Hi experts, just want to ask why the RAN haven’t gone for the SeaRam CIWS? My understanding the set up is similar with the phalanx with its inbuilt sensors and radar and plug in and play system. They have a longer range and accurate at taking down drones, missiles and aircraft.. and we are also building missiles now which could be added. The Japanese have these on the current Mogami vessels and I would have thought these are a better fit to the Hunter since they will also be fitted with 30mm cannon with airburst rounds. My other question is why couldn’t you place the SeaRam on the Arafura where the 25mm currently is? This would give it a point defence against missiles. Move the 25/30mm forward to the lower deck for anti ship and drones. And place 4NSM midship. Targeting could easily be provided be the integrator drone or strix used from containers under the flight deck. I would even place torpedo and a small ultra towed array and turn these vessels into ships with function but only working in areas around Australia with air cover.. searching for Subs or offering fire support to close neighbouring countries.. so the arguement these are not war fighting in South China Sea doesn’t get erected but useful naval ships protecting our close seas in grey areas it can be. During more calmer times these ships will still preform there patrol duties with a lean crew… offering greater surveillance and enhancing the pacific islands with regional presence and humanitarian duties with its larger under deck space and crane facilities. Hell they should set up a pacific island fleet and have these 6 vessels joint crewed by Pacific Islanders and Australians along with the pacific support vessels would be a great advantage in deterring China.
Not an expert by any stretch of the imagination (perhaps by delusion though...) but I will take a crack at this.
Firstly it is my understanding that the SeaRAM launcher is much like the SeaPhalanx non-deck penetrating CIWS mounting which is itself largely a self-contained unit with it's own targeting capability and the launcher also features 11 RIM-116 RAM. However, there are a couple of things which people often seem to overlook, ignore or perhaps are just unaware of with many of the non-deck penetrating mountings. Any location where one might wish to install such a mounting has to have the site designed and constructed to actually have the mounting installed, even if it is non-deck penetrating. Even with the independent engagement which SeaRAM (or SeaPhalanx for that matter) is capable of, there needs to be connections to tie the mounting and gun or launcher into the ship's systems so that it can be controlled, activated or deactivated from somewhere. The mounting would also need connections for power and I suspect cooling as well. The structure of the deck itself also needs to be sufficient to not only handle the displacement of the mounting (Mk 15 Block 1 Phalanx mountings are around six tonnes) but also deal with the forces involved and exerted when guns are fired or missiles launched. For something like
SeaRAM, which fires a hot gas exhaust missile, the mounting placement has to take that into account as well, otherwise the hot gases could damage the vessel itself. In short, there are a pile of factors which need to be taken into consideration.
Secondly, Australia has yet to adopt the RIM-116 RAM itself, or any of it's launchers. This of course might happen at some point in the future, but the point for right now IMO is that since it is kit not presently in RAN (or the wider ADF) service, there would be no reason for designers to ensure plans for current and future RAN vessels have sites appropriate to mount a RAM or SeaRAM launcher. For something like the
Arafura-class OPV design itself, this would mean that designers would have to go back over plans and construction of the vessel and possibly having things modified before SeaRAM could be safely mounted in place of the Typhoon mounting. Not saying it cannot happen, but it is the sort of thing which would cost additional coin and likely further delay the OPV's entry into service. Given that even if SeaRAM could be fitted (and if Australia were to ever even adopt it and the missiles) it would still only provide the OPV's with a kind of 'hail mary' air defence and not negate the need an OPV would have for a larger and more capable escort vessel which could provide the primary detection and engagement of air threats.
Further, there was a suggestion on relocating the location of the current Typhoon mounting and 25 mm Bushmaster. Again, this might be possible but would of course take time and cost money, which might easily be not worth it. Once again, even for something like a Typhoon mounting, it is not as simple as just disconnecting the mounting and moving it elsewhere. Any new mounting location needs to be sufficiently able to handle the mass of the gun and mounting, as well as the recoil forces exerted when the gun is fired. There would also need to be connections available to power the gun as well as connect it to a weapons station for control, likely either in a CIC or on the bridge. Given that the mounting itself is a Typhoon, there might need to be additional consideration given to location to ensure that the gun/mounting itself does not become damaged. It is my understanding that a Typhoon mounting is fairly lightweight (we are talking some 750 kg including the gun but not ammo) which is about 15% the mass of a Mk 110 57 mm gun mounting without ammo. Moving a Typhoon mounting both lower down and further forward towards the bow could expose the mounting to waves which might overtop the bow and could potentially damage the mounting itself. I am aware that the gun/mounting is fitted aboard much smaller patrol boats, but I rather expect those vessels might not encounter some of the same sea conditions an Australian OPV might.
As for the other ideas raised about increasing the capabilities and armaments of the OPV's... Such ideas continue to ignore realities, issues and counter-arguments already raised by myself and others. Like it or not, the
Arafura-class OPV's were designed to be OPV's, not corvettes or patrol frigates. Taking even more time and spending even more coin trying to cram additional weaponry on board, and/or take the class with roles it was not designed for is IMO the sort of action which might be justifiable under certain desperate, wartime conditions, like if most of the RAN surface fleet was already neutralized in some way and something, anything, would be better.
I do not really care to go back through and rehash or repeat all the counter arguments, so I will instead just focus on one of the specific ideas raised so that people might start to see that while an idea might be simple to have, actually effectively executing that idea might be either difficult or not realistically feasible.
The idea was raised again about kitting the OPV's out with LWT's and sonar so that they can engage in ASW ops. From my POV one of the problems with the idea itself it is that it does seem to both ignore portions of how ASW ops are conducted, as well as the reality that much more is required for a surface vessel to be an effective ASW platform than ASW weapons like LWT's and sonar. Not going to go to far into the little I have learned about ASW ops, which is likely at best just a fraction of what some of the others on here have forgotten, never mind still know and just will not speak of. From the start, unless the OPV was just naturally suited for ASW or specifically designed and built to engage in ASW ops, there are going to be some very significant problems with the class being effective. Yes, the class could likely be fitted with a VDS and/or towed sonar arrays which could then pick up potential noise contacts in the water. However, unless the
Arafura-class hull design was just naturally quiet, or the design and build included features rumoured to be found with the
Hunter-class frigates like machinery isolation and rafting, which are not cheap, then it would be quite likely that any OPV sonar systems would detect noise radiating from the vessel itself as a possible contact. Further, it is my understanding that surface ASW works best or is most effective when it is a 'team' effort, preferably involving multiple aircraft and ships working together to hunt or sanitize an area. Aside from the OPV not being able to embark and support a naval helicopter and therefore reducing it's own value as part of an ASW screen, it is distinctly possible that the presence of an OPV might degrade the abilities of other vessels to conduct ASW ops, because noise radiating from the OPV would likely get 'heard' by naval helicopters and other vessels and get incorrectly ID'd as a possible sub contacts. In such a potential situation, then ASW-tasked OPV's might actually increase the danger of hostile subs, rather than mitigate it.
What I really hope others are starting to see, it that there really are no simple, easy, fast and cheap solutions which are also effective. If one really wants (or needs) an effective solution, then that solution needs to be worked towards from the beginning.
