Redlands18
Well-Known Member
A Hunter with 64 VLS, 16 NSM, towed array and retaining some of the mission bay would be a formidable warship. A Master of all three aspects, AAW, ASuW and ASW.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
Shanesworld
Well-Known Member
Ball gazing is a hazardous art - especially crystal ones. But i think your right but I think it starts questions over propulsion and power generation that Im guessing are still evolving questions with only suggestions rather than definite answers.
The vls concept and its replenishment in high stakes high tempo war scenarios hasn't really been stress tested in the way tube artillery has across campaigns rather than the engagements that vls has been used for.
two articles today in Breaking Defense with updates on AUKUS Virginia sub plans including the initial delivery time frames and initial planning on building a Nuclear industry. I’m not clear what they will actually do prior once trained to getting any subs.
breakingdefense.com
Sub three will be a new Build Virginia Block VII in 2038 with no VPM. There is mountain to climb both in the US yards and supply chain and in building an Australian industry capable of supporting the subs before any of this comes to fruition.
breakingdefense.com
HII, Babcock to help build Australia's AUKUS nuclear submarine enterprise - Breaking Defense
Babcock Australasia's Nick Hines said the companies envision an "AUKUS passport" to more easily track skills of the workforce for the subs, allowing the countries to trade workers and fill gaps quickly.
breakingdefense.com
Sub three will be a new Build Virginia Block VII in 2038 with no VPM. There is mountain to climb both in the US yards and supply chain and in building an Australian industry capable of supporting the subs before any of this comes to fruition.
US Navy sub boss reveals new details on AUKUS Virginia class sub sales to Australia - Breaking Defense
Vice Adm. Bill Houston said the sales of in-service Virginia-class subs will be in 2032, 2035 and a newly produced sub in 2038.
breakingdefense.com
I agree - would be nice. But having said that, and given the previous criticism, does anyone believe BAE/RAN wouldn’t have already come out and said something like “The Hunter baseline can/does already incorporate 64 Mk41 VLS”…
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
The BAE Rep who talked to Xavier in the Naval News video confirmed, that they have designed three VLS modules that fit where the mission bay is, with 24, 32 or 64 cells, added to the 32 cells forward. Everything still points towards the current Hunter design with 32 cells and a full size mission bay.
Well Ukraine is interesting. Missiles and guided munitions are definitely a thing. But gun base air defence is also still a thing. Low cost drones are best taken down with low cost gun fire, not few and expensive missiles. Missiles which are quickly depleted in the early stages (both as air defence and strike) just aren't stockpiled in large enough volumes, nor can they they be made quick enough. But they are still important for high value strike and air defence against high value aircraft.
While 1 missile could destroy a ship, we know that missile defence is very good these days. We can see video of missiles intercepting dozens of missiles every night on TV.
I find it interesting that the wizbang Navantia Flight III has two CIWS Phalanx. Antishipping capability seems very high, no longer 8xHarpoon, but 16 or 24 more effective NSM. Also the 30mm CIWS.
While we currently use ESSM and ESSM can be quad pack, its quite likely ESSM will grow in length to try and provide more range. A few SM-2 or SM-6 could also be fitted to these small combatants to strike at the air launch platform attacking them.
Well contracts and designs would be fixed in place. The first 3 ships are too late to change now, efficiently/cheaply. Like the Arafura, its too late, steel is already cut, equipment and orders already placed.
But it is possibly we could alter the ships after production. We could also look at a cold launch system like CAMM. Or a CIWS like seaRAM
While we may need more firepower, is VLS what we actually want? Is it an air threat we are worried about, or is it more antishipping capability?
BAE just address the public media calls for VLS.. so they fitted a variety of VLS configurations to show potential options.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Naval Strike Missile (NSM) (naval-technology.com)
NSM can also be used as a Land Attack Missile as well, probably more for tactical strike in support of ground operations, leaving Tomahawk more for Strategic strike at longer ranges.
US Department of Defense media release in relation to a visiting delegation to Canberra to discuss AUKUS:
Performing the Duties of Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Dr. Mara Karlin's Travel to Australia > U.S. Department of Defense > Release
"Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Dr. Mara Karlin will lead a senior interagency delegation to Australia this week for a series of high-level trilateral engagements to advance the AUKUS defense and security partnership....."
Nothing mentioned about this visit in Australian media as far as I am aware.
Performing the Duties of Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Dr. Mara Karlin's Travel to Australia > U.S. Department of Defense > Release
"Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Dr. Mara Karlin will lead a senior interagency delegation to Australia this week for a series of high-level trilateral engagements to advance the AUKUS defense and security partnership....."
Nothing mentioned about this visit in Australian media as far as I am aware.
Indopacific is quite a good conference to go to. Australia isn't Europe or Asia or America but there is a presence from all three heavily. There is also quite a lot of South American attendance in terms of customers. I took my wife in 2019, she loved it, the swag was top notch, the exhibitors were interesting, a lot of business gets done on the floor between exhibitors, and that some sort of big announcement will happen soon, so it has some energy about it. The academic presentations are not that impressive, but the industry ones usually are.A bit OT but how nice finally seeing an host using hands (I'm sorry I'm Italian i need that body language) and showcase with energy the product. Normally the interviews are with a stiff middle aged man that has been lend to the exposition.
My wife was very upset that recently her neat foldable lockheed martin sunglasses broke, which were swag from 2019.
NSM is a bit lightweight for ground operation particularly against hardened targets. The 120kg warhead is, on the light end, compared to the 450kg tomahawk conventional (or the 150kt nuclear). But it is much lighter, stealther and agile. And you can carry more of them. Also, I guess most targets in the indo-pacific aren't hardened, and those that are would be earmarked for multiple TLAM or 2000lb JDAM.
We can see that from the models, NSM is highly popular. Being lighter, it can be fitted in higher numerical fitouts, even though its far more effective in the antisurface role, which was never really Tomahawks main purpose.
Took me a minute to get this. That does it, definitely need to catch up on my sleep tonight for my brain to restore normal function
Speaking about the NSM, is there any info on how destructive the relatively light warhead is against different targets? It's half the weight of explosives than the harpoon, so I guess what I am asking, are modern explosives more effective or harpoon was overkill?
Harpoon is an old weapon designed a long time ago. While entering service in 1977 was designed in 1970, as a western version of the Styx. The Styx is a chunky soviet weapon with, a 454kg warhead. It was developed in the 1950's. The 1950s, ships still had guns and armor, and mission killing or sinking a large ship required a large war head. Also these missiles could accept nuclear warheads that were all the rage. Guidance wasn't perfect either, the missile might strike are the front of the ship, far away from the super structure and engine spaces. A large warhead resulted in the ship being out of commission.
For most modern ships, and probably for most ships even back in the 1950s, ~100kg of high explosive with fragmentary casing is plenty to mission kill it. Ships have been completely disabled from a Seasparrow hit.
TCG Muavenet (DM 357) - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Modern anti-ship warheads are going to more of the ~100kg warhead. Guidance is much better, missiles are stealthier, more agile, longer ranged. Explosives are slightly better. For a ship, there is basically no armor anymore, and 100kg is plenty hard hitting for a large ship. Large missiles with war heads of half a ton or more are over kill for ships, and large, not agile, take up tremendous space. Hence also why there is a lot of development of smaller diameter bombs, guidance is so much better, you don't need to be dropping huge metric ton of bomb to hope you take it out. 100kg in through the window does the job nicely.
Same with aircraft bombs. We don't need 50x2000lb loadouts. Stormbreaker is a <50kg warhead. Spear3 is believed to use the 6kg warhead off brimstone, so imagine like a long range hellfire. Which is like a 155mm shell. Which may not seem like much for a 10,000t destroyer, but we can easily choose which window you want it to fly into the bridge, its plenty. So 120kg traveling at +900kmph is still overkill.
We are seeing drones carrying tiny explosives, hand grenade or smaller, take out premium tanks in Ukraine, dropping it through the hatch.
Most munitions have a surface attack mode now. SM-2/SM-6 ESSM. So Its not just the NSM that are antishipping. You can fire ESSM blk II as an antisurface missile. ESSM still has a ~40kg warhead and mach 4 speed~50km range. Sm-2 has I believe ~100kg warhead, mach 3 and ~150km range.
But the 250km range of NSM is neat. As long as you have some sort of sensor platform to acquire the target for you. Australia has JORN, Trident, P8, E7, MC55, SH, F35 and ships sensors and capabilities and embarked capabilities like the MH60R.
The the RAN ships all have really really big radars up really really high. I presume these days modern radars can provide ECM capabilities integrated as well as radar and illuminator functions.
So one of this smaller ships with ~64 ESSM, ~16 NSM, 57mm gun, torpedos, CIWS, CEAFAR, Helo packs quite a punch. Particularly operating say within ~1000nm of Australia's territory.
In Taiwans case, no gun is probably realistic. There won't be any time to start firing a gun, when everyone is firing high sub sonic or mach 3-6 type weapons within a ~300km space. You might as well fire all the missiles, then haul arse back to base at top speed
A little more information on the Virginia class submarine being sold to Australia with timeline ?
US Navy sub boss reveals new details on AUKUS Virginia class sub sales to Australia - Breaking Defense
US Navy sub boss reveals new details on AUKUS Virginia class sub sales to Australia - Breaking Defense
New build Virginias will put pressure on the AUKUS SSN program to deliver. Part of me thinks that life would be much easier if we just went with a proven off the shelf design such as the Virginia.two articles today in Breaking Defense with updates on AUKUS Virginia sub plans including the initial delivery time frames and initial planning on building a Nuclear industry. I’m not clear what they will actually do prior once trained to getting any subs.
HII, Babcock to help build Australia's AUKUS nuclear submarine enterprise - Breaking Defense
Babcock Australasia's Nick Hines said the companies envision an "AUKUS passport" to more easily track skills of the workforce for the subs, allowing the countries to trade workers and fill gaps quickly.
Sub three will be a new Build Virginia Block VII in 2038 with no VPM. There is mountain to climb both in the US yards and supply chain and in building an Australian industry capable of supporting the subs before any of this comes to fruition.
US Navy sub boss reveals new details on AUKUS Virginia class sub sales to Australia - Breaking Defense
Vice Adm. Bill Houston said the sales of in-service Virginia-class subs will be in 2032, 2035 and a newly produced sub in 2038.
No.
Look at the time lines. Proven off the shelf designs into the future in this case would be building 50/60 year old designs that the parent navy is beginning to retire.
Same with building more Hobart's now. It would mean building updated obsolete designs.
Imagine building updated Oberon's instead of Collins, or undated River class DEs/frigates instead of ANZACs. As ridiculous as it sounds, that would actually not be as bad as ordering Virginia's or Hobart's for delivery in the 2040s.
Glad you mentioned ESSM.Harpoon is an old weapon designed a long time ago. While entering service in 1977 was designed in 1970, as a western version of the Styx. The Styx is a chunky soviet weapon with, a 454kg warhead. It was developed in the 1950's. The 1950s, ships still had guns and armor, and mission killing or sinking a large ship required a large war head. Also these missiles could accept nuclear warheads that were all the rage. Guidance wasn't perfect either, the missile might strike are the front of the ship, far away from the super structure and engine spaces. A large warhead resulted in the ship being out of commission.
For most modern ships, and probably for most ships even back in the 1950s, ~100kg of high explosive with fragmentary casing is plenty to mission kill it. Ships have been completely disabled from a Seasparrow hit.
TCG Muavenet (DM 357) - Wikipedia
Modern anti-ship warheads are going to more of the ~100kg warhead. Guidance is much better, missiles are stealthier, more agile, longer ranged. Explosives are slightly better. For a ship, there is basically no armor anymore, and 100kg is plenty hard hitting for a large ship. Large missiles with war heads of half a ton or more are over kill for ships, and large, not agile, take up tremendous space. Hence also why there is a lot of development of smaller diameter bombs, guidance is so much better, you don't need to be dropping huge metric ton of bomb to hope you take it out. 100kg in through the window does the job nicely.
Same with aircraft bombs. We don't need 50x2000lb loadouts. Stormbreaker is a <50kg warhead. Spear3 is believed to use the 6kg warhead off brimstone, so imagine like a long range hellfire. Which is like a 155mm shell. Which may not seem like much for a 10,000t destroyer, but we can easily choose which window you want it to fly into the bridge, its plenty. So 120kg traveling at +900kmph is still overkill.
We are seeing drones carrying tiny explosives, hand grenade or smaller, take out premium tanks in Ukraine, dropping it through the hatch.
Most munitions have a surface attack mode now. SM-2/SM-6 ESSM. So Its not just the NSM that are antishipping. You can fire ESSM blk II as an antisurface missile. ESSM still has a ~40kg warhead and mach 4 speed~50km range. Sm-2 has I believe ~100kg warhead, mach 3 and ~150km range.
But the 250km range of NSM is neat. As long as you have some sort of sensor platform to acquire the target for you. Australia has JORN, Trident, P8, E7, MC55, SH, F35 and ships sensors and capabilities and embarked capabilities like the MH60R.
The the RAN ships all have really really big radars up really really high. I presume these days modern radars can provide ECM capabilities integrated as well as radar and illuminator functions.
So one of this smaller ships with ~64 ESSM, ~16 NSM, 57mm gun, torpedos, CIWS, CEAFAR, Helo packs quite a punch. Particularly operating say within ~1000nm of Australia's territory.
In Taiwans case, no gun is probably realistic. There won't be any time to start firing a gun, when everyone is firing high sub sonic or mach 3-6 type weapons within a ~300km space. You might as well fire all the missiles, then haul arse back to base at top speed
A flexible missile against a range of threats both on and over the ocean surface.
For support and smaller vessels with limited real-estate a modest number of ESSM provides a level of deterance to complicate an adversarys calculus.
Mk56 VLS would be a welcomed addition to our amphibious and supply vessels.
A compliment to our fleets frigates
Cheers S
Going Boeing
Well-Known Member
The design of the Hunter class mast must be very advanced as construction of a proof of concept unit has commenced.
Hunter Proof-of-concept Mast Set-to-work Begins
Hunter Proof-of-concept Mast Set-to-work Begins
Scott Elaurant
Well-Known Member
I am only goiong on what I have read or seen on videos, but one thing I haven’t seen is any model of a small 90m corvette such as what has been talked about before from Luerssen. All the models from Navantia, Gibbs and Cox, Babcock and Japan (Mogami) are of ships more accurately described as light frigates (3000+ tonnes) than true corvettes.
To me that is good for the Tier Two planning. Whichever way it goes, it looks like the vessels under consideration are large enough to be capable of defending themselves and presumably having reasonable range.
Purely personally, I like the Navantia Avante 2200 and Alpha 5000 designs. They are evolutionary, not revolutionary, but that is a good thing if we are in a hurry. The Alpha 5000 in particular looks like it has room for expansion. Combined with an established consortia with designer, shipyard and workforce already together, I think this is a very attractive offer.