Maybe not Voyeur!
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
IIRC the OTO Marlin 40 was the gun originally selected to be be fitted aboard the Arafura-class OPV's and again IIRC, that selection was based upon recommendations made by Lürssen. The change in gun came after it was apparently determined that the costs/risks involved in integrating or trying to integrate the OTO Marlin were apparently deemed 'too high' though why the RAN did not then change the specification to the OTO Breda 40 mm/70 which has been in service for years in various iterations, I do not know.
It seems that the OTO Marlin is now in service with different navies around the globe, so I am uncertain what the exact issue was.
As for the rounds themselves... a 25 x 137 mm Bushmaster HEI projectile is ~0.184 kg, a 30 x 173 mm Bushmaster HEI-T projectile is ~0.362 kg, and a OTO Breda 'Fast Forty' 40 x 365 mm HE-T projectile is ~0.96 kg. Not sure what the exact ranges are for the different guns since I have a mixed bag of information with some listing a max range, others an effective range. Having said that though, the ranges for the OTO Breda 40 mm is greater than either version of the Bushmaster and, depending which mounting is selected, has either a slightly higher or significantly higher ROF than either Bushmaster, sort of anyway. An OTO Breda Single 'Fast Forty' has a nominal ROF of 450 rpm, but the ammo feed consists of a pair of 42-round mags +5 rds in the gun feeder. OTOH if one is talking about a Type A (deck penetrating) mounting for an OTO Breda Twin Fast Forty, then we are talking about 736 HE rounds, which is still not enough for a minute of full rate fire (2 guns x 450 rpm each) but should deliver a greater weight of fire upon targets than either a Bushmaster 25 mm @200 rpm, or a Bushmaster II 30 mm @250 rpm.
I think Nulka is one of the items we could genuinely sell to the Japanese. I would expect them to be fitted to the ships after they are delivered here. People need to remember how accelerated this program is. The Japanese didn't even fit VLS to the first batch of ships.
I think the original intention of Mogami with 16 VLS was to load them with ASROC type 07 and have searam do point defence with maybe 8 cells for self defence ESSM.
The older asagiri destroyers used to have ASroc 114 matchbox launchers and two phalanx and a sea sparrow. I would envisage these larger mogami, are inspired to do much the same.
The japanese takanami destroyers (early 2000) are 4650-6300t 151x17m. 5", 2 x ciws phalanx, 32VLS (essm and VLASROC). These were built in the early 2000s. The Murasame (early 90s), Abukama (late 80s transferred to phillipines) are also rocking similar weaponry. They japanese have loads of experience in this space, building and operating ships with all types of configurations around this. I think this is a case where the RAN need to listen to the larger and more experienced navy and maybe try it on, there isn't time or money for anything else. Needs are different but operating and weapon effectiveness are similar. They are very experienced in this area of ship design, operation and building.
Japan has a pretty big focus on antisubmarine capability, they also have quite capable separate air defence ships.
As for gun vs missile CIWS. ESSM II is pretty capable. I am sure however we can build lots of munitions for gun based systems. And be cheaper or cost competitve. 1 second burst costs $3500 USD. VS $1m for RAM. and more than $1m for ESSM.. Phalanx CIWS Costs $3,500 Per Second In Ammo To Fire
Japan's latest, biggest, SM-3 BMD aegis ships still fit 2xPhalanx 20mm.
I don't think phalanx is dead yet. On a ship with ESSM, 5" and 30mm, Phalanx makes a lot sense. On a AOR, imo being near other ships, having no other AA weapons RAM might be a much better option.
Thanks for the detailed response
Certainly have looked at all those stats over the years.
I think part of the appeal of the 30 mm bushmaster is cost and familiarity.
We have the mounts and there is a high degree of compatibility to the existing 25mm
That said I see no place for it going forward but for patrol vessels.
Not a great deal of weight or realestate difference between the 30 and 40mm yet the later offers so much more capability.
SeaRAM , a pair or more of 40mm guns and some passive defence should be the inner layer on all combats
Warship, supply ship Amphib.
Anyway it wont happen.
25mm will probably soldier on for another decade on the existing ships
Completely bonkers.
S
A article going into the Japanese navy asroc ,will Australia maintain this system if not on present ships
therandomjapan.com
Why Japanese ASROC Missiles Are Overkill For Submarines
Deadly, Modified Versions As an island nation, Japan is heavily committed to defending its sea-lanes and ensure the flow
therandomjapan.com
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
I would love to know how something like RAM compared to other options such as Mistral and Sea Ceptor. Sadly I’m unlikely to ever find out….
The Germans for example appear to put a lot of faith into RAM (too much?) with it being the primary air defence for some fairly major ships.
The Germans for example appear to put a lot of faith into RAM (too much?) with it being the primary air defence for some fairly major ships.
While there were a number of versions of the Leonardo 40 at the time which had been proofed and certified, and some had been in service for years, the version proposed for the OPV had not been (OTOM Marlin is a division of Leonardo for anyone who doesn’t know). I haven’t checked to see if somebody has done it since.
The other significant 40 available was the Bofor, which was a perfectly good, maybe even a better, weapon - but it wasn’t offered. Not sure what the relative prices quoted were or why Luerssen choice the Italian job rather than the Swedish. Bofor is, of course, now a division of BAE and that is possibly the reason.
The other significant 40 available was the Bofor, which was a perfectly good, maybe even a better, weapon - but it wasn’t offered. Not sure what the relative prices quoted were or why Luerssen choice the Italian job rather than the Swedish. Bofor is, of course, now a division of BAE and that is possibly the reason.
What are people’s thoughts on the Dreadnought class SSBN. As it appears more and more likely the USN will have no Virginia’s to spare, would it not now be at least worth exploring the possibility of extending the UK’s production run by 2-3 boats on a lukewarm production line. By no means am I advocating they be armed with nuclear SLBM’s (although we should retain the option) but more in the vein of the American Ohio SSGN conversions or the Russian Oscar and Yasen classes. I understand this would delay the production of SSN-AUKUS by several years (at least in the UK) but the sheer money involved and increasing efficiency of delivery could be enough to sway them, whilst allowing kinks in SSN-AUKUS to be further ironed out prior to switching production.
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
I also had a late friend who developed the black boxes on all commercial aircraft, Dave Warren.
Me, all I've done is run a hobby shop. I haven't had the experiences you guys have had.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Given the long lead times for sub components, questionable how much faster delivery might be. Also, the Dreadnought/Columbia missile compartment would need to be replaced. How much time and money would be needed for that? Then there is the cost issue, a Dreadnought SSBN is much more expensive than a SSN. I guess it boils down to how much money do you want to spend for faster delivery on a sub that isn't really has not been specified (a SSGN derivative of a Dreadnought instead of a SSN)?
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
HMAS Velvet would probably have cushioned bucket seats on the bridge (I sat on what I believe was the CO's Commodore one on HMAS Brisbane on her last cruise), and four poster beds in the berths!!!!!
I know the following is a sales pitch form Bae. The argument regarding a standardised system that can replace so many of what I would call underwhelming gun mounts in our navy would counter incremental upgrades form 25 - 30mm. The inner ring of defence we seem to be craving.
Missile compartment would not need to be replaced, it would be no different to the 6 or 7-cell all-up round canisters on any Virginia VPT/VPM tube or Ohio SSGN tube, they’re exactly the same diameter and TLAM is far shorter than Trident-II
Going Boeing
Well-Known Member
Numerous articles have indicated that at least 80% of the AUKUS SSN design work is complete as it is heavily based on the Dreadnought, explains why it is reported to be so large. If that is the case, there wouldn’t be any saving by extending Dreadnought production.
I don't know how they manage to cram 1,100 tungsten balls into a 40mm shell.
It was interesting listening to him talk about the number shots required against drone and missile threats. He was indicating 2-3 for a drone and 10-20 against a missile. Now it all depends on the drone and missile, but that is a little more economical than I thought.
While less of a Naval application, I rekon these on truck mounts would be ideal UCAS defence around bases. A half dozen placed around FBW would provide very comfortable 360 deg protection for a good 5km around the island.
Mind you I might be more careful fishing out in the Cockburn Sound if they did so.
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
Why don't they mount Ayer's Rock/Uluru on it?
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
I liked the original design.