As usual Mr Nelson, your questions border between shear lunacy to complete ignorance- but I am always happy to rise to the challenge of answering for the sake of education!
Mk-41’s are fitted just forward of the Mk-13. This was only possible due to counter balance weight of new Electrical Generators being installed in through the hull, plus the weights of the new Combat management systems and a range of other modifications too numerous to talk about for the short time I have available here. This system was added via the deletion of sleeping quarters for some 30 crew- thanks to a new level of Automation built into the ship, these crew losses were redundancies anyway! I’d like to point out at this stage that had the counter balance not been taken care of, the vessel would have been very bow heavy; as it was Sydney was still bow heavy when she first put to sea with the Mk-41 installed and the Bow nearly fractured in a slight swell, thus forcing more modifications adding to a slight delay in returning to service.
To add any more of this system in place of the Mk-13 is just short of insanity! The weight on the bow would be too great- this takes into account, the associated systems, electrics and hydraulics needed to operate the Mk-41 over the Mk-13.
Given that the Mk-48 is a smaller version of the Mk-41 designed specifically for the ESSM, thus is not as flexible for use with other missiles. Mk-41 can handle a range of missiles, here is a table to show you what I mean:
As you can see, there is large number of missiles as opposed to the Mk-48 which is specifically for the ESSM.
Finally the Mk-13 is cylindrical, where as the Mk-41 is square, so either you loose area in adding more cells to make up the space (keeping the weight issue in mind), or you have to make new spaces (usually general stores lockers) to cover the area freed up by removal of the older system.
So basically the answer to your question is none of either system- mainly due to economical grounds!
Somebody was asking about the Cheng Kung class in the ROCN and the position of their new launchers- here you go guys:
Turkey did the same with the Harpoon launchers as did a couple of other countries. The RAN had looked at this option but like our Anzac class, we found that this position actually hampered our radar performance as well as other systems. Given that the countries that opted for this arrangement for the missiles, you have to look at what their Electronic support is like as there you will see that it didn’t matter for them having slight gaps in their coverage because they had a back up covering that area- Air coverage, land coverage or simply numbers of vessels under the same flag. Australia is a long way from anywhere thus we can not afford gaps in our radar coverage!
Jack: Mate I have seen the deadly use of the 35mm cannons in full effect on the Geppard of the Bundeswerr and you are correct in what you say, they are a great system to use. They are fully supported on a global scale but I don’t know of any sales of the 35mm system in recent years, in fact the last system I heard sold was back in 83 and that was to an African nation (Kenya think though don’t quote me on that).
Orlikon decided to cut back on the 35mm production and maximize their efforts on the 30mm naval system which is what you see coupled with the Emerson Electic (Emerlec) turret system.
Another system which is coming into maturity is the Metal Storm system. Naval applications are being looked into, here are some of the other systems that are being developed now.
Here is an idea that had been trialled recently and could work on these vessels- even the IPV’s: The Dragonfly armed with twin Metal Storm weapons…
Sign In
