can't see that happening
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
can't see that happening
Here is a simple question, If ESSM is already working very well for us why would we double up on it by also acquiring the Sea Cepter? I understand there are differences in the missiles but for all intensive purposes they fill the same role.
With ESSM we have been able to increase it's effectivness via CEAFAR and upgrades to the missile its self, Why throw that all away not to mention an industry, supply chainand stockpiled missiles, parts and other associated equipment already firmly established towards ESSM for Sea Cepter?
As for the future army missiles and what we could acquire, If we want to acquire benefit's of using a similar missile across multiple forces then we could also look at ASRAAM as the UK MoD has been fnding a study to see if it is feasable as a replacement to there Rapier system. We also already have that missile in service with the RAAF along with India having it to who in the grand scheme of things is a far more worthwhile nation to tie our procurement in with then NZ if we are looking for any benefits in partner nations also having them.
Regards, vonnoobie.
With ESSM we have been able to increase it's effectivness via CEAFAR and upgrades to the missile its self, Why throw that all away not to mention an industry, supply chainand stockpiled missiles, parts and other associated equipment already firmly established towards ESSM for Sea Cepter?
As for the future army missiles and what we could acquire, If we want to acquire benefit's of using a similar missile across multiple forces then we could also look at ASRAAM as the UK MoD has been fnding a study to see if it is feasable as a replacement to there Rapier system. We also already have that missile in service with the RAAF along with India having it to who in the grand scheme of things is a far more worthwhile nation to tie our procurement in with then NZ if we are looking for any benefits in partner nations also having them.
Regards, vonnoobie.
Yes Volk
Missile X is only as good as the sum of all the parts to make the system work.
Others could advise but I thought there would be sufficient eyes / ears and brain hardware to make installing a fairly simple missle systems like Mistral on board Canberra a relatively straight forward process.
I wonder if it would not be prudent to still look at a Mistral system on the ANZAC,s.
Even with a new class of deystoyer to be built the ANZAC"S will still be in active service for many years and with top weight issues seemingly excluding the use of PHALANX and extra ESSM; maybe it's worth a look at a very short range missle once more.
Regards S
No point. The ANZACs have a Mk-41VLS which could be adapted to fire pretty much anything we needed. There is also space next to the existing 8 cells )which I believe is a tactical length unit that can handle SM-2 etc.) for a second unit. This means, stability permitting, a second tactical length 8 cell vls, a point defence length (as fitted during FFGUP, ExLS, or a variety of bespoke vls cells could be fitted in this space.
Can't really see that happening either but time will tell.
Haven't seen any discussion of requirements as yet, but I get the feeling CAMM might be a little short-ranged for what ADF has in mind...
If more ESSM is desirable in ANZAC's, but not able to be due stability/top weight, then that make it even more desirable to fit ESSM to Canberra Class LHD's.
CAMM requires much less supporting infrastructure than ESSM, which could be attractive for LHDs - they aren't meant to be fighting an air war after all. All CAMM requires is a system to cue the missile to fire (and the Sea Giraffe AMB on the LHDs can do this) and the missile takes care of the rest - no need for illumination or substantial deck penetration.
Blast management is also a much lesser issue as CAMM uses a cold vertical launch and turnover before engaging the rocket motor. As discussed earlier in the thread blast management could be an issue for ESSM.
CAMM also MAYBE also offers increased capability against a saturation attack due to its active seeker. ESSM being semi-active can be limited by the number of guidance channels avaiable (admittedly an issue greatly reduced by the provision of CEFAR/CEAMOUNT illuminators)
Thinkdefence has a pretty good article on CAMM BTW, but I can't link yet.
But in any case whilst having CAMM would be nice, I suspect there is too much capability overlap with ESSM, and well, having both will probably never happen. The only way I could see it happening is if the army were using it (maybe in CAMM-ER form?)
Joe Black
Active Member
Looks like it might require some small redesign works to accommodate the Mk45 gun other than the CEAFAR and Saab 9LV Combat Management System.
Fincantieri seems to be pitching doing module build and involving multiple Aussie companies for a final assembly in ASC, (very much like the AWD build process)?
Sea Power: The Italian Job - Fincantieri's proposal for Sea 5000
Fincantieri seems to be pitching doing module build and involving multiple Aussie companies for a final assembly in ASC, (very much like the AWD build process)?
Sea Power: The Italian Job - Fincantieri's proposal for Sea 5000
The next block upgrade for ESSM is going to add an active seeker ala SM-6 and the USA's SM-2 refurbishment program, so the illuminator issue etc, will be fairly moot within a few years, albeit legacy semi-active modes are like to be retained where possible.
There have been six deck landings of a MV22 Osprey on HMAS Canberra so far as part of the USN and USMC program for integrating their rotary wing assets on the RAN Canberra Class LHD. There are no plans to deck qualify the AV8 Harrier or the F35B on the RAN LHDs.
A 16 cell VLS (as a base) is just completely underwhelming and in my opinion entirely deficient for RAN's future requirements. Given the increase of anti ship missile capability in SEA, SCS and the greater Pacific, this substantial lack of missile capability moving into the future - which is bugger all of an upgrade from the ANZAC class, just beggars belief as to why it was even included in the selection.
How much is lost by adding more to the design? How much future growth does the FREMM design have if more VLS cells are added? What kind of increase would there be - another 16? Still not enough for this region in my opinion.
If every major naval power in the Pacific is acquiring units with 80+ VLS cells on their major surface combatants, why is Australia even looking at acquiring something that provides only a sliver more of capability for substantially more cost over what we have now? Am I missing something? At this point, considering the lackluster FREMM and the oft delayed Type 26, we might as well just get the Navantia offering.
The article claims that the GP variant is more austere than the ASW variant, but that is not really so. Actually the true austere FREMM frigates are the French variants and they are reasonably more expensive for less. The two Italian variants are designed for different tasks. The GP variant has eight SSMs in box launchers, which the ASW variant replaces with ASROC type ASW missiles. If you have 32 Mk 41 VLS cells that gives you a load out of 128 individual ESSM. However, say if 20 tactical length Mk 41 VLS cells are fitted with the remaining 12 being strike length and it is decided to acquire Mk41 compatible SSM, then a load out of 12 SSM reduces the ESSM load out to 80; still a considerable improvement compared to the current max of 32 on the ANZAC class. So really not bad at all.
exactly, and to add to that, the fact that all the information from the Sea Giraffe and 9LV is fed into the system, even without the Canberra's having their own missiles, they will be covered pretty well I think
CEC anyone ?CIWS makes sense as that last layer, but we all know they will never be anywhere without escorts, we need to stop taking things, not aimed at you AD, in their singularity and start looking at the system/network as a whole
Cheers
Those 'major naval power
Both have & are getting larger numbers of smaller ships with fewer VLS silos, more like Sea 5000. The Akizuki class has 32 VLS cells (like the 14 older Takanami & Murasame class), & some of those are for VL ASW missiles. The new 25DDs will only have 16 VLS, with space for 16 more.
The Korean KDX-IIs also have 32 VLS cells, & they're supplemented by Incheon class Batch II ships with 16 VLS.
More about V-22 on Canberras
HMAS Canberra achieves first with United States Marine Corps MV-22 Osprey | Navy Daily
MV-22 Osprey lands on HMAS Canberra - Defence Video Portal
looks like a good match..
HMAS Canberra achieves first with United States Marine Corps MV-22 Osprey | Navy Daily
MV-22 Osprey lands on HMAS Canberra - Defence Video Portal
looks like a good match..
the road runner
Active Member
To Add a CH-53E has landed on HMAS Canberra during RIMPAC.
This was achieved after the MV-22 landed during RIMPAC 2016.
The list is growing of types of aircraft that have operated off Canberra
AH-1Z next?
RIMPAC 2016: RAN further expands range of deployable aircraft on board HMAS Canberra with CH-53E landing | IHS Jane's 360
BMT Caimen 90
A couple of weeks ago we were discussing the replacement of the LCM1-e that was flagged in the 2016 DWP.
The USMC LCAC and French LCAT were briefly discussed. I recently stumbled on the BMT Caimen 90 which could also be a contender. The BMT 200 has been mentioned numerous times as a possible replacement for the LCH, but very little has been said about its smaller sister.
The Caimen 90 can carry 90 tonnes at 22 knots fully loaded, it is 30 metres in length and has a 7.7 metre beam. They also appear to have a small passenger cabin with seating and a toilet (and possibly a shower). More details can be found on the data sheets and you tube clip:
http://www.bmtdsl.co.uk/media/6098037/AMPD002_0214_Caimen90.pdf
http://www.bmtdsl.co.uk/media/1056784/BMT-Caimen-90-Fast-Datasheet.pdf
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mreQYZ9p8uI
I also found an interesting article from BMT which compares Caimen 90, with the LCAC and LCAT and is well worth a read:
http://www.bmtdsl.co.uk/media/60977... Implications for the Force Mix_MAST 2015.pdf
The well dock of the LHD's are 69.3 metres X 16.8 metres. The only problem I can foresee is that the centre baffle would need to be modified.
A couple of weeks ago we were discussing the replacement of the LCM1-e that was flagged in the 2016 DWP.
The USMC LCAC and French LCAT were briefly discussed. I recently stumbled on the BMT Caimen 90 which could also be a contender. The BMT 200 has been mentioned numerous times as a possible replacement for the LCH, but very little has been said about its smaller sister.
The Caimen 90 can carry 90 tonnes at 22 knots fully loaded, it is 30 metres in length and has a 7.7 metre beam. They also appear to have a small passenger cabin with seating and a toilet (and possibly a shower). More details can be found on the data sheets and you tube clip:
http://www.bmtdsl.co.uk/media/6098037/AMPD002_0214_Caimen90.pdf
http://www.bmtdsl.co.uk/media/1056784/BMT-Caimen-90-Fast-Datasheet.pdf
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mreQYZ9p8uI
I also found an interesting article from BMT which compares Caimen 90, with the LCAC and LCAT and is well worth a read:
http://www.bmtdsl.co.uk/media/60977... Implications for the Force Mix_MAST 2015.pdf
The well dock of the LHD's are 69.3 metres X 16.8 metres. The only problem I can foresee is that the centre baffle would need to be modified.
- Status