I was under the impression the LPA's had two Phalanx CIWS each. I would think the LHD's would have the same rank for two, one starboard and one port. But I will agree if the LHD's went on a long deployment they would be mounted from the RAN's stock of CIWS...
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
No I've only ever seen 1x Phalanx CIWS fitted to the LPA's. Above the bridge is the mounting point, as seen in this photo:
http://www.defence.gov.au/media/download/2009/Sep/20090903b/20090901ran8484535_011.jpg
I stand corrected. But with the size of the LHDs, CIWS will most likely be located on sponsors below the flight deck level with two of the four 25-mm mounts. I doubt there will be a useful high single location. The Canberra class LHDs are larger than the British Invincible class light carriers, which have three CIWS locations.
I don't see a need for three or four CIWS when there are four 25-mm mounts on the four corners, but I do see a need for two CIWS locations, one to port and one to starboard....
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Yeah, I'm not sure where the CIWS will be mounted, it would be nice if two could be mounted on the superstructure above the bridge and to the rear of the bridge to provide 360 degree coverage, but I'm not sure that is feasible.
I am very surprised by RAN's apparent complete lack of interest in the RIM-166 RAM defence system. Given the apparent space constraints for defensive weaponry, I would have thought a RAM launcher at each end of the ship, supported by Typhoon 25mm and Mini-typhoon 12.7mm would have provided an excellent compromise in defensive anti-air and anti-surface capability, within the space constraints inherent on this ship.
In any situation the LHD will be dependent on it's escorts for it's overall defence, but I would think such a costly vessel, with such an important cargo and role, would be armed a little bit better than what is planned.
"Fundingitis" strikes again, eh?
(Fundingitis - an increasingly common disease known to strike bureaucrats who subsequently develop symptoms which involve an unwillingness to fund projects ACTUALLY needed by operators but does not co-incidentally, impede projects designed to keep themselves and their political masters employed...)
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
It is good to hear that the CIWS is going to be included along with the Typhoon, I had not heard that, but am not surprised that it is happening. Is there any word on whether or not they are getting the upgrade to Block 1B? Or would that preclude them for being deployed on a pool basis to different vessels?
What would people think of the Typhoon mounts being upgraded to also launch missiles? If this were to happen, what would be the better type of missile to use? IMO given the current armament planned for the LHDs, would be some form of SAM like the RBS-70 which is already in Australian service. OTOH if a VLS w/ESSM does end up getting fitted, then missiles like the AGM-114M Hellfire would seem more sensible. Basically the intent would be to add additional layers onto the defences of the Canberra.
-Cheers
What would people think of the Typhoon mounts being upgraded to also launch missiles? If this were to happen, what would be the better type of missile to use? IMO given the current armament planned for the LHDs, would be some form of SAM like the RBS-70 which is already in Australian service. OTOH if a VLS w/ESSM does end up getting fitted, then missiles like the AGM-114M Hellfire would seem more sensible. Basically the intent would be to add additional layers onto the defences of the Canberra.
-Cheers
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I agree that outside of very extraordinary situations, the whole navy would not be at sea or on deployments. However, when considering the numbers requested for the future naval helicopter (24) to ensure that 8 were available at any one time... IMO it stands to reason that the same ratio of total #'s in service (16) to available for operations holds true, which mean that only 5 Seahawks would be available at any given moment. Actually, the ratio might be even worse than 3:1, since the RAN Seahawks are approaching 20 years of service, the the SCAP was intended to provide needed upgrades for them to continue in service. I would not expect the support requirements to be like that of the Sea Kings when they were retired from service, but still likely not quite as good as brand new or just zero-houred machines.
With it in mind that the RAN desires to have 8 helicopters available at any one time, how long can they continue to only have ~5 available at once? I personally have a feeling that the FOC date for the future naval helicopter will be a key issue, more important than cost or capability, but I could be wrong.
-Cheers
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #2,507
Aussie navy stops Somali pirate attack | National News | News.com.au
Now i'm all for the boys from toowoomba's great work, but if you look very closely at the defence pics of the "boarding Team" you'll notice that they are not exactly a SHIPs Boarding Team...and i have a funny feeling who they actually are.
http://www.defence.gov.au/opEx/global/opslipper/images/gallery/2009/0923/20090920ran811372201275.jpg
As soon as they're specials the faces are digitally disrupted and blanked.I see M4's....
Clearence Divers or SAS?
Edit: Is it just me or do the Twin Yamaha engines not match the boat to which they are attached?
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #2,511
unless they're keeping it low key by throwing them DPNU, i'd go with CD. If it is SAS however, opens up whole new range of options to conduct boardings over there, as they can do hostile non-compliant boarding ops.I see M4's....
Clearence Divers or SAS?
Edit: Is it just me or do the Twin Yamaha engines not match the boat to which they are attached?
Another way to ID non-navy, these guys are pointing their weapons down in the RHIB, the first thing we are taught with any weapon is never point it at the deck, you may regret it if that thing goes off in the boat.
True, but unless i was from Toowoombas crew i could'nt even ID the boat coxswain and bowman. In all pics the goggles cover alot.
Thanks for the information. I shall endeavor with my poor Spanish to read the links provided with my Spanish dictionary.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #2,513
Todays Sydney Daily Telegraph runs with the story a specialist "snatch party" of Navy Clearence Divers were used in the interception of the pirates, which would mean our efforts are much greater then a detterent when it comes down to it, but i doubt the Govt. would streamline any interventions or boardings no matter what the situation. Good Old Red Tape all the way!
IIRC there is an ex CDT who has "job swapped".
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
TAG operators.I see M4's....
Clearence Divers or SAS?
Edit: Is it just me or do the Twin Yamaha engines not match the boat to which they are attached?
:sniper
They are actually a team from CDT4, they were doing their workup here at Stirling a few months ago, there are other teams ready for the next deployment to the region.
Here is a link to an article of them leaving Darwin.
Navy divers join hunt for pirates - Northern Territory News
Cheers
Well, today Navantia updated the news section of its website so here you have the press note released by Navantia (English version) about the keel laying ceremony of yesterday: Link.
Last edited:
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
CDT operators can be and often are TAG trained...
You are quite correct, a platoon of divers drawn from CDT1 currently serve with TAG-East.
The boarding party however, was drawn from the West based CDT4. I don't know if these divers have been members of TAG-E in the past.
Cheers
winnyfield
New Member
They could also go ashore. Much like the French a while back.
- Status