Welcome to DefenceTalk.com Forum!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Discussion in 'Navy & Maritime' started by icelord, Feb 13, 2007.

Share This Page

  1. AMTP10E

    AMTP10E Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2005
    Messages:
    110
    Likes Received:
    0
    We should see the first couple done by the end of the year. When will it finish, God only knows and even then he'd be needing a very lucky day.
     
  2. Tasman

    Tasman Ship Watcher Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2006
    Messages:
    2,011
    Likes Received:
    15
    Location:
    Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
    Spending on logistics probably doesn't appeal to politicians because it’s not as glamorous as a new jet that you can stand in front of for a photo shoot. It was interesting today though that DefMin Nelson gave a serve to the previous Labor government when he said that Hornets were being cannibalised for parts to keep others in the air at the time the government changed hands.

    Cheers
     
  3. icelord

    icelord Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2006
    Messages:
    1,220
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Canberra, Australia
    The logistics funding came about after Timor...the first deployment.
    There were lack of vital supplies and equipment...and yet you could still get a pizza from Darwin, funny the RAAF priorities. The new system involves the cargo being recorded from supply, transport, to arrival electronically and also marks what is in it when it left, as some diggers on deployment reported certain bits of gear going AWOL while in transit with the USAF and from US Army bases.
    While its not glamerous, the people on the ground perhaps care more bout what does arrive then what it arrives in.
     
  4. Tasman

    Tasman Ship Watcher Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2006
    Messages:
    2,011
    Likes Received:
    15
    Location:
    Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
    Anzac Anti-Ship Missile Defence (ASMD) - concerns re topweight

    The budget papers regarding SEA 1448 Phases 2A and 2B which deal with Anzac Anti-Ship Missile Defence (ASMD), have raised a few concerns about any future upgrades that may be planned for this class.

    Phase 2A seems to have identified topweight as an issue with the Anzacs:

    http://www.defence.gov.au/budget/07-08/pbs/2007-2008_Defence_PBS_09_s2.pdf

    (Section 2, pages 278-281)

    The Australian ships don’t carry the Phalanx CIWS that is mounted above the hangar on their Kiwi cousins, but they already have Nulka installed (a 2x 4 mount above the hangar and a quad mount P&S), and the change from Sea Sparrow to ESSM has added another 24 missiles in the VLS position which is also placed quite high up in these ships. The RAN ships also carry a heavier helicopter than their NZ counterparts. Great care is obviously being taken to ensure that stability will be preserved with the fitting of the new radar, including a redesign of both fore and after masts. Consequently it now seems to me that the fitting of a second bank of 8 VLS cells and/or a VSRAD system will be extremely problematic at best.

    I would be interested to hear from our professional members re this issue.

    Cheers
     
  5. AMTP10E

    AMTP10E Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2005
    Messages:
    110
    Likes Received:
    0
    As pointed out here the ANZACs do indeed have top weight issues (and growth margin issues in general which is one of the reasons why I prefer the G&C over the F100) but I can't exactly say if they prevent Phalanx being mounted.
     
  6. Jezza

    Jezza Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2005
    Messages:
    221
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Perth
  7. Waylander

    Waylander Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    Messages:
    4,943
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Kiel, Schleswig-Holstein
    In the end RAM is the successor of Phalanx. It is better against missile/air threats but it totally lacks some kind of surface attack capability.
    With the current fear of some kind of swarm attack by small boats in brown waters Phalanx now has an additional role.
    In my eyes some GPMGs, HMGs and autocannons (20-30mm) are enough against such threats. So use RAM as CIWS and leave the close quarter surface defense to the other weapon systems.
     
  8. rossfrb_1

    rossfrb_1 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2005
    Messages:
    449
    Likes Received:
    0
    Waylander, this is a query from an armchair 'googler'.
    There are URLs out there that suggest that some form of (proposed?) RAM version is surface to surface capable.
    eg
    http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=2200&tid=800&ct=2

    Is this old info that never amounted to anything, or a proposed/possible future block upgrade?

    rb
     
  9. Waylander

    Waylander Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    Messages:
    4,943
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Kiel, Schleswig-Holstein
    I know some guys in our navy and this is what they told me about RAM when I talked to them about this topic.
    Our ships use RAM and so I just listened to them. :)

    I also haven't heard about a possible surface attack capability of future RAM versions.
    But I also don't thing it is worth the money. There might be a possible threat by swarm attacks but it is much easier and in my eyes more effective to just put some additional small calibres weapons onto the vessel which are cheaper, easier to handle and also usefull in harbors, etc.
     
  10. Falstaff

    Falstaff New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2007
    Messages:
    524
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Aachen, Germany
    RAM Block 2 will have anti surface capabilities. The development contract was signed recently.

    See MarineForum (German).

    Together with the MLG-27 for example that should provide protection against swarm attacks.
     
  11. Waylander

    Waylander Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    Messages:
    4,943
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Kiel, Schleswig-Holstein
    Ah, I'm learning something new every day. :)

    But in the end, what di I know of ships anyway... :D
     
  12. Falstaff

    Falstaff New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2007
    Messages:
    524
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Aachen, Germany
    Don't be so humble... At least you confess it while some other here know many things better than even professionals... :D (sorry, couldn't resist)
     
  13. Tasman

    Tasman Ship Watcher Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2006
    Messages:
    2,011
    Likes Received:
    15
    Location:
    Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
    For dealing with swarm attacks the RAN Anzacs have Mini Typhoon. The RAN is also ordering the Typhoon mated to a 25mm Bushmaster cannon but the first units (as mentioned in the budget) will go to the amphibious ships. I would like to see a pair of Typhoons as well as a pair of Mini Typhoons on each Anzac.

    Another alternative which has been mentioned before is the millenium gun which weighs 3.5 tonnes, which IIRC is 2 less than the Phalanx. If Phalanx is too heavy then one of these might be an alternative to provide a CIWS that can also deal with high speed surface attacks. It is hard to see how a pair could be fitted as 2 would weigh more than a single Phalanx.

    The fitting of the extra bank of VLS cells now seems unlikely to me (I guess the original 'fitted for but not with plan" didn't allow for the extra weight of the quad packed ESSM) so maybe the best enhancement to the Anzacs for close in defence would be a combination of RAM and a pair of Typhoons fitted P & S.

    Cheers
     
  14. Todjaeger

    Todjaeger Potstirrer

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2006
    Messages:
    4,539
    Likes Received:
    330
    Location:
    not in New England anymore...
    I was under the impression that there was a margin available for increased tonnage in the Meko 200 design. As part of the "fitted for, but not with" I had thought there was supposed to be something like 400 tons that could be added onto the Anzacs. If there are issues with increasing the overall tonnage of the design, are the issues just related to increasing the total tonnage, or is it more specific i.e. increasing the mass of the ship in certain areas? I can understand how fitting something like a 2nd Mk 41 8-cell VLS (with 32 ESSM) can potentially cause stability issues with such a large increase above the waterline. While it would be a unfortunate to be restricted in this fashion, are there ways to counteract this? Perhaps increasing ballast in the hull to try and maintain a lower centre or gravity? I'd be interested to see what the DefPros think. Particularly those with experience designing/building vessels.

    -Cheers
     
  15. alexsa

    alexsa Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2005
    Messages:
    2,530
    Likes Received:
    217
    Location:
    Australia
    The original drawing of the ANZAC that were provided for regulatory assessment purposes showed 2 CIWS (the 2nd forward of the bridge), harpoon between the mast and funnel and 16 cells (i.e to Mk41 sets).

    It would appear the intent was to have a ship that could take the fit, however the propulsion fit for these ships is not the same as as a 'standard MEKO 200' and perhaps that has altered the CofG (although in saying this the gearbox arrangment should have compensated in mass).

    Regardless it is not a great endorsement of the designer that that 'top weight' is now an issue.
     
  16. robsta83

    robsta83 The Wanderer

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2006
    Messages:
    944
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    New Zealand
    Well the Harpoons were put forward of the bridge instead of between it and the funnels due to wiring difficulties iirc, so even though it was the stated space for the ASM's it was still unavailable perhaps they could put something in there not so cabling intensive or whatever the problem was because there is a great space there now
     
  17. Tasman

    Tasman Ship Watcher Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2006
    Messages:
    2,011
    Likes Received:
    15
    Location:
    Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
    Should we begin planning now to replace the Anzac class?

    I would think that one of the problems is that some of the additions to the Oz Anzacs (extra 24 missiles with quad packed ESSM and the octuple Nulka launcher for example, are mounted high up in the ship above the hangar, so the effect on stability would be greater than if the same weight was mounted lower. Other things that could affect stability include the amount of ammo stowed, especially 127mm ammo and comments made on another site suggest that the RAN ships stow more 127mm shells than the Kiwi ships. Perhaps AMTP10E could comment on this (unless it is classified info).

    As the ASMD program is requiring so much attention to the issue of stability I wonder if the Anzacs have reached the stage where further upgrade programs are unwise. Perhaps this should be the last upgrade applied to these ships before a replacement is planned. Further upgrades will be difficult as anything added would have to be compensated by something else being removed. A follow on to the AWDs with a non AEGIS variant might be a logical first step in replacing the Anzac class in the RAN.

    BTW, regardless of the issues being discussed I think that the Anzacs, after completion of the ASMD upgrade , will be valuable ships in the RAN inventory for some time to come. I do think ,though, that there is a limit as to how far they can be further developed in the future.

    Perhaps a pair of 25mm Typhoons could be fitted P & S in this midships position along with a RAM launcher at the rear of the hangar roof!

    Cheers
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2007
  18. Todjaeger

    Todjaeger Potstirrer

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2006
    Messages:
    4,539
    Likes Received:
    330
    Location:
    not in New England anymore...
    Indeed, that is part of what I'm curious about. I would've expected that any addition of "fitted for, but not with" components would also cause an increase in the topweight. It is (as a layman) understandable that the addition of 8 Mk 41 VLS cells, with the coresponding quadpack ESSM might not be feasible, given that would lead to a total missile load (weight-wise) being 4 times greater than originally planned for. As such, it would IMV make more sense to have 1 Mk 41 VLS carrying 32 ESSM than to add a 2nd VLS that would be empty, or switch to using 16 VLS cells but each only carrying 1missile...

    Given that the expectation was to have available so many upgrade options (2nd Mk 41VLS, 2 Quad harpoon launchers, 2 CIWS...) So far to my count the harpoon has been added to some ships, and the quadpacking might take the place of the 2nd VLS. But that should still allow 2 CIWS to be installed. Not to mention, IIRC the Mk 41 VLS isn't mounted in the centre of the ship, I don't remember whether its oriented port or starboard, but I would imagine that would also have an effect.

    -Cheers
     
  19. robsta83

    robsta83 The Wanderer

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2006
    Messages:
    944
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    New Zealand
    Starboard at least they are on the RNZN vessels
     
  20. Todjaeger

    Todjaeger Potstirrer

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2006
    Messages:
    4,539
    Likes Received:
    330
    Location:
    not in New England anymore...
    Depending on the severity of the ship stability issue, I quite agree about the need for an Anzac follow-on design. Given what GF has posted in other threads involving ADF procurement processes, I would imagine that some of that work has already begun. IIRC what GF indicated, while the last two Collins SSKs were under construction, thought was already being given to what would be wanted/needed for the subs that would replace the Collins.

    I would like to see the fitting of the CEA-FAR to Anzac, as tested on Arunta though. That upgrade I believe wouldn't cause much problem in the way of stability, and the inclusion of a phased array would expand the RAN's experience with them (not to mention give Oz radar industry more experience...)

    -Cheers