Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Boagrius]

It strikes me that we are currently in an awkward transitional phase between Phalanx and what will replace it across the board. Technology like guided shells, HVPs and perhaps even directed energy weapons could all prove to be useful in the CIWS space. I'm not sure we have a clear front runner at the moment though - perhaps that is some years away.

 

[Todjaeger]

My understanding is that the 20mm does have potential lethality advantages over 40mm in that it relies on striking the incoming ASM directly with armour piercing 20mm rounds rather than using smaller fragments generated by a 40mm shell detonating nearby. I imagine that the slower ROF for the 40mm would make the use of such fragmenting ammunition a necessity so as to put enough metal in the path of the inbound weapon to stop it in time. Range strikes me as possibly the biggest advantage of the larger calibre weapon (?).

Not sure that is really an advantage though. Yes, the individual weight of a 20 mm round is greater than the individual weight of a fragment from something like a 40 mm AHEAD round, but that also ignores the number of total impacts and the total weight of all those impacts. Something like a 20 mm Mk 15 Phalanx CIWS might only get one or two rounds to actually strike an inbound missile out of perhaps 75 rounds from a one second burst. Other gun and munitions combinations tend have smaller individual weight of shot, but much greater number of fragments, enabling more hits on an inbound target.

 

[Stampede]

You're not going to be able to mount a Leonardo 40mms on the bridge wings of a Hobart; not sure what the weight and moment issues might be (although it's twice the weight of a Typhoon mount) but the physical space isn't really there.

Spoz I agree they' re probably too big for the same location as the Typhoons.
Suggest one to replace Phalanx atop the hangar with the other forward of the bridge.
The later location behind the Mk 41 will require some structural work to elevate the mount to a height permitting fire clearance over the 5 inch gun.
Former Typhoon positions could mount a remote controlled 50 cal or mini gun.

Regards S

 

[Stampede]

I hope you mean 'just' the Navy Capes. While it is claimed the Capes have the space and weight for a 25mm it should be noted this will also require the electo optical system. Neither is an easy fit.

Given the Border Force vessels are commerically certified under AMSA it is not a case of just strapping these things on. The arrangement will need to be designed, assessed and approved..... then there is the operator training. I don't see the point for these on the Border Force vessels where a 50cal is more than adequate.

Hi Alexsa I hear the challenges And acknowledge you have some experience in this area.
I fell the technical side is doable and the boarder force challenges mentioned may need to evolve with the times.

A new world and all that.


Regards S

 

[Boagrius]

Not sure that is really an advantage though. Yes, the individual weight of a 20 mm round is greater than the individual weight of a fragment from something like a 40 mm AHEAD round, but that also ignores the number of total impacts and the total weight of all those impacts. Something like a 20 mm Mk 15 Phalanx CIWS might only get one or two rounds to actually strike an inbound missile out of perhaps 75 rounds from a one second burst. Other gun and munitions combinations tend have smaller individual weight of shot, but much greater number of fragments, enabling more hits on an inbound target.

^All valid points. I imagine you also have to factor in the resilience of existing and projected threat ASMs. I understand that there are some out there that feature some level of reinforcement/armour across the frontal arc making them more difficult to stop. When considering such a Phalanx replacement I imagine there is a considerable amount of analysis to be done on things like the stopping power of AHEAD fragments (eg. via penetration and weight of shot over time), typical distance of interception from the parent vessel etc.

 

[alexsa]

Spoz I agree they' re probably too big for the same location as the Typhoons.
Suggest one to replace Phalanx atop the hangar with the other forward of the bridge.
The later location behind the Mk 41 will require some structural work to elevate the mount to a height permitting fire clearance over the 5 inch gun.
Former Typhoon positions could mount a remote controlled 50 cal or mini gun.

Regards S

Seriously .... you cannot simply slap on a bit of structure. That structural work you are considering is all above the CoG and would be very close to the VLS by the time you have finished. It also needs to be connect to the sturcture below well .... because ships are hit by things called waves. Basially you are adding a lot of topweight.

If you think the CIWS is past its useby date then perhaps seaRAM is a better solution. This is another standalone solution (noting the guns you are proposing are not as they a cued by the FC system). It fits in the same foot print as the CIWS.

You may want to consider upgunning the curent typoon mount ot the 30mm and a fuse setting arrangment (aka CRV) whihc can use AHEAD ammunition. Again this means the system is not standalone.

Finally don't forget the ESSM is no slouch in this area either. The ESSM, SAAB, CEA combination on the ANZAC successfully hacked coyote target missiles in testing (Mach 2.4 in sea skimming mode).

 

[Stampede]

Seriously .... you cannot simply slap on a bit of structure. That structural work you are considering is all above the CoG and would be very close to the VLS by the time you have finished. It also needs to be connect to the sturcture below well .... because ships are hit by things called waves. Basially you are adding a lot of topweight.

If you think the CIWS is past its useby date then perhaps seaRAM is a better solution. This is another standalone solution (noting the guns you are proposing are not as they a cued by the FC system). It fits in the same foot print as the CIWS.

You may want to consider upgunning the curent typoon mount ot the 30mm and a fuse setting arrangment (aka CRV) whihc can use AHEAD ammunition. Again this means the system is not standalone.

Finally don't forget the ESSM is no slouch in this area either. The ESSM, SAAB, CEA combination on the ANZAC successfully hacked coyote target missiles in testing (Mach 2.4 in sea skimming mode).

Hi Alexsa,
not dismissing ESSM ,but just acknowledging it's about layers of defence.
Just looking at that inner circle of kinetic response.
Yep Typhoon will probably soldier on, so an upgrade to 30 mm makes sense. ( Alas 40 mm )
Essentially the same mount, but with the larger round and what that brings to the table.
Slight greater range with heavier round of many flavours.

May not realistically be a true CIWS against incoming ASM's, but certainly better than the current 25 mm offering.

Anyway will watch how the fleet evolves.

Regards S

 

[Stampede]

Seriously .... you cannot simply slap on a bit of structure. That structural work you are considering is all above the CoG and would be very close to the VLS by the time you have finished. It also needs to be connect to the sturcture below well .... because ships are hit by things called waves. Basially you are adding a lot of topweight.

If you think the CIWS is past its useby date then perhaps seaRAM is a better solution. This is another standalone solution (noting the guns you are proposing are not as they a cued by the FC system). It fits in the same foot print as the CIWS.

You may want to consider upgunning the curent typoon mount ot the 30mm and a fuse setting arrangment (aka CRV) whihc can use AHEAD ammunition. Again this means the system is not standalone.

Finally don't forget the ESSM is no slouch in this area either. The ESSM, SAAB, CEA combination on the ANZAC successfully hacked coyote target missiles in testing (Mach 2.4 in sea skimming mode).

SeaRAM certainly has appeal, but suggest it's weight like the gun options suggested for the ANZAC's, would be top weight problematic.
Also its not in inventory with the ADF ,so are preferring to stick with existing / planned kit.


Regards S

 

[Richo99]

Whilst I acknowledge that Leonardo claim it is possible, I think this talk of the Leonardo 40mm as a CIWS capable of shooting down a single subsonic (let alone multiple supersonic / hypersonic) AShM missile is a little optimistic - ive seen no footage or read of any test results which validate this claim. Its limited rate of fire, and shallow on-mount magazine is not designed for this type of engagement. If we are looking for a gun based Phalanx replacement, with what's on offer at the moment, we have only one choice - 35mm Millennium gun. In terms of off-mount cueing and fire control, should not be an issue on the Hobarts / Hunters, and hopefully even the LHDs (as replacements for the Typhoons / promised but not delivered Phalanx).

Given the weight of shot and versatility of Millennium gun, the less than ideal, but available Typhoon (possibly upgunned to 30mm) could be retained on Hobarts, and installed on the Hunters in the aft locations currently allocated to a new / undefined 30mm weapon.

Leonardo 40mm for the Arafuras and any future MCMV, and potentially on Choules / AORs, with the stand-alone capability of Phalanx maybe retained for as required deployment on Choules / AORs.

Whilst this results in 4 different systems, this appears to be what is currently planned anyway (20mm Phalanx, 25mm Typhoon, undefined 30mm on the Hunters and existing on MCMVs and the Leonardo 40mm selected for the OPVs). Adoption of the Millennium Gun does however plug a hole that appears to potentially pretty leaky, whereas the undefined 30mm for the Hunters is likely to be a relatively minor improvement over the Typhoon, and probably inferior to the Leonardo 40mm.

 

[alexsa]

Hi Alexsa,
not dismissing ESSM ,but just acknowledging it's about layers of defence.
Just looking at that inner circle of kinetic response.
Yep Typhoon will probably soldier on, so an upgrade to 30 mm makes sense. ( Alas 40 mm )
Essentially the same mount, but with the larger round and what that brings to the table.
Slight greater range with heavier round of many flavours.

May not realistically be a true CIWS against incoming ASM's, but certainly better than the current 25 mm offering.

Anyway will watch how the fleet evolves.

Regards S

SeaRAM certainly has appeal, but suggest it's weight like the gun options suggested for the ANZAC's, would be top weight problematic.
Also its not in inventory with the ADF ,so are preferring to stick with existing / planned kit

You appear to be selectivley misreading my comments and have missed the main point ..... you cannot simply button extra structure on a DDG (as you were suggesting). The endless suggestions that we should add structure and equipment to a vessel without any consideration of the fact it simply may not be practical gets tiresome.

Yes SeaRAM in not in invetory ... but neither are the other systems folk are wildly speculating about. My reference to swapping this out was in relation to the DDG not the ANZAC and followed on from your suggestion to mount multipe 40mm to the DDG with additional structure forward (noting my comments above). There appears to be no ability to fit this kit on the ANZAC (unless we want to add a lot more permenant ballast and lower the speed even more) and I was not suggesting this.

The other point missed in all of this is Phalax and SeaRAM are stand alone. All the other gun systems need to be cued by the vessels sensors and fire control system.

I am not a fan of the 25mm and would prefer the 30mm. We can only would hope the system added to the Hunters would have additional capability and see the combination of CIWS, possibly 30mm, ESSM and SM2/6 as providing pretty effective coverage which includes a stand alone capability.

 

[seaspear]

With the Phalanx 1b being a stand alone and not cued by the ships sensors hasnt there been cases of where this has fired on allied ships ? and even downing an American a-6 aircraft during training by a Japanese ship the sensor on the Phalanx does not as I understand it include the friend or foe that led to this ,I believe though that the Phalanx does have an elevation of plus 85 degrees mto minus 25 which may be an advantage against missiles directly plunging as other types of close close in anti aircraft dont provide those figures ,I would of thought though that the Canberra class could do with something with an increase in its self defence capability and not be to concerned with weight

 

[Volkodav]

Another beat up by economist and self proclaimed submarine expert Robert Gottliebsen in the “Australian” today claiming that SEA1000 is a disaster because of the mix between a French boat and a US combat system. (Can someone link please)
He claims that the US has never trusted France and the combination is a cock up waiting to happen.
This bloke really should stick to his mates at APA, his intrusion into naval matters only displays his lack of understanding of the acquisition process.

I wonder if someone should point out to poor old Robert that the Collins combines a Swedish designed hull with a French Sonar and the current spec USN submarine combat system. Basically we already have done (since 2007) and continue to do what he believes to be a show stopper for the next gen submarine. Its amazing how often these mouth pieces say categorically that something can never be done when those in the game have been doing it for years.

 

[Volkodav]

Sorry, that is nonsense. A Warship or Naval Ship need not be armed to meet that definition. Port dues would still be required to be paid where the domestic legislation of the port State requires it.

The 40mm Bofors was a cheap and appropriate gun for what the FCPB were doing..... chasing fishing boats. The vessel were desiged with space and weight for a 76mm (there was a gunhouse below the 40mm which was used as a store and house the canteen stores as well) and .... apparently ... SSMs. The actual armament was 1x40mm (and some of the blokes were very good on this), Three 50 cal (one on top of the mortar), 1x81mm Mortar on a tripod mount with recoil arrangements and the option of trigger firing and 2xAR (7.62) on bodged up mount on the bridge wings.

They were fired .... a lot. There was a lot of ammunition available as these were being removed from any other ship that ahd them (even the 81mm mortar and 50 cal was pretty plentiful) and the boats drilled quite a bit with solid rounds (you had to in order to hit anything with an unstablized mount without expending a lot of rounds). If the vessel was solo the target was usually a ilumination round from the 81mm.

I believe there was a plan for a final batch of five Fremantles to be completed as fast attack craft with 76mm and SSMs. Probably intended as a training / developmental capability to acquaint the RAN with what everyone else seemed to be doing at the time.

 

[Stampede]

With the Phalanx 1b being a stand alone and not cued by the ships sensors hasnt there been cases of where this has fired on allied ships ? and even downing an American a-6 aircraft during training by a Japanese ship the sensor on the Phalanx does not as I understand it include the friend or foe that led to this ,I believe though that the Phalanx does have an elevation of plus 85 degrees mto minus 25 which may be an advantage against missiles directly plunging as other types of close close in anti aircraft dont provide those figures ,I would of thought though that the Canberra class could do with something with an increase in its self defence capability and not be to concerned with weight

Hi Seaspear
A link that may be of interest re Phalanx on the LHD's.
I think it has been posted before.

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

Department of Defence. Defending Australia and its national interests.

www.defence.gov.au

If I'm correct, only the Hobart Class have Phalanx at the moment.
I have not spotted it on any of the other current ships in today's fleet.
The former FFG's and HMAS Success have carried this CIWS in the past.

My reading is we should have 8 to 9 systems ( Upgraded / not upgraded ) in country at the moment.
Regardless of previous discussions re close in defence options, I trust these existing units are installed on the Canberra Class this year.


Regards S

 

[seaspear]

I was wondering if Searam can be a consideration for the Canberra class would this be more advantagous to just the upgraded Phalanx

 

[Redlands18]

Hi Seaspear
A link that may be of interest re Phalanx on the LHD's.
I think it has been posted before.

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

Department of Defence. Defending Australia and its national interests.

www.defence.gov.au

If I'm correct, only the Hobart Class have Phalanx at the moment.
I have not spotted it on any of the other current ships in today's fleet.
The former FFG's and HMAS Success have carried this CIWS in the past.

My reading is we should have 8 to 9 systems ( Upgraded / not upgraded ) in country at the moment.
Regardless of previous discussions re close in defence options, I trust these existing units are installed on the Canberra Class this year.


Regards S

If i am reading that delivery schedule right then the Hobart Phalanx will have to be swapped over for upgraded ones at some stage, wonder where the priority will be, the Hobarts or the Amphibs and Auxiliaries.
The other question is, what’s happening with the 2 FFGs going to Chile? are there Phalanx going with them, thus throwing out that schedul.

 

[spoz]

The swap over from B1 to B2 for the DDGs is done.

 

[oldsig127]

I was wondering if Searam can be a consideration for the Canberra class would this be more advantagous to just the upgraded Phalanx

Perhaps if Navy thought so, felt it fit their CONOPS and could afford it they wouldn't have purchased upgraded Phalanx for the purpose? It certainly crossed my mind that I have no idea what the cost differential would be, and whether the cost of owning yet another system might cause us to lose some other project.

oldsig

 

[Richo99]

The swap over from B1 to B2 for the DDGs is done.

In that case, and if the CASG timeline is to be believed, a set of 3 phalanx for the first LHD wont be available until November 2020, and the second set of 3 for the other LHD, not available until October 2022. A far cry from the original 2016 announcement that stated they would be in place by 2018.

 

[Mark_Evans]

Anyone have any thoughts on potential of using Tesla batteries instead of lead acid in the Attack Submarines?
Is the technology mature enough?