I believe that the F-100 has one station available for a CIWS - that essentially covers the vessel's rear. The baby burke (I think) had up to 4 stations for CIWS. So yes somewhat of a difference. But I don't know enough to more than pass comment.
rb
Class of Air Warfare Destroyers for Aus
- Thread starter abramsteve
- Start date
rb
diggumsbang
Member
'Markus40 Mate, if the F100 is hit on the bow it really makes no sense having the launchers aft does it??! I mean no one is going to be shooting missiles aft when the ship is going down. This doesnt make any sense.'
I dont believe i ever said that the ship was so badly damaged it would be goin down.
:unknown
im just making the point that sure theres the advantage of having the Mk41 VLS system... such as rapid rate of fire etc...
but surely a disadvantage would be that if the launchers were damaged by a bomb or cruise missile it will take out the whole system
comprendo?
I dont believe i ever said that the ship was so badly damaged it would be goin down.
:unknown
im just making the point that sure theres the advantage of having the Mk41 VLS system... such as rapid rate of fire etc...
but surely a disadvantage would be that if the launchers were damaged by a bomb or cruise missile it will take out the whole system
comprendo?
In a realistic hot zone having the 48 cell launcher is way more than whats going to be needed. Its extremely unlikely that one of the F100s is going to run out of amo all at the same time, let alone a second AWD. Besides if ANZACs are around much of the air defence role will be handed to them at a medium range level, and the AWDs take out the longer range.
If Australia was to enter such a saturated hot zone IE The Persian Gulf, this wouldnt be without coalition allies using there own long range weapons to neutralize any threat.
You did raise an interesting point though as to whether the BPEs will have a point Missile System and whether this has already been approved and what type of system this is. I would be interested finding out more about this. Cheers.
If Australia was to enter such a saturated hot zone IE The Persian Gulf, this wouldnt be without coalition allies using there own long range weapons to neutralize any threat.
You did raise an interesting point though as to whether the BPEs will have a point Missile System and whether this has already been approved and what type of system this is. I would be interested finding out more about this. Cheers.
If a missile took out the bow or aft launcher to the extent where it wasnt able to used and beyond repair, the ship itself would be rendered useless. In fact if a missile was to hit a ship with either aft and bow launchers then the ammo inside would explode and destroy that part of the ship. It certainly not going to make much difference based on this situation.
No but it is not an emphatic statement that we are getting 4 ships, just a suggestion we may depending on a range of cicumstances. It is probalby the reason Russ Shalders was smiling today. However there is a lot of landscape to cover between maybe (which is all DefMin appears to have suggested) and really will. As I said before when they start ordering systems for it then I will start to believe.
I think the Australian Government have an open mind on it, otherwise they wouldnt have suggested it. However, we wont know for sure until the last Destroyer comes off the line i would say.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
A defence specialist perhaps, but not of defence history?
Check out how long British Frigates took to sink in the Falklands. Check out how much damage they absorbed WITHOUT sinking.
The point being, a few cannon rounds may damage a launcher to the point it can't be fired and yet not cause the magazine to explode.
An F-100 would be essentially defenceless under such a scenario without a separate CIWS or VLS system. Hence the G&C seeming a MUCH more survivable platform...
Last edited by a moderator:
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
Without SM2 the ANZAC's will have a hard time defending themselves let alone someone else. As far as the 48 cells, if you have 8~12 filled with TLAM + harpoon (i'm not sure if they're planning cannisters or tubes) 8 ESSM then you've got <32 SM2's, thats less than a perry haz. Against mid altitude swarm attacks that aint very special. And against low altitude threats, AEGIS coupled with AEW, SM2's will be able to fired before the target is in LOS and illuminated as soon as it is in LOS, that gives you more time to get missiles in the air. And with SM3+ to SM6 you will be able to reach out over the horizon. Against SEA opponants 48 will do fine, I'm not sure if anyone has more than that many ASM's in SEA at the moment. But against PLA/PLAN or IAF, swarm attacks are going to be the name of the game, and the more cells you've got the better yout chances.
What about indipendant action in SEA vs PLAN in a limited conflict??? We will both have competeing interests in the area??? We cant base our platform aquisitions arount the assumtion that we will be sailing with the USN. then 48 cells might prove a bit restricting.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
The F-100 will be carrying canister launchers for Harpoon. The VLS variant of Harpoon has not yet been created and might not ever...
I've got a feeling that only 8x VLS cells will be filled with ESSM on the F-100 at any one time. Much like the ANZAC's. That way 40x SM-2/6 can be carried.
An SM-3 capability might be carried at some point, but I doubt the entire fleet will be equipped with it on a permanent basis...
The SPS Mendez Nunez (F104) will partisipate in today's Ballistic Missile Test on the US West Coast. It has also recently been testing its CEC compatibility with allies.
I think it is a better than good bet these are two examples of "Australianized" F-100. The F-105 has a number of small 'enhancements' over the previous 4 F-100s as well, so I would bet the F-105 variant + some of the new improvements to integration of AEGIS are part of the deal. Given Australia's place in terms of relationship with US on defense technology, and with Raytheon as the integrator, I wouldn't be suprised if the AWDs have all the latest when they come into service.
With the CEC enhancements moving into the Korean and Japanese AEGIS vessels, one could imagine a pretty stout defense capability in a coalition of warships in the Pacific. While people tout the merits of AEGIS and APARS as examples of progress in Naval systems capabilities worldwide, in the end the CEC integration between a number of countries in the Pacific extend the capabilities of naval vessels in the Pacific well beyond that of virtually any potential advesary on either land or sea, including some competitors in Europe and Asia that lack a true CEC model for cross tracking and response to threats.
I think it is a better than good bet these are two examples of "Australianized" F-100. The F-105 has a number of small 'enhancements' over the previous 4 F-100s as well, so I would bet the F-105 variant + some of the new improvements to integration of AEGIS are part of the deal. Given Australia's place in terms of relationship with US on defense technology, and with Raytheon as the integrator, I wouldn't be suprised if the AWDs have all the latest when they come into service.
With the CEC enhancements moving into the Korean and Japanese AEGIS vessels, one could imagine a pretty stout defense capability in a coalition of warships in the Pacific. While people tout the merits of AEGIS and APARS as examples of progress in Naval systems capabilities worldwide, in the end the CEC integration between a number of countries in the Pacific extend the capabilities of naval vessels in the Pacific well beyond that of virtually any potential advesary on either land or sea, including some competitors in Europe and Asia that lack a true CEC model for cross tracking and response to threats.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Well, APAR, SAMPSON and SPY-3 are or will be significant improvements to the ships sensor systems themselves. Netcentrics is the real gamechanger, of course.
IIRC, the Type 45 is also planned to get CEC in 2012. So it is not only the naval elements in the Pacific that can play together.
Anyone know if the NAAWS ships (APAR) have or will have CEC?
IIRC, the Type 45 is also planned to get CEC in 2012. So it is not only the naval elements in the Pacific that can play together.
Anyone know if the NAAWS ships (APAR) have or will have CEC?
Type 21 frigates
Ardent - 1 day. Hit by 9 500lb bombs at 14:00: 6 UXB, 3 exploded. 20 minutes later, still making 17.5 knots & fighting onboard fires, was hit twice more. Burned. Sank next morning.
Antelope - 1 day. Abandoned (500 kg bomb exploded, aflame, with missile magazines exploding & UXB aboard) evening of May 23rd. Sank next day.
Type 42 destroyers -
Sheffield - scuttled after 6 days. Burned out after a hit by an Exocet fired at short range, so still with most of its fuel aboard, spread burning fuel through the ship.
Coventry - capsized quickly (but all the crew not killed by the bombs got off). Sank next day.
Type 21 is about half the tonnage of F100. Type 42 about 75%.
An American naval architect, who has worked in Japan & Korea, said on another forum today that neither the the KDX-3 nor the Japanese Kongou are Arleigh Burke derivatives. He reckons the superficial similarity in appearance is just that - superficial - and due solely to the need to fit in the SPY-1 radar arrays. Pointed out that the building standard for the Kongous is one of the new commercial standards for naval ships (often misleadingly spoken of as if they're the same as civilian standards), which is incompatible with it being derived from AB, which is built to US naval standards, & that both Korean & Japanese shipyards are expert enough that they don't need to copy US designs. Indeed, the flow of shipbuilding expertise is all the other way now, with the Koreans having caught up with what the Japanese have been doing for a while & selling their designs (& sets of components) to US yards.I think the "Death Star" nickname was meant for the new Korean AB derivates which are really packed with weapons.
Yep, you've got it.Let me guess which forum this was.
Had something to do with tanks maybe...
I also read it some hours ago. Very interesting.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Check out Swerve's posts regarding RN ships struck during the Falklands. Also I'd advise looking into the results of the various Sinkex exercises that have been done. One thing that has come out of that is that an AShM very rarely is able to actually sink a warship. What they often are able to do though is achieve a "mission-kill" where the missile damages a vessel enough so that it is no longer able to function sufficiently to participate in an operation.
IMV by having VLS cells in two different locations on a ship, the Baby Burke is doing two things.
1. Making it more likely that some VLS capacity would be lost in the event of damage to the vessel.
2. Similarly, making it more likely that if the vessel is damaged, it retains some VLS capacity.
As for being able to hand off air defence to the Anzacs, I don't consider that reasonable or viable. The upgraded Anzacs carrying 32 ESSM with 1 (or is it 2?) illuminators. ESSM from what I've read has been quoted as having various effective ranges up to 20+ km, but in the USN it is being used more as a short/point-defense SAM. To me, that says that the ESSM should be saved and used to intercept any leakers that penetrate a mid to long-range SAM umbrella. It also indicates, at least to me, that having the AWD carry primarily quadpack ESSM would be ineffective. Especially if there is only 1 illuminator aboard the F-100. A better missile mix assuming 48 Mk-41 VLS cells IMV would be either 40 SM-2 & 32 ESSM, or 32 SM-2 & 64 ESSM. Now, if an idea I'd mentioned for also having the F-100 design incorporate duo-pack ESSM in Mk 56 VLS cells edging the hangar, in addition to to 48 Mk-41 VLS cells that could be a bit different.
An important item to consider with regards to the numbers of available VLS cells. It is unlikely that all the VLS cell missiles would be expended at once unless things went south (or from an antipodean perspective would that be north?:unknown ) very quickly. Depending on the occasion though, it might well happen that all of one type Mk-41 VLS missile could be expended if only limited numbers of different missiles are carried. One reason why I was in favor of the G&C design is the larger number of cells aboard, allowing more missile flexibility. As it stands now, the F-100 looks likely to carry 8 Harpoon and 48 Mk-41 VLS cells, which means it most likely wouldn't have cells available for TLAM or ASROC. Not being able to carry ASROC means any onboard ASW capability is restricted to 6 lightweight ASW torpedoes (MU-90 likely) and whatever the heli can carry, when it's available to deploy.
I just hope it doesn't indicate a ship philosophy on the part of the RAN like the RN had during the 70's and up until the Falklands Conflict. As was found during the Falklands Conflict, because of the kit used aboard different ships, in order provide Area Air Defence, two different classes needed to deploy together to cover both high and low altitude attacks. This had come about because RN ships were designed specifically to combat Soviet/Warsaw Pact equipment and doctrine. As a result of tailoring the RN to fight the Soviet forces, some of the vessels were less useful in general operations.
Hopefully the RAN will not run into a similar issue.
-Cheers
Very true. The Mk-41 VLS is equipped with a water curtain around the launcher and a deluge system to flood cells if needed in case of damage or fire, the missile will be useless of course but it won't explode either. Gun magazines are equipped with sprinkler systems for that same reason.
Most USN ships only carry a 2 or 3 VLA's so the F-100 can get away with having 3 VLA and not loose much air defense capability. But I agree with you about TLAM though, 48 cells just isn't enough especially when you want to add in SM-3's and SM-6's.
If I have computer access in my nursing home in 2037 I'll be very interested to read about the cabinet discussions re this decision. Admiral Shalders did seem happy after the two ships were announced but we need to remember that he had only two options:
Option 1 Publicly support the government's decision and show enthusiasm for the benefit of naval morale.
Option 2 Resign as CNS!
I suspect that he may have been won over by a promise that a fourth ship would at least be considered. It may also be that the money saved from the F100 selection was linked to the selection of the BPE for the amphibious forces. It may be that he has been given commitments that the F100 will be fully equipped with every available option (e.g. CIWS 'fitted' whereas the Armada ships are fitted 'for but not with' CIWS), including perhaps a consideration of some design upgrades (but I think this possibility is unlikely). Whatever the reasons we will have to wait a long time to find out but that is one of the things that makes a study of naval history interesting.
Re the missile fitout, I agree with AD that the most likely 'normal' loadout will be 40 SM-2/6 and 32 ESSM (8 cells) plus 8 Harpoon (quad cannisters). In some circumstances in the future it is possible that approx 8 SM-3 could be added for BMD. Personally I think the acquisition of Tomahawk has faded somewhat with the selection of the F100. If carried I suspect they would be instead of rather than as well as SM-3. Had the G&C design been chosen I think the ESSM load may have been 64 but I expect 32 will be the usual number on the F100s. Re ASROC, I'm unaware of any consideration of this weapon by the RAN. I expect ASW to be handled primarily by the helicopter. It's a pity there will only be one but the Canberras will be able to help out in this regard.
Cheers
Good Choice
From where I sit on the other side of the tasman I believe the F100 provides the best platform with the least risk involved and lord knows the ADF has experienced its fair share of problems with its recent purchases. Having been on board a F100 it is an impressive ship (although I really only have a ANZAC to compare it with) and all the prior discussions regarding not having enough VLS is rubbish. The ADF is not going to go to war with an opponent which will have the ability to overwhelm the defences of these ships except in a coalition environment.
Once again well done and I will just sit here with jealousy
From where I sit on the other side of the tasman I believe the F100 provides the best platform with the least risk involved and lord knows the ADF has experienced its fair share of problems with its recent purchases. Having been on board a F100 it is an impressive ship (although I really only have a ANZAC to compare it with) and all the prior discussions regarding not having enough VLS is rubbish. The ADF is not going to go to war with an opponent which will have the ability to overwhelm the defences of these ships except in a coalition environment.
Once again well done and I will just sit here with jealousy