Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[MickB]

The drone factors strength is cost and saturation.

While smart ammunition is proven, it’s pricy to the point of being prohibitive.
Army is going long range with rocket solutions big and small.
Small is artillery sized effect.

Cheers

To me the 5' still has a place.
Not every threat is a drone, I would take the increased range when it comes to ASMs.
Most drones would not require the use of smart ammunition, so while there is still a price factor it is not insurmountable.
I am also looking at possible future developments such as HVPs, Kingfisher rounds and cannon launched loitering munitions.

 

[Sandson41]

The drone factors strength is cost and saturation.

While smart ammunition is proven, it’s pricy to the point of being prohibitive.
Army is going long range with rocket solutions big and small.
Small is artillery sized effect.

Cheers

Just going off ye olde Wikipedia:

Mk45 weighs around 22,000kg
Mk41 (8 cell) weighs between 12,200kg and 15,000kg depending on length + missiles (280kg per ESSM so probably around another 9,000kg, give or take).

Is the gun worth 8 cells? Plus the engineering work and costs to remove and replace it? I guess that's up to the navy. I'm betting navy says yes.

EDIT: Reading that back, I could have been more clear. I meant the cost of removing the gun, in exchange for 8 cells, is probably not worthwhile.

 

[iambuzzard]

Just going off ye olde Wikipedia:

Mk45 weighs around 22,000kg
Mk41 (8 cell) weighs between 12,200kg and 15,000kg depending on length + missiles (280kg per ESSM so probably around another 9,000kg, give or take).

Is the gun worth 8 cells? Plus the engineering work and costs to remove and replace it? I guess that's up to the navy. I'm betting navy says yes.

8 cells quad packed with ESSM means 32 rounds. How many rounds does the magazine for the Mark 45 hold? In a lengthy engagement you could stay in the fight for quite a while with the gun. The missile load could be expended in minutes.

 

[Todjaeger]

8 cells quad packed with ESSM means 32 rounds. How many rounds does the magazine for the Mark 45 hold? In a lengthy engagement you could stay in the fight for quite a while with the gun. The missile load could be expended in minutes.

Depends a little bit on which vessel has the Mk 45 and possibly which Mod it has. The USN's Arleigh Burke-class DDG's have 680 rounds for their Mk 45, whilst the Ticonderoga-class CG's would usually run ~600 rounds. No idea what some of the other classes fitted with Mk 45 would run, but clearly the capacity is likely in the hundreds of rounds.

The 76 mm and 57 mm guns having varying amounts of stowed ammunition which is highly dependent on which specific gun/mounting is used. Given that a number of the mountings for at least the 57 mm gun are non-deck penetrating, a 5" gun will likely have more ammunition aboard ship and be able to stay in the fight for a longer period of time unless a magazine gets fitted somewhere else.

 

[iambuzzard]

Depends a little bit on which vessel has the Mk 45 and possibly which Mod it has. The USN's Arleigh Burke-class DDG's have 680 rounds for their Mk 45, whilst the Ticonderoga-class CG's would usually run ~600 rounds. No idea what some of the other classes fitted with Mk 45 would run, but clearly the capacity is likely in the hundreds of rounds.

The 76 mm and 57 mm guns having varying amounts of stowed ammunition which is highly dependent on which specific gun/mounting is used. Given that a number of the mountings for at least the 57 mm gun are non-deck penetrating, a 5" gun will likely have more ammunition aboard ship and be able to stay in the fight for a longer period of time unless a magazine gets fitted somewhere else.

Thanks for that.

 

[Reptilia]

Hunter update - Naval news

 

[ADMk2]

Thanks for that.

From recollection (quite possibly inaccurate!) the ANZAC’s have a magazine capacity of +/- 500x or so 127mm rounds, depending on variants carried.

I’d be surprised if the AWD’s or Hunters had fewer than that planned if the ANZAC’s could carry so much.

I don’t think RAN / ADF is planning on any other calibre main gun any time soon. For starters it has specified Mk.45 Mod 4 for the Hobarts, Hunters and Mogamis, so that is a pretty big hint…

But it is also seeking a range of ammunition enhancements for these guns, starting with 127mm counter-UAS munitions:

Navy seeking 5-inch anti-drone capability - Australian Defence Magazine

Informed by recent conflicts in the Red and Black Seas the Royal Australian Navy is seeking new capabilities for its inventory of Mk45 5-inch guns | Ben Felton

www.australiandefence.com.au

And it is seeking local manufacturing, IP rights and development of additional ammunition natures…

Thales and EXPAL boost 5" naval ammunition manufacture - Australian Manufacturing Forum

French group Thales Australia and global defence and security firm EXPAL Systems S.A. (EXPAL) have joined forces to establish an Australian sovereign manufacturing capability for large calibre naval munitions and fuses. The agreement will facilitate the technology transfer to Australia of...

www.aumanufacturing.com.au

Given those decisions and related investment, it seems a pretty non-controversial matter to state the RAN has no apparent interest in changing the main gun systems it uses any time soon…

 

[iambuzzard]

From recollection (quite possibly inaccurate!) the ANZAC’s have a magazine capacity of +/- 500x or so 127mm rounds, depending on variants carried.

I’d be surprised if the AWD’s or Hunters had fewer than that planned if the ANZAC’s could carry so much.

I don’t think RAN / ADF is planning on any other calibre main gun any time soon. For starters it has specified Mk.45 Mod 4 for the Hobarts, Hunters and Mogamis, so that is a pretty big hint…

But it is also seeking a range of ammunition enhancements for these guns, starting with 127mm counter-UAS munitions:

Navy seeking 5-inch anti-drone capability - Australian Defence Magazine

Informed by recent conflicts in the Red and Black Seas the Royal Australian Navy is seeking new capabilities for its inventory of Mk45 5-inch guns | Ben Felton

www.australiandefence.com.au

And it is seeking local manufacturing, IP rights and development of additional ammunition natures…

Thales and EXPAL boost 5" naval ammunition manufacture - Australian Manufacturing Forum

French group Thales Australia and global defence and security firm EXPAL Systems S.A. (EXPAL) have joined forces to establish an Australian sovereign manufacturing capability for large calibre naval munitions and fuses. The agreement will facilitate the technology transfer to Australia of...

www.aumanufacturing.com.au

Given those decisions and related investment, it seems a pretty non-controversial matter to state the RAN has no apparent interest in changing the main gun systems it uses any time soon…

What surprises me is the RN and USN have moved to 57mm with the Type 31 and Constellation class frigates.
They have a decent missile load out but even to a layman like me they seem like a popgun. I know they have smart ammunition and a high rate of fire but they lack the range of the 127mm. Time is of the essence when you're dealing with an incoming threat. I'd rather take it out at 20km rather than less than 10km.

 

[Todjaeger]

What surprises me is the RN and USN have moved to 57mm with the Type 31 and Constellation class frigates.
They have a decent missile load out but even to a layman like me they seem like a popgun. I know they have smart ammunition and a high rate of fire but they lack the range of the 127mm. Time is of the essence when you're dealing with an incoming threat. I'd rather take it out at 20km rather than less than 10km.

My impression re: the Constellation-class is that the adoption of the Mk 110 57 mm gun is to provide a larger, more capable CIWS and anti-FAC gun rather than a large calibre ASuW capable gun. Basically a beefier replacement for the Mk 15 Phalanx. If that is accurate, then the USN shift makes a bit more sense.

 

[iambuzzard]

My impression re: the Constellation-class is that the adoption of the Mk 110 57 mm gun is to provide a larger, more capable CIWS and anti-FAC gun rather than a large calibre ASuW capable gun. Basically a beefier replacement for the Mk 15 Phalanx. If that is accurate, then the USN shift makes a bit more sense.

Don't the Italians have a mix of different calibre guns. I remember seeing a destroyer in Melbourne many years ago that had turrets everywhere. What's wrong with a high/low mix? A Mark 45 up forward and Mark 110 amidships to replace Typhoon mounts.

 

[Todjaeger]

Don't the Italians have a mix of different calibre guns. I remember seeing a destroyer in Melbourne many years ago that had turrets everywhere. What's wrong with a high/low mix? A Mark 45 up forward and Mark 110 amidships to replace Typhoon mounts.

Several nations have a variety of small, medium as well as large calibre naval guns. The US does too for that matter, though the options the US has decided to go with are... somewhat lacking IMO.

IIRC the US (different branches and types of vessels) might be kitted with the Mk 15 Phalanx 20 mm CIWS, which at this point might be updated for anti-FAC use but is not really as suitable for anti-missile CIWS any more. Some vessels, usually USCG cutters I believe, might also have manually operated Mk 38 Bushmaster 25 mm guns. Some of the LPD's have Mk 44 Bushmaster II 30 mm guns, and then we start seeing the Mk 110 57 mm gun.

It makes more sense to me for MFU's to have a large calibre naval gun in the 'A' position and then several small calibre rapid fire guns which can effectively engage surface and aerial targets scattered around the hull/superstructure.

 

[Sandson41]

Don't the Italians have a mix of different calibre guns. I remember seeing a destroyer in Melbourne many years ago that had turrets everywhere. What's wrong with a high/low mix? A Mark 45 up forward and Mark 110 amidships to replace Typhoon mounts.

The Italians went for a multi-layer defence - 5 inch and 3 inch. Their more recent Horizon class also mount 3x 3 inch.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I don’t think RAN / ADF is planning on any other calibre main gun any time soon. For starters it has specified Mk.45 Mod 4 for the Hobarts, Hunters and Mogamis, so that is a pretty big hint…

But it is also seeking a range of ammunition enhancements for these guns, starting with 127mm counter-UAS munitions:

I think guns are becoming more useful again. Now with guided munitions, various explosives, long ranged glide and rocket assisted, Guns can shoot further, more accurately than ever before. There it potential to fire decoys, jammers, or entire drones. The big guns are more flexible than they have ever been.
Also we can actually produce shells, at least conventional ones. Ships can be resupplied, while at see if required or at basically any port.

I think we are moving away from the 50-80's big rocket engagement idea, to the idea, that most threats are going to be smaller but more numerous. We will still need missiles, but possibly more augmenting them. Calibres and mounts and types are up for debate, but I think its clear now that the idea of an all missile ship has perhaps come, and gone. Being able to carry a couple of hundred ship/UAV destroying rounds is a big capability to give up for just more of something you already have.

 

[Stampede]

Several nations have a variety of small, medium as well as large calibre naval guns. The US does too for that matter, though the options the US has decided to go with are... somewhat lacking IMO.

IIRC the US (different branches and types of vessels) might be kitted with the Mk 15 Phalanx 20 mm CIWS, which at this point might be updated for anti-FAC use but is not really as suitable for anti-missile CIWS any more. Some vessels, usually USCG cutters I believe, might also have manually operated Mk 38 Bushmaster 25 mm guns. Some of the LPD's have Mk 44 Bushmaster II 30 mm guns, and then we start seeing the Mk 110 57 mm gun.

It makes more sense to me for MFU's to have a large calibre naval gun in the 'A' position and then several small calibre rapid fire guns which can effectively engage surface and aerial targets scattered around the hull/superstructure.

Five inch gun , what’s is it purpose
Naval gun fire support?
Air defence?
Surface action?
Looks good up front?

it can do all of that stuff, but can it do it well enough in 2025 moving forward ?

Is there a better approach.

I remember when the Broadsord Class came out they had no main gun.
IIRC some small 40mm but the rest was missile based
The “missile age” had arrived.
Then the Falkland’s conflict eventuated and the value of the main gun was appreciated.
Further batches of the Broadsword Class had a main gun.
But that was over forty years ago

NGFS today. Only in very permissible circumstances
Air defence against the broad range of today’s threats - Suggest better options
Surface action - Suggest better options.
Show! Yep they do look good!

Cheers S

 

[BPFP]

Hunter update - Naval news

That guy needs to learn how to run an interview. Mr BAE very nervous.

 

[Todjaeger]

Five inch gun , what’s is it purpose
Naval gun fire support?
Air defence?
Surface action?
Looks good up front?

it can do all of that stuff, but can it do it well enough in 2025 moving forward ?

Is there a better approach.

I remember when the Broadsord Class came out they had no main gun.
IIRC some small 40mm but the rest was missile based
The “missile age” had arrived.
Then the Falkland’s conflict eventuated and the value of the main gun was appreciated.
Further batches of the Broadsword Class had a main gun.
But that was over forty years ago

NGFS today. Only in very permissible circumstances
Air defence against the broad range of today’s threats - Suggest better options
Surface action - Suggest better options.
Show! Yep they do look good!

Cheers S

Keep in mind that the later version of the Type 22, the Batch 3 builds, were indeed fitted with a 4.5" gun, and this was after the RN's experiences in the Falklands War. This to me very much suggests that main guns still have a place aboard MFU's. This is particularly true given some of the advances which have been made in gun operations as well as advanced munitions.

IIRC the Type 45 Mod 4 5"/127 mm cal. 64 gun has a ROF of something like 20 rds/min and as mentioned, a total magazine capacity likely in the vicinity of 600+ rds. In terms of ordnance, there is of course the 'normal' 5" shells, but also extended range, guided, anti-air, and so on. Yes, the specialty ordnance is not anywhere near as inexpensive as the normal 5", but at the same time I suspect it is not quite as dear as many of the air defence and SSM/LACM's. I have not been able to find publicly available costs for Vulcano rounds, but some of the other precision tube ordnance shells cost around USD$100k. If one keeps in mind that a Vulcano round could potentially hit targets 100 km away, some of the missile ordnance available for launch from RAN warships which could reach that same range to target cost in the area of USD$2 mil. The other thing with that, is that a 100 km engagement range for NGFS could make it quite difficult for a hostile to hit the supporting warship.

Missiles and guns aboard warships are complementary systems, rather then really being replacement systems. Some things which missiles can do really well cannot be replicated by guns, even ones with advanced munitions. OTOH, guns can do things which missiles likewise cannot really do as well, or in some cases at all. Take a 32-cell Mk 41 VLS quad-packed with ESSM, for a total of 128 RIM-162 ESSM and a missile loadout cost of USD$230 mil. to hit targets or engaged inbounds out to ~50 km. The cost for advanced 5" ordnance able to cover the same area and number of shots/targets (128 shells) OTOH would only be ~USD$13 mil. and would likely only require a quarter of the gun's magazine capacity, rather than the entirety of the VLS.

 

[Maranoa]

The US Navy reported that a good number of 'drones' shot down recently during the Red Sea, Gulf of Aden attacks by the Houthis were shot down by the warship's 5 inch guns

 

[Joe Black]

That guy needs to learn how to run an interview. Mr BAE very nervous.

Xavier has been around for a bit, I guess he hasn't done his prep work well for this interview....

BTW, I am really surprise what seems like 2x S-band(?) CEAFAR radar array panels above the larger L-Band CEAFAR array panel on each facet of the mast, maybe one is an X-band Ceamount array illuminator. I would think that the small square panels mounted higher up would be the CEAMount.. interesting.... They seem to be adding more and more array panels on the mast, almost feeling the more the merrier.

 

[iambuzzard]

The Italians went for a multi-layer defence - 5 inch and 3 inch. Their more recent Horizon class also mount 3x 3 inch.

View attachment 53841

It looks impressive. It's a pity about the Mk.13 launcher. Very OHP!

 

[Reptilia]

JMSDF launch of 1st 2 OPVs Sakura and Tachibana.

Launch via ‘Japanese journalist Kosuke Takahashi's YouTube‘ channel

Yahoo

ついに艦名が明らかに！ 自衛隊初の新ジャンル「哨戒艦」2隻同時は極めて異例 詳細も判明（乗りものニュース） - Yahoo!ニュース

　防衛省は2025年11月13日（木）、JMU（ジャパンマリンユナイテッド）横浜事業所磯子工場（神奈川県横浜市）にて、新規建造された哨戒艦2隻の命名・進水式を実施しました。 　これらは、従来「05

news.yahoo.co.jp

‘95m long, 12m wide, 7.7m deep, with a draft of 4.2m, a standard displacement of 1,900 tons, and a crew of approximately 30. They are powered by a combined propulsion (CODLAD) system consisting of two diesel engines and two propulsion transmissions, and can reach a speed of over 25 knots (approximately 46.3km/h). On the other hand, the ship is only armed with a single 30mm cannon mounted on the bow. However, the stern is equipped with a multi-purpose deck that can accommodate the landing of MCH-101 minesweeping and transport helicopters, as well as carrying UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles: to be equipped at a later date) and electromagnetic intelligence gathering equipment (to be equipped at a later date). Other features include a multi-purpose hangar (not suitable for helicopters) and a multi-purpose crane, and the ship is characterized by its emphasis on versatility and manpower saving. In addition, a bow thruster is installed below the bow waterline, which allows the ship to enter and leave port without the aid of a tugboat, making it suitable for use in ports that do not have sufficient facilities.Of course, since the ship is designed to operate in rough ocean waters, it is also equipped with anti-roll tanks to reduce rolling.