Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

Redlands18

Well-Known Member

John Newman

The Bunker Group
See the Phalanx has been fitted, above the Hangar. Must have happened during the final fit out in WA.
Yes good to see that Phalanx has been fitted.

It was interesting when the ships were first announced that graphics released by the RAN showed two Phalanx fitted, one on the hangar and one forward of the bridge, which didn’t happen in reality.

But I do note that from all of the images I’ve seen of NUSHIP Supply show that there is a mount forward of the bridge for future potential use of a second system.


Cheers,
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group
The Federal Government, Navantia and the RAN all need to be congratulated on how well and how quickly this project has gone.

The ship design was selected in March 2016, contacts followed quickly, Supply laid down late 2017 and Stalwart 12 month later.

Despite some Covid delays in Spain, here we are, early January 2021, and Supply is completed and ready for commissioning, I read that Stalwart may be ready late this year too?

Compare this project to the similar one that our Canuck cousins have been running, well there is no comparison is there? (I won’t detail the Canuck timeline because it’s just way way too sad and embarrassing).

Anyway, maybe in about 25-30 years from now when the Supply class is due for replacement, that all of the planned infrastructure upgrades to either Henderson or Osborne allow for local construction of their replacements.

Cheers,
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Yes good to see that Phalanx has been fitted.

It was interesting when the ships were first announced that graphics released by the RAN showed two Phalanx fitted, one on the hangar and one forward of the bridge, which didn’t happen in reality.

But I do note that from all of the images I’ve seen of NUSHIP Supply show that there is a mount forward of the bridge for future potential use of a second system.


Cheers,
Could be that we simply don’t have a Phalanx to mount in the forward position yet? We only have (off the top of my head) 16 or so Phalanx systems in-service, some are fitted to the AWD’s, and some of them are un-available, being away in the upgrade process being readied for Block 1B2 standard...

If only one was available, I suppose protecting the rear hemisphere of the ship with a bigger field of fire, must be the preferred position?

Personally I’d prefer to see a 21 round, RIM-116 RAM Block II launcher up front anyway, but maybe that’s just me... Obviously RAN doesn’t agree... :)
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Could be that we simply don’t have a Phalanx to mount in the forward position yet? We only have (off the top of my head) 16 or so Phalanx systems in-service, some are fitted to the AWD’s, and some of them are un-available, being away in the upgrade process being readied for Block 1B2 standard...

If only one was available, I suppose protecting the rear hemisphere of the ship with a bigger field of fire, must be the preferred position?

Personally I’d prefer to see a 21 round, RIM-116 RAM Block II launcher up front anyway, but maybe that’s just me... Obviously RAN doesn’t agree... :)
Or occy strap a Hawkie with Amraam somewhere up front and stick another with radar on-top the bridge. The 2020 equivalent of bolting RBS70 to Success.
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Or occy strap a Hawkie with Amraam somewhere up front and stick another with radar on-top the bridge. The 2020 equivalent of bolting RBS70 to Success.
Or the NASAMS ii static launcher at least, anyway...
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Could be that we simply don’t have a Phalanx to mount in the forward position yet? We only have (off the top of my head) 16 or so Phalanx systems in-service, some are fitted to the AWD’s, and some of them are un-available, being away in the upgrade process being readied for Block 1B2 standard...

If only one was available, I suppose protecting the rear hemisphere of the ship with a bigger field of fire, must be the preferred position?

Personally I’d prefer to see a 21 round, RIM-116 RAM Block II launcher up front anyway, but maybe that’s just me... Obviously RAN doesn’t agree... :)
You may be right. There certainly appears to be the mounting bed plate on the focsle. Given time we may see two fitted.
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
Could be that we simply don’t have a Phalanx to mount in the forward position yet? We only have (off the top of my head) 16 or so Phalanx systems in-service, some are fitted to the AWD’s, and some of them are un-available, being away in the upgrade process being readied for Block 1B2 standard...

If only one was available, I suppose protecting the rear hemisphere of the ship with a bigger field of fire, must be the preferred position?

Personally I’d prefer to see a 21 round, RIM-116 RAM Block II launcher up front anyway, but maybe that’s just me... Obviously RAN doesn’t agree... :)
There was an announcement back about 2017 on the Phalanx systems the RAN currently owns and if I remember correctly they said 12 and laid out a plan for fitting them, 1 each for the Hobarts, 1 each for the Choules and the 2 new AORs, leaving 6 for the Canberra’s to be fitted in 2019, Canberra is currently in Refit so may emerge with 1 or more fitted.
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
Not sure I see much of a problem of a AOR sporting just a single Phalanx (with nice arcs of what ~300degrees? ) in peacetime. The Anzacs have none and the DDG have only one? You still have 2 x 25mm typhoons as well. While it could always have something a little more, I think priorities lie elsewhere.

Aren't 6 of the Phalanx's being mounted to the LHD's as we speak, replacing the typhoons?


At least 2 are being upgraded, 3 are on the DDG's, I presume 2 are on or going on the AOR, and 6 are going onto the Canberra's. They would have seen some use in commissioning the DDG's weapon systems? I would imagine they would be hesitant to bolt the un-upgraded versions onto ships, they wouldn't want to risk stuffing up the schedule for upgrades, plus I assume they shipped them all over and are just shipping them back when upgrades.

They look nice, the Spanish have come through, again. I wonder what they would quote for a 3rd LHD now the yards quiet.
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group
Could be that we simply don’t have a Phalanx to mount in the forward position yet? We only have (off the top of my head) 16 or so Phalanx systems in-service, some are fitted to the AWD’s, and some of them are un-available, being away in the upgrade process being readied for Block 1B2 standard...

If only one was available, I suppose protecting the rear hemisphere of the ship with a bigger field of fire, must be the preferred position?

Personally I’d prefer to see a 21 round, RIM-116 RAM Block II launcher up front anyway, but maybe that’s just me... Obviously RAN doesn’t agree... :)
Agree, I don’t think there enough Phalanx to go around the entire fleet.

I remember reading an article on the ADM website last year (can’t access it now, last time I looked it had been upgraded to ‘premium’, subscriber only).

But it did talk about all the systems being upgraded to the current ‘block’ standard and which ships got what:

1 x 3 DDG
3 x 2 LHD
1 x 1 LSD (Choules, has mounts for two)
1 x 2 AOR (Second mount available)
1 x 1 Training
1 x 1 Spare

That totals 14 Phalanx systems.

To give Choules and the two AORs a second Phalanx (and keep two for training and spare), the RAN needs three more.

Three more wouldn’t break the bank either.

And of course there is no decision yet as to what will be fitted to the 9 x Hunter FFGs).

Cheers,
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
Agree, I don’t think there enough Phalanx to go around the entire fleet.

I remember reading an article on the ADM website last year (can’t access it now, last time I looked it had been upgraded to ‘premium’, subscriber only).

But it did talk about all the systems being upgraded to the current ‘block’ standard and which ships got what:

1 x 3 DDG
3 x 2 LHD
1 x 1 LSD (Choules, has mounts for two)
1 x 2 AOR (Second mount available)
1 x 1 Training
1 x 1 Spare

That totals 14 Phalanx systems.

To give Choules and the two AORs a second Phalanx (and keep two for training and spare), the RAN needs three more.

Three more wouldn’t break the bank either.

And of course there is no decision yet as to what will be fitted to the 9 x Hunter FFGs).

Cheers,
Its 12 John as per the link provided by @StingrayOZ above and going on that article only 6 have been delivered back to Australia. You would think that the weapon systems for at least the first 3 Hunters will have to be ordered in the next couple of years, some interesting choices to be made there on the CIWS and possibly the SSM. The 3 on the Hobarts have to be changed over and sent back for upgrading.
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Agree, I don’t think there enough Phalanx to go around the entire fleet.

I remember reading an article on the ADM website last year (can’t access it now, last time I looked it had been upgraded to ‘premium’, subscriber only).

But it did talk about all the systems being upgraded to the current ‘block’ standard and which ships got what:

1 x 3 DDG
3 x 2 LHD
1 x 1 LSD (Choules, has mounts for two)
1 x 2 AOR (Second mount available)
1 x 1 Training
1 x 1 Spare

That totals 14 Phalanx systems.

To give Choules and the two AORs a second Phalanx (and keep two for training and spare), the RAN needs three more.

Three more wouldn’t break the bank either.

And of course there is no decision yet as to what will be fitted to the 9 x Hunter FFGs).

Cheers,
We definitely don’t, assuming we use Phalanx and assuming they are all fitted, we will need 18x just for the Hunter Class alone...
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group
Its 12 John as per the link provided by @StingrayOZ above and going on that article only 6 have been delivered back to Australia. You would think that the weapon systems for at least the first 3 Hunters will have to be ordered in the next couple of years, some interesting choices to be made there on the CIWS and possibly the SSM. The 3 on the Hobarts have to be changed over and sent back for upgrading.
Yes and no.

Yes the link that StingrayOZ put up is all about ‘upgrades’ to the existing 12 Phalanx, but that’s all it is, upgrades.

There are apparently two ‘new’ systems too, the two installed on the AORs, that makes 14:


I just had a look and found the ADM article I mentioned above, 12 upgrades and 2 new systems, totals 14.

Cheers,

(PS, you’ve got to get up early to catch me out! Ha ha!!)
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
It will be interesting to see how the 40mm on the OPVs perform. As I understand it their 3P ammunition grants a very effective CIWS capability, depending on level of integration with the combat system.

Maybe some platforms could end up shipping 40mm while others retain Phalanx.
 
Last edited:

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
IMO I think more Phalanx would be a useful addition. We again have more mounts than units.

While Phalanx isn't ideal to handle swarms of hypersonic anti shipping missiles, its great at all those other threats including small surface boats, drones, RPG's, mortars, etc. In the role on the LHD for example, perfect.

Personally I think we would be better looking at CAMM rather than SeaRAM. CAMM could go onto the LHD/Hunter class and also keep Phalanx. CAMM is ideal for a ship like the LHD with its cold launch system. It provides more overlapping coverage, and more layers.
Not a big fan of the size and location of the pennant number, just doesn’t look right on an RAN ship.
Makes sense on an AOR though.
 

spoz

The Bunker Group
In history, the skippy was only for surface combatants. Certainly, for a long time Tobruk and the LCH had a joint badge, and patrol boats had a variety of geographical reference. Major ships (CVS, AO etc) had nothing. It may be that they are going back to that. OTOH, it may just be they haven’t been fitted yet.
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
There’s been lots of discussion re TLAM on the MFUs however IIRC the DWP stated that the RAN’s strike capacity is slated for our submarines and this makes sense. Surely the stealth of the launch platform for strike Ops is paramount.
The RAN does not have the capacity to have multiple options in all fleet units.
 

Git_Kraken

Active Member
WRT warship design parameters, upper deck space allocation is probably the real elephant in the room these days; each ship packs an awful lot of electronics, the aerials for all of which have to be placed on, or above, the upper deck. As there are normally mutual interference issues, their placement and the size of deck you need to place them on becomes a major design criteria. That's doubled when you're carrying a helo which has both electronics of its own which must not mutually interfere, and engine management systems etc plus warm bodies inside who need to be shielded from EMR during time on deck, take off and approach to the ship. It's a challenge.
I know that as Integrated Topside Design, but there may be other names in other places. Like I stated earlier topside space or upperdeck space is the most important limiting factor in warship design today. For radar, ESM, ECM, Comms, weapons, boats, helicopters, torps, uptakes, downtakes, RAS areas, navigation equipment, EOIR and probably things I forgot to mention.

It used to decks so you could mount more guns (Nelsonian thinking). Then it became tons where you needed armour, big guns and big engines to move all of that stuff (WW1, WW2). Then it became space because electronics were bulky (Cold War equipment). Not its upperdeck space because the EM spectrum is how you win naval wars and the electronics are much smaller.

Interestingly we are overly infatuated with tons as a design factor for modern ships and many believe we are still classifying ship types on this outdated thinking. It's a bit funny because ships have never been classified by their weight. They have always been classified by their role. And their role generally coincided with a weight range.

There’s been lots of discussion re TLAM on the MFUs however IIRC the DWP stated that the RAN’s strike capacity is slated for our submarines and this makes sense. Surely the stealth of the launch platform for strike Ops is paramount.
The RAN does not have the capacity to have multiple options in all fleet units.
Last I checked the RN submarine fleet was the only non-USN user of the TLAM. Is it the plan for the Sub service to acquire TLAM?
 
Top