The “standard” design doesn’t meet Australian specs - it’s that simple.
Last edited:
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
With potential adversaries surface fleets fielding anti ship SSM's with ranges of up to and even beyond 500kms, is the NSM really going to be that much of a game changer for the RAN surface fleet over the Harpoon? I understand the exact range of the NSM is classified, but all indications I've come across indicate an approx 200km range.
For all targets within and ‘slightly’ beyond Harpoon, NSM will do the job better, in a light weight, compact manner which doesn’t chew up VLS space.
For anything well beyond the range of Harpoon, NSM, or ship-based radar - options such as vertical launched LRASM and it’s likely hypersonic successor(s) comes into play. Any of which would be overkill (in cost, range and overall capability) to engage targets well within NSM’s current realm.
Tomahawk
And yep LRASM and possibly hypersonic's depending on where we land with that, all options depending on the ships load out and mission. Overkill is not going to be an issue, if you have it you use it !“Range“ figures depend largely upon a broad array of assumptions. Flight profile, missile standard, launch speed, altitude, weather conditions, temperature are all variables that impact upon these things.
Raytheon and the USN gave the NSM in it’s ’base’ form the once over before it was adopted into US service. Similar things to that they have done with AMRAAM over the years I believe with respect to GPS enabled flight profiles, different propellants and burn types and so forth. The USN standard is now known as the NSM Block IA.
I understand these improvements have flowed back to the OEM and all variants of NSM now incorporate these improvements.
Bearing this in mind and the classification of such figures, I am quite comfortable with the performance capability of NSM, compared to some of the widely quoted figures of some of the ‘threat actors’ out there. Especially when you start comparing things like missile body diameter, length, mass and so forth and start to wonder how exactly they achieve such wonderful (alleged performance) yet struggle so greatly with related things such as aero-propulsion, advanced materials and so forth…
I think NSM an excellent addition to RAN’s offensive firepower and hope that among other things, they seriously look at how else it might be used, beyond the deck-mounted, canister launched varieties we see today…
Working with our Quad partner India perhaps and putting them on our MH-60R for instance to create additional channels of fire, springs to mind…
I just wonder if small incremental upgrades to older smaller platforms will address Australia's security needs.
Particularly if this limits acquisition of newer larger more capable platforms.
Will an Anzac be able to provide significant capability and replace the hobart class during tours of se Asia?
Particularly if this limits acquisition of newer larger more capable platforms.
Will an Anzac be able to provide significant capability and replace the hobart class during tours of se Asia?
Scott Elaurant
Well-Known Member
(Redrafted after Moderator comment)
The flagship of the Russian Black Sea Fleet was reported by USNI to be hit by two Ukrainian Neptune SSMs today, and crippled or sunk. The Neptune SSM is a modernised SS-N-25 Russian SSM with new guidance and command features. It has a range of 190 NM and 160kg warhead. A battery (4) was reportedly fired at Moskva, plus assistance (decoy?) from a drone. Moskva carried 64 x SAN6 and 40 x SAN 4 SAMs, but no phased array radar. In fact Moskva's single band radar for its S300 SAM fire control appears infereior to what the Anzac Class already carry.
There is a lot we still don't know, ut if it is as reported in USNI there seem to be some implications in this for RAN surface ship procurement.
- Judging warship strength is not just counting VLS tubes. Good sensors to track targets and identify incoming threats are just as important.
- A defending warship without phased array radar looks to still be very vulnerable to sea-skimming SSMs, even if sub-sonic.
- Moskva had six CIWS and decoys, but still got hit by 2 of 4 SSMs fired.
- so there does not seem much point planning to build smaller warships that cannot carry a full sensor suite and SAMs to back it up.
- No evidence that fitting CIWS makes much difference either.
- Buying second hand old ships without modern sensor packages seems a waste fo money.
news.usni.org
@Scott Elaurant
I don't see the connection to the RAN, except is does explain why many push back on the idea of light frigates. If you want to approach it in that context then reframe it to do so. Otherwise I suggest this belongs in the Russian Navy Tread.
alexsa
The flagship of the Russian Black Sea Fleet was reported by USNI to be hit by two Ukrainian Neptune SSMs today, and crippled or sunk. The Neptune SSM is a modernised SS-N-25 Russian SSM with new guidance and command features. It has a range of 190 NM and 160kg warhead. A battery (4) was reportedly fired at Moskva, plus assistance (decoy?) from a drone. Moskva carried 64 x SAN6 and 40 x SAN 4 SAMs, but no phased array radar. In fact Moskva's single band radar for its S300 SAM fire control appears infereior to what the Anzac Class already carry.
There is a lot we still don't know, ut if it is as reported in USNI there seem to be some implications in this for RAN surface ship procurement.
- Judging warship strength is not just counting VLS tubes. Good sensors to track targets and identify incoming threats are just as important.
- A defending warship without phased array radar looks to still be very vulnerable to sea-skimming SSMs, even if sub-sonic.
- Moskva had six CIWS and decoys, but still got hit by 2 of 4 SSMs fired.
- so there does not seem much point planning to build smaller warships that cannot carry a full sensor suite and SAMs to back it up.
- No evidence that fitting CIWS makes much difference either.
- Buying second hand old ships without modern sensor packages seems a waste fo money.
UPDATED: Russia Says Damaged Cruiser Moskva Sank Under Tow Headed to Black Sea Homeport - USNI News
This story has been updated to include a report from Russian state media Moskva has sunk. Russian Navy’s Black Sea flagship RTS Moskva (121) has sunk while being towed toward Sevastopol, Crimea, after sustaining major damage in a fire Wednesday, Russian state media said on Thursday. “During the...
news.usni.org
@Scott Elaurant
I don't see the connection to the RAN, except is does explain why many push back on the idea of light frigates. If you want to approach it in that context then reframe it to do so. Otherwise I suggest this belongs in the Russian Navy Tread.
Russian Navy Discussions and Updates
JSC Admiralty Shipyards has begun cutting steel for the 3rd and 4th Project 677 Lada Class submarines simultaneously. The second Project 677 submarine, Kronstadt, was launched in September 2018. The shipyard is currently preparing the submarine for the second stage of factory sea trials...
www.defencetalk.com
alexsa
Last edited:
cdxbow
Well-Known Member
.....or how useful land based, long range, antiship cruise missiles are.Moderator just wondering if this event from the Ukaine War, as reported by USNI, is permissible to discuss within this thread?
To me it is pretty dramatic news. The Moskva was a Slava Class Soviet era cruiser. Lots of missiles but old and no modern phased array radar. Neptunes are a Ukrainian missile, their modernised version of an SSN25 with new electronics and guidance. If a battery of four Neptunes, with a distracting drone, can penetrate the multi-layered defences of the Moskva, it does not say much for the value of any warship without phased array radar and SAMs able to hit sea skimming SSMs.
UPDATED: Russia Says Damaged Cruiser Moskva Sank Under Tow Headed to Black Sea Homeport - USNI News
This story has been updated to include a report from Russian state media Moskva has sunk. Russian Navy’s Black Sea flagship RTS Moskva (121) has sunk while being towed toward Sevastopol, Crimea, after sustaining major damage in a fire Wednesday, Russian state media said on Thursday. “During the...
This event is talked about in the Russian-Ukraine War thread.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Awesome comment from the Poster "MaskOfZero in that articleModerator just wondering if this event from the Ukaine War, as reported by USNI, is permissible to discuss within this thread?
To me it is pretty dramatic news. The Moskva was a Slava Class Soviet era cruiser. Lots of missiles but old and no modern phased array radar. Neptunes are a Ukrainian missile, their modernised version of an SSN25 with new electronics and guidance. If a battery of four Neptunes, with a distracting drone, can penetrate the multi-layered defences of the Moskva, it does not say much for the value of any warship without phased array radar and SAMs able to hit sea skimming SSMs.
UPDATED: Russia Says Damaged Cruiser Moskva Sank Under Tow Headed to Black Sea Homeport - USNI News
This story has been updated to include a report from Russian state media Moskva has sunk. Russian Navy’s Black Sea flagship RTS Moskva (121) has sunk while being towed toward Sevastopol, Crimea, after sustaining major damage in a fire Wednesday, Russian state media said on Thursday. “During the...
The Moskva has been converted to a Sea Reef in order to improve the habitat of the local fish, and this accords with Putin's passion for environmentalism. This is all according to plan.
10/10 for that comment.
Back on topic folks. As noted above either the relevant thread on the conflict or the Russian Navy Thread. The current discussion is not relevant to the RAN ini8ts current context.
Russian Navy Discussions and Updates
JSC Admiralty Shipyards has begun cutting steel for the 3rd and 4th Project 677 Lada Class submarines simultaneously. The second Project 677 submarine, Kronstadt, was launched in September 2018. The shipyard is currently preparing the submarine for the second stage of factory sea trials...
www.defencetalk.com
alexsa
Last edited by a moderator:
But they will as the Hunters will replace the ANZAC that are currently only equipped with 8 cells (with a maximum of 16 if top weight issues get resolved). Based on cells that is a 400% increase on each ship. This ignores the fact that:
1. We don't actually know what the final configuration will be.
2. It ignores the fact the SSM are carried separately (as opposed to being housed in the GWS13 launcher on the FFG) and there is appear to be space for more NSM based on the Canadian programme.
3. We don't know what the CIWS will be noting the order for the Phalanx have not been made to date and there is a rumour circulating the SeaRAM may go in its place (providing an additional 22 reloadable tubes).
4. The continue to miss the importance of ASW in the current environment. That gear takes space and is important in the contested environment we appear to be headed for. The Multi-Static capability designed into the Hunter is basically the CEC of the ASW world. These are very quite ships for a reason and combine with other air and USV assets should be able to cover a lot of area.
5. The CEAFAR they laud is part of the issue .... it is a space and power hog ... it would not have fitted in the F5000 they proposed noting the smaller hull and additional stuff they were shoehorning in. We would be going through the same issue if the F5000 was selected.
ASPI clearly have a agenda. Not completely convinced their proposals would help us as it would involve a complete restart .... a loss of a lot of investment and a weakening of the ASW capability. I still find it astounding that they play down ASW capability
deploying a frigate optimised for anti-submarine warfare is contrary to RAN doctrine and at odds with how anti-submarine warfare is conducted in the Indo-Pacific.
Noting that:
the RAN’s doctrine is similar to that of the US Navy’s in using aircraft and submarines as the main assets to track hostile submarines. Deploying a frigate to engage a submarine has been compared to sending a chicken to kill a fox.
What aircraft? The RAN's organic ASW air is the S60R and we don't have many of them. The P8 is a great platform but cannot provide cover for far from airbases or dispersed task groups. At least in the future we will (may) have an SSN to sanitise ahead but the fact the T26 will be effective in the Atlantic should not suggest that it is incapable in the Indo-Pacific, lets face it they are designed to protect the QE CV's ..... in the Indo Pacific as well as the Atlantic.
Finally, If Paul Greenfield was responsible for the selection of AGEIS for the Hobart Class DDG is he then responsible for select Baseline 7 when it was know this was going to be overtaken by newer systems?
Last edited:
Interesting development in the Ukraine with deck based missiles appears to have cooked off after battle damage and looking to have destroyed Moskva and the ship alongside. Whats that say for advocates of having strike missiles etc deck mounted? I have no views but interested in the pros comments and thoughts on this when taking deck mounted missiles into account for the Hunters and Arafuras. What's it take to make a missile explode unintentionally?
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
The Slava Class were built as Carrier Killers and they carried the Nuke capable SS-N-12/P-500/P-1000 Missile which is Huge at 5t, and has a 1t Warhead, I don't know how much of the Moskva would be left if one of those went off. The bigger worry would be if it was carrying any with a Nuke Warhead, wouldn't set a Nuke off but we could have Nukes sitting on the Sea Floor now.
Last edited:
Same could happen to missiles loaded into VLS systems. It all depends upon where the hit is. It can be fire that causes the missile fuel to cook off and explode in the launch tube. It might be sympathetic detonation of the missiles warheads if there is a direct hit on the missile launch tubes.
Two days ban from replying on the thread for ignoring Moderators direction by suggestion of arming Arafura class with missiles.
SwingShift
Member
Hey ddx.
Are the specs of the ‘standard’ design that ‘don’t meet Australian specs’ insurmountable to a point that the better option is a longer life of our existing ships and a longer gap between significant warship builds in Australia?
By the time Hunter is deployable much will have changed in our region, we will have had half a dozen PM’s at the rate we switch them, a significant regional conflict may have been won or lost, A2AD will have evolved and may have been tested, and China may have a new leader and possibly a new ruling party.
I would have felt this would‘ve warmed the production line, initiated and developed supply chains, developed capacity, and offer significant commonality to the Hunter that this class, potentially not trying to be Hunter but a small batch sub class, offering many consistent components, systems, supply chains, and allowing sailors and maintainers relevant exposure before the main class gets underway.
Providing not the ideal Australian capability but something reasonable.
Last edited:
What is the "standard design" you speak of? And how about providing some evidence to back up your claim that the so called standard design doesn't meet Australian specs. Do you know precisely what the Australian specs are? I am sure that many of us on here would be keen to know them too.
Our friend google turned up this...
Cooking-off
But as others have commented, a swathe of factors come into play when dealing with munitions fires, starting with the munition itself - the casing - the explosives content (NEQ) - the actual explosive material itself (TNT / TORPEX/Black Powder/Liquid fuel) - was the munition in a launcher - does the launcher have fire suppression, etc, etc, etc... the list of variables is endless !
Most weapons within NATO are fire tested / drop tested / crushed & numerous other tests as part of their overall safety rating. To the best of my knowledge, all Naval explosives come under category 1, IAW UN codification...
UN explosive hazard classification system and codes
SA
To understand GCS, you need to look firstly at the UK Type 26 & where that design came from.
The reality of the design is that it is likely a continuation of the Type 45 destroyer hull form, tweaked by Naval architects using Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) & dynamic model testing in a water filled towing tank. These x2 methods are the global standards for all hull design in the 21st Century, as while computer modelling can give excellent data on hull strengths / loading & speed capability, the model testing is just as vital to provide significant data on handling in different sea states, under various loadings.
The hull form for GCS gives copious low down capability for numerous variations of power trains & hotel services, eventually widening out to give more room for the heart of the ship (crew accommodation & services / the warfighting capability from command & control / equipment rooms / stores & explosives stowage's).
At 150m long the ship can accommodate all of this, but to be able to provide expansion for future fit & being all things to all men, taking the hull form up to 170 - 180m I believe would be viable. This would allow the ship the room needed to fit additional tank space for fuel, as well as fitting additional power generation for weapon systems & equipment.
While the mission bay concept of GCS is becoming the 'must have' in new warship design, the room occupied by having this facility right in the centre of the ship does have issues that need to be overcome. Routing of systems / services is likely to be partially restricted, with many being directed down into the ship, occupying space. There is also likely to be structural impact, with larger / heavier structure needed to cope with such a big open expanse of space.
SA
Neither Paul Greenfield nor any other single individual was responsible for selecting the Aegis Baseline for the DDGs. I will say, however, that it was the baseline which was at that time acceptable to all the players in the decision making process .
I remember being shown the film of the Forrestral fire in 1974 as part of the RNZAF safety around aircraft training module. It was also used by the RNZN as part of their damage control and firefighting training. The RNZAF had another USN accident movie were a deck crewman got sucked trough an engine intake and there was red mist and some lumps exited the rear of the engine. A very vivid example of the dangers of working around aircraft. They had an extensive library of those. A Vietnam war one of a US grunt leaping out of a UH-1H and running without looking, straight into the tail rotor, a WW2 USAAC film of a groundy walking into an aircraft propeller during engine warm up. Various RAF ones.
My apologies mate, I'm speaking in regards to the clear differences in requirements for the two ships. Hunter will be an equally capable high-end AAW platform as it is an ASW platform - by virtue of AEGIS, CEAFAR and SM2/6. That's not the case for the Type 26.