Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[ADMk2]

Since the topic of Canberra's layered defence is popping up I'll put it out there, What would theoretically (within the realm of reality, ie: it can actually be fitted and we are likely to use it) be the best layered defence for the ship's them selves?

So far they have the 4 x Rafael Typhoon 25 mm remote weapons systems but may soon have upto 3 x Phalanx's, Are the complementing them or replacing them (In part of in full)?

The Phalanx and 25mm Typhoon mounts appear to me as more close in weapons so I'm stumped if I can work out why you would need both so if any one can help out there be much appreciated.

SeaRAM tends to be the medium range system while ESSM-ER tends to be the long range system (In regards to this vessel, I don't think any one in there right mind would be wanting to fit RIM-174 to the LHD's).

I'd imagine ESSM would come before SeaRAM purely cause we actually have history with those systems, we have (or will have) spare launcher's and such a move would create more jobs (Ceafar) for Australia.

Regards, vonnoobie.

ESSM requires far more 'real estate' in terms of the footprint of the VLS but also in terms of radar, combat system and fire control supporting capabilities, including Continuous Wave Illuminating Transmitters and so on.

Such is going to be a much larger imposition onto the ship than a standalone system like SeaRAM Block II would be, albeit in exchange for more capability.

I guess the issue is, is ESSM too much capability and expense for what is intended as a self defence capability and given it will always be escorted on operations by better armed and dedicated warships, is a purely self-defence system good enough?

I personally think a mix of Typhoon, Phalanx and RAM / SeaRAM is more than enough for us in the near term in an escorted environment as that is how most Western Amphibs are operated.

Longer term perhaps something like CAMM that doesn't require the fire control support that ESSM does, might be an option if the space is available to include a VLS, but I think ESSM is too much for the Canberra Class and diverts too much from it's primary role.

 

[Alf662]

Since the topic of Canberra's layered defence is popping up I'll put it out there, What would theoretically (within the realm of reality, ie: it can actually be fitted and we are likely to use it) be the best layered defence for the ship's them selves?

So far they have the 4 x Rafael Typhoon 25 mm remote weapons systems but may soon have upto 3 x Phalanx's, Are the complementing them or replacing them (In part of in full)?

The Phalanx and 25mm Typhoon mounts appear to me as more close in weapons so I'm stumped if I can work out why you would need both so if any one can help out there be much appreciated.

SeaRAM tends to be the medium range system while ESSM-ER tends to be the long range system (In regards to this vessel, I don't think any one in there right mind would be wanting to fit RIM-174 to the LHD's).

I'd imagine ESSM would come before SeaRAM purely cause we actually have history with those systems, we have (or will have) spare launcher's and such a move would create more jobs (Ceafar) for Australia.

Regards, vonnoobie.

Phalanx and SeaRAM are stand alone units whilst ESSM requires major integration and equipment upgrades which is going to be quite expensive.

If three Phalanx were installed or even allowed for, one of the units could be replaced by SeaRAM if it was deemed necessary at a later date. This would be cheaper and quicker to implement. If the third Phalanx was actually installed it would free up one or two phalanx units for use else where.

Personally, I think three Phalanx would be allowed for but we will only ever see one or two actually installed for normal peace time operations.

 

[Volkodav]

Phalanx is a great improvement, whether missiles are subsequently installed is up to capability development and the government of the day.

Factors that will be considered will include such things as the actual threat and available systems to counter or mitigate the threat. Also very important is platform interfaces / ease of integration and support issues. For instance when starting from scratch RAM may well be cheaper than ESSM but in the case of the RAN we will not be starting from scratch because Typhoon, Phalanx and ESSM are already in service and fully supported. Mk-41 is in service, fully supported, systems are becoming available as the FFGs retire, including not just the launchers but also surplus consoles, interfaces and fire controls from the ANZAC ASMD that are fully compatible with the combat system installed on the LHDs (the RAN specified the same SAAB system as fitted to the ANZACs).

Also of relevance is the RAM uses slant launchers for which their are real estate and back blast issues (if we nominate VLS RAM Block II or Sea Ceptor instead we are back to a VLS unit anyway). ESSM is also getting a last ditch ABM capability, something RAM will likely never have.

Should Australia adopt RAM, perhaps for all phatships, or an upgrade option for the OPVs, then no problem, if we are talking about acquiring the system for two ships only, introducing its training and support overheads, it hardly seems worth in. Compare that to an in service, fully supported system, that is compatible and already integrated with the combat system used in the LHDs, for which the RAN has surplus launchers, consoles, fire controls and for which there is a world standard locally developed upgrade available.

 

[rockitten]

It's not 3 exactly but up to 3 per a ship so I'd imagine there is plans to grow the phalanx pool, at least by 50% I'd imagine.

regarding to the "3 phalanx per ship", from the Turkish LHD, I can see 2 spot (one next to the ski jump and one at the stern end of the bridge. But where will the 3 rd one be installed? Starboard side of the aft aircraft lift?

https://turkishnavy.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/levent.jpg

 

[ADMk2]

Phalanx is a great improvement, whether missiles are subsequently installed is up to capability development and the government of the day.

Factors that will be considered will include such things as the actual threat and available systems to counter or mitigate the threat. Also very important is platform interfaces / ease of integration and support issues. For instance when starting from scratch RAM may well be cheaper than ESSM but in the case of the RAN we will not be starting from scratch because Typhoon, Phalanx and ESSM are already in service and fully supported. Mk-41 is in service, fully supported, systems are becoming available as the FFGs retire, including not just the launchers but also surplus consoles, interfaces and fire controls from the ANZAC ASMD that are fully compatible with the combat system installed on the LHDs (the RAN specified the same SAAB system as fitted to the ANZACs).

Also of relevance is the RAM uses slant launchers for which their are real estate and back blast issues (if we nominate VLS RAM Block II or Sea Ceptor instead we are back to a VLS unit anyway). ESSM is also getting a last ditch ABM capability, something RAM will likely never have.

Should Australia adopt RAM, perhaps for all phatships, or an upgrade option for the OPVs, then no problem, if we are talking about acquiring the system for two ships only, introducing its training and support overheads, it hardly seems worth in. Compare that to an in service, fully supported system, that is compatible and already integrated with the combat system used in the LHDs, for which the RAN has surplus launchers, consoles, fire controls and for which there is a world standard locally developed upgrade available.

BBDA is an issue, but let's not get carried away. SeaRAM is a module swap on an existing Phalanx Block IB platform with a software upgrade for the control system...

There is no comparison between installing SeaRAM to any Mk 41 launched, semi-active guided missile system and their related fire control systems...

The cost of SeaRAM I suspect is also infinitely below that of ESSM...

 

[r3mu511]

ESSM is also getting a last ditch ABM capability, ...

^Is this for ESSM block 2 ? Do you have a link/ref for this BMD capab ?

My understanding is that for terminal BMD (SBT/sea-based-terminal) the USN options are modified SM2-BLK4 and SM6.

 

[Volkodav]

BBDA is an issue, but let's not get carried away. SeaRAM is a module swap on an existing Phalanx Block IB platform with a software upgrade for the control system...

There is no comparison between installing SeaRAM to any Mk 41 launched, semi-active guided missile system and their related fire control systems...

The cost of SeaRAM I suspect is also infinitely below that of ESSM...

Sorry AD, but you are still ignoring blast damage, a major factor in fitting slant fired missiles from positions not specifically designed for them, and the fact that ESSM is a well established system in the RAN, with a full support system in place and surplus launchers, consoles, directors and other functional components either already available or coming on line.

Personally I like RAM, SeaRAM and RAM BlockII, I like the way it can be easily integrated on existing vessels (arcs and back blast taken into account), will eventually be compatible with VLS and can either be integrated in an existing CS or be pretty much stand alone. It would be a great addition to the RAN where it could conceivably provide an extra air defense / anti missile layer and could conceivably, as required, find its way onto everything from the proposed OPVs, to the new AORs. That is so long as they have a suitable position to fit them and there being the money to introduce another system.

I'm not saying RAM is bad, or that its unit cost is higher than ESSM, rather that overall systems cost needs to take other factors into account.

Do we already have a system that would do the job in service?
Do we have a pool of available surplus systems that could be used?
Is it viable to fit the existing system to the platform in question?
Is it better value for money to use the existing system or to procure a new system?

These days its all about systems of systems, how everything works together and complements each other. RAM would be great but its definitely not the only option and looking at the big picture it may not be the best or even the cheapest, let alone the best value for money.

Perhaps this will put my thinking in perspective for those reading.

The Millenium 35mm CIWS is an out standing system, it clearly out performs Phalanx in many ways, should we have procured Millenium systems to fit to the LHDs instead of using upgraded Phalanx? It could be argued that using Phalanx means we have to buy more examples, which would not be necessary if we bought Millenium, and that the surface performance of 35mm was such the Typhoons could be deleted from the LHDs too. Together these could have neutralised the cost of the new system, why didn't we buy Millennium

 

[Volkodav]

^Is this for ESSM block 2 ? Do you have a link/ref for this BMD capab ?

My understanding is that for terminal BMD (SBT/sea-based-terminal) the USN options are modified SM2-BLK4 and SM6.

I don't have the reference at hand but I believe the USN trialled ESSM as a last ditch ABM option vis the DF-21D threat with some success. I imagine it to be one of those not ideal but may save your skin options. Don't know the details but imagine you would need an ABM configured escort and CEC in the mix to make it work.

 

[r3mu511]

^Could you perhaps have mixed that up w/ the terminal BMD tests involving SM2-BLK4 or SM6 ?

The SBT tests are listed in the mda.mil website, while the test vids are uploaded to the Aegis BMD channel (http://www.youtube.com/user/AegisBMD), and no terminal BMD tests there involved ESSM. Neither do any of the CRS reports on the Aegis BMD program, nor the MDA report updates (links are aggregated at mostlymissiledefense.com) report any terminal BMD testing w/ ESSM.

Your posts are the first I've read about ESSM use for SBT so I'm really curious as to where you came across the info. Anyway if you do recall/find where you read about it pls. do post the link, thanks.

 

[ADMk2]

Sorry AD, but you are still ignoring blast damage, a major factor in fitting slant fired missiles from positions not specifically designed for them, and the fact that ESSM is a well established system in the RAN, with a full support system in place and surplus launchers, consoles, directors and other functional components either already available or coming on line.

Personally I like RAM, SeaRAM and RAM BlockII, I like the way it can be easily integrated on existing vessels (arcs and back blast taken into account), will eventually be compatible with VLS and can either be integrated in an existing CS or be pretty much stand alone. It would be a great addition to the RAN where it could conceivably provide an extra air defense / anti missile layer and could conceivably, as required, find its way onto everything from the proposed OPVs, to the new AORs. That is so long as they have a suitable position to fit them and there being the money to introduce another system.

I'm not saying RAM is bad, or that its unit cost is higher than ESSM, rather that overall systems cost needs to take other factors into account.

Do we already have a system that would do the job in service?
Do we have a pool of available surplus systems that could be used?
Is it viable to fit the existing system to the platform in question?
Is it better value for money to use the existing system or to procure a new system?

These days its all about systems of systems, how everything works together and complements each other. RAM would be great but its definitely not the only option and looking at the big picture it may not be the best or even the cheapest, let alone the best value for money.

Perhaps this will put my thinking in perspective for those reading.

The Millenium 35mm CIWS is an out standing system, it clearly out performs Phalanx in many ways, should we have procured Millenium systems to fit to the LHDs instead of using upgraded Phalanx? It could be argued that using Phalanx means we have to buy more examples, which would not be necessary if we bought Millenium, and that the surface performance of 35mm was such the Typhoons could be deleted from the LHDs too. Together these could have neutralised the cost of the new system, why didn't we buy Millennium

BBDA - backblast danger area. I am not ignoring it, but neither of us have the information available to comment on that. The design work to allow the adding Phalanx to the Canberra Class in RAN service hasn't even been conducted yet, let alone the design of SeaRAM or ESSM or any other system that might be considered, so how the back blast might effect the ship when we don't even yet know where it might possibly be positioned is a bit of a long bow on which to rule in or out a particular system...

The same logic applies to the installation of a Mk 41 VLS with all of it's inherent through deck penetration issues, the addition of search radar, fire control radar, illuminators and so on. Okay we have them already purchased, I get that and it's a great capability but suggesting it is going to therefore be cheaper than 6-8 SeaRAM modules to be added to in-service Phalanx mounts is I think, once you consider the engineering and design effort that will be required and the TLS costs of the full suite of kit required for ESSM, just a bit of a stretch...

The Millenium gun example is a non-sequitor. Phalanx on Canberra is an addition to an already in-service capability that will be remaining in-service on AWD (and Choules I believe?) and SeaRAM is a spiral upgrade of that in-service (or soon to be at any rate) capability, not an entirely new capability. Any entirely new capability is going to be more expensive than an off the shelf upgrade such as Phalanx 1B to SeaRAM and as to arcs... 2 millienium guns versus up to 3 Phalanx / SeaRAM and 4x 25mm Typhoons? Seriously?

I don't have a dog in the fight, we are getting Phalanx Block IB and I think we'd all agree that is a great upgrade in self-defence capability compared to now. Personally I think ESSM onto the Canberra Class is a bridge too far for what those vessels are intended for and I'm also not attracted to the argument that re-using ESSM from the FFG's would be cheaper than buying SeaRAM however I do concede if possible to do so, it would provide far more capability.

It is the cost, time and effort of integrating ESSM onto these ships I am uneasy about, compared to the cost and effort for the capability you get from SeaRAM over Phalanx IB, should it prove viable for installation, that sways me toward it.

Furthermore I haven't ever seen or read of one Phalanx /SeaRAM mount having to be modified or relocated on any vessel in existence because of the backblast issue you raise, but I am happy to be better informed on that topic.

 

[Volkodav]

^Could you perhaps have mixed that up w/ the terminal BMD tests involving SM2-BLK4 or SM6 ?

The SBT tests are listed in the mda.mil website, while the test vids are uploaded to the Aegis BMD channel (http://www.youtube.com/user/AegisBMD), and no terminal BMD tests there involved ESSM. Neither do any of the CRS reports on the Aegis BMD program, nor the MDA report updates (links are aggregated at mostlymissiledefense.com) report any terminal BMD testing w/ ESSM.

Your posts are the first I've read about ESSM use for SBT so I'm really curious as to where you came across the info. Anyway if you do recall/find where you read about it pls. do post the link, thanks.

It was definitely ESSM which is why I remember it, the capability was not something I expected to read about

This is not the article I recall but does mention the capability against maneuvering, high supersonic diving targets.

Raytheon: ESSM intercept of high-diving threat proves expanded defensive capability - May 14, 2013

 

[Volkodav]

BBDA - backblast danger area. I am not ignoring it, but neither of us have the information available to comment on that. The design work to allow the adding Phalanx to the Canberra Class in RAN service hasn't even been conducted yet, let alone the design of SeaRAM or ESSM or any other system that might be considered, so how the back blast might effect the ship when we don't even yet know where it might possibly be positioned is a bit of a long bow on which to rule in or out a particular system...

The same logic applies to the installation of a Mk 41 VLS with all of it's inherent through deck penetration issues, the addition of search radar, fire control radar, illuminators and so on. Okay we have them already purchased, I get that and it's a great capability but suggesting it is going to therefore be cheaper than 6-8 SeaRAM modules to be added to in-service Phalanx mounts is I think, once you consider the engineering and design effort that will be required and the TLS costs of the full suite of kit required for ESSM, just a bit of a stretch...

The Millenium gun example is a non-sequitor. Phalanx on Canberra is an addition to an already in-service capability that will be remaining in-service on AWD (and Choules I believe?) and SeaRAM is a spiral upgrade of that in-service (or soon to be at any rate) capability, not an entirely new capability. Any entirely new capability is going to be more expensive than an off the shelf upgrade such as Phalanx 1B to SeaRAM and as to arcs... 2 millienium guns versus up to 3 Phalanx / SeaRAM and 4x 25mm Typhoons? Seriously?

I don't have a dog in the fight, we are getting Phalanx Block IB and I think we'd all agree that is a great upgrade in self-defence capability compared to now. Personally I think ESSM onto the Canberra Class is a bridge too far for what those vessels are intended for and I'm also not attracted to the argument that re-using ESSM from the FFG's would be cheaper than buying SeaRAM however I do concede if possible to do so, it would provide far more capability.

It is the cost, time and effort of integrating ESSM onto these ships I am uneasy about, compared to the cost and effort for the capability you get from SeaRAM over Phalanx IB, should it prove viable for installation, that sways me toward it.

Furthermore I haven't ever seen or read of one Phalanx /SeaRAM mount having to be modified or relocated on any vessel in existence because of the backblast issue you raise, but I am happy to be better informed on that topic.

Fair call, sorry I missed that, serves me right for reading and responding on my phone while taking the kids to see a movie. I really wish I could have conned the boys to see finding Dory or Ice Age 17 instead of BFG.

 

[vonnoobie]

In regards to the Phalanx, From my understanding we have 12 unit's which appear to be slated for most of our larger ships and nothing for the Frigates.

Upgraded Phalanx for LHDs in 2018

3 x Block IB baseline 1's are going to the 3 AWD's (1 each) [To be upgraded to baseline 2 post d elivery]
6 x Block IB baselines 2's are going to the 2 LHD's (3 each)
3 x Block IB baseline 2's are going to the Choules and future AOR's (1 each)

2 x extra Block IB baseline 2 mounts will be acquired down the track to inform the self-defence requirement's of the future frigates.

I'd say down the line we will increase it even further (from the current planned 14 units), though personnaly they really should consider the cost benefits of scrapping the Phalanx and acquiring something more capable (if at all available).

 

[Stampede]

In regards to the Phalanx, From my understanding we have 12 unit's which appear to be slated for most of our larger ships and nothing for the Frigates.

Upgraded Phalanx for LHDs in 2018

3 x Block IB baseline 1's are going to the 3 AWD's (1 each) [To be upgraded to baseline 2 post d elivery]
6 x Block IB baselines 2's are going to the 2 LHD's (3 each)
3 x Block IB baseline 2's are going to the Choules and future AOR's (1 each)

2 x extra Block IB baseline 2 mounts will be acquired down the track to inform the self-defence requirement's of the future frigates.

I'd say down the line we will increase it even further (from the current planned 14 units), though personnaly they really should consider the cost benefits of scrapping the Phalanx and acquiring something more capable (if at all available).

Having a look at some pic's and graphics of Canberra in may just be possible to to get 360 degree coverage with phalanx using the aft portside and the forward starboard side bushmaster positions. Would that mean at the expense of the bushmaster or would they be reposioned I dont know.
Just a thought, I'm of the understanding the typhoon has the ability to both carry a 25mm cannon and 3 mistral class sized SAM. Such a combination seems a low cost solution to inner defence. While I acknowledge it's not in the RAM, ESSM class, I would assume such systems are best kept on the escorts with a inner ring of Mistral class SAM's being a good last resort for the last few KM,s. As I understand this missle is good for both limited surface response ( fast boat threats ) UAV's and I'm sure will cause some damage to the seekers of any incoming missles if not destroy smaller incoming aerial threat. A gun /missle combination would be a good use of realestate and I'm sure would not present the back blast issues of larger missle types.
While Phalanx has been upgaded and has been a popular system it is very expensive,has limited range and needs to be of sufficient numbers to provide full 360 coverage........... Why only one on the AWD?
As a last resort I'm sure a ship would prefer to face the kinetic energy of a damaged incoming missle at 4km distance away rather than 1km.
Maybe time to think about phalanx style CIWS's.

Thought's
S

 

[Volkodav]

Mistral, well it may have been the Sadral shipboard variant, was considered for the ANZAC ASMD upgrade before the CAEFAR / Vampir sensor and SAAB combat system upgrade was decided upon instead.

Multiple layers are good, but sometimes just improving the platforms ability to see and understand what is going on does more than adding additional weapon systems. The best hard kill options are useless if not online or cued to the threat, meaning identification and decision making are usually more important to the outcome than what you have to throw at a threat. The obvious exception being situations such the loss of two Amazon class frigates in the Falklands, despite modern sensors and fire control because the single Seacat, Mk-8 4.5" gun mount and pair of pintle mounted 20mm were grossly inadequate. A 57mm Bofors SAK 1 or 2, or a 76mm Oto-Melata Compato/Super Rapido instead of the Mk-8 and power operated director controlled 30, 35, or 40mm guns, let alone Seasparrow or Aspide would likely have made all the difference.

 

[Joe Black]

Mistral, well it may have been the Sadral shipboard variant, was considered for the ANZAC ASMD upgrade before the CAEFAR / Vampir sensor and SAAB combat system upgrade was decided upon instead.

Multiple layers are good, but sometimes just improving the platforms ability to see and understand what is going on does more than adding additional weapon systems. The best hard kill options are useless if not online or cued to the threat, meaning identification and decision making are usually more important to the outcome than what you have to throw at a threat. The obvious exception being situations such the loss of two Amazon class frigates in the Falklands, despite modern sensors and fire control because the single Seacat, Mk-8 4.5" gun mount and pair of pintle mounted 20mm were grossly inadequate. A 57mm Bofors SAK 1 or 2, or a 76mm Oto-Melata Compato/Super Rapido instead of the Mk-8 and power operated director controlled 30, 35, or 40mm guns, let alone Seasparrow or Aspide would likely have made all the difference.

Now that the Canberra class has the Sea Giraffe AMB radar, it should be able to redirect weapons to bare upon the incoming threats. Adding an EO like the Vampir (or reusing the Radamec 2500 EOTS system from the decommissioned FFGs) would be perfect I suppose to provide more weapon controls.

If RAN would not introduce SeaRAM, I would think that a pair of Mistral RC or Mistral Sadral mount would add massively to the multi layered defence of the ship.

 

[zhaktronz]

Now that the Canberra class has the Sea Giraffe AMB radar, it should be able to redirect weapons to bare upon the incoming threats. Adding an EO like the Vampir (or reusing the Radamec 2500 EOTS system from the decommissioned FFGs) would be perfect I suppose to provide more weapon controls.

If RAN would not introduce SeaRAM, I would think that a pair of Mistral RC or Mistral Sadral mount would add massively to the multi layered defence of the ship.

Land giraffe can cue Land-Ceptor CAMM - so I am assuming sea giraffe can cue SeaCeptor. If it wasn't for the fact it would be an orphan system in RAN service I'd say it would make a great self defence missile for the ships.

 

[ngatimozart]

Land giraffe can cue Land-Ceptor CAMM - so I am assuming sea giraffe can cue SeaCeptor. If it wasn't for the fact it would be an orphan system in RAN service I'd say it would make a great self defence missile for the ships.

Why would Sea Ceptor be an orphan in RAN service? It is going into RNZN service as well. It can be cued by most third party radar systems.

 

[zhaktronz]

Why would Sea Ceptor be an orphan in RAN service? It is going into RNZN service as well. It can be cued by most third party radar systems.

Well AWD won't mount it, and I can't imagine the Frigates will mount it if ESSM is an option, so what else would mount it?

 

[Volkodav]

Why would Sea Ceptor be an orphan in RAN service? It is going into RNZN service as well. It can be cued by most third party radar systems.

Either Sea Ceptor or RAM Block II would be a nice addition to the RAN or ADF for that matter and if adopted for the LHDs could be easily integrated in the Hobarts or future frigates, maybe even the OPVs. It is compatible with Mk-41 as well as the ExLS so quite versatile on how it can be fitted to the ship (as will RAM) so what it comes down to is whether there is a solid requirement that will lead to an acquisition for a system to slot in below ESSM.