Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[ngatimozart]

Whilst I understand that NGS is very nice indeed to have when your storming the beaches, as noted on this forum many times in the past, D-Day style landings are not in our CONOPS, and the demand for NGS is possibly pretty low compared to other competing requirements. So why are we dedicating so much space and weight to it?

It's not a nice to have. Yes the consensus is that Normandy and Iwo Jima scale amphibious landings will not happen again, it does not mean that NGS is no longer required for smaller scale landings. There will still be a requirement for it there.

I suspect that part of the reason the USN is adopting the 57mm main gun is the smart ammo being developed for it, particularly Mad-Fires, which would essentially provide a Phalanx replacement with significantly longer reach and a much deeper magazine, without requiring a dedicated system occupying precious real estate.

The last online information I can find on Mad Fires is here (DARPA contracts Raytheon for third phase of MAD FIRES program development) which suggests that development is still ongoing...unclear when an operation system would be available.

Alamo guided anti ship rounds (FACs etc) are also being developed, but less recent news on that program.

If these guided rounds become operational, the 57mm becomes a very attractive option as a CIWS (against both missiles and small boats) and far superior to the soon-to-be antique Phalanx, and also allows space and weight to be allocated to other things...ie potentially additional VLS.

Worth considering?

The USN is specifying the BAE 57mm gun on the FFG-62 Constellation Class frigates only. There is no intention to replace the 5in guns on the DDG-51 Arleigh Burke Class destroyers with the 57mm gun. There never was so make sure of your facts. The USN is a far larger navy than the RAN so is able to make choices that the RAN cannot.

 

[Richo99]

Yeah i know the 57 mm is not and was never destined for the ABs...never said it was... only the freedom, independence and constellation classes....a lot of hulls.

And agree that ngs is essential in some (I suspect, limited) circumstances.

However if you have a constrained hull, you need to make choices.... and the question I'm asking is, would you prefer improved close in defence against anti-ship missiles, a threat which is fairly constant in the South China Sea I imagine, or would you prefer the ability to provide ngs on very rare occasions (ie once in the last 50 years).

And the RAN has made choices...its current choice is to mount a 5inch gun. It didn't just happen...it was chosen.

 

[Git_Kraken]

Whilst I understand that NGS is very nice indeed to have when your storming the beaches, as noted on this forum many times in the past, D-Day style landings are not in our CONOPS, and the demand for NGS is possibly pretty low compared to other competing requirements. So why are we dedicating so much space and weight to it?

I suspect that part of the reason the USN is adopting the 57mm main gun is the smart ammo being developed for it, particularly Mad-Fires, which would essentially provide a Phalanx replacement with significantly longer reach and a much deeper magazine, without requiring a dedicated system occupying precious real estate.

The last online information I can find on Mad Fires is here (DARPA contracts Raytheon for third phase of MAD FIRES program development) which suggests that development is still ongoing...unclear when an operation system would be available.

Alamo guided anti ship rounds (FACs etc) are also being developed, but less recent news on that program.

If these guided rounds become operational, the 57mm becomes a very attractive option as a CIWS (against both missiles and small boats) and far superior to the soon-to-be antique Phalanx, and also allows space and weight to be allocated to other things...ie potentially additional VLS.

Worth considering?

127mm is a mulitrole gun. Primarily for ASuW and NGS it is also used in the AAW role creating a massive cloud of fragments. NGS with VULCANO ammo can hit targets 100km away with GPS or using a laser guidance system or even IR. 127mm is an offense leaning system, designed to reach out and touch someone.

The 57mm being chosen for the Constellation class is more about the current 3P ammunition and to defend the ship itself. Excellent for small boats, UXV's and AAW. And it doesn't take up nearly as much space as a 127mm and provides an excellent defensive layer for frigates.

The argument you appear to be making is the ANZAC's need a better defensive gun and more defensive missiles (as the ANZAC Mk41's are not strike length). Making that change means the only offensive weapon they would have left would be Harpoons. That gun change would change their role within the fleet significantly. It makes them more survivable for sure, but reduces their flexibility as a GP frigate, making them essentially ASW.

 

[Meriv90]

The 127mm is BAE is succesfull with the Kingfisher munition will be even more multirole.
Novel technologies in anti-submarine warfare | Navy Lookout

Kingfisher

In 2019 BAE Systems revealed their KINGFISHER concept for a naval gun-launched modular carrier system. Essentially the frigate can use its 5inch/127mm gun to fire an ASW payload that could include small depth charges, sonobuoys, hydrographic sensors or acoustic decoys. The most promising, simple and affordable option appears to be the depth charge payload. Anti-submarine mortars delivering depth charges to short-range date back to World War II but gun-launching is a new concept, enabled by the accuracy of modern naval guns. Kingfisher could quickly lay a barrage of charges in response to fleeting sonar contacts out to several Kilometers, without the need for airborne delivery of expensive homing torpedoes. Small and affordable depth charges may also be an ideal antidote to UUVs and several ships could fire patterns to cover a wide area relatively quickly. Multiple small underwater explosions would also temporarily deafen submarine or torpedo guidance sonars. Kingfisher could also be used as a ‘hard kill’ anti-torpedo defence system.

In surface actions there is a flexible ladder of escalation that can be used before opening fire; hailing by radio, illumination by fire-control radar, aggressive positioning or a warning shot across the bows. In undersea warfare there a very few options to discourage or deter an adversary without sinking them. Sending a burst of active sonar reveals the position of the emitter and may involve sacrificing the tactical advantage. Kingfisher offers a scaleable response to warn an adversary by laying small depth charges close by without sinking the target. As the line between war and conflict becomes increasingly blurred, having non-lethal response options assumes greater importance.


Other types of payload for Kingfisher would appear to present many more technical problems. A Sonobuoy would require re-engineering to fit into a 5-inch shell and withstand the huge G-forces created when fired from a gun barrel.


Work on Kingfisher has been underway since 2018, self-financed through BAE Systems’ own innovation fund but there has been some coordination with DTSL and the Maritime Capability (MARCAP) staff at NCHQ. The RN has not issued a formal requirement for the system but purchase of the depth charge version would seem like a very sensible low-cost option to equip the Type 26 frigates.

IMHO even if by being Italian Im biased toward the 76mm the 127 probably will become way way more useful.

 

[MickB]

The 127mm is BAE is succesfull with the Kingfisher munition will be even more multirole.
Novel technologies in anti-submarine warfare | Navy Lookout


IMHO even if by being Italian Im biased toward the 76mm the 127 probably will become way way more useful.

I know. early days but could development of the Kingfisher and similar rounds negate the requirement for the light weight torpedos.
Allowing for the removal of the launchers, the weapons and handling equipment and crew required to service them.
This would go part way to the weight of an additional VLS.

 

[Richo99]

The argument you appear to be making is the ANZAC's need a better defensive gun and more defensive missiles (as the ANZAC Mk41's are not strike length). Making that change means the only offensive weapon they would have left would be Harpoons. That gun change would change their role within the fleet significantly. It makes them more survivable for sure, but reduces their flexibility as a GP frigate, making them essentially ASW.

Not necessarily advocating the change, just posing the question.

I am increasingly concerned however that any ship within 100km or so of a Chinese (for instance) coastline will be more of a big juicy target for land based AShM than an effective source of NGS.

 

[oldsig127]

Not necessarily advocating the change, just posing the question.

I am increasingly concerned however that any ship within 100km or so of a Chinese (for instance) coastline will be more of a big juicy target for land based AShM than an effective source of NGS.

Hang about. When did we decide we needed or wanted, to tool up to attack Chinese coasts? By ourselves.

This thread reads like a mashup of Henny Penny/Chicken Little (The sky is falling!) and Hanrahan (We'll all be rooned!) recited by Corporal Jones from Dad's Army (Don't Panic!) informed mostly by press speculation.

oldsig

 

[Richo99]

Hang about. When did we decide we needed or wanted, to tool up to attack Chinese coasts? By ourselves.

This thread reads like a mashup of Henny Penny/Chicken Little (The sky is falling!) and Hanrahan (We'll all be rooned!) recited by Corporal Jones from Dad's Army (Don't Panic!) informed mostly by press speculation.

oldsig

"For instance" is what I said. Presumably if you are lobbing 5inch shells over 100km ( or far less without ER ammo) on to hostile targets, that hostile might have something to shoot back with...What NGS scenario do you suggest we should be preparing for?

 

[Takao]

"For instance" is what I said. Presumably if you are lobbing 5inch shells over 100km ( or far less without ER ammo) on to hostile targets, that hostile might have something to shoot back with...What NGS scenario do you suggest we should be preparing for?

Anywhere that isn't the mainland of a nuclear armed nation?

Perhaps one of the hundreds of thousands of kilometres of shore that is in our region, but isn't mainland China?

 

[Swifty87]

We are hearing that as part of the TransCap Upgrade there will be complete rearming of the ship. Intention (at this stage) will be for Harpoon/AShM to move aft of the Bridge onto the GDP. Harpoon Deck will be fitted with 1x 8 cell VLS, 3rd VLS to be installed in original spot next to current 8 cell VLS module. 3x 8 cell modules in total. Unsure if true, however 32 ESSM/16 SM2 would be a nice result....

 

[Stampede]

Happy to be corrected but the magazine for the 127m is set well down in the hull which does provide weight below the CoG with the hoist gear and projectiles (when filled). The Mk41 will carry the missile and launcher weight higher than that. Without having access to the stability data it is not possible to work out the implications but I don't thinks it is like for like.

If defence are looking at this they 'may' have a solution which may mean a bit more ballast or changes to the upper works or .... god forbid.... hull bulges. Just speculating but it will be interesting to see what they come up with if this is the intent.

Alexsa - just my armchair questimate.

Not sure if there is much depth to the ship where the main gun sits.

A couple of pic's off Anzac Class Images

https://www.navyhistory.org.au/wp-content/uploads/AO13656_Anzac_Class_Frigate.jpg

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/eb/b1/65/ebb165aa1f1ad170bbf0e55dcdc15982.jpg

Interested in the "god forbid" hull bulges alarm.
I confess to know nothing of the subject other than a quick search on the net to now make me and expert!

Bulges appear to have two uses.
One extra buoyancy and the other an additional layer of protection against torpedo's.
Seems very much a WW11 solution for the needs of the day.

In the modern context it would give buoyancy to permit greater top weight.

What are the down sides to this approach?

Also puzzled as to why a bulbous bow has not been installed on the Anzac Class during their respective refits.
It is a feature found on much of the rest of the fleet, including ships currently planned or in construction.

Any advice?

Thanks S

 

[CJR]

What are the down sides to this approach?

Greater wetted area; greater cross-sectional area; messier lines (thus more turbulent flow around the hull)... All of which mean more drag, and thus a slower ship.

 

[ADMk2]

We are hearing that as part of the TransCap Upgrade there will be complete rearming of the ship. Intention (at this stage) will be for Harpoon/AShM to move aft of the Bridge onto the GDP. Harpoon Deck will be fitted with 1x 8 cell VLS, 3rd VLS to be installed in original spot next to current 8 cell VLS module. 3x 8 cell modules in total. Unsure if true, however 32 ESSM/16 SM2 would be a nice result....

Who exactly is ‘we’? Would be amazing if true as we’ve been told for so long that weight and balance margins are very fine on the class… Wondering where all this new SWAP is suddenly coming from?

If the RAN is intending to max out the ANZAC Class with up to 24x Mk.41 VLS (assuming it can be done…) I can’t imagine it being content for long with a 32x cell VLS on a ship the size of a Hunter Class?

 

[ngatimozart]

We are hearing that as part of the TransCap Upgrade there will be complete rearming of the ship. Intention (at this stage) will be for Harpoon/AShM to move aft of the Bridge onto the GDP. Harpoon Deck will be fitted with 1x 8 cell VLS, 3rd VLS to be installed in original spot next to current 8 cell VLS module. 3x 8 cell modules in total. Unsure if true, however 32 ESSM/16 SM2 would be a nice result....

Welcome to the forum. We have a set of rules here which I suggest that you read.

You have made some claims in your post without supplying any evidence to support them. The rules require that links be provided to reputable reliable sources to support claims. If http links aren't available then such sources are to be cited in the post.

FYI this is a not a request, but a requirement made by a Moderator and as such is not to be ignored. I know you cannot edit in the sources to your original post so reply to your post with the sources.

 

[FoxtrotRomeo999]

There does not appear to be any public documents other than a Hansard Query on Transition Capability Assurance Program or TransCap. Should we be discussing it?

 

[ADMk2]

There does not appear to be any public documents other than a Hansard Query on Transition Capability Assurance Program or TransCap. Should we be discussing it?

It’s a known public program. IF 2x extra sets of VLS are added and the ASM’s moved amidship, that is not something that would be failed to be noticed, so not sure what point failing to discuss the possibilities would serve?

 

[seaspear]

I'm not sure if this has been covered before but this article goes into detail about the ability of anti-shipping missiles and how radars like Ceafar would be able to counter, a question might be if instead of an increase of missiles more Nulka type canister systems were installed

Protecting the Hunters - Asian Military Review

Dr. Thomas Withington analyses the electronic warfare potential of the Royal Australian Navy's new frigates.

www.asianmilitaryreview.com

Also, the U.S.N has committed to adding a different payload that the Nulka system does not address is this something that may be considered

L3Harris to build shipboard electronic warfare (EW) payloads to protect Navy ships from anti-ship missiles

The ADAP payload provides an advanced EW transmitter and increased signal processing capability to target missile threats that existing systems do not.

www.militaryaerospace.com

 

[oldsig127]

I'm not sure if this has been covered before but this article goes into detail about the ability of anti-shipping missiles and how radars like Ceafar would be able to counter, a question might be if instead of an increase of missiles more Nulka type canister systems were installed

Protecting the Hunters - Asian Military Review

Dr. Thomas Withington analyses the electronic warfare potential of the Royal Australian Navy's new frigates.

www.asianmilitaryreview.com

Also, the U.S.N has committed to adding a different payload that the Nulka system does not address is this something that may be considered

L3Harris to build shipboard electronic warfare (EW) payloads to protect Navy ships from anti-ship missiles

The ADAP payload provides an advanced EW transmitter and increased signal processing capability to target missile threats that existing systems do not.

www.militaryaerospace.com

Not a bad article, spoiled somewhat by his error of fact regarding how many Hunters are to be built (three, rather than the actual nine). Careless, but at a quick reading not definitive evidence that anything else is suspect.

oldsig

 

[Stampede]

Greater wetted area; greater cross-sectional area; messier lines (thus more turbulent flow around the hull)... All of which mean more drag, and thus a slower ship.

I figure reduced speed would be the trade off.

Any thoughts on the lack of a bulbous bow for the Anzac Class


Regards S

 

[Stampede]

Not a bad article, spoiled somewhat by his error of fact regarding how many Hunters are to be built (three, rather than the actual nine). Careless, but at a quick reading not definitive evidence that anything else is suspect.

oldsig

My take was the author assumes the Hunters were to be produced in batches of three.

Certainly does highlight the importance of identifying incoming threats and the time taken to respond.

Maybe a medium sized UAV AEW type system is the way forward for those navy's of the size of the RAN without a E-2 Hawkeye sized platform.

Regards S