Class of Air Warfare Destroyers for Aus

[diggumsbang]

haha
we should just all make more babies to get our population up

I was just curious as to whom our allies are within South-East Asia... im just trying to figure out somewhat of a map for my own personal use. If anyone has any idea please let me know.

 

[Todjaeger]

haha
we should just all make more babies to get our population up

I was just curious as to whom our allies are within South-East Asia... im just trying to figure out somewhat of a map for my own personal use. If anyone has any idea please let me know.

Depending on what you're looking for, this might be a thread topic in the General defence section, or could be created. Also, what do you mean by "allies?" Are you referring to other nations with mutua defence pacts? Or where the ADF assists in training/supporting local forces? Or non-aggression pacts? A bit more clarity on what sort of information you're looking for wouldn't go amiss.

-Cheers

 

[contedicavour]

Just a basic question : with 3 AAW FFG/DDG you always have one to protect a LHD in deployment. You almost always would have a 2nd ready for a separate mission such as patrolling up and down the Gulf. What would a 4th AAW ship be used for ?
Besides, historically Australia had 3 DDGs didn't it ?

cheers

 

[Blas de Lezo]

Hi, everyone, my first post in this forum.

The F-100s have the space and weight reserve for 1 CIWS, is just above the hangar, between the chimney and the hangar and I am sure that as soon as the RAN specifies the system of their choice , it will be fitted.
The Spanish Navy on the other hand have stopped believing in CIWS based on guns, MEROKA is based on 20mm, 2000 m range, but is not enough, lets say you manage to impact on an incoming missile flying at 800Km/h and that you are lucky enough to do it at a range of 1200m or 3.5 seconds after the incoming missile has crossed the line of your CIWS effective range. You are now 5 seconds away from impact not of a whole missile, but instead of hundreds fragments of the incoming missile. You get shot by a shotgun instead of a riffle. Not as bad!! But not good enough neither.
If you spend the money on an Aegis system, then you should be able to intercept much, much, much further away. Whatever is gone through The Standard IIs and ESSMs is not going to be stopped by the 20mms.

The warhead of the exocet that sunk Sheffield did not explode; it was sunk by the kinetic energy of the missile plus the remaining fuel of the missile. The other day I was watching the captain of Ardent on the TV describing how he gave the order to the manual 20mm, the MGs and even the riffles to open fire against the Argentinean incoming planes, just for comfort, just to feel they were doing something.

I fancy RAMs for the Spanish Navy, I think a much better option than MEROKAS, Phanlax or even GoalKeepers.

Regards from the other side

 

[AegisFC]

Hello, AegisFC. Is it best for Australia to invest in CEC? Last I heard, CEC was on hold since the USN and other services were evaluating another SIAP program as an alternative to CEC block 2. Do you think Australia should wait and see until a decision is made, if that's true? How widely fielded is CEC in the USN as of now? Is it in the 7th fleet at least?

I've only heard of CEC and not any other program, sorry.
Last I've heard the CG's are getting upgraded slowly and the new Flight IIA's are being built with it.
I don't work with CEC so I usually hear about it either from people who do work one it or through publications.

 

[Tasman]

Hi, everyone, my first post in this forum.

The F-100s have the space and weight reserve for 1 CIWS, is just above the hangar, between the chimney and the hangar and I am sure that as soon as the RAN specifies the system of their choice , it will be fitted.
The Spanish Navy on the other hand have stopped believing in CIWS based on guns, MEROKA is based on 20mm, 2000 m range, but is not enough, lets say you manage to impact on an incoming missile flying at 800Km/h and that you are lucky enough to do it at a range of 1200m or 3.5 seconds after the incoming missile has crossed the line of your CIWS effective range. You are now 5 seconds away from impact not of a whole missile, but instead of hundreds fragments of the incoming missile. You get shot by a shotgun instead of a riffle. Not as bad!! But not good enough neither.
If you spend the money on an Aegis system, then you should be able to intercept much, much, much further away. Whatever is gone through The Standard IIs and ESSMs is not going to be stopped by the 20mms.

The warhead of the exocet that sunk Sheffield did not explode; it was sunk by the kinetic energy of the missile plus the remaining fuel of the missile. The other day I was watching the captain of Ardent on the TV describing how he gave the order to the manual 20mm, the MGs and even the riffles to open fire against the Argentinean incoming planes, just for comfort, just to feel they were doing something.

I fancy RAMs for the Spanish Navy, I think a much better option than MEROKAS, Phanlax or even GoalKeepers.

Regards from the other side

Welcome to the forum Blas de Lezo.

I think you have given an excellent description of the shortcomings of a CIWS like the 20mm Phalanx. I agree with your preference for RAM for the Armada and I would like to see this adopted by the RAN for the last layer of air and missile defence after SM-2 (or SM-6), and ESSM. Well almost the last layer! No doubt the Mini Typhoons and manual MGs would be used if all else failed (partly for the reasons given by Ardent's captain).

Just a basic question : with 3 AAW FFG/DDG you always have one to protect a LHD in deployment. You almost always would have a 2nd ready for a separate mission such as patrolling up and down the Gulf. What would a 4th AAW ship be used for ?
Besides, historically Australia had 3 DDGs didn't it ?

cheers

Australia maintains two fleets, one on the East Coast based at Sydney and the other on the West Coast based at Cockburn Sound near Fremantle. There would be a desire to have one AAW ship with each fleet as well as one available for deployment elsewhere. A fourth ship would be needed to ensure that this was possible most of the time.

At the time the DDGs were ordered and for most of the time they were in service, the RAN had one fleet operating mainly out of Sydney.

Cheers

 

[Markus40]

The 4th AAW is actually very necessary to keep a rotation of at least 3 AAWs at operational status. At one particular time it is necessary to have a AAW in maintenance or upgrade over a period of time or even to deploy one on exercise having to take one out leaves 2 AAWs at the present time. This is particulary thin, if ever AAWs were required. Cheers.

Just a basic question : with 3 AAW FFG/DDG you always have one to protect a LHD in deployment. You almost always would have a 2nd ready for a separate mission such as patrolling up and down the Gulf. What would a 4th AAW ship be used for ?
Besides, historically Australia had 3 DDGs didn't it ?

cheers

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Just a basic question : with 3 AAW FFG/DDG you always have one to protect a LHD in deployment. You almost always would have a 2nd ready for a separate mission such as patrolling up and down the Gulf. What would a 4th AAW ship be used for ?
Besides, historically Australia had 3 DDGs didn't it ?

cheers

Actualy we operated 6 Adelaide class FFG's at one point that repaced the Perth class DDG's and fulfilled the AAW role. We currently operate 5. Current plans are to replace these 5 Adelaides with 3 Hobarts. Although the Hobarts represent a dramatic increase in capabilities, you can still only have one hull in one place at one time. 3 DDG's will allow us to to have 2 operational, although when you include training scheduals and exercises with maintinance and upgrades, some times we will have one. Given the ANZAC's lack of AAW capability, especialy when protecting other assets, this lack of lexability takes on some real importance.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Hi, everyone, my first post in this forum.

The F-100s have the space and weight reserve for 1 CIWS, is just above the hangar, between the chimney and the hangar and I am sure that as soon as the RAN specifies the system of their choice , it will be fitted.
The Spanish Navy on the other hand have stopped believing in CIWS based on guns, MEROKA is based on 20mm, 2000 m range, but is not enough, lets say you manage to impact on an incoming missile flying at 800Km/h and that you are lucky enough to do it at a range of 1200m or 3.5 seconds after the incoming missile has crossed the line of your CIWS effective range. You are now 5 seconds away from impact not of a whole missile, but instead of hundreds fragments of the incoming missile. You get shot by a shotgun instead of a riffle. Not as bad!! But not good enough neither.
If you spend the money on an Aegis system, then you should be able to intercept much, much, much further away. Whatever is gone through The Standard IIs and ESSMs is not going to be stopped by the 20mms.

The warhead of the exocet that sunk Sheffield did not explode; it was sunk by the kinetic energy of the missile plus the remaining fuel of the missile. The other day I was watching the captain of Ardent on the TV describing how he gave the order to the manual 20mm, the MGs and even the riffles to open fire against the Argentinean incoming planes, just for comfort, just to feel they were doing something.

I fancy RAMs for the Spanish Navy, I think a much better option than MEROKAS, Phanlax or even GoalKeepers.

Regards from the other side

There are some real limitations with 20mm or even 30mm gun based CIWS, systems like SEA RAM are a much better option and one i hope is intalled on the Hobart's, Canberra's and ANZAC's (if the topweight problems ever get sorted).

However something is better than nothing. The shefield was damaged by the kinetic impact but she was lost due to fire. If she had been fitted with a 20mm system she may have been showered with shrapenell, some of it large, but she would not have been impaceted by an intact and partially spent rocket motor that imbedded itself deep inside her hull. They are two totally different levels of damage. I feel pretty confident stating that the shefield would not have been lost if she had a 20mm CIWS system installed, she would probably have still been damaged, but to no where near the same degree. And imagine if the warhead had detonated???? You have to ask the question on whether you would rather have a direct impact and detonation of a 100~200kg of HE (or in the bigger soviet shipbusters 1000kg) detonate inside the hull, or the shrapnell from the missile breaking up 1500m away???

There are inherrant problems with 20mm systems but they do not, IMO, equate to a warrent for gun based CIWS removal without replacement. Missile or longer ranged gun systems are better, but this apparant move away from CIWS in general is a bad thing. I think they do a fair bit more than buck up the troop's morall.

 

[EnigmaNZ]

The lack of CISW on western ships has always concerned me. To my mind a corvette should have at least 1, a frigate 2/3, a destroyer 3/4. Eg, for a AB a RAM fore and aft, and a phalynx on either beam, for a ANZAC a RAM in the B position and phalanyx above the hangar, for the OHP a RAM above the hanger and a Phalynx on either beam. They should be designed to handle the topweight. To have a billion dollar plus warship vunerable to a swarm attack due to penny pinching in this area is short sighted and rediculous. It is a constant annoyance, especially when I see a Russian warship with multiple systems combining 30mm gatlings AND missiles with autoreloading.

I agree with the 4 ships, as explained above 1 will be in maintenance, what was not mentioned was that durring refits a ship could be out of service for up to 2 years, there should always be 1 ship on standby in case it is required at short notice, 1 will almost certainly be deployed overseas at any one time and 2 at times, eg, 1 in the gulf and 1 on a goodwill visit, or gulf and east Timor.

 

[Blas de Lezo]

Hi Ozzy Blizzard, thanks for your reply, and thanks Tasman for your welcoming words.
Believe it or not I mostly agree with you, something is better than nothing!, the problem is that I also believe that small caliber based CIWS are closer to nothing than to something, and I will explain my point.
The strength of today’s destroyers is not in their capacity to take damage; it is in their capacity to take the fight away. Their ability to take that fight away is their armor.
There are very few parts of a modern ship that would not be penetrated by a 20mm round let alone anything heavier.
We (all) learned very valuable lessons from the Falklands war, lessons like, cheap wiring can sink a ship, polyester clothing and soldiers should not mix, a 500lb and of course a 1000lb inert bomb can go through a modern ship like it was made of butter, some of the Argentinean bombs bounced on the water and then crossed the ship from port to starboard.
You don’t need 200Kg of HE to KO a destroyer an awful lot less will do.
The point is that the impact of a 3 kg piece of a missile engine traveling at 100m/s can easily knock off any of your electronic arrays, you eyes and ears, your power, your umbrella your LHD ‘s protection.
That’s why in my humble opinion the gun based CIWS only give an unreal sense of protection and are being decommissioned.
The comment about the “comfort” was not mine, it was the captain’s. Is fresh in my memory!
You need to protect your aerials, because they protect you ship and more important, they protect the 15 hundred people onboard the LHD,s
The role of your F-100s is to deny whole flight zones create umbrellas (huge ones), and that they do very well, let you LHD,s do the damage, you need the air force of a medium sized country and more importantly their willingness to loose a lot of planes to saturate a single F100.
You can easily imagine the USN giving up their assets for something better, they are loaded!!! But in the Spanish Navy resources are limited and believe me, they would not give them up easily if they though they had a place or use in the ship.

I believe the reasons for them to give up CIWS based on guns was prompted by the flexibility of the ESSM Aegis combination, that allows you to engage at min distance of 1400 m on 360o. I would imagine that the different sinkex exercises carried in the last few years, including the one last week on a Baleares class (first missile class built in Spain) have also helped to this. You can have a few goes at a ship with all bulkheads closed , no fuel or ammo. Last one we did took a Harpoon from an F18, a few bombs from AV8s and F18s , a bit of gun fire from the 76mm of the OHPs and I think finally a torpedo before it went down.
This said, I still would like to see RAMs on the Spanish Navy

Best regards

 

[Simon9]

The Spanish Navy on the other hand have stopped believing in CIWS based on guns, MEROKA is based on 20mm, 2000 m range, but is not enough, lets say you manage to impact on an incoming missile flying at 800Km/h and that you are lucky enough to do it at a range of 1200m or 3.5 seconds after the incoming missile has crossed the line of your CIWS effective range. You are now 5 seconds away from impact not of a whole missile, but instead of hundreds fragments of the incoming missile. You get shot by a shotgun instead of a riffle. Not as bad!! But not good enough neither.

I'm not sure if I buy the whole "shotgun theory." For a start, the bulk of the fragments will follow a ballistic trajectory from the breakup of the missile. Assuming it's a sea-skimmer, no more than 5m above the surface, moving horizontally to maintain that 5m, a ballistic trajectory will mean the pieces will hit the sea after a mere one second - and starting at 800km/h will travel probably less than 200m when you consider air resistance.

If the rocket motor is still firing after being hit by 20mm (which it may be if only a few rounds have hit) it could go anywhere - left, right, into the sky or into the sea. It probably has a good chance of missing the ship altogether if we assume the missile is unable to follow its original course, which I think is a fair assumption when you consider that it's likely to have damage to the control surfaces, propulsion, guidance system or all three.

I've heard the "shotgun" theory many times but I think it's only really a problem if the missile is hit in the last few hundred metres before the ship, and it's on a direct course - not doing the funky terminal avoidance maneouvres some of the AShMs are programmed to do these days.

 

[swerve]

...We (all) learned very valuable lessons from the Falklands war, lessons like, cheap wiring can sink a ship, polyester clothing and soldiers should not mix, a 500lb and of course a 1000lb inert bomb can go through a modern ship like it was made of butter, some of the Argentinean bombs bounced on the water and then crossed the ship from port to starboard....

Another lesson is to make sure that one hit can't knock out your firefighting systems. That's what killed Sheffield, if the BoI report is to be believed..

http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/9D8947AC-D8DC-4BE7-8DCC-C9C623539BCF/0/boi_hms_sheffield.pdf

Also: avoid furnishings that give off toxic smoke when burning & keep combustible material to a minimum.

BTW, that Exocet was fired from well under maximum range, hence the large amount of fuel it spilled.

 

[Tasman]

I'm not sure if I buy the whole "shotgun theory." For a start, the bulk of the fragments will follow a ballistic trajectory from the breakup of the missile. Assuming it's a sea-skimmer, no more than 5m above the surface, moving horizontally to maintain that 5m, a ballistic trajectory will mean the pieces will hit the sea after a mere one second - and starting at 800km/h will travel probably less than 200m when you consider air resistance.

If the rocket motor is still firing after being hit by 20mm (which it may be if only a few rounds have hit) it could go anywhere - left, right, into the sky or into the sea. It probably has a good chance of missing the ship altogether if we assume the missile is unable to follow its original course, which I think is a fair assumption when you consider that it's likely to have damage to the control surfaces, propulsion, guidance system or all three.

I've heard the "shotgun" theory many times but I think it's only really a problem if the missile is hit in the last few hundred metres before the ship, and it's on a direct course - not doing the funky terminal avoidance maneouvres some of the AShMs are programmed to do these days.

If two missiles break through the inner AD layer of ESSMs the range could already be well inside a kilometre. Even if a CIWS takes out the first missile the second will be very close and could well be inside 200m before it is engaged.

I would prefer a 21 missile RAM system for close in defence (backed by the 25mm Typhoon for last ditch defence).

Cheers

 

[Simon9]

I would prefer a 21 missile RAM system for close in defence (backed by the 25mm Typhoon for last ditch defence).

I totally agree that a missile-based system is preferable, and in a case of one or the other I'd go with missiles. But I don't see why a ship like an AWD can't have both, and the Phalanx is infinitely preferable to a Typhoon.

The Typhoons aren't radar-controlled are they? They're basically manually controlled. So what set-up of Typhoon would be the best for making it a viable last-ditch defence against AShMs?

 

[rockitten]

I wonder, although both design are actually a frigate anyway, but the AEGIS "tower" in F100 design, although provide better range ( position is higher ), it also bring extra top heavy issue, and squeesing all 4 ESA so closely seems too easy to be completely knock out by a single bomb or missile.......

of coz, if there is a 4th AWD, then it is not an issue at all

bscause :

48 MK41 X4 = 64MK41 X3 = 192

An extra AWD will make us always have 2 AWD available, which is much more than a compensation for lack of fire-power (96 VS 64 ), missile channel (4 dish VS 3 dish) and "absorption of damage" ............

I am from Melbourne, nice to meet you all

 

[rossfrb_1]

snip
not doing the funky terminal avoidance maneouvres some of the AShMs are programmed to do these days.

Is there any theory as to whether a gun or a missile is 'better' in trying to counter something doing terminal avoidance maneouvres?

I don't know how SeaRAM et al work, ie if they are loosed off in salvoes. But I would presume that something in the 35mm AHEAD/40mm 3P arena (mounted and sensored for CIWS work) in some respects would be superior to Mistral/RAM etc. How many missiles can these systems fire in that time period where the CIWS is engaged?
Even the slower ROF with 40mm Bofors L70/Bushmaster IV/Breda with their 220-450 rounds a minute allows for some misses (35mm millenium ~1000 RPM).

rb

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Is there any theory as to whether a gun or a missile is 'better' in trying to counter something doing terminal avoidance maneouvres?

I don't know how SeaRAM et al work, ie if they are loosed off in salvoes. But I would presume that something in the 35mm AHEAD/40mm 3P arena (mounted and sensored for CIWS work) in some respects would be superior to Mistral/RAM etc. How many missiles can these systems fire in that time period where the CIWS is engaged?
Even the slower ROF with 40mm Bofors L70/Bushmaster IV/Breda with their 220-450 rounds a minute allows for some misses (35mm millenium ~1000 RPM).

rb

The ability for millimetric radar to track the bullets in flight will allow for some quick and accurate ajustments, against single targets those gun systems will be hard to beat. It may be a different story with multiple bogeys ingressing at about the same time though. I wonder if anyone has any numbers about kill rates during testing for a system like phalanx???? Same for SEA RAM, some kill data would be nice, because if they are based on the stinger or the like IR seeker then their bound to have a higher miss probability than a gun based system, although a volley would probably have similar results to phalanx at higher ranges.

 

[Tasman]

I totally agree that a missile-based system is preferable, and in a case of one or the other I'd go with missiles. But I don't see why a ship like an AWD can't have both, and the Phalanx is infinitely preferable to a Typhoon.

The Typhoons aren't radar-controlled are they? They're basically manually controlled. So what set-up of Typhoon would be the best for making it a viable last-ditch defence against AShMs?

I'm not suggesting that Typhoon would be fitted for close in air defence but as Typhoon and Mini Typhoon are being fitted to RAN vessels anyway (initially the 25mm Typhoon has been fitted to the Armdidale class patrol boats and is going next to the amphibious ships) to deal with close in surface threats such as swarm attacks, it will no doubt have a secondary role as a last ditch weapon against air or missile attack, as will the manual MGs. BTW, an American version of the Typhoon, the Mark 38 Mod 2, is being fitted in USN surface combatants (2 in each ship).

I would also like to see a gun based system as well as a missile system if space and weight permits. The 35mm Millenium gun appeals because it could take over the close in anti surface threat role as well as providing a credible VSRADS. A combination of 1x21 RAM and 2x 35mm Millenium guns would seem ideal but the F100 design will be hard pressed to provide space for both.

Re the characteristics of Typhoon the following is from the Israeli Weapons website:

July 7, 2005

The Australian Ministry of Defense launched its new Armidale Class patrol boats last week outfitted with the Typhoon naval stabilized gun mount produced jointly by Rafael Armament Development Authority Ltd and General Dynamics Land Systems and the Toplite targeting payload produced by RAFAEL. The Armidales will be used to protect the northern coasts of Australia.

Defence Minister Robert Hill said that the gun mounts and the Toplite electro-optic targeting system will provide the new patrol boats with the most advanced capabilities.

The Typhoon is a remote-controlled, lightweight, naval stabilized weapon station designed for medium-sized cannons (20-30mm).

The Toplite is a highly stabilized, multi-sensor, electro-optic targeting & observation payload used in the search and tracking of naval and airborne targets during the day, at night and in all weather conditions. The Toplite originates from the well-known Litening navigation and targeting pod.

The Typhoon and Toplite systems have been sold to numerous countries around the world including the US Navy and the Israeli Navy has a great deal of experience with both systems.

The Typhoon weapon station, combined with the Toplite electro-optic targeting payload, is the most effective, operational solution for terrorist threats and for the protection of naval forces.

http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/naval/typhoon/Typhoon.html

Cheers

 

[Todjaeger]

I'm not suggesting that Typhoon would be fitted for close in air defence but as Typhoon and Mini Typhoon are being fitted to RAN vessels anyway (initially the 25mm Typhoon has been fitted to the Armdidale class patrol boats and is going next to the amphibious ships) to deal with close in surface threats such as swarm attacks, it will no doubt have a secondary role as a last ditch weapon against air or missile attack, as will the manual MGs. BTW, an American version of the Typhoon, the Mark 38 Mod 2, is being fitted in USN surface combatants (2 in each ship).

I would also like to see a gun based system as well as a missile system if space and weight permits. The 35mm Millenium gun appeals because it could take over the close in anti surface threat role as well as providing a credible VSRADS. A combination of 1x21 RAM and 2x 35mm Millenium guns would seem ideal but the F100 design will be hard pressed to provide space for both.

Re the characteristics of Typhoon the following is from the Israeli Weapons website:



http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/naval/typhoon/Typhoon.html

Cheers

Slight correction here. The Mk 38 does indeed mount a 25mm gun, but the mounting isn't a Typhoon mounting. The Mk 38 is a single gun manned emplacement, while a Typhon is a RWS. Here's a link to globalsecurity showing some images.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/systems/mk-38-gallery.htm

-Cheers