Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[Volkodav]

You need to justify this claim as it suggests it is a Boeing product and that CATIA is the digital shipyard. CATIA is a software package for design and construction. The connection with Boeing appears spurious. Certainly Boeing may use the package noting it is related to Dassault

The Digital Shipyard Opportunities and Challenges (flinders.edu.au)
Design Engineering | CATIA – Dassault Systèmes (3ds.com)

Many systems use COTS products to develop systems. It does not mean that it is a derivative of the package but it may use the product to produce the actual system.

I look forward to your response.

CATIA is a commercial 3D design package used throughout the world, I believe it was originally developed by Dassault. ASC and EB both currently use it I believe. I don't know if BAE use it but it wouldn't surprise me if they did, its a very effective and powerful tool.

An interesting feature of the tool is CATIA Man a 3D model human they use to ensure an actual person can access systems during build and maintenance.

 

[cdxbow]

A valuable capability when it's necessary to extract errant bolts and bits and bobs left rattling around inside spaces after manufacture.

oldsig

Ha Ha. Perhaps they model random events like that.
The combination of the words 'Boeing' and 'software' in the same sentence nowadays gives me the willies.

 

[John Fedup]

Ha Ha. Perhaps they model random events like that.
The combination of the words 'Boeing' and 'software' in the same sentence nowadays gives me the willies.

Perhaps that modeling feature for simulating a human working in confined spaces would be useful for Boeing’s FOD issue with the KC-46.

 

[Going Boeing]

You need to justify this claim as it suggests it is a Boeing product and that CATIA is the digital shipyard. CATIA is a software package for design and construction. The connection with Boeing appears spurious. Certainly Boeing may use the package noting it is related to Dassault

The Digital Shipyard Opportunities and Challenges (flinders.edu.au)
Design Engineering | CATIA – Dassault Systèmes (3ds.com)

Many systems use COTS products to develop systems. It does not mean that it is a derivative of the package but it may use the product to produce the actual system.

I look forward to your response.

Following your research and more of my own, I incorrectly used the word “derivative“. I was trying to draw a parallel between the aviation & shipbuilding industries as they moved into evolving CAD programs, not only for the structural design but also for improving the through life maintenance.

 

[oldsig127]

Perhaps that modeling feature for simulating a human working in confined spaces would be useful for Boeing’s FOD issue with the KC-46.

Okay, get your own joke John!

I have to admit it was like shooting fish in a barrel though.

oldsig

 

[John Fedup]

Okay, get your own joke John!

I have to admit it was like shooting fish in a barrel though.

oldsig

I could have added simulation of liquor bottles in the new Air Force One but with Boeing being stressed at the moment that would be just be cruel.

 

[Todjaeger]

CIWS against incoming missiles
40 mm or 57 mm?

Thoughts

Stampede

Simple question, but complex answer because it is not just the round which makes a difference. Different types of rounds are available for 57 mm and 40 mm (as well as 35 mm, 30 mm, etc.) which different performances vs. various types of targets. To this, one also needs for factor in the performance capabilities of both the gun and the mounting. This can enable one to figure out how much weight of shot and/or # of projectiles/projectile fragments can be fired within a set time or per burst.

My general feeling is that for the RAN, adopting a 57 mm gun & mounting would be a waste of resources, as such a gun would likely be too large to adopt as a secondary gun aboard MFU's and would therefore only be used aboard larger small vessels whilst creating an entirely new gun and ordnance training and logistical tail which would need to be maintained.

 

[ngatimozart]

CIWS against incoming missiles
40 mm or 57 mm?

Thoughts

Stampede

40mm if the RAN already has the modern 40mm guns in service. They have a quicker rate of fire and being in service, an existing support and logistics chain. I however think Rheinmettall naval 30mm would be the best option because the army is already using their 30mm guns, you will be making 30mm ammo in Australia and it makes sense to have a common calibre.

 

[Stampede]

Thanks both for the reply.
I acknowledge both calibers will be required to meet a number of contingency's, but it's the gun's ability to engage an incoming ASM that I would deem the most important.
As the last line of kinetic response, I'd suggest 40mm / 57mm with smart ammunition will be the way forward.
While it is always going to be a "hail Mary" last ditch option, I feel it does at least offer an option in contrast to the smaller slower rate of for fire systems like Typhoon that realistically do not.
While Phalanx and Goalkeeper relayed on accuracy plus rate of fire, they were always short ranged and suggest challenged for the threats on the horizon. They are heavy ,expensive and too niche belonging to another time.

Producing a cloud of shrapenal at a respectable distance form the ship seems to be the best solution.
So is it 40 or 57mm?
I tend to think on balance the higher rate of fire from the 40mm has the advantage.
Now how about all the other roles required form the gun.

In part it will depend on the other systems / weapons on the ship.
So with limited weight and space, one cannon that can do the full range of close in defence scenarios looks the go for the future.
A true all rounder!
57 mm is a great system but would be too big as a secondary gun on the majors leaving the winner based on 40 mm rounds.

A pair of 40 mm on all major ships plus a single system on the OPV looks to me the best option.
Non deck penetrating and being of relatively light weight makes it very adaptable for a wide range of vessels.

The appeal of a standard round across the ADF has merit but NAVY needs that larger round.
If I had my way, so would ARMY.


Cheers S

 

[Takao]

Thanks both for the reply.
I acknowledge both calibers will be required to meet a number of contingency's, but it's the gun's ability to engage an incoming ASM that I would deem the most important.
As the last line of kinetic response, I'd suggest 40mm / 57mm with smart ammunition will be the way forward.
While it is always going to be a "hail Mary" last ditch option, I feel it does at least offer an option in contrast to the smaller slower rate of for fire systems like Typhoon that realistically do not.
While Phalanx and Goalkeeper relayed on accuracy plus rate of fire, they were always short ranged and suggest challenged for the threats on the horizon. They are heavy ,expensive and too niche belonging to another time.

Producing a cloud of shrapenal at a respectable distance form the ship seems to be the best solution.
So is it 40 or 57mm?
I tend to think on balance the higher rate of fire from the 40mm has the advantage.
Now how about all the other roles required form the gun.

I think you underestimate the challenge of the target.

Lessons of Okinawa showed that the 40 mm Borfors was good - very good against conventional attacks, but poor against kamikaze. It simply couldn't destroy enough of the airframe to stop it hitting the ship. It was one of the main drivers behind the 3"/50 Mk 22 weapons system - something that conceptually is matched by the OTO Melara mount on the Adelaide class. It was found that the 3"/50 struggled with supersonic targets, but I'd suggest improve mount and sensors fix that.

How does that apply to today?

Roughly speaking (with lots of assumptions), a Ki-44 Tony has about 25 MJ of kinetic energy. Looking to today, a AGM-84 Harpoon has about 20 MJ of kinetic energy, a BGM-109 Tomahawk about 40 MJ, and a C-301 Sawhorse has about 450 MJ. If we take the Harpoon as the bottom tier missile threat (broadly equal to a YJ-83 Saccade) you can see we are starting at 1945 kamikaze levels and rapidly scaling up from there. And 40 mm didn't cut it back then. Yes, 40 mm ammunition and sensors have improved. But by as much as the kinetic energy of common anti-ship missiles?

 

[alexsa]

I think you underestimate the challenge of the target.

Lessons of Okinawa showed that the 40 mm Borfors was good - very good against conventional attacks, but poor against kamikaze. It simply couldn't destroy enough of the airframe to stop it hitting the ship. It was one of the main drivers behind the 3"/50 Mk 22 weapons system - something that conceptually is matched by the OTO Melara mount on the Adelaide class. It was found that the 3"/50 struggled with supersonic targets, but I'd suggest improve mount and sensors fix that.

How does that apply to today?

Roughly speaking (with lots of assumptions), a Ki-44 Tony has about 25 MJ of kinetic energy. Looking to today, a AGM-84 Harpoon has about 20 MJ of kinetic energy, a BGM-109 Tomahawk about 40 MJ, and a C-301 Sawhorse has about 450 MJ. If we take the Harpoon as the bottom tier missile threat (broadly equal to a YJ-83 Saccade) you can see we are starting at 1945 kamikaze levels and rapidly scaling up from there. And 40 mm didn't cut it back then. Yes, 40 mm ammunition and sensors have improved. But by as much as the kinetic energy of common anti-ship missiles?

Which explains the benefit of a layered system and the rise of missiles such as RAM (and/or ESSM, and/or SeaCeptor) when paired with a capable combat system and sensor array. Having secondary armament with smart munitions (perhaps 30mm to 40mm as mooted above) and an effective ASMD system capable of taking out supersonic ASM gives some depth.

The 57mm is a capable system and I have some sympathy for the idea of putting this on the OPV, however, there is the logistics issue as noted by @ngatimozart

 

[StingrayOZ]

40mm you are still bound by the ballistics of the calibre and the size of the explosive. Rates of fire are pretty fast, but range and punch are still limited.
57mm you are getting into the sweet spot IMO. But 57mm is hard to fit as a secondary gun on modern ships. Although the Italians can often find a way to fit even multiple 76mm guns into these type of roles. Like the OPV. Say 12 are fitted, that is still a sizeable pool, IMO and viable, we have selected unique weapon systems in the past for fewer ships. These ships won't have a layered system, or a longer reach missile system.

40mm as a secondary gun would be nice, but are the ships we are building able to fit that type of gun? And where? Rear? Side? On these type of ships you do have a choice of SM-2/6 and ESSM/CAMM and 5" and existing CIWS (which are probably more about asymmetric threats and smaller drones). 40mm on a side secondary mount will have tight margins and will be tight for rounds.

I think we are moving away from just a wall of metal too. Goalkeeper never became popular. Radar and targeting and ammunition is getting better. More likely to successfully engage a target with less rounds.

 

[Volkodav]

I think you underestimate the challenge of the target.

Lessons of Okinawa showed that the 40 mm Borfors was good - very good against conventional attacks, but poor against kamikaze. It simply couldn't destroy enough of the airframe to stop it hitting the ship. It was one of the main drivers behind the 3"/50 Mk 22 weapons system - something that conceptually is matched by the OTO Melara mount on the Adelaide class. It was found that the 3"/50 struggled with supersonic targets, but I'd suggest improve mount and sensors fix that.

How does that apply to today?

Roughly speaking (with lots of assumptions), a Ki-44 Tony has about 25 MJ of kinetic energy. Looking to today, a AGM-84 Harpoon has about 20 MJ of kinetic energy, a BGM-109 Tomahawk about 40 MJ, and a C-301 Sawhorse has about 450 MJ. If we take the Harpoon as the bottom tier missile threat (broadly equal to a YJ-83 Saccade) you can see we are starting at 1945 kamikaze levels and rapidly scaling up from there. And 40 mm didn't cut it back then. Yes, 40 mm ammunition and sensors have improved. But by as much as the kinetic energy of common anti-ship missiles?

I was actually reading today (and still need to read further to verify) that a single 3"/50 was rated as twelve times more effective than the 40 L60, which is why the USN switched wholesale to 3/50 in place of Bofors in the late 40s.

They also developed a 3/70 and shared the round with the UK, while the Mk-42 5"/54 was very much a dual purpose mount, there was also a 6"/47 DP that entered service, and even an 8' DP was developed but never deployed (it was intended for the incomplete Iowa class BBs to be completed as BBAAs).

It was actually speculated that had sufficient stokers with suitable experience been available HMS Tiger could have been reactivated for the Falklands and her Mk6 3"/70 twin would have been quite useful in AA (also the 6" and a deck/hangar for an additional three Sea Kings).

As you stated the issue is energy, or more to the point momentum. An aerodynamic kill won't stop debris, or quite possibly, the warhead from hitting the target, the incoming missile needs to be destroyed totally or diverted, as anything that does hit can result in a mission kill. This is why missiles are becoming more prevalent and calibers are going up. The caliber increase isn't so much for greater energy, but to hit the incoming missile at greater range, which is the best defence.

 

[Gryphinator]

Australian and NZ Defender reporting the RAN have ordered 40 S100 camcopter UAV's. That's a big order. No mention of any weapons (Martlet) packages.

 

[justinterested]

Australian and NZ Defender reporting the RAN have ordered 40 S100 camcopter UAV's. That's a big order. No mention of any weapons (Martlet) packages.

Further to this, the Australian reported yesterday that the 40 S100 were the first batch of aircraft to be supplied under a larger $1.3bn program for the Royal Australian Navy, without an open tender process. Interestingly, the S100 is also made under licence by Russia and has been purchased by China for use on its guided missile destroyers.

 

[Redlands18]

Further to this, the Australian reported yesterday that the 40 S100 were the first batch of aircraft to be supplied under a larger $1.3bn program for the Royal Australian Navy, without an open tender process. Interestingly, the S100 is also made under licence by Russia and has been purchased by China for use on its guided missile destroyers.

SEA 129 Phase 5 ITR contenders announced | ADBR

Updated March 24 with additional information on Northrop Grumman’s proposal. The Commonwealth has announced a list of contenders for the RAN’s Project SEA 129 Phase 5 Block 1 Maritime Unmanned…

adbr.com.au

Sounds a lot like Sea 129 phase 5 to me and it follows Aerosonde's winning the Armies Land 129 phase 3 some months back.. So I'm not sure where the Australian's claim of no open tender comes from.

 

[Stampede]

40mm you are still bound by the ballistics of the calibre and the size of the explosive. Rates of fire are pretty fast, but range and punch are still limited.
57mm you are getting into the sweet spot IMO. But 57mm is hard to fit as a secondary gun on modern ships. Although the Italians can often find a way to fit even multiple 76mm guns into these type of roles. Like the OPV. Say 12 are fitted, that is still a sizeable pool, IMO and viable, we have selected unique weapon systems in the past for fewer ships. These ships won't have a layered system, or a longer reach missile system.

40mm as a secondary gun would be nice, but are the ships we are building able to fit that type of gun? And where? Rear? Side? On these type of ships you do have a choice of SM-2/6 and ESSM/CAMM and 5" and existing CIWS (which are probably more about asymmetric threats and smaller drones). 40mm on a side secondary mount will have tight margins and will be tight for rounds.

I think we are moving away from just a wall of metal too. Goalkeeper never became popular. Radar and targeting and ammunition is getting better. More likely to successfully engage a target with less rounds.

Thanks again for everyone's feedback.
WWII analogy's have some merit and I too have looked into some of what worked and didn't.
Probably the main take from that era was like today it is better to get the archer rather than the arrows.
Also layers of defence provides redundancy.
For the missile age those ship layers now extend 100 plus Km's from the ship.
More if you have integral fixed wing Aircraft.
For missile defence you would want at least 99 % of the incoming missile destroyed way beyond the range of the ships guns.
What lurkers get through your next defence will be your secondary canons and a range of soft kill systems.
With fingers crossed and a prayer you want that cloud of shrapnel to blind and disable the control surfaces of the incoming missile.
You wont be able to fully stop the incoming kinetic mass, but you may be able to divert it short of the ship or to the side.

Acknowledging that most large ships will have a secondary gun, I just feel when you invest in such a weapon systems it should have scope to cover the full range of contingency's.
Something your 25 / 30mm typhoon type systems don't.
These systems are good for constabulary roles and are cheap.
They are a budget weapon
Keep them off major warships.

Quick question - Using Phalanx as its in service but it could be a 40 mm.


Supply Class have one Phalanx and two bushmasters.
Would you prefer this set up or two Phalanx/ 40 mm fore and aft with no bushmasters.
Both ship options still carry .50 cal as well ???????
Thoughts

Cheers S

 

[ADMk2]

40mm you are still bound by the ballistics of the calibre and the size of the explosive. Rates of fire are pretty fast, but range and punch are still limited.
57mm you are getting into the sweet spot IMO. But 57mm is hard to fit as a secondary gun on modern ships. Although the Italians can often find a way to fit even multiple 76mm guns into these type of roles. Like the OPV. Say 12 are fitted, that is still a sizeable pool, IMO and viable, we have selected unique weapon systems in the past for fewer ships. These ships won't have a layered system, or a longer reach missile system.

40mm as a secondary gun would be nice, but are the ships we are building able to fit that type of gun? And where? Rear? Side? On these type of ships you do have a choice of SM-2/6 and ESSM/CAMM and 5" and existing CIWS (which are probably more about asymmetric threats and smaller drones). 40mm on a side secondary mount will have tight margins and will be tight for rounds.

I think we are moving away from just a wall of metal too. Goalkeeper never became popular. Radar and targeting and ammunition is getting better. More likely to successfully engage a target with less rounds.

RAN is looking at going bigger for gun based air defence on it’s majors as well. The Sovereign Guided Weapons program has a required growth path from initial domestic manufacture of 127mm ammunition, to 127mm precision guided ammunition to 127mm based hyper-velocity projectile that includes air defence, cruise missile defence, ABM and perhaps some anti-hypersonics capability…

https://www.baesystems.com/en-media/uploadFile/20210404062224/1434555443512.pdf

 

[spoz]

Further to this, the Australian reported yesterday that the 40 S100 were the first batch of aircraft to be supplied under a larger $1.3bn program for the Royal Australian Navy, without an open tender process. Interestingly, the S100 is also made under licence by Russia and has been purchased by China for use on its guided missile destroyers.

Presumably for use onboard the Arafuras, as at least one of its applications, if correct. Looks like a good fit for that requirement; and one with which the RAN is very familiar. It must mean Scheibel has successfully integrated the avcat engine as a replacement for the mogas one it originally came with.

Imagine the Chinese are now building their own version, which of course will have no relation to any system they may have bought from the west in the past....

As usual the level of reporting from the Austalian, as noted and again if correct of course, is poor; this is the result of a long running competitive assessment of a number of options

Both ship options still carry .50 cal as well ???????
Thoughts

Cheers S

Yes

 

[Redlands18]

Presumably for use onboard the Arafuras, as at least one of its applications, if correct. Looks like a good fit for that requirement; and one with which the RAN is very familiar. It must mean Scheibel has successfully integrated the avcat engine as a replacement for the mogas one it originally came with.

Imagine the Chinese are now building their own version, which of course will have no relation to any system they may have bought from the west in the past....

As usual the level of reporting from the Austalian, as noted and again if correct of course, is poor; this is the result of a long running competitive assessment of a number of options



Yes

A competitive assessment that included both both Helo and Fixed Wing options, so yea any claim of a lack of competition is pretty dumb.