Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[RobWilliams]

2nd Phalanx 1b unit delivered for installation on the future HMAS Brisbane

Raytheon delivers second Phalanx Block 1B for Australia's Air Warfare Destroyer

Raytheon Company delivered the second Phalanx Block 1B Close-In Weapon System for installation on Australia's newest Air Warfare Destroyer, the Brisbane. A previously awarded direct commercial sale contract calls for a total of three Phalanx mounts to be delivered to the Royal Australian Navy. The first mount was delivered in late 2012 for installation aboard the Hobart. A third system is under construction and will be installed on the Sydney in 2014.

"These Phalanx systems will give the Royal Australian Navy the most advanced ship self-defense capability available worldwide," said Rick Nelson, vice president of Raytheon Missile Systems' Naval and Area Mission Defense product line. "Thanks to recent engineering changes, we have improved the system's reliability, added capability and greatly improved the sailor-to-machine interface in order to defeat extended-range air and surface threats."

Good to see the Hobarts moving along, should definitely purchase a 4th.

With regards to the LHD's, Does the RAN plan to be able to deploy both simultaneously or be able to provide one 100% of the time with rotation?

 

[the road runner]

Just a video of the MH-60 Romeos for the RAN

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zn64qpK-hwo"]Royal Australian Navy Pilot Highlights MH-60R Capabilities - YouTube[/nomedia]

A lot of capability for the RAN with this helicopter.
Would 70mm rockets be a capability the RAN will be looking at ,with the Romeo?

 

[aussienscale]

Good to see the Hobarts moving along, should definitely purchase a 4th.

With regards to the LHD's, Does the RAN plan to be able to deploy both simultaneously or be able to provide one 100% of the time with rotation?

Yes agree we definitely need a 4th, but not looking too good though.

IIRC the LHD's are meant to be 1 available all the time with 2 available 50% of the time, or there abouts ? I think it was Abe some time ago posted a PP Presentation which had the rotation and maint schedule for them and I think it also had for the AWD's as well, you might be able to find it with a search back in the thread, probably going back at least a year or more

Cheers

Edit: Or come to think of it, may also have been the old JC1 Thread or the old Hypothetical Carrier for the RAN Thread

Edit 2: Just found this, 46 pages, but might have some answers

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&r...WqkWHfrhmQVggRiKQ&sig2=8JI4w3EeMjHyZVnS6amJOw

Edit 3 Sorry Rob, found it, page 37

http://www.defence.gov.au/opEx/exercises/caex/pdf/hawkins.pdf

 

[Volkodav]

Two blocks erected a month from now on, things are really moving at last. More hulls would be good but there will have to be design changes, if only to accommodate obsolescence issues. Rather than order one additional hull maybe order three block II ships and subtract the number of the ANZAC replacement total.

 

[the road runner]

Who wants to go for a tour of Nuship Canberra?

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWx2AnVQYy8"]Tour of Nuship Canberra - YouTube[/nomedia]

All i can say is "look at all that space"
Well worth a look guys 0.o

 

[t68]

Cheers

Edit: Or come to think of it, may also have been the old JC1 Thread or the old Hypothetical Carrier for the RAN Thread

Edit 2: Just found this, 46 pages, but might have some answers

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&r...WqkWHfrhmQVggRiKQ&sig2=8JI4w3EeMjHyZVnS6amJOw

It just goes to show the level of planning needed when putting new capability in it’s just not the ship, even goes on to see if a shadow of the ship is going to piss off Russell Crowe.

Not sure if I’ll be sad to see the hammerhead go or not sure will be different if she goes.

 

[King Wally]

Who wants to go for a tour of Nuship Canberra?

Tour of Nuship Canberra - YouTube

All i can say is "look at all that space"
Well worth a look guys 0.o

Thanks Road Runner, Appreciated that one.

Just a video of the MH-60 Romeos for the RAN

Royal Australian Navy Pilot Highlights MH-60R Capabilities - YouTube

A lot of capability for the RAN with this helicopter.
Would 70mm rockets be a capability the RAN will be looking at ,with the Romeo?

Damn those Romeo's look good. Apart from the obvious ASW requirement they look like they could provide some handy close air support to any LHD landing party via those hellfires. Used in conjuction with ARH Tigers and your going to have some nice Air Support in any amphibious operation for sure.

 

[Volkodav]

How about you learn some history before making idiotic comments.

Taiwan has wanted an Aegis type system since the 90's and has been rejected on many grounds by multiple presidents on both sides. One of them is Chinese protests. Another one is that espionage is a major issue with the Taiwanese military, documents, techmanuals and other things have a habit of filtering back to China.
Another reason is that the flight 0 Tico's Tiawan wanted were quickly scavanged for usable parts and if the US gave them to Tiawan they would of been a logistical nightmare to maintain (there is a reason why for their last decade of service or so most of them were based in the Caribean).

The Tiawanese got the Kidds. Those are excellent, low milage AAW destroyers, they were the next best thing to an actual Aegis type ship that anyone was willing to sell to the Tiawanese.

I still fume at the realization Australia rejected the Kidds, the only time I ever fired a question to Canberra was over that stupid decision. They would have been a much cheaper option than upgrading the FFGs and delivered more capability. The buy would have also permitted the AWD program to be stretched out and to seriously consider riskier more developmental options.

 

[AegisFC]

I still fume at the realization Australia rejected the Kidds, the only time I ever fired a question to Canberra was over that stupid decision. They would have been a much cheaper option than upgrading the FFGs and delivered more capability. The buy would have also permitted the AWD program to be stretched out and to seriously consider riskier more developmental options.

The Kids were nice ships but the twin arm bandits are maintenance intensive compared to MK-41 but the combat system itself was solid. South Korea has continued to use and modify NTU for their own purposes with COTS computers and consoles to good effect.
I suppose Australia could of gotten Mk-41 modified Kidds for a lot less than it cost to modify the FFG's.

 

[rand0m]

I'm a little confused with how the LHD's are going to be deployed, it's been mentioned that "Defence against aircraft and larger targets is to be provided by escort vessels and air support from the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF)". If they're deployed outside of Australia (let's hypothetically say Fiji), assuming we stick with 3 AWD's and no F-35B's, how is 1 AWD going to comprehensively protect our vessels (assuming 1 - 3 available ratio). And then there's the lack of defensive weapon's on the ship itself, no CIWS/Phalanx/SeaRAM.

Doesn't this whole strategy appear flawed and contradictive?

 

[Volkodav]

The Kids were nice ships but the twin arm bandits are maintenance intensive compared to MK-41 but the combat system itself was solid. South Korea has continued to use and modify NTU for their own purposes with COTS computers and consoles to good effect.
I suppose Australia could of gotten Mk-41 modified Kidds for a lot less than it cost to modify the FFG's.

I believe Mk 41 was the plan if Australia had bought the Kidds. Believe it or not one of the objections to the buy was that the crewing requirements would force the retirement of two of the FFGs, i.e. the Kidds were seen as a replacement for the CFA DDGs not the FFGs.

Crazy as only a couple of years later the DDGs had retired without replacement and the FFGUP had been reduced from all six to just four of the hulls due to cost escalations and delays that resulted in the rebaselining of the contract. So instead of four Kidds, four Perrys and eight ANZACs with AWDs being built to replace the FFGs we have only the four remaining Perrys and eight ANZACs with three AWDs being built to replace the four FFGs.

Probably need to move this to the RAN thread.

 

[Seaforth]

I'm a little confused with how the LHD's are going to be deployed, it's been mentioned that "Defence against aircraft and larger targets is to be provided by escort vessels and air support from the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF)". If they're deployed outside of Australia (let's hypothetically say Fiji), assuming we stick with 3 AWD's and no F-35B's, how is 1 AWD going to comprehensively protect our vessels (assuming 1 - 3 available ratio). And then there's the lack of defensive weapon's on the ship itself, no CIWS/Phalanx/SeaRAM.

Doesn't this whole strategy appear flawed and contradictive?

If the hypothetical deployment is Fiji, then Fiji does not have an air wing, so 1 AWD would be more than enough. In fact it might simply be an air traffic control facility.

 

[Volkodav]

If the hypothetical deployment is Fiji, then Fiji does not have an air wing, so 1 AWD would be more than enough. In fact it might simply be an air traffic control facility.

The gorilla in the room is actually China. The issue is not so much what their current government will do with the enhanced military they are building but what a future more aggressive government may do. Its a bit like the UK planning to defend against an attack from across the channel between the wars, France wasn't an enemy per say but logic dictated that French territory was the place an attack would come from.

 

[rand0m]

The gorilla in the room is actually China. The issue is not so much what their current government will do with the enhanced military they are building but what a future more aggressive government may do. Its a bit like the UK planning to defend against an attack from across the channel between the wars, France wasn't an enemy per say but logic dictated that French territory was the place an attack would come from.

You sir understand by logic

 

[Abraham Gubler]

assuming we stick with 3 AWD's and no F-35B's, how is 1 AWD going to comprehensively protect our vessels (assuming 1 - 3 available ratio). And then there's the lack of defensive weapon's on the ship itself, no CIWS/Phalanx/SeaRAM.

The AWD will not be alone. It will be accompanied by 2-3 Anzac class FF and their replacements. There will also be one E-7 Wedgetail overhead.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I believe Mk 41 was the plan if Australia had bought the Kidds. Believe it or not one of the objections to the buy was that the crewing requirements would force the retirement of two of the FFGs, i.e. the Kidds were seen as a replacement for the CFA DDGs not the FFGs.

You can’t fit Mk 41 VLS to the aft end of a Spruance though one up front would provide 61-64 cells which is more than enough. You could buy 4 Spruance strike destroyers alongside the Kidds to provide the 61 cell Mk 41 VLS and hulk them for spares for the rest of the ship (minus combat system). Space aft from removing the GMLS could be used for almost anything.

But I was under the understanding that the Spruance class was at the end of their life hence they were all disposed or sold to a dockside Navy. Ticonderoga class cruisers after the first five had an extensive hull redesign which has enabled them to serve on.

But of course the big reason the Kidds were never brought was because it would have negatively influenced the price the Govt. was able to get in privatising ADI. Which was why they got the make work FFG upgrade contract.

 

[Volkodav]

You can’t fit Mk 41 VLS to the aft end of a Spruance though one up front would provide 61-64 cells which is more than enough. You could buy 4 Spruance strike destroyers alongside the Kidds to provide the 61 cell Mk 41 VLS and hulk them for spares for the rest of the ship (minus combat system). Space aft from removing the GMLS could be used for almost anything.

But I was under the understanding that the Spruance class was at the end of their life hence they were all disposed or sold to a dockside Navy. Ticonderoga class cruisers after the first five had an extensive hull redesign which has enabled them to serve on.

But of course the big reason the Kidds were never brought was because it would have negatively influenced the price the Govt. was able to get in privatising ADI. Which was why they got the make work FFG upgrade contract.

A forward thinker would have given the Kidd upgrade to ADI and a much reduced FFGUP to Williamstown.

Sea 4000 could have then covered six to eight ships to replace the FFGs from 2015 or so and then the Kidds after 2020.

The Kidds have a Mk26 GMLS aft, not sure if its the 44 or 24 round one, I was under the impression that the 24 round launcher was forward to provide space for the retrofit of a MCLWG 8" gun. This would equate to a 29-32cell VLS in addition to the 61-64 cell unit. I believe the Mk41 was designed to slot into the same space as the Mk26

 

[Abraham Gubler]

A forward thinker would have given the Kidd upgrade to ADI and a much reduced FFGUP to Williamstown.

Sea 4000 could have then covered six to eight ships to replace the FFGs from 2015 or so and then the Kidds after 2020.

The RAN didn’t have the people to crew the Kidds, FFGs and the Anzac class. Something has to give and FFGs 1-4 is the obvious short straw. End of life of these ships was 2008-12 and even Darwin would have been 22 years old if it decommissioned to crew Anzac 8. FFGs 5, 6 would last to 2020 and could always be kept in service with SM1 decommissioned like the USN does its FFGs. They could serve as northern border patrol frigates in the meantime leaving the Kidds and Anzacs the warier roles. 14 DDGs and FFHs is the best option for the RAN in this timeframe.

The Kidds have a Mk26 GMLS aft, not sure if its the 44 or 24 round one, I was under the impression that the 24 round launcher was forward to provide space for the retrofit of a MCLWG 8" gun. This would equate to a 29-32cell VLS in addition to the 61-64 cell unit. I believe the Mk41 was designed to slot into the same space as the Mk26

The issue is height not the surface area footprint. Mk 41 strike length are about 1/3 higher than Mk 26. You might be able to fit in tactical length VLS to the aft section if you really need more than 61 missiles. It may fire rockets but it isn’t rocket science replacing Mk 26 with Mk 41 would be relatively straight forward especially as the RAN could accept the tactical length launchers not needing to shoot TLAM or VLA.

 

[rossfrb_1]

Reading the below article had me wondering about the placement of phalanx CIWS on RAN ships.
Phalanx Close-In-Weapon-System Delivered To Australia | Navy & Maritime Security News at DefenceTalk

The article states "The Phalanx is (to be) located at the rear of the ship on top of the helicopter hangar, overlooking the flight deck."
Presumably giving close to 180 degree arc of fire (unsure of elevation and depression specs).
This placement is similar to RAN FFGs - see attached happy snap (just about all of RAN's phalanxes there).

I'm assuming only one per ship? So what about the frontal arc of the ship?
Do ashms invariably home in on the arse end of ships or is ESSM expected to take care of every thing else?
I understand that phalanx is "last ditch" however in that case shouldn't there be a foreward facing one as well?

cheers
rb

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Just been reading some Michael Porter on the Spruance and Kidd class and in relation to a possible RAN Kidd having VLS it is pretty clear the worst thing they could do is try and fit the Strike Length Mk 41 VLS forward. The cost of this to Spruance class strike destroyers was a huge weight imbalance by replacing a lightweight ASROC launcher with 24 light rockets with a very heavy Mk 41 VLS and 61 super heavy Tomahawk missiles. This resulted in a lot of ballasting aft to compensate.

But the shorter tactical length Mk 41 VLS (as fitted to Anzac class) and capable of shooting SM-2 (MR), VLA and ESSM (and VL Harpoon if it wasn’t cancelled in the 70s) could be fitted in place of the Mk 26 GMLS. Two sets of 64 cell by volume and deck area but more importantly by weight two sets of 48 Mk 41 VLS tactical length with each missile loaded with SM-2 (or VLA, quad packed ESSM would be a fair bit more weight). This would even free up a fair bit of internal space as the aft Mk 26 GMLS ran in under the helo deck.