Australian FFG Frigate Upgrade.

[Aussie Digger]

Here's the first announcement on the progress on the upgrade to the Royal Australian Navies FFG Frigates:

FFG Upgrade Milestone Achieved on Schedule


(Source: ADI Limited; dated April 7, web-posted April 14, 2004)


ADI Limited’s FFG Upgrade Project – the most sophisticated enhancement of Australian warships undertaken in Australia -- has entered the next phase of production following the on schedule undocking of HMAS Sydney.

HMAS Sydney, the first of the Royal Australian Navy’s guided missile frigates to be upgraded, has been moved from dry dock to berthside at ADI’s Garden Island facility in Sydney to complete the installation phase. The setting to work of the enhanced combat system will commence this month.

The Upgrade Project is not only a complex integration task that will see the FFG combat systems upgraded to ensure the ships’ operational effectiveness against regional threats, but the intrusive nature of the platform work means ADI is effectively rebuilding significant parts of the ship to incorporate the enhancements.

The upgrade represents the first time in Australia that a naval prime contractor has undertaken the roles of both platform and combat system design in-house to ensure proper integration at the whole-of-ship level.

The dry docking saw the installation of four new diesel generators, the vertical launch system housing (including rip out and reinforcement through four decks) and air conditioning plant. Also installed was combat system equipment including new mine avoidance sonar, electronic support and all upgraded fire control system hardware. ADI built a 3D model of the forward part of the ship enabling any potential system interferences to be designed out.

ADI’s approach to the removal and replacement of the diesel generators is believed to be a world first for FFGs. After completing trade off studies of various options, it was decided to remove each generator, bed plate and hull structure as a single unit, avoiding the disassembly of equipment onboard and the extensive removal of internal systems. Three generator units were removed through openings in the side plating and the fourth by cutting out the bottom hull plating and lowering it to the dock floor. Reinstallation followed the reverse process.

ADI managing director, Mr Lucio Di Bartolomeo, said the successfully completed rip out and installation phase underlined ADI’s unmatched naval engineering capabilities.

“With its cost, time and safety benefits, ADI is confident its innovative approach to removing the diesel generators will become the future standard for FFGs,” he said.

“The new capabilities that ADI developed for the Huon Class minehunters are vested in our people, processes and business systems and are flowing through to the FFG upgrade. “The upgrade is now following the minehunter project in producing its own ‘first time in Australian naval ship production’ successes.

“ADI now has the knowledge, the capabilities and the people required for all of Australia’s major warship programs.”

The land based test site ADI established at Garden Island for the FFG upgrade enabled combat system software integration testing to begin in advance of HMAS Sydney being handed over to the company. Further formal combat system development and stress testing of system software will be undertaken ashore in May.

The software is scheduled for formal release to HMAS Sydney in July for harbour testing. An engineering version will be available to assist in the set to work process. Sea trials will follow the harbour tests with the frigate due for delivery to the RAN in the final quarter of this year.

This is a significant upgrade of the FFG's capabilities. The main parts of the work apart from those mentioned above, include: replacement of the SM-1 Standard, long range SAM, with the latest version of the SM-2 Standard SAM. Inclusion of an 8 cell Mk 41 vertical Launch system (VLS) for the Evolved Sea Sparrow Surface to Air Missile (ESSM), which provides an extra 32 SAM's as each ESSM is "quad packed" in the VLS cell. The "new" FFG's are also being upgraded with the Harpoon 2 missile and the new Eurotorp MU-90 torpedo. In addition the Electronic Warfare, air-search radar and missile fire control systems are being upgraded to accomodate and take full advantage of the new weapon systems. The habitability of the ships are also being upgraded to allow a slightly more comfortable environment for the sailors on board. The ships helicopter, the S-70 Seahawk is also in the process of being upgraded with new Electro-Optic and FLIR surveillance systems and rumours are that the Seahawk will also carry and fire the Penguin anti-ship missile though the RAN is keeping quiet on this... All in all the FFG's will be a pretty formidable ship when the upgrade's complete. Cheers.

[tatra]

Considering how little marging the OHP basic design has, and the extent of the work, this upgrade is quite something.

[tatra]

Nice pic of upgrade taking place
http://www.defencetalk.com/pictures/albums/userpics/07-sydney%2520again.jpg

[gf0012-aust]

S-70 Seahawk is also in the process of being upgraded with new Electro-Optic and FLIR surveillance systems

Pity it's not ATFLIR

[Pathfinder-X]

instead of upgrading the aging perry class FFG the aussies should purchase more anzac class.
the perry has been in service since the mid 1970's i believe, the hull is reali getting old. it doesn't have much stealth feature lk new built FFGs, and it's capability is no match for the aussie anzac class.

[Aussie Digger]

The FFG's being upgraded were manufactured in Australia in the early to mid 80's. They were constructed from much better steel than our US made FFG's and are expected to be operated until 2020 or so. With the exception of the lack of a 5 inch gun, the FFG's are more capable than the ANZAC's. The Australian Government had a plan to upgrade the ANZAC's known as the warfighting improvement program, (WIP) this amongst other things would have included SM-2 SAM's, a 3D radar system (needed to take full advantage of SM-2's capabilities) and other enhancements (Harpoon 2, ESSM, Mistral short range SAM's, MU-90 torpedos etc). This program was canned as it was too expensive and a more limited upgrade was planned (Harpoon 2, ESSM and MU-90 and Mistral Short range SAM's only, no SM-2). I agree. The ANZAC class should have had the WIP and an additional 4 hulls (to replace the FFG's) built for the RAN. This would have saved us a fortune on support, training and logistic costs and given the RAN better capability given that every major surface combatant would have had a high level long range air defence capability, 5 inch gun, Harpoon 2, etc. It would have also meant that the need for the Air Warfare Destoyers wouldn't have been so urgent. Still that's government for you. Nevermind what will happen 5 or 10 years down the track. Lets do the absolute minimum we can get away with now...

[adsH]

The FFG's being upgraded were manufactured in Australia in the early to mid 80's. They were constructed from much better steel than our US made FFG's and are expected to be operated until 2020 or so. With the exception of the lack of a 5 inch gun, the FFG's are more capable than the ANZAC's. The Australian Government had a plan to upgrade the ANZAC's known as the warfighting improvement program, (WIP) this amongst other things would have included SM-2 SAM's, a 3D radar system (needed to take full advantage of SM-2's capabilities) and other enhancements (Harpoon 2, ESSM, Mistral short range SAM's, MU-90 torpedos etc). This program was canned as it was too expensive and a more limited upgrade was planned (Harpoon 2, ESSM and MU-90 and Mistral Short range SAM's only, no SM-2). I agree. The ANZAC class should have had the WIP and an additional 4 hulls (to replace the FFG's) built for the RAN. This would have saved us a fortune on support, training and logistic costs and given the RAN better capability given that every major surface combatant would have had a high level long range air defence capability, 5 inch gun, Harpoon 2, etc. It would have also meant that the need for the Air Warfare Destoyers wouldn't have been so urgent. Still that's government for you. Nevermind what will happen 5 or 10 years down the track. Lets do the absolute minimum we can get away with now...

20 year old Hull is not old at all if its maintained in the best of condition !!!

[mysterious]

Yup, even I feel that. High level maintainance can make the difference.

[Aussie Digger]

Pity it's not ATFLIR

ATFLIR may well be chosen as the next generation targeting pod for the F/A-18's, (I don't think it's used on helicopters). A new targetting pod is part of the planned HUG program. I'm betting the chosen pod will be either ATFLIR or Sniper XR. Cheers.

[pezfez]

what's the current and future inventory of the aussie navy? with that huge coastline u would need a lot...

[Aussie Digger]

We currently operate 6 FFG Frigates and 5 ANZAC Frigates, 6 Collins Class submarines, 2 Amphibious Support ships, 1x Amphibious assault ship, 15 patrol boats, 6 minehunters, 1x underway replenishment ship, 1x fleet oiler, and a number of hydrographic and survey vessels, not to mention numerous minor vessels (rigid hull inflatables etc). We also operate 16 Seahawk Helicopters, 7 Sea King Helicopters and (as of next year) 11 Kaman Super Seasprite Helicopters.

We will take delivery of another 3 ANZAC frigates within the next 2 years, however 2 FFG Frigates will be retired leaving us with a major surface combatant fleet of 12 ships for several years. We also have a project to acquire 3 "Air Warfare Destroyers" (of similar capability to the Arleigh Burke Class destroyer, though not as large nor with as many personel), with the 1st of this class in service by 2013...

[adsH]

We currently operate 6 FFG Frigates and 5 ANZAC Frigates, 6 Collins Class submarines, 2 Amphibious Support ships, 1x Amphibious assault ship, 15 patrol boats, 6 minehunters, 1x underway replenishment ship, 1x fleet oiler, and a number of hydrographic and survey vessels, not to mention numerous minor vessels (rigid hull inflatables etc). We also operate 16 Seahawk Helicopters, 7 Sea King Helicopters and (as of next year) 11 Kaman Super Seasprite Helicopters.

We will take delivery of another 3 ANZAC frigates within the next 2 years, however 2 FFG Frigates will be retired leaving us with a major surface combatant fleet of 12 ships for several years. We also have a project to acquire 3 "Air Warfare Destroyers" (of similar capability to the Arleigh Burke Class destroyer, though not as large nor with as many personel), with the 1st of this class in service by 2013...

so at the moment you guys lack destroyers!! what i have always never preferred are Destroyers, sure they may have more armor more weapons on bord and more personnel more room to carry out other tasks. but i have always hated there size and the cost and the fact that too much is put in Destroyers, i would prefer smaller frigates which have specialized task designated and specialized task assigned to them. i would also prefer better communication between them.
destroyers from my point of view are large over sized and too less maneuverable. i would think destroyers inpire confidence but some one has to break this trend.

[tatra]

Well, corvettes-frigates-destroyers-cruisers, it's all relative. Most of today's corvettes-frigates-destroyers-cruisers are larger than yesterday's. My philosophy is that you figure out what mission(s) you want to be able to achieve, then determine the payload needed, and then design and build a ship around that. You slap a designation on it as necessary to get it funded :P

[Aussie Digger]

The lack of destroyers have left us with a large gap in our naval capabilities, namely a substantial long range air defence capability for our fleet. Due to a political decision we no longer operate an Aircraft Carrier or a fixed wing fleet for our Navy, and our last destroyers (DDG's) were retired (without replacement) about 2 years ago. The Air warfare destroyers will fill a big hole in our defence capability when they arrive, so unfortunately I can't really agree with you on this one ADSH. Cheers.

[tatra]

The lack of destroyers have left us with a large gap in our naval capabilities, namely a substantial long range air defence capability for our fleet. Due to a political decision we no longer operate an Aircraft Carrier or a fixed wing fleet for our Navy, and our last destroyers (DDG's) were retired (without replacement) about 2 years ago. The Air warfare destroyers will fill a big hole in our defence capability when they arrive, so unfortunately I can't really agree with you on this one ADSH. Cheers.

Considering the amount of sea to cover, you gues do indeed need dedicated AAW vessels.

[Aussie Digger]

We do, having 2 large Oceans and a number of seas to cover...

[Aussie Digger]

DEFENCE TO UPGRADE SHIP’S AIR DEFENCE MISSILE SYSTEM



Four of Australia’s Adelaide Class Guided Missile Frigates will be capable of firing the SM-2 missile after the Government approved a $550 million upgrade of their area air defence missile systems, Defence Minister Robert Hill announced today.

Senator Hill said the upgrade of HMA Ships Darwin, Melbourne, Newcastle and Sydney by early 2009 would significantly improve the air warfare capabilities of the Royal Australian Navy.

"The SM-2 missile is a member of the Standard Missile family produced by Raytheon and a highly capable modern variant of the ageing SM-1 missile system currently used on the FFGs," Senator Hill said.

"SM-2 benefits from significant improvements in communication techniques, advanced signal processing and propulsion improvements. The missile has an improved range to more than 50 nautical miles and enhanced performance against modern anti-ship missiles and aircraft.

"The upgrade will significantly extend the range of the area air defence region and provide greater potential for target intercept and destruction – a major capability boost for the Navy and a great asset for potential coalition operations.

"The SM-2 missile, or a derivative of it, will also be incorporated into our future Air Warfare Destroyers."

Senator Hill said the Government selected the SM-2 missile following a stringent testing and evaluation program with the assistance of the United States Navy.

The project covers the acquisition of SM-2 missiles and their integration into the FFGs. Missiles purchased will be both the training and live variants.

Equipment installation will be carried out in Australia. Australian industry involvement in the repair, maintenance and manufacture of components for the SM-2 missile is also being pursued.

[EnigmaNZ]

Just wondering how this program is going. Haven't found a lot on the web thats up to date.

What was removed from the forward area to accommodate the vls. I notice all the newer US ships have those white squares next to their major weapon systems, prosumably a reloading hatch. 4 decks affected, so prosumably the longer strategic vls. Considering the essm has a capacity similar to the old sm1, which was in it's time considered a area defence missile, having 32 on board plus the 32 (prosumably 32 plus 8 harpoon 2s) sm2s really enhances their air warfare ability.

Be interesting to see if any other users of the OHP take up this option. Certainly be worthwhile for Taiwan as their OHP's are newer, and they really need the naval SAM capability.

It is a pity the active radar versions of the essm and sm2 are so far in the future though, the French astor already has this ability, why is the US dragging it's feet in this area, the seeker is already proven in the amraam, being able to do away with the illuminators would have made the anzac upgrade, and the ohp, cheaper and even more capable. The 1 illuminator on the ohp with it's blind spots would no longer be an issue.

Edit; interesting article, the new phased array australian radar and illuminators are amazing, with the anzacs able to accept 16 vls cells in it's rear system, though currently only 8 are installed, and space in front of the bridge for a similar system, (the mk41 is now available as a short 2 deck version for corvettes that can accept essm and sm-2MR) plus this new radar, we could have seen the anzac with 24 sm-2s and 8 quadpack essms, oh well.

http://www.yaffa.com.au/defence/current/8-104.htm

[Aussie Digger]

Just wondering how this program is going. Haven't found a lot on the web thats up to date.

What was removed from the forward area to accommodate the vls. I notice all the newer US ships have those white squares next to their major weapon systems, prosumably a reloading hatch. 4 decks affected, so prosumably the longer strategic vls. Considering the essm has a capacity similar to the old sm1, which was in it's time considered a area defence missile, having 32 on board plus the 32 (prosumably 32 plus 8 harpoon 2s) sm2s really enhances their air warfare ability.

Be interesting to see if any other users of the OHP take up this option. Certainly be worthwhile for Taiwan as their OHP's are newer, and they really need the naval SAM capability.

It is a pity the active radar versions of the essm and sm2 are so far in the future though, the French astor already has this ability, why is the US dragging it's feet in this area, the seeker is already proven in the amraam, being able to do away with the illuminators would have made the anzac upgrade, and the ohp, cheaper and even more capable. The 1 illuminator on the ohp with it's blind spots would no longer be an issue.

Edit; interesting article, the new phased array australian radar and illuminators are amazing, with the anzacs able to accept 16 vls cells in it's rear system, though currently only 8 are installed, and space in front of the bridge for a similar system, (the mk41 is now available as a short 2 deck version for corvettes that can accept essm and sm-2MR) plus this new radar, we could have seen the anzac with 24 sm-2s and 8 quadpack essms, oh well.

http://www.yaffa.com.au/defence/current/8-104.htm

HMAS Sydney (first ship to be modifed) has completed it's initial trials and is due to be handed over to Navy "soon". The project did run behind schedule, but ADI reckon they are "on top" of the problems's now.

The Mk 41 VLS for the ESSM is installed on top of the deck. I doubt anything was removed to make way for it.

The Adelaide class frigates have also had additional systems installed during it's upgrade to operate a "second channel"of fire, meaning it can simultaneously engage targets in multiple directions.

You're right, the 32 ESSM's are a big boost to the class. Along with the soon to be upgraded Block II Harpoon's, the arrival of SM-2 Block IIIA's, and the MU-90 torpedo, the Adelaide's are in effect becoming "destroyer like" platforms. They will be the most capable platform in SE Asia and probably the most capable frigate in the world. The Mk 13 rail launcher magazine holds 40 rounds, which would normally comprise 8 Harpoon's and 32 SM-2IIIA's.

As to the ANZAC's, well they are having ESSM integrated into each ship, (32 rounds in present), Harpoon Block II, MU-90 torpedo's, new phased array radars and continuous wave illuminators, new IRST and EW kits, plus the Seasprite/Penguin anti-ship missile is due to come online in 2006.

There's also talk the 5 inch gun will be upgraded to Mod 4 standard (they already have the Mod 4 turret on most ANZAC's), plus additional short range SAM's and 25mm "Typhoon" guns will be fitted to the ships.

I doubt we'll see SM-2 included on the ANZAC's. It was included under the original "Warfighting improvement program" which was canned due to it's high cost. An additional 8 cell MK 41 and more ESSM may be fitted, but probably only if it looked like we were about to be involved in a serious war...

There's an article containing all this and more in the latest "Navy league of Australia" magazine. I don't think it's online anywhere though.

[seantheaussie]

and probably the most capable frigate in the world. If you exclude F-100, F-124, LCF which are apparently frigates:confused:

[Aussie Digger]

If you exclude F-100, F-124, LCF which are apparently frigates:confused:

Okay, point taken. How about, "one of the most capable frigates in the world"?

[alexsa]

Are changes being made to the EW kit on the FFGs? I note a picture of the HMAS Newcastle appeared to have remotely operated 50cal mounts in the spots previously occupied by the sensors.

[rossfrb_1]

Here's a multi question/point post - feel free to comment on whichever bit/s interests you.
I believe that the RAN FFGs still mount the mark 5 76mm canon? These are an older OTO Melara mount. Does anyone know what ammunition types the RAN uses in them? Are they considered a viable anti air weapon, has any part of the current FFG ugrade been associated with the 76mm or its firing system?

The ANZAC upgrade is supposed to include some form of very short range missile system. Mistral being touted as the most likely. I'm guessing because of cost, as the only other system considered (as far as I have read) was RAM, which I suspect is the more expensive (well it is american after all:)).
Anyone care to comment on Mistral vs RAM? Were there any RAM proponents in the RAN?

So FFG has Standard and ESSM, ANZAC has ESSM and Mistral, both have Phalanx (I think), why no Mistral for FFG?

What flavour of Phalanx does the RAN currently have, Block 1B Phalanx Surface Mode (PSUM) or later?

cheers
rb

[Aussie Digger]

Here's a multi question/point post - feel free to comment on whichever bit/s interests you.
I believe that the RAN FFGs still mount the mark 5 76mm canon? These are an older OTO Melara mount. Does anyone know what ammunition types the RAN uses in them? Are they considered a viable anti air weapon, has any part of the current FFG ugrade been associated with the 76mm or its firing system?

The ANZAC upgrade is supposed to include some form of very short range missile system. Mistral being touted as the most likely. I'm guessing because of cost, as the only other system considered (as far as I have read) was RAM, which I suspect is the more expensive (well it is american after all:)).
Anyone care to comment on Mistral vs RAM? Were there any RAM proponents in the RAN?

So FFG has Standard and ESSM, ANZAC has ESSM and Mistral, both have Phalanx (I think), why no Mistral for FFG?

What flavour of Phalanx does the RAN currently have, Block 1B Phalanx Surface Mode (PSUM) or later?

cheers
rb

The FFG's still operate their original 76mm guns and ammo systems. No upgrades have been performed on the gun or it's fire control system. It is part of the air defence system and anti-air ammo types are carried.

The EW kit HAS been upgraded, though I can't remember the specifics of it off hand. FFG's have SM-1 (to be upgraded to Sm-2 Block IIIA standard over the next few years) ESSM and Block 1A Phalanx CIWS. (ie: no surface mode). No short ranged SAM is planned beyond ESSM for the FFG's. Some of the FFG's have been upgraded with "mini-typhoon's" added to their existing 0.50cal HMG's, to assist in the anti-surface role and close in protection of the vessel. This is to be extended to ALL FFG's and ANZAC class over time.

RAN ANZAC frigates do not mount Phalanx CIWS. ESSM is all they have at present (most of them at least, some still have Seasparrow)... Eventually all ANZAC"s will have ESSM.

It is undecided as yet (publicly), whether or not a second short ranged SAM system will be acquired for the ANZAC class. Recent upgrades confirmed have include an IRST system for ALL ANZAC's and the CEA-FAR/CEA-MOUNT phased array radar systems to replace their existing SPS-49's. These upgrades will give the ANZAC's "multiple" channels of fire and additional SAM systems may not be needed if the new targetting systems are as effective as hoped. If this proves to be the case, hopefully the 2nd Mk 41 VLS system will be installed at least giving each vessel 64 ESSM's for their defence...

In FFG upgrade news, HMAS Sydney (first FFG-UP) is currently taking part in Exercise Ocean Protector. This is great news meaning the upgrade has gone well and finally overcome it's problems and is nearing operational capability. This will be a good boost for the RAN...

In not so good news, HMAS Warramunga (first ANZAC to be fitted with Harpoon II) appears to have it's Harpoon tubes removed with only the basic stands remaining. Perhaps the RAN is having difficulty with the installation of the Harpoon forward of the bridge? It has been 14 months since they were first installed and no other ANZAC frigate has yet been so equipped. Surely they would if there was no problems with this installation???

[alexsa]

The EW kit HAS been upgraded, though I can't remember the specifics of it off hand.

Thanks for that I was wondering what had happened there and could not believe we would remove EW sensors in lieu of a 50cal mount (although similar things have happened in the past).

It is undecided as yet (publicly), whether or not a second short ranged SAM system will be acquired for the ANZAC class. Recent upgrades confirmed have include an IRST system for ALL ANZAC's and the CEA-FAR/CEA-MOUNT phased array radar systems to replace their existing SPS-49's. These upgrades will give the ANZAC's "multiple" channels of fire and additional SAM systems may not be needed if the new targetting systems are as effective as hoped. If this proves to be the case, hopefully the 2nd Mk 41 VLS system will be installed at least giving each vessel 64 ESSM's for their defence...

Is the fitting of the 25mm Typhoon tied to the second short range SAM or wouel these be fitted in any case. most of the post on this subject seem to treat this as a combined unit.

In not so good news, HMAS Warramunga (first ANZAC to be fitted with Harpoon II) appears to have it's Harpoon tubes removed with only the basic stands remaining. Perhaps the RAN is having difficulty with the installation of the Harpoon forward of the bridge? It has been 14 months since they were first installed and no other ANZAC frigate has yet been so equipped. Surely they would if there was no problems with this installation???

It was suggested that top weight may be an issue with the radar upgrade and the original postion aft ofthe funnel being somewhat higher. On a side issue we were involved in some measurement issue with the ship and had the original GA drawings. I have to say the original proposal with Harpoon, CIWS, 2 channels and the addition VLS looked a good package. I also recognise that the delay has allowed access to more capable systems.

[rossfrb_1]

Thanks for that I was wondering what had happened there and could not believe we would remove EW sensors in lieu of a 50cal mount (although similar things have happened in the past).


Is the fitting of the 25mm Typhoon tied to the second short range SAM or wouel these be fitted in any case. most of the post on this subject seem to treat this as a combined unit.


{snip}


I would have thought that the 50 cal mounts were installed in lieu of any 25mm mounts. The only class of RAN vessel currently getting the 25mm Typhoon mount, that I am aware of, are the new Armidale patrol boats.

cheers
rb

[Aussie Digger]

I would have thought that the 50 cal mounts were installed in lieu of any 25mm mounts. The only class of RAN vessel currently getting the 25mm Typhoon mount, that I am aware of, are the new Armidale patrol boats.

cheers
rb

The AWD's and the new Amphibious vessels are supposed to be fitted with a number of 25mm Typhoon gun systems per vessel to help provide close in protection against air and surface attack craft type threats (ie: USS Cole type attacks).

There has also been some talk the ANZAC's and FFG's will too, but it may only be "mini-typhoon" for these vessels.

I'm aware that the Typhoon system can have SAM or surface to surface missiles integrated with it, but I haven't heard that the ADF is interested in this capability...

I know the RAN had some problems with mounting Harpoon aft of the bridge (though other nations have done so on Meko 200 class frigates without apparent problem) but I was referring to the new position ie: where they've been mounted on Warramunga. Seems like there's still a problem...

[Cootamundra]

In FFG upgrade news, HMAS Sydney (first FFG-UP) is currently taking part in Exercise Ocean Protector. This is great news meaning the upgrade has gone well and finally overcome it's problems and is nearing operational capability. This will be a good boost for the RAN...

In not so good news, HMAS Warramunga (first ANZAC to be fitted with Harpoon II) appears to have it's Harpoon tubes removed with only the basic stands remaining. Perhaps the RAN is having difficulty with the installation of the Harpoon forward of the bridge? It has been 14 months since they were first installed and no other ANZAC frigate has yet been so equipped. Surely they would if there was no problems with this installation???

Excellent news on the Sydney front, I actually thought I saw a new FFG in the docks with its Mk13 removed looking like it was about to head into the graving dock for its upgrade. This was about two weeks ago when I went down for swim next door to Fleet base East. So one down, 3 to go.

Unfortunately I've got no news on the Warramunga front, last picture I saw had the 8 tubes installed forward of the bridge (photo was from Talisman Sabre 05).

Cheers, Coota

[Cootamundra]

OK, quick search and ADI says that its HMAS Melbourne now in the dry dock.

http://www.adi-limited.com/newsdocs/2006221377.pdf

Cheers, Coota

[rossfrb_1]

The AWD's and the new Amphibious vessels are supposed to be fitted with a number of 25mm Typhoon gun systems per vessel to help provide close in protection against air and surface attack craft type threats (ie: USS Cole type attacks).

There has also been some talk the ANZAC's and FFG's will too, but it may only be "mini-typhoon" for these vessels.
As far as what is in the public domain, all I can find is mention of
Navy Project 1874 - Development of FFG Mini-Typhoon installation design/installation.
Then there is mention of HMAS Parramatta with such a mount
http://www.defence.gov.au/news/navynews/editions/4814/topstories/story02.htm
Having already installed these on some/all of the ANZACS, I can't see more $ being thrown at them to install 25mm mounts.
(Mini Typhoon is for 12.7/7.62/40mm grenade. - see link below)

I'm aware that the Typhoon system can have SAM or surface to surface missiles integrated with it, but I haven't heard that the ADF is interested in this capability...
{snip}...
http://www.rafael.co.il/web/rafnew/products/nav-typhoon.htm

RAN probably has Typhoon G (gun), not sure if this upgradeable to GS or GSA standard.

[Sea Toby]

There are a lot of nations that have ships with the Mk 13 launcher firing SM-1MR missiles, not necessarily Perry class frigates. Since the US Navy has stopped supporting this missile, I wonder whether other nations will upgrade their ships? I know some of the nations have sold theirs to other smaller navies, but are these smaller navies going to upgrade their Mk13 systems too?

Since the SM-2ER missile is longer than the SM-1MR missile, how are the Aussies upgrading their Mk-13 system to handle the longer missile? Did the Mk-13 always have the length needed?

America is in the process of elimating their Mk13 launchers, literlly cutting them off at the deck level. I doubt whether America will bother to upgrade, preferring to buy new LCS ships.

[Cootamundra]

The US won't need to upgrade with the new LCS coming along nicely and the DDX program picking up speed. I read somewhere that the newest OHP's in the USN will focus on ASW, so their Mk13 won't be needed.

[Aussie Digger]

There are a lot of nations that have ships with the Mk 13 launcher firing SM-1MR missiles, not necessarily Perry class frigates. Since the US Navy has stopped supporting this missile, I wonder whether other nations will upgrade their ships? I know some of the nations have sold theirs to other smaller navies, but are these smaller navies going to upgrade their Mk13 systems too?

Since the SM-2ER missile is longer than the SM-1MR missile, how are the Aussies upgrading their Mk-13 system to handle the longer missile? Did the Mk-13 always have the length needed?

America is in the process of elimating their Mk13 launchers, literlly cutting them off at the deck level. I doubt whether America will bother to upgrade, preferring to buy new LCS ships.

We didn't buy the SM-2ER, we bought the SM-2 Block IIIA, which is being modifed to fire from a rail launcher instead of a VLS system, hence the reason they won't be operational until 2008/9.

Cheers.

[rickusn]

"Since the US Navy has stopped supporting this missile....."

The missile will still be supported until the 2020 time frame to address the needs of the nations still using this missile.

[rossfrb_1]

{snip}

In not so good news, HMAS Warramunga (first ANZAC to be fitted with Harpoon II) appears to have it's Harpoon tubes removed with only the basic stands remaining. Perhaps the RAN is having difficulty with the installation of the Harpoon forward of the bridge? It has been 14 months since they were first installed and no other ANZAC frigate has yet been so equipped. Surely they would if there was no problems with this installation???
http://www.defence.gov.au/news/navynews/editions/4722/topstories/story03.htm
"
Harpoon added to the armoury
http://www.defence.gov.au/news/navynews/editions/4722/images/02-warra%20main_th.jpg Warramunga begins first of class harpoon firings.
http://www.defence.gov.au/news/navynews/editions/4722/images/02-warramunga_th.jpg The new quad-canister launchers for the harpoon anti-ship missiles.
Photos: ABPH Joanne Edwards
By LCDR Brett Bower and SBLT Jonathan Grimshaw
HMAS Warramunga has become the first Australian warship to have the harpoon surface-tosurface missile system installed.

The Anzac Class frigate has now been fitted with two quad-canister launchers that will hold eight Boeing RGM-84 harpoon anti-ship missiles fired using the new Advanced Harpoon Weapon Control System (AHWCS).

The RAN is only the second navy in the world to employ AHWCS, a system designed to launch the new Block II Land Attack Harpoon Missiles.

HMAS Warramunga will be testing the system installation this month by conducting the first-of-class firing, utilising a Blast Test Vehicle (BTV).

Once the installation has been proved, the harpoon missile system will be progressively fitted to all remain-ing Anzac Class ships and marks the beginning of a new level of capability for the RAN.

Other work completed in a recent refit included the fitting of the Air Weapons Magazine and the replacement of the Sceptre ESM suite with Centaur."

Can't actually spot a date for this article.

rb

[Aussie Digger]

http://www.defence.gov.au/news/navynews/editions/4722/topstories/story03.htm
"

Harpoon added to the armoury
http://www.defence.gov.au/news/navynews/editions/4722/images/02-warra%20main_th.jpg Warramunga begins first of class harpoon firings.

http://www.defence.gov.au/news/navynews/editions/4722/images/02-warramunga_th.jpg The new quad-canister launchers for the harpoon anti-ship missiles.


Photos: ABPH Joanne Edwards

By LCDR Brett Bower and SBLT Jonathan Grimshaw
HMAS Warramunga has become the first Australian warship to have the harpoon surface-tosurface missile system installed.

The Anzac Class frigate has now been fitted with two quad-canister launchers that will hold eight Boeing RGM-84 harpoon anti-ship missiles fired using the new Advanced Harpoon Weapon Control System (AHWCS).

The RAN is only the second navy in the world to employ AHWCS, a system designed to launch the new Block II Land Attack Harpoon Missiles.

HMAS Warramunga will be testing the system installation this month by conducting the first-of-class firing, utilising a Blast Test Vehicle (BTV).

Once the installation has been proved, the harpoon missile system will be progressively fitted to all remain-ing Anzac Class ships and marks the beginning of a new level of capability for the RAN.

Other work completed in a recent refit included the fitting of the Air Weapons Magazine and the replacement of the Sceptre ESM suite with Centaur."

Can't actually spot a date for this article.

rb






Mate, that article is from December 2004, when Warramunga was first fitted with the Quad launchers and Harpoon II capability. As I pointed out in my post above, it has now been 15 months since Warramunga was fitted with Harp II, NO OTHER ANZAC frigate has yet been fitted with it, and Warramunga (in the most recent publicly available photo's (January 06) has had it's Harp II tubes removed and only the basic stands remain. Hence my remark earlier, that all does not seem to be going well with the ANZAC Harpoon II integration.

The placement of the Harp tubes in front of the bridge on the ANZAC was the less preferred option, due to it ruling out being able to place a Mk 41 VLS system or a CIWS there, AND the placement of the tubes there interferes with the firing of the chaff/flare launchers.

The ANZAC class could not mount the tubes behind the bridge (as was originally planned) though due to "top weight" issues, but seeing as though nearly every other MEKO user mounts them there and the placement benefits the ANZAC's gain by mounting them there, perhaps the RAN is re-thinking this issue, and this accounts for the delay?

Or perhaps the integration is going as planned and the tubes have been withdrawn for maintenance or something and it's just a typically lengthy process. Who knows? Perhaps GF can find out (or knows already) if he reads this?

[KAPITAIN]

Wandering off here a bit but excuse my intrusion.

I would think that the aussie navy should sell them frigate's they have and buy something like a lafayette FFG only more than 6 this time like 8 or 10 thats my opinion il let you guys get back.

[Aussie Digger]

Wandering off here a bit but excuse my intrusion.

I would think that the aussie navy should sell them frigate's they have and buy something like a lafayette FFG only more than 6 this time like 8 or 10 thats my opinion il let you guys get back.

The FFG's are only being upgraded to allow them to serve until our Air warfare destroyers arrive. They will be retired then. The ANZAC's are newly built frigates, with the last frigate yet to even be delivered to the RAN. Once their upgrades are completed, they'll be very capable light frigates, comparable to any other similar vessel in the world, Lafayettes included.

[KAPITAIN]

I see thankyou for that i was wondering why they were keeping them frigates operational.

Good to hear that them DDG's are on the way too seems like the entire navy is being overhauled.

[gf0012-aust]

Who knows? Perhaps GF can find out (or knows already) if he reads this?

I have NFI at the moment. Remember when the conversion was done I had a rant about how idiotic it was with tube placement and that the cables weren't even armoured or housed properly?

I'm guessing that someone else came to the same conclusions. ;)

Seems like a question for AMPT10E

[tatra]

Mate, that article is from December 2004, when Warramunga was first fitted with the Quad launchers and Harpoon II capability. As I pointed out in my post above, it has now been 15 months since Warramunga was fitted with Harp II, NO OTHER ANZAC frigate has yet been fitted with it, and Warramunga (in the most recent publicly available photo's (January 06) has had it's Harp II tubes removed and only the basic stands remain. Hence my remark earlier, that all does not seem to be going well with the ANZAC Harpoon II integration.

The placement of the Harp tubes in front of the bridge on the ANZAC was the less preferred option, due to it ruling out being able to place a Mk 41 VLS system or a CIWS there, AND the placement of the tubes there interferes with the firing of the chaff/flare launchers.

The ANZAC class could not mount the tubes behind the bridge (as was originally planned) though due to "top weight" issues, but seeing as though nearly every other MEKO user mounts them there and the placement benefits the ANZAC's gain by mounting them there, perhaps the RAN is re-thinking this issue, and this accounts for the delay?

Or perhaps the integration is going as planned and the tubes have been withdrawn for maintenance or something and it's just a typically lengthy process. Who knows? Perhaps GF can find out (or knows already) if he reads this?

It's not uncommon for Harpoon equipped ships to carry only the stands in peacetime. This doesn't mean Harpoon is not fitted. As for placement behind the bridge, perhaps the topweight issue has less to do with Harpoon installation and more with the projected installation of phased array radar panels. This is the main difference between ANZAC and other nations' Meko200. The latter carry a 'regular' radar fit and SSMs behind the bridge. ANZAC is projected to get phased array radar panels fitted 'high up', the weight of which may preclude simultaneous installation of Harpoon 'high up'.

http://www.ausmarinetech.com.au/img/proj/CEAFAR/3dimage1.jpg
http://www.ausmarinetech.com.au/index.php?subaction=showfull&id=1080002280&archive=&start_from=&ucat=2&page=article

[gf0012-aust]

As for placement behind the bridge, perhaps the topweight issue has less to do with Harpoon installation and more with the projected installation of phased array radar panels. This is the main difference between ANZAC and other nations' Meko200. The latter carry a 'regular' radar fit and SSMs behind the bridge. ANZAC is projected to get phased array radar panels fitted 'high up', the weight of which may preclude simultaneous installation of Harpoon 'high up'.

One of the early problems identified with this class was an issue of the centre of gravity. at one stage serious consideration was being given to lancing the entire superstructure and doing a redesign.

Inherently, the platforms issues on stability favour VLS - any mounts sitting too high up could possibly raise balance concerns again.

I'm guessing that the demons of the past have revisited.

[alexsa]

One of the early problems identified with this class was an issue of the centre of gravity. at one stage serious consideration was being given to lancing the entire superstructure and doing a redesign.

Inherently, the platforms issues on stability favour VLS - any mounts sitting too high up could possibly raise balance concerns again.

I'm guessing that the demons of the past have revisited.

As far as I know Harpoon is not currently configured in a manner that would allow it to be launched using VLS. Is there any move to change this given the DD(X) configuration as this would appear to be a possible solution for the ANZAC and would be usedful for the FFG as well?

If it happens I would appear to be a good reason to add the second 8 cell Mk 41 to the ANZAC (personnally I would like to see this in place anyway).

On the ANZAC (and slightly off track) I note the original design configuration for the ANZAC (as advertised and given on the GA plan) had the Harpoon mounts behind the bridge, as well as CIWS, 16 Mk41 cells and a second fire control channel all mounted quite high up (apparently above the CoG). It seems to me that some thing has gone adrift in the design in that it cannot now be achieved. Is it possible the proposed ASMD have anything to do with this?

[Rich]

Has there been any interest in Australia in the Spruance class destoyers the USN is retiring? And wouldnt that be a good "bang for the buck" move by the AN? Which is apparently suffering from "frigate'itis"..............thank you

[gf0012-aust]

Has there been any interest in Australia in the Spruance class destoyers the USN is retiring? And wouldnt that be a good "bang for the buck" move by the AN? Which is apparently suffering from "frigate'itis"..............thank you

No. The Australian Govt has made it clear that its not interested in Navy obtaining second hand US gear after the debacle of the Newports.

We have been offered all the Kidds and 3 Ticonderogas in the past.

[Rich]

Obviously a brand spanking new DD-51 or Type-45 would be preferable. My point was a free Spruance is better then no Spruance. Because you can only throw so many systems on a sub-4,000 ton frigate before it spins upside down.

The Spruance's would give your navy another dimension. Most of all in ASW. Lets face facts here, Australia should have 9,000+ ton multi-mission platforms in its navy.

[KAPITAIN]

Well i am a great believer that australia should havea carrier and a 9000 tonnes multi mission DDG or even a CG would be good in thier fleet id like to see this sort of navy for the australians ok its wishful thinking.

2 aircraft carriers
2 cruisers
8 destroyers
12 frigates
22 patrol craft
6 auxilaries
8 submarines

something like that would be good.

[Sea Toby]

Australia has a population of 20 or so million. A European country to compare Australia's military per capital would be the Netherlands, not the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, or Spain which have twice if not three or four times the population of Australia.

Australia will by 2015 have 3 air warfare destroyers, 8 general purpose frigates, 6 diesel submarines, 12+ patrol boats, 6 minehunters, 2 replenishment oilers, and 2 LHDs along with another sealift ship.

The Netherlands will by 2015 have 4 air warfare destroyers, 4 general purpose frigates, 4 diesel submarines, 10 minehunters, 2 replenishment oilers, 2 LPDs. It appears the Netherlands maybe acquiring one or more OPVs to replace recently sold frigates to Chile.

The Australians have 10,800 naval personnel, the Dutch have 8,800 naval personnel.

While the Dutch are building their air warfare destroyers and their second LPD currently, in the next ten years it appears the Dutch will only be acquiring one more replenishment oiler and one or more OPVs. The Dutch have sold off their Orion fleet of ASW patrol aircraft.

On the other hand the Australians will soon start building their air warfare destroyers and three larger amphibious ships and will more than likely convert another cream puff used oiler to a replenishment oiler, currently the Australians are building patrol boats having recently finished building a class of 8 frigates and 6 minehunters. The Australians are also updating their Orions.

While Australia maybe a bit larger in population than the Netherlands, the two first world nations do match well, much better than attempting to compare the forces of the United Kingdom to Australia, which has three times the population and government revenues.

Canada has a larger population than Australia, and it appears Australia is doing more for the allied cause than the Canadians which by 2015 will be down to its 12 general purpose frigates, 4 diesel submarines, 12 OPVs, and 2-3 multi-role replenishment/sealift ships. Canada only has 8,900 naval personnel.

Of course the mighty Royal Navy has 37,400 active naval personnel, plus 2300 royal fleet auxiliary personnel, not to mention 17,400 naval reserve personnel. The Royal Navy by 2015 will have 2 new aircraft carriers, 4 ballistic missile submarines, 12 attack submarines, 6-8 air warfare destroyers, 16-20 general purpose frigates, 3 OPVs, 22 minehunters, 1 LPH, 2 LPDs, 3 LSDs, 2 large replenishment ships, 2 replenishment ships, 2+ replenishment oilers, and 6-8 vehicle cargo ships, plus a larger number of utility craft due to its larger size in manpower and warships.

[Whiskyjack]

Australia has a population of 20 or so million. A European country to compare Australia's military per capital would be the Netherlands, not the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, or Spain which have twice if not three or four times the population of Australia.

Australia will by 2015 have 3 air warfare destroyers, 8 general purpose frigates, 6 diesel submarines, 12+ patrol boats, 6 minehunters, 2 replenishment oilers, and 2 LHDs along with another sealift ship.

The Netherlands will by 2015 have 4 air warfare destroyers, 4 general purpose frigates, 4 diesel submarines, 10 minehunters, 2 replenishment oilers, 2 LPDs. It appears the Netherlands maybe acquiring one or more OPVs to replace recently sold frigates to Chile.

The Australians have 10,800 naval personnel, the Dutch have 8,800 naval personnel.

While the Dutch are building their air warfare destroyers and their second LPD currently, in the next ten years it appears the Dutch will only be acquiring one more replenishment oiler and one or more OPVs. The Dutch have sold off their Orion fleet of ASW patrol aircraft.

On the other hand the Australians will soon start building their air warfare destroyers and three larger amphibious ships and will more than likely convert another cream puff used oiler to a replenishment oiler, currently the Australians are building patrol boats having recently finished building a class of 8 frigates and 6 minehunters. The Australians are also updating their Orions.

While Australia maybe a bit larger in population than the Netherlands, the two first world nations do match well, much better than attempting to compare the forces of the United Kingdom to Australia, which has three times the population and government revenues.

Canada has a larger population than Australia, and it appears Australia is doing more for the allied cause than the Canadians which by 2015 will be down to its 12 general purpose frigates, 4 diesel submarines, 12 OPVs, and 2-3 multi-role replenishment/sealift ships. Canada only has 8,900 naval personnel.

Of course the mighty Royal Navy has 37,400 active naval personnel, plus 2300 royal fleet auxiliary personnel, not to mention 17,400 naval reserve personnel. The Royal Navy by 2015 will have 2 new aircraft carriers, 4 ballistic missile submarines, 12 attack submarines, 6-8 air warfare destroyers, 16-20 general purpose frigates, 3 OPVs, 22 minehunters, 1 LPH, 2 LPDs, 3 LSDs, 2 large replenishment ships, 2 replenishment ships, 2+ replenishment oilers, and 6-8 vehicle cargo ships, plus a larger number of utility craft due to its larger size in manpower and warships.

Hi Sea Toby,

Just to clarify, the strength of the RAN is around 13,000.
http://www.defence.gov.au/budget/04-05/dar/03_01_workforce01.htm
And the RN figure also includes the RM, which is around 6000-7000.

Cheers.

[Rich]

The RAN air warfare destroyer program is going to deliver a DD when? Was it 2015? Right now the program is nothing but a traveling road show trying to "sell" it to the public.........correct? There has been no actual work done on the project yet........yes?

So it leaves the RAN wth a green water navy for a blue water mission. Im not sure you can compare the Aussies with a Euro-navy because they have completly different defense requirments. Australia is situated in the vastness of the pacific in the most important maritime trade route in the world. They have a far greater need for a far more powerful navy then any mainland Euro country.

And current plans are only for 3 AWDDs? I think as a stop gap, and as a hedge, they, and we, would be better off if the RAN operated some of the Spruances were retiring. They are still a most capable platform.

[alexsa]

The RAN air warfare destroyer program is going to deliver a DD when? Was it 2015? Right now the program is nothing but a traveling road show trying to "sell" it to the public.........correct? There has been no actual work done on the project yet........yes?

So it leaves the RAN wth a green water navy for a blue water mission. Im not sure you can compare the Aussies with a Euro-navy because they have completly different defense requirments. Australia is situated in the vastness of the pacific in the most important maritime trade route in the world. They have a far greater need for a far more powerful navy then any mainland Euro country.

And current plans are only for 3 AWDDs? I think as a stop gap, and as a hedge, they, and we, would be better off if the RAN operated some of the Spruances were retiring. They are still a most capable platform.

Actually the AWD is a bit more that just a travelling road show trying to sell the AWD and a number of agreements have been signed in respect of the vessels systems already. The DMO web site (although not updated for some time) gives and indication of what activity is going on:

http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/msd/sea4000/sea4000.cfm

The road show was intended to canvas Australian companies to see if they had the capacity to be involved. The Allaince web site covering the road show is available at:

http://www.ausawd.com/index.html

Further from my uniformed perspective looking at the DoD announcements and the recent capability announcements that the AWD has passed all the budget goal posts to date. In other words it is running along with a full head of steam.

The Spurance class vessels are man power intesnsive, have had a full career to date (meaning they will be more maintenance intensive) and won't be a patch on the capability of the AWD. To me what it appears what they would do is soak up a lot of defence budget for limited capability to fill a role that is more effectivley handled by the FFG (which has a smaller crew). The upgraded FFG would appear to have a significantly better AAW capability than the Spruance with SM-2 and ESSM and has similar SSM capability so we are better off completeing the upgrade fo the 4 FFG's as planned. I have to admit it appears ADI did make a real dogs breakfast of getting the first one completed.

I think the comment about the size fo Australia and what we can afford is a valid one but if the platforms currently being in the capabiliyt plan are built it will be quite a credible force in the region.

[seantheaussie]

So it leaves the RAN wth a green water navy for a blue water mission. Im not sure you can compare the Aussies with a Euro-navy because they have completly different defense requirments. Australia is situated in the vastness of the pacific in the most important maritime trade route in the world. They have a far greater need for a far more powerful navy then any mainland Euro country.The bulk of Australia's exports go to countries with very powerful navies. There are not many enemy navies out there who want to mess with US, Japan, China, SKorea.

[KAPITAIN]

Id also like to add russia to your list.

Even though russia is experiancing finacial issues since the cold war it is still none the less 2nd biggest navy in the world, even china doesnt have as many vessel as russia YET.

Despite the average age of thier vessels they are still very capible, i mean would you realy want to mess with peter the great seriously?

[gf0012-aust]

The RAN air warfare destroyer program is going to deliver a DD when? Was it 2015? Right now the program is nothing but a traveling road show trying to "sell" it to the public.........correct? There has been no actual work done on the project yet........yes?

It's a bit more than a travelling road show - the main point being that none of what is happening is now in the public eye.

US primes for example have been too and fro into Oz negotiating with potential suppliers and builders. There is a flurry of activity going on identifying key staff requirements and the Govt has established some maritime centres as part of the dev/build process.

[Michael RVR]

KAPITAIN - But we don't export to Russia..

[rickusn]

"i mean would you realy want to mess with peter the great seriously?"

Absolutely. Its a huge target whos defences are suspect at best.

[Sea Toby]

As I recall Australia was offered the Kidd class destroyers with Mk 26 SAM launchers, and they have been offered the first four of the Ticenderoga class with Mk 26 SAM launchers. Since Australia passed on these newer better air warfare destroyers and cruisers, why would Australia desire an older Spruance class without a Mk 26 SAM launcher? Especially considering they have Anzac class frigates with an 8-cell MK 41 SAM launcher for Sea Sparrow, and after their upgrades they will have quad packed the Evolved Sea Sparrow missiles, able to launch 32 ESSM instead of 8 Sea Sparrows. Australia may eventually add the second 8-cell Mk 41 launcher to the Anzacs.

The Australians are also upgrading four of their six Perry class FFGs, keeping the Mk 13 launcher for 40 Standard/Harpoon missiles, and adding an 8-cell Mk 41 launcher for quad pack, 32 ESSM. These Perry class frigates after their upgrade will be more powerful than their old Adams class destroyers.

Eleven Australian surface warships surely beats 8 Dutch surface warships. Six Australian submarines beats 4 Dutch submarines. Australia is pulling its share, however, New Zealand is another story.

[KAPITAIN]

Id seriously doubt any right minded same captain would want to mess with it.

When i was visiting my stepfather in st petersburg (i go there and murmansk regularly) peter the great was in for over haul and the amount of weapons on that ship well..............

There is atleast 3 types of SAM's i couldnt count all the CIWS guns and the VLS launcher's for the 2nd most powerfullest anti ship missile on earth.

If i was comanding a DDG id simply run away and get some bigger ships or team up to go in and get it.

[rickusn]

Not me.

One SSN. One torpedo. One sunk target. LOL

Or aircraft with precision weapons.

The reason it has so many redundant systems is that they are all relatively unreliable, ineffective and in some cases obsolete.

Even a well trained Captain and crew of a relatively well-armed and sensored DDG could mission kill the ship you worship w/o geetting a scratch.

Why? See below.

As for the rest. It does indeed bristle with weapons but suffers when it comes to targeting and employing thiose weapons.

Plus you have to go to sea far more often to be a credible foe.

And the Slavas are even less imposing.

But think what you want.

Because for me it doesnt matter what I think. All that matters is what I know.

And I know from the facts that the ship you speak of is not an awe inspiring threat but only an enormous target that can be quite easilly eliminated by "any right minded sane captain"( quote edited for spelling).

But it is a wonderful ship for showing the flag but its only claim to fame is the prestige factor.

I wouldnt want to be on her in a sea battle of any type. Her life expectancy and that of the crews can be measured in minutes if not seconds.

The Slavas are even worse. Any hit by any surface or air weapon would render them a flaming hulk in a split second. An SSN would sink them so suddenly and catastrophically that it would take decades to locate what was left of the wreck.

Im prepared for battle. Are you? I know you arent.

But bring it anyway if you have a mind because Im ready.

[gf0012-aust]

Just a gentle reminder about the topic title.

Feel free to start a new thread on the competency of the Peter the Great though. I'm sure there will be respondents to it.

In closing, to paraphrase the submariners mantra - "there are two types of ship/boat - submarines and targets."

[gf0012-aust]

Note my Previous

It was not an invitation to continue to stay and stray off topic.

You've got 24 hours to start a new topic related to Peter the Great etc... so that you can copy your off topic posts - after that all subsequent posts after my initial warning that are off topic will be deleted.


edit - extension to 24hrs added

[KAPITAIN]

AAAhhhh sorry i didnt see your post ive looked back.