Should re-use the Ceafar and mk41 from the retiring ANZACs
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
Mark_Evans
Member
It would be extremely unlikely that ceafar and mk41 could be installed on the LHDs.
Best we could do is the phalanx.
The original design for LHD included an 8x cell Tactical Length Mk.41 VLS, amidship, capable of carrying ESSM for self-defence.
So RAN of course purposefully designed it out…
Because why would you want your capital ships to be able to defend themselves when your planning assumption is that there will ALWAYS be something else alongside to defend it and you’ll never, ever put it in harm’s way anyway?
Mark_Evans
Member
Thanks, i was not aware it was an orginal design feature.The original design for LHD included an 8x cell Tactical Length Mk.41 VLS, amidship, capable of carrying ESSM for self-defence.
So RAN of course purposefully designed it out…
Because why would you want your capital ships to be able to defend themselves when your planning assumption is that there will ALWAYS be something else alongside to defend it and you’ll never, ever put it in harm’s way anyway?
Of course they designed it out, sigh.
Another rung on the ladder below fitted for but not with.
Reports indicate that Juan Carlos I was fitted for but not with one Mk 41 VLS, but unclear if the Canberra class kept that provision or not. Assuming not, then Lockheed Martin has designed and tested a single cell launcher while BAe has developed the Adaptable Deck launcher, either of which might be easier to retrofit the finding space for a full 8 cell Mk41.
CEAFAR, well, looks like it's found it's way onto HMAS Choules last year, so I don't see any reason why it couldn't work on the Canberras.
Last edited:
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
Mark is rig w
Mark is right. Internal space wouldn't allow it
Only if it were judged that Phalanx would make a difference.
I suspect (hope) that the RAN is working through a priority of perceived risks. From the public announcements that looks like establishing ballistic missile / long range air defence (including by striking at shore targets at extreme range) and undersea warfare rather than bolstering point defence. At an ADF level the priority is acquiring littoral lift vessels for Army (presumably with no integral missile defence).
Perhaps the RAN has misunderstood that priority and has underestimated the effectiveness of Phalanx (defence forces make mistakes) but I think it is worth exploring the possibility that they have it right.
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
Impressive. I hope we get them.
Designed with provision for VLS, but not fitted. I don't know what the Armada uses the space for.
Seeing as they managed to put CEAFAR on HMAS Choules I don't think there'll be too much issue there aside from finding somewhere to bolt it on and wire it up. Mk41 is extremely unlikely though.
Been away from this forum for a while and did a little naval history tour of Victoria over the holidays. For anyone in Victoria interested in that topic I've heard that they're trying to get the museum at HMAS Cerberus spruced up and re-opened for Navy Week open day and there may be quite a bit of new stuff on display.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Finding a 'safe' place to mount the arrays where they provide sufficient coverage whilst not presenting a danger to personnel and/or kit (like helicopters) on deck, or interfering with other arrays, could present some problems. No idea personally about the current antenna array config or how they link to LHD's CIC, but IIRC that was something which took some work to design/redesign to try and get close to what Bill & Ben had. Again IIRC Bill & Ben were functionally considered like a RAN mini-USS Blue Ridge in terms of their suitability for command & control functions.