Do we get the second car park back?
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
What's the RAN's stance on CIWS? From memory the Adelaide class were fitted with but not ANZAC, correct? IF the worst case scenario unfolded in the Middle East & Iran was to target US & allied ships with ASM's, what defensive weaponry could the ANZAC frigates employ? Are the ANZAC frigates fitted out with a CIWS prior to being deployed to the ME?
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
My understanding is that due to upgrades that have added topweight to the Australian ANZAC class, with the most recent example being the new radar being fitted under the ASMD upgrade, they no longer have the weight margin for fitting a Phalanx.
To be honest i'm not sure how successful a phalanx would be against the latest generation of missiles anyway, especially against supersonic inbounds which may spray the ship with flammable debris and shrapnel even if the missile is successfully destroyed.
Defences against missiles would include ECM, Chaff(?) and ESSM.
Depending on the level of integration, I suppose it may also be possible to utilise Mini-typhoon as a last ditch weapon, but since they only have a .50 cal it would have to be a pretty desperate situation I would think even if the targeting software is up to it.
Nope the AFT Nulka's is where the CIWS would go, And I would most definetly prefer NULKA over Phalanx anyday of the week. If you blow up a incoming using it your going to get hit any way
The Australian ANZAC's have never had a CIWS, and rely totally for active defence on the ESSM, of which a total of 32 can be carried.
Now I am led to believe that ESSM is pretty schmick and will attend to matters quite nicely. Are 32 enough? - Depends on how long the hot conflict lasts, I suppose.
One question does come to mind - can the ANZAC's replenish ESSM at sea?
If not they are effectively defenceless to missiles once exhausted, or have to leave the area to re-arm.
Now I am led to believe that ESSM is pretty schmick and will attend to matters quite nicely. Are 32 enough? - Depends on how long the hot conflict lasts, I suppose.
One question does come to mind - can the ANZAC's replenish ESSM at sea?
If not they are effectively defenceless to missiles once exhausted, or have to leave the area to re-arm.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
That is pretty much my understanding as well. The original plan was to fit a Mk 15 Phalanx 20 mm CIWS up top, as well as a second Mk 41 VLS so that the RAN Anzacs could carry a total of 16 'Sea Chickens' as AegisFC put it. With the development of the ESSM and quad-packing, the weight margin increased too much to allow this. However, instead of a RAN Anzac being armed with 16 Sea Sparrow SAMs (or even 16 ESSM) and a CIWS, RAN Anzacs can carry 32 ESSM... IMO better to drop the CIWS which would be of limited use vs. most AShM now and add more and longer-ranged SAM's. IIRC the ESSM performance for range now approaches that of the old SM-1 missiles which the Adelaide-class DDG's were originally armed with.
Also, the RAN AFAIK does not use chaff, instead using the Nulka active decoy system in place of chaff launchers.
-Cheers
Nope, gotta go alongside for that.....we also have the 5" Gun,Chaff and Nulka though.
Oh the Dibbies also have their" PEW PEW' 50'cals LOL
Sorry mate we most definitely use CHAFF or my decade of bruised knuckles is a false memory...(and my knuckles MOST definitely bear the scares!)
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I could be mistaken, but I believe the ESSM quad pack can be replenished at sea. I do not mean loading individual missiles into quad packs, but loading new quad packs into the VLS cells.
Some of this is going to depend on the capabilities of the replenishment vessel and any helicopters/cranes being used. AFAIK missile packs like TacTom are realistically too heavy to replenish at sea, but an ESSM quadpack might just make it. A TacTom missiles weighs ~1,300 kg not including the cannister. Four ESSM (again, without cannister) weigh ~1,100 kg. It would be close, but seems possible,
-Cheers
EDIT: Just saw ThePuss's comment, I guess to weight of a quadpacked ESSM cannister is too heavy for underway replenishment. Makes me wonder if have naval helicopters with greater lift capacity would enable replenishment at sea.
Last edited:
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I had thought that Nulka had replaced the SBROC Mk 36.
Nope the MK36's are on 01 deck in between to the Harpoon Launchers and the Nulka's are on 01 deck behind the bridge (on either side) and down aft where your would find CIWS on a KIWI ANZAC. Trust me all three are my systems!I had thought that Nulka had replaced the SBROC Mk 36.
Last edited:
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #7,652
BAHAHA, of course not, theres only ever 10-15 cars there these days, but it still contractor parking. Although i did have a rule put in place thanks to my actions, apparently your now not allowed to drive out of the spiral, and reverse up to the THALEs parking area, therefore bypass the gate...
Ill have you know ill take 2 50s over any greeny maintained equipment you got, especially those frigging mini-Ts!
The USN found replacing VLS cells at sea to be very difficult and gave up. The VLS crane that takes up three VLS cells was put into layup on ships that already have it, most of the Flight IIA's were built without the crane and Tico modernization removes the crane.
The Anzac's have a single 8 cell launcher, so they do not have the replenishment crane.
The USN did it with high line transfer and a crane built into each VLS farm. It took forever to do just a single cell and required a lot of deck space.
Getting back onto the subject of keeping the Aussie shipyards occupied, and to remedy the situation where the RAN will only have 11 destroyer/frigates, once the last OHP is paid off, we should replace the OHP's with the ship that is set to replace the Anzac class. Then when it is time to replace the Anzacs, do so with a ship of about 5'000 to 5'500 tonnes.
Now dont be too harsh on me fellas.:rel
Now dont be too harsh on me fellas.:rel
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
Three of the Adelaide's will be replaced by the AWD. Which leaves 1 crew and one Adelaides's.
In an ideal world it would be replaced by a 4th AWD.
The problems with replacing the last Adelaide's with an ANZAC II would be whether the money could be found in the budget and whether the timing matches up. HMAS Newcastle is only three years older then HMAS ANZAC, but again going back to cost, can the budget stretch far enough to keep her in service until the first ANZAC II could enter service? And can the ANZAC's then be held on long enough until the 9th replacement is built?
In an ideal world it would be replaced by a 4th AWD.
The problems with replacing the last Adelaide's with an ANZAC II would be whether the money could be found in the budget and whether the timing matches up. HMAS Newcastle is only three years older then HMAS ANZAC, but again going back to cost, can the budget stretch far enough to keep her in service until the first ANZAC II could enter service? And can the ANZAC's then be held on long enough until the 9th replacement is built?
What's the latest on the possibility of a 4th AWD? Anyone able to elaborate on the chances of us getting a 4th, up until what date do we have to decide if we want the 4th?
I realise this topic has been done to death, I am more so asking if there are any updates.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Hard to say what the chances of a 4th AWD really are, but if I had to guess, I would say, "not good."
Such a decision would also not be a sudden announcement either. Given the US Arleigh Burke-class DDG build programme, I expect that various iterations of the SPY-1D array and the Aegis combat data system to remain in production for a number of years. This should allow more time for an Australian decision on a 4th AWD since there most likely would not be significant long-lead items needed for an Australian order which would not already be in ongoing production to meet the US demand, but Australia would still need to place an order for the radar system and associated items. In the case of the three currently planned AWD's, the contract for the radar and fire control system was awarded four years ago, in January of 2008, years before the first AWD hull block was to even be laid down.
I could be mistaken, but I suspect that the decision and order for a 4th AWD would need to be made in 2014 at the latest, likely before delivery of the first AWD has been completed.
-Cheers
The chances are very, very low. In terms of the cut-off date to have AWD #4 follow after AWD #3 the key issue is the long lead time required to build the AEGIS combat system. The whole thing, radars and computers, is built and then testing in the middle of New Jersey (The Cruiser in the Cornfield) and then shipped out to the yard. Anyway the cut off date for a #4 was probably last year but you could probably get it built if you long lead order in the next 18 odd months.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
You figure the cutoff was last year? Hmm... I was figuring there would still be another 24-36 months that the order could be placed and have the 4th AWD follow the construction of the 3rd with a minimal gap.
My guestimate was based off the 3 radar and computer systems being ordered in Jan. 2008, with work on the construction blocks starting in 2011 and then an in-service date of 2014. After that, the other two hulls following at roughly 18 months intervals IIRC.
Based off the figures for the radar system, it takes ~4 years between the order being placed and the system completed, tested and then available for install from what I can tell.
Assuming that the 4th AWD was ordered to follow HMAS Sydney, I would expect delivery in 2019-2020, with the radar and computers not likely needed or install until about 2018, which is where I got the 2014 date from.
I agree though that the chances of a 4th AWD are really not very good.
-Cheers
- Status