Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Todjaeger]

Me too and I say the same for the RNZN. Whilst its rate of fire is slower than the Phalanx 20mm, until the Phalanx windes up their rate of fire are similar. Also the 35mm AHEAD projectiles are smart projectiles and they have a longer range destroying those nasty enemy ASCM further away from the ship.

The other thing I believe that is a pity is that there is no way of reloading the Mk-41 or other VLS from the bottom. I wonder if it is possible to make them breech loading giving the ability to undertake automatic reloads at sea in relative safety.

With the rounds containing ~150 tungsten sub-munitions, that can provide a greater number of rounds than a Mk 15 Phalanx, with the advantage of also having a greater maximum engagement range.

The Mk-15 Block 1A/1B has a ROF of 4,500 rpm with a 1,550-round magazine, so effectively after about 22 seconds the gun is empty and 1,550 rounds are heading at the target.

With the Millenium Gun having a max ROF of 1,000 rpm and a magazine of 252 rounds, each with 152 tungsten projectiles... That means after about 15 seconds the Millenium Gun is empty, but there are about 38k projectiles heading at the target...

As for being able to reload a Mk-41 VLS from underneath, I do not see any way that could be reasonably developed. Take a missile like ESSM as an example, the missile itself is ~3.6m in length/height, and that is not in a canister. That would require a significant amount of below deck real estate beneath the VLS to permit an ESSM to be fitted. In many respects, you would need to replicate the magazine capabilities associated with the Mk-13 missile launcher, while also potentially compromising some of the safety capabilities of the Mk-41 VLS.

As I understand it, the reason why the Mk-41 VLS is not replenished at sea is due to safety issues with unloading underslung loads for such size and weight onto/into an unstable platform like a vessel underway. Given that a single ESSM is just under 300kg without the canister, and that all terminals need to be connected properly, I can see how attempting to drop a quad-packed canister into a VLS cell at sea could cause potential problems. If the receiving vessel crests a wave or drops into a trough at the wrong time the canister and/or the VLS could become damaged, never mind what might happen to a crewmen that gets between the canister and the vessel...

 

[vonnoobie]

If Australia is serious about becoming self sufficient in its military production capability, then local production of the ESSM is certainly something I would be looking at. We would nearly be doing that anyway with all the refurbishment and maintenance and rebuilding.

Actually we are also building componants of the ESSM as that program is set up in a similar fashion as the F-35 and others with purchasing nations getting a chance to do work on them. BAE has been the main local contractor from memory but there are also a few others.

It is one of those programs where you weigh up the cost benefits, Produce a small amount of each product over a large ongoing order or produce the entire product but only have enough ordered to keep the line open a fraction of the time. We don't independently have the demand to do it all by our selves and keep it sustainable (ie: Mainly keeping the skilled persons in position) so we have to do it jointly.

 

[zhaktronz]

AMRAAM-ER - which is essentially ESSM with an AMRAAM seeker might be an option for a low footprint integration ala CAMM on the LHD, whilst maintaining commonality with existing ESSM supplies.

 

[Todjaeger]

AMRAAM-ER - which is essentially ESSM with an AMRAAM seeker might be an option for a low footprint integration ala CAMM on the LHD, whilst maintaining commonality with existing ESSM supplies.

Seriously doubt that would be low footprint. One of the advantages of the much smaller Sea Ceptor missile is that it can be cold-launched, which is why it can be fitted into much smaller and lighter VLS than the Mk-41, or even the Mk 48 or Mk 56 VLS, as the VLS is not subjected to the backblast from the missile launch.

Not needing an illuminator could relieve some of the systems integration issues, especially where to mount another transmitter and the associated control stations and wiring. However, that could also potentially be accomplished with the ESSM Block II, assuming it does get off the ground with a dual mode seeker.

On the LHD's, a very real question which needs to be considered is where can the VLS be mounted so that it provides a useful capability without causing unacceptable difficulties or degradation in core LHD functions. Mounting a VLS that then interferes with the LHD's flight opts and/or C4ISR systems is not going to fly. If circumstances are such that having additional VLS cells for 50+km air defence missiles are called for, it would be better to have extra escorts with the VLS as part of the screen.

Air defence considerations for the LHD's should IMO focus on self-defence and dealing with leakers which get through the air defence umbrella provided by the escorts and/or past the escorts.

 

[Tasman]

Air defence considerations for the LHD's should IMO focus on self-defence and dealing with leakers which get through the air defence umbrella provided by the escorts and/or past the escorts.

I guess that this is precisely what the current plan of fitting up to 3 Phalanx mounts on Canberra and Adelaide is intended to provide. Several posters have made the case for SeaRAM or the 35mm Millenium gun to be substituted for Phalanx in order to provide stopping power further out but at present it seems that the RAN powers that be are happy to stick with Phalanx. The plus side is that the supply chain and training will be kept simple and costs will be contained as much as possible. If, down the track, a decision is later taken to use a longer ranging CIWS on the future frigates then I would presume that the navy would want to retrospectively apply this to other major units as they come in for major refits, providing as always that funding is available.

The current plan for the LHDs to be able to protect themselves against 'leakers' may not be perfect but it a heck of a lot better than what they currently have. Phalanx plus Nulka (for a soft kill option) seems to me to be a much better bet to bring down a missile than having to try to stop one with the existing mix of 25mm Typhoons and 12.7 mm manually operated HMGs. In addition, of course, the latest versions of Phalanx will improve defence against surface threats such as swarm attacks (although I suspect that at least some of the current 25mm mounts will have to be landed if Phalanx is to be fitted without impairing flight deck operations).

Tas

 

[Joe Black]

In addition, of course, the latest versions of Phalanx will improve defence against surface threats such as swarm attacks (although I suspect that at least some of the current 25mm mounts will have to be landed if Phalanx is to be fitted without impairing flight deck operations).

Tas

Mk38 Typhoon is much better at doing that than the Mk15 Phalanx Blk 2B.

3x Phalanx CIWS on the LHDs is the least what RAN must do to provide an autonomous hard kill self defence for the LHDs against the leakers. With the proliferation of supersonic AShMs and the leakers having to be supersonic AShMs, the Phalanx might have a field day trying to play goalkeepers. Thus, I still think that something like the SeaRAMs or a far longer range CIWS like the 35mm Millennium should also be equipped for big valuable assets like the LHDs, and probably the AORs too.

 

[Stampede]

Hello all

The latest Edition of APDR has an article on the looming decision on SEA 1180.
Not really too much new in the article, but it does suggest Damen are playing their cards pretty close to their chest. Not surprising considering the size of the contract.

Suggesting a decision on the OPV would be no earlier than October,given it's getting on in July in reality that is not too far away.

We wait and see.

Who know's we may get a surprise with the winner having a sixteen inch main gun, F35B off the rear deck and trebuchet mounted on top of the hanger.

Asia Pacific Defence Reporter : APDR 07 2017, Page 1

Regards S

 

[Tasman]

Mk38 Typhoon is much better at doing that than the Mk15 Phalanx Blk 2B.

Hopefully a place for both but finding space which doesn't impinge on other needs may pose problems.

3x Phalanx CIWS on the LHDs is the least what RAN must do to provide an autonomous hard kill self defence for the LHDs against the leakers. With the proliferation of supersonic AShMs and the leakers having to be supersonic AShMs, the Phalanx might have a field day trying to play goalkeepers. Thus, I still think that something like the SeaRAMs or a far longer range CIWS like the 35mm Millennium should also be equipped for big valuable assets like the LHDs, and probably the AORs too.

I agree that a longer range CIWS would be better providing it could be funded and supported without adversely affecting other RAN/ADF priorities. My points were firstly that fitting Phalanx to the LHDs will be better than leaving them with no CIWS at all and secondly that the RAN does have reasons why they are sticking to upgraded versions of weapons that are already in inventory and should, therefore, be comparatively easy to support.

Personally, I would also like to see SeaRAM or the 35mm Millenium gun fitted to the LHDs but I can understand the RAN's decision to stay with Phalanx! I await with interest to see if the RAN will use the future frigate program as an opportunity to introduce a new CIWS.

Tas

 

[Todjaeger]

Who know's we may get a surprise with the winner having a sixteen inch main gun, F35B off the rear deck and trebuchet mounted on top of the hanger.

Regards S

That fitout sounds completely unreasonable to me. It has to be a ballista atop the hangar for CIWS.

 

[Mark_Evans]

BAE offering to set up Adelaide as export base for T26

Any thoughts on the announcement by BAE to sweeten the pot by exporting T26's out of Adelaide as part of their bid? I mean I like the ship a lot but i am wondering if the market is there. I know the UK is building them, Australia has them in the final three and had heard Canada was considering them but I wasn't aware of any other interest out there.
Sarky comment (sorry - I can't resist ) perhaps sell them to the US as a frigate replacement?

 

[Stampede]

That fitout sounds completely unreasonable to me. It has to be a ballista atop the hangar for CIWS.

Great idea...... now just add it to the rest of the fleet

 

[John Fedup]

Any thoughts on the announcement by BAE to sweeten the pot by exporting T26's out of Adelaide as part of their bid? I mean I like the ship a lot but i am wondering if the market is there. I know the UK is building them, Australia has them in the final three and had heard Canada was considering them but I wasn't aware of any other interest out there.
Sarky comment (sorry - I can't resist ) perhaps sell them to the US as a frigate replacement?

Both Australia and Canada are potential candidates for the Type 26. The only other likely customer might be NZ which could latch on to an Australian build at somepoint. As for the US, no, the Type 26 is overkill for what the USN wants but more importantly it has the NIH issue.

 

[40 deg south]

Both Australia and Canada are potential candidates for the Type 26. The only other likely customer might be NZ which could latch on to an Australian build at somepoint. As for the US, no, the Type 26 is overkill for what the USN wants but more importantly it has the NIH issue.

Aside from Not Invented Here syndrome, the US also has the Jones Act which requires US-flagged ships to be built in the US. So while they could license-build the design, the vessels would have to come out of a US yard.

Canada would definitely build their own, but is looking for a design.

NZ will need to replace two ANZACs around 2030, which would fit with the tail end of the build schedule. It would only work if the design was price-competitive with other option, which isn't a given.

 

[40 deg south]

AustalFassmer hosts Australian OPV industry engagement forum | Naval Today

At-sea portion of exercise Talisman Sabre kicks off | Naval Today

Australia green lights Garden Island wharf recovery project | Naval Today

A few Aussie-related links from Naval Today - apologies if any of them are repeat postings.

 

[John Fedup]

Aside from Not Invented Here syndrome, the US also has the Jones Act which requires US-flagged ships to be built in the US. So while they could license-build the design, the vessels would have to come out of a US yard.

The Jones Act requires that merchant ships transporting goods between US ports must be built in the US and has nothing to do with naval vessels. Nevertheless it is extremely unlikely the US would use a foreign yard and even a foreign frigate design would be politically difficult IMO.

 

[alexsa]

Me too and I say the same for the RNZN. Whilst its rate of fire is slower than the Phalanx 20mm, until the Phalanx windes up their rate of fire are similar. Also the 35mm AHEAD projectiles are smart projectiles and they have a longer range destroying those nasty enemy ASCM further away from the ship.

The other thing I believe that is a pity is that there is no way of reloading the Mk-41 or other VLS from the bottom. I wonder if it is possible to make them breech loading giving the ability to undertake automatic reloads at sea in relative safety.

If the RAN were to move away from Phalanx then SeaRAM could be an obvious replacment given the AORs, Choules, DDG (AWD) and (soon) the LHD will have the ability to simply bolt this on with no modification.

However I do like the 35mm with AHEAD ammunition. If this weapon gets selected for LAND 400 then it may have a place in lieu of the 25mm Typhoon

 

[Muar River]

Both Australia and Canada are potential candidates for the Type 26. The only other likely customer might be NZ which could latch on to an Australian build at somepoint. As for the US, no, the Type 26 is overkill for what the USN wants but more importantly it has the NIH issue.

The RFI for SEA 5000 Phase 1 is due 24 July. DTR reports political interest in ensuring the schedule does not slip and it seems the time frame for the Type 26 and SEA 5000 project do not line up. I don't believe the project should be delayed.

Defence Technology Review : DTR JULY 2017, Page 1

 

[alexsa]

Hello all

The latest Edition of APDR has an article on the looming decision on SEA 1180.
Not really too much new in the article, but it does suggest Damen are playing their cards pretty close to their chest. Not surprising considering the size of the contract.

Suggesting a decision on the OPV would be no earlier than October,given it's getting on in July in reality that is not too far away.

We wait and see.

Asia Pacific Defence Reporter : APDR 07 2017, Page 1

Regards S

The difference between APDR and DTR on the Damen bit is interesting. The DTR stated they have been advised the SeaAXE 1800 will be offered while the ADBR seems to be pointing to the OPV1400 or lower.

Given the size of the other contenders and the RFT I cannot see the 1400 cutting it and suspect DTR may have got it right noting Damens own announcements.

 

[Stampede]

The difference between APDR and DTR on the Damen bit is interesting. The DTR stated they have been advised the SeaAXE 1800 will be offered while the ADBR seems to be pointing to the OPV1400 or lower.

Given the size of the other contenders and the RFT I cannot see the 1400 cutting it and suspect DTR may have got it right noting Damens own announcements.

Agree...... the 1400 in my opinion is at the small end.

I trust all three OPV offerings are closer to the 2000t mark and preferably 80m plus in length.
This class of OPV will be in service for a couple of decades so they will need to last the test of time and offer to the Commonwealth all that the nation asks.
This may in fact be more than just off shore constabulary duties.
I hope the winner of SEA1180 can satisfy future expectations.

To future proof the OPV.
Bigger might be better

Again time will tell.


Regards S

 

[hauritz]

Agree...... the 1400 in my opinion is at the small end.

I trust all three OPV offerings are closer to the 2000t mark and preferably 80m plus in length.
This class of OPV will be in service for a couple of decades so they will need to last the test of time and offer to the Commonwealth all that the nation asks.
This may in fact be more than just off shore constabulary duties.
I hope the winner of SEA1180 can satisfy future expectations.

To future proof the OPV.
Bigger might be better

Again time will tell.


Regards S

Money could be an issue.

Lurssen seems to be offering the hangerless OPV 80 which also only displaces around 1500 tons. Its stable mate ... the OPV 85 comes with a hanger and is just a little bit bigger.