I was thinking where the LHD might be near an island , and then a bunch of smaller boats zip out towards the LHD, or perhaps a Chinese warship is also nearby, on a "friendly" visit, say 5-10km away. Can you get a helo up fast enough when the enemy starts shooting? Even if the warhead is much smaller than a proper ASM, the point is to shoot back with everything you've got. Who knows- you might hit the sensors, the 5 inch gun, or even the VLS magazine.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
I understand your overall position but I don't think anyone is stating that 'newness' is the factor that is determining growth - it is the design itself. The T26 for example has a 1000t+ growth margin to over 8000t so I don't think adding an additional 12 VLS will be a problem. I'm not sure about FREMM or F-5000 in terms of growth.
Just to point out also that the Aegis system which is a power hog is the full Lockheed Martin suite with the old generation PESA radar - and which is installed on the Hobart class destroyers. It is only the Aegis CMS that will be present on SEA 5000, and the CEAFAR AESA radar that will be installed uses a new technology which is lighter and uses much less power than previous generations.
Last edited:
OK.... as the base UK version it is reported as having a growth margin. Two points:
1. It isn’t built yet and there may be slippage
2. It is not the version proposed for Australia (noting none of us know what is in the response).
Things like AEGIS have a massive impact. it is not just the additional power supply load (both system and cooling) but the need to be able to support that (higher rated gensets) and fuel consumptions.
Don’t forget the Australian version will also use the LM2500 and this will alter a lot of parameters and internal configurations as well,
Then there is the top weight (which needs to be offset) of the CEAFAR mast house and larger missile silo .... all above the CoG.
The ANZAC should have had greater growth margins based on the parent MEKO 2000 but the Australian configuration (based on range and a larger gun) consumed some of that. This required some radical modification to allow for the ASMD upgrade.
Again unless we know the assumptions relied upon to estimate ‘growth margins’ , and the respose to the RFT. then to suggest that the new design (noting the UK design is largely set) has more growth is pure speculation.
Edit ... Please note I like the F-26 design but wild speculation about growth margins in complete ignorance of the offered design are nonsense.
I think a lot of what you've stated goes for all the proposed designs - and I appreciate your point on growth limitations. Australia will modify the base design to their own requirements once the competition has finished in any case.
I should point out though that LM2500 is not the mandated GT for SEA 5000 - though it is proposed in two of the designs. The T26 will utilize the RR MT30 power unit.
Last edited:
Which is maybe one of the disadvantages for the T26 derivative.
We have a navy universally fitted with LM 2500, I can think of no sane reason to add sustainment complexity.
However, I thought we had mandated LM?
Joe Black
Active Member
Just wondering if the Sea5000 frigates have 48 VLS cells, would VL-ASROC be introduced to give it additional ASW capabilities.
On the other note, Navantia has just cut steel for the 2nd AOR
Navantia cuts steel for second Australian Navy replenishment oiler
On the other note, Navantia has just cut steel for the 2nd AOR
Navantia cuts steel for second Australian Navy replenishment oiler
In what ship? The answer for the DDG is going to be "no". For the Sea 5K the layout of the VLS system will be determined in the final design. We don't even know what the preferred design looks like yet, so it's a question which can't be answered - and the question anyway is why?
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
It might (emphasis on MIGHT) be possible to break apart and re-use the VLS cells, but it would require a degree of re-manufacturing to ensure adequate fire protection and exhaust for the VLS cells.
As Spoz put though, the question would be, "why bother?"
The one fit out arrangement where it might make some sense (to me at least, take that however you want...) would be if the SEA 5000 were to be fitted with two distinct VLS arrays. At present the Hobart-class AWD has a single array of 48 cells immediately aft of the 5"/127 mm gun, if SEA 5000 were to follow a similar path where all the cells were contiguous then having the cells all be of the same type would make sense for operations and support. However, if there was a 2nd VLS array like aboard Arleigh Burke-class DDG's, then the 2nd array could be made up of a different size VLS. Admittedly though I am not certain where an 8-cell tactical length Mk 41 VLS would fit without either interfering with operations, or adding unneeded topweight.
I guess the question in part is what is the minimum defence for all blue water ships.
What are our expectations.
Not unreasonable to expect that the destroyer force should be able to counter all inner and medium distant threats over and under the surface with hard and soft kill options.
As to the supply and Amphibious fleet units, well there always seems to be a debate as to what defence independence should be expected of each individual ship in relation to their interdependence on the protective destroyer umbrella.
For my two bobs worth, I would suggest that at a minimum ALL blue water ships should be able to counter ALL threats in a 360 arc / bubble out to at least 2kms if not further..
That would mean at least a CIWS x 2 plus, 50cal, MK 32 torpedo launchers and decoys for above and below the surface Nulka / Nixie.
This proposal is not without a cost in money and ship real estate, plus some trade off's in storage carrying capability.
However unless you are prepared to send a ship in harms with it's ability to adequately defend both of itself, and play it's respective role as apart of a fleet then the trade off is a fleet in harbour and no option for government.
Thoughts
Regards S
Actually there is the Extensible Launching System (ExLS) by LockMart that would fit the bill because this is something that it is designed for. So no probs with that and could be an easy way of increasing ESSM load-out without impinging on other load-outs.
So possible question is should we? Unless we plan to massively increase our war stock which when we had the Adelaides wasn't even large enough to fill them out then we are going to be sitting on an even larger number of VLS cells then we will already be acquiring with no missiles to make use of them.
From 240 missile magazine on the 6 Adelaides and 112 cells between them and the Anzac's we will be going to a 432 to 576 cell fleet (Larger of the ExLS is used). Before any discussion on more missile capacity beyond what is already planned a discussion needs to happen on the warstocks and if we would ever be able to make use of it.
Want to ensure there is realestate for the future possibility all for it, But dont just go and buy them.
From 240 missile magazine on the 6 Adelaides and 112 cells between them and the Anzac's we will be going to a 432 to 576 cell fleet (Larger of the ExLS is used). Before any discussion on more missile capacity beyond what is already planned a discussion needs to happen on the warstocks and if we would ever be able to make use of it.
Want to ensure there is realestate for the future possibility all for it, But dont just go and buy them.
I had the same impression, just can't see why we would introduce a new GT, does not make sense.
Interesting read for those interested, going slightly off tangent
Special Report: Sea 5000 and ASW capability – making sense of a complex picture - Australian Defence Magazine
Was not aware of this though, interesting
"Bi-static: This is where a ship’s sonar sensors can operate together, as well as independently (mon-statically), so that the HMS transmits and the VDS receives. This increases the possible sonar paths available to the ship and therefore increases the likelihood and accuracy of detections. Bi-static operations require an integrated ASW processing architecture. The Hobart-Class DDG is one of the only ships in the world to have this capability."
Cheers
As has been pointed out previously, the bi-static capability on the Hobart class is unique as virtually every other serious AWS operator utilizes multi-static assets and applies multi-static tactics - NATO countries particularly. The ASW capability on Hobart is not considered world leading as seems to be implied in the article.
Watch your tone ! I did not imply that at all, I highlighted a statement in the article and was pointing out the potential integration issues between the variants.
Once again you come from a pure holly grail ASW ideology, not what the COA wants and asked for in the RFT, time will tell. Your instant reaction to jump immediately to the defence of the T26 is getting tiresome, we get it, it is your favourite, my personal favourite ? the ship that best meets the requirements of the RAN
My point was in relation to the article, not to anything you stated - didn't mean to cause offense. Also, I didn't state anything about the T26 either and I'm sure all the three proposals will offer the latest ASW technology - multi-static.
You've been making a lot of claims on here without supporting any such claims. We do have a requirement that reputable verifiable sources be posted when such claims are made. Also what is your experience in defence?
Which one of my "claims" are you challenging exactly? Which are you referring to which requires support? What has my experience in defence have to do with making statements within a discussion forum?
This is a professional defence forum with many on here who are defence professionals. We deal in facts and we have a similar citing regime to that of universities. Hence if it is claimed that x does y we require that such a statement be supported by citing the source. A posters defence experience or lack of it, determines their level of familiarity with the topic.
Finally there is no need to be snarky with other posters on this forum. We encourage vigorous and rigorous debate BUT we have an expectation of civility and good manners.
- Status