1. RAN will already have the SM-2 in it's inventory and it would be wasteful not to use them.

 

2. There is apparently some concern with SM-6 and it's usefulness against aircraft with towed active decoys and those with VLO radar cross sections and hence the "old" command guidance techniques used on SM-2 are considered useful enough to retain in-service.

 

As to the "not enough missiles can be controlled" argument. That is largely a 'phallacy' (a spelling I created myself) of the "pro-missile barrage - Russia strong" Internet types, as I understand things because:

A). SM-2/ESSM do NOT require radar illumination for the entire duration of their flights.

 

B) Most AEGIS equipped ships mount multiple fire control radar directors. Whilst they are mounted relatively high on the superstructure, I don't think there has ever been anything particularly concerning with the F-100 series meta-centre and centre of gravity. On top of which, this also assumes that only the ship that fires the SM-2/ESSM, can control it. CEC wouldn't exist if THAT were the case...

 

C) Software solutions exist that allow existing fire control directors to handle "multiple channels of fire" each.

 

 

 

 

I could be using an old name, but I am referring to the Mk 41 VLS "self defense system", which is the "single deck" length version of the Mk 41 launch system.

 

Abe Gubler, has a diagram around the place of an AWD with 2x 8 cell SDSS VLS installed on the F-105 + AWD variant, with one on the port side and one on the starboard side of the hull, at the rear of the vessel, near where the superstructure ends, showing possible placement locations. 

 

Suggestions are that these would add somewhere between 40 and 50 tons to the weight of the vessel, including the appropriate modifications to ensure deck integrity etc, which will be well within the 750t growth margin of the hull.

 

Obviously, significant studies would be required to determine whether this idea is A) technically feasible and B) cost effective, but it seems a possible way of maximising the capability of the design and reducing the impact of the "only 48x" strike length VLS launcher, at the front of the boat. 

-Simply upgrade and transition. It's not like the SM family isn't upgradable. In fact the USN is upgrading at a rate of 75 a year.

 

 

.

Advantages of a phased array (electronically scanned beam) director.

Reliability

-fewer points of failure

-(possibly) no single point of failure

-greater mean time between failures

-graceful degratation of performance in the event of a failure

-lower maintenance load on the crew

-greater suitability for repair by replacement

-lower weight

-more fire control channels

 

Think about it, fit 4 to 6 phased array director modules around the superstructure leaving space and weight to replace each of the current mechanical type units with say a SEARAM mount, or in the future a solid state laser CIWS using all the excess power freed up by the all electric propulsion system.

 

On all electric maintenance and support requirements, the RAN's Marine Technicians are already trained to maintain and operate the diesel generators onboard our skimmers and subs.

AUSPAR did sosme service in the US for a few years... the dribble coming back seems to be that the cousins were quite impressed.

 

Aussie Digger. You make some valid arguments to my proposals, but I will be blunt, but not brief.

1. In defending our nation, there is no second best. As my statement maintained, Australia's defence capabilities have been neglected for over thirty years and now more than ever is the time to make sure we can afford what we need, so that for the most part we do not have to rely overmuch on support or backup from our American allies. Currently the way things are shaping up in the world, that aid might not be so forthcoming in the future.

2. To afford the proposals I put forward, several Rudd Government initiatives have to be scrapped, if not to make defence a priority in the near future, but also because those policies are absurd. A./ $40 billion broadband??, we don't need that one for sure. What so perverts can download porn faster, or little Kylie can research for her HSC two minutes quicker? B./ $5000 baby bonus? Crickey you've got to be kidding. If you plan on having kids, plan on affording them yourself, not waiting for government handouts that other taxpayers are funding, same goes for paid maternity/ paternity leave. People will have kids whether you pay em' to or not. There are quite a few other things here as well, but I think I've already paid for my proposal in this paragraph.

3. Glad you agreed with me on AWD numbers, it seems everybody else is as well. But I won't go into the technical aspects of these, that is pretty well covered by others.

4. The number of twelve subs was proposed quite some years ago, even as the Collins class was being built, so that it would be possible to maintain both a East and West coast sub fleet, with four apiece in service at any one time, and two vessels in dock for whatever reason at the time (ie maintainance, upgrades etc, etc). It is still relevent today.

5. Recruitment and Retention. This has been and will always remain an issue for Defence in Australia. Why, because fundamentally we're not really a very patriotic nation. Sure we'll turn out in droves to give support to our sporting teams in the international arena, but ask a young person what they think about a career in the Forces and they'll either give you a dumb look because they no idea what you're talking about, or tell you off in some obscene manner, or lastly, tell you they'd rather get a career in Finance (oh jeezes I'm gonna fall asleep). As far as retaining the people we do manage to lassoo in, give them a better deal. In my time in the RAN, you did your two years sea draft, then a year ashore, I don't think the sailors of today are getting that, and apart from decent pay levels, this has got to affect morale greatly. As an aside to this issue, in the 60's and 70's in the U.S., if you served for a minimum of four years, the government would pay for your higher education (ie college degree) providing you agreed to re-inlist for a further six years. I don't know if the seppo's still do that, but it would be worth exploring in Oz.

6. The Marines. I only suggested 5-8,000 because of realistic scenario's covered by several Staff College papers on future threats to Australia. Of course that number would certainly be viable over a period of time. Naturally you would not create such a new Armed force instantly the day the PM and Defence Minister of the day signed it off. It would most likely take around 7-10 years to create such a force and yes it would have to be at the expense of Army expansion in infantry levels. But that's the whole point. The army are not equipped for maritime operations and never will be. This is a dedicated role handled only by a dedicted Naval Brigade (Marines).

7. The Army. Yes I agree with you, on reading your statements there and I won't make any further comment except to refer to my original letter, more Abrams and Tigers.

8. Going back to Navy expansion and affordability. YES, YES! Our navy desperately needs at least one carrier. Picture this scenario (Sorry Karlo, it was your idea!) Indonesia is toppled by hostile Islamic forces from within. Hostile forces see Christams Island as staging point for expansion. One Aussie patrol boat and one Anzac frigate taken out by hostile Migs. Australia chooses to take back Christmas Island. Sends Navy, with Air Force support. Navy gets smashed by hostile Migs, because we didn't have enough AWD's, Air Force guys make a good showing but eventually they get screwed as well because the hostile Migs take out their tankers.

Same scenario deal 2. Navy has carrier with F35's. Navy goes in still with Air Force support. Carriers F35's defend fleet and repulse second wave of Migs. Marines retake island. Air Force is now in position to launch counter attack because Navy F35's are protecting tankers.

Same scenario deal 3. As above, with the exception that somehow we convinced the U.S. to sell us F22's. Navy takes and holds Chris