StevoJH
The Bunker Group
Or literally just build another batch of upgraded Hunters and use offboard platforms for additional firepower.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
Do they have a 127mm gun up forward? Plus it appears they have Phalanx up forward and possibly aft. I don't understand the RN and USN insisting on 57mm. Even the Type 83 concept has it. To a layman like me it's a pop gun. Smart ammo maybe, but there's no range of hitting power. If you run out of missiles it would be like throwing tennis balls if you're trying to sink a ship.
127mm main gun, 64 mk41 cells, 11 cell searam launcher, 3 DEWs(1 forward of the antenna + 2 on the hangar), rail gun(hangar), flexible mid section for SSM, more cells or containers.
Last edited:
I noticed there was an image in the Navalnews interview of the mogami build schedule..
It's been a pretty successful build project. It would be great to have an Australia yard spamming these out to continuously. Obviously they have two yards. But still..
As for a UK air defence ship, I would expect we would need to know more about it, they tend to go heavy on euro systems. I'm not sure its a good fit for Australia. A type 45 would need lots of modifications in pretty much every way to really be suitable for Australian service and systems.
It would certainly be worth baselining UK, Japan, Korean, Spanish, German and Italian destroyers. Even if we go with a modified Type 26, it should study other designs to learn and find competitive benchmarks. While we may not buy those designs, the systems they are fitted with, design concepts, UAVs, munitions etc are definitely of interest and could be acquired and demonstrate best practice intergration.
It's been a pretty successful build project. It would be great to have an Australia yard spamming these out to continuously. Obviously they have two yards. But still..
As for a UK air defence ship, I would expect we would need to know more about it, they tend to go heavy on euro systems. I'm not sure its a good fit for Australia. A type 45 would need lots of modifications in pretty much every way to really be suitable for Australian service and systems.
It would certainly be worth baselining UK, Japan, Korean, Spanish, German and Italian destroyers. Even if we go with a modified Type 26, it should study other designs to learn and find competitive benchmarks. While we may not buy those designs, the systems they are fitted with, design concepts, UAVs, munitions etc are definitely of interest and could be acquired and demonstrate best practice intergration.
Would there be any plans to incorporate some of the newer equipment from the Anzacs onto the newer Mekos like Ceafar and Ceamount reducing the costs of the new build and having a better sensor arrangement?
Would it make sense to have a similar towed array to the Hunter class?
Would it make sense to have a similar towed array to the Hunter class?
Australia very definitely should be involved in development projects for future capability.
We should be contributing ADF, APS and industry experts, as well as more junior staff to support these projects.
We should be, even if it means replacing ships at 20 or 24 years instead of 30 plus years, continuously building new ships, ships they we have input into their design and scope.
We should be contributing ADF, APS and industry experts, as well as more junior staff to support these projects.
We should be, even if it means replacing ships at 20 or 24 years instead of 30 plus years, continuously building new ships, ships they we have input into their design and scope.
If you're down to 127mm for sinking an enemy warship, I think your in big trouble.
And who is going to risk a 10000t warship close to shore for NGS? Easy prey for coastal AShM, like the ones Aus is about to order.
I see the 57mm as a long (er) range CIWS, not only vs AShM, but UAVs & USVs. Even with guided munitions, likely to be far cheaper than missiles in these high demand roles.
There could be the option of using the 127mm in support of land based operations
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
As was proven in the Gulf War where our crews excelled. 57mm is too small. It's best to have the capabilities of the 127mm than not have them at all, rather than being caught with your pants down when you really need it.
Some of the European navies have a mix of 127mm, 76mm and 57mm on the one hull for various tasks. Many years ago I saw an Italian destroyer or frigate in Melbourne that had as many turrets as a WWII battleship. Guns everywhere!
The Hunter class is also just a variant of the Type 26? You just said it yourself, what is the difference? If anything this is just a minor evolution akin to the Mogami and evolved Mogami than it is a blank slate new design. The British are moving away from the Sylver VLS towards the Mk41, and BAE makes it clear in the article that much like the future US Navy DDG(X), up to 2 of the 4x 32-cell Mk41 'blocks' can be replaced with 1 or 2 'Advanced Payload Modules', that are presently being backfitted to the Zumwalt class destroyers in place of their defunct 155mm AGS' on the bow. That means 4-8x 880mm VLS for up to 12-24x 'Dark Eagle' hypersonic glide vehicles and/or 28-56x Tomahawk. In turn, that almost certainly means Aegis will be the combat system of the Type-83. Add to the fact they want a fixed-panel AESA to complement what looks like their standard 'Artisan' on top of the mast, for which they have no current indigenous designs of their own, we have a great opportunity to finally export our world leading CEAFAR2 to a trusted partner in big numbers. We should absolutely collaborate for as much mutual benefit as possible.
The Canadians could very well be looking at an alternative for the SPY-7 on their future Type-26 based 'Fraser' class Destroyers considering their recent spat with the U.S and their recent selection of our world-beating Jindalee over-the-horizon radar (JORN) technology over an unnamed US competitor. Would be a great export success + standardize as much as possible amongst the major commonwealth nations.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
I believe Australia tried to promote CEAFAR for the River class. If this decision was pending today with the current IOTUS, CEAFAR may have been better received. Consideration now would involve major design work leading to delay we really can't afford.
Interesting article with a model of the Meko A 2-10 a thousand tons heavier than the A-200 shown with the Cea Far radar and 32 vls , if only
www.navalnews.com
TKMS Unveils New MEKO A210 Frigate - Naval News
During Indo Pacific 2023, TKMS revealed it's third generation MEKO 200 design called the MEKO A210, which it intends to offer to Australia
www.navalnews.com
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
IOTUS. Love it!
It still works if the ship has been somewhat disabled. They have hit off shore oil platforms, and targeted land targets. Where you want something done, but don't want to waste a missile, and its not yet so secure to send a demolition team over to blow it up. It's in that grey area is does well.
The 5"has been able to take out drones. It was always a dual purpose calibre.
USS Carney's Red Sea Operations Highlight 5-inch Deck Gun's Anti-Air Capability
USS Carney executed a whopping 51 engagements of Houthi drones and missiles during its deployment to the Red Sea.
www.twz.com
We tried to sell CEAFAR. It didn't really go anywhere. Last I heard we were talking about some sort of joint development options. Not that its not good, but Australia's wants for the largest and most powerful radar, really don't suit other navies ships and priorities. However things in this space can change.
IMO any Air warfare ship is highly likely to be an embiggend Hunter. It already has the fitout for it, we are already building it. A unique AWD design for just 3-4 hulls isn't worth shitting all over the production line for. We know the design can scale to 64 or 96 as is in just a reconfiguring of the existing structure. If it was lengthened, it would be low risk, lots of commonality, and it would be able to fitout with very large missile loads of the larger long ships that are planed in europe and else where (128Vls).. It probably wouldn't carry that much, more likely 64 + 24 larger VLS cells
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
If we go for a modified Hunter for our next AWD I would keep the 5" gun. A destroyer has to have guns, It's in the DNA! With the current mods you could put 64 VLS in the mission bay area bringing it up to 96 cells, a formidable load out. If we want 128 lengthen the hull. Either way these are the options with the least risk and would go straight onto a hot line. They would be into service quicker and the development costs that always bedevil a first in class would very low. We want to launch the first before we decommission a Hobart. Look at the problems in the RN.It still works if the ship has been somewhat disabled. They have hit off shore oil platforms, and targeted land targets. Where you want something done, but don't want to waste a missile, and its not yet so secure to send a demolition team over to blow it up. It's in that grey area is does well.
The 5"has been able to take out drones. It was always a dual purpose calibre.
I don't think the 5" is going anywhere. The one thing we have been able to scale is cannon and artillery rounds in production. The italians love guns, and often have multiple calibres, at least with the 5"you get decent power and decent range.USS Carney's Red Sea Operations Highlight 5-inch Deck Gun's Anti-Air Capability
USS Carney executed a whopping 51 engagements of Houthi drones and missiles during its deployment to the Red Sea.
We tried to sell CEAFAR. It didn't really go anywhere. Last I heard we were talking about some sort of joint development options. Not that its not good, but Australia's wants for the largest and most powerful radar, really don't suit other navies ships and priorities. However things in this space can change.
IMO any Air warfare ship is highly likely to be an embiggend Hunter. It already has the fitout for it, we are already building it. A unique AWD design for just 3-4 hulls isn't worth shitting all over the production line for. We know the design can scale to 64 or 96 as is in just a reconfiguring of the existing structure. If it was lengthened, it would be low risk, lots of commonality, and it would be able to fitout with very large missile loads of the larger long ships that are planed in europe and else where (128Vls).. It probably wouldn't carry that much, more likely 64 + 24 larger VLS cells
Didn't the forward gun on a RN Frigate take out an Exocet missile inbound during the Falklands War.
Just keeping on naval guns the R.A.N uses the mk45 mod 4
Should the Vulcano ammunitions be also considered
www.navalnews.com
Is there any advantage to the plus five degrees elevation of the Oto Melara over the Mk45 against aerial threats with airburst ammunition
Should the Vulcano ammunitions be also considered
127mm Vulcano Ammunition Passes Acceptance Tests in Germany - Naval News
The Federal Office of Bundeswehr Equipment, Information Technology and In-Service Support (BAAINBw) and the German Navy successfully qualified the 127mm Vulcano precision guided munition.
www.navalnews.com
127/64 LW Oto Melara Breda Leonardo lightweight naval gun
127/64 lw oto melara breda leonardo lightweight naval gun system
www.seaforces.org
Pretty sure that was the Durand de la Penne, or her sister. I remember reading about it at the time.
Remarkable ships. Layered defences, with Mk13 and Standard backed up by a Aspide/Seasparrow launcher, and 127mm plus 3(!) 76mm. Apparently because in the Med they expected short engagement ranges - very traditional for post-war Italian ships - but very appropriate for an age of possible drone swarms.
Regarding 127mm in its various marks in RAN service - I understand it's the only weapon used in anger since the Malayan Emergency...