus Sea Ceptor has a longer max range IIRC. RAM goes out to ~8km I believe, while Sea Ceptor's outer range band is ~25km. I would much rather have more opportunities to intercept potential leakers.
Exactly my point... we are speculating on cell numbers. Precisely what is required to be fitted will not be known until the bids are in or the RFT is put in the public domain. I hope we do standardise on a higher number to give flexibility in load out noting we are already aware that the vessel will carry SM6, SM2 (likely) and ESSM. As any aside one 8 cell Mk41 gives you 32 ESSM in quad pack so we will be well above 24 ESSM, it is finding space for the other things we may want to carry that needs to be considered.
It will be interesting to watch the competition
If Sea Ceptor is as advertised comparable to Aster15, and thus also similar to ESSM, they fill different roles.
RAM is more "point defense" than the ESSM class of local AAW missiles...so while shorter ranged, it is optimized to be a last line of defense you can really count on. It's why it's being back fit to some USN DDGs.
It uses a very different flight profile from the Vertical launch family of missiles, which is a great advantage. Though I agree, if you could only have one, the VL missiles give you more capacity and opportunities for intercept.
Don't forget the RAN will eventually go for ESSM Block 2 as this is quite a different capability to the block I missile with an X band seeker, engagement beyond 25 miles and greater agility. If RAN were ever to pick up RAM the combination of RAM and ESSM block 2 would make the addition of Sea Ceptor would seem to be questionable from a cost (purchase and maintenance of an additional missile) perspective.
There is an extended range CAMM that increases the range across all three variants, Sea Ceptor and the land and air variants out to > 45km which is similar to ESSM. Plus it already has an active RF seeker and the ability to attack fast moving surface targets, which ESSM currently lacks. The CAMM is also agnostic with regard to radar systems, so it doesn't need a specific system.
No argument with that but we have ESSM in inventory and are moving to block 2 so it would need a compelling case to essentially switch missiles
The Bremen class frigates are up for sale through VEBEG for scrapping anywhere in the EU or Turkey. The individual units have been cannibalized and "partially demilitarized" over the last few years. Weapons have been reused on F125.
My understanding is its about layers of defence.Short, medium and long ranging missile systems working together to provide insurance to the fleet. Probably don't need two missile types providing the same service for a given layer.
Mind you the little honda civic of the 80's is a different class of vehicle compared to today.
I guess systems sometime evolve to become something they originally didn't start off as.
Keep training and logistics to as few systems as is needed without compromising the fleets defence needs would be my thoughts.
Regards S
Nice to here from you Kato!
Which is why Australia probably wasn't that interested in the F-125 given its packing the attack stuff from much older and smaller ships (and not fitting land strike and ABM). So with the Polish proposal Australia is going to give away a full featured frigate with systems to help out Europe instead of a country like Germany doing it out of their budget and equipment? I know this isn't going to happen anyway, but I find the whole concept crazy and ironic.
Germany saved money building the F-125's by reusing equipment. The F-125 design was then offered to Australia, who wasn't interested in such a light armed ship. Australia then offers Germany's next door neighbor ships of approximate of the type Germany just decomissioned to help them deal with current threats. But this means leaving equipment that it could use on a new light class of vessels that we would probably deploy into regions much riskier (Persian/Aden gulf, SCS) than Polands current waters.
Its not like Australia couldn't use the equipment off the FFG's.
Yes, but each of the three contenders are well aware of the required number and type of cells required. I left out "canisters" after ESSM, my bad. Always has been planned as quad packed mixed inventory Blk1 and Blk2. This work is currently the scope of the SEA1352 programme.
Got that, but it is not something currently in the public domain ..... pity really. As I said it will be interesting to see what configuration is offered with each of the bidders. Navantia have proposed 48 cells in their concept but whether this is more that what is required in the RFT is a bit of an unknown as far as I am aware (unless it is in the public domain). I don't expect to see a change in the type of missiles to be carried for the reasons already discussed.
The definitive number of cells in both FREMM and T26 has not been indicated in the concepts to date and I do not expect we will have this level of detail for a while yet. You never know the Navantia offer may have less cells if the RFT is specified a lower number.
In simple terms what I have been trying to say is we cannot speculate on, and compare, the load out on the three will be at this stage as we do not have the detail.
You would not need to fit the 76mm immediately. Just retain space for it.
A stabilised remote 12.7mm on each side would be more than adequate for constabulary roles.
Would have thought that maintaining the space is more important (which also means starting out with a full-sized hangar.
Regards,
Massive
Is the reason that there has been an early move to include a combat system that this is required for the OPVs to effectively share their tactical situation via Link 16 etc?
Would seem to make sense given the work being done to build an integrated tactical view across services?
Thoughts?
Massive
- Status