Fantasy RAN thread (Surface Ships & LHDs only)

[Wombat000]

That said, you'd expect that a given Hunter class ship would have 8 x topside canister launched ASM (I'd hope LRASM, but maybe NSM) in addition to the 32 notional VLS cells. With quad packed ESSM you might get something like 32 x ESSM + 24 x SM2/6 for 56 SAMs or roughly ~28 "stowed ASM kills" per vessel in addition to your own ASM volley, so the situation might not be quite so bleak, especially once soft kills are factored in (EW, Nulka etc).

I think it’s a good starting premise, but unless you intend to transit from the AO to re-arm, with an empty VLS magazine, then the intentionally usable munitions numbers is even more limited.
Whatever that preferably unusable % is, is anyone’s guess?
Im guessing every user of a VLS launch system will have the same planned tactical ammunition limitation.
I think it’s not wise to ‘plan’ on using that 32 number.

 

[Boagrius]

I think it’s a good starting premise, but unless you intend to transit from the AO to re-arm, with an empty VLS magazine, then the intentionally usable munitions numbers is even more limited.
Whatever that preferably unusable % is, is anyone’s guess?
Im guessing every user of a VLS launch system will have the same planned tactical ammunition limitation.
I think it’s not wise to ‘plan’ on using that 32 number.

Agree. I have repeatedly speculated in this very thread as to whether the reported weight growth in the Hunters may be partly connected to VLS cells. We'll have to wait and see. Even the aforementioned addition of CAMM could help free you up from ESSM in favour of SM6 rounds that can also help with ASBMs and other hypersonics, not just traditional ASMs.

Alternatively maybe the RAN should just bite the bullet and go the full 128 x ESSM per vessel. You'll perpetually be shooting the arrow and not the archer, but there'll be no more complaints about magazine depth ;-p

 

[Wombat000]

….This issue of VLS magazine depth is an odd one.
Imagine, if equiped vessels could actually reload in theatre, in the AO.

Surely the effect of such could practically have an actual effect on operations equivalent to a second ship (depending on theoretical reloads at hand).
What’s the cost of acquiring and operating a second ship in theatre?
Surely to all things sacred, it would have some sort of neo Dreadnought-effect on naval operations.

I presume we buy these systems (the VLS) as a package, but just go thru the motions in operating them, per the manual.
Seriously, why hasn’t this issue been given to a budding Engineering PhD student to solve?
Is it genuinely worth $Billions to fix this?
Will it be faster to just fix this, or build another ship and breed another crew!?

- Once the genius has solved the practicalities, they can then figure out where to store the reloads!
- ppl cry abt only having 3 Hobart, what if each one actually had a tactical resilience capability of 2. We could then cry we only have the capability of having 6 ships!

 

[Anthony_B_78]

….This issue of VLS magazine depth is an odd one.
Imagine, if equiped vessels could actually reload in theatre, in the AO.

Surely the effect of such could practically have an actual effect on operations equivalent to a second ship (depending on theoretical reloads at hand).
What’s the cost of acquiring and operating a second ship in theatre?
Surely to all things sacred, it would have some sort of neo Dreadnought-effect on naval operations.

I presume we buy these systems (the VLS) as a package, but just go thru the motions in operating them, per the manual.
Seriously, why hasn’t this issue been given to a budding Engineering PhD student to solve?
Is it genuinely worth $Billions to fix this?
Will it be faster to just fix this, or build another ship and breed another crew!?

- Once the genius has solved the practicalities, they can then figure out where to store the reloads!

The Americans once had reloading cranes in their VLS. They'd take up the space of a few missiles, IIRC. Then they decided it was better just to have more missiles onboard because it was felt it would be unlikely to reload at sea.

I think the other side of this is you're either going to have enough missiles or you're going to get sunk. If you've largely emptied your magazines and survived, then it's likely that the battle / campaign has progressed and you can retire to reload.

 

[Wombat000]

The Americans once had reloading cranes in their VLS. They'd take up the space of a few missiles, IIRC. Then they decided it was better just to have more missiles onboard because it was felt it would be unlikely to reload at sea.

They decided this for one reason, because they dictated the game, AT THAT TIME.
They have the mass to rotate ships on station.
They picked their fights.
They elected how they were going to strike.

Well in contested time in AO ops, they might not have that luxury anymore, we as a smaller navy certainly don’t.
We might not have Allied ships to conveniently cover our withdrawal to reload.

The game is different now.
Why isn’t this fixed?
The benefits in fixing this stupidity is literally worth $$Billions and effectively would expand the navy resilience on ops x-fold.

 

[Morgo]

While missile magazine depth is clearly critical it’s not the only way to play.

Given (as earlier posters have pointed out) the Hunters will have world class sensors on them, does this materially improve the effectiveness of a 5in gun in a SHORAD role?

And what of directed energy or rail guns, which could be viable by the time Hunters hit the water?

I’m not saying that missiles aren’t important - they very clearly are - but they’re not the whole story.

 

[Takao]

Actually, there is a good argument that the VLS numbers are irrelevant, and it goes to @Boagrius's post above.

Currently, the vast majority of AShM are designed against a capable AAW ship - meaning that they come in low. Some like the SS-N-19 have a high flight altitude, but the most common ones attack at 6 - 30 ft. This puts acquisition at about 20 nm, or about 11 s at Mach 1. SS-N-22 is an evil beastie, but most PLA AShM are subsonic - so lets say 15 s.

How many shots are you going to get away in 15 s? Furthermore, if acquisition occurs at 20 nm, then why not quad pack the VLS as much as possible. ESSM has a range of over 20 nm, meaning that's all you need to hit incoming. It also begs the question as to the role of the 5", as well as if 20 mm CIWS is still acceptable, or just one per combatant is worth it.

With that line of thinking, unless you have an over the horizon detection system - which the RAN doesn't - SM-x's all of a sudden seem overkill. Take some, sure, but why take a $6 m missile where you probably can't use 80% of it's range?

Finally, ADM Woodward's views are probably the most valuable, having been under more AShM attack than anyone else. He wasn't worried about the SAM's running out, he was worried about the other consumables, especially chaff, running out. So maybe, missile resupply isn't the concern, but rather chaff, batteries and gun ammunition.

 

[Anthony_B_78]

Actually, there is a good argument that the VLS numbers are irrelevant, and it goes to @Boagrius's post above.

Currently, the vast majority of AShM are designed against a capable AAW ship - meaning that they come in low. Some like the SS-N-19 have a high flight altitude, but the most common ones attack at 6 - 30 ft. This puts acquisition at about 20 nm, or about 11 s at Mach 1. SS-N-22 is an evil beastie, but most PLA AShM are subsonic - so lets say 15 s.

How many shots are you going to get away in 15 s? Furthermore, if acquisition occurs at 20 nm, then why not quad pack the VLS as much as possible. ESSM has a range of over 20 nm, meaning that's all you need to hit incoming. It also begs the question as to the role of the 5", as well as if 20 mm CIWS is still acceptable, or just one per combatant is worth it.

With that line of thinking, unless you have an over the horizon detection system - which the RAN doesn't - SM-x's all of a sudden seem overkill. Take some, sure, but why take a $6 m missile where you probably can't use 80% of it's range?

Finally, ADM Woodward's views are probably the most valuable, having been under more AShM attack than anyone else. He wasn't worried about the SAM's running out, he was worried about the other consumables, especially chaff, running out. So maybe, missile resupply isn't the concern, but rather chaff, batteries and gun ammunition.

I've often wondered - from my readings on all of this - if it's somewhat best expressed like an equation, in a way, which is where your question of "how many shots are you going to get away in 15 seconds" leads me.

It's not just a question of how many missiles you have but how many you can direct at any one time too, isn't it?

 

[aussienscale]

Can I just add to the current discussion re VLS, it was discussed at length a few years ago, maybe a couple more than that and a google search will bring up a load of references.

The US and others have played with the idea of reloading VLS at sea and have actively done it, not as simple or practicable as some may think !!

Do The Math - Follow Up

The “Do The Math” post produced some interesting comments. Some people insist on concocting highly implausible (impossible) scenarios to c...

navy-matters.blogspot.com

The Navy Needs a Way to Reload Missile Silos at Sea

The way things are going these days, the service is anticipating a time when it might use a lot of missiles at once.

www.popularmechanics.com

https://2n.mit.edu/sites/default/files/documents/ROVR.pdf

Cheers

 

[John Fedup]

While missile magazine depth is clearly critical it’s not the only way to play.

Given (as earlier posters have pointed out) the Hunters will have world class sensors on them, does this materially improve the effectiveness of a 5in gun in a SHORAD role?

And what of directed energy or rail guns, which could be viable by the time Hunters hit the water?

I’m not saying that missiles aren’t important - they very clearly are - but they’re not the whole story.

WRT rail guns, the US seems to have publicly backed away from further development. Laser development continues and this technology will likely be the future directed energy weapon for the USN.

 

[Git_Kraken]

Actually, there is a good argument that the VLS numbers are irrelevant, and it goes to @Boagrius's post above.

Currently, the vast majority of AShM are designed against a capable AAW ship - meaning that they come in low. Some like the SS-N-19 have a high flight altitude, but the most common ones attack at 6 - 30 ft. This puts acquisition at about 20 nm, or about 11 s at Mach 1. SS-N-22 is an evil beastie, but most PLA AShM are subsonic - so lets say 15 s.

How many shots are you going to get away in 15 s? Furthermore, if acquisition occurs at 20 nm, then why not quad pack the VLS as much as possible. ESSM has a range of over 20 nm, meaning that's all you need to hit incoming. It also begs the question as to the role of the 5", as well as if 20 mm CIWS is still acceptable, or just one per combatant is worth it.

With that line of thinking, unless you have an over the horizon detection system - which the RAN doesn't - SM-x's all of a sudden seem overkill. Take some, sure, but why take a $6 m missile where you probably can't use 80% of it's range?

Finally, ADM Woodward's views are probably the most valuable, having been under more AShM attack than anyone else. He wasn't worried about the SAM's running out, he was worried about the other consumables, especially chaff, running out. So maybe, missile resupply isn't the concern, but rather chaff, batteries and gun ammunition.

Agree with the first point. VLS numbers are great until you miss killing the first anti-ship missile and then all that wonderful ordinance you have becomes a liability (though modern explosives are resistant to sympathetic detonation and fire, missile fuel generally is not).

Your math is off a bit though. If you acquire a subsonic ASM at 20nm then (assume Harpoon missile of 240m/s) you have 2.5 minutes. A supersonic missile of Mach 3 (3,675 km/h approx) will give you around 36 seconds. Detection at 20nm is basically the horizon, so the range could be much closer. But your point still stands. These are very short timelines. There is limited time to not only engage but re-engage should you miss.
Speed/Time/Distance Calculator I used.

For the Hobarts, I believe that they are fitted with a radar ESM. That is the beyond the horizon detection and identification system. The long-range of SM's are to deal with attacking aircraft. At some point, the aircraft have to pop up to get a targeting solution on your ship. When that happens you can attack them with the SM. With new active homing on the SM family even if the aircraft goes back below the horizon the missile can home in on them.

I agree that EWS does not get enough focus. They aren't as flashy or easily understood, and often are shrouded in layers of security. Soft kill is still a kill.

 

[Boagrius]

Actually, there is a good argument that the VLS numbers are irrelevant, and it goes to @Boagrius's post above.

Currently, the vast majority of AShM are designed against a capable AAW ship - meaning that they come in low. Some like the SS-N-19 have a high flight altitude, but the most common ones attack at 6 - 30 ft. This puts acquisition at about 20 nm, or about 11 s at Mach 1. SS-N-22 is an evil beastie, but most PLA AShM are subsonic - so lets say 15 s.

How many shots are you going to get away in 15 s? Furthermore, if acquisition occurs at 20 nm, then why not quad pack the VLS as much as possible. ESSM has a range of over 20 nm, meaning that's all you need to hit incoming. It also begs the question as to the role of the 5", as well as if 20 mm CIWS is still acceptable, or just one per combatant is worth it.

With that line of thinking, unless you have an over the horizon detection system - which the RAN doesn't - SM-x's all of a sudden seem overkill. Take some, sure, but why take a $6 m missile where you probably can't use 80% of it's range?

Finally, ADM Woodward's views are probably the most valuable, having been under more AShM attack than anyone else. He wasn't worried about the SAM's running out, he was worried about the other consumables, especially chaff, running out. So maybe, missile resupply isn't the concern, but rather chaff, batteries and gun ammunition.

A few more thoughts:

- The engagement cycle between detecting an ASM at or near the radar horizon and stopping it is so absurdly compressed that I have to question the wisdom of taking on the PRC without a CEC capable aircraft overhead. E2D and F35 can do it now, and you'd hope E7 and P8 (perhaps with the APS-154 pod) might follow suit.

- I take your point about EW, but if your OTH sensor is overhead and you're using a modern datalink like MADL, you'd have to think it would be a harder link to break than just about any other. I guess we won't know until the J-16Ds or Y-9Gs show up...

- If it's unavoidable, I'd submit that SS-N-22 isn't even your biggest problem. YJ12 and YJ18 seem even nastier, and also well stocked in the PRC. At that point it's a race to put as much explodey stuff between you and the inbounds as possible. Agree that ESSM (Blk II especially) is the ideal fit here, and should work well in generating multiple simultaneous fire channels alongside the CEA FCR arrays on the Hunters.

- As an aside, I am quite fond of the 57mm MAD FIRES in this space, in that it allows you to put an additional wall of guided projectiles out there in a very short amount of time. This is what a real modern CIWS looks like IMO. Alas, Hunter will have to make do with the 5in gun for now...

- Problem is that all the new anti-ship hypersonics (ASBMs, HCMs & HGVs) are going to come in from a fair bit higher, with SM-6 being a minimum requirement to stop them (SM-3 and eventually GPI would make desirable supplements). This again puts a premium on full-up Mk41 VLS cells and reduces your ability to fall back on ESSM for magazine depth :-/

 

[Boagrius]

All Boats in the water by 2033? we are now starting to get into fantasyland for several reasons.
1/ PM Morrison has already stated they are hoping to have the first Sub by the end of next decade.
2/ Morrison has said they will be built at Osborn and don't forget that when you build Overseas every cent goes into the Coffers of that Country, so being cheaper to build overseas can be false economy and turn out to be more expensive in the long run. When you build in Australia a lot of those funds goes into the Australian economy and back to the Government in Taxes.
3/ The USN needs new Subs even more badly then the RAN does, they still have 28 LA Class in service all older then the Collins and probably a lot harder used.
4/ There is no way we can be even remotely ready to operate 8 SSNs by 2033, the RAN has no one qualified to operate Nuclear Reactors and as been stated on here by people with far greater knowledge then me, it will take 10 years to qualify a RAN SSN chief Engineer.

I think the argument for building the first one or two boats in the US makes more sense from a capability standpoint than a financial one. Still not clear if it's possible though - I guess we'll find out in 2023 ;-)

 

[76mmGuns]

My major problem with many of our new concepts is the assumptions based above.



In our chase of the shiny new we have forgotten a few things. Chaos and enemy action are going to tear through our comms. The bad guys are going to be smart and will know our doctrine better than us. We won't always have the initiative and so we better be able to take a hit. We also need to be able to throw out something.

If HMAS Hunter can comfortably handle, say, 4x YJ-62, how many AShM does she have to throw at the Type 052C to get through _it's_ air defence? At least 8. But now Hunter has only 24 SAMs (less if it's quad packed some ESSM for SHORAD) that can do something. So maybe handling 4x YJ-62 gets a bit hairier. And yes, I know one v one is meaningless. But these REDFOR ships are going to carry a greater quantitively advantage as the SAG increases in size. Furthermore, while HMAS Hunter is intended for ASW (noting of course you can't pick the fight she's in), a Type 093 can probably carry a dozen AShW. That's 24 cells required for a 50% hit rate (immensely greater than any missile has achieved in actual combat) leaving 8 for ESSM, strike and AShM. Now all of a sudden the ship that is meant to be the most flexible - isn't.

Yes. That's why, imho, the Italians have the right idea by making sure all the front end ships have at least 2-3 main guns, often Strales 76mm guns for AA, and I think larger main guns with guided shells are needed. Leonardo 5 inch guns throw shells 79-90km on a good day, so that's an area of influence nearly the same as a Harpoon, except you don't need to thrown one of your expensive missiles out to harrass your target.

And having 8 inch guns throwing out 100kg shells (NSM warhead 125kg for comparison) out to 100km would be useful too.

Actually, there is a good argument that the VLS numbers are irrelevant, and it goes to @Boagrius's post above.

Currently, the vast majority of AShM are designed against a capable AAW ship - meaning that they come in low. Some like the SS-N-19 have a high flight altitude, but the most common ones attack at 6 - 30 ft. This puts acquisition at about 20 nm, or about 11 s at Mach 1. SS-N-22 is an evil beastie, but most PLA AShM are subsonic - so lets say 15 s.

How many shots are you going to get away in 15 s? Furthermore, if acquisition occurs at 20 nm, then why not quad pack the VLS as much as possible. ESSM has a range of over 20 nm, meaning that's all you need to hit incoming. It also begs the question as to the role of the 5", as well as if 20 mm CIWS is still acceptable, or just one per combatant is worth it.

With that line of thinking, unless you have an over the horizon detection system - which the RAN doesn't - SM-x's all of a sudden seem overkill. Take some, sure, but why take a $6 m missile where you probably can't use 80% of it's range?

Finally, ADM Woodward's views are probably the most valuable, having been under more AShM attack than anyone else. He wasn't worried about the SAM's running out, he was worried about the other consumables, especially chaff, running out. So maybe, missile resupply isn't the concern, but rather chaff, batteries and gun ammunition.

In addition to the quad packed missiles, it begs the question- do we really need ultra powerful and delicate sensor /radar towers searching out to 400+km, if we will likely still be engaging fleets at visual range, and if we won't have missiles which can reach out to 400km? (I guess it's possible to use cec for this reason)

How much weight, ship building time, and money would be saved if we only used a pared down CEAFAR, or Sea Giraffe? The tower, computers, size of the computer room, cooling systems ....

 

[Boagrius]

In addition to the quad packed missiles, it begs the question- do we really need ultra powerful and delicate sensor /radar towers searching out to 400+km, if we will likely still be engaging fleets at visual range, and if we won't have missiles which can reach out to 400km? (I guess it's possible to use cec for this reason)

One word - hypersonics. You need pretty exquisite sensors if you want to have a hope of doing anything about them. Consider that any RAN vessel north/north-west of Darwin is in range of DF26 ASBMs in Hainan, never mind what may or may not get forward deployed to the SCS in times of strife. I'd posit that better sensors give you better resilience in the face of EW too.

 

[OPSSG]

This thread is started on 30 Sept 2021 — prior posts before this was moved here from the RAN thread.

1. The QUALITY of discussion on the RAN has dropped to the point that there is a mass exodus of knowledgeable members from the thread.

2. This cannot be good, in the long run for the forum. As a compromise, we propose the fantasy discussions be directed here, until the Australian Government or the RAN has news on changes. In the meantime, you are all welcome to indulge here, and discuss matters related to RAN Surface Ships & LHDs only.

3. There is a separate RAN SSN thread. The Mods also created a daughter thread related to submarines in Naval Ship & Submarine Propulsion Systems, here.

4. Apologies for moving some of the better posts here, to seed this thread. All other RAN discussions can be found in the original mother thread.

 

[Redlands18]

This thread is started on 30 Sept 2021 — prior posts before this was moved here from the RAN thread.

1. The QUALITY of discussion on the RAN has dropped to the point that there is a mass exodus of knowledgeable members from the thread.

2. This cannot be good, in the long run for the forum. As a compromise, we propose the fantasy discussions be directed here, until the Australian Government or the RAN has news on changes. In the meantime, you are all welcome to indulge here, and discuss matters related to RAN Surface Ships & LHDs only.

3. There is a separate RAN SSN thread. The Mods also created a daughter thread related to submarines in Naval Ship & Submarine Propulsion Systems, here.

4. Apologies for moving some of the better posts here, to seed this thread. All other RAN discussions can be found in the original mother thread.

The funny thing about Fantasy Fleets for the RAN mine has since the late 1980s looked something like
Large Aviation capable through Deck Ships
Aegis destroyers
Large capable Frigates
Decent OPVs
SSNs
Keep your Fantasy fleets within reason and you may just end up getting there one day.

 

[ddxx]

The funny thing about Fantasy Fleets for the RAN mine has since the late 1980s looked something like
Large Aviation capable through Deck Ships
Aegis destroyers
Large capable Frigates
Decent OPVs
SSNs
Keep your Fantasy fleets within reason and you may just end up getting there one day.

Agreed, as long as they're based on logical deductions from available facts, rather than 'wish lists'. There's many things in defence procurement currently which don't add up and only have a few possible, logical explanations.

E.g. Hunter's weight growth is very unlikely due to the CEAFAR radar suddenly being made of concrete. CEAFAR was a known weight in the original bid, it would be a reasonable deduction that any fluctuation in its weight would be minor.

 

[76mmGuns]

One word - hypersonics. You need pretty exquisite sensors if you want to have a hope of doing anything about them. Consider that any RAN vessel north/north-west of Darwin is in range of DF26 ASBMs in Hainan, never mind what may or may not get forward deployed to the SCS in times of strife. I'd posit that better sensors give you better resilience in the face of EW too.

Those are still years out. What use have they been the last 40 years then? Genuine question

 

[ddxx]

I was just thinking it might be helpful to put together a list of the remaining unknown factors in regards to the Hunter Class, drawing from what is confirmed and the insights from Senate Estimates. Feel free to add to this if I've missed anything.

Hunter Class aspects to be confirmed:

• Finalised Hull Length - Hunter is longer than original numbers suggest due to changes with the base design (per Senate Estimates).
• Finalised Full Load Displacement - 10,000+ tonnes (per Senate Estimates), exact FLD TBC.
• Number of Mk-41 VLS cells - All RAN and Defence public info do not specify the number of cells.
• Confirmed VLS missiles - SM-2, SM-6, ESSM confirmed - Defence factsheets yet to be updated, others to come?
• Type and number of canister launched AShM - NSM or LRASM / 8 or 16 / NSM in canisters and LRASM in VLS? All unknowns.
• Shipbuilding 'drumbeat' - Two year delay is set to be recovered by ship four, indicating the drumbeat has changed from original 24 months.