Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
The new USN philosophy is if it floats it fights, that's why the LCS is getting anti ship missile, that's why big deck amphibs are tying USMC vehicles to their decks so they can use their weapons while underway. Its why carriers and new amphibs are getting SPY-6, why SM-6 has an anti surface capability, and why ESSM has a last ditch (desperation) anti ballistic missile capability.

Modern systems are highly modular, adaptable and integrated, the only reason not to fit them to pretty much anything large enough to carry them is the price tag of doing so. Look at the capability of the F-35, an individual combat aircraft is a more capable sensor and weapons platform than pretty much any minor warfare vessel and most corvettes, even some frigates. Mount the F-35 type systems (repackaged sensor suit, data links and sensor fusion) on a patrol boat or an FAC and you pretty much instantly have something much more capable than the current norm, looking at the sorts of capabilities modern armoured vehicles are getting these days, even they are outstripping minor warfare vessels.

Not everything is big enough to carry SPY-6 / AMDR or even scalable CEA type set ups, let alone a core AEGIS system, but pretty much everything the size of a patrol boat can mount missiles on their decks and a data link making them part of a task force "magazine". Bigger ships have space and weight for VLS and a decent, if not top end, combat system, its the big ships, the attractive targets, be they combatants, amphibs or support ships, that have the space and weight available for the high end sensors and combat systems, the command facilities, even the accommodation for command staff, that would let the smaller ships with the missiles be useful.
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
I was going to suggest you may even allude to bolting an F35A to the flight deck of a Arafura class as a sensor package, but I was concerned someone may actually take it seriously.
I do like the " task force magazine". comment / concept.

Regards S
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
Weapons fit for the Supply Class AOR's is looking pretty good, certainly an improvement over Success in her later years.

2x Phalanx CIWS. 2x 25mm Typhoon. Chaff Launchers. Towed Torpedo Decoy. Missile and Torpedo Magazine off the Hangar to allow embarkation of armed MH-60R Seahawk Romeo's. Not saying that will happen often but it's all about the options.
Is this weapons fit locked in as a standard fit out.
Or is it still at the maybe we can do it stage.
Fitted for but not with?
Not having a dig at you and would certainly be pleased if it was so, just have not see anything in concrete so far.
Certainly pleased if a weapons magazine for Missiles and Torpedos is actually incorporated into the design.
A link to the above would be great.

Regards S
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Weapons fit for the Supply Class AOR's is looking pretty good, certainly an improvement over Success in her later years.

2x Phalanx CIWS. 2x 25mm Typhoon. Chaff Launchers. Towed Torpedo Decoy. Missile and Torpedo Magazine off the Hangar to allow embarkation of armed MH-60R Seahawk Romeo's. Not saying that will happen often but it's all about the options.
Options are great, but what happens if the wrong ones are chosen? It's been known to happen, more than once. Phalanx is a 20 m with short range and if it hits an incoming seas skimmer, the missile's inertia is still going to result in a fairly large amount of the debris mass hitting the ship. If it is a supersonic sea skimmer, well the damage is going to be somewhat greater.
The new USN philosophy is if it floats it fights, that's why the LCS is getting anti ship missile, that's why big deck amphibs are tying USMC vehicles to their decks so they can use their weapons while underway. Its why carriers and new amphibs are getting SPY-6, why SM-6 has an anti surface capability, and why ESSM has a last ditch (desperation) anti ballistic missile capability.

Modern systems are highly modular, adaptable and integrated, the only reason not to fit them to pretty much anything large enough to carry them is the price tag of doing so. Look at the capability of the F-35, an individual combat aircraft is a more capable sensor and weapons platform than pretty much any minor warfare vessel and most corvettes, even some frigates. Mount the F-35 type systems (repackaged sensor suit, data links and sensor fusion) on a patrol boat or an FAC and you pretty much instantly have something much more capable than the current norm, looking at the sorts of capabilities modern armoured vehicles are getting these days, even they are outstripping minor warfare vessels.

Not everything is big enough to carry SPY-6 / AMDR or even scalable CEA type set ups, let alone a core AEGIS system, but pretty much everything the size of a patrol boat can mount missiles on their decks and a data link making them part of a task force "magazine". Bigger ships have space and weight for VLS and a decent, if not top end, combat system, its the big ships, the attractive targets, be they combatants, amphibs or support ships, that have the space and weight available for the high end sensors and combat systems, the command facilities, even the accommodation for command staff, that would let the smaller ships with the missiles be useful.
That's where I am coming from - Distributed Lethality where if it floats - it fights as you say. WRT installing F-35 systems of ships, I think that there could be some expensive integration problems there. Other MOTS sensors etc., could be found that may meet requirements.
 

Takao

The Bunker Group
I was going to suggest you may even allude to bolting an F35A to the flight deck of a Arafura class as a sensor package, but I was concerned someone may actually take it seriously.
I do like the " task force magazine". comment / concept.

Regards S
Very early on in Tiger's life, I used extant doctrine and the scenario presented in the TEWT to place a Tiger with it's 30 mm firing down a boundary. I confess to a small giggle at imagining the Musorian scout's face when he looked up and caught a bunch of 30 mm. And the best thing? Being doctrine based - the staff had to accept it....:D
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Very early on in Tiger's life, I used extant doctrine and the scenario presented in the TEWT to place a Tiger with it's 30 mm firing down a boundary. I confess to a small giggle at imagining the Musorian scout's face when he looked up and caught a bunch of 30 mm. And the best thing? Being doctrine based - the staff had to accept it....:D
We definitely need something more than a Like thumbs up, a ROFL would be handy.
 

FormerDirtDart

Well-Known Member
It seems strange that all 41 boats will be purchased from Finland?
Do you know if Boomeeranger have an Australian subsidiary?
41 boats over a 10 year contract. Probably training/spares plus initial ship's boats the first year, then as required when additional ships complete construction. I would question if it was justifiable to establish manufacture in country when they could be shipping a few FEU containers every year.
 
Last edited:

hauritz

Well-Known Member
Options are great, but what happens if the wrong ones are chosen? It's been known to happen, more than once. Phalanx is a 20 m with short range and if it hits an incoming seas skimmer, the missile's inertia is still going to result in a fairly large amount of the debris mass hitting the ship. If it is a supersonic sea skimmer, well the damage is going to be somewhat greater.
This is one of the reasons I am surprised that Australia has already specified the phalanx for the Hunter class. I can understand that decision from the British perspective since they probably have a lot of these weapons available ... but in Australia's case we will need to buy extra CIWSs for the Hunters. I would have thought that this would be an opportunity for Australia to explore other options.
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
Have they? All its got down on their site is 2x20mm Close in weapon systems, that suggests Phalanx but also suggests they may look at other options and as you say they still have to ordered
 

Tasman

Ship Watcher
Verified Defense Pro
This is one of the reasons I am surprised that Australia has already specified the phalanx for the Hunter class. I can understand that decision from the British perspective since they probably have a lot of these weapons available ... but in Australia's case we will need to buy extra CIWSs for the Hunters. I would have thought that this would be an opportunity for Australia to explore other options.
Australia will need more Phalanx mounts just to equip ships currently in service (3 each for the LHDs plus 1 for Choules), as well as the two new AORs (2 each). AFAIK there are insufficient mounts in inventory (including those removed from the retired/retiring FFGs) to update and use them to equip these vessels simultaneously. In some cases of course, for example the AORs and/or Choules, it may be the intention to only fit Phalanx when on active deployment. However I hope this will not be the case and that all units will be fully equipped.
In the case of the Hunters, if Phalanx IS already locked in I would presume that it would only be for the first tranche of 3 ships. I will be very surprised if the opportunity is not taken to update the follow on tranches to take advantage of any improved technology that may be on offer..

Tas
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
41 boats over a 10 year contract. Probably training/spares plus initial ship's boats the first year, then as required when additional ships complete construction. I would question if it was justifiable to establish manufacture in country when they could be shipping a few FEU containers every year.
Fair point but I was hoping they (Boomeranger) had a deal with a local manufacturer for licensed production.
 

oldsig127

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Australia will need more Phalanx mounts just to equip ships currently in service (3 each for the LHDs plus 1 for Choules), as well as the two new AORs (2 each). AFAIK there are insufficient mounts in inventory (including those removed from the retired/retiring FFGs) to update and use them to equip these vessels simultaneously. In some cases of course, for example the AORs and/or Choules, it may be the intention to only fit Phalanx when on active deployment. However I hope this will not be the case and that all units will be fully equipped.
Already been ordered if my memory is correct. There was a thread here about it last year (near enough) in which several posters wondered why there were two extra mounts being ordered for proof of concept / testing when we already have Phalanx.

I'll search for it and add a link if I can

Edit follows

July 8, 2016 was when we discussed it. THREE years ago. I may change my name from oldsig to ancientsig


Upgraded Phalanx for LHDs in 2018 - Australian Defence Magazine

The actual term used wrt the Hunter class, was "to inform decisions" In other words, "let's suck it and see, and make a decision nearer the time we need the mounts"


oldsig
 
Last edited:

Tasman

Ship Watcher
Verified Defense Pro
Already been ordered if my memory is correct. There was a thread here about it last year (near enough) in which several posters wondered why there were two extra mounts being ordered for proof of concept / testing when we already have Phalanx.

I'll search for it and add a link if I can

Edit follows

July 8, 2016 was when we discussed it. THREE years ago. I may change my name from oldsig to ancientsig


Upgraded Phalanx for LHDs in 2018 - Australian Defence Magazine

The actual term used wrt the Hunter class, was "to inform decisions" In other words, "let's suck it and see, and make a decision nearer the time we need the mounts"


oldsig
Thanks for the link which I obviously missed when originally posted.
Interesting that only one is mentioned for each of the AORs but I guess a second could be fitted for high risk deployments if available.
Does anyone have recent info re when the LHDs will begin getting theirs?
Tas

Tas
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
Have they? All its got down on their site is 2x20mm Close in weapon systems, that suggests Phalanx but also suggests they may look at other options and as you say they still have to ordered
Its like the shipping missiles, the models fit Harpoons, but its openly discussed it will be something else. From a design point of view, its about space, weight clearance etc. On these items, it is fairly easy to change them late in the game, they don't have significant deck penetrations, support systems etc.

Given the time frame I wouldn't be surprised if they do fit Phalanx for the first 3. Its a reasonable system, for now, and will likely be a reasonable system in the future for lower risk threats (like AOR's and smaller non combatants).
 

Flexson

Active Member
Thanks for the link which I obviously missed when originally posted.
Interesting that only one is mentioned for each of the AORs but I guess a second could be fitted for high risk deployments if available.
Does anyone have recent info re when the LHDs will begin getting theirs?
Tas

Tas
The article says "Of nine Block 1A Baseline 0 mounts awaiting overhaul and upgrade.... one each for the two auxiliary oiler and replenishment vessels (AOR)" and then later "two additional Block 1B Baseline 2 mounts would be procured at a later date as part of Project Sea 1654 (Maritime Operational Support Capability)"

2 upgraded, 2 additional. Therefore 2 per vessel.
 

76mmGuns

Active Member
Are there any articles online comparing the real world performances of Phalanx, and, say, Millennium Gun?

I think most here know the stats of the 35mm Millenium Gun. Each Hunter could have 4- 2 in the current locations of the Phalanx for the Hunter, and 2 more where the 30mm guns are to be placed. That'd give at least 2 CIWS guns per field of fire, at a greater range. I don't know the cost, and imagine the logistics will come into play too.

I wonder the Phalanx's could be used as the US used them on land at their forts to protect against RPG's. Do we have any land targets needing such protection?
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
The article says "Of nine Block 1A Baseline 0 mounts awaiting overhaul and upgrade.... one each for the two auxiliary oiler and replenishment vessels (AOR)" and then later "two additional Block 1B Baseline 2 mounts would be procured at a later date as part of Project Sea 1654 (Maritime Operational Support Capability)"

2 upgraded, 2 additional. Therefore 2 per vessel.


Not sure if this link has being posted.

Phalanx Close-In Weapons System Block Upgrade : Equipping Defence : Department of Defence

Suggests it will be some time before enough CIWS 's are back in stock for the fleet.
Given that it looks like we are sticking with Phalanx.......three each for the LHD's and two each for the new supply Class and HMAS Choules for a total of twelve, plus three for the Hobart class and a couple in reserve / Training.
17 units looks like the preferred number not the projected total of 14.
Shouldn't break the bank and will provide some important insurance for that last couple of KM's around the ship / Fleet.

Given the ANZAC Class are weight problematic.
Would it be a bridge too far to at least install a single typhoon system above the hangar.
At about one tonne with ammunition, the 25 mm bushmaster would give some important options in between the 5 inch gun and the next weapon of last resort the 50 cal.heavy machine gun.....................better with than without I say.
Surely we could find 1000 kg's on a ship of that size.

Thoughts

Regards S
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Stampede said:
Given the ANZAC Class are weight problematic
Surely we could find 1000 kg's on a ship of that size
it’s not only about total weight, it’s also about top weight. One tonne on top of the hanger causes big stability problems as they are unable to compensate lower in the hull. I don’t have any data but I’m assuming if you stick one tonne plus above the hanger you would need three or four tonnes down below to compensate and the ships simply don’t have that sort of displacement margin.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top