Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[vonnoobie]

If we are talking about close in defence then it really needs to evolve around the phalanx. Is the phalanx up to the job or not. Are we better off with a cannon type system (millenium?) Or missile type system (ram?). From a personal uneducated view point I think the phalanx is getting dated with only so much advancement that can be achieved for the type of weapon that it is while there appears to be other systems in the last decade or more coming out that are lighter with greater range (or so advertised). In the end any system will have to be a bolt on/off non penetrating system. So rather then looking to cram close in support weapons into valuable mk41 cells let's look at the system that already is in place for that exact role. Cheers

 

[Hazdog]

With the USS Portland demonstrating a new technology, are we going backward by thinking that more missiles are better for medium to short-range defence? (Whether or not they are cheap and easy to produce)

It may be that laser-based defences can provide an effective capability to our ships, whilst reducing the need for large quantities of expendable rounds and missiles.

All things considered, I would suggest that kinetic defensive systems should still be pursued, but electromagnetic defence systems may well be an effective and efficient option very soon.

 

[Boagrius]

A

If we are talking about close in defence then it really needs to evolve around the phalanx. Is the phalanx up to the job or not. Are we better off with a cannon type system (millenium?) Or missile type system (ram?). From a personal uneducated view point I think the phalanx is getting dated with only so much advancement that can be achieved for the type of weapon that it is while there appears to be other systems in the last decade or more coming out that are lighter with greater range (or so advertised). In the end any system will have to be a bolt on/off non penetrating system. So rather then looking to cram close in support weapons into valuable mk41 cells let's look at the system that already is in place for that exact role. Cheers

Agreed, my main concern with Phalanx is if it can reliably stop modern ASMs far enough from the parent vessel. The USN seems to be putting the 57mm in the CIWS space on LCS and FFG(X) but there doesn't appear to be a consensus on what should come next on larger vessels. Seems like they may be trying out a variety of solutions to see what works best.

 

[Blackshoe]

Oh, man, I really missed the opportunity to get into that amazing Fantasy RAN thread that was going on. Darn.

With the USS Portland demonstrating a new technology, are we going backward by thinking that more missiles are better for medium to short-range defence? (Whether or not they are cheap and easy to produce)

It may be that laser-based defences can provide an effective capability to our ships, whilst reducing the need for large quantities of expendable rounds and missiles.

All things considered, I would suggest that kinetic defensive systems should still be pursued, but electromagnetic defence systems may well be an effective and efficient option very soon.

Lasers as CIWS are going to be the second use for lasers as naval weapons (after lasers as anti-small craft/drone systems, unless you think lasers as dazzlers already count as a weapons system, in which case, well, those exist). However...there's still work to be done before it becomes viable.

Additionally, while on a shot-per-shot basis, watts are definitely cheaper than missiles and/or gun rounds...I wish we would appreciate the cost of power generation (and especially figuring out how to modernize ships so that those can be lasers can be put on) will impose.

Kinetics won't be going out of style any time soon.

 

[John Newman]

If we are talking about close in defence then it really needs to evolve around the phalanx. Is the phalanx up to the job or not. Are we better off with a cannon type system (millenium?) Or missile type system (ram?). From a personal uneducated view point I think the phalanx is getting dated with only so much advancement that can be achieved for the type of weapon that it is while there appears to be other systems in the last decade or more coming out that are lighter with greater range (or so advertised). In the end any system will have to be a bolt on/off non penetrating system. So rather then looking to cram close in support weapons into valuable mk41 cells let's look at the system that already is in place for that exact role. Cheers

Maybe the question could be turned around the other way?

Why does it appear that the RAN is happy to persist with Phalanx? Maybe Millennium and/or SeaRAM are not the great capability leap over Phalanx that people appear to believe they are.

Maybe the answer is that the close in defence solution is actually working in that it is a combination of both Phalanx and Nulka? And maybe in the not too distant future we will see the addition of a direct energy/laser weapon too, a three way solution for close in ship defence.

Cheers,

 

[OPSSG]

Oh, man, I really missed the opportunity to get into that amazing Fantasy RAN thread that was going on. Darn.

Haha. Good one.

Don’t create temptation for us to re-open the thread unless you are willing to stand-for us in the deal with the pages of fantasy discussion — while the Mod Team washes our collective hands.

We moved those posts from this thread there in hope that some sensible posts would emerge. But that experiment was a failure.

 

[Redlands18]

Maybe the question could be turned around the other way?

Why does it appear that the RAN is happy to persist with Phalanx? Maybe Millennium and/or SeaRAM are not the great capability leap over Phalanx that people appear to believe they are.

Maybe the answer is that the close in defence solution is actually working in that it is a combination of both Phalanx and Nulka? And maybe in the not too distant future we will see the addition of a direct energy/laser weapon too, a three way solution for close in ship defence.

Cheers,

The RAN still has to order a CIWS for the Hunters, at present all they have on there site is 2x20mm CIWS, they have named the intended main Gun, MK 45 127mm, Torpedoes, MU90 and SAMs, SM-2 and ESSM but not the 30mm Guns, not the SSMs and not the CIWS. This may be a sign that they are looking at something else, though the only other 20mm is the Meroka.
will be an interesting one.

 

[Takao]

Maybe the question could be turned around the other way?

Why does it appear that the RAN is happy to persist with Phalanx? Maybe Millennium and/or SeaRAM are not the great capability leap over Phalanx that people appear to believe they are.

Maybe the answer is that the close in defence solution is actually working in that it is a combination of both Phalanx and Nulka? And maybe in the not too distant future we will see the addition of a direct energy/laser weapon too, a three way solution for close in ship defence.

Cheers,

I'm hoping you'll see something soon - but there is an answer to your questions coming. It's just being held somewhere else, waiting for release. Well, perhaps not a specific answer, but the resources to provide an answer...

 

[SteveR]

The RAN still has to order a CIWS for the Hunters, at present all they have on there site is 2x20mm CIWS, ..... This may be a sign that they are looking at something else, though the only other 20mm is the Meroka.
will be an interesting one.

Hypersonic threat missiles have one glaring (pun intended) weakness - they have huge IR signatures. RANs choice to add VAMPIR has future proofed it's warships against these threats so maybe the best CIWS is RAM Block 2 in the Mk 49 launcher (21 missiles?), cued by VAMPIR.

Mk 49 21-cell RAM Missile Launcher

Mk 49 21-cell RAM, Missile Launcher, missiles. USA histoty and characteristics

www.helis.com

 

[vonnoobie]

When all said and done way too many options and different pathways that can be taken. Any option will have its positives and negatives between weight, cost, range, accuracy, maturity etc. Lasers would be nice but I don't see them coming about at the earliest until the second batch of Hunters.

@John Newman true could be that the phalanx is equal or superior to the other options the I will say with the stated maximum range being lower then that of other options and the risk of the shrapnel from a destroyed missile being able to cripple a ship I would prefer being able to destroy the threat further out and reduce the shrapnel risk.

All said and done we just have to wait and see, worst case I will set my mother onto them. She could nag North and south Korea into peace lol.

 

[ngatimozart]

Hypersonic threat missiles have one glaring (pun intended) weakness - they have huge IR signatures. RANs choice to add VAMPIR has future proofed it's warships against these threats so maybe the best CIWS is RAM Block 2 in the Mk 49 launcher (21 missiles?), cued by VAMPIR.

Mk 49 21-cell RAM Missile Launcher

Mk 49 21-cell RAM, Missile Launcher, missiles. USA histoty and characteristics

www.helis.com

So you're got a missile incoming at Mach 5 or 6 and you're going to fire off a missile at it capable of say Mach 3 with a range of say 9 nm. At Mach 5.5 at sea level those hypersonic missiles are travelling at 1.02 nm per sec, which is 2.5 times the speed of the Brahmos AShM. The IR signature will be behind the missile and any defensive SAM will have to allow for that and for the closing velocities of up to Mach 8 or 9 depending upon the intercept angle. It's basic physics.

 

[SteveR]

So you're got a missile incoming at Mach 5 or 6 and you're going to fire off a missile at it capable of say Mach 3 with a range of say 9 nm. At Mach 5.5 at sea level those hypersonic missiles are travelling at 1.02 nm per sec, which is 2.5 times the speed of the Brahmos AShM. The IR signature will be behind the missile and any defensive SAM will have to allow for that and for the closing velocities of up to Mach 8 or 9 depending upon the intercept angle. It's basic physics.

1 . The leading edge of any hypersonic missile is going to glow - from the AIM-9L onwards IR homing missiles have been homing on the hot leading edges of their targets. That is why the RN Harriers with their AIM-9Ls were able to do head on attacks against Argentinian Mirages during the Falkland war.
2. AIM-9s and other western missiles do lead pursuit - keeping the bearing to the target constant which means if the target swerves the missile goes for the tangent across the target's radius of turn - which limits the G's required to hit or detonate in front of an oncoming target.

 

[ngatimozart]

1 . The leading edge of any hypersonic missile is going to glow - from the AIM-9L onwards IR homing missiles have been homing on the hot leading edges of their targets. That is why the RN Harriers with their AIM-9Ls were able to do head on attacks against Argentinian Mirages during the Falkland war.
2. AIM-9s and other western missiles do lead pursuit - keeping the bearing to the target constant which means if the target swerves the missile goes for the tangent across the target's radius of turn - which limits the G's required to hit or detonate in front of an oncoming target.

Maybe so, but the question is will a RAM with such a short range and Δ velocity be able to intercept an incoming hypersonic missile in CD such a short time? If so how much damage will the ship still suffer because the kinetic energy alone will be significant? That's an important consideration and such damage could seriously incapacitate or sink a ship. There's a big difference between Harriers taking on Mirages and RAM taking on hypervelocity missiles. If it was so easy the USN wouldn't be running programs to find a feasible shipboard defence against hypersonic missiles.

 

[John Fedup]

When I read about hypersonic missiles and big-a$$ torpedos, naval surface warriors are likely envious of their submariner brethren. The WW2 movies of submarines getting depth charged made the surface ship seem much more attractive. Not so much today. Offence and defence are constantly evolving and the advantages go back and forth. Hypersonic missiles may change this unless really effective directed energy weapons emerge.

 

[John Fedup]

Posted about the latest laser test on the USN thread.

 

[hauritz]

I am not sure lasers will be all that effective against missiles that will be specifically designed to withstand the high temperatures of re-entry into the Earth's atmosphere.

 

[John Fedup]

I am not sure lasers will be all that effective against missiles that will be specifically designed to withstand the high temperatures of re-entry into the Earth's atmosphere.

Me either but the R&D effort is worth it IMHO.

 

[south]

Hypersonic threat missiles have one glaring (pun intended) weakness - they have huge IR signatures. RANs choice to add VAMPIR has future proofed it's warships against these threats so maybe the best CIWS is RAM Block 2 in the Mk 49 launcher (21 missiles?), cued by VAMPIR.

Mk 49 21-cell RAM Missile Launcher

Mk 49 21-cell RAM, Missile Launcher, missiles. USA histoty and characteristics

www.helis.com

I’d hardly call it future proofed. It means that you know that it is there (dependant on defection thresholds, background clutter, IR decoys, atmospherics, false alarm rates etc).

You still have to kill it. Which is a non trivial task, particularly for crossing targets (defending the High Value Asset) - how much lead do you need to pull when the threat is double your speed?

 

[OldTex]

It may be that laser-based defences can provide an effective capability to our ships, whilst reducing the need for large quantities of expendable rounds and missiles.

The issues with a LASER CIWS are the power required for the LASER emitter and the beam dispersion at a usable range. LASER cutters work because the distance from the emitter aperture and the material are relatively small (1000s of wavelengths), whilst a LASER CIWS intended to destroy the aerodynamic integrity of the incoming target is operating at an enormous distance. This distance will increase the power required in the emitted beam. The LASER cutter also works because the beam is held on a single point for a period of time. With beam dispersion due to the atmosphere, combined with the movement of the target, it will be difficult to achieve the continuous illumination to achieve the breach of the material (and the resulting aerodynamic destruction of the missile).
It may be that the current generation of LASER weapons are intended to destroy or damage the seeker of a missile or the optical payload of a UAV. This would make the LASER weapons closer to ECM and decoy defences and not 'HTK' CIWS.

 

[ngatimozart]

The issues with a LASER CIWS are the power required for the LASER emitter and the beam dispersion at a usable range. LASER cutters work because the distance from the emitter aperture and the material are relatively small (1000s of wavelengths), whilst a LASER CIWS intended to destroy the aerodynamic integrity of the incoming target is operating at an enormous distance. This distance will increase the power required in the emitted beam. The LASER cutter also works because the beam is held on a single point for a period of time. With beam dispersion due to the atmosphere, combined with the movement of the target, it will be difficult to achieve the continuous illumination to achieve the breach of the material (and the resulting aerodynamic destruction of the missile).
It may be that the current generation of LASER weapons are intended to destroy or damage the seeker of a missile or the optical payload of a UAV. This would make the LASER weapons closer to ECM and decoy defences and not 'HTK' CIWS.

One thing not in the public domain is the power output or the configuration of the weaponized lasers. But we do know the power generation capabilities of the DDG-51 and the FFGX. So I wouldn't dismiss the feasibility so quickly.