@Rob c that's uncalled for. You should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself. Think of all those poor idiots who will now have to have months of therapy.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
Sorry Ng, we're not providing you defence AND therapy. The one is bad enough
oldsig
Don't worry we can more than provide our own therapy. Plenty of breweries this side of the ditch who brew very tasty medicine.
Regarding Phalanx,
I have not heard of any other updates that have not been mentioned already on DT.
Speculative only,but the two Typhoon mounts on the Canberra class, one forward on the starboard side and the other aft on the port side should be enough to provide 360 degree coverage around the ship. Maybe the easy option?.
Will typhoons be substituted for phalanx is guess work at this stage.
My preference would that if phalanx is added, it should not be at the expense of the existing four typhoon systems and should also not encroach on any of the existing flight deck space.
The Phalanx is not a light system at some 6 tonnes, so I'm wondering on a ship of Canberra's size would it present a problem if the systems were mounted high up on the Island structure.
Much smaller Japanese ships such as the Asagiri and Hatsuyuki classes each have a pair of phalanx mounted high up on their superstructures.
Maybe an option if they can work out all the electrical interference stuff!
Anyway just some thoughts.
On a side note
I understand there is not too much in altering the existing 25mm typhoons to a 30mm calibre.
This heavier round certainly has much greater benefits in range and ammunition types to the existing round so I would certainly consider this an attractive option.
Alternatively, in the future the new 40mm mount on the Arafura class may prove the way forward for a new standardised round for across the fleet.
Somehow the 25mm size looks a bit dated and inadequate and I must admit to have been surprised when we went with this size for the new Hobart Class.
Thoughts
Regards S
Seems odd.
I wonder if these types of calculations were used to select the winner of the CCS. It just seems odd.
If you look back over the original RAND report on Australian shipbuilding it does briefly mention CGT and a few other metrics. But the way they were used, in comparison to similar programs is more detailed and more illustrative of a type of comparison. They used 3 types of bench-marking, input, comparative, parametric. The parametric was used on similar programs, destroyer to destroyer for example.
The RAND report is quite detailed, and specific, it really clarifies the whole ship building strategy in a very detailed way. It provides options before during and after the programs. It also took a lot of the politics out of some the decision making. It got it to a bipartisan state, clearly articulated the befits to the nation. It also reaffirmed other local production programs and planning.
I don't see a lot of that being evidenced in the Canadian program. Its an older program. I wouldn't say more successful.
I am sure there will be plenty of bench-marking the Australian program as it progresses to the Canadian and UK programs and wider programs. The OPV and sub programs too will be bench-marked, and I am sure they intended to beat the efficiencies off foreign yards.
The calculation is used to compare relative efficiencies of shipyards building similar ships not to select which ship to build.
It would have played no part in the selection of the CCS.
True the the 40 mm option is a different animal and a completely new system.
What about upgrading the existing mounts to 30mm.
Greater range.
Heavier shot
Wide range of ammunition types
Army moving to 30 mm
Speculate not a great cost for benefits gained.
Thoughts S
I would hope so, but some of the Canadian commentary seems to have expanded on these type of calculations and relating to ship design.
I know there was significant unhappiness with the Canadian selection process and build process. Critisim from multiple builders in a way that doesn't normally happen.
Canadian warship project a mess, as one of world’s largest shipbuilders threatens minister it won’t bid
Federal government wants OK to award Canadian Surface Combatant contract
Fincantieri, Alion and Navantia weren't exactly happy with the Canadian selection outcome.
Isn't this basically a fairly straight forward change, with most of the existing mount and parts being exactly the same.
The Typhoon Mk-30c, is light (1200kg loaded), carries more ammunition, greater firing arcs and has the better range and power (airbursts?) of the 30mm. Would seem to be an ideal upgrade. Designed to be be bolted on replacing existing setups.
Agree StingrayOZ
Typhoon Mk-30c, certainly has it's appeal
Attached is a good overview
Defence Technology Review : DTR OCT 2017, Page 8
I wonder what will come of the typhoon mounts off the Armidale class when they retire.
Maybe refurbished in a new calibre and spread across the fleet!!!!
Regards S
Typhoon Mk-30c, certainly has it's appeal
Attached is a good overview
Defence Technology Review : DTR OCT 2017, Page 8
I wonder what will come of the typhoon mounts off the Armidale class when they retire.
Maybe refurbished in a new calibre and spread across the fleet!!!!
Regards S
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I am uncertain whether or not there would really be any value in upgrading existing Typhoon mountings with 25 mm Bushmaster I guns to 30 mm Bushmaster II guns. As things now stand, there are something like 19 Typhoon mountings kitted out with the M242 Bushmaster 25 mm cannon. Given how long the M242 Bushmaster has been in ADF service, I suspect there is a plentiful supply of parts and spares to sustain a comparatively small pool of guns for RAN use. Particularly when one considers just how many M242's are or likely have been in ADF service, what with them being the main armament for the ASLAV. There is also likely going to be a plentiful supply of 25 mm munitions already in Australia.
Please do not misunderstand me. I do not really think a 25 mm M242 in a Typhoon mounting is really an adequate naval gun. The range and effect of the round is rather short, and the ROF of the gun is really inadequate to defend or intercept aerial threats. Pretty much all it would be appropriate for is defending against swarming smallcraft. A larger 30 mm M44 Bushmaster II would have increased range as well as increased effect due to the larger size of the round and more options which the round can come in. However, the ROF would still be inadequate against inbound aerial threats so it would not be suitable as a CIWS.
If the gun/mounting combination was to remain restricted to use against smallcraft, I do not really see a capability gain sufficiently large to justify upgrading to yet another calibre.
If the RAN were to decide to standardize upon a single mounting and small calibre rapid-fire gun across the fleet, then there would be some merit in making such a change. For right now though, I would advise keeping what is already in service.
The RAN honours CAPT J P Stevenson. Commander of HMAS Melbourne at time of Evans collision.
RIP Sir.
There are no flowers on a sailor’s grave
No lilies on an ocean wave
The only tribute is the seagulls sweep
And the tears upon a loved one’s cheek
Fear not for those who go down to the sea in ships
For as sunset draws near and dawn breaks afar
We remember those who have crossed the bar
They shall not grow old
as we who are left grow old.
Age shall not weary them
nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun
and in the morning,
we will remember them.
Lest we forget.
RIP Sir.
There are no flowers on a sailor’s grave
No lilies on an ocean wave
The only tribute is the seagulls sweep
And the tears upon a loved one’s cheek
Fear not for those who go down to the sea in ships
For as sunset draws near and dawn breaks afar
We remember those who have crossed the bar
They shall not grow old
as we who are left grow old.
Age shall not weary them
nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun
and in the morning,
we will remember them.
Lest we forget.
I saw this mentioned on the RAN Facebook page recently but they conveniently left out the 'controversy'. So sad that he was made out to be a scapegoat like that when he did everything by the book. R.I.P
Phase it in over time, the Hunters will have 30mm AFAIK. (wonder if they will use the dsm30 mount?)
When the AWD's come in for refit do them up. LHD as well.
Probably leave the ANZACs and all the others. Apparently there is a kit like upgrade for existing mounts. So it isn't really expensive or a burden. 80% of parts or something are the same. Training etc would basically be the same.
One of the key advantages is a mount that has greater elevation, better able to take out things like drones etc.
I wonder if with more top weight becoming available and larger ships, if Goalkeeper CIWS might make a comeback too.
You're bringing up a controversy from long ago on which there were a number of differing views. There is no doubt that John Robertson was made a scapegoat by the Royal Commission for Melbourne/Voyager and that the Navy didn't treat him well. Things are less clear about JP (despite what he wife claimed in a couple of books, remembering that the Hickling books on M/V had recently been published); certainly the view at the time of the part of the Navy in which I was then serving was that he pulled the trigger early, having assumed he was being treated the same. In those days any CO involved in a collision would, as a matter of course, be court martialled for hazarding his ship - JP was, and was honourably acquitted. You can't ask for more than that. In the aftermath, Robbo was posted as CO Watson, definitely inferior to CO Melbourne. JP was posted as CoS FOCAF which if it wasn't then soon after became a CDRE's position (as did CoS FOICEA), and not in most people's view inferior (in fact, it became a recognised route to promotion). It was long ago and far away but I'm pretty sure that by the time the BoI and CM were over, another CO has been appointed to Melbourne, so he had to be posted somewhere.
At the same time he was (from brief personal contact and from the reports of others) a great bloke, an excellent Naval Officer and a good CO who if he hadn't resigned might have got to the top (always a might, it's a dog eat dog world). RIP.
Last edited:
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Which OTO Melara gun are you referring to? The 76 mm/62 cal. one? If so, I seriously doubt it since a gun that size is not something that is easily retro-fitted, not to mention that there would be some definite fire arc issues.
I seriously doubt Goalkeeper would ever enter RAN service, since it is a deck penetrating gun, unlike the Phalanx. This means that the RAN cannot operate a pool of Goalkeeper CIWS like can be done with the Phalanx.
Me being me, I do think that the RAN is going in the wrong direction to a degree by looking to have so many different calibre guns in service. IMO the RAN would be better served by adopting a single mounting/small calibre gun to be fitted to new vessels planned for RAN service. I had posted about this somewhere previously within this thread, but as of right now, the RAN operates three different types and sizes of small calibre gun, each with their own type of mounting. Once the Arafura-class OPV and Hunter-class FFG enter service, that number will increase to at least four, and more likely five.
That in turn means at least four different lines of munitions, as well as four different supply chains to maintain the mountings and guns. There will also be at least four different training qualifications in order to operate and/or maintain the guns. For instance, someone qualified for a RAN posting operating or maintaining the 40 mm gun/mounting which is to be fitted aboard Arafura-class OPV's could not be reassigned to a Hunter-class FFG or Hobart-class DDG to operate/maintain the small calibre guns on those vessels, unless the person was already cross-trained to support the different small guns.
From my perspective, it would be better to simply the training, logistics and support streams by standardizing across the fleet, at least for the planned new construction. Especially since there are gun options available which can be effective across a greater range (pun intended) of targets.
I assumed seapear was talking about the (Leonardo) Oto Marlin 40 which is the gun chosen for the Arafura Class. Weighs 2100kg, non deck penetrating etc etc.
oldsig
i
I think the controversy was more to do with the way how both the Australian Naval Board and the government of the day accepted or rather cowed to the disgusting decision made by the USN BOI to put much blame for the collision onto Melbourne and ignore the total incompetence displayed by the two Officers of the Watch/Deck on Frank E Evans. This was a political decision due to the relentless kowtowing by the government to seek US favour during the VN war.
Fact, the two Evans watchkeepers had less bridge time than me, a lowly phase 3 Midshipman aboard Melbourne qualified to do little more than sharpen the OOW pencils.
Fact, the CO of EVans was asleep during a complex, close quarters manoeuvre at night, and,
Fact, all COs had been briefed and warned by CO Melbourne about this very circumstance only 3 days prior in Manila.
I may be biased but like others here, I was there and I will never lose respect for CO Melbourne and I will always wonder about the generalist training of USN junior watchkeepers.
- Status