Class of Air Warfare Destroyers for Aus

Could someone tell me why they took the 2 x Phalanx CIWS off HMAS Success?? and i have seen lately that the one on either manoora or kanimbla is removed as well... saw that on defence website for excercise talisman sabre 07...

wouldnt it be a good idea to put them on most of our ships?? even one on the HMAS Sirius??
 

Tasman

Ship Watcher
Verified Defense Pro
Slight correction here. The Mk 38 does indeed mount a 25mm gun, but the mounting isn't a Typhoon mounting. The Mk 38 is a single gun manned emplacement, while a Typhon is a RWS. Here's a link to globalsecurity showing some images.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/systems/mk-38-gallery.htm

-Cheers
The Mod 2 variant of the Mark 38 25mm gun has a RWS.

From the Defense Industry Daily website:

BAE Receives $39M Delivery Order for Mk38 Naval 25mm RWS
Posted 12-May-2006 07:21

Mk 38 Mod 2 concept
BAE Systems in Minneapolis, MN announced a $39 million delivery order from the U.S. Navy to deliver 67 of its Mk 38 Mod 2 gun mounts to go aboard cruisers, destroyers and Landing Ship Transport Dock (LPD) ships for reliable close-in defense against small craft et. al. DID has covered the basic Mk 38 gun before, but the Mk 38 Mod 2 is a stabilized 25mm gun with radar and/or TOPLITE laser/optical/infared guidance, auto-tracking once locked, its own integrated power system, no through-deck penetration, automated or manual operation, and embedded training incorporated into the system's interface. The Mk 38 gun has an effective range of 1 mile, and uses the same M242 25mm chain gun found on the Marines' LAV-25 and Army M2/M3 Bradley armored vehicles.

BAE Systems has teamed with Israel's Rafael for the development and production of the Mk 38 Mod 2, drawing on that company's considerable experience with naval systems like the Rafael Typhoon remotely-operated weapons system. The system is assembled and tested at BAE Systems' Louisville, KY site, and is just entering production. This order releases $39 million from the current $395 million contract. For more information re: this system, see the PPT/Mp3/WMV/QuickTime media briefing provided by BAE VP of Naval Programs Dave Lassek at Washington, DC's National Press Club on April 3, 2006.

UPDATE: BAE Systems delivered the first Mk 38 Mod 2 systems to the U.S. Navy the week of April 2, 2007. The systems will be delivered from spring 2007 through March 2008
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com...ivery-order-for-mk38-naval-25mm-rws/index.php

Cheers
 
Last edited:

Tasman

Ship Watcher
Verified Defense Pro
Could someone tell me why they took the 2 x Phalanx CIWS off HMAS Success?? and i have seen lately that the one on either manoora or kanimbla is removed as well... saw that on defence website for excercise talisman sabre 07...

wouldnt it be a good idea to put them on most of our ships?? even one on the HMAS Sirius??
Phalanx was only fitted to Success for trials, then removed and stored (or fitted on other ships). I believe it was also fitted to Westralia for trials. In another RAN thread I seem to recall reading that the RAN only has a total of 9 Phalanx units - 6 for the FFGs, 1 spare and 1 that came with each of the LPAs. Prior to them being employed operationally the LPAs operated without Phalanx. I expect that they have been removed to reduce personnel needs and to save money. I expect they would be refitted if either LPA was operationally deployed.

This does tend to reinforce the fact that the RAN doesn't regard Phalanx as a priority in the fleet.

BTW, I've noticed that even FFGs sometimes seem to be minus their CIWS when they visit Hobart. Melbourne was minus its CIWS when it last visited.

Cheers
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
I'm not sure if I buy the whole "shotgun theory." For a start, the bulk of the fragments will follow a ballistic trajectory from the breakup of the missile. Assuming it's a sea-skimmer, no more than 5m above the surface, moving horizontally to maintain that 5m, a ballistic trajectory will mean the pieces will hit the sea after a mere one second - and starting at 800km/h will travel probably less than 200m when you consider air resistance.

If the rocket motor is still firing after being hit by 20mm (which it may be if only a few rounds have hit) it could go anywhere - left, right, into the sky or into the sea. It probably has a good chance of missing the ship altogether if we assume the missile is unable to follow its original course, which I think is a fair assumption when you consider that it's likely to have damage to the control surfaces, propulsion, guidance system or all three.

I've heard the "shotgun" theory many times but I think it's only really a problem if the missile is hit in the last few hundred metres before the ship, and it's on a direct course - not doing the funky terminal avoidance maneouvres some of the AShMs are programmed to do these days.
To my understanding the "shotgun effect" is considered a threat under some circumstances. AFAIK, the altitude of most AShM on terminal approach would be between 5-10m depending on weather/wave condititions, etc. Also, the missiles that are generally considered capable of causing a "shotgun effect" are typically Soviet/Russian AShM, or derivatives of them. Some of the more interesting examples have a very high listed terminal approach speed of ~ Mach 3. Doing the numbers roughly (very roughly mind) that would mean missile debris could travel up to about 900m in one second. If the effective range of a Phalanx 1-3km (guestimating) then by the time fire from the Phalanx hits any incoming missiles, it might already be going to strike the ship. Not sure yet, still working on the calculations, it's been awhile since I had Newtonian physics...

-Cheers
 

Big-E

Banned Member
So Oz decided to go with the F-100s. Thats great for having more platforms but do you get more tubes with this config?
 

Tasman

Ship Watcher
Verified Defense Pro
So Oz decided to go with the F-100s. Thats great for having more platforms but do you get more tubes with this config?
Three F-100s actually have slightly less missile stowage capacity than the four FFGs they will replace:

3x F-100

3x 48 VLS cells (each with say 40 SM-2 and 32 ESSM (quad packed)
3x 8 cannisters with Harpoon Mk 2

Total = 120 SM-2 plus 24 Harpoon plus 96 ESSM

4x FFG

4 x 40 SM-2/Harpoon fired from Mk 13 launcher (say 32 SM-2 plus 8 Harpoon Mk 2)
4x 8 VLS cells for quad packed ESSM

TOTAL = 128 SM-2 plus 32 Harpoon Mk 2 plus 128 ESSM

Of course the missile loadouts may vary and the F-100s have a far more capable fire control system and much greater flexibility with the VLS/AEGIS combo to fire and control multiple missiles.

Cheers
 

Simon9

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
To my understanding the "shotgun effect" is considered a threat under some circumstances. AFAIK, the altitude of most AShM on terminal approach would be between 5-10m depending on weather/wave condititions, etc. Also, the missiles that are generally considered capable of causing a "shotgun effect" are typically Soviet/Russian AShM, or derivatives of them. Some of the more interesting examples have a very high listed terminal approach speed of ~ Mach 3. Doing the numbers roughly (very roughly mind) that would mean missile debris could travel up to about 900m in one second. If the effective range of a Phalanx 1-3km (guestimating) then by the time fire from the Phalanx hits any incoming missiles, it might already be going to strike the ship. Not sure yet, still working on the calculations, it's been awhile since I had Newtonian physics...

-Cheers
I did think of the Russian supersonic missiles. The main problem I thought about with them is that I'm not even sure the Phalanx will have a decent chance of hitting one. Mach 3 equates to about 1000m/s, so you've probably got not more than three seconds from when it enters the effective range until impact, and the muzzle velocity of Vulcan is only about Mach 3 itself, which will fall off heavily as air resistance takes its toll. So the missile will be incoming faster than the rounds are outgoing! That'll really strain the predictive powers of the fire control computer to get a proper firing solution.

And if the missile is doing terminal evasive maneouvres then I really wouldn't like to be placing my life in Phalanx's hands! Certainly in that situation, if it did get a hit it would likely be at very close range, within a few hundred metres, and the shotgun effect would be significant - but I think if your ship is under attack from Sunburns or Klubs the shotgun effect is the last thing you need to be worrying about - even hitting the damn things with a Phalanx will be an achievement. I'd be more concerned with getting to the lifeboats. The site I'm looking at suggests a Klub will be incoming at 3-5m and Mach 2.9.

But against subsonic missiles like Exocet or Harpoon, or older Soviet-era/Chinese AShMs like Silkworm, I think the shotgun effect is negligible. Just goes to show how far advanced the Russians are over the West in AShM tech - if indeed what we've been led to believe about them is actually accurate.

Interestingly while exploring this I found a report that in the Persian Gulf War in 1991 a Silkworm/Seersucker was fired at the Missouri, which put up chaff. The Phalanx on another ship locked onto the chaff and fired at that instead of the missile! This shouldn't have happened since Phalanx is supposed to be able to distinguish stationary or slow-moving targets.

HMS Gloucester averted a potentially bad situation by downing the incoming missile with a Sea Dart. So it seems in the gun vs missile CIWS debate, the honours in the only real engagement to test them both, go clearly to the missile.
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
But against subsonic missiles like Exocet or Harpoon, or older Soviet-era/Chinese AShMs like Silkworm, I think the shotgun effect is negligible. Just goes to show how far advanced the Russians are over the West in AShM tech - if indeed what we've been led to believe about them is actually accurate.
I'm no expert in this by any means and haven't even researched the issue well, but it's interesting that it ONLY seems to be the Russians and Chinese that are manufacturing these supersonic ASM's.

Countries in the West are designed new ASM's from scratch but are still making them subsonic.

The West certainly does have supersonic missiles, so the ability to design and manufacture such is not in doubt, but they haven't yet made supersonic ASM's.

I wonder why if the supersonic ASM's are as capable as claimed?
 
Yes Simon 9, that story is apparently truthful, The ship was an American OHP , the USS JARRET (FFG-33) that not only managed to engage Missouri’s chaff but also to put a few rounds on it, a few went through the chimney and “””” apparently “””” one went though a bulkhead injuring one of Missouri’s sailors in the process .

The missile could have been a C-801.


Best regards
 

Ozzy Blizzard

New Member
I'm no expert in this by any means and haven't even researched the issue well, but it's interesting that it ONLY seems to be the Russians and Chinese that are manufacturing these supersonic ASM's.

Countries in the West are designed new ASM's from scratch but are still making them subsonic.

The West certainly does have supersonic missiles, so the ability to design and manufacture such is not in doubt, but they haven't yet made supersonic ASM's.

I wonder why if the supersonic ASM's are as capable as claimed?
I think its just two different approaches. Both are designed to limmit the ammount of time the defenceive systemns have to engage the missile. The Russians (and therefore chinese) have gone for the more speed aproach. AFAIK the older Soviet AShM's like Kingfish (i think) were high altitude and high speed, Mach 2~3 with a steep terminal dive. Therefore they would only be in the SAM envelope for a matter of seconds. Exocet and Harpoon achieve the same effect, being in the SAM envelope for the shortest ammount of time, by flying subsonic and low altitutde, utilising the radar horison and keeping out of LOS for the longest possible time. Sunburn seems to be a new level of capability, with a low altitude approach staying out of LOS combined with a super sonic terminal speed. This would cut the engagement time significantly , allthough SM6 will be able to engage it beyonde LOS when working with AEW. The next generation of western systems like NSM/JSM & JASSM have taken annother approach combining passive sensors, LO and low altitude to again reduce detection and engagement time dramatically. As for which approach is better???? Who knows. Sub sonic AShM's are generally lighter an therefore more can be carried per platform, allthough subsonic LO systems would probably be more expensive.

They are probably very capable, but so are the next gen western systems and i dont see the sunburn and the like being the unbeatable systems claimed by some. They do however show a real increase in capability, but so does JSM & JASSM. They both achieve the same goal.
 
Last edited:

Simon9

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
I'm no expert in this by any means and haven't even researched the issue well, but it's interesting that it ONLY seems to be the Russians and Chinese that are manufacturing these supersonic ASM's.

Countries in the West are designed new ASM's from scratch but are still making them subsonic.

The West certainly does have supersonic missiles, so the ability to design and manufacture such is not in doubt, but they haven't yet made supersonic ASM's.

I wonder why if the supersonic ASM's are as capable as claimed?

Well, the Soviets identified the US CVBGs as the most important targets, so it makes sense that they would have directed the bulk of their money, the bulk of their time, and their best brains into developing counters to them. The USSR couldn't match the US across the board in military tech, but if they devoted a lot of resources into a few particular areas, it makes sense that they could have outstripped US and Western tech in those few areas, and be even decades ahead.

After the collapse of the USSR, Russia obviously doesn't have the money any more, but they'd still have the time and the brains, and they'd be building on a solid knowledge base. And in the attempt to get more money from countries like China, India and Iran, it makes sense that they would continue to develop in these niche areas in the hope of export sales.

So I think it's certainly POSSIBLE they're as capable as claimed, or nearly so. Whether they are or not, let's hope we don't find out with half the Fifth Fleet on the bottom of the Persian Gulf.
 
Hello everyone,

This article (in Spanish again) describes the successful trials of the f104 in San Diego and Hawaii, It says that successfully tracked and targeted a target at a height of 500 Kms and that a USN destroyer was in charged of firing the SM3 that successfully took the target down.
It also says that successfully (it actually says excellent results) intercepted anti-ship missiles, sea skimmers both sub and supersonic.

The f104 does not have a CIWS neither.

http://www.diariodeferrol.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/Render&inifile=futuretense.ini&c=CSINoticias&cid=1182898191034&t=NoticiaCompleta&edicionnav=1028218396367&arglink=nolink


I though it would be of interest.



Best regards
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Hello everyone,

This article (in Spanish again) describes the successful trials of the f104 in San Diego and Hawaii, It says that successfully tracked and targeted a target at a height of 500 Kms and that a USN destroyer was in charged of firing the SM3 that successfully took the target down.
It also says that successfully (it actually says excellent results) intercepted anti-ship missiles, sea skimmers both sub and supersonic.

The f104 does not have a CIWS neither.

http://www.diariodeferrol.com/servl...pleta&edicionnav=1028218396367&arglink=nolink


I though it would be of interest.



Best regards
Does the article indicate whether the "interception" of AShM was an actual (SAM fired) interception or a theoretical interception based on radar returns? And if it was an actual interception, which SAM was employed? Not sure if the F-100 series only uses SM or if any also carry ESSM.

-Cheers
 

Gladius

New Member
About the ABM Test (FTM-12):

US-Navy NewsStand said:
Navy Ships Key to Missile Test Success
Story Number: NNS070625-10
Release Date: 6/25/2007 4:19:00 PM


From Commander, Naval Surface Force, U.S. Pacific Fleet Public Affairs

KAUAI, Hawaii (NNS) -- Two U.S. Navy warships, a Spanish frigate, and the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) mobile ground-based radar participated in a successful “hit to kill” intercept flight test conducted off the coast of Kauai on June 22.

This was the 28th successful intercept in 36 missile defense tests since 2001.

The San Diego-based Aegis destroyer, USS Decatur (DDG 73), using the operationally certified Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense Weapon System (BMD 3.6) and a Standard Missile – 3 (SM-3) Block IA missile successfully intercepted a “separating” target during its midcourse phase of flight. The Pearl Harbor based Aegis cruiser, USS Port Royal (CG 73), used the flight test to support development of the new Aegis BMD SPY-1B radar signal processor, collecting performance data on its increased target detection and discrimination capabilities.

The Spanish frigate, Mendez Nunez (F-104), stationed off Kauai, performed long-range surveillance and track operations as a training event to assess the future capabilities of the F-100 Class. The THAAD radar tracked the target and exchanged tracking data with the Aegis BMD cruiser.

The “separating” target intercept (meaning that the target warhead separated from its booster rocket) marked the ninth successful intercept in eleven flight tests for the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense Program, the sea-based component of the Missile Defense Agency’s Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS), designed to intercept and destroy short to medium-range ballistic missiles. All target launches managed by the Missile Defense Agency’s Targets and Countermeasures directorate to support the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System have been successful.

The event, designated as Flight Test Standard Missile -12 (FTM-12), was the third intercept involving a separating target and the first time an Aegis BMD-equipped destroyer was used to launch the interceptor missile.

At approximately 4:40 p.m. Hawaii Standard Time, a medium-range ballistic missile with a separating target was launched from the Pacific Missile Range Facility (PMRF), Barking Sands, Kauai. Decatur detected and tracked the target and developed a fire control solultion.

Approximately four minutes later, Decatur’s crew launched the SM-3, and two minutes later the missile successfully intercepted the target warhead outside the earth’s atmosphere more than 100 miles above the Pacific Ocean and 250 miles northwest of Kauai. The intercept used “hit to kill” technology, meaning that the target warhead was destroyed when the missile collided directly with the target, using no explosives.

This event marked the third time that an allied military unit participated in a U.S. Aegis BMD test, with warships from Japan and the Netherlands participating in earlier tests. Japan has committed to deploying SM-3 interceptor missiles aboard its Aegis ships, and is also working with the United States to develop a sea-based interceptor with more advanced capabilities
Link to the article published on the US DoD Website: news.navy.mil

About the CSSQT carried out by the USS Gridley, F-104 Méndez Núñez & F-310 Fritjof Nansen:

Lockheed Martin Public Relations Office said:
LOCKHEED MARTIN AEGIS WEAPON SYSTEM DEMONSTRATES COMBAT READINESS DURING JOINT EXERCISE WITH U.S., NORWEGIAN AND SPANISH NAVIES

MOORESTOWN, NJ, June 18, 2007

Lockheed Martin [NYSE: LMT]’s Aegis Weapon System recently played a major role in the successful completion of the first-ever, three-nation joint Combat System Ship Qualification Trials (CSSQT), involving the U.S. Navy destroyer USS Gridley, the Spanish Navy frigate Méndez Núñez and Royal Norwegian Navy frigate Fridtjof Nansen. This also was the first CSSQT to include three versions of Lockheed Martin’s SPY-1 naval radar family: SPY-1D(V); SPY-1D and SPY-1F.

During the CSSQT, the ships' Aegis Combat Systems were evaluated for combat readiness through comprehensive surface and anti-air warfare exercises, including manned raids and electronic attack scenarios, as well as thorough testing of the systems' tactical data link and air defense capabilities. The air defense testing was the culmination of the CSSQT, when the Aegis Weapon Systems on all three ships successfully engaged multiple missile targets. All three ships are equipped with Lockheed Martin’s MK 41 Vertical Launch System (VLS).

The Fridtjof Nansen’s participation marks the introduction of the SPY-1F radar system. SPY-1F is a smaller, lighter version of the SPY-1D radar system, providing robust performance with Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM) and SM-2 missile capability on frigate and corvette-sized ships. The SPY-1F successfully detected and tracked all targets in Norway’s CSSQT air defense scenarios.

“In addition to unmatched capabilities against all threats at sea, these qualification trials emphasize the global interoperability Aegis provides the U.S. Navy and its allies,” said Orlando Carvalho, vice president and general manager of Lockheed Martin’s Surface/Sea-Based Missile Defense business in Moorestown. “The contributions of our industry partners, especially those in Spain and Norway, have been critical factors in the success of the production, testing and fielding of these ships.”


The Aegis Weapon System includes the SPY-1 radar, the Navy's most advanced computer-controlled radar system. When paired with the Lockheed Martin’s MK 41 VLS, it is capable of delivering missiles for every mission and threat environment in naval warfare. The Aegis Weapon System is currently deployed on more than 83 ships around the globe with more than 20 additional ships contracted or planned. In addition to the United States, Spain and Norway, Aegis is the weapon system of choice for Australia, Japan and Korea.

Headquartered in Bethesda, MD, Lockheed Martin employs more than 140,000 people worldwide and is principally engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture, integration and sustainment of advanced technology systems, products and services.
Link to the article published on the LM Website: lockheedmartin.com
 

Tasman

Ship Watcher
Verified Defense Pro
Does the article indicate whether the "interception" of AShM was an actual (SAM fired) interception or a theoretical interception based on radar returns? And if it was an actual interception, which SAM was employed? Not sure if the F-100 series only uses SM or if any also carry ESSM.

-Cheers
According to web based sources the F100 carries ESSM and SM-2MR

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/f100/
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/f-100.htm

Cheers
 
Hi Todjaeger,

"Does the article indicate whether the "interception" of AShM was an actual (SAM fired) interception or a theoretical interception based on radar returns? And if it was an actual interception, which SAM was employed? Not sure if the F-100 series only uses SM or if any also carry ESSM"

I am afraid the article does not give those details but what I could find on the Armada's web , is that the supersonic targets were fired from an F16 , and also that during the exercices the f104 fired 4 unspecified missiles.


Best regards.
 

Gladius

New Member
Does the article indicate whether the "interception" of AShM was an actual (SAM fired) interception or a theoretical interception based on radar returns? And if it was an actual interception, which SAM was employed? Not sure if the F-100 series only uses SM or if any also carry ESSM.

-Cheers
All missile launched during the CSSQT by the Méndez Núñez were SM-2.

Three were launched on June 11th, one more the next day against a supersonic Coyote target.

June 11th , Frigate Méndez Núñez (F-104) CSSQT Photos © Armada Española.
 

AegisFC

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Those are nice pics! The way the 5" is pointing implies they were going to use that as well during the excercise.
Quick question though, for the AWD are the Australians going to outfit it with a 5inch 54 calibur gun or the newer 5in 64?
 

Tasman

Ship Watcher
Verified Defense Pro
Those are nice pics! The way the 5" is pointing implies they were going to use that as well during the excercise.
Quick question though, for the AWD are the Australians going to outfit it with a 5inch 54 calibur gun or the newer 5in 64?
I suspect we may have to wait for some time find out just how the 'Australianised' version will be fitted out. The only thing that is a definite from the Minister's statement is that it will have the standard F100 fit of 48 Mk 41 VLS cells.

Cheers
 
Top