Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Salty Dog]

That sure looks like a Mod 4 gun housing, I see the Mod 2 and Mod 4's just about every day when I go to work and they are very different from each other.
It was my understanding (from a contractor that worked on both Mod 2 and Mod 4 guns) that the gun mount housing was not interchangeable due to equipment differences between the Mod 2 and Mod 4 guns.

The Mk 45 Mod 4 fires ERGM (extended range guided munition) so it is beefer to handle the higher gun energies.

Another difference: Mk 45 Mod 2 is a 5"/54 whilst Mk 45 Mod 4 is a 5"/62. This means the Mod 4 gun barrel is longer.

 

[Tasman]

That sure looks like a Mod 4 gun housing, I see the Mod 2 and Mod 4's just about every day when I go to work and they are very different from each other.
It was my understanding (from a contractor that worked on both Mod 2 and Mod 4 guns) that the gun mount housing was not interchangeable due to equipment differences between the Mod 2 and Mod 4 guns.

So you can have another look from different angles I have attached some photos I took of Warramunga's sister ship Parramatta earlier this year. She has an identical gun mount. By way of contrast I have also included a couple of Arunta showing the more rounded mounting fitted to the first three along with the tenth and final FFH. My understanding is that only the gun mount's external shield is different and they are all classified as Mk45 Mod 2s, but someone who has served on an FFH may be able to confirm this.

High res copies of these and other Anzac class frigates can be seen in the DT Picture Section.

According to BAE Systems the earlier Mk 45 Mod 2 can be upgraded to MK4 but I suspect that FFH152-156 have a Mod 2 mounting with the newer Mod 4 type shield fitted.

The 5-inch (127-mm) 62-caliber Mk 45 Mod 4 Naval Gun system is in U.S. Navy service today, and is ready to significantly enhance Naval Surface Fire Support (NSFS) and overall mission performance. Major upgrades of the Mk 45 Mod 4 include a 62-caliber barrel, strengthened gun and mount subsystems, advanced control system enhancement, and a reduced signature, low maintenance gun shield.

The Mk 45 Mod 4 provides NSFS range of more than 20 nautical miles (36 km) with the Navy's new 5-inch Cargo projectile and an improved propelling charge. The system will also provide NSFS range of more than 60 nautical miles (111 km) with the near-term integration of the 5-inch Extended Range Guided Munition (ERGM) and propelling charge. U.S. Navy ERGM Initial Operational Capability is scheduled for 2006.

Operation and performance of these extended-range munitions are tailored for optimal effect and range in unison with the major subsystem upgrades of the Mk 45 Mod 4 Naval Gun. The optional Lower Ammunition Hoist Mk 6 and ERGM Handling Mechanism (EHM) Mk 42 are available to optimize Mk 45 Mod 4 munition transfer and handling.

Starting with DDG 81, Mk 45 Mod 4 is being forward-fit to U.S. Navy DDG 51 Class destroyers. Other Mod 4 applications include installations for the fleets of South Korea, Japan and Denmark. Existing Mk 45 Mods 0-2 mounts can be upgraded to the Mod 4 configuration, which is planned for CG 47 Class ships as part of the Navy's Cruiser Modernization Program.

In June 2005, BAE Systems was awarded a $44.1 million contract modification by the Naval Sea Systems Command for the production of three Mk 45 Mod 4 Naval Gun systems. The three guns ordered by the Navy are for installation aboard the Navy's DDG 110 through DDG 112.

BAE Systems provides more than 30 years of experience with Mk 45 Mods 0-4, with more than 230 shipboard applications in the U.S. Navy and nine fleets worldwide. Full life-cycle support is keyed to the customer, and can be supplemented by the worldwide logistics system supporting the U.S. Navy.

http://www.baesystems.com/ProductsServices/mk45_mod4_naval_gun_system.html

I've also attached a photo of the Mk 45 Mod 4 from the BAE website.

Tas

 

[blueorchid]

Tasman, you are right about the gun on HMAS Perth, this unit was installed at Williamstown for crew training for all of the other vessels of the class.
As Perth was the last of the class it was installed on it after crew training.

Cheers

 

[diggumsbang]

Aircraft carrier on $4bn navy wish list

Just saw this on PerthNow.com.au when i was checkin the news...
thought it was pretty relevant to bring up.
RAN wants a 'dedicated' aircraft carrier, which i would say declares the intentions of current thinking.
interesting...

By Ian McPhedran

March 24, 2008 11:08pm
THE Royal Australian Navy has produced a secret $4 billion "wish list" that includes an aircraft carrier, an extra air warfare destroyer and long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles for its submarine fleet.

The RAN wants a third 26,000 tonne amphibious ship equipped with vertical take-off jet fighters, a fourth $2 billion air warfare destroyer and cruise missiles that could strike targets thousands of kilometres away.

The list comes at a time when the RAN can barely find enough sailors to crew its existing fleet.

It also coincides with a federal government push to save $1 billion a year in defence costs as well as a government-ordered White Paper which will set the spending priorities for the next two decades.

According to insiders, the Government was unimpressed by the RAN's push for more firepower at a time when the Government is aiming to slash spending.

"The navy is out of control," one defence source said.

It is understood that the wish list was the final straw in the tense relationship between the Government and Chief of Navy Vice-Admiral Russ Shalders - who will be replaced in July by Rear Admiral Russell Crane.

Admiral Shalders last year also pushed hard for an expensive US-designed destroyer, but lost out to the cheaper, Spanish option.

Taxpayers will spend more than $11 billion to provide the RAN with the two 26,000-tonne amphibious ships and three air-warfare destroyers equipped with 48 vertical launch missiles.

The two big ships, known as Landing Helicopter Docks, are designed for amphibious assaults and will be fitted with helicopters and be capable of carrying more than 1000 troops and heavy vehicles such as tanks and trucks.

The RAN wants a third ship to carry vertical take-off fighter jets.

Its last aircraft carrier, HMAS Melbourne, was decommissioned in 1982 before being sold for scrap.

The latest ships are 10m longer and 8m wider than the Melbourne and will be built in Spain and fitted out at the Tenix shipyard in Melbourne.

The Spanish navy will carry 30 Harrier jump jets aboard its similar ships.

They will each cost more than $1.7 billion. The fighters would cost about $100 million each. The destroyers will cost about $2 billion each, taking the total cost to more than $4 billion.

Tomahawk cruise missiles cost about $1 million each and can carry a 450kg conventional or 200 kiloton nuclear warhead more than 2500km.

In the past Australia has stayed away from long-range strike missiles for fear of triggering a regional arms race.

The wish list is what the RAN would like to see make up part of the White Paper process which will later this year provide a strategic blueprint for the defence of the nation for the next 20 years.

That process will direct new spending worth more than $50 billion over the next 10 years.

 

[Goknub]

RAN wish list

Well, under the previous government they would have had a pretty good shot at getting these items but not a chance in hell now.

As usual, anything the ADF wants/requests is wrong and "out of control", much better to get some "Professor" who's written the odd article to determine whats needed. Everyone knows the ADF is the last group you'd listen to for advice on Defence matters.

 

[Sea Toby]

I think the RAN lost its chance for a carrier when it wasted a billion dollars and ten years on helicopters that don't fly, and another billion fixing the faults of the Collins class submarines. When you waste taxpayer's dollars, eventually that waste comes back to haunt. When you add the problems with the OH Perry class frigates upgrades, you wasted a carrier.

I still believe you should wish for two carriers, one ain't enough. I have no problems using one of the LHDs for carrier duties, as long as it can be switched back quickly for amphibious duties. This flexibility is designed into the LHDs.

Or in other words, if the government wishes to buy 10-20 B versions of the F-35, the added expense of doing so won't cost much more, some $100 to $200 million. Say 80 As and 20 Bs. As a sea control or light carrier, the Melbourne never operated more than 20 Skyhawks in the fighter-bomber role.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Well, under the previous government they would have had a pretty good shot at getting these items but not a chance in hell now.

As usual, anything the ADF wants/requests is wrong and "out of control", much better to get some "Professor" who's written the odd article to determine whats needed. Everyone knows the ADF is the last group you'd listen to for advice on Defence matters.

Remeber the timeframe for a 3rd LHD + F-35's and a 4th AWD will be ~10 years away, beyond the average term of a government . Therefore the desision will probably be up to the next government, which will be by default a coalition government (historically kinder to the ADF). All we have to do is hold them to their promice to continue the increase % of GDP & current programes, then the possibilities are good.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

I still believe you should wish for two carriers, one ain't enough. I have no problems using one of the LHDs for carrier duties, as long as it can be switched back quickly for amphibious duties. This flexibility is designed into the LHDs.

Once you have the air group you can rotate them in theater if need be. As you said the things are designed to act as auxillary carriers, therefore you have three (which do of cource have to be used in their primary role of sea lift). I think callingit a "carrier" is typical "civie" talk if you know what i mean? (i.e. they dont knwo the difference ) It'll be an LHD just like the others, no different.

Anyway we can all hope!

 

[Grand Danois]

That sure looks like a Mod 4 gun housing, I see the Mod 2 and Mod 4's just about every day when I go to work and they are very different from each other.
It was my understanding (from a contractor that worked on both Mod 2 and Mod 4 guns) that the gun mount housing was not interchangeable due to equipment differences between the Mod 2 and Mod 4 guns.

The guns on the Danish Absalons are mod 4s (originally mod 2, iirc) using a rounded housing.

http://www.navalhistory.dk/danish/Vaaben/KanonerE1945/127mmM02.htm

 

[Todjaeger]

Just saw this on PerthNow.com.au when i was checkin the news...
thought it was pretty relevant to bring up.
RAN wants a 'dedicated' aircraft carrier, which i would say declares the intentions of current thinking.
interesting...

To me, it looks like the article was written by oneone not overly familiar with naval/military systems, or was deliberately over-simplifying to make a point with ordinary readers. An LPH, even with VSTOL aircraft embarked, is not the same as a dedicated aircraft carrier. It can perform many, perhaps even most of the same missions as an aircraft carrier, but would not operate as efficiently while doing so. Another thing I noticed that the story did not mention, was that a third amphibious/transport ship is planned for the RAN, to replace either HMAS Kanimbla or Manoora (do not remember which is to decomm first) and that a third Canberra-class LHD is a possible candidate.

What I do find worrisome is the mention that the Government is looking to reduce spending by approximately A$1 billion per year in defence costs. If that desired reduction is by more efficient operations, procurement, etc that would be fine. OTOH if that is to be achieved by cutbacks in defence spending that could be very unfortunate, coming at a time when a number of different aircraft, vehicles, vessels and kit are coming due for replacement.

-Cheers

 

[Tasman]

To me, it looks like the article was written by oneone not overly familiar with naval/military systems, or was deliberately over-simplifying to make a point with ordinary readers. An LPH, even with VSTOL aircraft embarked, is not the same as a dedicated aircraft carrier. It can perform many, perhaps even most of the same missions as an aircraft carrier, but would not operate as efficiently while doing so. Another thing I noticed that the story did not mention, was that a third amphibious/transport ship is planned for the RAN, to replace either HMAS Kanimbla or Manoora (do not remember which is to decomm first) and that a third Canberra-class LHD is a possible candidate.

What I do find worrisome is the mention that the Government is looking to reduce spending by approximately A$1 billion per year in defence costs. If that desired reduction is by more efficient operations, procurement, etc that would be fine. OTOH if that is to be achieved by cutbacks in defence spending that could be very unfortunate, coming at a time when a number of different aircraft, vehicles, vessels and kit are coming due for replacement.

-Cheers

As you suggest there is nothing new in the navy's request for a third amphibious ship and it would make sense to standardise on the Canberra class design. This would give great flexibility. It could be used as a transport with mimimal crewing requirements, or, at the other end of the spectrum, it would provide the flexibility to take VSTOL aircraft to sea to support troops embarked in the other two. Having three ships of the same design also means that at least two should always be available and, at a pinch and with a bit of lead up time, all three to meet surge requirements.

The fourth AWD is hardly new. We've discussed it before (as has the media) and up until recently the Labor Party was among its advocates.

What is new (if the article is true) is the RAN acknowledging a desire for the F-35B to be included in the JSF mix.

Tas

 

[alexsa]

I think the RAN lost its chance for a carrier when it wasted a billion dollars and ten years on helicopters that don't fly, and another billion fixing the faults of the Collins class submarines. When you waste taxpayer's dollars, eventually that waste comes back to haunt. When you add the problems with the OH Perry class frigates upgrades, you wasted a carrier.

.

I don't think you can blame the RAN for 'wasting' money on the sprites. many in the Navy were in favour of the super Lynx but the Keating government and defence had short listed the options down to the Sprite only when this was finally signed for by the Howard government in 1996.

The waste came from the contract process.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

So you can have another look from different angles I have attached some photos I took of Warramunga's sister ship Parramatta earlier this year. She has an identical gun mount. By way of contrast I have also included a couple of Arunta showing the more rounded mounting fitted to the first three along with the tenth and final FFH. My understanding is that only the gun mount's external shield is different and they are all classified as Mk45 Mod 2s, but someone who has served on an FFH may be able to confirm this.

None of the ANZAC class are fitted with Mk 45 Mod 4s with the 127mm L62 ordnance. They all have Mk 45 Mod 2s with 127mm L54 ordnance. After the first two ships the gun mount's housing was upgraded to the more modern, low RCS version, but that's it. The housing is just a cover to the gun mount and the older rounded form is a major source of RCS on a warship. Plus they aren't being made anymore...

There was a study to install the Mod 4 with L62 to the ANZAC but this was later "deprioritised" by the RAN and Harpoons added to the chaff deck.

http://www.ausmarinetech.com.au/ind...6725&archive=&start_from=&ucat=2&page=article

The most distinctive feature of the Mod 4 is the much longer barrel… This is clearly lacking on all ANZACs.

 

[Tasman]

None of the ANZAC class are fitted with Mk 45 Mod 4s with the 127mm L62 ordnance. They all have Mk 45 Mod 2s with 127mm L54 ordnance. After the first two ships the gun mount's housing was upgraded to the more modern, low RCS version, but that's it. The housing is just a cover to the gun mount and the older rounded form is a major source of RCS on a warship. Plus they aren't being made anymore...

There was a study to install the Mod 4 with L62 to the ANZAC but this was later "deprioritised" by the RAN and Harpoons added to the chaff deck.

http://www.ausmarinetech.com.au/ind...6725&archive=&start_from=&ucat=2&page=article

The most distinctive feature of the Mod 4 is the much longer barrel… This is clearly lacking on all ANZACs.

Thanks - that confirms my understanding.

Thanks also for the ausmarinetech link.

Tas

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

To me, it looks like the article was written by oneone not overly familiar with naval/military systems, or was deliberately over-simplifying to make a point with ordinary readers. An LPH, even with VSTOL aircraft embarked, is not the same as a dedicated aircraft carrier. It can perform many, perhaps even most of the same missions as an aircraft carrier, but would not operate as efficiently while doing so. Another thing I noticed that the story did not mention, was that a third amphibious/transport ship is planned for the RAN, to replace either HMAS Kanimbla or Manoora (do not remember which is to decomm first) and that a third Canberra-class LHD is a possible candidate.

As I said above this is just a push for a 3rd LHD and a deployable air group. The Canberra's can act effectively as auxillary carriers (it was an intergral part of the original design to suplement the Principe de Asturias and give the spanish much better persistance). Therefore they are quite capable in this role. The only major difference I can see is munintions storage & handleing + fuel requirements. Therefore a canberra may be a tad more inefficient than say an invincible class and may not be able to match her package generation rates. Also without floodable bunkers damage controll would not bee as effective (so lets hope they up the self defence capability of the canberra's to ESSM + RAM). That being said it's still an excellent capability and would actually give the deployed brigade air cover well beyonde the reach of the RAAF, which is invaluable even in asymetric situations.

What I do find worrisome is the mention that the Government is looking to reduce spending by approximately A$1 billion per year in defence costs. If that desired reduction is by more efficient operations, procurement, etc that would be fine. OTOH if that is to be achieved by cutbacks in defence spending that could be very unfortunate, coming at a time when a number of different aircraft, vehicles, vessels and kit are coming due for replacement.

-Cheers

The need to cut costs in the budget is directly aimed at fighting inflation in our booming economy. That problem is short to mid term, therefore defence costs like wages will be targeted (wage pressure is the single largest threat to the local economy, in addition to the ASX) rather than long term capability. Axeing the notion of a 3rd LHD or 4th AWD will do nothing to aid the inflation fight, but will effect Australia's strategic situation. The current government has commited to an average increase in % of GDP spent on defence over the next 10 years, but then again the white paper could also say that we dont need a defence force anymore, so who knows....

 

[Tasman]

The current government has commited to an average increase in % of GDP spent on defence over the next 10 years, but then again the white paper could also say that we dont need a defence force anymore, so who knows....

Don't panic Ozzy. Not just yet anyway!

BTW, I agree with your other comments.

Tas

 

[StingrayOZ]

The navy hasn't aired anything completely unreasonable.

A 4th AWD makes perfect sense. Most other small navies, Dutch, spanish etc have gone with more than 3. A 4th makes the whole project much more viable and greatly increases the effectiveness.

A 3rd LHD is essentially required anyway. So why not order the same type? Given that all three have F-35B capability (and I don't think we should underrate the LHD or the F-35B in that respect) its a reasonable request.

I think it is good that the RAN is thinking along these lines. Sure it may not get everything it wants. But atleast they have looked at it and if money and people become avalible then they know where to effectively spend it.

Which is how you avoid cost blow outs like the collins and Seasprites and FFG upgrades.

4 billion for a very decent naval fixed wing force of 5th gen fighter and sea lift ships that can operate them as well as providing additional lift is very cheap.

Add to that Tomahawk missiles (again a very practical and effective purchase) which would actually save money. For example the F-111 retirement if we had Tomahawks, we might be able to avoid the SH purchase (perhaps, it is another strike option). Tomahawks save money, as they fit into platforms we are already operating and increase the effectiveness of the ADF and the platform.

I would say its unlikely that the RAN would get all this. But I think a 4th AWD is likely, everyone seems pro-4th awd, and it would be very valuable given the lack of avaliablity of these types of ships esp in our region.

A third sealift ship is required, so a LHD maybe the way to go. But but then we are talking around 2013+. F-35B are a 2015 case at the very earliest. Spain would be most likely getting F-35B's before us and operating them on their LHD so we would have a very good idea how effective they are.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

The navy hasn't aired anything completely unreasonable.

A 4th AWD makes perfect sense. Most other small navies, Dutch, spanish etc have gone with more than 3. A 4th makes the whole project much more viable and greatly increases the effectiveness.

A 3rd LHD is essentially required anyway. So why not order the same type? Given that all three have F-35B capability (and I don't think we should underrate the LHD or the F-35B in that respect) its a reasonable request.

I think it is good that the RAN is thinking along these lines. Sure it may not get everything it wants. But atleast they have looked at it and if money and people become avalible then they know where to effectively spend it.

Which is how you avoid cost blow outs like the collins and Seasprites and FFG upgrades.

4 billion for a very decent naval fixed wing force of 5th gen fighter and sea lift ships that can operate them as well as providing additional lift is very cheap.

Add to that Tomahawk missiles (again a very practical and effective purchase) which would actually save money. For example the F-111 retirement if we had Tomahawks, we might be able to avoid the SH purchase (perhaps, it is another strike option). Tomahawks save money, as they fit into platforms we are already operating and increase the effectiveness of the ADF and the platform.

I would say its unlikely that the RAN would get all this. But I think a 4th AWD is likely, everyone seems pro-4th awd, and it would be very valuable given the lack of avaliablity of these types of ships esp in our region.

A third sealift ship is required, so a LHD maybe the way to go. But but then we are talking around 2013+. F-35B are a 2015 case at the very earliest. Spain would be most likely getting F-35B's before us and operating them on their LHD so we would have a very good idea how effective they are.

I agree with your comments stingray. A 4th AWD is the most likely considering the operational and rotational requirements of the AWD fleet. Additionally considering half of the money is there for a 3rd LHD (the sea lift ship) this is a pretty likely outcome aswell. The real question is F-35B's and TAC-TOM and i dont know how likely either of them are, although both of these systems could be aquired at a later date. Both of them would mean a quantum leap in offenceive capability for the RAN & ADF, considering the damage JASSM equiped RAAF F-35B's could do operateing in theater off an LHD backed up by 2500km ranged tomahawk.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Don't panic Ozzy. Not just yet anyway!

It hard not to mate! I know Fitzgibbon did the right thing re SH but whiote paper's make me nervous! :shudder

 

[Sea Toby]

Once you have the air group you can rotate them in theater if need be. As you said the things are designed to act as auxillary carriers, therefore you have three (which do of cource have to be used in their primary role of sea lift). I think callingit a "carrier" is typical "civie" talk if you know what i mean? (i.e. they dont knwo the difference ) It'll be an LHD just like the others, no different.

Anyway we can all hope!

Or better:idea3 , use all three as LHDs, and after unloading, fly a carrier air group to one, switching one to a carrier. or three carrier air groups to all three, switching all three to carriers. FLEXIBILITY! Three does sound better than two. :lol2