Even further back than this we see the Australian County-class heavy cruisers having their funnels significantly extended compared to the Royal Navy ships and a much greater emphasis being put on the ability to carry seaplanes to match the RAN doctrine of the time.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
RAN plans to continue to operate and upgrade Phalanx (though there is no detail of ‘how’ precisely - SeaRAM for example would fit the below description) and keep it in-service as outlined in the IIP, though the detail is unclear with respect to other classes than the Hobarts and Choules such as the Supply Class which do presently operate Phalanx, and the Hunter class which is planned to…
I’ve not heard of any other upgrade to Phalanx beyond the current Block IB2 standard and I note the recent USN decision to upgrade all of their existing Phalanx mounts to the SeaRAM configuration could well impact on RAN’s thinking… So we may well be seeing the beginning of the path towards the introduction of RIM-116 RAM Block II into RAN service with these decisions…
Scott Elaurant
Well-Known Member
For those who are members the Youtube Channel SubBrief has a video on the Algerian navy Erradii Class frigate. These are the latest incarnation of the Meko A200AN design.
I presume this is similar to the Meko A210 design in consideration for the GPF program. To me it ticks a lot of boxes - 32 VLS and 16 SSM plus RAM plus 2 x 30mm Bushmaster mounts plus 7700nm range plus novel waterjet propulsion for stealth plus many Saab systems that could be easily integrated into an RAN combat system. I like it.
I presume this is similar to the Meko A210 design in consideration for the GPF program. To me it ticks a lot of boxes - 32 VLS and 16 SSM plus RAM plus 2 x 30mm Bushmaster mounts plus 7700nm range plus novel waterjet propulsion for stealth plus many Saab systems that could be easily integrated into an RAN combat system. I like it.
I am generally quite disapproving of Sub Brief for several reasons not least of which being his general lack of credibility within even the submariner community where you'd expect him to be the most at home. Not a response to your point as much as an expression of disappointment at seeing his videos here previously.
Last edited:
I would imagine you would want 360 degree coverage from a CiWS
A missile can manoeuvre to target , so one mount should suffice for 360 degree coverage.
A single gun based system becomes compromised , unless the ship has time to adjust course to engage or ideally you have multiple guns to provide 360 coverage
With Phalanx’s limited range as a gun based system , its SEARAM configuration seemingly offers advantages of range, coverage and variety of targets,both land and sea over a gun based system.
Seemingly this would be the way forward and hopefully if it’s good enough for allied Navy’s then the RAN should follow their lead
Destroyers ,GPF, supply ships and Amphibs
should all have this system complimented with some passive defence and at least a pair of 30 to 40mm general purpose guns.
if our fleet numbers are temporarily decreasing in the years ahead let’s enhance them the best we can.
Regards S
I note that the SAM chosen is the South African "Umkhonto" missile, which is in its own VLS, not a MK 41. Not sure 32 M4k 41 cells would take the same space, but it would definitely be handy if it would take the same amount of room.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Unlikely IMO. The Umkhonto missile in service is the IR Block II which is a short-ranged, IR guided VL missile, roughly the same class of missile as the VL MICA or Sea Ceptor. Given the smaller size and less mass per missile, I suspect any dedicated or purpose-designed launcher would also be smaller and lighter. The only reason I could foresee an order for a Mk 41 VLS-sized system getting placed was if the end-user navy planned on operating a missile which required VLS cells of the size and capability of the Mk 41. As was done by the RNZN when they replaced the RIM-7 Sea Sparrow with the Sea Ceptor, the Mk 41 VLS was actually reduced and replaced with a smaller and lighter VLS setup dedicated for Sea Ceptor.
A 32 cell module should fit at least within the deck space. Like the other designs the limiting factor would be depth rather than deck space since none are known to be able to fit strike length Mk41 which means no SM-6 or Tomahawk and MEKO A200 is the only one that could theoretically fit a 32 cell module of tactical length. This is all probably for the best though in my opinion since I think 16 Mk41 cells for ESSM and possibly an anti-submarine weapon like VLA or Type 07 is the sensible option here with weight being prioritised to task force enablers like sensors and data transmission.
Last edited:
Scott Elaurant
Well-Known Member
Agreed although I note that this is the Meko A200AN frigate, not the Meko A210. TKMS advised that the Meko A210 was larger (almost 20%) than the A200 (3600 tonnes vs 4700 tonnes) and this allowed for 32 strike length Mk41 VLS in the latter.
TKMS Unveils New MEKO A210 Frigate - Naval News
During Indo Pacific 2023, TKMS revealed it's third generation MEKO 200 design called the MEKO A210, which it intends to offer to Australia
www.navalnews.com
Umkhonto anti-aircraft missile system | Missilery.info
Its perhaps worthwhile to get an understanding of what this South African missile is. I've put a link in which provides some basic information and some photos of the cannister system.
The Umkhonto is 3.3m tall and 180mm in diameter (note 500mm with wings). This compares against 3.7m and 254mm for an ESSM.
The Umkhonto weights 130kg v 280 kg for the ESSM.
Notably its cannister is 3.8m by 650mm, which holds 1 missile (presumably the wings don't fold). This compares with 6.8m by 625mm for a strike length Mk41 cell, which holds 4 ESSM.
32 of these Umkhonto cells can fit on the fo'c'sle of the SA Valour Class. They only have 16 at the moment, with the remainder available for expansion.
So it has a similar surface footprint as the Mk41, but only one missile per cell (very low density). The big difference is the cannister depth, with this system only half the length of the Mk41. It is debatable if a Mk41 would fit within the hull shape. A Mk41 could perhaps be raised above the deck for additional length to fit.
The other big difference is weight. 32 Umkhontos weigh just over 4 tonnes. 128 ESSM (the same deck space capacity in 32 cells) is 35 tonnes. That's a really big difference and would have some stability issues, particularly with a 5" gun infront of it and limited buoyancy with the bow shape. Could perhaps do away with some of the forward ballast and fuel tanks to compensate, but that hits range and impacts trimming.
I'm thinking it would be difficult to install anything more than a 16 Mk41 VLS in this forward area. Even that is still a lot heavier.
Its perhaps worthwhile to get an understanding of what this South African missile is. I've put a link in which provides some basic information and some photos of the cannister system.
The Umkhonto is 3.3m tall and 180mm in diameter (note 500mm with wings). This compares against 3.7m and 254mm for an ESSM.
The Umkhonto weights 130kg v 280 kg for the ESSM.
Notably its cannister is 3.8m by 650mm, which holds 1 missile (presumably the wings don't fold). This compares with 6.8m by 625mm for a strike length Mk41 cell, which holds 4 ESSM.
32 of these Umkhonto cells can fit on the fo'c'sle of the SA Valour Class. They only have 16 at the moment, with the remainder available for expansion.
So it has a similar surface footprint as the Mk41, but only one missile per cell (very low density). The big difference is the cannister depth, with this system only half the length of the Mk41. It is debatable if a Mk41 would fit within the hull shape. A Mk41 could perhaps be raised above the deck for additional length to fit.
The other big difference is weight. 32 Umkhontos weigh just over 4 tonnes. 128 ESSM (the same deck space capacity in 32 cells) is 35 tonnes. That's a really big difference and would have some stability issues, particularly with a 5" gun infront of it and limited buoyancy with the bow shape. Could perhaps do away with some of the forward ballast and fuel tanks to compensate, but that hits range and impacts trimming.
I'm thinking it would be difficult to install anything more than a 16 Mk41 VLS in this forward area. Even that is still a lot heavier.
Last edited:
Scott Elaurant
Well-Known Member
Presumably this partly explains the much bigger size of the Melo A210 versus Meko A200AN. The larger frigate has enough margin that the extra weight of the strike length VLS is not an issue. I note from the photo of the Meko A210 model in the Naval Nenes article that the forward VLS in the A210 is mounted much higher, with the top of the VLS almost a complete deck higher. That would account for the height and weight I think.
I don't think MEKO A210 or enlarged Mogami are really on the table here as some people are suggesting, not even for later build. If it were to happen this would then mean the RAN having four different types of majors in service at once and I don't think it would be hard to pick the slightly smaller Hunter/bigger GPF as the redundant one of the bunch. There is a distinct mission set for an Anzac-class or a Mogami-class type of frigate in both unilateral and coalition operations but I don't think the same can be said for the enlarged designs when noting that anything they would do is done better by either the Hunter-class or the more Anzac-class sized GPF offerings.Agreed although I note that this is the Meko A200AN frigate, not the Meko A210. TKMS advised that the Meko A210 was larger (almost 20%) than the A200 (3600 tonnes vs 4700 tonnes) and this allowed for 32 strike length Mk41 VLS in the latter.
TKMS Unveils New MEKO A210 Frigate - Naval News
During Indo Pacific 2023, TKMS revealed it's third generation MEKO 200 design called the MEKO A210, which it intends to offer to Australia
Ultimately though I think anything said now is still much too early and speculative. I have adopted a more passive than active form of stressing over the final result of the GPF program.
Last edited:
Fair point. I see the value of SeaRAM on the auxiliaries, as they have no ESSM. Its an expensive option for drone control though, if that is the intention.
I had missed the news that the USN was moving to the RIM -116 system and phasing out Phalanx. That does make a difference. I gather this is to lower the consumption of SM2/6 missiles in Red Sea type situations.
I forgot most ships have some form of typhoon mount, so these provide an option to swat the slower drones and boats. The Hobarts have the 25mm Bushmaster mount, which is pretty good and much the same range as Phalanx. I think the oilers have the same system. The Hunters are also supposed to get something similar.
Last edited:
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Somewhat similar thoughts here, though I remain somewhat dubious about the notion of an 11 ship build of GP frigates split between an overseas yard and a yet to be designated and likely built yard in WA. I unfortunately do not think it much of a stretch that gov't might spend (waste, really) time and money considering potential GP frigate designs as well as an overseas builder, only to end up with no GP frigates ever actually entering RAN service.
Or a worse scenario, GP frigates do get ordered and construction started, leading to gov't deciding to cancel the Hunter-class frigates.
One must remember that the RAN has been having personnel issues which has limited the number of majors which could deploy. The overall size of the fleet has been getting reduced in part due to the age of the ANZAC-class frigates, but also because there have not been sufficient numbers of the right personnel for all potential vessels to be properly crewed.
If the GP frigate programme were to actually run and according to the outlined plan, initial deliveries would start around the end of the decade or perhaps in the early 2030's. It sort of depends on how ship trials go and how long it would take the RAN to get every established to operate, support and maintain/sustain the TBD-class frigates. Potentially around the same time or perhaps just after, then the Hunter-class frigates are to start entering service (currently planned for 2034, had been 2031/2032 following successful completion of trials) which could mean that the RAN might two frigate build programmes running and delivering vessels concurrently from ~2034 until perhaps the mid-2040's or so. If the RAN currently only has enough crew for about six frigates, I suspect the current plans would have that number of replacement vessels intended to be in RAN service by about 2036, give or take a little. After that, then the number of RAN majors in service is supposed to climb to about 20 majors by the end of the existing build plans which go out just about two decades from now. A major question which needs answering is whether or not the RAN could have the personnel in place needed to crew the numbers of vessels to be delivered, by the time they are delivered and commissioned into service.
To go from being able to crew ~nine majors to crewing 20+ majors in the span of about two decades and could certainly cause issues with delivery and service.. These would be atop any issues caused by the gov't rush to select and bring into service a new build design.
Scott Elaurant
Well-Known Member
I understand that is a problem. However from this viewpoint doesn’t it speak more in favour of the GPF build (whichever option is chosen) than more “majors”? The Anzacs have an RAN listed crew of 177, Hobarts 180 and the Hunters are reportedly 183-208 depending on helicopters. Whereas all the GPF conrenders have crews of 90 to 120 each. So the RAN could crew 3 or 4 GPFs for every 2 Anzacs withdrawn from service, or every two more “majors” (Hobart/Hunter) built or fielded. If crew really is the primary constraint we should be choosing the most automated GPF and building lots, not the cheapest GPF or most capable ”tier one”.
Last edited:
32 mk 41 SL cells forward does not seem possible on the A200.
SL adaptable deck launchers in replace of the 2-4 AShM quad canisters might be a good option. You can then reload a greater variety of missiles at sea. Integrating both LRASM and NSM would give some versatility.
SL adaptable deck launchers in replace of the 2-4 AShM quad canisters might be a good option. You can then reload a greater variety of missiles at sea. Integrating both LRASM and NSM would give some versatility.
Last edited:
Something to keep in mind, just because a ship has a smaller crew requirement that doesn't make them a better fit for fleet operations. As anyone who has served on an ANZAC (particularly in the early days) will tell you, having a smaller crew means in operational reality that whole ship evolutions (such as a RAS) literally become whole ship's company evolutions - meaning watch keepers have to break their sleep cycle to assist in the evolution. There's a sweet spot for crew complement and saying because technology/automation can reduce the need for humans it makes it a better idea doesn't necessarily make it a better idea.
Yep, originally I read it was all Phalanx mounts in USN, but with clarification the recent decision seems to be DDG only…
Rolling Airframe Missiles To Arm Arleigh Burke Destroyer Fleet
New point defenses, which come amid growing missile and drone threats, are just one Navy modernization effort for the Arleigh Burke class.
www.twz.com
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
It really depends on what is deemed overall most important, something which AFAIK gov't has not yet articulated. If a reduced crew size per vessel is considered most important, than perhaps selecting a GP frigate design which is highly automated to emphasize this could make sense. OTOH attempting to 'shrink' the size of a warship crew too much can end up creating new problems, which could actually be worse than the 'old problem' of crew size.
As the USN has witnessed with LCS, having too small a crew can end up forcing a vessel to rely upon additional personnel dockside to carry out some of the routine maintenance that had previously carried out by a ship's crew whilst underway. That same lack of crew for maintenance could certainly cause problems for a vessel underway and conducting (or attempting to conduct) personnel intensive activities like RAS. Even worse potentially would be a crew's ability to conduct damage control ops with a minimal crew. A incident or attack that in previous vessels might have been survivable could end up leading to the loss of a vessel if there are not enough damage control personnel available, and/or highly automated systems get compromised.
Consideration also needs to be given to determine what the minimum levels of capability are for a vessel, both now and into the future. Would it be considered acceptable for there to be no future/replacement air defence destroyers, because GP frigates with smaller crews are kitted out with some air defence missiles? I can understand how the general pop might not understand that there are capability differences between the short/medium-ranged RIM-162 ESSM and the larger and much longer ranged RIM-174 SM-6, but I think we can agree that the two missiles are not interchangeable from a capability standpoint. I would suspect that there would similarly be capability differences in ASW, particularly due to the cost of properly rafting machinery and other quieting measures which need to be designed and built into a hull.
As an aside, the presence or absence of embarked helicopters and particularly the number vessel also would impact overall crew numbers. IIRC a single embarked helicopter required 16 personnel for it to operate and be supported, whilst a pair of embarked naval helicopters required a total of 23.
There is still much we do not know about what the GotD's real/actual plans are for the RAN, but the overall picture I have been able to put together, from the disparate pieces I have collected points to something that is either damned weird or an illogical force construct.
Having done a RAS on Anzacs while the crew went through a bout of the runs from a lovely stop in Pakistan
...I can assure you that a whole crew refuel of tagging out so shipmates could run to the heads is a difficult evolution with 180 people when normally half this are included Its a fair point when Operational in the MEAO, some things could be done with on watch personnel and day hands. But when doing constant daily boardings in areas like Persian Gulf its a drain. FFG were in their prime due to larger crew but theres a reason they had more people, needed to run the ship.
If we are looking at 120 crew, then rack space is needed for "Operational Crew" who add to ships compliment when deployed. These in turn are training billets while in Aus waters. If we go down a 'Tasman' route then its reduced capability without extra personnel.
But given Navantia reputation within RAN right now, it would be Political decision to take their option over more capable and expansive contenders. ..so I'd make it short odds favourite given Navys history on decisions