Don't want SMs of any type on an ANZAC, they don't have the stability reserves for it. What I was thinking about was for the ANZAC replacements that are meant to be significantly larger ships with a large stike length VLS.
I guess one would need some method of providing mid course updates to the missile in flight much like the AMRAAM? Not sure whether CEAFAR is capable of doing that? That may be a constraint in deploying the SM-6 on the ANZAC class even if it could use off board cuing data for a firing solution.
It should also significantly increase the lethality of the ANZAC's ESSM load. Nifty idea...
Given the massive increase in capability the AWD represents it may indeed be a bridge to far; i.e. why bother? Shame though.
I agree, though I would have thought a quad packed ESSM would be getting close to the weight of a single SM-6.Volkodav said:
ANZAC II's are really destroyer sized vessels and probably going to be based on a vessel which already sails with the AN/SPY-1D. So the larger and more powerful AUSPAR would definitely be more appropriate.
Given the fact that the ANZAC's replacements are actually a different class of vessel and much more capable I doubt CEAFAR is going to be adequate. Hopefully they'll end up being a non-AEGIS Hobart with a domestic search radar.
My issue is with the number of cells, in current configuration the ANZACs have a single 8 cell strike length VLS, this equates to 32 quadpacked ESSM or 8 of something bigger. At the end of the day though current stability margins probably limit the ANZACs to a single 8 cell VLS and even if that could be addressed the design only includes space for a second 8 cell VLS. This means the maximum load out of SM-6 on an ANZAC would be 16, hardly worth the effort. Using the Extensible Launcher, RAM Block II and Nulka could be included in the mix which probably would be a better use for an additional 8 cells.
One would indeed, command mid-course guidance isn't possible without it...
) and eventually for SM-6 to the ANZAC Class...To maximise the defensive "bubble" with the ships spread out in theatre. Wedgetails won't be circling overhead constantly afterall... ANZAC's won't be capable of carying their own SM-2/6 weapons true, but that doesn't mean they can't provide data from their sensors that the AWD can make use of...
That seems to be RAN's intention, much of the focus of the "Future Frigate" (FF) is it's anti-submarine capability, but just like the AWD with it's " Air Defence" focus in literature, it seems as if the FF will in reality have an extremely strong multi-role capability.
With RAM and Nulka each having their own dedicated launch systems, why would you want to tie up your precious Mk 41 cells when they are at a premium anyway?
Mine is not to reason why RAM Block II or additional Nulka may be desired only to point out that should additional VLS cells find their way on to an ANZAC the Extensible Launcher increases the options of what could be used to fill them in addition to the current 32 ESSM.
True, but I can't for the life of me see why you'd opt for RAM when you could just as easily put more ESSM into an ANZAC IF it had the margin for an additional 8x cell Mk41 VLS system.
True, the real potential of the Extensible Launcher is probably in integrating other weapon types, maybe a VLS version of what ever ends up replacing Hellfire etc. Also makes more sense when looking at the low end of town as well, the LCS or our proposed OCVs, it would give a lot of mission specific load out options for a ship with a limited number of cells.
my understanding was that the plan was to use AEGIS but swap out SPY with AUSPAR i think someone on here might of said it.
Abe mentioned that it had been suggested, not sure at what level though. Just remember, just because something makes sense doesnt mean its going to happen.
AUSPAR is considered as a long term option for mid life upgrade of the Hobarts to replace the SPY-1 radars (also to over AEGIS platforms which is why the USN is funding it). As to the level it was suggested to me it was from the then AWD systems project manager (RAN CDRE). The exact term was "we will see these radars on the ships during their lifetime." But its not something that is likely before 2020-30ish. The space and weight savings of such a change would be huge, as well as capability.
I was about to have another rant on the Australian, but luckily Defence saved me the rouble... bloody sensationalist murdoch press.Facts that still seem to be beyond the comprehension of most journo's
On the Record - Department of Defence
Good to see Griggs giving them a bit back, served with him when he was a 2 ringer on the JB as Nav and he was a "spade is a spade" no bullshit sort of guy then, hope he continues this line to expose some of these people for the true fools they are
The Collins Class submarines are a political football that was used to make Kim Beazley look incompetent and unsuitable to be PM. The truth of the matter is we have a highly capable piece of kit that, along with its operators, maintainers and builders has been unfairly criticised for political and other reasons. I would go so far as to suggest that the politicisation of the submarine project has had a very real and adverse effect on the RANs submarine capability.
News Limited are "fair and balanced" always reporting the truth and nothing but the truth!
i can answer that as i happened to be up there for Bersama(lima or shield i kept mixing them up and getting in shite
)The issue with CEA FAR is (AFAIK) its power output per T/R module. Even if you upscaled the system by installing more "tile's" it still wouldn't be competitive with SPY-1D. That's why AUSPAR is in development.
That's correct. It's not simply a scalable issue. But given that the SPY-1 is a first gen and CEAFAR is a fourth gen aesa the two technologies are quite different. The AMDR program will attempt to achieve a 4th gen radar for US ships.
The problem CEA has now is breaking their customers out of legacy ideas and thinking about who to use a modular system. SingrayOZ makes a good point, a distributed radar system would be an interesting idea. I was impressed by CEA's stand at LWC where they had the current ASMD CEAFAR system on the back of a bushmaster (in images). Nailing an on-the-move Air Defence/CRAM system would be a considerable achievement.