Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

S

Stampede

Well-Known Member
ADMk2 said:
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...
Click to expand...
Suggest any medium gun based system must handle the full range of inner threats.

Therefore separate phalanx / bushmaster type combinations are really some what a dated concept.

I can envisage phalanx becoming a missile based solution in SeaRam and gun based systems having some capacity against both surface and aerial slow moving threats.

Probably at the point now that they are of limited use against fast ASMs Hence SeaRam.

That said the faster rate of fire of systems like the sea snake 30 mm I can see having a place going forward.

Bushmaster I understand has great reliability but probably to slow for aerial threats.

Whatever the future, let’s standardise across the fleet over the next decade

Cheers S
 
spoz

spoz

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
25mm Bushmaster in Naval implementations has a secondary role against slow(ish) moving aerial targets - 200 rpm is fine for helos and drones (ask any helo pilot). Its primary function is surface with particular reference to small craft.

Phalanx has a secondary role in surface, but with a range that is considerably less than the 25mm. Its primary role is anti air, with a focus on ASMD, of course.

Training is done with both systems in both roles.

SeaRAM also has an ASuW role, btw. Certainly against a Brahmos or something I would prefer that to either of the other two. However, for a small boat I think I’d want the 25; SeaRAM has only 11 missiles loaded at any one time and I would prefer to keep them for the aerial threat.
 
Last edited:
Todjaeger

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
spoz said:
25mm Bushmaster in Naval implementations has a secondary role against slow(ish) moving aerial targets - 200 rpm is fine for helos and drones (ask any helo pilot). Its primary function is surface with particular reference to small craft.

Phalanx has a secondary role in surface, but with a range that is considerably less than the 25mm. Its primary role is anti air, with a focus on ASMD, of course.

Training is done with both systems in both roles.
Click to expand...
IIRC the M242 25mm Bushmaster has an effective range of ~3km, about twice the effective range of the Mk 15 Phalanx 20mm CIWS. From my POV, an effective range of only ~3km would leave a Bushmaster largely useless vs. helicopters, unless for some strange reason the helicopters decided to fly (comparatively) very close to the vessel. After all, air-launched missiles around the size of the AGM-114 Hellfire which can be launched from helos or drones can reach ~11km. For aerial usage, a 25mm Bushmaster might be viable against some of the smaller drones which would need to close/impact with a target vessel to be effective. OTOH, the mountings for the guns might run issues allowing the Bushmasters to elevate sufficiently to engage potential aerial targets.
 
A

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Todjaeger said:
IIRC the M242 25mm Bushmaster has an effective range of ~3km, about twice the effective range of the Mk 15 Phalanx 20mm CIWS. From my POV, an effective range of only ~3km would leave a Bushmaster largely useless vs. helicopters, unless for some strange reason the helicopters decided to fly (comparatively) very close to the vessel. After all, air-launched missiles around the size of the AGM-114 Hellfire which can be launched from helos or drones can reach ~11km. For aerial usage, a 25mm Bushmaster might be viable against some of the smaller drones which would need to close/impact with a target vessel to be effective. OTOH, the mountings for the guns might run issues allowing the Bushmasters to elevate sufficiently to engage potential aerial targets.
Click to expand...
The M242 25mm Bushmaster in Australian service has no programmable or proximity fused ammunition natures, which certainly doesn’t prevent it from downing drones or other air threats, but it makes it far less effective in the role and likely to consume far more ammunition. It’s relatively slow rate of fire doesn’t help either.

In that sense, that Bofors 40 Mk.4 firing 3P ammunition is an infinitely superior gun in all respects except cost.

There are navies however including the RN that are using is as a CIWS in place of a Phalanx or similar and in place of secondary surface guns on majors?

Individually, maybe it’s too expensive. As a singular replacement for Phalanx and 25mm Typhoon however and as a credible main gun for minor war vessels?

Might well be worth a look…
 
spoz

spoz

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Couldn’t agree more - the Bofor is a far superior weapon. But it is a lot heavier and takes up a lot more deck space. The 25mm mountings are adequate for closer range AAA, although for targets near the zenith Phalanx would be the weapon of choice.
 
I

iambuzzard

Well-Known Member
spoz said:
Couldn’t agree more - the Bofor is a far superior weapon. But it is a lot heavier and takes up a lot more deck space. The 25mm mountings are adequate for closer range AAA, although for targets near the zenith Phalanx would be the weapon of choice.
Click to expand...
The Italians, Russians and others have multiple smaller calibre weapons for close range. Layer upon layer. Why can't we?
Phalanx and Bofors or similar. The Italian destroyers are like echidnas!
 
Last edited:
7

76mmGuns

Well-Known Member
spoz said:
25mm Bushmaster in Naval implementations has a secondary role against slow(ish) moving aerial targets - 200 rpm is fine for helos and drones (ask any helo pilot). Its primary function is surface with particular reference to small craft.

Phalanx has a secondary role in surface, but with a range that is considerably less than the 25mm. Its primary role is anti air, with a focus on ASMD, of course.

Training is done with both systems in both roles.

SeaRAM also has an ASuW role, btw. Certainly against a Brahmos or something I would prefer that to either of the other two. However, for a small boat I think I’d want the 25; SeaRAM has only 11 missiles loaded at any one time and I would prefer to keep them for the aerial threat.
Click to expand...
I honestly don't see why 25mm guns aren't being replaced by 30mm ones. I've seen convincing videos/analyses on the superiority of 30mm over 25mm, and navylookout site just published an article on the pros of 30mm vs 40mm guns. With so much money in defence these days, surely there's a little bit for upgrading to 30mm guns

www.navylookout.com

The case for enhancing the Royal Navy’s 30mm gun - Navy Lookout

Small and medium calibre guns have quietly become some of the most operationally relevant weapons in Royal Navy service. While missiles dominate discussions of high-end naval warfare, it is guns that provide the persistent, affordable and flexible means to deter, warn and defeat close-range...
www.navylookout.com www.navylookout.com
 
S

south

Well-Known Member
76mmGuns said:
I honestly don't see why 25mm guns aren't being replaced by 30mm ones. I've seen convincing videos/analyses on the superiority of 30mm over 25mm, and navylookout site just published an article on the pros of 30mm vs 40mm guns. With so much money in defence these days, surely there's a little bit for upgrading to 30mm guns

www.navylookout.com

The case for enhancing the Royal Navy’s 30mm gun - Navy Lookout

Small and medium calibre guns have quietly become some of the most operationally relevant weapons in Royal Navy service. While missiles dominate discussions of high-end naval warfare, it is guns that provide the persistent, affordable and flexible means to deter, warn and defeat close-range...
www.navylookout.com www.navylookout.com
Click to expand...
There’s no spare money in defence.

Acquisition and sustainment budgets are being cut/cancelled/rescoped all over the place.
 
John Fedup

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
iambuzzard said:
Wait until a hot war starts, then they'll have to find the money. By then of course, it's too late.
Governments have other priorities to blow the funds on!
Click to expand...
Sadly true for other countries as well. Ambitious, and more often than not unaffordable social programs by pollies looking for votes, have left big debts and little money for defence.
 
V

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I get the feeling we are on the crux of some great technological advances and that we should be very careful about locking into particular options too soon.

Ensure there is space, weight, power and cooling for multiple options, but don't worry to much about which particular system in the short term.

There are not just intelligent munitions in the 30/35/40mm classes, there are guided rounds in 57 and 76mm, traditional mounts and non deck penetrating options.

68 and 70mm rockets have been revitalised, then theres Hellfire and similar options on-top of RAM, Mistral, and other missile systems.

Don't forget Dragonfire and other laser systems, many EODs are offering a laser dazzling capability now.

There are also option to mount high energy lasers on various existing weapon mounts, or guided rockets, missiles etc. I believe Naval Group are doing a turret that contains multiple types of effectors.

www.naval-group.com

Multi-purpose and modular launching system (MPLS): Naval Group joins forces with Thales and KNDS to develop this new equipment | Naval Group

As an international naval defence player, Naval Group is a partner for countries seeking to maintain control of their maritime sovereignty. Naval Group develops innovative solutions to meet its customers’ requirements. Present throughout the entire life cycle of vessels, it designs, produces...
www.naval-group.com www.naval-group.com
 
S

Stampede

Well-Known Member
south said:
There’s no spare money in defence.

Acquisition and sustainment budgets are being cut/cancelled/rescoped all over the place.
Click to expand...
AUKUS has vacuumed most of the money out of defence.
While , I can see the appeal of an SSN. It needs to be within the realms of a balanced defence force and funded accordingly.
This has come about at a time reinforced by the Russian Ukraine war of the rapid adoption unmanned systems.
So not only are we seeking to acquire a nuclear powered submarine? We like other defence forces are trying to navigate this rapidly developing realm of unmanned systems and how they integrate and can be utilised across the three services..

A very big challenge made impossible without significant additional funding.

Add to equation the uncertainty of a key ally in the USA showing great unpredictability to the norms of governorship domestically and internationally, one could very much make a case for increasing funding for defence.

We now have a defence force of compromises.
Trying to do too much with not enough funds.
Massive adjustment to a broad range of new equipment and the knowledge base required to make that happen.

The ADF is doing great stuff and should be applauded for trying to meet the challenges of today.
Do they need more support?

Absolutely

Looking at you government and opposition to take this challenge seriously.


Cheers S
 
M

MARKMILES77

Well-Known Member
Defence Industry Minister Pat Conry announces that "I can say to your viewers right now, the first two AUKUS submarines for Australia are under construction right now"




 
StingrayOZ

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
Volkodav said:
Ensure there is space, weight, power and cooling for multiple options, but don't worry to much about which particular system in the short term.
Click to expand...
I think it would be a good plan to have a common strategy for gun based systems. I think definitely put space and weight/power/cooling reservations in there.

Army/Navy/Air. Unlike many missile systems, acquisition costs tend to be quite low, cost per round, also potentially, very, very low.

Real issue is integration, logistics, training and support. Many of these are more of a time thing than a cost thing. Gun systems for example can be stored essentially nearly forever (we are literally seeing WW2 era systems and munitions used in combat perhaps at reduced effectiveness but still better than nothing), require extremely minimal on going support while stored, and can be re-activated fairly quickly. This isn't possible with most missile or jet based munitions. One of the successes in Ukraine has been older based gun systems, previously thought as useless, which still clearly have their place.

They are also one of the few systems that can be donated to allies easily to strengthen them realistically. Gun based munitions can also be scaled to meet the need, where as missile based that is never going to be possible.

While laser systems are arriving, they aren't exactly replacing missiles or gun systems entirely. They provide a different kind of functionality. Its a different kind of weapon. Not a 1 for 1 replacement.

Personally, for example I don't see Phalanx being phased out of the ADF. I think there will always be a need for that kind of weapon system.

But also I don't think we should be really selection guns based on just one platform, I think there needs to be a bit more of a cohesive strategy of what we need, what would be selected if we wanted it. What can maybe supported with the same production capability lines and what can't. While there are different lengths of 30mm can they be produced effectively on the same line with minimal changes.

Is it better to go to a new special gun system, or just use an existing one with various interchangeable barrels etc if the integration, support, fusion, training is already there making it more robust and much much cheaper and less resource intensive? Should we learn lessons from Arafura?

Was the 40mm really required when the ADF had more compatible options.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top