If you are talking about the ANZACs, hen probably mounting another M2 HBHMG 50 cal on them would turn them turtle
If you mean the Hunters, they aren't DDGs but FFGs. I can't remember the VLS cells, is it 32 or 24? Plus they'll most likely have cannister launchers for SSM anyway.
I do believe that the Hunter's have the design capacity for 64 Mk41 VLS cells according to an unofficial conversation with a BAE sales rep.
I believe the 64 cells are a composite of different lengths of Mk41 cells; being self-defence length cells amidships and strike length cells on the bow.
I am of the opinion that the 20 mm CIWS is well past it's use by date because the range is far to short to handle modern high end subsonic AShM and definitely supersonic AShM. 1,000 - 1,500 m is just not a long enough reach. By the time the missile is hit, the inertia of the debris is still enough to inflict serious damage, especially if it is a supersonic missile. That's why I advocate the 30 mm Goalkeeper (uses the 30 mm Avenger gun from the A-10) or the Rheinemettall 35 mm Millennium gun, because both have greater range and hitting power. Yes both might cost more than the Phalanx, but still cheaper than losing a ship to significant damage or sinking. Just because the USN uses the Phalanx and hasn't changed, doesn't make it holy writ. They're a bit behind the 8 ball on a few things at the moment and that's one of them.
That there is. The second issue is cost. Some of the missiles are US$3 million each so a load out is going to be very expensive especially across a fleet of 12 ships. So a middle sized navy such as the RAN is going to be constrained by cost somewhat as well, unless its wartime.
The latest models of the Canadian type 26 suggest they might be fitting it with Lockheed's Extensible Launching System and perhaps using Seaceptor in the CIADS role. I am sure Australian and Canadian defence officials are sharing notes on this. It would be interesting to hear why Canada is taking a different path to Australia and Britain in not specifying the Phalanx system. In Britain's case I can sort of understand why they are opting for Phalanx since they apparently have around 50 systems in service or in storage. In Australia's case though we would need to buy additional systems, so it might be worth taking the time and explore a few other options.
I've come full circle, apparently they are still quite useful for newer threats. Anything significant (like a missile) should have been cleaned up before getting to that inner layer. These are again Frigates, they are not primary air defence ships. Two CIWS is still two more than the AU Anzacs currently pack. The hunters also have 2x30mm guns as well, so again, a fair compromise for something that isn't going to be tier 1 air defence. The CIWS are great on things like drones, surface boats, decoys etc. Chinese missiles aren't quite a meganormous as the big soviet stuff So I would imagine 20mm isn't as much a deal breaker as it would be with some of the larger navy fielded soviet stuff.
This is not only a factor of the speed of the missile but also the height at which it is traveling as gravity is a constant of 9.8 meters per second squared once lift is lost. As the speed of sound is approx 344 meters per second, there is a height to distance equation in regard to how effective the phalanx can be. What would also need to be added to the calculation is the drag of the destroyed missile pieces which would be a lot higher than the original as the phalanx is based on making direct hits. I am not sure of the reason, but the RN did start using the Goalkeeper and there were some statement"s in the late 80's that this would become the standard, but has reverted back to the phalanx. Of course a modern goalkeeper would be a very different animal today than back in the 80's as is the phalanx.
I'd say the sheer fact that the Phalanx is essentially a bolt and shoot system compared to the deck penetration of the Goalkeeper is why the RN did not adopt the system further. Along with the ability for the lower weight to allow multiple mounting positions of the Phalanx.
Are you sure about when the options for the two additional subs expired? Beazley's service as MinDef ended in early 1990, around when the first sub was first laid down, and about six years before the first sub was commissioned. I would normally expect options for additional vessels to last at least until part way through a multi-vessel build programme. Options that expire right away IMO would be a sign of bad contract writing, as it makes customers unable to consider how well (or poorly) a build programme is doing prior to forcing the customer to make a choice.
I cannot say which is the better system in a comparison between Phalanx or Goalkeeper.
The 40mm on the Arafura Class suggests to me nothing more, than that is what the successful bidder suggested in it’s tender and RAN didn’t care enough about the capability, or have the budget to consider further.
Still a whole lot better than the our Fremantle patrol boats which mounted WW2 era manually trained and loaded Bofors 40mm,Fremantle-class patrol boat - Wikipedia