iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
When you consider what the Armidale Class went through with damage from high sea states these are a good design.
As you said, they need a gun, 40mm preferably as a 57mm might be a stretch!
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
As you said, they need a gun, 40mm preferably as a 57mm might be a stretch!
There tends to be a perception that capability is solely a factor of bolted on systems when platform is a very big part of it.
The platform is what gets the mission systems (whatever they be) to where they need to be, supplying them with power, cooling, and a stable, survivable, platform to be used from.
An Armidale or Cape Class PB is a good example of this. Below sea state 4 it is perfectly adequate, above it is compromised to the point of being unsafe to operate. Add any form of resistance, even ramming by a fishing trawler, they are useless. But on paper they are vastly superior to the more survivable vessels (Fremantle and Attack Class PBs) they replaced.
The Arafuras are more seaworthy and durable than any of the PBs but they are still not warships.
Even among warships there are major differences in durability and survivability, not all relating to physical size.
I'm speaking of compartmentalisation, ballistic protection, fire zones, firefighting systems, reserve buoyancy, structural strength.
You could literally strap a Typhon container on the mission deck of an Armidale but it still wouldn't make it a warship. It's basically equivalent to pintle mounting a .50cal on a Hilux, it gains hitting power, but it's still not a survivable combat vehicle.
The platform is what gets the mission systems (whatever they be) to where they need to be, supplying them with power, cooling, and a stable, survivable, platform to be used from.
An Armidale or Cape Class PB is a good example of this. Below sea state 4 it is perfectly adequate, above it is compromised to the point of being unsafe to operate. Add any form of resistance, even ramming by a fishing trawler, they are useless. But on paper they are vastly superior to the more survivable vessels (Fremantle and Attack Class PBs) they replaced.
The Arafuras are more seaworthy and durable than any of the PBs but they are still not warships.
Even among warships there are major differences in durability and survivability, not all relating to physical size.
I'm speaking of compartmentalisation, ballistic protection, fire zones, firefighting systems, reserve buoyancy, structural strength.
You could literally strap a Typhon container on the mission deck of an Armidale but it still wouldn't make it a warship. It's basically equivalent to pintle mounting a .50cal on a Hilux, it gains hitting power, but it's still not a survivable combat vehicle.
Yep as Spoz mentioned, the Bofors 40 Mk4 firing 3P ammunition would fit the fill perfectly. Complete overmatch against low level naval threats, the options for deck mounted only or below deck options, depending on how extensive RAN might want the installation to be and from all reports exceptional close in defence against UAS, surface craft and air and missile threats.
Whether the current Terma Scanter 6002 air search radar is sufficiently robust to support a weapon such as the Bofors 40 Mk4 is probably something the RAN would look at in it’s assessment of options. As it is a 2D radar, an upgrade to a 3D radar with additional tracking capabilities would likely be required to maximise the capabilities of the Bofors gun.
Seems to me to be the best all-round solution.
An Arafura is still a minor war vessel. In times of war past, we’ve had to press previous generations of PB’s into service as combat vessels despite their lack of suitability, just as we’d likely have to with these in some future time of war. They are far from perfect and that’s a pretty good starting point for a discussion about whether a navy should even invest in this sort of ship in the first place, as opposed to a coast guard or a border protection command or whatever name you want to give to such an organisation.
But we and I’d put RAN into this category, seem to be adopting a fundamentally naive view of what a war entails.
We didn’t send un-armoured Landrovers into conflict zones because they were the “most suitable” vehicle we could have had. We sent them, because they were WHAT we had…
The Fremantle's were a despeced FAC, the Attacks where built with WWII experience still fresh. The Armidales were, in terms of platform systems, repurposed pleasure craft. I have no idea what the Arafuras are like, but assume they are much sturdier than the Armidales.
The thing is, the more you spend on the mission system, the more you need to invest in the platform.
You need structural strengthening, increased power generation, cooling capacity, firefighting, damage control, larger, more skilled crew and more experienced leadership with a greater range of skills.
Mind you small up gunned commercial vehicles have had devastating effects on many a conflict.
So we find ourselves with two options ; a patrol boat or a major warship to deal with all contingencies.
Nothing in the middle ground.
Not sure how many majors in the water at the moment but they will have certainly have their work cut out for them.
Hence looking at maritime options to help relieve the work load
Cheers. S
Ps. Has any one got some gaffer tape ?
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
This gun looks the goods. What would be the chance of fitting this to the Adelaide class and various support ships?
It's a heavy enough calibre to do some serious damage as a self defense weapon.
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
As a semi retired musician I always have gaffer tape. I use it to hold my 26yo Falcon together!!!! Lol
The thing is, the RAN was meant to have DDGs, FFGs, FFHs as well as missile/helicopter equipped minor combatants built during the 90s and 2000s. This was when we assumed we had tens years warning to increase numbers and capability from that.
We ended up with smaller numbers of FFGs FFHs and PBs. We have no warning period left and we are still arguing about whether to cancel the only warships we are currently building.
So there was meant to be 3 DDG, 6 FFG, 8 FFH and 12 missile corvettes with the assumption of ten years warning to increase numbers.
We ended up with four life extended FFGs replaced by three FFGs, 8 FFH to be replaced with 9 (now 6) FFGs and now we are getting 11 GPFs.
We ended up with smaller numbers of FFGs FFHs and PBs. We have no warning period left and we are still arguing about whether to cancel the only warships we are currently building.
So there was meant to be 3 DDG, 6 FFG, 8 FFH and 12 missile corvettes with the assumption of ten years warning to increase numbers.
We ended up with four life extended FFGs replaced by three FFGs, 8 FFH to be replaced with 9 (now 6) FFGs and now we are getting 11 GPFs.
Your correct to point out the history and many of us here have followed with interest the progress and development of the fleet over the years.
That said we work with what we have today and try to keep in perspective the projected fleet is still a work in progress.
I’m also mindful projects sometimes don’t go to plan
12 conventional subs become 8 SSNs ( maybe )
12 OPVs become 6
9 Hunters become 6
Survey and MCM become a mystery
Choules replacement becomes a mystery
Capes actually increase in numbers
And on a positive 8 ANZACs get replaced by 11 Mogami ( maybe). Remember it was 7 to 11 vessels.
Army / Navy watercraft ( LCM / LCH ) dramatic increase in size and numbers.
What will our fleet look like in the 2040s
Realistically
I have no idea but I doubt it will look like projected fleet of 2026.
Cheers S
The sad thing is had Keating and Howard stuck to this post-Cold War minimum, remember this was the peace dividend fleet, we would have had continuous ship building.
We could have either bought the Kidds or built or bought three Flight 2 Burkes and still had continuous shipbuilding, i.e. ANZACs followed by DDGs, followed by evolved ANZAC or an F-123/124 derivative with an ASMD derivative configuration to replace the unmodified FFGs.
This would have meant no FFGUP and no ASMD as with three DDGs and six modern FFGs there would have been no need.
The original problem was the Keating era decision to replace the Fremantles with Corvettes, this force the delay in replacing the DDGs and the need to upgrade all six FFGs to cover the gap. Had the Kidds been acquired FFGUP could have been cancelled and the DDGs replaced, while the corvettes could have still been built.
Failing that, better to do without the corvettes and FFGUP and build or buy DDGs, then build a replacement for the FFGs.
We could have either bought the Kidds or built or bought three Flight 2 Burkes and still had continuous shipbuilding, i.e. ANZACs followed by DDGs, followed by evolved ANZAC or an F-123/124 derivative with an ASMD derivative configuration to replace the unmodified FFGs.
This would have meant no FFGUP and no ASMD as with three DDGs and six modern FFGs there would have been no need.
The original problem was the Keating era decision to replace the Fremantles with Corvettes, this force the delay in replacing the DDGs and the need to upgrade all six FFGs to cover the gap. Had the Kidds been acquired FFGUP could have been cancelled and the DDGs replaced, while the corvettes could have still been built.
Failing that, better to do without the corvettes and FFGUP and build or buy DDGs, then build a replacement for the FFGs.
The government has announced a $310 million downpayment on long lead items for it first two AUKUS SSNs. This follows last week's announcement of a $3.9 billion downpayment for the Osborne Nuclear Submarine Construction Facility. So far things seem to be progressing pretty well for the construction of these submarines.
I suspect that would require some sort of project to consolidate medium calibre gunnery systems across the RAN and conceivably across ADF.
This doesn’t seem to be a priority however given they were at one stage happy to run with a fleet of 20mm Phalanx, 25mm Typhoon (LHD’s, Supply Class, interim on Arafura / Armidales and Hobart Class), 30mm Mk.30C on the Hunter Class, 30mm DSB on the Huon Class (different gun and ammunition, because of course…) and the 40mm Leonardo on the Arafura class.
Now the 40mm has been deleted as we all know with no replacement in sight, but there is no sign of any appetite to reduce weapons types, improve commonality and training across classes, not to mention ammunition types used, nor to pick a “best” calibre and stick with it…
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
Just another cluster****!
Phalanx is not comparable to the others. IT’s for VSRAD, particularly missiles,with surface capability. The others are VSRSD, with some anti air capability, but not against missiles.
If they had gone with the 25mm Typhoon on Hunter, all MFUs would have had the same VSRSD. The Huons’ gun being a hangover from a previous period. Nothing wrong with that. And for Hobart we did very carefully go for a VRSD gun that was already in service in the 25mm.
The Hunter’s gun may very well be the direction for future procurements. However you don’t throw away many millions of dollars in investment in guns, ammunition, support systems and training - and of course the expertise in the gun that 25 year’s use brings. So they are not going to just ditch the 25mm overnight.
It’s a story you can beat up, but at the moment there is only really one gun in the fleet, the 25mm. You can argue if they should upgrade or not , and if so whether the Mk 30C is the right gun or if something else would be better, but it’s a bit unfair to castigate them for what is really a non event; they do have an homogeneous fleet ATM.
If they had gone with the 25mm Typhoon on Hunter, all MFUs would have had the same VSRSD. The Huons’ gun being a hangover from a previous period. Nothing wrong with that. And for Hobart we did very carefully go for a VRSD gun that was already in service in the 25mm.
The Hunter’s gun may very well be the direction for future procurements. However you don’t throw away many millions of dollars in investment in guns, ammunition, support systems and training - and of course the expertise in the gun that 25 year’s use brings. So they are not going to just ditch the 25mm overnight.
It’s a story you can beat up, but at the moment there is only really one gun in the fleet, the 25mm. You can argue if they should upgrade or not , and if so whether the Mk 30C is the right gun or if something else would be better, but it’s a bit unfair to castigate them for what is really a non event; they do have an homogeneous fleet ATM.
Agree we are somewhat standardised on the 25mm currently.
Interested to know what’s happening with phalanx.
I think there are just six deployed across the fleet. Hobart & Supply Class plus Choules.
I think we have around a dozen units.
So with Mogami getting SeaRam, are we keeping or transitioning away from Phalanx across the fleet.
Just a thought
Cheers S
Army is moving to 30mm and the US is deploying a counter drone proximity fuse option for the M230
www.armyrecognition.com
U.S. Army AH-64 Apache Attack Helicopters Adopt New Proximity-Fuzed 30mm Round For Anti-Drone Missions
U.S. Army Apache helicopters adopt XM1225 30mm proximity shells to expand low-cost counter-drone capability.
www.armyrecognition.com
I understand the reasons, but the reality is, in four years or less, unless something changes that (partial) homogeneousness ceases to be entirely in any arguable form, hence why I wrote that a consolidating weapon project “would” be required.
Phalanx may have a different role, but it is a gun and ammunition system that has to be supported, as is the 25mm gun which will soon be an orphan in the RAN compared to the wider ADF and the 30mm gun which IS soon to be introduced and of course whatever equips the Arafura, assuming anything actually ever does…
For all that to happen, some sort of project consolidating medium calibre gun systems will need to happen, or we can continue to simultaneously support 3 or perhaps 4 different medium calibre gun systems in-service, simultaneously…
Chuck in RIM-116 Blk 2, NSM, Tomahawk and SM-6 on top of Harpoon (for now), ESSM (or 2 different missile standards) and current and future flavours of SM-2 and RAN sure does it’s hands full with a lot of different weapons types…
I merely wonder how long the appetite for such a variety will last...
-$250 million, 60% complete cairns wharf upgrade (212m long) at HMAS Cairns will homeport 1 Arafura class from next year, also supporting supply class oilers and future Hunter class frigates. Unknown how many of the 6 Arafura class opvs will be based there…
Army is moving to 30mm and the US is deploying a counter drone proximity fuse option for the M230
U.S. Army AH-64 Apache Attack Helicopters Adopt New Proximity-Fuzed 30mm Round For Anti-Drone Missions
U.S. Army Apache helicopters adopt XM1225 30mm proximity shells to expand low-cost counter-drone capability.
I think the naval 30 mm will be the longer 173mm round compared to the 113mm on the Apache
Not sure if they are interchangeable , but your correct to highlight the move to anti drone options going forward.
Cheers S