An advantage RAM has is it is being further developed for use in Lockheeds Extensible launcher which basically permits it to be quad packed in any mk 41 in addition to its current launcher options. Sea Ram as fitted to LCS 2 is a stand alone system that can be bolted on as easily as Phalanx. This would permit the same missile to be deployed on any RAN vessel with Mk 41 as well as maintaining a pool of launchers to fit to other platforms as required.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
ancientcivy
New Member
A few questions for the defence professionals about the possible use of RAM on RAN vessels, in light of the fact that Navy already holds a number Typhoon weapons systems.
My questions are:
1 Is it correct the Tyhoon is a modular system so that some existing systems could be upgraded to the GSA gun/sam version ?
2 Can you confirm that the GSA will launch RAM?
3 Can toplight targeting systems be on their own mounting and the typhoons still utalise them for target acquisition at sufficient distance for RAM to be effective?
4 Would this be a cost effective ie cheap and efficient way of upgrading RAN CIWS especially as the Canberra Class are each slated to mount 4 ?
thanks for any information
From data that is available from RAMs manufacturer, do we know how it performs against supersonic missiles? Have any simulations been done by the USN?
Apologies for getting off-topic but does anyone here have any information on Australian LCPs and LCMs that were operated from the late 1950's to the early 1960's? Apart from the fact that some were transferred to Malaysia from 1965 to 1970 and were powered by Cummins engines, I have no other info such as the year they entered Australian service, the year they were retired, whether they were only operated by Australia in Borneo during the Confrontation, where they were constructed or if they were operated by the RAN or army.
Here are a some of pics of the LCPs in Malaysian service, where they were used along the rivers in Borneo during the 2nd Emergency, supporting troops on operations against the North Kalimantan Communist Party. For self defence, they were armed with the SLR 'heavy barrel' and GPMGs. The pic on the far right, with the man on the ladder, was taken soon after delivery from Australia.
Last edited:
For a system to have been in service with the USN and the German Navy for twenty years, surely its been tested as a CIWS against supersonic missiles. RAM is considered an upgrade over Phalanx CIWS. RAM will soon be available in its Block 3 versions, if not already.
Many of the most prized assets of the USN have RAM, from Nimitz class aircraft carriers, to Tarawa and Wasp class amphibious assault ships, to other amphibious dock ships, to the new LCS.
Before Congress cut the upgrades of the OH Perry class frigates, RAM was planned for the FFG-07s when the Mk 13 Standard missile launchers were removed. While the USN FFG-07s are no longer FFGs(AAW) by many, they are still useful FFs(ASW). Its my opinion Congress fumbled their upgrade.
I am a bit amused many of the British criticized this FFG-07 RAM upgrade and now appear to be upgrading their Type 23s with CAMM, a similar type of CIWS missile, small and short ranged.
Fair point, though other systems offer the same benefit. Hell, you can even make that argument for Phalanx if you really want (especially as we already have them in-service...) and it's hardly in doubt that our land based troops are in greater need of protection from air threats than our current non-existant LHD's if we are to spend money on greater force protection capabilities...
Phalanx (CIWS) Block 1B LPWS Testing and Firing - YouTube
The US have not only bought the land based versions to protect , but have used them against mortars at army HQs in Afghanistan. Tried and tested against mortars.
I would certainly like to think so and what you mentioned makes a lot of sense but I would like to point out that at various defence exhibitions over the years, I have posed this question to Raytheon officials and they either could not give me a straight answer or wouldn't comment. At a Russian stand in a naval exhibition a few years ago, somebody who claimed to have been involved in the design of Kashstan readily told me that Kashtan can only deal with subsonic threats. I just find it strange that if indeed RAM can deal with supersonic threats, why hasn't Raytheon mentioned it as part of its marketing drive for RAM? Something I'm very curious about is whether the USN has ever or announced the results of simulated tests carried out against supersonic threats and whether actual non-simulated tests have ever been performed ?
Apart from the USN and the Bundesmarine, another navy which is a firm believer of RAM is the ROKN.
Last edited:
Latest Burkes have neither Phalanx nor RAM, relying on ESSM.
It would be prohibitive to reequip CVNs, LHA/D's, LPD from Sea Sparrow/Mk29 to (VL>Mk41 or other) ESSM
RAM launcher is a small package with a substantial number of rounds (21). That gives it an edge over 1 Mk41 with 32 ESSM or 2x Mk56 with 12 ESSM. RAM is designed for Phalanx footprint.
The carriers use Sea Sparrow because unlike vertical lanched ESSM it doesn't disturb their landing patterns.
They have Phalanx. Some were built without the system but were later retrofitted, the newest ones were built with an aft mount but the FWD low profile mount is in place.
ESSM can be and is launched from the old Mk-29 launchers.
If you believe MBDA (& they've been testing it for a few years, so they should know), CAMM has over 2.5 times the range of RAM. The RN press release in which the silly official name was confirmed suggested a longer range still (ca 3.5 times), if the area covered wasn't a mistake, or about twice the range of RAM Block 2 (making an assumption about the meaning of Raytheon's "twice the effective intercept range").
Is 25-32km range a CIWS?
I sometimes wonder about published numbers. Taking the diameters & lengths, CAMM should have about 80% more volume than RAM, but is quoted as only weighing 35% more. The ESSM/CAMM volume ratio works out almost exactly right, though, when compared to published weights.
Blas de Lezo
Member
I believe the rotor blades must be off or folded to fit in the hangar. Here is a short video of the Chinook on JCI + some pictures of a CH-47 lifted and moved around JCI.
Evaluación del 'Chinook' - YouTube
For some reason the video starts half way through, and has to be moved to start from the beginning manually
fotosdebarcos.com / fotosdebarcos.org :: Ver tema - L-61 Juan Carlos I
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7161/6805681983_eafd26c8db_b.jpg
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7027/6805685949_d1c4e3dc72_b.jpg
Regards
Evaluación del 'Chinook' - YouTube
For some reason the video starts half way through, and has to be moved to start from the beginning manually
fotosdebarcos.com / fotosdebarcos.org :: Ver tema - L-61 Juan Carlos I
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7161/6805681983_eafd26c8db_b.jpg
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7027/6805685949_d1c4e3dc72_b.jpg
Regards
Last edited:
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #8,434
My understanding was that it could only conduct flight deck operations, as the LHD could land most Western helos, from CH53 to V22 osprey(id love to see that one land).
The Spanish recently confirmed they could carry a chinook and store it in the hanger by removing its blades, a long job ive been informed but do-able none the less.
The LCPs look like standard US built Higgins boats that have had an above deck wheelhouse fitted to the stern. Huge numbers were built and supplied to Australia during the war and could have ended up with the RMN after refit. The other boats look like standard wooden hulled power boats that could have been built in a number of Australian yards. Lars Halvorsen and Sons is the most famous and they were building fast boats for the RAN at this time.
I don’t think the RAN or Australian Army ever operated any small craft in Malaysia during this time but Australia had provided logistic support to the British forces during the emergency and was providing a lot of training and seconded officers to the RMN after independence. Larger ships including frigates and destroyers had been deployed and minesweepers during the Confrontation.
Fantastic photos and video. Chinook looks like its quiet able on the JC1. I know the RN has been able to operate chinooks for a while in a similar manner (decking by removing the rotors). The video is interesting, looks very windy, I wonder if the skijump acts like a wind break for flight ops. There may have been many reasons to leave it there.
Thank you for the information, it was very helpful. So it is very likely that these were ex-WW2 Higgins boats that were modified, and ended up in Malaysia. And it is possible that they were re-engined, as the RMNs LCPs were powered by Cummins engines.
The RAN, as you indicated, played a very huge role in laying the foundations of the RMN. It provide several Chiefs of Navy, numerous personnel on loan and developed the RMNs shore and training infrastructure. In 'Tiger Territory' [Pfennigwerth], there is mention of how the RMN decided to turn to Australia for help, after it was found that a lot of the RN officers, on loan or secondment were unsuited for the task.
I missed this last reply from Volk when it was posted and only found it now looking up the last post in this RAN WWII carrier aviation sub thread to post the picture at the end of this message.
The P. 1081 program could have been replaced by a joint RAN/RAAF aircraft and I think it probably even was intended that way. CAC’s first choice was to build the Grumman Panther rather than the P.1081 for the RAAF but the Treasury couldn’t find the US Dollars to purchase the pattern aircraft from Grumman. Surely CAC Panthers could have been supplied to the RAN to replace the Sea Fury. At this point rather than split CAC effort into the P.1081 day fighter and CA-23 all-weather interceptor maybe CAC could have been given a domestic design contract for a Panther replacement.
If the RAN had a carrier capability during WWII (either the 1944 Implacable or even the 1945 HMS Ocean) it raises an interesting question as to what would happen to the British Pacific Fleet’s aircraft park in Australia at the end of the war. Basically the RN had around 1,000 unused American built naval fighters (Corsairs, Hellcats and Avengers) in country to support the BPF carriers for the invasion of Japan. With the early end of the war they were all shipped out to 5-10 miles of the Australian coast and dumped.
If the RAN had its own carrier force at the time which no doubt would be flying American sourced aircraft they could have quarantined a portion (if not all) of the US built naval fighters for their own use post war. Earlier in this discussion I had rejected the WWII carrier RAN from buying post war aircraft from the US because of the lack of foreign exchange but with a large park of unused WWII aircraft they probably wouldn’t want a new type until a local domestic aircraft had been built.
Anyway why I brought this topic up again is I wanted to post this picture. I’m slowly going though the excellent photo stream of Kokkaburra2011 at Flickr:
Flickr: Kookaburra2011's Photostream
I’m up to page 50 out of 300+. Anyway this picture is of Bankstown at the end of WWII. In the plane park in the bottom half of the photo there are 180 Hellcats, 120 Corsairs and 50 Avengers. According to the picture caption this was only half of the unused RN aircraft at Bankstown at the end of the war. Most if not all were dumped off Sydney Heads.
The Supermarine 391 was like many of the last propeller planes, much better than all the earlier ones (!) but without the same growth paths as the alternate jets. But I think its propellers where too high to fit into the short Implacable hangars anyway. Just posted it because it was such a good looking and high performance aircraft.
A modernised Implacable would be much like HMS Victorious but a few knots faster. They would be too small to fly F4H Phantoms and A3J Vigilantes. You could fly the F-4K Spey Phantom, Buccaneer and probably the early model A2F Intruder with the tilting nozzles.
The Government at the time was pretty indulgent of Australian aviation industry compared to now. De Havilland was churning out Mosquitos and then Vampires as fast as they could post war. GAF had the Lincoln and then the Canberra. CAC were given contracts to develop the Winjeel and the CA-23 and sustained in production of the Mustang, R-R Nene and Avon and the Hawker P. 1081. When the later fell over thanks to the Brits it was straight in to building the Avon Sabre. The CA-23 was ended because they just didn’t have the capacity to design it alongside the Avon Sabre (it was also put on hold for around a year so they could finish off the design for the Winjeel). The major limiting factor was capacity not will.
The P. 1081 program could have been replaced by a joint RAN/RAAF aircraft and I think it probably even was intended that way. CAC’s first choice was to build the Grumman Panther rather than the P.1081 for the RAAF but the Treasury couldn’t find the US Dollars to purchase the pattern aircraft from Grumman. Surely CAC Panthers could have been supplied to the RAN to replace the Sea Fury. At this point rather than split CAC effort into the P.1081 day fighter and CA-23 all-weather interceptor maybe CAC could have been given a domestic design contract for a Panther replacement.
If the RAN had a carrier capability during WWII (either the 1944 Implacable or even the 1945 HMS Ocean) it raises an interesting question as to what would happen to the British Pacific Fleet’s aircraft park in Australia at the end of the war. Basically the RN had around 1,000 unused American built naval fighters (Corsairs, Hellcats and Avengers) in country to support the BPF carriers for the invasion of Japan. With the early end of the war they were all shipped out to 5-10 miles of the Australian coast and dumped.
If the RAN had its own carrier force at the time which no doubt would be flying American sourced aircraft they could have quarantined a portion (if not all) of the US built naval fighters for their own use post war. Earlier in this discussion I had rejected the WWII carrier RAN from buying post war aircraft from the US because of the lack of foreign exchange but with a large park of unused WWII aircraft they probably wouldn’t want a new type until a local domestic aircraft had been built.
Anyway why I brought this topic up again is I wanted to post this picture. I’m slowly going though the excellent photo stream of Kokkaburra2011 at Flickr:
Flickr: Kookaburra2011's Photostream
I’m up to page 50 out of 300+. Anyway this picture is of Bankstown at the end of WWII. In the plane park in the bottom half of the photo there are 180 Hellcats, 120 Corsairs and 50 Avengers. According to the picture caption this was only half of the unused RN aircraft at Bankstown at the end of the war. Most if not all were dumped off Sydney Heads.
Last edited:
Great link thanks Abe, it will keep me occupied while on sick kid duty today.
The Hellcats and Avengers would have ideal for the Implacables though would have been due for replacement by Korea. Maybe a Colossus / Majestic or even an Illustrious (or Indomitable), I imagine an Essex would have encountered the same US Dollar issues you mentioned, could have been leased during that conflict, and then retained to cover the modernisation of the Implacables to operate modern aircraft and maybe into the 60s as a training ship / fast troop transport.
A licensed CAC Panther would have been a very interesting option for the RAAF and RAN as it would logically have been followed by the Cougar and then Tiger with the Super Tiger becoming a no brainer. I assume the Australianised Panther and Cougar would have used RR Tay while the Tiger / Super Tiger would have gone for the Avon and possibly ADEN in place of the Colts. Who knows, maybe the advent of a substantial late 50s order for Super Tigers by the RAAF/RAN could have pushed it over the line in the “Deal of the Century” with the Australian mods offered as Euro friendly options.
What to follow the Super Tiger with is more problematic as they had nothing that would have suited Australia after the Super Tiger. Phantom would be nice but a CAC Crusader / Twosader (RR Spey 202 + other mods maybe ADEN, Ferranti Airpass, Firestreak/Red Top or not) would have been a good fit. It would have made a Corsair II buy instead of the F-111 and Skyhawk a possibility.
The big question is what would have replaced the Implacables as they reached the end of their service lives during the late 70’s early 80’s. I can not think of a single realistic option.
The Hellcats and Avengers would have ideal for the Implacables though would have been due for replacement by Korea. Maybe a Colossus / Majestic or even an Illustrious (or Indomitable), I imagine an Essex would have encountered the same US Dollar issues you mentioned, could have been leased during that conflict, and then retained to cover the modernisation of the Implacables to operate modern aircraft and maybe into the 60s as a training ship / fast troop transport.
A licensed CAC Panther would have been a very interesting option for the RAAF and RAN as it would logically have been followed by the Cougar and then Tiger with the Super Tiger becoming a no brainer. I assume the Australianised Panther and Cougar would have used RR Tay while the Tiger / Super Tiger would have gone for the Avon and possibly ADEN in place of the Colts. Who knows, maybe the advent of a substantial late 50s order for Super Tigers by the RAAF/RAN could have pushed it over the line in the “Deal of the Century” with the Australian mods offered as Euro friendly options.
What to follow the Super Tiger with is more problematic as they had nothing that would have suited Australia after the Super Tiger. Phantom would be nice but a CAC Crusader / Twosader (RR Spey 202 + other mods maybe ADEN, Ferranti Airpass, Firestreak/Red Top or not) would have been a good fit. It would have made a Corsair II buy instead of the F-111 and Skyhawk a possibility.
The big question is what would have replaced the Implacables as they reached the end of their service lives during the late 70’s early 80’s. I can not think of a single realistic option.
- Status