Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Just for reference, 600t is 20 ASLAV's without any support vehicles or anything, by the time you add in logistics etc, you are probably talking about deploying about 12 ASLAV's maximum.
To put it into perspective - the JHSVs capability spectrum is roughly in line with that of the French BATRAL, which are LSTs operationally used for forward-deployed Guepard "intervention companies". ALPACI currently has two of them assigned, one in Papeete and one in Noumea. The range envelope is rather similar to a JHSV too.
A Guepard company is a self-contained light infantry unit and consists of 140 men with 8 VLRA medium trucks and 4 jeeps that can be operationally supported by a full tank platoon, a light helo and a shipbourne mortar team (all transportable within the BATRAL including supplies and ammunition for a deployment of these units).

Now, if the RAN expects to do a lot of peace-enforcing in certain Pacific islands, they could be useful... otherwise, just not.
 

Abraham Gubler

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
I don't think any of the posts here actually understand what the ADF sealift capability is for. Its to sustain the deployed amphibious group's at sea and ashore forces beyond the two weeks of ground operations stores carried in the LHDs. Its not to move an armoured brigade from port A to port B and its not to carry out its own amphibious landings. So in effect the sealift capability will need to provide the consumables for a combined arms battlegroup and naval support group from +14. Considering these groups will include large numbers of ships, tanks, AFVs and helicopters and over 1,200 personnel deployed ashore its a lot of stuff.

There are different possible methodologies to carry out this role including the high speed connector (JHSV) or the less glamourous merchant like cargo ship role. Considering that speed is not a crucial requirement (compared to a coastal connector role) the sealift capability is likely to be two medium sized converted merchant ships with a flight deck, RO-RO and ship to ship container capability. The LHD concept being developed by the ADF is very much a "sea base" concept and the sealifters will most likely be tasked to resupply the LHDs not to port.
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I still think the JHSV would be a reasonable alternative.

The JHSV cost are reportedly $100 million per vessel. If we could tack onto the US production run, then there are alot more savings (as well as very low risk and includes local involvement).

They provide substantial operational cost savings and offer capability the other options don't such as high speed and very shallow draft (providing exceptional littoral capability).


I think the range is sufficient for the ADF (from Incat):

Operating Range is a minimum of 1,200NM at 35 knots (average speed) in SS3 with 600 tonne pay load

Transit Range is a minimum of 4,700NM at 25 knots (average speed)

It is worth noting the US are going to use these for regional deployment from Guam, so they must have sufficent range.

I am not saying the JHSV is a leading contender, but at the same time, I wouldn't completely discard it as an option either.
Actually it think it is 600 tonnes deadweight and that has to include crew, fuel, stores etc etc in addition to cargo. If you add helos and support arrangements you will run out laod very quickly.

As far as speed is concnered this is in calm conditions and speed of advance at above sea state 3 or 4 will be much lower. As you note the high speed option tends to be heavy in fuel reducing the vessels range but if the ship is attempting to run at this speed in anything but dead calm conditions fuel consumption will be even greater. The 'cruising range' at 25 knots is also weather dependent as these are light weight hulls. These are expensive beasts to run and are at their most useful is short haul high speed runs in good conditions.

I think 100 million may be a little opmtimistic, however, at the other end of the scale you can get a purpsoe built RO-RO (I am basing this on a highly modified design I have been involved with for another specialist requirements) with about 36000m2 of space, sustained speed of 21 to 22 knots (in otherwords faster than the LHD and higher that the cruising speed of the escorts) with a range in the order of 23000nm with a DWT inthe order of 10000 ot 12000 tonnes for about 100 to 120 million USD (that includes spares by the way). Normal crew would be 12 to 17 but in military guise thsi would go up. Accomodation is not a problem.

I know which way I would go
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
Yes, I think that two regular commerical RoRo or just container vessels are the way to go with slight modification.
Namely:
+ Aviation facilities. Land at least 1 chinook (preferably more shared with container space). With fuel etc store areas. Hanger atleast 1 helicopter (NH-90).
+Ship to ship transfer for containers on deck.
+Crewing space provided for 50 and emergency passenger for 150 additional (in sardine can configuation) with some flexable space areas (meeting rooms, first aid room (could be upgraded later to mini field hospital levels), larger kitchen facilities (to feed say 250 in emergency). Most likely through a larger superstructure on top.
+A large fuel store area. (not its primary function but can perform this role to a very limited degree)
+Larger desalinators
+enhanced radar and communication
+enhanced damage control and fire control systems.
+enhanced data network
+A largish stores lift, to lift from the lower levels to the flight deck.
Fairly minor modifications would only add a few million to the price. Two of them would mean we could sustain LHD deployment on pretty lengthy stays (a year or more?). The fact that they multiply the strength and usefulness and endurance of the LHD's make them irresistable. I would like to see them upsized to what ever is efficently large, bigger than point class, smaller than bob hope class. Something of 30-40,000t would be ideal.

As the LHD's are designed to work together to deliver ~2,400 personel, sustaining that is a major undertaking. These will be like aircraft carriers in international power projection. But instead of just dropping bombs they land people and equipment and provide control and command space.


I think the benifits the JHSV bring arent fundemental enough. Perhaps after the two heavy sealift ships. One would be an interesting asset. Given what we were able to do with just one tiny little ship before. Its the sort of thing that would make planning against an amphibious assault even harder.
 

PeterM

Active Member
It is interesting that people seem to be discussing two commercial ships instead of one.

How would that compare capability wise with two JHSVs or perhaps
one JSHV and one commercial RoRo?
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
It is interesting that people seem to be discussing two commercial ships instead of one.

How would that compare capability wise with two JHSVs or perhaps
one JSHV and one commercial RoRo?
Two JHSV would give you about 1200 tones of DWT over a short distances in good sea conditions at a cost of well over 200 million USd with no ongoing support capacity.

With our limited budget it is simply not worth it. The may look the biz but high speed come at a cost in both capcity and operational limits not to mention operating costs.

I am ont he same page as Battle ensing on this and the fixation on HSV's beggers belief.
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Yes, I think that two regular commerical RoRo or just container vessels are the way to go with slight modification.
Namely:
+ Aviation facilities. Land at least 1 chinook (preferably more shared with container space). With fuel etc store areas. Hanger atleast 1 helicopter (NH-90).
+Ship to ship transfer for containers on deck.
+Crewing space provided for 50 and emergency passenger for 150 additional (in sardine can configuation) with some flexable space areas (meeting rooms, first aid room (could be upgraded later to mini field hospital levels), larger kitchen facilities (to feed say 250 in emergency). Most likely through a larger superstructure on top.
+A large fuel store area. (not its primary function but can perform this role to a very limited degree)
+Larger desalinators
+enhanced radar and communication
+enhanced damage control and fire control systems.
+enhanced data network
+A largish stores lift, to lift from the lower levels to the flight deck.
Fairly minor modifications would only add a few million to the price. Two of them would mean we could sustain LHD deployment on pretty lengthy stays (a year or more?). The fact that they multiply the strength and usefulness and endurance of the LHD's make them irresistable. I would like to see them upsized to what ever is efficently large, bigger than point class, smaller than bob hope class. Something of 30-40,000t would be ideal.

As the LHD's are designed to work together to deliver ~2,400 personel, sustaining that is a major undertaking. These will be like aircraft carriers in international power projection. But instead of just dropping bombs they land people and equipment and provide control and command space.


I think the benifits the JHSV bring arent fundemental enough. Perhaps after the two heavy sealift ships. One would be an interesting asset. Given what we were able to do with just one tiny little ship before. Its the sort of thing that would make planning against an amphibious assault even harder.
I suggest some of these modifications would add a lot the the prices as some of the facilties will alter the basic design of the ship. This is particlarly true of massive increases in accomidation and fitting large lifts and full aviation facilities.

In the first instance power genration and the rudundancy of supplies will be the biggest design issue you will need to deal with in the first instance as this has a knock on effect for every thing else.

Assuming we are talking 20" GP containers I am afraid ship to ship transfer is not an option unless the ship is at anchor in still waters and you have a geared ship. Relying mainly on RO-RO operations is a simpler option (and wouel be more flexible for these types of operations. This could be faciltaited by the ramp(s) being fitted in a manner that would allow use with lighterage equipment.

If you want to maximise lane length container stacks are a bit of an issue but thes could be empolyed using Mafi's and tugs on RO-RO decks. Again more flexibilty, less weight and modifications.

A cautionary note on top weight. Putting a lot of facilties up high on a RO-RO ship will limit your operaional flelxibilty. Fuel and stores for thes assets are another complication for a large air wing that will push up cost and complexity. As this vessel will operate with other 'air capable' ships a bare bones deck that coudl support a range of helos (perhaps with more than one spot) would appear to be a better option rather than trying to make the support vessel fully air capable. Lifts are not a huge isuse provided we don't get carried away. Small lifts over many decks are practical but large lifts over the full range of decks will add weight, complexity and cost. Lifts from one deck to another present less of a problem

On tonnage, for RO-RO vessel area and DWT is a better messure than displacement tonnage. A pure 36000 m2 RO-RO vessel only has a DWT of 12000 tonnes due to its configuration (mind you this also facitlates a good speed and range with moderate fuel burn) however the vessel will be 200+ m long and 30 odd metres wide. A similar size container vessel is likley to have a DWT of 25000 tonnes and have a higher fuel burn for the same speed. Every thing is a compromise.

From my experiance you can carry out significant modifications to a pure RO-RO to provide a massive increase in power generation and water making capacity and shold be able to work in an increases in accomodation (to about 100) and steelwork within 125 million USD to provide about 30000 to 36000m2 of space.
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
I suppose that was a dream list.

I think ship to ship transfer might still be possible with smaller containers. While efficency would suffer it would still be a very sweet facility to have. Atleast lifting 1/2 containers with cranes or simular (not massive Bob hope sized things). The LHD should be very handy docking up close near other ships. Other stuff can be airlifted by NH-90's or Chinooks. (maybe a on deck handling vechical would be of use). Multiple landing spots would be useful, 3 spots markings would be ideal but I would imagine these would share with container space. Roro would be used when ever possible and landing craft could transfer back to the LHD or what not.

Lifts would be small double pallet sized. You would want a few 2 to 4 would be good. Something helo sized would again be ideal but not essential.

Fuel stores would be say ~20 thousand litres. Enough to keep things operating at extended ranges or odd mission profiles. These could be mobile tanks (depending on the mission the LHD may benifit from having them on board directly). I would perfer more but again its not something to get hung up over.

Desal and power gen are definately solveable. Atleast allowing removal of wounded or relieving personel. In a far more comfortable way than a JHSV.

For the price your estimating and the capability it would offer would be exactly what we need.

Two means we have a greater range of operation. Say 8 days sailing from port. Say 3 days unloading (may be difficult due to non existant port facilities etc), 8 days sailing back, 2 days loading (remember not just a simple car roro load). Total of 21 days between vists per ship. Two ships means resupply every 11 days at normal operation. Bad weather, delays etc would not hurt 14 day resupply. 1 ship would essentially mean only operating say 3 days sailing distance. 20kt = 36kmph
1 ship =~3000 km radius
2 ships = ~7000 km radius
Excuse my very rough back of the napkin calculations.

Or conversely we can resupply a greater force (allies with LHA's etc) with greater frequency.

There is no urgency to get the JHSV. Why not wait until they have something very useful to get. And get that later on. Then again why not put the money towards a carrier?
 

swerve

Super Moderator
I don't think any of the posts here actually understand what the ADF sealift capability is for. .
On the contrary, I think that many of the posts here demonstrate quite a good understanding of exactly what you describe. What you describe is the role of the Point-class - and those ships, and their role, & how it might be met by other ships, have been discussed in a large proportion of the posts.
 
Last edited:

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I suppose that was a dream list.

I think ship to ship transfer might still be possible with smaller containers. While efficency would suffer it would still be a very sweet facility to have. Atleast lifting 1/2 containers with cranes or simular (not massive Bob hope sized things). ?
As a regulator we would never accept this as it is down right dangerous (even half size containers can be 15 tonnes and surging means the applied load increases). The energy involved in a swinging load is considerable. Cargo can be worked wiht cranes at anchor in still conditions or alongside, however why bother with continers when you can have rolling loads. Containers have to be carfully secured iternally and are hard to move over a beached unless on a trailer so unitised laods suited to RO-RO operations would appear to be more sensible.


Lifts would be small double pallet sized. You would want a few 2 to 4 would be good. Something helo sized would again be ideal but not essential.?
Why 4 lsifts to move 1.2m2 pallets (stanard pallet). This means 4 service areas top and bottom for fork lifts to move the things anyway. thsi woueld only be used for material being helicpted off as most of the load should roll off.

Two means we have a greater range of operation. Say 8 days sailing from port. Say 3 days unloading (may be difficult due to non existant port facilities etc), 8 days sailing back, 2 days loading (remember not just a simple car roro load). Total of 21 days between vists per ship. Two ships means resupply every 11 days at normal operation. Bad weather, delays etc would not hurt 14 day resupply. 1 ship would essentially mean only operating say 3 days sailing distance. 20kt = 36kmph
1 ship =~3000 km radius
2 ships = ~7000 km radius
Excuse my very rough back of the napkin calculations.

?
Your sums presuppose your area of operations is within a three day voyage (noting these are not as the crow flies and island dodging means thsi could be quite close). It is equally possible you will be outside this (say somewhere in the pacific). The problem with two ships is that you have twice the operating ongoing costs which tend to overtake the purchase price. As I understand it the role of this vessel is provide ongoing support as opposed to shuttling. For the latter role STUFT ships can be chartered on an as needs basis without the recuring costs. Two LHD's and the afloat support vesel provide a great capability in the Australian context. I wouel love a third air optimised LHD but thinsk this is is very much pie in the sky in the current political climate.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
Alexsa,

what conditions are needed for offloading from a ro-ro ramp at sea? Calm seas, I presume. Necessary to be at anchor? Would it need a sheltered anchorage? Any particular requirements for the ramp & what it's being offloaded to? In what conditions is it practical to offload from a ro-ro to Mexeflotes, for example, or an LCU?

I wonder if something like an upgraded Makassar-class might fit the Australian requirement, within the budget. Makassar seems to be remarkably cheap for a ship with a dock. It's also slow, very basic, as far as I can see, & has a relatively big crew. A faster, better-equipped, more automated version would cost a lot more, but might still be within budget. If Daesun can do that for Indonesia, might they be able to do a higher-spec & larger, but still affordable, version for Australia? Or would the desired improvements push the price too high?
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Alexsa,

what conditions are needed for offloading from a ro-ro ramp at sea? Calm seas, I presume. Necessary to be at anchor? Would it need a sheltered anchorage? Any particular requirements for the ramp & what it's being offloaded to? In what conditions is it practical to offload from a ro-ro to Mexeflotes, for example, or an LCU?

I wonder if something like an upgraded Makassar-class might fit the Australian requirement, within the budget. Makassar seems to be remarkably cheap for a ship with a dock. It's also slow, very basic, as far as I can see, & has a relatively big crew. A faster, better-equipped, more automated version would cost a lot more, but might still be within budget. If Daesun can do that for Indonesia, might they be able to do a higher-spec & larger, but still affordable, version for Australia? Or would the desired improvements push the price too high?
Calms seas are definately needed but depending on the ramp (some are self tensioning) you may have a little more scope with the ramp.
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
As a regulator we would never accept this as it is down right dangerous (even half size containers can be 15 tonnes and surging means the applied load increases).
Well Im not a warfie, I've moved full sized containers with a Merlo telescopic handler and a palette jack. I guess its not whats done in professional circles (we have also moved them with two bob cats even just two palette jacks).

I guess it depends on the mission profile and what you are actually handling and how its packed.

Why 4 lsifts to move 1.2m2 pallets (stanard pallet). This means 4 service areas top and bottom for fork lifts to move the things anyway. thsi woueld only be used for material being helicpted off as most of the load should roll off.
I would think there would be some loads that would be helicoptered off (or on) ASAP even before arrival.

I still think two ships are the go, and can be subcontracted out when not required. Even if they are smaller ships..
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Well Im not a warfie, I've moved full sized containers with a Merlo telescopic handler and a palette jack. I guess its not whats done in professional circles (we have also moved them with two bob cats even just two palette jacks).

I guess it depends on the mission profile and what you are actually handling and how its packed.

..
There is a vast difference between moving boxes on land and trying to do it at sea on an active surface. Ship to ship tranfer gives you two active surfaces moving in three dimensions. Combine this with the fact the pivot pointis at the crane head and the whole thing becomes intersting. Dont forget the end walls of standard containers are only teted to 0.4 of the load while the side are tested at 0.6. Most internal shaing points are only rated at 1000kg.

This is adequate where the container is stowed and the contents well lashed but start flinging the thing about in a seaway where the G forces will increase and there is a good chance the cargo will come to greet you even if you manage to land the thing without smashing it up.
 

luv2surf

New Member
Nations swap ideas on keeping frigates fresh



By Christopher P. Cavas - Staff writer
Posted : Tuesday Mar 10, 2009 15:55:10 EDT
The venerable Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigate has been in Navy service for more than 30 years, but many of the 63 remaining ships could be around decades more. An international gathering this spring will consider ways to keep the ships running and even give them a bit more punch.
“What I’m looking for is the ability to have each country understand what activities and products each other country brings to the table,” Rear Adm. James McManamon, deputy commander for surface warfare at Naval Sea Systems Command, said during a recent interview. “These ships are going to be around for a while.”
The Perry-class guided-missile frigates — also known as the FFG 7 class — fly the flags of countries around the globe, from Australia and Taiwan in the Pacific to Bahrain, Egypt and Turkey in the Middle East and Poland and Spain in Europe. Fifty-one were built for the U.S. and entered service from 1977 to 1989. Of those ships, 30 remain in U.S. service and most of the rest were transferred to allies. All the nations are interested in keeping the warships viable.
The frigates were designed at the height of the Cold War as convoy and amphibious group escorts. Considered inexpensive, they had a single-arm launcher for 40 SM-1 standard surface-to-air missiles, but their biggest punch resided in a double helicopter hangar and a flight deck intended to carry anti-submarine helicopters.
Although they displace more than 4,000 tons, the frigates have been criticized as cramped and tough to modernize. But they remain practical assets.
“What has changed is an increasing awareness of the utility of the FFG in the littorals and the increased ability of our aviation assets,” McManamon said. “When you put an armed helicopter on an armed ship with a shallow draft that is fuel-efficient, that is valuable. In the littorals, the ships become a lot more viable.”
NavSea and the Frigate Class Squadron support group in Mayport, Fla., wanted a forum to bring together all current users of FFGs to share ideas on keeping the ships efficient and effective. The meeting begins May 12 at Mayport. It’s the first such international effort for a particular class of ship, McManamon said.
“There are things the Australians are doing that we’ve been looking at but don’t deal with on a day-to-day basis,” he said. “And the Egyptians have been doing things with hull repair we may want to look at to extend the lives of these ships.”


The Australian navy recently carried out a modernization program for the four FFGs being kept in service after the oldest two were retired. The program suffered from significant cost overruns and schedule delays, but the lessons learned are of great interest to other FFG operators,
McManamon said. The Australians and Taiwanese also are looking at replacing the missile launcher with eight vertical-launch cells.


Initial goals for the May meeting are to establish operator lines of communications and identify communitywide interests and issues. Another meeting, perhaps a year later, will continue that work and present more ideas for keeping the ships up to date. Industry might be invited to participate, McManamon said.
The location — a home port for 12 frigates — should be a great asset as well, McManamon said.
“We’re taking advantage of the expertise and emphasis on FFGs in Mayport,” he said. “We’re hoping to use that as a good thing.”
Where they are

Eight nations operate frigates of the Oliver Hazard Perry class.
• Australia, four frigates.
• Bahrain, one frigate.
• Egypt, four frigates.
• Poland, two frigates.
• Spain, six frigates.
• Taiwan, eight frigates.
• Turkey, eight frigates.
• U.S., 30 frigates.


http://www.navytimes.com/news/2009/03/navy_frigates_030209w/


Is removing the MK-13's realy an option for the R.A.N ?
 

StevoJH

The Bunker Group
Nations swap ideas on keeping frigates fresh



By Christopher P. Cavas - Staff writer
Posted : Tuesday Mar 10, 2009 15:55:10 EDT
The venerable Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigate has been in Navy service for more than 30 years, but many of the 63 remaining ships could be around decades more. An international gathering this spring will consider ways to keep the ships running and even give them a bit more punch.
“What I’m looking for is the ability to have each country understand what activities and products each other country brings to the table,” Rear Adm. James McManamon, deputy commander for surface warfare at Naval Sea Systems Command, said during a recent interview. “These ships are going to be around for a while.”
The Perry-class guided-missile frigates — also known as the FFG 7 class — fly the flags of countries around the globe, from Australia and Taiwan in the Pacific to Bahrain, Egypt and Turkey in the Middle East and Poland and Spain in Europe. Fifty-one were built for the U.S. and entered service from 1977 to 1989. Of those ships, 30 remain in U.S. service and most of the rest were transferred to allies. All the nations are interested in keeping the warships viable.
The frigates were designed at the height of the Cold War as convoy and amphibious group escorts. Considered inexpensive, they had a single-arm launcher for 40 SM-1 standard surface-to-air missiles, but their biggest punch resided in a double helicopter hangar and a flight deck intended to carry anti-submarine helicopters.
Although they displace more than 4,000 tons, the frigates have been criticized as cramped and tough to modernize. But they remain practical assets.
“What has changed is an increasing awareness of the utility of the FFG in the littorals and the increased ability of our aviation assets,” McManamon said. “When you put an armed helicopter on an armed ship with a shallow draft that is fuel-efficient, that is valuable. In the littorals, the ships become a lot more viable.”
NavSea and the Frigate Class Squadron support group in Mayport, Fla., wanted a forum to bring together all current users of FFGs to share ideas on keeping the ships efficient and effective. The meeting begins May 12 at Mayport. It’s the first such international effort for a particular class of ship, McManamon said.
“There are things the Australians are doing that we’ve been looking at but don’t deal with on a day-to-day basis,” he said. “And the Egyptians have been doing things with hull repair we may want to look at to extend the lives of these ships.”


The Australian navy recently carried out a modernization program for the four FFGs being kept in service after the oldest two were retired. The program suffered from significant cost overruns and schedule delays, but the lessons learned are of great interest to other FFG operators,
McManamon said. The Australians and Taiwanese also are looking at replacing the missile launcher with eight vertical-launch cells.


Initial goals for the May meeting are to establish operator lines of communications and identify communitywide interests and issues. Another meeting, perhaps a year later, will continue that work and present more ideas for keeping the ships up to date. Industry might be invited to participate, McManamon said.
The location — a home port for 12 frigates — should be a great asset as well, McManamon said.
“We’re taking advantage of the expertise and emphasis on FFGs in Mayport,” he said. “We’re hoping to use that as a good thing.”
Where they are

Eight nations operate frigates of the Oliver Hazard Perry class.
• Australia, four frigates.
• Bahrain, one frigate.
• Egypt, four frigates.
• Poland, two frigates.
• Spain, six frigates.
• Taiwan, eight frigates.
• Turkey, eight frigates.
• U.S., 30 frigates.


http://www.navytimes.com/news/2009/03/navy_frigates_030209w/


Is removing the MK-13's realy an option for the R.A.N ?
No, the Ships have already been fitted with 8 VLS cells.
 

luv2surf

New Member
The way I read that paragraph is that the FFG-UP(which included the VLS cells and not removing the launcher) was complete, all be it over budget and over due and now Australia and Taiwan are also considering removing the MK13's and fitting VLS cells.
 

Pusser01

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
The way I read that paragraph is that the FFG-UP(which included the VLS cells and not removing the launcher) was complete, all be it over budget and over due and now Australia and Taiwan are also considering removing the MK13's and fitting VLS cells.
The RAN is keeping the Mk13 launcher, it is just being slightly modified to enable it to fire SM2.
Cheers
 

Sea Toby

New Member
Several nations are interested in doing what the Australians have done, Australia has shown the way. Never mind being over budget and late. Simply put, everyone's standard SM1 missiles are approaching the end of their service lives. New SM2 missiles will have to be bought at the very least, minus the booster stage of the larger SM2 missiles currently available.

Considering the difficulties Australia has suffered with their most comprehensive upgrade, other nations may skip the VLS ESSM upgrade.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top