I’d imagine either a Bofors 40mm or 57mm would be the two most likely outcomes.
57mm would potentially have a leg up as it has already been fitted to the design - potentially reducing integration challenges.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
57mm would potentially have a leg up as it has already been fitted to the design - potentially reducing integration challenges.
I remember going through one of the ANZAC's on a open day before the refit's.
The void for the intended second cell VLS was huge and certainly covered a number of decks.
Does anyone know if this space is still a void or utilised for another purpose?
Something to consider was that many European ships in the 90's around the size of the ANZAC Class never had great numbers of surface to air missiles.
Many had eight cell launchers and that was about it.
We were getting a ship with potentially 16 Sea Sparrows. Back in the day that was pretty good for the times.
ESSM was on the horizon but still in development.
The fact it proved a good successor to Sea Sparrow was fortuitous made better by the fact it could be quad packed.
8 sea Sparrows now became 32 ESSM.
The ANZAC's now started to look pretty good.
Fast forward a couple of decades and we now want more than what the ANZAC's can give.
That said, we could fast forward another two decades and speculate what they may look at retirement.
All good fun
I'm confident the ANZAC's will evolve with will, imagination, determination and necessity.
Eg- Towed Array will be added soon
Cheers S
Last edited:
Thinking on it the end of the second VLS may have been the weight of the quad packed ESSM verses the original single NSSM. Too bad (hindsight warning) the RAN didn't go for a VLS forward of the bridge. The weight would have been lower down, Harpoon could have been fitted between the masts, and there would have been sufficient weight / stability for Phalanx RAM or SEARAM on the hangar roof, which could have been sacrificed later to free up weight for the sensor upgrades.
I have always wondered if the Transfield Corvettes (had they been built) could have received much of the ANZAC ASMD upgrade. Their VLS was to have been forward of the bridge (lower than the ANZACs) and a lower and lighter version of the ASMD mast could likely have been used. The current upgrades and volume search radar addition would have been too great a stretch I believe, but otherwise they could have delivered near ANZAC ASMD capability.
I have always wondered if the Transfield Corvettes (had they been built) could have received much of the ANZAC ASMD upgrade. Their VLS was to have been forward of the bridge (lower than the ANZACs) and a lower and lighter version of the ASMD mast could likely have been used. The current upgrades and volume search radar addition would have been too great a stretch I believe, but otherwise they could have delivered near ANZAC ASMD capability.
The Freeos were derived from a design which had the ability to carry small ASMs, but were never intended to do so in RAN service. They were intended purely for what they did; sovereignty patrol, which includes fisheries work - as were the Attacks. Their wartime role was inshore coastal patrol, harbour control and insertion of small groups of Army personnel. We would have liked a 40/70 as the main armament in the FCPBs but could not get that through the Forces of Darkness and Annihilation because, basically, the 40/60s were available and were deemed adequate for the peacetime task. An FCPB used her main armament once when in pursuit of a fleeing FFV which they couldn’t stop in any other way. For their main task it is very desirable for craft employed in such duties to be armed with something more than a 50 cal; but not absolutely essential as the Capes have demonstrated.
Last edited:
Bit of if if and ands were pots and pans. The OPC were to be quite small ships in length and available deck area as well as displacement; without doing the calculations, including things such as EM propagation and RFI, it’s hard to know. Somebody like Trevor Ruting might well know the answer as a former PD, or at least have an opinion, but I doubt there is anybody else around who might be able to pick that one up.
Obviously they wouldn't have had the range/endurance of an ANZAC and they would have had difficulty operating out of our region, requiring a forward base, or support ship/tender to operate in the Middle East or East Africa as the ANZACs have.
The 5" gun wouldn't have been an acceptable compromise, nor the SH-60B and no one in their right mind would ever have mistaken them for destroyers or proposed they be fitted with AEGIS and SPY-1F as a replacement for destroyers.
At the time they looked like happening the arguments made against them, as I recall, is that they:
- They were over kill for the patrol boat role, (which is true but they weren't intended as patrol boats they ere intended to bolster our northern defences and assist in providing sea control, or at worst sea denial in uncertain times.)
- They would require PWOs
- They would require MEOs
- They would require WEOS
- They would require additional technical sailors.
The thing is today these ships would be seen as too small and too lacking in capability with the likely result of efforts to replace with patrol frigates underway.
This is often the dilemma with the Anzacs. Do we keep developing them as a platform?
Sure, maybe we could take the 8 cell strike length VLS out, replace it with 2 x 8 cell self defence VLS, replace harpoon with NSM, ESSM II for it, towed array etc. Replace the 5" with the 76mm we have in storage. Give it a wiz bang towed array. But will it still be a viable platform in the 2030's and 2040's? How much will that cost in engineering, money, manpower, ship yard time etc. Ultimately, its still going to be a light frigate, and nothing is going to change that. As you upgrade them, they are out of service for that period as well. Do all of them need the upgrade.
Seems like that effort, money, time, ship yard capacity would be better focused on building a bigger hull, even if many of the systems are pulled through from the current Anzacs.
These ships are never going to be big enough to perform with TLAM, or BMD with SM-3/SM-6. A light frigate is never going to be able to perform missions of a destroyer, a ship with twice the volume.
Sure, maybe we could take the 8 cell strike length VLS out, replace it with 2 x 8 cell self defence VLS, replace harpoon with NSM, ESSM II for it, towed array etc. Replace the 5" with the 76mm we have in storage. Give it a wiz bang towed array. But will it still be a viable platform in the 2030's and 2040's? How much will that cost in engineering, money, manpower, ship yard time etc. Ultimately, its still going to be a light frigate, and nothing is going to change that. As you upgrade them, they are out of service for that period as well. Do all of them need the upgrade.
Seems like that effort, money, time, ship yard capacity would be better focused on building a bigger hull, even if many of the systems are pulled through from the current Anzacs.
These ships are never going to be big enough to perform with TLAM, or BMD with SM-3/SM-6. A light frigate is never going to be able to perform missions of a destroyer, a ship with twice the volume.
Royal Australian Navy personnel from HMAS Ararat recently conducted interoperability activities with ADV Ocean Protector while deployed to the remote Australian external territory of Christmas Island as a part of Operation Resolute. HMAS Ararat achieved significant training outcomes while conducting serialised officer-of-the-watch manoeuvres, rafting and refueling evolutions and other activities demonstrating the versatility and interoperability of both Armidale-class patrol boats and the ADV Ocean Protector. HMAS Ararat is scheduled to decommission in July 2023 and will soon depart Darwin on the ship's final decommissioning voyage, having steamed nearly 500,000 nautical miles during her 15 year service lifespan. HMAS Ararat was commissioned on 10 November 2006. Image Source : ADF Image Library
Going Boeing
Well-Known Member
IIRC, the Freos had a hexagonally shaped room under the Bofors gun which was designed to house an automated ammunition feed system. The powers that be decided that it was an unnecessary capability for their operations.
"Reply to hindsight warning"
Yep decisions made at at time and probably for good reasons.
I'm not a marine architect.
The empty 8 cell VLS weight is over 12 tonne. Certainly a challenge located up high
That second VLS complete with 32 ESSM will certainly pose some stability problems.
Capability V Ballast V speed and endurance.
Will watch with interest.
Cheers S
Stingray these are all good questions.
For me the answer is really one of time.
I can see all eight ANZAC's being in service for the next decade
The ANZACs with the Hobart class are our front line maritime surface response for the immediate future.
We should invest in that reality
Cheers S
The problem we have is we set up for continuous shipbuilding in the 80s and 90s then stopped in the 2000s by not ordering replacements for the DDGs, first four FFGs, let alone replacing the Fremantle's with corvettes (OPCs), resulting in a ship building blackhole.
We then built three Hobart's to replace three DDGs and six FFGs but failed to place a timely order to replace the ANZACs in a timely manner, resulting in another totally avoidable black hole.
The Black holes are costing us as much as actually building ships would have.
We then built three Hobart's to replace three DDGs and six FFGs but failed to place a timely order to replace the ANZACs in a timely manner, resulting in another totally avoidable black hole.
The Black holes are costing us as much as actually building ships would have.
And then you can throw in the submarine debacle and we are in a world of pain that does not get fixed quickly or easily !!
Sorry for the one liner
Aussie optimist
Member
I think everyone is getting too caught up in what we failed to do in the past, rather than where we are at. I concede some very stupid decisions have been made in the past. The fact of the matter is we have what we have, we need to do what we can to make them as potent as we can as soon as we can.
Our fighting men and women deserve the best we can muster and nothing short.
This constant talk of “the sky is falling” needs to stop. The powers that be, need to be decisive. I think we need to stay the course and alter drum beat with further orders. Rushing design or prototypes will only serve to mess things up.
I concede the situation globally, is deteriorating faster than any thought it would. Reactive, short sighted and ill conceived decisions are not going to help anyone and certainly won’t improve our outlook. Anyway rant off.
Our fighting men and women deserve the best we can muster and nothing short.
This constant talk of “the sky is falling” needs to stop. The powers that be, need to be decisive. I think we need to stay the course and alter drum beat with further orders. Rushing design or prototypes will only serve to mess things up.
I concede the situation globally, is deteriorating faster than any thought it would. Reactive, short sighted and ill conceived decisions are not going to help anyone and certainly won’t improve our outlook. Anyway rant off.
We need to learn lessons from the past, what worked as much as what didn't work, but also acknowledge patterns that repeat when the lessons are not learnt.
There is a narrative that the ship building black hole is the fault of one side of politics, or the other, the truth is it is the fault of both sides. Both parties, when in power, have made short sighted political decisions that have driven up costs and reduced capability.
There is a lack of understanding within government on defence matters, actually there is a lack of understanding within government of many things. Politicians have their own expertise and knowledge, their own special interests and for most, defence is not one. Some times it's worse than this, they may think they know more than the actual professionals and ignore their advice altogether.
Anyway the issue is where they get their advice and how they make their decisions, not actually how much they knew before hand. This is where having access to what happened in the past, why it happened, and what the alternatives were matters so much. It aids in decision making going forward.
Last edited:
Defence confirmed in the last round of Senate Estimates the RFI for a replacement gun was going out in April, but hasn’t appeared yet on AusTender so I’ll keep an eye out if / when it appears.
Defence may specify a particular calibre for this, or leave it up to industry to show how they’ll meet a certain requirement…
Wasn't one of the key issues were integration costs/time with 9LV? The bofor 57mm is integrated on 9lv and has been used on the design before.
But maybe they are looking at something else, or perhaps something else is already in the process of being selected to be integrated elsewhere so it is worth delaying this aspect.
Alongside integration and certification challenges, an "updated threat assessment" was also quoted as reasoning for the original gun cancellation.
You would think this would mean a likely capability upgrade compared to the original plan?
Other than a Bofors 57mm (or 40mm), I wonder what other options could realistically be in the running? Could the smaller 40mm present future flexibility in terms of fitting something else behind the main gun, directly in front of the bridge?
Last edited:
The 57mm has other benefits, its in use with Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand and Brunei. There is commonality for training, spares and possibly ammunition sales from Australia (although Malaysia also makes plain ammunition). Dual feed, 1000 round mounting (if you want), 3P ammunition. For a gun, what else would anyone want? It throws more bang into the sky than the 76mm, flick between dumb and programmable rounds and is used throughout the region and is integrated. No one is going to accusing it of being a pea shooter.
the 40mm while a bit smaller and a bit light isn't likely to accommodate anything else around it, its still sizable. Maybe if we were talking 20-25mm, maybe some decoy launchers or something like this. Its likely to cost similar to the 57mm as well.
Which is I guess begs the question, why buy something else over the 57mm. In terms of fitting it to the ship, its probably the cheapest/fastest option in this case, and smaller rounds are going to be less capable (although plenty capable for a OPV). If the 30-40mm gun is the same or more expensive, what are we trying to procure and for what. Orphan in our region, with our friends and with our systems.
the 40mm while a bit smaller and a bit light isn't likely to accommodate anything else around it, its still sizable. Maybe if we were talking 20-25mm, maybe some decoy launchers or something like this. Its likely to cost similar to the 57mm as well.
Which is I guess begs the question, why buy something else over the 57mm. In terms of fitting it to the ship, its probably the cheapest/fastest option in this case, and smaller rounds are going to be less capable (although plenty capable for a OPV). If the 30-40mm gun is the same or more expensive, what are we trying to procure and for what. Orphan in our region, with our friends and with our systems.
Last edited:
You can also add to that list USN's Independence, Freedom and (future) Constellation Class frigates too.
I agree that the Bofors 57mm appears to be the most ideal outcome for Arafura.
On another note, has anyone found anything which confirms Arafura's economical cruise speed to achieve its stated 4,000 mm range? I've seen 12 knots suggested, which would make their endurance identical to the much smaller Capes, but without the option to sprint up to 25 knots when sea state permits.