If correct, I think the 4.5" is now guarding the front entrance to the range
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
Fair point.
The 25mm is in the current majority.
Is it official that the Mk.30C Typhoon 30mm x 173mm mount has been contracted for the Hunter Class?
A 30mm gun was always on any literature re the Hunters and the assuption would be this would be the logical choice given our history with Typhoon.
Any clarity that we have committed to this manufacturer and weapon.
Cheers S.
Jason_DBF
Member
I loved keeping west head duties. Worst bit was doing the security rounds at night over winter.
The Arafuras, LHD's & Supply class are all fitted with the 9LV CMS, same as the Anzacs.
@DTR Magazine broke the story in May 2022, but they quoted Rafael directly who confirmed the Mk-30C in standard form was selected by RAN for the HCF, while they are bidding the Mk-30C plus Spike-ER in a gun / missile combo for the Arafura OPV main armament RFI that went out in 2022.
Last edited:
The Hunter class alone will require 18x systems (not counting any future program changes) and it may well be chosen as the long term armament for Arafura (or not, who knows?) plus it’s main armament is common with Army’s newly selected LAND 400 Ph.3 IFV, so I suspect that system may well become the new ‘de facto’ standard as the 25mm was several decades ago (across RAN and Army’s ASLAV fleets).
The gun /missile setup always struck me as a good use of real estate.
Be it Spike for surface threats, or something like the Mistral SAM for defence against threats from the air.
The missile option more than doubles the realistic range of the gun.
Seems a smart addition, on what is still a relatively light weight package.
Hope it gets done traction.
Cheers S
knightrider4
Active Member
Many a freezing night spent there armed with a dolphin torch.
They should keep it maintained to police any potential invasion from Tasmanians.
iambuzzard
Active Member
I have friends in Tasmania! lol
Yeah those southerly's off the straigh got pretty chilly !!
iambuzzard
Active Member
As a newbie and non-military background individual I'd like to say thank you for allowing me to join you. I have found the discussions fascinating as I have a keen interest in our defence forces and have many friends who have served in all 3 branches, hence my interest.
The discussion on the future make up of the surface fleet particularly interests me as I can see that manpower, shipbuilding capacity and funding are going to be a major issue.
From a layman's perspective we need to get hulls and particularly VLS tubes in the water asap.
As I see it, the Hunter class build should be reduced to 6 ASW hulls with the final 3 changed to AAW destroyer configuration, Navantia's offer of a follow on to the Hobarts taken up (not perfect but quick and cheap), the Arafuras continued with a Typhoon 30mm gun fitted (with possibly the last few as MCM vessels) and a class of at least 6 light frigates with 32 strike length VLS tubes and a 127mm gun as a minimum fitout. I don't think corvettes will have the range or room for growth in their capability. The Hunter derived AAW destroyer design could continue as an ongoing build to eventually replace both batches of the Hobarts. This will stop the valley of death. If we get 3 more Hobarts by the end of the decade it will give us some breathing space to get local production for the light frigates ramped up. For that reason the Hobarts must be built in Spain out of necessity due to time and cost.
I was fortunate to get a guided tour of the USS Mobile Bay post 9/11 and HMAS Brisbane when the Red Crew brought her to Melbourne for her last visit. Light years apart in capability.
We need destroyers with as close to a Burke or the Japanese or South Korean equivalents in missile loadout as soon as possible to be an effective deterrent in our area of operations.
An evolved version of the Hunter is probably the best option with the chains of supply already in place and a redesign using the same basic hull more practical in the limited timeframe.
We don't want to see the first new destroyer hitting the water after the last of our new AUKUS boats.
I'm keen to see your opinions. Cheers, Buzzard.
The discussion on the future make up of the surface fleet particularly interests me as I can see that manpower, shipbuilding capacity and funding are going to be a major issue.
From a layman's perspective we need to get hulls and particularly VLS tubes in the water asap.
As I see it, the Hunter class build should be reduced to 6 ASW hulls with the final 3 changed to AAW destroyer configuration, Navantia's offer of a follow on to the Hobarts taken up (not perfect but quick and cheap), the Arafuras continued with a Typhoon 30mm gun fitted (with possibly the last few as MCM vessels) and a class of at least 6 light frigates with 32 strike length VLS tubes and a 127mm gun as a minimum fitout. I don't think corvettes will have the range or room for growth in their capability. The Hunter derived AAW destroyer design could continue as an ongoing build to eventually replace both batches of the Hobarts. This will stop the valley of death. If we get 3 more Hobarts by the end of the decade it will give us some breathing space to get local production for the light frigates ramped up. For that reason the Hobarts must be built in Spain out of necessity due to time and cost.
I was fortunate to get a guided tour of the USS Mobile Bay post 9/11 and HMAS Brisbane when the Red Crew brought her to Melbourne for her last visit. Light years apart in capability.
We need destroyers with as close to a Burke or the Japanese or South Korean equivalents in missile loadout as soon as possible to be an effective deterrent in our area of operations.
An evolved version of the Hunter is probably the best option with the chains of supply already in place and a redesign using the same basic hull more practical in the limited timeframe.
We don't want to see the first new destroyer hitting the water after the last of our new AUKUS boats.
I'm keen to see your opinions. Cheers, Buzzard.
Last edited:
Sort of, the Arafura's are getting the SAAB 9LV SAS (Situational Awareness System) which is based on the 9LV CMS, so not the full blooded CMS, but simular achitecture, can still feed into and receive the tactical picture via Link 16, not a lot of info out there on it, but a more basic version with, as I understand it to be, a single specialised next gen console, with systems integration. Sound like an interesting bit of kit actually.
OPV situational awareness system
Saab has received a contract from Luerssen Australia for the Situational Awareness System (SAS) for the Royal Australian Navy’s new Offshore Patrol Vessels (OPV). The contract is expected to run over the 12 year OPV shipbuilding programme, which will see the delivery of 12 new ships.
www.saab.com
Cheers
Speaking of Mohave carrier possibilities. Drones at sea: GA counts down to UK Mojave aircraft carrier trial next month - Breaking Defense
This new (everything old is new again) concept would be an ideal fit for the ADF, bigger than purely coastal transports and would be a very useful capability supporting our pacific neighbours.
I have no idea if there has been any stated requirement or long term plan but 76 troops and adequate/appropriate vehicle and cargo space solves many ADF problems.
news.usni.org
I have no idea if there has been any stated requirement or long term plan but 76 troops and adequate/appropriate vehicle and cargo space solves many ADF problems.
Draft Proposal for ‘Affordable’ Medium Landing Ship Out to Shipbuilders - USNI News
Naval Sea Systems Command has released the draft notice to industry to build a fleet of new landing ships for the Navy and Marine Corps. The Landing Ship Medium (LSM) is billed as the “affordable shore-to-shore USMC maneuver capability,” according to a summary of the program reviewed by USNI...
news.usni.org
As another new member (without a military background) I disagree on some points. I don’t agree with the intense focus on number of VLS cells (and certainly not with building more Hobarts). More cells is always better but I think the big problem for the RAN is number of escorts (and number of launch platforms — one reason why land based anti ship missiles are such a good idea for Australia). If the Blue Mountains were the territory of a hostile nuclear power with thousands of artillery pieces I would take a different view (actually I would say the Sejong the Great class was underarmed). Changing the last 3 Hunters to DDG sounds wise (to replace complement Hobarts) but the need for ASW and flexible mission decks will grow not decrease (or we are wasting a lot of money on SSN).
I am also a bit more up beat about shorter range corvettes as opposed to (relatively) heavily armed light frigates. Yes I understand the enormous distances from the fleet bases and need for long range patrol (of which Arafuras can do the constabulary part) but a likely critical need is more vessels to escort smaller littoral lift vessels and/or deploy special forces and minor warfare tasks. Those missions might start in Townsville, Cairns or Darwin (or off shore) and have cover from the RAAF (and/or not be conducted in the face of an adversary with sophisticated missile defences e.g. against terrorists, insurgents, or rebels). A corvette based in Darwin may (in some circumstance) be more useful than a longer ranged and more heavily armed frigate in Sydney (that has to transit the Torres Strait) - especially if the corvette can be built more quickly.
They haven't reduced the weight capacity of the flight deck on the Arafura. That one was a media led furphy that has been thoroughly debunked.
What RAN hasn't done is specify a helicopter landing capability for the class - no approach radar, landing systems, aviation support systems and so on.
Maritime UAV (whenever that cluster is resolved) will be the only aviation capability for the class.
Steel is cheap and air is free.
Smaller rarely (never) results significantly cheaper, but nearly always results in compromised capability and poor value for money.
For a given system baseline, larger is not just more capable, it's better value for money. Core combat system, platform performance and loadout of equipment, weapons etc. sets a minimum cost and crew, that is not substantially affected by increasing size.
Space and weight for a larger VLS, extra consoles, a bigger gun, cost very little. Even fitting a larger VLS doesn't cost much in the grand scheme of things if you don't fill it.