What does this imply for the effectiveness of Phalanx?
The effectiveness of AHEAD munitions would also be in question.
I feel it would be better spend on layered ASMD.
Regards,
Massive
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
The effectiveness of AHEAD munitions would also be in question.
I feel it would be better spend on layered ASMD.
Regards,
Massive
Aerodynamic kills are only effective if they prevent the missile or debris from hitting the ship. To be effective they need to hit further out, or if they hit closer, they need to obliterate the target.
While there are many different options for missile defence and positives and negatives for all of them putting us in the position there isn't any perfect solution rather than looking at the weapons systems (can only have so many missiles or shell size will have X amount of shells available or at what ever effective range etc etc etc) what I am more curious about is how effective is Nulka? Is it already great, good enough or could it be improved. Taking out the missile threats almost always leaves the threat of debris but if we can trick the missile onto a false target well that is IMO just as important.
Going Boeing
Well-Known Member
I’m not up to speed on the latest versions of Phalanx but, I recall that they originally used depleted uranium shells as this gave it the KE to penetrate into the anti ship missile’s warhead causing it to explode an thus minimising damage to the ship. When DU shells stopped being used, did Phalanx lose this capability so that larger chunks of the missile debris can now reach the ship and cause significant damage?
Increasingly feel that any high-end conflict is going to be an intense sub-surface & air war with most ships staying home.
In addition, numbers of AshMs matter - multiple missiles will need to be launched at a single target - and this needs to be expected from any surface ship.
Regards,
Massive
In addition, numbers of AshMs matter - multiple missiles will need to be launched at a single target - and this needs to be expected from any surface ship.
Regards,
Massive
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Several things to unpack here. First, yes Phalanx has been getting reconsidered as a viable anti-missile CIWS for some time. I suspect this is at least partially why the Block 1B upgrade was developed, to also give the CIWS an anti-FAC/smallcraft capability to maintain at least some relevance given the number of units in service with the USN. Between the limited effective range (IIR ~1km) and ammunition, Phalanx just might not be effective enough as a 'last ditch' defensive weapon, particularly vs. large AShM with a supersonic terminal phase. Such a missile might have too much KE to prevent target impact(s) even if successfully hit by a CIWS.
One fact which people do seem to be overlooking though, is that CIWS are just that, close-in weapon systems. By definition they primarily for use in the close/innermost defensive layer immediately around a vessel. While it might be tempting for one to try and move towards a larger round and therefore gun, with a corresponding increase in the size of the mounting, there comes a point where IMO that becomes movement in the wrong direction.
IMO actual combatants should retain one (or more) guns for use in the innermost layer, to permit a potential response by the vessel in the event that there are leakers through the air defence layers which would be covered by different air defence missiles like the SM family, ESSM/Sea Ceptor, and possibly even RAM. That last one though, RAM, might be better to categorize as a missile-based CIWS though. At the same time, high value vessels like sealift and logistic vessels should be armed with some sort of CIWS, to enable the vessel to have at least some basic self-defense options in the event that the air defence bubble provided by escorts gets penetrated.
Where this gets tricksy, is deciding or determining just how much displacement, CoG, above & below deck real estate to devote to a gun system or systems, as well as incorporating the relevant sensors, electronics and CMS into the overall vessel design. For vessels requiring a self-defence capability, it makes little sense IMO to devote too much to areas outside of the vessels primary roles. For warships/escorts, the options can exist to allocate that 'extra' space and displacement towards expanding or increasing the primary air defence capabilities, rather than the last-ditch capabilities.
I suppose where I am going with this, is that for a navy the size of the RAN, it does seem to make more sense if the service standardized around a single type of main gun to be fitted to the majors, and then adopted a multi-role secondary gun which could be fitted to all of the armed RAN vessels. Adopting an additional, small calibre main gun (i.e. 57 mm Mk 110) to be fitted to OPV's which are currently unsuited for combat ops, and would remain unsuited even if so fitted, makes very little sense IMO, since it would require additional resources to support whilst not providing a capability improvement that IMO is significant enough to justify the addition.
The Mark 149-2 round had the DU penetrator, but this was replaced by a tungsten penetrator in the Mark 149-4 round back in 1988 due to concerns about the environmental impact and radiation exposure to the crew. The newer Mark 244 round also uses a tungsten alloy penetrator but heavier than the previous rounds whilst having a greater effective range.
Generally speaking, unless "A" the missile is very close when destroyed or "B" is of the climb and dive type in it's dive mode. Gravity will ensure that nothing hits the ship. By applying the gravitational acceleration (9.8m2) t to the speed of the missile and the height it was traveling at should give you the maximum distance that any debris can travel. In practice I would expect the distance to be significantly less than this as the debris will have lost it's aerodynamic shape and will decelerate rapidly. I did the calculation some time ago and from memory a subsonic missile travelling at 4m when destroyed, the debris would hit the sea in less than 120m.
Goal Keeper is essentially a 30mm version of Phalanx. So you would think it would be super popular and replacing the smaller more limited range and hitting power of Phalanx. But Goalkeeper is essentially dead in the water these days. AFAIK most countries have removed the mount of their ships or are in the process of doing so.
defbrief.com
As you upsize you take up space/money that a more effective missile system could fit.
I would point out the 57mm isn't really a CIWS. Its a GP gun with some anti air capability. One a lot of countries have chosen and that include higher end navies like the RN and USN. Including on 2 US coast guard vessels, 1 new US frigate, 1 UK frigate, quite popular in south east asia and Scandinavian small ships. A 57mm isn't replacing a CIWS, anywhere, that is a completely different mission. It may or may not be a fit for the RAN on the OPV (but it is the default fit for the OPV that the RAN chose), but is a realistic possibility, particularly if other assessed options don't eventuate.
But guns have advantages, people aren't making all missile only ships.
Dutch Navy replacing Goalkeeper CIWS with RAM missile, DART projectile combo
The Royal Netherlands Navy has opted for the combination of Rolling Airframe Missiles (RAM) and the DART 76 mm naval gun ammunition as a replacement for the ageing Goalkeeper close-in weapon system (CIWS) for their ships' self defense. When it was introduced in the early 1980s, the Goalkeeper rap
defbrief.com
As you upsize you take up space/money that a more effective missile system could fit.
I would point out the 57mm isn't really a CIWS. Its a GP gun with some anti air capability. One a lot of countries have chosen and that include higher end navies like the RN and USN. Including on 2 US coast guard vessels, 1 new US frigate, 1 UK frigate, quite popular in south east asia and Scandinavian small ships. A 57mm isn't replacing a CIWS, anywhere, that is a completely different mission. It may or may not be a fit for the RAN on the OPV (but it is the default fit for the OPV that the RAN chose), but is a realistic possibility, particularly if other assessed options don't eventuate.
It will take 1 second to fall 5 metres. If you are travelling at 3000kmph you would travel 830m ignoring aerodynamic drag. Say its av V is half, 400m. Still a supersonic mass when it hits the ship. 5m is quite low imo, Particularly at higher speed hypersonic missiles trying to track a target. Things also skip along the water surface particularly at high speed.
But guns have advantages, people aren't making all missile only ships.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Little bit more to it than that, since Goalkeeper is a bit more of a system, massing ~10 tonnes and requiring deck penetration. Phalanx is ~6 tonnes and requires a reinforced mounting, but minimal deck penetration. To provide some context for comparisons, a Mk 75 76 mm/62 OTO Melara Compact gun which includes some ordnance is ~8.5 tonnes.Goal Keeper is essentially a 30mm version of Phalanx. So you would think it would be super popular and replacing the smaller more limited range and hitting power of Phalanx. But Goalkeeper is essentially dead in the water these days. AFAIK most countries have removed the mount of their ships or are in the process of doing so.
Dutch Navy replacing Goalkeeper CIWS with RAM missile, DART projectile combo
The Royal Netherlands Navy has opted for the combination of Rolling Airframe Missiles (RAM) and the DART 76 mm naval gun ammunition as a replacement for the ageing Goalkeeper close-in weapon system (CIWS) for their ships' self defense. When it was introduced in the early 1980s, the Goalkeeper rap
As a CIWS, Goalkeeper is capable, but requires a fair bit of both space and displacement
Scott Elaurant
Well-Known Member
Moderators if this topic is out of bounds I will not repeat it. I understand you do not want to divert the blog to debates over "fantasy ships". This post raises the possibility of expanding the usage of existing ships, namely the LPDs Adelaide and Canberra.
I was reading recently of the Turkish Navy's efforts to turn their new LPD, the Anadolu, into a "drone carrier". As everyone knows, Turkey has been a major UAV drone supplier to Ukraine, with the Bayraktar TB2 being highly successful. The TB2 is small and has limited speed and payload, so I assume would not be suitable for long range sea missions. However the same manufacturer is making a larger, faster, longer range drone, with larger payloads, suitable for naval use from the new Turkish LPD, the Anadolu. The big drone is called the Akinci, which has started flying. See
www.dailysabah.com
The Andalou is shown here. as you can see, it is literally sister-ship of the Adelaide and Canberra.
www.dailysabah.com
The concept is discussed here. The TB3 is a naval version of the TB2.
turkishnavy.net
Some have suggested flying F35Bs off Adelaide and Canberra. My understanding is that the RAN LPDs have not been fitted with the many design features that would be needed to sustain that use and so I consider it unrealistic. The obvious advantage of the "drone carrier" approach is that the Akinci is much lighter than an F35B, similar to a helicopter in weight (Max TOL 5.5 tonnes). This is about half the TO weight of an SH60. The max. payload is still only 1.35 tonnes, so this will hardly turn the LPDs into real "carriers" but more importantly it can fly for 25 hours and cruise at 240 km/hr, so it has a huge range (7500km). This would give it a genuine ISR capability, perhaps linked to Tomahawks on AWDs, plus firing the occasional PGM. This might make a half dozen Akincis on an LPD quite useful. The Akinci's would cost $80 million US for 3, cheaper than a single F35B.
Apologies if I am barking up the wrong tree, but I wonder if something like this, integrated into existing RAN ships and systems, might be quite helpful to the RAN?
I was reading recently of the Turkish Navy's efforts to turn their new LPD, the Anadolu, into a "drone carrier". As everyone knows, Turkey has been a major UAV drone supplier to Ukraine, with the Bayraktar TB2 being highly successful. The TB2 is small and has limited speed and payload, so I assume would not be suitable for long range sea missions. However the same manufacturer is making a larger, faster, longer range drone, with larger payloads, suitable for naval use from the new Turkish LPD, the Anadolu. The big drone is called the Akinci, which has started flying. See
Turkey debuts landmark combat drone Akıncı with upgraded engines
Turkey’s landmark combat drone Akıncı on Wednesday underwent a successful flight test with upgraded engines that make it the most advanced platform in...
www.dailysabah.com
The Andalou is shown here. as you can see, it is literally sister-ship of the Adelaide and Canberra.
Turkey’s amphibious assault ship Anadolu begins sea tests
Sea tests began for Turkey’s multipurpose amphibious assault ship TCG Anadolu, according to an official from the shipyard that undertook the project...
www.dailysabah.com
The concept is discussed here. The TB3 is a naval version of the TB2.
Converting LHD Anadolu To A Drone Carrier
Prologue: This article was first published in Defence Turkey Magazine Issue 106. It is not a secret that Turkey intends to operate an aircraft carrier. This desire was made public by President Erdo…
turkishnavy.net
Some have suggested flying F35Bs off Adelaide and Canberra. My understanding is that the RAN LPDs have not been fitted with the many design features that would be needed to sustain that use and so I consider it unrealistic. The obvious advantage of the "drone carrier" approach is that the Akinci is much lighter than an F35B, similar to a helicopter in weight (Max TOL 5.5 tonnes). This is about half the TO weight of an SH60. The max. payload is still only 1.35 tonnes, so this will hardly turn the LPDs into real "carriers" but more importantly it can fly for 25 hours and cruise at 240 km/hr, so it has a huge range (7500km). This would give it a genuine ISR capability, perhaps linked to Tomahawks on AWDs, plus firing the occasional PGM. This might make a half dozen Akincis on an LPD quite useful. The Akinci's would cost $80 million US for 3, cheaper than a single F35B.
Apologies if I am barking up the wrong tree, but I wonder if something like this, integrated into existing RAN ships and systems, might be quite helpful to the RAN?
Last edited:
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Defence shelves SEA 129/5 in favour of Schiebel Camcopter | ADBR
Updated 4 May 2022 with Schiebel statement The Commonwealth has shelved the Royal Australian Navy’s Project SEA 129 Phase 5 Block 1 Maritime Unmanned Aircraft System (MUAS) tender process, and…
adbr.com.au
The main issue with any UAVs for the LHDs is, the RAN currently has no stated plans for operating any Aviation of them other then one Logistics Helicopter as per standard ops for all the RANs large ships(LHDs, AORs, LPD). All tactical Aviation off the LHDs is currently the Armies responsibility.Moderators if this topic is out of bounds I will not repeat it. I understand you do not want to divert the blog to debates over "fantasy ships". This post raises the possibility of expanding the usage of existing ships, namely the LPDs Adelaide and Canberra.
I was reading recently of the Turkish Navy's efforts to turn their new LPD, the Andalou, into a "drone carrier". As everyone knows, Turkey has been a major UAV drone supplier to Ukraine, with the Bayraktar TB2 being highly successful. The TB2 is small and has limited speed and payload, so I assume would not be suitable for long range sea missions. However the same manufacturer is making a larger, faster, longer range drone, with larger payloads, suitable for naval use from the new Turkish LPD, the Andalou. The big drone is called the Akinci, which has started flying. See
Turkey debuts landmark combat drone Akıncı with upgraded engines
Turkey’s landmark combat drone Akıncı on Wednesday underwent a successful flight test with upgraded engines that make it the most advanced platform in...
The Andalou is shown here. as you can see, it is literally sister-ship of the Adelaide and Canberra.
Turkey’s amphibious assault ship Anadolu begins sea tests
Sea tests began for Turkey’s multipurpose amphibious assault ship TCG Anadolu, according to an official from the shipyard that undertook the project...
The concept is discussed here.
Converting LHD Anadolu To A Drone Carrier
Prologue: This article was first published in Defence Turkey Magazine Issue 106. It is not a secret that Turkey intends to operate an aircraft carrier. This desire was made public by President Erdo…
Some have suggested flying F35Bs off Adelaide and Canberra. My understanding is that the RAN LPDs have not been fitted with the many design features that would be needed to sustain that use and so I consider it unrealistic. The obvious advantage of the "drone carrier" approach is that the Akinci is much lighter than an F35B, similar to a helicopter in weight (Max TOL 5.5 tonnes). The max. payload is still only 1.35 tonnes, so this will hardly turn the LPDs into real "carriers" but more importantly iot can fly for 25 hours and cruise at 240 km/hr, so it has a huge range (7500km). This woudl give it a genuine ISR capability, perhaps linked to Tomahawks on AWDs, plus firing the occasional PGM. This might make a half dozen Akincis on an LPD quite useful. The Akinci's would cost $80 million US for 3, cheaper than a single F35B.
Apologies if I am barking up the wrong tree, but I wonder if something like this, integrated into existing RAN ships and systems, might be quite helpful to the RAN?
I feel it is a good call.Confirmation that Sea 129 phase 5 has been shelved in favour of a sole-source acquisition of the Schiebel S-100 Camcopter. The S-100 was one of 5 contenders under Sea 129-5.Defence shelves SEA 129/5 in favour of Schiebel Camcopter | ADBR
Updated 4 May 2022 with Schiebel statement The Commonwealth has shelved the Royal Australian Navy’s Project SEA 129 Phase 5 Block 1 Maritime Unmanned Aircraft System (MUAS) tender process, and…
The main issue with any UAVs for the LHDs is, the RAN currently has no stated plans for operating any Aviation of them other then one Logistics Helicopter as per standard ops for all the RANs large ships(LHDs, AORs, LPD). All tactical Aviation off the LHDs is currently the Armies responsibility.
Navy have a good working knowledge of the S-100 and it is employed by many nations for both military and non military work.
If we are happy with the contract I'm confident the product will serve us well.
I suspect defence will push to get this capability as soon as possible.
Interesting that the Hobarts don't get the nod.
Apparently their hangar is tighter than the Anzac Class for space.
Cheers S
I'm confident that defence will fly everything it has off everything it has within the realm of practicality in time of serious conflict.Confirmation that Sea 129 phase 5 has been shelved in favour of a sole-source acquisition of the Schiebel S-100 Camcopter. The S-100 was one of 5 contenders under Sea 129-5.Defence shelves SEA 129/5 in favour of Schiebel Camcopter | ADBR
Updated 4 May 2022 with Schiebel statement The Commonwealth has shelved the Royal Australian Navy’s Project SEA 129 Phase 5 Block 1 Maritime Unmanned Aircraft System (MUAS) tender process, and…
The main issue with any UAVs for the LHDs is, the RAN currently has no stated plans for operating any Aviation of them other then one Logistics Helicopter as per standard ops for all the RANs large ships(LHDs, AORs, LPD). All tactical Aviation off the LHDs is currently the Armies responsibility.
Peace time ops should not be confused with the expediency and need of real world scenarios.
Ukraine has shown how the script gets thrown out the door very quickly in time of need.
I'm confident the LHD's aviation diversity will evolve over their life span.
Don't discount the AOR's hangar space. With two medium helicopters it still has a lot of spare room.
Cheers S
The range thing is an issue with Phalanx as well. Are you talking a flat trajectory range or an elevated gun range?
In Block IB2 guise, with Mk244 ELC cartridges and the new longer, optimised heavy barrel (recognisable by the heavy ‘cage’ muzzle brake) has a flat trajectory effective engagement range of 1650m, with a longer range in elevated mode.
So it very much depends on which Phalanx variant you are discussing, but most modern systems are capable of engaging threats effectively at around 2000m or so.
Just to be clear on the LHD. My information on the Canberra and Adelaide are identical to the JC1 from the flight deck down. So these have a latent VSTOL capability. However, use in this role detracts from their primary intended role and there is some question over the number of sorties the ship could support.
As noted in previous discussions the current operational practices applied by the RAN do not see the LHD operating fixed wing and there is currently no indication that Australia would buy the F-35.
Moderators if this topic is out of bounds I will not repeat it. I understand you do not want to divert the blog to debates over "fantasy ships". This post raises the possibility of expanding the usage of existing ships, namely the LPDs Adelaide and Canberra.
I was reading recently of the Turkish Navy's efforts to turn their new LPD, the Anadolu, into a "drone carrier". As everyone knows, Turkey has been a major UAV drone supplier to Ukraine, with the Bayraktar TB2 being highly successful. The TB2 is small and has limited speed and payload, so I assume would not be suitable for long range sea missions. However the same manufacturer is making a larger, faster, longer range drone, with larger payloads, suitable for naval use from the new Turkish LPD, the Anadolu. The big drone is called the Akinci, which has started flying. See
Turkey debuts landmark combat drone Akıncı with upgraded engines
Turkey’s landmark combat drone Akıncı on Wednesday underwent a successful flight test with upgraded engines that make it the most advanced platform in...
The Andalou is shown here. as you can see, it is literally sister-ship of the Adelaide and Canberra.
Turkey’s amphibious assault ship Anadolu begins sea tests
Sea tests began for Turkey’s multipurpose amphibious assault ship TCG Anadolu, according to an official from the shipyard that undertook the project...
The concept is discussed here. The TB3 is a naval version of the TB2.
Converting LHD Anadolu To A Drone Carrier
Prologue: This article was first published in Defence Turkey Magazine Issue 106. It is not a secret that Turkey intends to operate an aircraft carrier. This desire was made public by President Erdo…
Some have suggested flying F35Bs off Adelaide and Canberra. My understanding is that the RAN LPDs have not been fitted with the many design features that would be needed to sustain that use and so I consider it unrealistic. The obvious advantage of the "drone carrier" approach is that the Akinci is much lighter than an F35B, similar to a helicopter in weight (Max TOL 5.5 tonnes). This is about half the TO weight of an SH60. The max. payload is still only 1.35 tonnes, so this will hardly turn the LPDs into real "carriers" but more importantly it can fly for 25 hours and cruise at 240 km/hr, so it has a huge range (7500km). This would give it a genuine ISR capability, perhaps linked to Tomahawks on AWDs, plus firing the occasional PGM. This might make a half dozen Akincis on an LPD quite useful. The Akinci's would cost $80 million US for 3, cheaper than a single F35B.
Apologies if I am barking up the wrong tree, but I wonder if something like this, integrated into existing RAN ships and systems, might be quite helpful to the RAN?
That article seems to indicate the intention is to fly the new model of the Bayraktar, the TB3 off of the Andalou, not the Akincis and that the TB3 is being developed by the Turks as an alternative to the F-35B for the Andalou after their withdrawal from the project.......
The TB3 will have folding wings in lieu of the fixed wing TB2 to suit the Andalou, with their smaller size, the Turks intend to fit between 30-50 of them on the ship at one time.
Turkey plans to deploy attack drones from its amphibious assault ship
The Turkish government hopes to transform its landing helicopter dock Anadolu into a carrier ship for attack drones, and has already begun tests to see if the dock ship is strong enough for the mission.
www.defensenews.com
Last edited:
Going forward, with no Dutch support its likely to obsolesce into the past. Even on ships where it is mounted, the plan is to remove it and fit seaRAM instead.
Which is its own solution, if Phalanx is insufficient, then seaRAM is the next obvious solution, as it has similar mounting requirements and pushes range much further out than any gun system. Developing new and magical weapon system solutions is WOFTAM.
Take the hunters. You can fit 2 x phalanx. You could fit 2 x SeaRAM. You can fit CAMM instead of either. You already have ESSM and SM as your outer two layers. You could have six layers if you really wanted Sm3,sm2/6, ESSM blk2, CAMM, Phalanx, On top of that you have 30mm guns to do the jobs guns do as well, and a 5". I don't see how sticking a 40mm light weight mount is going to change the game, costing much money and integration and effort, top weight, limited rounds, when there are already much better solutions you could pull and put on today, instantly. In the mean time we will not have anything useful on our OPV for a decade as we fart around trying to be first customer to an orphaned European system that no one else is buying. Just my opinion and my view.
I don't see Australia buying Turkish drones currently, and loyalwingman/ghost bat is not suitable. But I think if Turkey can get the concept working and show value in it, then it might become worth exploring. There are many different drones currently in development.
Personally I see more benefit in replacing Typhoon with a CIWS capable system, where possible, than I do for replacing an existing CIWS with a larger calibre one.
Also when we are talking RAN basically everything above an evolved Cape has 9LV CMS, and as such should be able to integrate the 21 round RAM as opposed to the 11 round SeaRAM.
Also when we are talking RAN basically everything above an evolved Cape has 9LV CMS, and as such should be able to integrate the 21 round RAM as opposed to the 11 round SeaRAM.
Apologize for the F35B debate.
Although I see the appeal for this aircraft within the ADF, I was mainly acknowledging that the ADF will use the Canberra Class for a diversity of aviation roles.
Mainly for all our current and future helicopters employing the full range of services they provide.
ASW and attack will be added to the mix of logistics and troop transport.
The " Drone" carrier will also evolve, just as these systems will also evolve in their use across the land domain.
A lot will happen in this space.
Cheers S
PS - I dislike the "Drone Carrier" label as well.
I can certainly see its appealThat article seems to indicate the intention is to fly the new model of the Bayraktar, the TB3 off of the Andalou, not the Akincis and that the TB3 is being developed by the Turks as an alternative to the F-35B for the Andalou after their withdrawal from the project.......
The TB3 will have folding wings in lieu of the fixed wing TB2 to suit the Andalou, with their smaller size, the Turks intend to fit between 30-50 of them on the ship at one time.
Turkey plans to deploy attack drones from its amphibious assault ship
The Turkish government hopes to transform its landing helicopter dock Anadolu into a carrier ship for attack drones, and has already begun tests to see if the dock ship is strong enough for the mission.
BAYRAKTAR TB3
The Bayraktar TB3 UCAV is an armed unmanned aerial vehicle system, currently being developed indigenously by Baykar and capable of takeoff and landing
baykartech.com
Not sure how they land the thing!
Cheers S