Royal Australian Navy SEA 5000

File: Austal-ASC-team-to-build-Aussie-frigates.jpg (15KB, 600x289px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 600x289px

>>34271364
I wouldn't think they'd even consider PAAMS since our current ships use 9LV and Aegis. I am hoping for either the Type 26 or FREMM.

File: RS47749_Type-26-Global-Combat-Ship-1021x580.jpg (62KB, 1021x580px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 1021x580px

>>34271395
And wew lad these ships will have an ugly mast by the looks of things.

File: Sea-5000-Render-HD-16.jpg (158KB, 1600x737px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 1600x737px

>>34271400
Also the F-100 current design

I'd prefer the Type but I have a feeling that they'll end up going with the F-100 design due to its similarities with the AWDs.

>>34271575
this, can't see why they wouldn't do this and fit Aegis for commonality and they both heavily use American munitions instead of RN special snowflake missiles, but that said the Type 26 still has similar requirements to SEA 5000 including an emphasis on ASW

>>34271364
NZer here. Hoping my government decides to buy four or more this time around. Finances are a bit better this time so it's a possibility and we'll probably just get whatever you guys are getting.

FREMM isn't really much better than the ANZAC design on paper, if that's under consideration we may as well get new-build ANZACs.

I could understand why you'd go for the F100 due to the commonality thing with the Hobart class and it's pretty well armed.

My favourite would be the Type 26 due to the low manpower requirement, and that it's the newest design of the three. Also we're sticking CAMMs on our ANZACs so that may provide a small incentive.

we bought 2 helicopter transport ships from Navantia and they have been plagued with problems (the media botched every single detail about their mechanical issues) and the company itself is going on broke - just like spain - just like the spanish navy

please please PLEASE can we NOT buy Navantia

>RANavyfag

>>34271667
What problems do they have besides the azimuth thrusters?

>>34271667
>>RANavyfag

Sure you are kiddo.

The azimuth thrusters where installed by Siemans, and the maintenance was being carried out by BAE Systems Australia so it is wrong to blame Navantia for this problem.

This is more lick an Australian fuckup.

File: 1486275829915.jpg (2MB, 3000x2000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3000x2000px

This is the AWD yeah? Which we now have 2 or was it 3?

>>34271889
3, Hobart just got handed to the navy today and the other 2 are still being built

>>34271934
0 commissioned oops

>>34271934

Brisbane is finished, Sydney is still under construction.

>>34271958
It's fitting out, which still means construction.

>>34271575
>>34271605

You might get a batch two of ASW 'enhanced' AWD and then they'll start building the Type 26s.

And also because AWD (role - not class) don't make good ASW hunters because of contradicting design.

In general terms, ASW ships have their noisey equipment stored higher like engines as a way of sound damping. AWD have their radar stored higher for a better horizon.

Obviously you can't have both. Unless you want top weight issues.

>>34271605

Those "special snowflake missiles" are supposed to be a continuation of the ASRAAM missiles in service with the RAAF. Although I'm sure they could replace it with something else, it wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing having common missiles between the navy and air force.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAMM_(missile_family)

>>34271605

We'd still end up with mk41 VLS if we purchased the Type 26 though.

Is it possible to fit more than 24 mk41 vls in the type 26?

>>34271364
FREMM. Proven design, several already built and in active service.

File: DBvAp_6XsAANcR3.jpg (292KB, 1425x2048px) Image search: [Google]

292KB, 1425x2048px

>>34272196

Certainly. You can fit at least 32 strike length mk41 on the front - not sure about the rear VLS cell slot that's used to fit 24 CAMM cells. Maybe you put 8 mk41 tactical in?

b

>>34272196

If you scrapped the multi mission bays you can have just as many VLS as a tico or zumwalt.

The ships were designed with lots of modular space as they were allways going to be exported.

File: HMAS Hobart (6).jpg (3MB, 6621x4414px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 6621x4414px

Hobart just got handed to the DOD... Almost 3 years late....

Yep

>>34274144
E S P A N A
S
P
A
N
A

>>34274144
>mechanicnically pointed, analogue illuminators

>>34273851
A Zumwalt maybe because its snowflake VLS cells are bulky.

>>34274816

RAN got offered a uapdated design, but they insisted on the older one..

>>34275101

RAN wanted Burke Flight II but instead we ended up with this.

Would the weak £ make the Type 26 cheaper?

>>34277434
Depends if they choose to have them built in Glasgow, or licence built in oz

>>34277434
AUD is pretty weak at the moment as well

>>34277485

They'll be built in Australia if regardless of which design is chosen.

>>34271364
>>34271395
>>34271605
Regardless of the hull design the combat system will be Aegis and fitted with the Mk 41 VLS.

>>34279241
They haven't decided between aegis or 9LV yet.

>>34279241
Damn it, I mean the combat system will be 9LV.

Missile systems will be American either way.

>>34279252
I jumped the gun given recent news of Hobart's commissioning.

They're primarily ASW frgates, I'm 99% sure the combat system will be 9LV with the CEAFAR radar we're pushing.

>>34271364
Thy could just ask worst korea to build them new ASW frigate and be done with it

What's the chance that I'll be fighting pirates if I go into the RAN as a BM?

File: Angry Australian Frog.jpg (27KB, 414x508px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 414x508px

why the FUCK aren't we getting flight III burkes

>>34279580
These are going to be ASW frigates, not air warfare destroyers.

File: 20170305ran8247532_300.jpg (2MB, 3600x2400px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3600x2400px

Bump

>>34279616
'ASW frigate' just means the same as Hobart, but half the VLS.

>>34280929
Not really, read this
>>34271998

>>34280929

Sticking a towed sonar, ASW helicopters, and a few ASROCs on a warship doesn't make it an ASW frigate for a real navy.

>>34274619
Designed by Navatia, built in Australia by Australian companies. Delays due to construction. How is this the fault of Navantia again?

>>34271364
Flight IIA modernised Oliver hazard Perry's would be the best option
For fuck sake the RAN should've kept the Adelaide class around and decommissioned all the FFHs instead

>>34271645
Fuck off cunt you dogged us with the last minute change of mind of 4 Anzac class to 2 which stuffed up our destroyer plans
We were going to get Spruance off America until your shitstorm

>>34281764
>Flight IIA modernised Oliver hazard Perry's would be the best option

'No'.

Any actual RAN fags in here?
I tried at 17 and got told to go spend some time volunteering.
I spent 2 years at uni instead. Do I have a chance if I try for boatswain's mate or am I actually in a worse position than if I had not applied before at all at 17?

>>34282013
My Facebook is being smashed hard by advertisements for the navy, so I assume there's quite a few positions to fill.

>>34273851

You could quite easily fit 120 cells on the GCS/T26.

The location for the multi-mission bays is the full width of the ship, tall enough and takes up maybe just under half of the length of the ship - all of this space has nothing directly above . _ the internal volume is around 10 20ft containers. which is more than enough room. I might make another post once i've done the maths with how many it could take.

That's not even touching on expaning the existing VLS at the front or removing the gun to make is some kind or arsenal ship.

But the real question is why would you want that many cells? it's just a waste of money if you're using modern munitions, the US needs the extra cells for it's lower PK semi-active missiles.

File: MF-1_3.jpg (199KB, 1615x975px) Image search: [Google]

199KB, 1615x975px

*rubs Dutch Merchant hands furiously.

Oyy, Can I interest you in the future multipurpose frigates for the Dutch and Belgian navies? Damen is experienced with building modular, building hulls cheap and has started many shipbuilding ventures in SEA and last few big projects even came within budget unlike the Hobarts. They seem to fit the bill as they too will focus on anti-submarine capability primarily.

Though I fail to understand why Australia doesn't have its own large shipbuilding industry (giants) capable of building at least the hulls for oceangoing vessels with ocean all around it?

>>34274816
fits the general '80s look of it

File: profile_picture_by_enchga-db5mw57.jpg (12KB, 299x300px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 299x300px

>>34282734
Anzac's, Hobarts, and most future surface combatants were/are being built in Australia.

http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3720886-Naval-Ship-Building-Plan.html#document/

>>34271726
>what is ausfucked for $10,000,000

>>34271364
Can they dodge a container ship?

>>34282734
Aussies can build the ships they're just looking for the design

wew lads

>>34284067

?

will this fend off the inevitable indonesian invasion

>>34271645
Another NZer here. You're dreaming.

Three ships, tops. And you'd better believe that anything with too many scary guns and missiles is out of consideration.

>>34284950
no you'd need to buy dutch for that

File: OPV1800.jpg (241KB, 1600x932px) Image search: [Google]

241KB, 1600x932px

>>34285945

RIP Damen OPV design.

>>34286051
Why does it need so much freeboard in the front when there is so little in the rear?

>>34281783
It was always 2 with the option for 2 more and we didn't have a lot of cash at the time due to paying denbts. What do you expect us to do? Run our economy into the ground or take american dick in the arse just so you can have some more toys?

>>34282619
>But the real question is why would you want that many cells?
To provide greater capability.

>>34285608
Two will be a minimum, three is a real possibility, for isn't impossible. There's a lot of that 20 billion unspent remember.

I'm considering voting NZF in september, one of the reasons being they're the only party with the balls to form a robust defense policy.

>>34271667
>The spanish design and build most of the ship
>They trust the germans to build the propulsion system
>Siemens goofs it a bit
>the ausnavy dude in charge specifies that is not a design problem but a mechanic one that is almost solved
>Top aus navy resident /k/ poster just shits himself and embarrasses everyone with his post
Working hard to keep the shitposting record from the leafs mate?

>>34286051
>gimme that ferry look

>>34286735
I can get voting NZF, but I doubt they'd really be able to get a big defence concession out of their coalition senior partner. If Winnie has to make a trade off between delicious combat jets and a platinum card (or whatever he promises his base) for seniors what will he choose?

A third frigate is possible if its cheap enough and the proponents persuasive enough against the third OPV option.

>>34286094
Stealth and shit

>>34282013
The wait time for a dibby position is pretty long now, and with 2 years of uni they will tell you to go MWO

>>34284526
?

File: Damen OPV 1800.png (211KB, 1300x575px) Image search: [Google]

211KB, 1300x575px

What do you lads think of the SEA 1180 OCV's? Current designs are the;

Damen OPV 1800 Sea Axe

File: Fassmer OPV 80.jpg (96KB, 1263x517px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 1263x517px

>>34289758

Fassmer OPV 80

File: Lurssen OPV 80.jpg (108KB, 608x406px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 608x406px

>>34289765


Lurssen OPV 80

>>34289758

They're all pretty ugly.

>>34289775
Lurssen OPV 80 probably won't be chosen as it only allows for 21 days continuous at sea, while the other 2 can do 30 days.
I commend the Saudis for arming theirs heavily despite the smaller size.

>>34289889
The first two are alright, but the Lussen opv is absolutely disgusting..

File: ausnob.jpg (46KB, 720x540px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 720x540px

>>34289758
Fassmer, also hope the T26 gets in.

Any idea if they fixed the pods on the LHDs?

>>34290359
The navy said that Canberra would be in Talisman Sabre so probably and iirc Adelaide won't be in service until October .

File: totes.jpg (140KB, 940x940px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 940x940px

>>34290381
Thanks, glad it'll make the exercise.

>>34289904
Looks like the Lurssen has no hanger either? Another reason it might not get the nod.

http://australianaviation.com.au/2017/05/defence-issues-rfi-for-a-maritime-uav-for-offshore-patrol-vessels/

>>34290359
I remember that butthurt Iraqi on pol yesterday, great thread.

>>34271934
>Hobart just got handed to the navy today

So it's undergoing sea trials now?

>>34290402
It's on it's way to Sydney atm. They finished sea trials.

>>34290399

kek I was there for that one too, Iraqis are the biggest cunts of the entirety of immigrants that come to this country.

File: v437gpd77phy.jpg (184KB, 962x641px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 962x641px

>>34290410
tfw an iraqi pays $10,000 to come here but get's shipped back

File: image.axd.jpg (689KB, 2000x1310px) Image search: [Google]

689KB, 2000x1310px

>>34289889

t b h I quite like the Austal designs, don't like the port holes though

File: cargocult.jpg (52KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 1280x720px

>>34290422
they're shit desu hence the replacements

File: 20161124ran8560098_004.jpg (1MB, 3600x2400px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3600x2400px

>>34290471
Not him, how so?

>>34286735
>To provide greater capability.


Having more of the same missiles does not increase capability.

an SSN with 10 Tomahawks is just as capable as a tico with 40.

>>34284950
will 15 million white australians defend against 200 million indonesians backed up by 1.5 billion chinks?
Doubtful
Demographics will tell the tale soon enough, whites have chosen destruction as a people, anything that benefits whites is held up as the ultimate evil.

File: 1469864012052.png (185KB, 500x644px) Image search: [Google]

185KB, 500x644px

>>34290564

>mfw it's true

>>34290564
He'srightyouknow.jpg

Just waiting for our local muslim hoard to welcom indochinks on the beach and provide directions.

>>34290419
>>34290410
Feel like filling me in? I could probably track down the tread in /pol/ myself, but i just got out of chemo

>>34290633
https://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/130149776/

>>34290422

Austral did have a scaled down Independence Class they were offering as a OPV.

>>34290515

Gas chambers, although they're being overworked to the point of hull fractures as well hence replacing the class.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armidale-class_patrol_boat#Problems

>However, a malfunction in the sewerage treatment facilities aboard HMAS Maitland in August 2006 pumped hydrogen sulphide and carbon monoxide into the compartment, non-fatally poisoning four sailors working inside.

>>34290641
Thanks Dude/Dudette/Attack Helicopter.

I had a bad day, but at least I'm not Iraqi
>Shiteatinggrin.png

File: sea-patrol-kirsty-lee-allan-3-rcm0x1920u.jpg (457KB, 1280x1920px) Image search: [Google]

457KB, 1280x1920px

>>34290515
tfw you'll never be shipping shitskins to Naru with this thot

>>34290785

Daily reminder that a Greens senator thought Sea Patrol was real and not a fictional TV story.

>>34290803
Commies are fucking retarded

B

>>34290557
>an SSN with 10 Tomahawks is just as capable as a tico with 40.
>10 = 40

Go to bed, you're drunk.

>>34282013
The navy is full unless you're a nigger , Muslim or wran
I shit you not the navy is trying to be 25% wran
With all our problems this seems to be the priority

they still looking for gooks?

>>34290803
Yep
Classic Sarah Hanson young
Here ya go Cunts

https://youtu.be/moJ7j86MyWw

>>34295771
What a retard

File: grinning cargo ship.jpg (47KB, 700x400px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 700x400px

>>34271364
Can it survive being rammed by a cargo ship?

>>34297254

As long as there's no ameritards on the bridge it won't happen.

>>34290557
retard

File: Type_45_Destroyer_HMS_Daring_in_the_English_Channel_MOD_45151622.jpg (1MB, 4256x2832px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 4256x2832px

None of you mention the Type-45? Cmon..

>>34299697
>Dedicated AA Destroyer
>ASW Frigate

>>34299697
Can you read?

>>34299697

That was the capability set these are meant for.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobart-class_destroyer

wew lads

>>34293308
>>34299664

Having more of the same thing does not make that thing more capable.

Having extra cutlery doesn't make you a more efficient eater.

>>34301293
Wew

File: JewK.jpg (22KB, 220x220px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 220x220px

>>34271667
I wonder WHO's behind this post

>>34299697
We need a ship that spends less than 300 days alongside and doesn't break down whenever the water is warm

>>34302949

The Type 45s do regular 9 month deployments. Only in march HMS Daring returned from her deployment in the gulf.

>>34299697
Would the Type 26 be shit if converted into an AA destroyer?

AEGIS, replace CAMM with ESSM, more Mk41 where possible.

>>34303679
>replacing CAMM with ESSM

Literally why?

>>34301400
>Having more of the same thing does not make that thing more capable.
>Having extra cutlery doesn't make you a more efficient eater.
...
>efficient
Excellent strawman, assuming efficiency is the only criteria for capability, you almost had me.

More cells = more variety or more of what we've got = less time going back to port to reload.

>>34303679
AEGIS can't spot a 40 thousand ton battering ram, how is it supposed to spot a plane or missile?

>>34303802
Cancer

B

>>34303738
Better missile + CEC

>>34303802
It's not meant to spot 40000t ships. Spotting ships doesn't matter if your night watch are asleep.

>>34308762
>CEC

Can you tell the difference in capability of a PAAMS derivative and Aegis?

>>34299697
>that autistic mast

>>34309875
PAAMS has no CEC?

>>34309853

wait a moment, ausies bought a Poseidons??
god dammit, I must crawl from my stone more often, I'm missing a good shit outside

File: poled.webm (3MB, 800x450px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 800x450px

we selling the old Adelaide's to Poland once the AWD are done?

File: 20161128raaf8185068_0509.jpg (2MB, 3600x2401px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3600x2401px

>>34309896
2 we have, 10 on order slowpoke.

File: ausnosr.jpg (187KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 800x600px

>>34309914
Triton when?

>>34309907
I think Melbourne and Newcastle are likely.
By strange coincidence one of their OHPs is named General Tadeusz Kosciuszko

>>34309917
Haven't heard much about the triton, hopefully soon.

File: wwewlads.png (1MB, 1915x741px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1915x741px

Some fresh screen grabs from BAE's yt video

File: jhkjkfuk.png (1MB, 1912x734px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1912x734px

>>34309944

File: cunts.jpg (67KB, 1019x751px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 1019x751px

>>34309934
apparently the plan is for 7 Triton to complement the 15 P8s, mentioned Reapers too but haven't seen anything else about them

>>34309893
>PAAMS has no CEC?

Are you retarded?

>>34309893
>>34310245

Forget what I said - I am the retard, misread CEC for CIC.

However, I'm not sure why you think CEC is a Aegis exclusive?

>>34309853
Weird looking canoe

>>34286094
Damen's hull design is an evolution of their North Sea rig tender designs. That style is perfect for getting through big swells in a hurry.

>>34309917
what does the sign say? "Fuck of. we're full" in Indonesian?

>>34308762
>Better missile

>ESSM
Semi active with mid course update

>CAMM
Active radar with two-way datalink

Both can be quad packed but only one of them is inaccurate enough to need it.

>>34303794
That's not an extra capability.


You might as well have even more of the wrong munitions loaded and need to spend more time in port reloading.

If there was any need for an absolute maximum number of VLS cells then Arsenal ships would be real.

>>34309893
PAAMS has CEC, however, the thing that throws people off is the RN have decided not to pay for CEC on T45, mainly due to the cost of supplying data links between ships.

There are more other T45 upgrades on the horizon that are deemed more important, laser CIWS, Strike length cells, Harpoon replacement, auxiliary power to fix the borked Northrop Gruman intercooler are all planned and funded.

CEC can wait until it's needed (2021) as it's a relatively straightforward upgrade.

>>34311816
ESSM is faster and has a longer range. In 2020 ESSM Block II will enter service which will feature an active seeker. Lets also not forget ESSM is a vastly more proven missile.

Your comment about about the ESSM being inaccurate and therefor needs quadpacking is retarded. The RN doesn't put less Sea Ceptors on their ships compared to navies with ESSM. I bet you can't give us the data to back up your statement and show us the CAMM has a higher Pk.

>>34311978
>Lets also not forget ESSM is a vastly more proven missile

Lets not get ahead of ourselves here. ESSM has only been fired in anger once.

>>34311816
>Both can be quad packed but only one of them is inaccurate enough to need it.

Yeah CAMM is questionable.

>>34312843
>Yeah CAMM is questionable.

Explain.

>>34311978
It's faster because it spends most of it's flight slowing down because it's based on the sparrow. It will almost certianly have less terminal energy.

CAMM-ER wil almost certainly have a longer range as it is a new weapon marketed at 45KM+

ESSM is an incremental evolution of an outdated design so when they say 50KM range they really mean in ideal circumstances.

2020 is a long way away, to only be getting an active seeker then is a joke, naval warfare will experience more jamming than anywhere else, it is THE first place active seekers should be used.

>>34313062
>ESSM is an incremental evolution of Sea Sparrow
>future versions of CAMM that solve its shortcomings are good, future versions of ESSM that solve its shortcomings are bad

Opinion discarded.

>>34313218
No, one is a brand new weapon with a variant for extra range.

you don't want an extra booster motor on all of your missiles otherwise it will struggle to engage close in targets, its the same with aster 15 and 30.

Being a brand new weapon it's top specs are rightly classified.

ESSM is an evolution of a well-understood platform and as a result, it needs to market said improvement.

CAAM is the superior weapon by a long way.

>>34313454
>>34313062

>These two endlessly arguing over two high end comparable weapon systems.

It's like watching a child argue whether the red or green one is better.

>>34313454
>CAAM is the superior weapon by a long way.

Nope. Stats don't lie. ESSM has a bigger warhead, goes faster, goes further.

If CAMM-equipped T26s can get CEC that would be good.

After that the only reason to use ESSM would be if it's the same as what likely likely partners will use in a protracted war, logistics and all that.

>>34313521
Except one is a semi active missile guided by a pesa radar with a a one way data link.

The other as active RF, a two way data link and is guided by an AESA radar.

to pretend the former is superior is to be blinded by nationalism.

>>34313556
The radar is tracking the missile so two way is irrelevant. It is a close weapons system so pesa vs aesa and semi active only matters for NLOS....which it's a close in weapons system so that does not matter.

>>34313454
ESSM is a completely new design, not an evolution of Sea Sparrow. That is as uninformed as saying CAMM is an ASRAAM with an active radar seeker or that AIM-9X is an upgrade of AIM-9L.

CAMM-ER does not dump its booster for closer targets..

>>34313544
As already states, ESSM glides for most of it's flight just as Sparrow and AMRAAM do, it's peak speed is higher by necessity its terminal energy is undoubtedly lower.

There is no top range figure for CAMM, as it is a brand new weapon, ESSM is dated and obviously advertises the maximum possible range.

There is no figure for the size of the CAAM warhead, but either will destroy or disable their target.

ESSM has no chance of engaging a target in high ECM environments, it's semi active seeker will be spoofed, and the PESA guiding it will be jammed.

>>34313556
CAMM does not have the range to make a two way datalink useful.

>>34313640
>I have no data for CAMM but it is better because I say so

>>34313640
>ECM environments that can overpower a SPY-1 radar have no effect on a CAMM's active seeker

>>34313590
>The radar is tracking the missile so two way is irrelevant

Please don't post if you don't understand how the process works. The two way data link allows the missile to say when it has the target and take over guidance.

> It is a close weapons system so pesa vs aesa and semi active only matters for NLOS

Neither are purely close in weapons system, and jamming certainly does matter. The weapons will need to survive a saturation attack in a high ECM environment, a semi active missile can't burn through jamming like an RF one so range is an issue for ESSM.

>ESSM is a completely new design, not an evolution of Sea Sparrow.

My mistake

>CAMM-ER does not dump its booster for closer targets

>CAMM-ER does not dump its booster for closer targets

never said it did, i said it carries an extra booster making is less efective at fighting close in - hence the two complimenting missiles.

>>34313640
ESSM uses strakes and skid-to-turn, nor does the CAMM have an infinite booster. Both missiles glide during their flight profile.

>There is no top range figure for CAMM

Being that CAMM-ER states 45km+ its safe to say camm is less than that. Stated figures for camm is 25+, stated for ESSM is 50+.

You can't say it's new so it's infinite.

>There is no figure for the size of the CAAM warhead

Size wise it's smaller.

>ESSM has no chance of engaging a target in high ECM environments

It's a close in system. If your radars can't look out past 50km you are fucked either way.

Furthermore, the missile is not tied to the radar. ESSM on a zumwalt or Ford won't have this issue.

Semi active spoofing CLOSE IN is incredibly difficult, because you have e to emit more than the ships fuck huge dish is.

Based on available data, ESSM hits harder, goes faster, goes farther. No amount of patriotism will get around this.

RIM-116 > CAMM
ESSM > CAMM
CAMM-ER > ESSM
ESSM block ii > CAMM-ER

>>34313714

SPY is PESA and can be jammed 'relatively' easily. But the issue is lies in the fact that the SPY radar needs to bounce a clear and constant frequency off of the target that is srong enough to surpass the background jamming, to enablke the small seeker on ESSM to pick of the target.

CAAM has the option of either method. But in a high ECM environment ios has the ability to burn through and take over guidance when close enough to the target

>>34313729
>The two way data link allows the missile to say when it has the target and take over guidance.

Which you don't need when you are monitoring the missile and the target.

Please refrain from posting if you don't know shit about the equipment in question.

>Neither are purely close in weapons system

It is for the USN.

>semi active missile can't burn through jamming

You have it ass backwards.

>>34313787
>But the issue is lies in the fact that the SPY radar needs to bounce a clear and constant frequency off of the target that is srong enough to surpass the background jamming,

SPY-1 ain't illuminateing shit kid. Stop posting.

>enablke the small seeker on ESSM to pick of the target.

Seeker is not picking up the target kid.

Stop posting, shit is getting cringy

>>34313787
CAMM's seeker is no where near powerful enough to burn through ECM that can overwhelm a ship borne radar.

>>34313818
>Seeker is not picking up the target kid.

This is literally how semi-active weapons work, jesus christ.

You think it's like a TOW and the ship is just correcting the missile the whole way? jesus christ.

>SPY-1 ain't illuminateing shit kid. Stop posting.

You're right, the USN uses trash analogue illuminators from the 60's that are mechanically steered and piss easy to jam.

>kid
>kid
>kid

i know who's losing this argument

>>34313853

I'm not saying it is. I'm saying the reflection of CAAM's AESA seeker on its target in the last 1-2KM is better than the analogue radar of a US ship, travelling out to the target, reflecting off and being picked up by an ESSM seeker with a better signal to noise ratio than the surrounding jamming.

Raytheonfags on suicide watch.

>>34313556

I'm hardly "blinded by nationalism" when I'm fucking British and generally someone on these boards who talks a lot about British stuff.

Let me guess, you're the same raging autist from the carrier threads about ramps vs cats who can't handle the idea that people aren't constant sucking us off about everything, right?

They're both excellent missile systems in the same class, they each have a couple little elements to them and they both have developments that are pushing them up on the bits they aren't top in.

I have no idea why yo uare so insistent to try and prove one HAS to be massively superior to the other all the time, but it's very fucking annoying and like I told you back in the carrier thread, you might think you're "standing up for Britain" but you're actually just giving it a bad name by constantly trying to belittle others, even in the points where some of your points are right, or when they're massively exaggerated.

>>34314007

I have literally no idea what you're talking about, but CAAM is not a British missile.

>>34313942
>This is literally how semi-active weapons work, jesus christ.

Wrong. The target can fly circles around the intercepted and it will never pick it up.

>You're right

I know I'm right.

>piss easy to jam.

Nope. The main radar of the ship, any ship, is easier to jam than the asinine wattage the spg-63 is shitting out. You can overwhelm it. It's hard, and takes a fuck load of missiles from many angles, but overwhelming a ship worth of spg-63s is technically feasible.

But jamming one?

>i know who's losing this argument

Me too kiddo. Me too.

>>34313985
>is better than the analogue radar of a US ship, travelling out to the target, reflecting off and being picked up by an ESSM seeker with a better signal to noise ratio than the surrounding jamming.

The radar does not illuminate shit, kid.

That's twice now.

>>34313985
>I'm not saying it is
>proceeds to reword the same argument

>>34314062
>intercepted

Interceptor.

>>34271364
Yeah, but is it impervious to ram-based attacks?

>>34314074
>The radar does not illuminate shit, kid.

>in a semi active missile

if you keep typing kid you might get even dumber.

"The AN/SPG-62 is a continuous wave, illumination radar"

>>34314044

>CAMM Developed in the UK
>Manufactured in the UK
>Lead promoter, user, tester and market lead is the UK

It's British.

>>34314080

Your reading comprehension sucks.

At no point am i saying the ships man radar can't track the target.

I'm saying the small seeker on the missile has no hope in hell in an ECM enviroment of receiving a clear reflection from the illuminators that are using a single frequency.

CAAM has to use it's own frquency shifting seeker in the last 1-2Km of an enagement.

ESSM is relying on AN/SPG-62 bouncing a clear signal off the target when the jamming source is closer than the ilumination source.

If ESSM was just fine as it is why are they moving over to the system that CAAM is using?

I'm amazed i actually have to explain why active RF missiles are better than semi-active ones.

>>34314154
>If ESSM was just fine as it is why are they moving over to the system that CAAM is using?

Because active seekers have other actual benefits and not the ECM environment swill you are trying to sell.

>>34314187
>being this desperate to avoid admitting you're wrong.

accurate tracking of targets in high ECM environment is literally the main reason for the swap.

Any missile can intercept a lone aircraft on a calm day.

>>34314154
>ESSM is relying on AN/SPG-62 bouncing a clear signal off the target when the jamming source is closer than the ilumination source.

What fucking jamming source is going to be between the target and the ship, you crazy fuck?

Furthermore the illuminator is shitting out 10kW of power. The entire SAMPSON array only has 25kw total, over all of its t/r's.

You are going to sit here an say that the missile seeker is putting out, what, conservatively 5kw (most likely far more because the wave only has to get back to the missile, not the ship)?

You are off your fucking rocker.

>>34314207
>accurate tracking of targets in high ECM environment is literally the main reason for the swap.

WRONG. WRONG. FUCKING WRONG.

Missile spam is the number one reason, with over the horizon intercepts another.

Illuminators can get overwhelmed, and are line of sight.

But they are retardedly hard to jam.

>>34314210
>What fucking jamming source is going to be between the target and the ship, you crazy fuck?

You realise if the target is 10km away from the ship and the missile is 5KM from the target, the illumination has to travel 10KM to the target, that energy then needs to be reflected 5KM back to the missile, meaning 10Km at full power and 5KM at whatever power the RCS of the target allows.

That reflected energy then has to be louder than any jamming carried by the aircraft or launched with the missiles. With low RCS measures in place on many missiles and aircaft this task becomes very hard.

complicating matters further is the fact that an/spg-62 is only operating on one frequency per missile. pretty much every jammer since the 70's has been ble to transmit an inbound signal to confuse semi active weapons.

>Furthermore the illuminator is shitting out 10kW of power. The entire SAMPSON array only has 25kw total, over all of its t/r's.

inefficiant use of power is not a way of proving one radar is better than the other. spg62 is putting that into one frequency at a a time. SAMPSON is putting that energy into god knows how many channels at once.

>You are off your fucking rocker.

You're off your rocker if you think 50% of output energy even hits the target, let alone gets reflected.

>>34314227
>Missile spam is the number one reason, with over the horizon intercepts another.

No.

AEGIS was designed to deal with this as a layered system, there are other weapons for both of these tasks.

>Illuminators can get overwhelmed, and are line of sight.

no one is debating this

>But they are retardedly hard to jam.

no. jesus christ. see >>34314274

>>34314210
>The entire SAMPSON array only has 25kw total, over all of its t/r's.
not him but what are you trying to say? Also Sampson isnt even on a ship that carries sea ceptor

>>34314274
Illumination is for terminal you nutter. The missile is very close when it's seeker picks up the reflection.

>That reflected energy then has to be louder than any jamming carried by the aircraft or launched with the missiles

Which is not between the target and the ship, you crazy fuck.

>pretty much every jammer since the 70's has been ble to transmit an inbound signal to confuse semi active weapons.

The jammer is much farther than the missile is to the target, or else it would be the target.

>inefficiant use of power

OK, you are either trolling or lost is.

Contentious wave illumination is quite literally THE most efficient way to use the power for that task. The ENTIRE 10kw is focused on the point target. ALL OF IT.

>You're off your rocker if you think 50% of output energy even hits the target

I don't. It's closer to 90% at the ranges in question. The only thing stopping it is atmospheric diffusion/attenuation.

>>34314298
>No.

Yes. Fire and forget deals with spam much better than semi active.

AEGIS got away with it by having a fuckton of Illuminators and a retardedly huge radar (at the time).

>see..

Is dead wrong. He called CW Illuminators an inefficient use of power, I mean WHAT THE FUCK.

As for jamming? Us jamming pods put out 6.8Kw, to give you an idea.

They can't match the illuminator. It's comparing a light bulb to a spotlight.

>>34314342
>Which is not between the target and the ship, you crazy fuck

the jamming is closer to the seeker on the missile than the radar on the ship. draw it on some fucking paper and think about it you thick fuck.

>The jammer is much farther than the missile is to the target, or else it would be the target.

Some jammers are MEANT TO BE THE TARGET, that's why they are towed, or launched amongst the real missiles.

other jammers put out so much energy that the seeker can't figure out a precise location

>Contentious wave illumination is quite literally THE most efficient way to use the power for that task. The ENTIRE 10kw is focused on the point target. ALL OF IT.

It's an analogue illuminator, not a phased array, there is no beam forming. it is a floodlight in the night hoping to hit the target.

if you dont understand a basic concept like this how can we discuss this further?

I don't. It's closer to 90% at the ranges in question. The only thing stopping it is atmospheric diffusion/attenuation.

see above.

>>34314403
>the jamming is closer to the seeker on the missile than the radar on the ship.

At 25-50km? No, unless it's a suicide mission.

The jammer on the missiles themselves are pathetic BTW. Meant to degrade.

> it is a floodlight in the night hoping to hit the target.

A very powerful one, yes. Brute force personified.

Your argument is there is an even more powerful spotlight closer

Asinine.

>if you dont understand a basic concept like this how can we discuss this further?

You calling an CW Illuminator inefficient, I'm inclined to agree.

Unfuck yourself.

>>34314207
>accurate tracking of targets in high ECM environment is literally the main reason for the swap.

No, saturation attacks are the main reason.

>>34314315
SAMPSON is a powerful ship based radar, the point was to give a comparison of how stong the illuminators actually are and what kind of ECM would be needed to blind them.

File: Jurmo Class.jpg (581KB, 800x827px) Image search: [Google]

581KB, 800x827px

>tfw I just wanted to look at pretty ships
>tfw an overly detailed arguement that can have no resolution takes over the thread with no pretty ship pictures

Life on /k/ is suffering for the shipsexuals sometimes.

>>34314423
>At 25-50km? No, unless it's a suicide mission.

It is a suicide mission, it's a missile with a jammer.

>The jammer on the missiles themselves are pathetic BTW. Meant to degrade.

they are clearly sufficiant enough otherwise the USN wouldn't be changing its systems.

>A very powerful one, yes. Brute force personified.

fucking look at the thing. go and fucking google it. It's shining a HUGE cone of energy into the sky, in the hope of spotting 1-2sqm out of thousands of sqm of illuminated sky. The energy that hits the target then needs to make it back to the seeker on ESSM with more energy than put out by a jammer.

Go and shine a floodlight into a snowy night and try to pick out a single snowflake without hitting everything else.

>You calling an CW Illuminator inefficient, I'm inclined to agree.

until my last post you thought, an/spg62 was capable of beam forming

hopefully after this post you understand that an/spg62 is pouring most of its energy into empty space, making it inefficient.

i won't try to baby you anymore, you clearly haven't done your homework.

>>34314509
>missile based jammers are the reason ESSM block ii is being made

wew lad, of all the arguments in favor of active seekers you could have made

>>34314509
>CW Illuminators are not focused
>"you have not done your homework"

Kek. I guess they are cassegrain for fun.

I bow to your INFINITE knowledge!

B

U

File: perrymasterrace.jpg (1MB, 3000x1848px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3000x1848px

quality autistic discussion here lads, keep it up

How many CAMMs can be used at once compared to ESSM?

>>34317810
1 2 3 4 6

I'm triggered.

>>34318164
There is no public figure but since it's an active weapon it's probably a multiple of what ESSM can do

>>34279280
What's the story on CEAFAR? Wiki has next to nothing on it.

>>34318164

Kinda depends on the combat system and radar.

>>34309944
>>34309948
Link?

>>34319329
Have you tried the official website you dumb cunt?

http://www.cea.com.au/!Global/Directory.php?Location=ProductsServices:PhasedArrayTechnologies:CEAFAR

Fucking kids these days and wikipedia.

>>34319768
https://youtu.be/WKjlq1xXIHw

>>34319811
Figures, I was searching the normal BAE Systems channel.

>>34281764
The Hobarts are a Spanish redesign of an Aegis equipped stretched OHP concept for the Taiwanese who decided not to build it.

>>34279280
Radar is definitely CEAFAR, tenders have to offer options with 9LV & Aegis, however a senior naval officer was quoted recently as saying its 9LV, with a single helicopter, although all three options have dual hangers ,
MK41 VLS is required, internet gossip suggests 48 VLS is required.

>>34279356
Worst Korea has its own designs, not what we need.
Also with the shutdown of car manufacturing in South Australia, all the political parties are going to insist on manufacture in SA to try and keep the state alive.

>>34281680
Gillard cut the build budget, knowing full well that laying off staff would result in a much more expensive ship later.
BAE lost the build contract, were given sme blocks to build as a consolation prize, fucked those up setting the build back a year, then campaigned to take over management of the build because the build was so far behind it must be the management teams fault.
Abbot's first defence minister was in Austal's pocket and wanted to shut ASC down and send the work to WA (his home state). He fired a lot of the overseas experts that had turned ASC around.
Navantia had never led an overseas build, didn't have complete drawings (they had modified as they went on their 6 ship build and we were using the original baseline) and no speaka da english. That said, they ended up building BAEs blocks and delivering them fast.

Basic problem is its a make work pork barrel program that keeps getting fucked by politicians with little regard for the combat needs of the navy.

>>34282734
Hoping Damen will get the OPV order with a Sea Axe bow OPV1800 design.

Already supplied the aviation training ship and submarine rescue ship.

>>34286094
Sea Axe bow prevents slamming, better speed and fuel economy.

>>34286996
BAE put the wrong oil in the pods. That's why they shat themselves.

>>34309914
With plans for a total of 15.
>>34309917
Intend to buy seven, but not yet.
I think money, staff to run the contract, staff to man the stations and confidence that the design is fully sorted are all lacking,

>>34290785

Did a stint on HMAS Tobruk back in 2011, replaced the Armidale that got damaged when a siev blew up, we ferried over 250 illegals to CI.

On the ship was a legit 10/10 AB-CK that I wish I would have fucked but was young and shy af

File: 1492142499801.jpg (40KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 600x600px

>>34317810

To think that the Adelaides are still our most capable surface combatant

File: _MG_9248web1.jpg (177KB, 875x619px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 875x619px

>>34314503
What could have been. The Baby Bourke from Gibbbs & Cox that never was.

File: 08_hms_glowworm.jpg (82KB, 744x619px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 744x619px

>>34320035
The worm turns. Glowworm attempts to Kamikaze Hipper.

File: 800px-Combat_Boat_90.jpg (94KB, 800x532px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 800x532px

>>34320045
Combat Boat 90. There was some speculation that a small boat capability for special forces mentioned in the white Paper was a reference to this.

File: 0271.jpg (576KB, 2400x1349px) Image search: [Google]

576KB, 2400x1349px

>>34320048
Cantabria. RAN are having two of these built by Navantia at the moment,

File: 800px-Hobart2_01.jpg (135KB, 800x543px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 800x543px

>>34320050
Hobart is replacing this Hobart.

File: rcf5m29nn7yp1x4u3x2q.jpg (261KB, 1600x1066px) Image search: [Google]

261KB, 1600x1066px

>>34320048

Super Dvora MkIII is best PB

File: enhanced-17159-1423068265-32.jpg (69KB, 501x585px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 501x585px

>>34320054

>>34320050

Is Success still going to remain in service?

File: 070918-N-5459S-013.jpg (445KB, 2100x1378px) Image search: [Google]

445KB, 2100x1378px

>>34320053
Warships have the best super soaker fights.

>>34320063

Dutch ship on the right?

File: 665536_516078905087234_748488342_o.jpg (116KB, 1600x840px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 1600x840px

>>34320062
AFAIK Success and Sirius go as soon as the Cantabria class ships arrive in IIRC 2020.
In the mid 2020s there will be a choice between another fleet supply ship or another Choules type LPD.

IIRC this pic of a USN ship was taken from an OZ OHP. I thought it was an oil painting the first time I saw it.

>>34320075

Yup, looks like HNLMS Evertsen

File: ausairforce.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x720px

>>34320062
nah it has major problems apparently, will be the 2 new AORs plus a third around mid 20s

File: 090919_02.jpg (114KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 1024x768px

>>34320075
Karel Doorman, IIRC.Its with the Bainbridge in the Indian Ocean, 2007, if you want to search for it.

Pic is a sketch of HMAS Australia, our first and only battle cruiser. Missed every battle of WWII, sunk off Sydney, a victim of the Washington Naval Treaty.

File: parasite.jpg (38KB, 828x672px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 828x672px

>>34320035
desu i don't mind that we went with the F105, it has a few benefits when combined with the other Spanish ships but we really needed the fourth

at least we get an extra frigate down the track i guess

File: 92ada.jpg (584KB, 2520x1800px) Image search: [Google]

584KB, 2520x1800px

>>34320096
No matter how bad we have it, Someone else has it worse. The Flips are still fielding a WWII destroyer escort.

File: 2850.jpg (777KB, 1800x1200px) Image search: [Google]

777KB, 1800x1200px

>>34320116
The Adelaides have served us well. The SM2 / ESSM upgrade was an abomination unto god and further proof that JWH was Satan himself. We should have scrapped them and replaced with Bourkes. But if you tell a shipyard it will close, they will swear they can turn a 30 year old escort into an air defense destroyer. Pic is Melbourne.
Captcha was a rifle and pistol range sign. Googles AI is learning.

File: 2590908lhddesdepopa11414x12.jpg (210KB, 1414x1200px) Image search: [Google]

210KB, 1414x1200px

>>34320139
Here are the offending LHD pods. Never trust Pod People.

File: 20060621adf8109730_281.jpg (2MB, 3000x1966px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3000x1966px

>>34320144
Ballarat, prior to ASMD upgrade.

File: JSS_Karel_Doorman_in_Den_Helder.jpg (993KB, 3000x2000px) Image search: [Google]

993KB, 3000x2000px

>>34320096

>Karel Doorman

Visit your fucking ophthalmologist, anon

File: 20090715ran8484353_033.jpg (791KB, 3000x1996px) Image search: [Google]

791KB, 3000x1996px

>>34320148
Kanimbla. The LHDs are definitely an upgrade. No matter how much they break down they probably can't be as bad as the LPAs.

>>34320144

T H I C C

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reTx5sqvVJ4

File: 1333800611626.jpg (304KB, 1600x1065px) Image search: [Google]

304KB, 1600x1065px

>>34320162
You got me. I'm only wearing one contact lens at the moment. The other fell out. Was an interesting drive home. :P

Spaghetti Navy.

>>34320139

Funfact: Poles are interested to actually buy 2 or 3 Adelaides to replace (?) their 2 dying OHPs

File: 368 KRI FransKaisiepo.jpg (65KB, 800x532px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 800x532px

>>34320182
Kamarian Navy Sigma Corvette. Damen trying to sell weapons to both sides of the war.

>>34320182

Italian navy looks pretty set for the future with the build program they've got going.

>>34320185
I know. I'm guessing OZ gov is willing to do that to give the finger to Putin over MH17.
Otherwise we should donate them to the Flips, like the LCHs.

File: 20090901ran8484535_011.jpg (1MB, 3000x1993px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3000x1993px

>>34320201
True dat. More Kanimbla.

File: 20091027ran8247532_026.jpg (2MB, 3000x2000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3000x2000px

>>34320215
Too Broken. Formerly known as Tobruk.

File: DSCF9006.jpg (867KB, 2592x1944px) Image search: [Google]

867KB, 2592x1944px

Okay, here's a challenge ship spotter dorks.

Name the class and who they're in service with.

File: 20100710ran8295986_035.jpg (3MB, 1985x3000px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1985x3000px

>>34320222
Fat chick spotted.

File: chips.jpg (49KB, 589x519px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 589x519px

>>34320226
pommie frigates, don't know the name

>>34320226
Type 23s, Chile

File: 091118-N-7058E-139.jpg (575KB, 2100x1097px) Image search: [Google]

575KB, 2100x1097px

>>34320228
What we want on the OPVs.

File: 20100601ran8484535_043_lo.jpg (185KB, 600x401px) Image search: [Google]

185KB, 600x401px

>>34320240
What we will probably get.

>>34320235
>>34320237

Good spots.

File: 100227-N-1854W-977.jpg (3MB, 4950x3960px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4950x3960px

>>34320244
Multi-track drifting.

File: 1105185222.jpg (386KB, 1024x681px) Image search: [Google]

386KB, 1024x681px

>>34320235
>>34320237

Round two.

File: 1182105374535.jpg (120KB, 1024x680px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 1024x680px

>>34320256
120mm AMOS mortar on Combat Boat 2010.

>>34320264
Malaysian, Chinese built corvette?

>>34320264
Definitely Kamarian. KRI Diponegoro.

File: straysc.png (19KB, 414x506px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 414x506px

>>34320264
no idea desu, other faggots using image search can suck my dick

File: 1206718668061.jpg (86KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 640x480px

>>34320271
Oops!

File: uBRPv1m.jpg (338KB, 1201x800px) Image search: [Google]

338KB, 1201x800px

Round three. Name em'

>>34320276

Not quite there.

>>34320294

Bingo.

>>34320300

Would be lame if some was using Google.

>>34320294
>KRI Diponegoro.
Who the fuck names these ships?

File: 1210765573873.jpg (447KB, 2100x1331px) Image search: [Google]

447KB, 2100x1331px

>>34320313
Nip Ship Kongo, about to embark on another anime adventure.

File: rmc.jpg (296KB, 717x1000px) Image search: [Google]

296KB, 717x1000px

>>34320321
ours aren't exactly great desu, especially the abo ones, why can't we have cool names like the poms? BRING BACK VAMPIRE

also thoughts on the RAN finally joining the multicam club? looks a lot better than the current clown suits imo

File: 1338195755709.jpg (426KB, 735x1000px) Image search: [Google]

426KB, 735x1000px

>>34320321
Indos. They must have a national hero called Dip The Negro or something like that.
I only picked it because I posted the Sigma class corvette earlier.
Not having luck with the latest. Left ship looks a bit like a Knox class, but isn't.

Collins class to keep the Shipkin happy.

File: 1199390712187.jpg (196KB, 1000x735px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 1000x735px

>>34320378
HMS Hermes returning from the Falklands campaign.

File: 1308045776461.jpg (144KB, 500x667px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 500x667px

>>34320315
OK one on the left is Nip Ship Isoyuki. Didn't Google it, but did have to use Wiki to get the name.

Can't recall if this Eagle or Ark Royal.

File: Cerberus_2007.jpg (742KB, 2288x1712px) Image search: [Google]

742KB, 2288x1712px

>>34320443
Price of the Victorian navy.

>>34320491

woah so this is the power of Victoria...

File: russiantrawlero57drydocgx7.jpg (60KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 800x600px

>>34320513
Meant to type pride.

During the cold war the Russians always had
spy trawlers shadowing US carriers.
This is what they looked like under water.

>>34320443

Most likely Eagle.

>>34320244

Rhiementall have apparently offered Oerlikon Millenniums as main armament but I think they should be using 57mm as well. The Tender asks for a calibre between 30 and 40mm.

>>34320378
whats the deal with the tube? towed array?

>>34320544
sneaky

>>34321167
yep

>>34320390

Very rusty.