CIWS development is very interesting at the moment.

Yes you are right mate, this area is the one to watch for major changes in the future

I have heard several people say that the ideal current combination would be RAM and the 35mm millenium ahead turret.

Interesting combo, but only practicle in large navies that have the money to equipe with a different type of ammo, though given time the reat of the navies that use US equipment might catch on. Down here there is a lot of talk about the Metalstorm systems now that both the Israelis and Singaporeans have come on board. The Red Back system is being tested in our Army as a replacement for certain weapons, the US have trialed in on VUCAV’s and there is talk about a naval varient being made for CIWS, the practicle aplications here are undiniable.

The USN is intending to use the 57mm bofors gun as CIWS on the DDG-1000!

Hmmmm seems a bit like over kill to me, besides the Bofors 57mm doesn’t have the rate of fire needed to stop a “Vampire” inbound. If they try to sup it up to fire at a faster rate then they are leaving themselves open for all sorts of trouble such as breech blocks and cracked barrels!

Nothing.The crews from the FFGs will be required for the new AWD. A few years after the Melbourne and Newcastle go 2019-2021, Anzac is due to pay off.Any replacements would be for the Anzacs. This was confirmed in Plan Blue.

Pete: mate Plan Blue is just an outline of force structure, it is not a set law. Besides I really can’t see the RAN down sizing it’s current force to handle a lesser capability, the AWD’s have less crew than the current FFG’s (but just a few more than the FFH’s), and are the long awaited replacements for the old Perth Class DDG’s- the fact that these replacements will be in service 15 years after the retirment of the ships they were to replace speaks volumes of the incompetance of the current government in defence matters. We will not loose a Level of capability when we retire the FFG’s. I know they are already looking for a replacement but which vessel will be chosen is still anybodies guess.

The RAN frontline structure has always been:
Destroyers: used for protection of major fleet assets and/or heading up task groups.

Frigates: Multi-purpose vessels that can take on a number of roles (though at a lesser capability than the Destroyers), these vessels are used for minor incidents and can either go it alone, form part of a task group or lead a task group of minor vessels. These form the back bone of our current fleet. The FFH’s are in the second tier level I have spoken about above and are of a different tasking altogether.

I forgot a few points in my post above, please excuse the addition:

1. Originally there were to be fourteen of the class: 10 for the RAN and 4 for the RNZN but New Zealand canceled one before the contract was signed. With the contract signature both Australia and New Zealand decided that they could afford to reduce these numbers again (this also came about with a change of government in both countries), Australia was actually the first top cancel 2 off it’s order and then toyed with the idea of buying the third vessel that the Kiwi’s didn’t want, this was to allow us to have five standard Support Anzacs and four Anti Air Anzacs, the vessel was dumped when issues arose over serviceability and reliability issues started to come up (yes even these vessels had their fair share of trouble. As a result it was decided that a four four split of Support and Anti Air Anzacs was acceptable.

The Anti Air version of the Anzac was an idea being toyed with when I was in the service. It came about when the DDG’s were offically handed down their pay off dates. It was thought that the Anzac class coupled with the SPY-1 Radar and armed fully with Sea Sparrow missiles both For’ard and Aft in two 32 cell Mk-41 VLS could offer a decent capability that would replace the DDG’s while offering logistical commonality with the current fleet and reduce costs. Sadly the Radar system proved too complex to intergrate and too costly at the time and the whole idea was scrapped- it should be noted that the last four Anzacs were to be built to the Anti Air design and not retro fitted.

Another thing dropped from the original order was the Sea Zenith CIWS, pictured below:

Our Anzacs were to have one of these impressive systems mounted just forward of the bridge and one aft on top of the Hanger. Anyone who knows anything about CIWS will realise that this is a fantastic weapon ideally suited for this role. It’s arc of fire ranging between -45* to +115* and a very very fast turn and track rate is ideally suited for both Anit Air and CIWS roles. Why did we not get them you ask? Because the RAN had a thing about buying untried system- good joke huh. Also with Turkey being the only operator of the system they thought that the system was not going to be supported widely enough and finally, they just didn’t want to introduce a new type of amunition (interesting in hindsight since we now have the 25mm Bushmaster cannon which uses the same ammo as the Sea Zenith).

Uni: Mate I disagree highly with your simplistic look on the F-35B question.

The government here has started to realise that the F-35’s alone aren’t enough to handle the defence needs of our nation. While the decission to retire the Pigs met huge opposition, the Super Hornets are going to be their replacement thus both 1 and 6Sqdns will have these planes. i wouldn’t be suprised if 1Sqdn gains a reccon package for the SB’s as well. 6Sqdn woiuld continue the operational conversion and training of Strike pilots.

Hawks would stay with 76 and 79Sqdns.

Thus we have 80 F-35A’s for division between 5 Sqdns, this includes 2OCU which I feel will change it’s badge since there will no longer be any need for OCU since the F-35 will have no dual sticks. That said- this then leaves us with four Sqdns with 20 planes each: 3, 75, 77 and 78.

Looking back through history, the RAAF operated a few sqdns in naval co-operation: Sub hunting. search and rescue, stuff like that. Thus I would love to see the 20 F-35B’s going to the reactivated 43Sqdn who last operated the PBY-5A Catalina during WW2.

Sadly this might not happen because of the future of ASW and long range patrols. Currently 91Wing operate 18 AP-3C’s, four P-3B’s and two TP-3C. The future of the Orions is now the topic of discussion in Russel Offices. The US has made no secret that it wants the RAAF to jump on the P-8A band wagon, but we have declined for the moment. We also are certain to get the RQ-4B Globalhawk UAV. This plane will be used for long range patrols, thus half the fleet of Orions will go, So either 10 or 11Sqdn will move to become a UAV unit. Now what if the replacement for the Orion also goes to the same unit but as a manned flight (A Flgt- GH’s, B Flgt Orion replacement), this would free up 11Sqdn to become a dedicated attack unit operating the F-35B’s in two flgts of 10 planes for deployment aboard the LHDs/Carriers. The government has seriously looked at the LHD with the Ski jump and stated a preference for it with the guise that it will facilitate use of UAV’s on these vessels (blow the smoke away and you can see the real reason 😉 ).

Now the question changes form to: will 11Sqdn remain as part of 91Wing (maritime support operations), or will it transfer over to control under 82Wing(air combat operations)?

Oh man I am so happy now that I feel like joining up again. Anyway back to reality!

This is a very smart decission, I wonder if deciding on one it lowered the price for the other.

I wonder if either design will be modified much to fulfill Australian Requirements???

The BPE doesn’t need any changes at all, the adaptable nose to suit either Helo or flying ops (thus paving the way for F-35B operations later down the track).

The F-100 Design will need modification however since the specification does clearly state a requirement for Two hangers for either a. 2x Seahawk sized helos or b. 1x Seahawk sized helo and 3x VUAV/VUCAV’s. The VUAV/VUCAV ops would require a specificly designed flight center for their use, which would require: Flight Controls, Comms, Reccon Asset Management and (for the VUCAV’s) Weapons Storage. Above all this, there is the space needed for the specialist crew: Pilots, Mechanics, and people involved with the other things mentioned above.

I’m still saddened that Horizon wasn’t selected (it wasn’t even entered???)

Back when the original contract was initiated, (there have been so many refinments to the contract that you may as well call it a completely different contract now), HORIZON was a conceptual idea with the three countries arguing about how many to buy, who would provide what in work share agreements and a host of other problems in international partnerships. What Killed off HORIZON in the AWD competition was Britains withdrawl from the program to persure the Type 45’s instead. With this move both the HORIZON and Type 45’s were elliminated simply because it was felt down here that both were too risky in design concepts- None had even looked like being built and the export market wasn’t that great for them. This is why the Burkes were considered right from the start. Navantia got a chance simply because it proved that it could built the ships quick and have them inservice with the right equipment and radar for our use. I was in the navy when the Bazan hit the water and everyone back then said “What the…. Where did this ship come from and how did it get the Aegis system on it”. Basically it had gone from a drawing idea to fleet service quicker than Paris Hilton getting out of jail (and then put back in).

Scoot: Mate in your little arsenal of missiles there that you listed, you forgot the SM-6 which is about to come on line as a slightly simpler version of the SM-3 for those not using the full support equipment required for the SM-3. As for what is left that is european in the Aussie built F-100 Class (or Hobart Class as we will be calling them), what about the design? That’s still european isn’t it? 😉 The F-100 design has intergrated well with USN units and in it’s recent tour down here also intergrated well with ROKN and JNSDF units. I susspect that it’s ease of intergration had a huge bearing on the decission as RAN personel were aborad when Alvaro de Bazan left Sydney, thus first hand knowledge was obtained. As for the KDX-III’s being at the top of the pile in the Aegis class, well that’s only because they are the latest. The F-100 being at the bottom is only because the Spanish didn’t need all equipment and resources on their ships. Australia’s Hobart Class will be up around the KDX-III I feel, simply because we’ll have access to the latest and greatest (US has already certified that with Congressional approval).

Tid: Mate the Mistrals are a huge problem atm for France- Tonnare (9314) has only just started it’s acceptance trials after many many problems were found in the initial Mistral (9313). Needless to say that Mistral will be heading back in for upgrades and updates to the effected areas and in some places- complete replacement. As for the savings in the choice of the F-100’s, I think there is more to play here than just simple numbers- there is talk floating around that we will actually buy 4 of these vessels to cover certain short falls, thus the F-100 design makes more sence in the long term if there are to be four ships in the fleet- can’t justify buying four ships and having a short fall with costs being high can you?

SLL: Mate I don’t think the G&C design was all that good, I studied it for a long time after it was released. The main factor in the choice against this design was the Risk factor- sure the Burkes are out there on the high seas, but there are no baby Burkes thus the design was a risk. Don’t forget, we are still paying for our last design that we messed with- Type 471, The Collins Class Subs.

Uni: Mate it’s not a case of Public mentality nor CYA. It’s an ecconomic factor for getting the best with what we can afford and not comprimising our position in the field- for other reasons see above.

Pioneer: Guess you haven’t been listening to the news right from the start mate (that’s ok- gives us more to tell 😀 ). The plan is to buy 80 F-35A’s and 20 F-35B’s. Carrier ops are assured but when will they announce the fitting of the ski jump- that is the real question. Another good question is- Will the RAN get the planes or will the RAAF. Current law and operational status places all combat fixed wing ops under RAAF control, this was one reason we sold off our Skyhawks back in 83, The RAAF felt we didn’t have a need for those aircraft since we had the more powerfull F-111’s and the Mirage with the Hornets coming soon, these planes were deemed excessive to needs. A similar story with the S-2 Tracker fleet.

I too remember those stories mate. I’ve had numerous discussions over the years about getting the MdB into a fairly good operational state.

My solution involves cutting back the number of ships operated by the MdB, retiring the really old ones thus freeing up money for newer projects. Sadly though the powers that be over there believe that having more ships on paper is a deterant to any potential agressor.

The whole thing is rather complicated and I’m not sure that I fully understand it after four years, but you get that.

I asked my friend that same question just recently here’s what I was told:

VF-1 is down to only four serviceable planes and two pilots that are currently fully carrier quallified. Sao Paolo is under refit atm with a lot of work needing to be done to her.

Apart from the faulty cats, and boiler room fire, the electrics need replacing the whole pipe system needs pulling apart and replaced since some stupid french git allowed salt water in to the fresh water system. The Fuel transfer system to the deck is on the fritz and most of the machinery is cactus.

US$12M was a bargin too good to be true and now we see why. The MdB should have bought a new carrier from Spain which would have been cheaper in the long run.

Hey Tid, how are you mate.

I know the article and the mag you speak of. Yes he does refer to there being more room in the older vessels but if you have ever served on both old and new you will know that in the older vessels, the design features were more akin to craming as many weapons and sencers in to the hulls as possible. Remember, there was a war on at the time (Some don’t call the Cold War a war, but people did die and there were hostilities- thus I do call it a war).

These days, what with miniturisation of sencers and plasma screens and superior computing power, more and more room can be given to making the crews more comfortable for long deployments, which also has a flow on effect in the form of retention of man power.

It is becoming very very hard these days to get any pics of crew living quaters and the excuse given to me has been a simple one: You don’t allow people into your home to take pics of how you live, why should we allow you into our home to do that. Sure the guy that said that to me was a gruff old PO who had been on patrolies for far too long, but he does have a point!

Nice boat, triple deck, good size, heaps of ammo. Pitty it’s doomed, Look who launched her :diablo: