Joe Black
Active Member
I would love to see the Phalanx on the AWDs get replaced by a pair of Millennium guns (mounted on each side) and a SeaRAM (where the Phalanx is currently).
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
The LHDs are only fitted with the 25mm Typhoon RWS guns and possibly some 12.7mm MGs, there are no Phalanx fitted. I'm not sure about the Replenishment ships. There has been some criticism about the lack of more capable self defence weapons such as Phalanx or even a short range missile system fitted to the LHDs, in some quarters.
Last edited:
Some basic search of this thread in the very recent days would have given you an answer. Posts 20099 and 20100 give a good summary of present and future Phalanx outfits.
I'm guessing you are referencing as to why are they fitted with Phalanx instead of other options some arguably far better.
First thing's budget and government go hand in hand, the ADF might make a wishlist but it's the government that signs off on it so they are actually one and the same really.
As the government has only provided enough funds to acquire X amount of systems while Y the number of ship's exceeds that number then we needed something that could be easily swapped from ship to ship so those in port not requiring them could hand the system over to a ship being deployed outside of Australian waters.
Shouldn't take my word for it though, It's just a guesstimate.
http://dcnsgroup.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/DCNS-SEA1000-Insert-FINAL_low-res.pdf
The Shortfin Barracuda is 97 metres in length and displaces 4,500 tons when surfaced.
Not sure why the hull would have to be 2 m shorter. IMO this could be a case where steel is cheap, air is free, the design is done, France has already designed a submarine 2m longer, why not build a submarine the same physical size as the French submarine. Then you would have the same hull size, the same flow characteristics, fewer differences between the two submarines.
If changing the length of a submarine was not problematic then Collins would have had less problems than what she had in terms of hydrodynamic performance.
Every submarine ever made could do with more interior volume. That way you wouldn't have to pack food stores into peoples beds, bags into torpedo tubes, bed racks above and below torpedoes, store bags in torpedo tubes, etc as much. Or you could use the space for future growth much like Collins ended up using the AIP space for other things.
There is a great type of ballast that is good for submarines, it pretty cheap, its very useful, its very dense, in fact its made of lead - batteries.
The Phalanx has been in service since the introduction into service of the Adelaide Class, it was retrofitted to the Perths for the 91 Gulf war and additional units were fitted on Bill and Ben when they were acquired. Basically it is the only CIWS the RAN has ever operated, it is the standard system used by our key allies, and is the system that was fitted (or designed to be fitted) to the majority of ships the RAN has acquired since the late 70s. More a case of its in service and perfectly good enough.
and its easily updated, its gone through a raft of improvements and all were basically software code changes
Pretty sure all will have some modular space.
That said, I doubt the OPVs will be that OTS anyway.
The upgrade in capability that comes with the OPVs even if they are only armed with a single 25mm RWS is pretty incredible compared to the Armidale's.
If the standard 76mm that the OTS version typically mounts carries through then it is even more of a capability upgrade.
Regards,
Massive
Last edited by a moderator:
Tool to Predict Acoustic Signatures of Navy Vessels
op-ed on DSTG acoustic mgt tool
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/ar...-frigates-sail-to-do-battle-in-australia.html
op-ed on SEA5000
op-ed on DSTG acoustic mgt tool
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/ar...-frigates-sail-to-do-battle-in-australia.html
op-ed on SEA5000
I'm not sure in what circumstances a 76mm would be expected to be used by an RAN OPV?
There have also been reports of upgraded and new Phalanx being purchased for fitting on the LHDs. Previously discussed in this thread and easy to find.
oldsig
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Thanks Mate, i missed the origional posts on the upgrade and have now caught up. Certainly the right decision as the LHDs are way under Armed. You can surround the LHDs with as many Hobart DDGs & Anzacs as you like but they only have to miss once and the brown stuff hits the Fan, for the want of a relatively cheap and small but very capable weapon system. Always had the feeling that sooner rather than later a CIWS System would be fitted.
Mick
Last edited:
If you had followed or searched the thread you would find that all the future major units (LHD, AWD, Choules, AORs new, )will be or have been fitted.Okay to refine my earlier question; is there a political or budgetary reason for which ships (as stated earlier) aren't fitted with phalanx for self defence.
You would also have read that the Anzacs are not fitted because they have a top weight problem which prevents the several tonnes of weapon and ammo from being fitted above the hager similar to the RNZN Anzacs.
which is the ironic disadvantage of Phalanx. At first cut its a favoured engineering opportunity because its a non intrusive system, the downside is that its weight is also therefore all on top.
on smaller vessels, if the balance is already delicate, it just gets worse
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Probably better to stop the bus, back it up a bit, and have a look at the 'big' picture, rather than the dot on the wall.Okay to refine my earlier question; is there a political or budgetary reason for which ships (as stated earlier) aren't fitted with phalanx for self defence.
As has been mentioned here numerous times, there is currently a 'pool' of 12 Phalanx, and it appears that another two will be ordered reasonably soonish(?) for the Future Frigates, have a read of this:
Where to now for naval missiles?
As it stands at the moment there are 3 x FFG's fitted with (or capable of being fitted with) Phalanx, and don't forget they are also equipped with Nulka(?) and ESSM too (and as these three remaining FFG's retire and are replaced by the AWD's, their Phalanx will no doubt go back into the 'pool').
The eight Anzacs, as has been discussed and reported, have top weight issues, so no Phalanx fitted, but have Nulka and ESSM.
So as it appears the 'pool' of 12 is just about sufficient at the moment.
Now moving forward....
The plan is to have the 3 x AWD's fitted with 1 x Phalanx as they enter service, the plan appears to be that the 2 x LHD's will be upgraded/equipped with up to 3 x Phalanx each and also Choules to receive 1 x Phalanx and the two new AOR's (2019 and 2020) 1 x Phalanx each.
So if you add all of that up, it equals 12, and that equals the 12 in the pool too.
so moving forward again.....
Somewhere in around 10 years the first of the Future Frigates should replace the first of the Anzacs to retire.
So lets 'assume' that Phalanx (or another future upgraded version) is still in RAN inventory at that time around the mid 2020's or beyond.
The requirement would possibly look like this:
* 3 x AWD (1 each)
* 2 x LHD (3 each)
* 1 x Choules (1)
* 2 x AOR (1 each)
* 9 x Future Frigate (1 each, the nine will come into service over a long period too)
Added to that is the possibility of the additional AOR or Choules type ship (mid 2020's and beyond), add another mount to the requirement.
If each ship was in commission, and if each was equipped with the appropriate number of mounts that would total 22 mounts.
I would imagine that if the RAN eventually ended up with a 'pool' of around 20 mounts, that would cover all bases, and again not all ships are or will be in service/commission at the one time.
Of course if the 'poo hit the fan', one would hope that we could possibly obtain additional mounts from the USN pool sooner rather than later, and a couple of example could be that the AOR's and Choules might require/end up with a 'second' mount.
Anyway....
Cheers,
What may not generally be appreciated is the weight of the ammo. Lead has a SG of 11.5 ie 11.5 x heavier than water and there a ( 1,500 x 20mm ) rounds.
Just imagine the problem had we complied with the USN and used depleted uranium ammo which has an SG of 35!
- Status