Anzac Class vs Adelaide Class?

The likely addition to most RAN warships will be RAM.

Thre are space and weight issues but they are being looked at.

Unicorn

Defence against small sea boat threats is another argument in favour of replacing Phalanx, Goalkeeper etc CIWS weapons with a gun like the 57mm Bofors.

It’s funny how things go full circle. Pre WW1, British battleships were armed with weapons like the 3 pdr, 6 pdr and 12 pdr for defence against torpedo boats, but it wasn’t long before these were replaced by first the 4″ and later 6″ or 5.5″ guns as the smaller weapons could hit but not stop their attackers.

In WW2, 20mm and smaller weapons proved unable to stop Japanese Kamikaze attacks (which in some ways operated much like cruise missiles do today) and the 40mm bofors was regarded by many as the minimum anti Kamikaze calibre. After the war the 40mm itself was replaced in new British cruiser designs (and in USN destroyers and cruisers) by the twin auto 3″ AA.

In the case of the Anzacs, weight margins will not allow consideration of heavier guns like the 57mm for close in defence. I do worry, however, that too much reliance is being placed on the 12.7mm Mini Typhoon for protection against small surface threats. I think the 25mm Typhoon or, even better, the 35mm Millenium gun, would be a better option. Phalanx might not be perfect, and I agree that even if it hits an incoming missile it may not prevent some of the debris hitting the ship, but in the RAN’s case it is available and it would greatly increase the all round close in defence compared with what is currently carried (two Mini Typhoons and two manually operated 12.7mm MGs).

In my opinion, the Anzacs are not alone in the RAN in being undergunned for close in defence. The planned armament for the 27,000 tonne Canberra class LHDs is just 4 x 25mm Typhoon mountings! Apart from that they will only have chaff and, perhaps, Nulka decoys. As such they will be heavily reliant on their escorts. I guess that the navy is keen to keep costs down on these ships to ensure that they are actually built. Hopefully, when their construction is too advanced to be threatened, the paucity of their armament will be recognised and steps will be taken to incorporate something like ESSM or RAM.

Tas

Defence against small sea boat threats is another argument in favour of replacing Phalanx, Goalkeeper etc CIWS weapons with a gun like the 57mm Bofors. The 57mm is indeed CIWS, it’s smart fragmentation rounds give it an anti-missile capability and it’s greater engagement envelope combined with these smart rounds easily counter it’s lower cyclic rate of fire. The Italian and French navies are going down the same road with the 76mm gun. Personally I’d love to see the RN replace Phalanx with the 57mm gun and RAM as protection for their big ships, but whether the money is there to do it is another question. Phalanx is vulnerable to saturation attack and it’s engagement envelope means ships relying on it are still in real danger from high kinetic energy fragments even if Phalanx makes an interception. Also, aren’t many of the big Russian anti-shipping missiles hardened against light callibre cannon rounds to counter CIWS?

Exactly my opinion, the trend is very much towards larger calibre CIWS with the 35mm Millenium ahead being at the lower end and the 76mm at the upper. Take a look at Oto-Melaras new anti-missile ammo for the 76mm.

http://www.otomelara.it/products/schedule.asp?id=prod_naval_development_davide_ge

don’t care for either anzac or adelaide. we’ve lost 3 DDG’s & 2FFG’s(how many more will go by the time they enter service?) onlyto get 3 so called airwarfare destroyers.they are more like a cross between the anzac and adelaide ships.

The US Navy rams are used for both anti missile and against small boats.
fitting their DDX-1000 with 57mm guns is for both but look at the amount of spare electrical power it will have left over. Maybe enough four a laser defence system?

The Anzac’s were surposed to be fitted for be not with was a waste of money. look at where the harpoons are has to other mako’s.

😡

Defence against small sea boat threats is another argument in favour of replacing Phalanx, Goalkeeper etc CIWS weapons with a gun like the 57mm Bofors. The 57mm is indeed CIWS, it’s smart fragmentation rounds give it an anti-missile capability and it’s greater engagement envelope combined with these smart rounds easily counter it’s lower cyclic rate of fire. The Italian and French navies are going down the same road with the 76mm gun. Personally I’d love to see the RN replace Phalanx with the 57mm gun and RAM as protection for their big ships, but whether the money is there to do it is another question. Phalanx is vulnerable to saturation attack and it’s engagement envelope means ships relying on it are still in real danger from high kinetic energy fragments even if Phalanx makes an interception. Also, aren’t many of the big Russian anti-shipping missiles hardened against light callibre cannon rounds to counter CIWS?

Hi Tas, I cant find my source but I thought that the Phalanx was not considered by the RAN & that Sadral [Mistral] was the close in option being explored. I f I had to take a guess I imagine neither will be fitted. To fit Phalanx some gear would have to be shifted including the Mini Gun Mounts but this would not be a problem if it was decided to give Phalanx a try.
Tids

Hi Tids

There were certainly strong rumours that the RAN favoured Mistral for the final phase of the ASMD upgrade of the Anzacs (the provision of a last ditch hard kill weapon) and there has also been plenty of discussion in various forums re RAM and the Millenium Gun also being considered as options. However, as you suggest, the navy has gone quiet on the fitting of any CIWS, which means that the upgraded Anzacs will have an excellent detection capability but nothing other than 50 cal MGs and chaff to use against any missiles that evade the ESSMs or the Nulka decoys. A Mini Typhoon may be able to score some hits on a missile in its terminal phase but I doubt that it would be likely to bring one down short of the ship.

In fairness to the navy the biggest current threat to ships on deployment to the Gulf is probably posed by small fast attack craft so the emphasis on fitting Typhoon and Mini Typhoon to the amphibious ships and Mini Typhoon to the FFHs is well justified. However, the upgraded Phalanx also has an excellent anti surface capability against small craft. I read somewhere else that the RAN is about to begin upgrading its Phalanx inventory (although I believe that just one is approved at this stage) and with the FFGs unable to be deployed because of problems with the FFG upgrade program it would seem to make sense to use them on the FFHs. THe Kiwi ships are having their Mini Typhoons fitted to the sides of the bridge-top where they can combine with the aft mounted Phalanx to provide all round fire. This would seem like a good option, unless the top weight problems mentioned earlier preclude such an arrangement on the RAN vessels.

Tas

Phalanx? Sadral?

[QUOTE=Tasman;1203176]A photo of HMNZS Te Mana that I took in Hobart last year showing the Phalanx in place is attached below.

I have also never seen a CIWS on an RAN Anzac, live or in a photo (and I’ve seen a lot). Whilst the RAN ships were designed with space and weight allowed for a CIWS above the hangar I am not aware of any RAN Anzac having actually been fitted with Phalanx even for trials. I believe that issues with weight margins may be the reason. Compared with the Kiwi ships the RAN vessels have ESSM (extra 24 missiles), Harpoon (2 launchers and up to eight missiles in cannisters), Nulka (4 quad launchers). It may also be that the RAN has confidence that ESSM will provide adequate anti missile protection. Two Phalanx CIWS are being been made available by the decommissioning of Canberra and Adelaide so it will be interesting to see if the opportunity is taken to at least trial these on an FFH.
Hi Tas, I cant find my source but I thought that the Phalanx was not considered by the RAN & that Sadral [Mistral] was the close in option being explored. I f I had to take a guess I imagine neither will be fitted. To fit Phalanx some gear would have to be shifted including the Mini Gun Mounts but this would not be a problem if it was decided to give Phalanx a try.
Tids

Never seen SeeWhiz fitted to an Australian Anzac, the RNZN certainty does – any photos?

A photo of HMNZS Te Mana that I took in Hobart last year showing the Phalanx in place is attached below.

I have also never seen a CIWS on an RAN Anzac, live or in a photo (and I’ve seen a lot). Whilst the RAN ships were designed with space and weight allowed for a CIWS above the hangar I am not aware of any RAN Anzac having actually been fitted with Phalanx even for trials. I believe that issues with weight margins may be the reason. Compared with the Kiwi ships the RAN vessels have ESSM (extra 24 missiles), Harpoon (2 launchers and up to eight missiles in cannisters), Nulka (4 quad launchers). It may also be that the RAN has confidence that ESSM will provide adequate anti missile protection. Two Phalanx CIWS are being been made available by the decommissioning of Canberra and Adelaide so it will be interesting to see if the opportunity is taken to at least trial these on an FFH.

Tas

I am aware of at least two Anzacs fitted with Harpoon, the ‘Munga has them and so has the Anzac.

Shots of her departing for Op Catalyst has them in place.

Unicorn

As well as Warramunga and Anzac at least three other Anzacs had Harpoon launchers in place by the end of 2007.

Arunta is carrying a full outfit of eight cannisters during her present Gulf deployment.

There are some good hi res photos on the ADF website:

http://www.defence.gov.au/opcatalyst/images/gallery/20071214a/index.htm

http://www.defence.gov.au/media/download/2007/nov/20071113/index.htm

Parramatta had two cannisters on each launcher during her deployment to China (see link below) and Stuart had a single cannister on each launcher when she visited Devonport in September.

Tas

I think this is starting to get off topic and rather than upset the natural order of things, I sugest that we start a thread on the 57mm Vickers gun and other such naval artillery. Agreed?

Ageed! Its pretty much exhausted at this point. So, its easy to get off topic…:eek:

I think this is starting to get off topic and rather than upset the natural order of things, I sugest that we start a thread on the 57mm Vickers gun and other such naval artillery. Agreed?

Pete: mate I’ve just done some reading on the BAE Systems 57mm 70 SAK Mk 3 using the 3P rounds that you mention and the stated facts claim a 220rpm with a range out to 17km but with use of the HCER rounds that could be extended further.

The system has been selected for use on the new USCG Cutters, USN’s LCS and the Visby class ships, though mention is made to retrofitting the system to RN ships.

I have to say I was very surprised by its selection by the USN? As the similar sized Bofors 40mm has been out of favor with the US for years. Though, the new 3P round must have something to do with it…………:o

Pete: mate I’ve just done some reading on the BAE Systems 57mm 70 SAK Mk 3 using the 3P rounds that you mention and the stated facts claim a 220rpm with a range out to 17km but with use of the HCER rounds that could be extended further.

The system has been selected for use on the new USCG Cutters, USN’s LCS and the Visby class ships, though mention is made to retrofitting the system to RN ships.

SLL: Sorry mate, but the point is still vaild. And thanks also for the “Vote of Confidence”.

Radar: Mate the 57mm is not so good at short distances especially with proximity fuse based rounds. These rounds need a certain distance to arm which is usually 500m. I agree that a 57mm gun is better refered to as a secondary gun rather than a CIWS and yes it is also dependant on the position of the gun.

The Bofors Mk 3 57mm uses the 3P round which definitely qualifies it for a long range CIWS. The US mount will use this round. This pushes the intercept range out to 6-7 km……

Much closer than 500 m, you will wear the fragments of the missile in any case.

Saw the Te Mana ( an NZ Anzac class) up close (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMNZS_Te_Mana_%28F111%29) visiting in Newcastle 2 weeks ago. Went up to the gang plank and talked to a watch officer for a while. The posts mentioned above about manpower issues for both HMNZS and RAN are so so true.

Harps on Zac

Hi Ja
There is a pic of the HMAS Anzac with Harpoons fitted on the inside back cover of the latest Navy League Magazine ,however I am not sure on the rules re uploading pics from the magazine itself
Cheers
Tiddles

Uni: mate I haven’t heard or seen any pics of Zac being fitted with the Harps, can you provide please?

Another thing I forgot to mention previously was the recent aquisition of the Mini Typhoon system for close inboard defence against speed boat attacks. We have five systems in the fleet hich are deployed on vessels heading for the GAO (Gulf Area of Operations). The Anzac class have two systems fitted above the hanger aft, covering both aft quaters where the .50cals can’t reach.

Here are three pics of HMAS Ballarat (FFH-155) in the GAO with the System fitted.

First is Hi-res simply because you can clearly see the system then.

Next is the System being loaded with ammo, giving a good indication of the systems coverage from that angle.

Finally is the two systems consol in the ship, the closer controls are for operation with a standard daylight camera.

The second control (closer to the screen) is for use with LLTV/FLIR cameras and is a slave system to the first. It’s interesting to hear that the better system doesn’t have the authority over the standard system- info given to me recently via POB Wiles- HMAS Wollongong III.

I am aware of at least two Anzacs fitted with Harpoon, the ‘Munga has them and so has the Anzac.

Shots of her departing for Op Catalyst has them in place.

Unicorn

SLL: Sorry mate, but the point is still vaild. And thanks also for the “Vote of Confidence”.

Radar: Mate the 57mm is not so good at short distances especially with proximity fuse based rounds. These rounds need a certain distance to arm which is usually 500m. I agree that a 57mm gun is better refered to as a secondary gun rather than a CIWS and yes it is also dependant on the position of the gun.

Pete: Mate I have, I have been trying to find pics of them fitted but do you think I can. I remember seeing one fitted back in the early days of HMAS Anzac, just before I joined up. I know they are fitted for but not with and I also remember seeing them fitted when the Arunta did her first Gulf Patrol.

4. Yes Turkey ordered their Meko 200’s in two batches, the second batch is the far more capable in the Anti-Air section where as you’ll find that the first batch are more dedicated to ASW duties. It was these vessels that made the RAN think of using the Anzacs for two different roles in the first place, when it was found the the SPY-1 radar was not suitable for the Anzac class, the whole deal fell through.

I don’t think that’s the case. The first ship of Turkish MEKO 200’s (MEKO 200TN Track I), TCG F-240 Yavuz was commissioned in late 1987. By that time neither Greece nor Turkey had any ships equipped with the Phalanx. First Greek MEKO (MEKO 200HN), was commissioned in November 1991.

There were primarily two reasons for TN’s selection of Sea Zenith: 1. Minimum dead zone against ASM’s making top-attack maneouvers, 2. Capability to be effectively used against surface ships, especially fast and maneouverable ones. (and maybe a third one: to store more ready-to-fire rounds in the turret.

As far as I know, the main drawback of the systems stated by the user is the vibration of quadruple 25mm barrels. Maintenance has never been a big problem. On the contrary, TN has been very satisfied with the performance of the system, hence working on different alternatives.