USS Denver is here today picking up the balance of forces. Nice to see Cobras on her deck
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
I haven't been down to Fort Hill since 1100 today and they had just berthed so I expect they're still there.
The way the USN runs their ESGs is to keep the LHD (with the toops, LCACs and transport helos) and the LSD (with the LCUs, ammo and other gear) back out to sea and the third ship (the LPD) in close to shore. The LPD carries the attack helos (Cobras), recce troops and assault amphibians, the sharp end that are best with a minimal transit to shore. Also why with the new LPD 17 class the ship is heavily defended and protected for a landing ship.
It means that our LHD's are a total compromise. They are slated to carry assault Tigers but they will also act as "Sea Bases" offshore. Maybe they should carry extra CIWS.
I guess that's what happens when you're a minnow.
Well the USN ESG is tasked for assault landings which our ADAS isn't: unopposed landings. They are the level up, we are the middle and for example the RNZN is the level down (admin landing only).
The idea of the sea base is they will sit offshore over the horizon and the connectors will do a lot of running back and forth. Which places a lot of burden on the connectors and why we need a proper fast LCM not just the 8 knots when loaded (if you're lucky) LCM8 or LCM1Es.
This however makes the sea base quite survivable. Of course CIWS and ESSM is still a rather good idea when the ship has the signature of the Queen Mary and is carrying around over 1,000 ADF lives on-board. I’d like to see whoever signed off on saving a few hundred million on that one try get out of any post loss inquiry. Actually I don’t want to see it. They need the ASMD capability.
I would imagine it would still be good business to have a ship in close for at least lily padding or emergencies and this is probably a role for the LCH replacement in the battle-group level ADAS.
From memory the original LPD17 design included a Mk41 VLS for ESSM, can't remember if that was in addition to or instead of RAM. I also note that NG were sprucking a missile defense cruiser based on the LPD17 hull.
LPD 17 still has space and weight for a Mk 41 VLS up forward. Money was redirected during the build but to add 30mm gun turrets (from the EFV program) on each beam for anti small boat attack.
Hindsight I think the USN would have been better off with Typhoon rather than the 30mm's. If they upgrade to Phalanx 1B that would be another string to there bow, also, do the RAM version they carry have an anti surface capability?
Does the LHD even have room for anything? (Mk 41 VLS/CIWC etc). With the Spanish BAM/OPV in mind, are they capable of being 'armed up (Harpoon/ESSM etc)?
Well the ship basically has a high end frigate combat system so installing a Mk-41 and some form of illumination would be an easy upgrade.
Maybe but that 30mm is going to be common to LCS, the San Antonio's and DDG-1000.
Also most US ships now carry a pair of Mk-38 MOD 2's as well, from what I read are a modified Typhoon anyway.
Yes the Mk38 is modified Typhoon with the base units supplied by Raphael to BAE for modification. The RAN selected Typhoon over the Mk48 for the AWD because it was already in service with the RAN as well as being cheaper, it is my understanding that the differences were not that great an the RANs Typhoon s could be easily upgraded to Mk48 Mod 2 standard
What do you believe would be ideal for the Canberra class? Sea Sparrow launchers with ESSM? Phalanx? RAM? Is there actual space on the ship for these?
Second question, the mk41 VLS on the ANZAC can be quad packed with ESSM correct? Does this mean that the Hobart class are capable of carrying 192 ESSM's at the one time (48 x 4)? If so, can it be mixed up ie; 96 ESSM's & 24 SM2/SM6?
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Second question first, yes ESSM is quad packed, so for example in both the Anzac's and FFG's the 8 cell Mk 41 can carry a load of 32 ESSM, and I suppose in theory the Hobart AWD's with their 48 cells could carry 192 ESSM, but the questions is, why would they carry that load?
With their primarily role, eg, Air Warfare, I would imagine the balance would be way more in favour of SM-2 (and eventually replaced by SM-6), why would you want to carry such a large load of ESSM at the expense of SM-2/6?
The other factor in the future will be the introduction of land attack cruise missiles, which will no doubt reduce the SM-2/6 load even further.
Going one step further in the future, if LRASM-A is introduced, (would it replace or supplement Harpoon?) there is another missile that would be fired from the MK41 VLS, those 48 cells are starting to get pretty crowded with that mix.
Maybe if there was room somewhere else, say over the hangar, it might be worth putting an 8 cell VLS for ESSM to free up space for the possible load of SM-2/6, Cruise missiles and LRASM-A, is that possible?.
Back to your first question, I might be wrong, but I can't see a VLS system being installed in the Canberra's, I would imagine that if the LHD's were going into a hot situation that a couple of Phalanx, out of the RAN's pool, would be added and that their escorts would be loaded up with ESSM and SM2/6 and if it was a 'really' hot situation, they would probably be part of a larger US led coalition including USN carriers, cruisers and AWD's.
I guess ESSM and Phalanx would be good. These ships have plenty of space and weight for such weapons just that at the moment that space and weight is being consumed by something else. However it wouldn’t bite into the landing group too much to fit an eight cell VLS with 32 ESSM, fire control radar and three Phalanx guns.
Yep and the Spanish load out 64 ESSM per F100 with the other 32 cells for SM2 and TLAM with the RAN very likely to follow. Plenty of Navy types talk about ESSM being the mainstay of their air defence as they won’t shoot until the target is in close (~10 NM or 20km) so they are sure it’s a threat and it can’t spoof them (turn around and escape leaving the missile to run out of fuel before it can hit the aircraft).
If LRASM were to be chosen I doubt the AWD's would carry a separate land attack cruise missile. I suspect any anti-ship cruise missile developed from JASSM-ER would likely retain the legacy JASSM-ER capability, so the weapon would in all likelyhood fill both roles for RAN.
JASSM-ER may be a consideration if the target is at extended distances up to 1000Km distant. LRASM range is reported to be similar to JASSM's 370Km since more internal volume is eaten up by a more complex avionics package at the expense of fuel.
I always wondered if an AEW version of the AW609 would be a better bet, it has a pressurized cabin which would make it more comfortable for the crew at altitude, it's closer in size to the E-2 which would make it a much better fit on a smaller LHD like the Canberra, plus has all the advantages of the MV-22, probably cheaper as well.
Not sure any maximum range has been reported yet, but the VL versions of this missile will have a booster anyway.
In any case 370K's is still a pretty reasonable standoff attack capability in my book (it's good enough for RAAF's primary long range strike capability at present) and might be sufficient overall for ADF's purposes.
It has only ever been speculated that ADF WILL acquire Tactical Tomahawk for it's naval "strategic strike" capability and no doubt it is the indicative planning system, but other systems will exist by then (VL - JASSM-ER, Naval Scalp and so on) and as L-M is funding the integration of JASSM-ER into Mk 41 VLS as part of the LRASM effort, I'd be astonished if they wouldn't consider competing JASSM-ER against the Raytheon Tactical Tomahawk capability in long range strike competitions.
Particularly for users who already have JASSM in their inventory. No doubt many synergies could be found if the JASSM platform were to be consolidated as our all-round strike / anti-ship missile solution for RAN and RAAF...
:sniper
- Status