Is it feasible to add containerised missiles to some of the lhd ships per this article to add to load out for fleet
Club-K Container Missile System | Military.com
Club-K Container Missile System | Military.com
Last edited:
By the time we get to the end of six hunters we are quite far into the future. The 2040's battle space looks quite different.It will need a deluge firefighting systems for the VLS, pumps piping etc.
It will be interesting if one of the changes will be an extra GT and simpler propulsion system.
I'm going to really stick my neck out and suggest the long term aim be to classify the Hunters as tier 2 and the enhanced missile Type 26 or if the full Type 83 is decided on, i.e. high end air defence, ABM, strike, ASW and a multi mission capability, they be the tier 1.
Fantasy fleet here sorry, but the RAN really needs to increase major combatant numbers to reverse the "shrinkflation" ('Shrinkflation' to rise as grocery manufacturers offset rising costs) of the last 50 years.
We need fifteen or more majors. I would suggest, three Hobart, six hunter and six hunter DDGs. Then the Hobart's be replaced with Type 83 multi role destroyers based on the Type 26.
Concurrently a GP frigate be acquired as a third tier. Perhaps eight.
This would result in a structure of a growing number (three then six) tier 1 multi role destryors (more like cruisers), a second tier of twelve, shrinking to nine ASW (6) and air defence / strike (3) frigates. Then eight tier 3 GP frigates.
It would take a couple of decades to get there, but planning needs to start now.
Would assume any future large surface combatant needs two GTs if direct energy weapons are in the mix. A Zumwalt IEP package sounds about right. Future hypersonic missiles are going to larger along with their associated new launcher. If a larger missile capacity is desired then this large surface combatant probably needs to around 12,000 plus tons at a minimum.By the time we get to the end of six hunters we are quite far into the future. The 2040's battle space looks quite different.
Larger missiles in larger VLS. We have basically come to the end of the Mk41 kinetically. There will be larger missiles in larger missile VLS.
Direct energy weapons will move from prototype/oddity and small scale installs, to much larger more capable weapons.
Radar, computing, sensors, needs will increase.
I do think we would be looking more like something ~165m long, 21-22m wide, 2x gt but with some diesel generation. May not have a manned helicopter but more of an autonomous fleet of drones.
I am not sure about going to 14 to 16 major fleet units. I think we will go to 12 + 6. Smaller crewing ships are bad at everything, except they have a small crew. But if crewing issues are crippling your navy then they are likely to be required.
If this keeps going at this rate we'll be fielding Iowa Class type battleships again, only loaded with very big missiles not guns.Would assume any future large surface combatant needs two GTs if direct energy weapons are in the mix. A Zumwalt IEP package sounds about right. Future hypersonic missiles are going to larger along with their associated new launcher. If a larger missile capacity is desired then this large surface combatant probably needs to around 12,000 plus tons at a minimum.
Not sure about dimensions wrt Iowa and Zumwalt but the latter is 15k tons versus an Iowa ~50k+ tons. It has been reported that Zumwalt’s radar return profile reassembles a fishing boat. As a target it wouldn’t be any more vulnerable than T26, perhaps less due to its stealthy design.If this keeps going at this rate we'll be fielding Iowa Class type battleships again, only loaded with very big missiles not guns.
The problem is they make very big targets.
John, I was stretching it a bit but you get my drift. We're heading back to very big ships but as long as they are protected and do the job without too much manpower that's all that matters. Supercarriers may need thousands , but we don't have them or the manpower.Not sure about dimensions wrt Iowa and Zumwalt but the latter is 15k tons versus an Iowa ~50k+ tons. It has been reported that Zumwalt’s radar return profile reassembles a fishing boat. As a target it wouldn’t be any more vulnerable than T26, perhaps less due to its stealthy design.
If we make the type 26 design larger, we will need more power, if we want margins for sensor and weapon growth we will need more power. Air defence ships typical do have a tighter speed requirement and may spend more time at higher speeds than an asw unit.Would assume any future large surface combatant needs two GTs if direct energy weapons are in the mix. A Zumwalt IEP package sounds about right. Future hypersonic missiles are going to larger along with their associated new launcher. If a larger missile capacity is desired then this large surface combatant probably needs to around 12,000 plus tons at a minimum.
The cost is in the systems not so much the steel. The bigger the ship the more systems you can fit.If we make the type 26 design larger, we will need more power, if we want margins for sensor and weapon growth we will need more power. Air defence ships typical do have a tighter speed requirement and may spend more time at higher speeds than an asw unit.
Italian and Spanish future airdefence ships are looking around about that size. Chinese destroyers are already their.
They won't be cheap.
Germany's just started building the first F126: 166 metres, 10500 tons. And that's a GP frigate, optionally fitted for ASW, with ESSM & RAM for air defence. Shipflation. After that, it plans to build a new AAW ship, the F127. The TKMS proposal is about 12000 tons.If we make the type 26 design larger, we will need more power, if we want margins for sensor and weapon growth we will need more power. Air defence ships typical do have a tighter speed requirement and may spend more time at higher speeds than an asw unit.
Italian and Spanish future airdefence ships are looking around about that size. Chinese destroyers are already their.
They won't be cheap.
https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2021-04-15/181256/Some time ago, I mentioned that the steel used in the Collins class was stronger, had better blast resistant properties & was easier to weld than the steels used in the Virginia & Astute classes. Pat Conroy has just announced that the same combination of suppliers (steel from BlueScope Steel and a heat treatment process from Bisalloy) would be used to supply the latest technology steel in the production of the Australian AUKUS SSN’s - it would be a significant coup if they could get this steel used in the British built SSN’s as well.
Aussie steel set for SSN-AUKUS submarines
The US was looking at the steel it was using, and their qualification processes so there is some opening there. I think it is a good sign that we are still in the sub steel business. Making shaping and welding sub steel usually requires amazing QA processes. Making it is only part of the equation, being able to test and QA it is another matter.Some time ago, I mentioned that the steel used in the Collins class was stronger, had better blast resistant properties & was easier to weld than the steels used in the Virginia & Astute classes. Pat Conroy has just announced that the same combination of suppliers (steel from BlueScope Steel and a heat treatment process from Bisalloy) would be used to supply the latest technology steel in the production of the Australian AUKUS SSN’s - it would be a significant coup if they could get this steel used in the British built SSN’s as well.
Given the stated strategic ambition to be able to achieve "localised sea control" there is clearly a need for a larger fleet, with the numbers stated in various reports being anywhere from 16 to 24 MFU.I am not sure about going to 14 to 16 major fleet units. I think we will go to 12 + 6. Smaller crewing ships are bad at everything, except they have a small crew. But if crewing issues are crippling your navy then they are likely to be required.
Given the stated strategic ambition to be able to achieve "localised sea control" there is clearly a need for a larger fleet, with the numbers stated in various reports being anywhere from 16 to 24 MFU.
The most logical approach feels like extending the Hunter build to 12, and then a class of destroyers - at least 4.
Let's see. The whole Tier 1/2 discussion feels as if it will be a mess.
Though as the government has moved quickly on the Army DSR recommendations this may well happen quicker than we think. I am a bit suspicious regarding budget (and the impact the SSNs will have on the same) but let's see.
Regards,
Massive
Has there been any statement released by the RAN and/or gov't on what actually constitutes a Tier 2 vessel that I have yet to come across? If not, then postulating about what the crew size will be for as-yet undefined hypothetical ships is IMO rather a waste.Tier 1 ships - 180+ crew
Tier 2 ships - 20-120 crew
Think the number of Tier 1 ships will depend on which Tier 2 is chosen.
More Tier 1 (12+) with Tier 2 (12+) Cape class, Manta, Arafura, MMPV90 etc, (cheaper less than 60 crew.)
Less Tier 1 (8-12) with Tier 2 (8-12) Tasman, Aus Light Frigate, Arrowhead 140 etc, (expensive and likely 100 crew+)