weasel1962
New Member
Re:
Deleted
Deleted
Last edited:
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
I haven't seen any final plans for the Hobarts. I have seen pictures of the Spanish F-100s, there seems to be space available above the hangar for Phalanx CIWS, I would assume they could be upgraded to SEA-RAMs. Whether the 21 cell RAMs can be installed, I do not know. It appears there is space, but I am not sure about weight above the hangar.
48 cells provide 40 cells or less to use SM-2 or SM-3 missiles, similar to the Mk 13 missile launchers of the Adams and Adelaides plus 8 cells to quad pack ESSMs. In my book 72 missiles is better than 40. While I preferred the Gibbs and Cox design which included more cells, that design was considerably more expensive. A fourth F-100 in my mind is more important, obviously its more affordable if the ship costs less.
I also preferred the Gibbs and Cox design
A fourth F-100 would be nice
We will just have to wait and see if the AWD will be equipped with SM-3 and Tomahawks
If Australia decides to equip the AWD with both SM-3 & Tomahawk missiles what would be the ideal layout of the missile cells?
Depends on how many missiles desired for each mission. The more SM-3s and Tomahawks, the fewer SM-2MRs will be carried. Fortunately, the government hasn't bought any of either yet. While they will be nice to buy, lets get the fourth ship bought first.
Without a war I would be happy with SM-2MRs and ESSMs, plus Harpoons. Only in a war do you really want SM-3s and Tomahawks. I wouldn't necessarily buy either of them unless there was a serious threat to Australia.
Without a war I would be happy with SM-2MRs and ESSMs, plus Harpoons. Only in a war do you really want SM-3s and Tomahawks. I wouldn't necessarily buy either of them unless there was a serious threat to Australia.
You certainly have a point, but with the proliferation of advanced combat aircraft throughout our region, a reasonable case could be made for the more advanced missiles.
I do hope that the RAN allows for future developments as well such as the SM-6 Extended Range Active Missile (ERAM) which isn't that far away (2010ish). Considering the Hobart class uses the Mk41 VLS, this may be an option.
battlensign
New Member
I have a sneaky, cunning plan.........
I sense some space on the front deck behind the Mk 41s ....lets put the Harpoons there and then use the currently allocated harpoon place for a 21 Round RAM Box Launcher......on each side.....(42 Missiles added).
The field of fire seems okay........Only potential issue is the weight @ 6 tonnes apiece (for a total 12) versus around 4.5-5 tonnes for the Harpoons in such a location.
I am happy to open this one up to the floor. Any views are welcome.....
Brett.
I found the photo on the web site of the firm that is building 3 models of the Hobart class for the AWD alliance. It shows what looks very much like a hard stand for a Phalanx CIWS right at the aft end of the hanger roof (I remember what they look like from my time on the Brisbane).
http://www.defencemodels.com.au/Projects/images/DSC05715lrg.jpg
In the second photo it i think I can see white dome of the CIWS but im not sure. It also shows what looks like a 25mm on the bridge wing.
http://www.defencemodels.com.au/Projects/images/DSC05729lrg.jpg
If true this is very good news for not just the close air defence of the AWD'S but also the close defence against fast movers with a pair Typhoons and a block 1B CIWS
http://www.defencemodels.com.au/Projects/images/DSC05715lrg.jpg
In the second photo it i think I can see white dome of the CIWS but im not sure. It also shows what looks like a 25mm on the bridge wing.
http://www.defencemodels.com.au/Projects/images/DSC05729lrg.jpg
If true this is very good news for not just the close air defence of the AWD'S but also the close defence against fast movers with a pair Typhoons and a block 1B CIWS
An interesting find
. One of the other unpainted pictures found elsewhere on the Hobart project page site does indeed have a phalanx mounted there
: defencemodels.com.au/Projects/images/DSC05483lrg.jpg
A 4th AWD will see the RAN on a very nice footing.
The key point of the F-100 design is that it allows for 4 ships. Realistically 4 AWD type ships would be more useful to the RAN that 3 super ships, as the RAN is spread pretty thinly at the best of times. Having 2 ships escorting a LHD for instance would be far superior to a single super ship. (better radar coverage, Redundancy, Illuminators, guns, ASW, etc).
Given that we are highly unlikey to see a saturation attack with out some US escort in a group, the total missile load out isn't vitally important (unlike Korea or say Japan). Even still 70+ missiles plus CIWS plus typhoons per ship is still conciderable.
The F-100 design can be scaled up to quite a tidy ship given some modest design changes for Australian requirements. I think Australia will go for expanding it to carry as much as possible, but perhaps not buying a full missile load for each ship to save money. Thats ok, missiles can be easily transfered from ships or purchased in emergency.
This allows, SM-3, SM-6, Tomahawk missiles to be purchased at a later date when required, or budgeted. Im not so sure Tomahawk is really required, the land attack harpoons carry the same warhead, and have enough range for the region. The benifits seem to be marginal. SM-3 is not really required either at the moment. Could be handy if Australia needs to face off against ICBM's or pull spy sats from Orbit.
Buying these during a argument would send a very clear message. These would be loaded on a task basis, they wouldn't be standard issue.
Australia has always had a stronger navy than Canada. Now it looks like we will have a stronger Airforce and a Navy twice as strong, with a strong amphibious capability in the army. Then again, Canada is in a very quiet region. Australia is on the edge of the next multi power hotspot.
The key point of the F-100 design is that it allows for 4 ships. Realistically 4 AWD type ships would be more useful to the RAN that 3 super ships, as the RAN is spread pretty thinly at the best of times. Having 2 ships escorting a LHD for instance would be far superior to a single super ship. (better radar coverage, Redundancy, Illuminators, guns, ASW, etc).
Given that we are highly unlikey to see a saturation attack with out some US escort in a group, the total missile load out isn't vitally important (unlike Korea or say Japan). Even still 70+ missiles plus CIWS plus typhoons per ship is still conciderable.
The F-100 design can be scaled up to quite a tidy ship given some modest design changes for Australian requirements. I think Australia will go for expanding it to carry as much as possible, but perhaps not buying a full missile load for each ship to save money. Thats ok, missiles can be easily transfered from ships or purchased in emergency.
This allows, SM-3, SM-6, Tomahawk missiles to be purchased at a later date when required, or budgeted. Im not so sure Tomahawk is really required, the land attack harpoons carry the same warhead, and have enough range for the region. The benifits seem to be marginal. SM-3 is not really required either at the moment. Could be handy if Australia needs to face off against ICBM's or pull spy sats from Orbit.
Buying these during a argument would send a very clear message. These would be loaded on a task basis, they wouldn't be standard issue.
Australia has always had a stronger navy than Canada. Now it looks like we will have a stronger Airforce and a Navy twice as strong, with a strong amphibious capability in the army. Then again, Canada is in a very quiet region. Australia is on the edge of the next multi power hotspot.
TAKE THAT Canada!. You are weak and punny while we a strong like animal!
I wouldn't be suprised if there was a couple of mini typhoons as well. Hopefully new build warships next decade don't still come with manual 50cal mounts, especially seeing that mini typoons can be fired "old school" if the need arises.
I understand the reason the last CN suddenly quit going on about the baby bourke was because the government dangled the possibility of a fourth (f100) AWD. I would of loved the baby bourke or even a normal bourke (why stuff with a proven design?) but four F100's is the better option.
Good spot htbrst, I didn't see that one
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
Deleted
Deleted
Last edited:
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
Deleted
Deleted
Last edited:
battlensign
New Member
I have a sneaky, cunning plan.........
I sense some space on the front deck behind the Mk 41s ....lets put the Harpoons there and then use the currently allocated harpoon space behind the main superstructure near the RHIBs for a 21 Round RAM Box Launcher......on each side of the ship.....(42 Missiles added).
The field of fire seems okay........Only potential issue is the weight @ 6 tonnes apiece (for a total 12) versus around 4.5-5 tonnes for the Harpoons in such a location.
I am happy to open this one up to the floor. Any views are welcome.....
Brett.
I realise this idea is somewhat hard to visualise at the moment, so I have found some pics to assist. A) = the Current Harpoon Location and B) = the forward space behind the Mk 41 Cells.
A) http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/SHIP_FFG_F100_Visits_Sydney_2007-03_lg.jpg
B) http://www.historialago.com/av_600_esp_eborense_f100.htm
(two pics on this page indicate space behind the Mk 41s)
Brett.
P.S tried writing this twice before......but the damn upgrades kept interferring.
P.P.S Some extra Pics:
http://www.jeffhead.com/aegisvesselsoftheworld/SPA-Bazan.gif
http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2007/06/20/ship_pm__wideweb__470x279,0.jpg
http://img386.imageshack.us/img386/9666/buques2pu0.jpg
Last edited:
Interesting to see SAMs of some sort (probably short range) being launched from above the helo hangar (similar to Anzac class).
If Harpoon is available in a vertically launched version by the time the AWDs come into service there seems no reason why some could not be loaded in the forward VLS cells, enabling RAM (or even ESSM) to be fitted amidships, along the lines suggested by battlensign. I wonder if there is room above the helo hangar for a Mk 56 VLS either side for dual packed ESSMs.
Tas
Like I said, canada has different priorities. At this point in time I think Australia is getting the better deal (at a higher cost). The Collins are way better craft than the Victorias (tho, in Canadian hands still useful) and we have a definate plan to replace them, the LHD is a better craft (IMHO for Australia) than the Honkin' big ship (JSS). We are going with a very useful destroyer design, Canada doesn't seem to have any firm direction on that front. Canada seems to be trying to do too much in house and not just getting the best thing for every body.TAKE THAT Canada!. You are weak and punny while we a strong like animal!
Canada is still comming off a cold war footing and doesn't really seem to know where she fits in. But in Naval terms she has nearly always been behind Australia. Two carriers to her 1, usually more modern and powerful ships, usually in greater numbers (slightly). Airforce has been a Canadian strong point but that seems to be in great decline.
So for all the baging the ADF gets for missmanaged projects(of which there are a few), overall Australia has excellent capability for its size.
Four evolved, problem free, early time, on cost F-100's is a nice buy. The burkes were just too risky, to pricey and too late. I would like to see a 3rd LHD purchased and the offer of a 5th AWD in perhaps 2012+. But by 2012 the AWD design will no longer be cutting edge, so perhaps the money is better spent on an all new frigate replacement to compliment the AWD.
The LHD I don't think will date as quickly (after all it has mimimal weapon systems installed and its real value is what it can carry) so a 3rd LHD would be really good value. Particularly as a UAV carrier, Helo carrier, F-35B operator, amphibious operations, hospital, evac etc. Also regionally no one will have anything her size or capability so I imagine the Canberras would be in great demand for regional tasking, aid and training.
Agreed. I suspect that during the next few decades the LHDs may well prove to be the most valuable asset in the RAN, just like the C-17s seem to be proving in the airforce.
Tas
battlensign
New Member
Tas, my point was that - if I am right and the pics show enough space behind the Mk 41s on the front deck (still not sure how much space required) - then it may be possible to do all three right now:
1) Relocate Harpoons from current location to area specified
2) Attach two 21-Round Box Launchers for RAM, and
3) Go with your possible idea for Mk 56 above the hanger for ESSM.
- Now that would be a Warfighting Improvement Program!
Brett.
- Status