Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[ddxx]

I think it’s pretty clear that a single CWIS won’t work, it will be impossible to get the arc of fire necessary to do the required job.

Yes, I wasn't sure if SeaRAM, being guided missile based, would actually need the arc which Phalanx requires. Phalanx being gun based needs to literally 'aim' to hit the target, where as with SeaRAM the missile itself does the 'aiming'?

Edit: Just a thought, SeaRAM's arc size might have a really small, yet potentially crucial impact on speed of engagement? Being able to 'point' the launcher in the rough general direction of the threat should in theory save transit time? Against a Hypersonic, even a few milliseconds could make a big difference.

 

[Boagrius]

Yes, I wasn't sure if SeaRAM, being guided missile based, would actually need the arc which Phalanx requires. Phalanx being gun based needs to literally 'aim' to hit the target, where as with SeaRAM the missile itself does the 'aiming'?

Edit: Just a thought, SeaRAM's arc size might have a really small, yet potentially crucial impact on speed of engagement? Being able to 'point' the launcher in the rough general direction of the threat should in theory save transit time? Against a Hypersonic, even a few milliseconds could make a big difference.

Yep, SeaRAM uses a trainable launcher and is generally pointed at the target before launch AFAIK. Strikes me as an ideal fit against sub and supersonic ASMs. Potentially impractical against hypersonics though. SM6 may be the closest thing you'll get to a "CIWS" against some of those.

 

[Gryphinator]

AFR Andrew Tillett is reporting the 40mm gun on the Arafura class has been cancelled and the Typhoons will step in until a replacement is found. Certification and a revised threat assessment are the reasons given. I tried to attach a link but failed sadly....

 

[John Newman]

Yes, I wasn't sure if SeaRAM, being guided missile based, would actually need the arc which Phalanx requires. Phalanx being gun based needs to literally 'aim' to hit the target, where as with SeaRAM the missile itself does the 'aiming'?

Edit: Just a thought, SeaRAM's arc size might have a really small, yet potentially crucial impact on speed of engagement? Being able to 'point' the launcher in the rough general direction of the threat should in theory save transit time? Against a Hypersonic, even a few milliseconds could make a big difference.

Yes I do understand it’s a movable missile that’s launched vs a lump of unguided metal, but even so, I would image a single SeaRAM mounted above the hanger would have a restricted arc of fire.

Below is a graphic from above the stern quarter of a Hunter FFG, the logical placement would be where the Nulka launcher is located on the hangar roof.

And either side of that location is both exhaust stacks and sensor or communication masts.

The arc of fire would be limited to approx 90 degrees, or less, of the centre line.

On the other hand, the current Phalanx mounts appear to have a close to 180 degree arc, almost the full length either side of the ship.

I’m not saying we shouldn’t change out Phalanx for SeaRAM, more that a single mount above the hangar is a backward step.

 

[ddxx]

AFR Andrew Tillett is reporting the 40mm gun on the Arafura class has been cancelled and the Typhoons will step in until a replacement is found. Certification and a revised threat assessment are the reasons given. I tried to attach a link but failed sadly....

Defence quietly cancels another navy contract – after denying problems

The Defence Department cancelled a contract for the main gun for new patrol boats, as cumulative delays exceed more than 33 years for defence projects.

www.afr.com

I guess that makes the already platform integrated 57mm the most likely new fit?

 

[John Newman]

I guess that makes the already platform integrated 57mm the most likely new fit?

No, not necessarily, from the AFR article:

“The Australian Financial Review revealed in March that there were problems integrating the main 40mm gun with the patrol boat’s combat system, although the Defence Department denied there was an issue.

“However, the audit report revealed in June that because of “technical certification concerns” raised by the navy, and a “revised threat assessment”, Defence ordered the OPV’s builder, Luerssen, to terminate the main gun contract with Italian supplier Leonardo Australia.

“The report said an interim gun solution was being investigated and the navy’s existing Typhoon guns would be used until a replacement was identified.”


If the problem is with integration with the Combat System, and if the CS is specific to the Arafura class (not the parent class) it doesn’t necessarily mean that the 57mm is automatically integrated.

Anyway, we really need to have clarification from Defence before assumptions are made.

 

[Stampede]

AFR Andrew Tillett is reporting the 40mm gun on the Arafura class has been cancelled and the Typhoons will step in until a replacement is found. Certification and a revised threat assessment are the reasons given. I tried to attach a link but failed sadly....

Interesting development.
First I've heard of such a change.

Nice to have some clarity as to whether it's just an integration issue or a change of heart for a different weapon system.

I've had no success in a google search so can anyone provide a link for more info



Regards S

 

[Stampede]

Interesting article in today's " The Strategist "by Sam Goldsmith



Pertinent to the conversation re Sea Ram and defending our surface fleet

Staying alive in the RAN surface fleet: failure is not an option | The Strategist

The threat spectrum for surface combatants—ships that can engage air, surface, subsurface and shore targets—is rapidly expanding and increasingly lethal. Threats include mines, torpedoes, cruise missiles, ballistic missiles and swarms of microdrones. This article focuses ...

www.aspistrategist.org.au

Thoughts



Regards S

 

[ADMk2]

Defence quietly cancels another navy contract – after denying problems

The Defence Department cancelled a contract for the main gun for new patrol boats, as cumulative delays exceed more than 33 years for defence projects.

www.afr.com

I guess that makes the already platform integrated 57mm the most likely new fit?

Who knows? But interesting turn of events given how long we’ve been told these 1600t navy ship looking vessels (despite being substantially bigger and with greater displacement than many genuine combat vessels) will never be at risk, because reasons…

 

[Stampede]

Who knows? But interesting turn of events given how long we’ve been told these 1600t navy ship looking vessels (despite being substantially bigger and with greater displacement than many genuine combat vessels) will never be at risk, because reasons…

An awkward conversation given the history of this subject on DT.

I find it difficult to understand how problematic it would be to integrate a well established combat system with a well established weapons supplier.
Is it an issue of dollars / timing / or something else............................................Strange!!!!

As to options.

Well if the OPV is just a constabulary vessel then we may just settle with Typhoon long term.
Could be we just upgrade to the 30mm caliber to finally standardise with this size across our fleet.
Not a great endeavour to change to 30mm on existing mounts currently on our major warships.
A good result for time and coin spent.
30mm has some extra range and options of shell types.

As to the Arafura's, they are only so big.
If the 40 mm is no longer, then this space without modification will only take a non deck penetrating gun or missile system.
57mm would be top end for a gun.
A missile system would be free standing, but if that path is taken the vessel is moving away from being an OPV.

Really making this conversation a dead end until more information comes to hand.


Regards S

 

[spoz]

Note that the Leonardo gun is supposed to have problems. There are other 40s around, such as the BAE (Bofors) weapon which has programmable ammunition, is quite widely fitted and is going in the T31s.

I have been unable to confirm thatt the version of the Leonardo gun that was proposed for the OPVs has even been subject to proof firings; it appears (but I may well be wrong) to be a paper gun, or at least to have been a paper gun when Luerssen selected it. Suspect that may have something to do with the issue, if there is one.

 

[Tasman]

Note that the Leonardo gun is supposed to have problems. There are other 40s around, such as the BAE (Bofors) weapon which has programmable ammunition, is quite widely fitted and is going in the T31s.

I have been unable to confirm thatt the version of the Leonardo gun that was proposed for the OPVs has even been subject to proof firings; it appears (but I may well be wrong) to be a paper gun, or at least to have been a paper gun when Luerssen selected it. Suspect that may have something to do with the issue, if there is one.

I have to say that I have been amazed at some of the decision making concerning the OPVs. I have nothing against the Luerssen design because I am limited to what is in the public domain but I was perplexed at the decision to remove the ability to land a helicopter. I was also was surprised that the 57mm gun was replaced in the RAN version by the Leonardo 40mm because, whilst a huge step up from the 25mm Typhoon, it seemed to me to be less flexible in covering the range of continencies that these vessels may face in the next 2 or 3 decades. However after reading the Leonardo publicity blurb I was satisfied that it was a still a major step up from the Typhoon. If Spoz's suspicion that the version selected was only an untested paper design it seems to be yet another addition to the selection failures that have plagued the ADF (especially the army and navy). To maintain taxpayer confidence the last thing we need is yet another ADF procurement fiasco, especially with what, IMO, should have been a comparatively simple selection process.

Tas

 

[spoz]

Not really an ADF issue; we selected the Luerssen design for the OPV which included the Leonardo gun. That was a Luerssen choice; likely because it was cheap while meeting the spec. The ADF could probably have negotiated a change but that would have almost certainly have upped the cost (even if they wanted the BAE 40, which looks to be a really good gun btw); and in general terms you don't go against your contractor and designer's recommendation unless you have good reason too.

I'm not privy to what went on inside the decision making process but it is entirely possible the fact that the gun would not be ready, if indeed it won't, was not visible to the CoA at the time and thjerefore they would have had no reason to argue. Nor am I privy to what the outcome of the contractor being unable to fulfill part of his contract might be if that is in fact what occurs and the Leonardo gun is unavailable. The contract may even have specified that Luerssen were to source and provide the gun; that's not common (it's usually a government purchase) but it is certianly possible.

Nor am I privy to why the 57mm was not offered/specified although it is (much) more expensive. But it is entirely possible that the tender documentation specified a weapon of "not more than 40mm" or some such - again, unless inside the decision making process at the time why that might be so is very difficult to determine - again if it was! Without a lot more information than is in the public arena it is difficult to determine what the reasons behind particular choices might be and to follow the logic path that leads to a particular end point.

 

[Depot Dog]

Regarding the OPV gun, could this be another Dutton intervention. He has form with subs and helicopters. He has warned contractors and suppliers to lift their game.
Regards
DD

 

[John Newman]

Regarding the OPV gun, could this be another Dutton intervention. He has form with subs and helicopters. He has warned contractors and suppliers to lift their game.
Regards
DD

Dutton has ‘form’? Another intervention? Seriously?

The process to dump the Attack class SSGs and replace with a fleet of SSNs started about 20mths ago under the previous Def Min (was well reported and documented at the time of the decision). Dutton didn’t become Def Min until March 2021.

The MRH90 fleet has been on life support for many many years and all those problems are very well documented, the MRH90 fleet has been a problem for a very long list of previous Def Mins, the problems with the MRH90 fleet fall directly at the feet of the manufacturer.

The Arafura gun, so far all we have is an article published by the AFR, and with very little detail.

Again, Dutton has form? Sorry, but that’s rubbish.

 

[ngatimozart]

Regarding the OPV gun, could this be another Dutton intervention.
He has form with subs and helicopters.
He has warned contractors and suppliers to lift their game.
Regards
DD

To right that Minister Dutton should remind the contractors and suppliers to lift their game. The Commonwealth of Australia is after all the customer who is paying for the product and / or service. With thousands, millions, and billions of Australian taxpayers dollars at stake, and both a moral and legal responsibility to ensure that the taxpayers money is not needlessly wasted, mis-spent, or illegally spent. Certain defence companies have been caught out using nefarious practices in some countries in order to secure contracts. Some others have used less than honest practices to secure a contract by low bidding and excessive promising, then being unable to deliver within budget and on time. How many defence firms has India blackballed over the years for allegations of bribing Indian government political, bureaucratic, and procurement officials?

Boeings bidding on the KC-46 project is an example and that has spectacularly backfired on them because the first USAF tranche is a fixed price contract, and so far they've had to wear cost overruns of greater value than the original contract. Airbus has had to pay the A400M partner governments tens of billions of euros in penalties for the continual delays to the program and the budget blowouts. Plus the partner nations have had to provide Airbus with multiple cash injections to keep the program running.

 

[ADMk2]

I have to say that I have been amazed at some of the decision making concerning the OPVs. I have nothing against the Luerssen design because I am limited to what is in the public domain but I was perplexed at the decision to remove the ability to land a helicopter. I was also was surprised that the 57mm gun was replaced in the RAN version by the Leonardo 40mm because, whilst a huge step up from the 25mm Typhoon, it seemed to me to be less flexible in covering the range of continencies that these vessels may face in the next 2 or 3 decades. However after reading the Leonardo publicity blurb I was satisfied that it was a still a major step up from the Typhoon. If Spoz's suspicion that the version selected was only an untested paper design it seems to be yet another addition to the selection failures that have plagued the ADF (especially the army and navy). To maintain taxpayer confidence the last thing we need is yet another ADF procurement fiasco, especially with what, IMO, should have been a comparatively simple selection process.

Tas

Indeed, some of the reporting on the ‘gun’ issue suggests RAN / Defence just left it up to contractors to specify a gun… If so, that seems unbelievably cavalier…

Will said gun system integrate and work with the SAAB 9LV combat system RAN has specified? Who knows… We’re letting the contractor pick it. (Funnily enough it turns out it doesn’t…)

Does the gun system meet EO handling and storage requirements for RAN? Who knows… We’re letting the contractor pick it. (Funnily enough it turns out it doesn’t…)

Does the gun and ammunition natures selected actually address perceived threats to this vessel? Who knows… Maybe? We’re letting the contractor pick it. (Funnily enough it turns out it doesn’t…)

If the above is actually representative of RAN / Defence decision making with this vessel, I must say I am concerned…

 

[ADMk2]

Note that the Leonardo gun is supposed to have problems. There are other 40s around, such as the BAE (Bofors) weapon which has programmable ammunition, is quite widely fitted and is going in the T31s.

I have been unable to confirm thatt the version of the Leonardo gun that was proposed for the OPVs has even been subject to proof firings; it appears (but I may well be wrong) to be a paper gun, or at least to have been a paper gun when Luerssen selected it. Suspect that may have something to do with the issue, if there is one.

ANAO reported 3 issues with the Leonardo gun.

1. Not integrated with 9LV.
2. Doesn’t meet EO handling / storage requirements or RAN’s desire for ‘commonality’.
3. A review of RAN’s threat assessment for this class has recommended against this system...

Dot point 3 most are assuming, means RAN has assessed a need for more capability, not less, but that is purely speculation at present as RAN has refused to comment on this, even though ANAO has published this information…

 

[Stampede]

ANAO reported 3 issues with the Leonardo gun.

1. Not integrated with 9LV.
2. Doesn’t meet EO handling / storage requirements or RAN’s desire for ‘commonality’.
3. A review of RAN’s threat assessment for this class has recommended against this system...

Dot point 3 most are assuming, means RAN has assessed a need for more capability, not less, but that is purely speculation at present as RAN has refused to comment on this, even though ANAO has published this information…

If there is a positive, they have actually made a decision.
If the Leonardo 40mm is not fit for purpose we will get an alternative "something "

Timing may not be ideal as the NUship Arafura is due to hit the water early next year but in the end I trust they will get right going forward.

Which is much better than struggling with something that's not meant to be.

Regards S

 

[spoz]

Actually, she is being floated off today.