Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[Stampede]

My understanding is that the Anzac sensors are suitable for the task in the Red Sea/Arabian Sea areas but the limited load of 32 ESSM 2’s would be the main issue as to its suitability for deployment.

Question for those more knowledgeable than me, as the ESSM 2 is a relatively thin & light missile, can the Anzac’s VLS tubes be reloaded whilst at sea? If so, they may be suitable for the mission, especially if it is in company with more capable allied vessels.

I would of thought a 32 missile load out would of been sufficient against the size and complexity of the threat in the Red Sea.
May add a lack of an CIWS on the ANZAC has always being a concern.

If the ANZAC Class cannot deal with the above, then the RAN realistically has only three warships based on the Hobart Class.

Others could advise, but I feel the ANZAC's do in fact have some realistic capability.

As to reloading, my understanding is the USN have trailed this with the Mk 41 resulting in limited success.
You sail with what you have and return to base when empty.



Cheers S

 

[knightrider4]

I would of thought a 32 missile load out would of been sufficient against the size and complexity of the threat in the Red Sea.
May add a lack of an CIWS on the ANZAC has always being a concern.

If the ANZAC Class cannot deal with the above, then the RAN realistically has only three warships based on the Hobart Class.

Others could advise, but I feel the ANZAC's do in fact have some realistic capability.

As to reloading, my understanding is the USN have trailed this with the Mk 41 resulting in limited success.
You sail with what you have and return to base when empty.



Cheers S

Stampede they are not completely useless but I certainly would be nervous going to war in one. An Anzac CMS would be an order of magnitude less capable than an Aegis system. There are some sophisticated bits of metal being shot around the place there, with the potential for some serious players to get involved. Can you imagine the fallout if one of our obsolete warships got struck and/or Australians get killed/vessel lost. Australia simply doesn't have the stomach for that. You reap what you sow, its time to suck it up. Further to this if heaven forbid we actually had to fire live missiles I just don't think we'd have the inventory in Australia to replenish them. Thats how dire our situation is I believe.

 

[Scott Elaurant]

Stampede they are not completely useless but I certainly would be nervous going to war in one. An Anzac CMS would be an order of magnitude less capable than an Aegis system. There are some sophisticated bits of metal being shot around the place there, with the potential for some serious players to get involved. Can you imagine the fallout if one of our obsolete warships got struck and/or Australians get killed/vessel lost. Australia simply doesn't have the stomach for that. You reap what you sow, its time to suck it up. Further to this if heaven forbid we actually had to fire live missiles I just don't think we'd have the inventory in Australia to replenish them. Thats how dire our situation is I believe.

So this suggests Australia really only has three warships capable of being reliably deployed into this sort of environment. Assuming the rule of three, which will be a reality as AWDs are upgraded, deploying any one AWD would leave nothing equivalent to deploy locally. That fourth AWD is looking like a sorry absence right now.

Presumably the sort of threats Iran is fielding and supplying to groups like the Houthi are going to become more common in this region. Understanding the rule of three, it seems like the RAN need six+ AWD equivalent armed ships (or better) in future, so we will always have at least two able to deploy, preferably one each from FBE and FBW. With Hunters not coming for a decade, the late 2020s are looking quite exposed.

 

[Armchair]

I would of thought a 32 missile load out would of been sufficient against the size and complexity of the threat in the Red Sea.
….
Others could advise, but I feel the ANZAC's do in fact have some realistic capability.

When the threat is almost entirely AShM and drones and rockets (and maybe fast attack craft) then the limited magazine of the ANZACs is a serious limitation and that would seem to be the case in the Red Sea.
For missions where a 5“ gun, an ASW helicopter and shipboard ASW capabilities and 8 Harpoons are more likely to be called for then the ANZAC class has more to contribute.

 

[Stampede]

Stampede they are not completely useless but I certainly would be nervous going to war in one. An Anzac CMS would be an order of magnitude less capable than an Aegis system. There are some sophisticated bits of metal being shot around the place there, with the potential for some serious players to get involved. Can you imagine the fallout if one of our obsolete warships got struck and/or Australians get killed/vessel lost. Australia simply doesn't have the stomach for that. You reap what you sow, its time to suck it up. Further to this if heaven forbid we actually had to fire live missiles I just don't think we'd have the inventory in Australia to replenish them. Thats how dire our situation is I believe.

I think it's a very interesting conversation and really says a lot as to where we are today and what we need down the track.

Let me just say I don't think any naval captain realistically wants to be challenged with incoming ASMs, even if in command of the world's best air defence vessel. What ever that is.

It's a game of statistics.

Defence is never 100 percent.
Eventually one will get through.
Like the onion skin you need alot of layers.
Appreciate the ANZACs are lacking in this area.


Ideally better to get the archer, not the arrows.

Unfortunately not always a real world proposition.

My understanding is that the ANZACs certainly have their attributes and I'd guess the Houthis rebels don't have great numbers of ASMs.
Are they up for the job.
Hmmmmmmm

Defence will decide what that looks like and the government will make a call on that advise.

That would be a interesting conversation.

Maybe time for a new naval review

Cheers S

 

[Redlands18]

Australian Navy declares readiness for Red Sea venture pending federal approval (msn.com)
The Australian Navy has said it is ready to deploy a vessel if required by the Federal Government

 

[StingrayOZ]

Aegis would better integrate with US forces.

While an Anzac would be able to protect itself, the mission would be to protect all shipping and land attack threats. Anzac can't really do that.

The us has fired 20 sm2 missiles to intercept threats. So something like that. The us has proven it can and will shoot down threats, so what ever we send has to be that level of capability..

As for needing that capability locally, the plan was, is to break that with the hobart upgrade. So either way strong deployable ddg capability is a real area of concern.

 

[Meriv90]

I don't understand why they asked you to send ships considering how strained you are numberwise (not that the rest of the NATO is in a different condition but at least we aren't on the other side of the planet).

We got Gibuti in front of Yemen so recharging VLS won't be a problem.

Considering we got Gibuti just in front of Yemen and in the area of operation I would have asked Australia/NZ with C4i and Elint assets to try to see when the slow drones are arriving.

 

[Pusser01]

Interesting story from the ABC, from memory the HMAS Matafele is the last RAN ship missing at sea that hasn't been found. Cheers. Family of HMAS Matafele crewman share survival story nearly 80 years after ship's disappearance - ABC News

 

[OldNavy63]

I would of thought a 32 missile load out would of been sufficient against the size and complexity of the threat in the Red Sea.
—/—
As to reloading, my understanding is the USN have trailed this with the Mk 41 resulting in limited success.
You sail with what you have and return to base when empty.

Cheers S

US Navy prioritizes ‘game-changing’ rearming capability for ships

Reloading a vertical launching system is a challenging maneuver, given the crane must hold missile canisters vertically, while slowly lowering explosives.

www.defensenews.com

Earlier this year the USN trialled reloading Mk 41 VLS cell on USS Spruance (which was tied to a pier) using a crane on an auxiliary vessel brought alongside (outboard).

Rearming at sea is not yet possible.

 

[John Fedup]

US Navy prioritizes ‘game-changing’ rearming capability for ships

Reloading a vertical launching system is a challenging maneuver, given the crane must hold missile canisters vertically, while slowly lowering explosives.

www.defensenews.com

Earlier this year the USN trialled reloading Mk 41 VLS cell on USS Spruance (which was tied to a pier) using a crane on an auxiliary vessel brought alongside (outboard).

Rearming at sea is not yet possible.

Nice article which illustrates the problem of reloading missiles at sea. Really can’t see how open ocean reloads could ever be safe. Another concern is the missile supply ship, a huge inventory of missiles on board would certainly be a prime target for subs. These ships would be tracked from the moment they leave port.

A larger ship that featured some kind of internal reloading system together with space to store extra reload missiles would be nice except the cost would likely make the Zumwalt look like the bargain of the century in comparison.

 

[swerve]

The USN used to fit ships with VLS which included a crane for reloading. It went out of use because it turned out to be pretty much unusable at sea, & it took up space which could have held missiles.

Replacement systems were talked about, but seemed to be a low priority for many years. Interesting to see that it's being taken seriously again.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I don't understand why they asked you to send ships considering how strained you are numberwise (not that the rest of the NATO is in a different condition but at least we aren't on the other side of the planet).

We got Gibuti in front of Yemen so recharging VLS won't be a problem.

Considering we got Gibuti just in front of Yemen and in the area of operation I would have asked Australia/NZ with C4i and Elint assets to try to see when the slow drones are arriving.

Look a bit deeper and Australia is a very good place to project power into the gulf if things go pear shaped. We are far away, but we are always far away.

Say if Egypt was to enter the conflict. Or something started to block trade routes, like hitting commercial ships while in straits or canals. Which would knock out all med based nato help.

Terrifying. The Americans belive shtf. The Americans aren't stupid, they would have rock solid reasons for the request, and they know our capabilities back the front.

For Australia, not answering a request like this is basically unimaginable. Rohan aiding gondor stuff. Even if the request is our last or only ship. If the Americans think it where the asset needs to be, and it is, Australia should have a ddg deployed there. We should be. Probably with a e7 and p8. Perhaps even superhornets.

The pressure on the naval dsr went through the roof. The Americans have just kicked over our table. It feels like we we are going to make a crash acquisition. Events have overtaken things. More ddgs are incoming.

In every crisis, there is opportunity. At least for now, the fighting is still far away and involves actors that can't get Australia. But it highlights, the future is very murky, prepare like a war is going on. No time for indecision.

 

[John Fedup]

The USN used to fit ships with VLS which included a crane for reloading. It went out of use because it turned out to be pretty much unusable at sea, & it took up space which could have held missiles.

Replacement systems were talked about, but seemed to be a low priority for many years. Interesting to see that it's being taken seriously again.

A consequence of realizing having a multi-billion dollar warship return to port for reloads isn’t viable especially if the port is distant. It really shows that air defence via missiles is very limited in duration if the enemy can launch saturation attacks, especially from land. Directed energy weapons and improved guns need to be part of the air defence tool kit.

 

[swerve]

Odd that it took them decades to realise that, especially considering that was why they'd produced & fitted a VLS system with a built-in crane in the first place.

 

[Meriv90]

A consequence of realizing having a multi-billion dollar warship return to port for reloads isn’t viable especially if the port is distant. It really shows that air defence via missiles is very limited in duration if the enemy can launch saturation attacks, especially from land. Directed energy weapons and improved guns need to be part of the air defence tool kit.

Lasers take to much against a saturation attack.

A RAM missile is 1mln a piece.

All to intercept a 20k-100k drone.

The technical solution is Iron dome with the tamir missile 50k a piece and interconnected radar capabilities for area defense.

I hope Raytheon can sell it US made or offshore it away from Israel because morally and politically , except for the US, buying Israeli is not possible.

 

[shadow99]

The USN used to fit ships with VLS which included a crane for reloading. It went out of use because it turned out to be pretty much unusable at sea, & it took up space which could have held missiles.

Replacement systems were talked about, but seemed to be a low priority for many years. Interesting to see that it's being taken seriously again.

Loading a missile from a swinging cable at sea was doomed before they started.

The answer to me would be to design a robotic arm to reload the cells. This would stop the missile from swinging and essentially keeping the crew out of harms way.

 

[swerve]

I agree, something with a rigid hold on the missile, but you still need the two ships to be very stable relative to each other.

At the moment it seems that they're trying to put a missile into a silo using a crane mounted on another ship, but the missile's still swinging from the crane. That looks to me as if it'd be tricky even with the ships tied together in a sheltered anchorage.

 

[Meriv90]

The solution could be placing the VLS at the center of the ship between two islands/elevated structures so that you can place two rail systems thus have multiple tensed connection points to the missile/canister so that it moves as the ship

 

[recce.k1]

Aegis would better integrate with US forces.

While an Anzac would be able to protect itself, the mission would be to protect all shipping and land attack threats. Anzac can't really do that.

The us has fired 20 sm2 missiles to intercept threats. So something like that. The us has proven it can and will shoot down threats, so what ever we send has to be that level of capability..

As for needing that capability locally, the plan was, is to break that with the hobart upgrade. So either way strong deployable ddg capability is a real area of concern.

Are there reasons why SM2 could not be fitted to the ANZAC's tactical length Mk41 VLS? Or perhaps post-AMCAP fit-out when CEAFAR2-L is fitted?

Size and weight wise appears feasible (SM2 weight 708kg versus quad packed ESSM at 1,120kg). (Individual ESSM weight 280kg).

Potential loadouts: 8x SM2 or 6x SM2 + 8x ESSM etc. Granted probably not the most ideal loadout for such a deployment so may need a second ANZAC on standby or already in-theatre to relieve the first ANZAC if they deplete their inventory, which may be able to restock at a nearby friendly naval port facility "relatively' quickly (assuming arrangements to do so are put in place). And the RAN would be operating with other allied assets to share the tasking so re-arming may be able to be factored in.

The RAN has a highly capable medium(?) Frigate compared to many even well resourced nations and surely having some extra flexibility with its (limited) VLS cells may be a useful and inexpensive capability addition for these challenging times until the replacement Hunters are ready?