Oz & SG are very close in no. of naval missiles launchers
-
ww
Oz & SG are very close in no. of naval missiles launchers--SSM,SAM,ASW.
This is not a bashing.x 3
Though launchers of both countries are very close,
there are many factors affecting the effectivness.Eg
sensitivty and range of sensors
sensor to weapons reactions time
accuracy and range of weapons etc
@@@@@@
This is just a rough comparsions to make SG people feel comfortable.
Many guys here say Oz is better than SG in this or that.
Even it is the case,we still feel safe after discounting the fire power of SG!!
Reasons are SG is just a tiny tiny portion in coastal line and land mass of Oz.
Population is just 25% of Oz.So,a discounted fire power will do.
Once again,pl note it is just a comparsions to pass this boring weekend,
not a bashing thread.
sources--Janes Fighting ships and below
upgraded HMAS Sydney's Mk 41 VLS in 2007---8 launchers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adelaide_class_frigate
http://www.navy.gov.au/HMAS_Sydney
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Sydney_(FFG_03) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adelaide_class_frigate -
http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/msd/sea1390/sea1390.cfm -
This discussion is irrelevant. The Aussies are getting the most capable Air Defence system possible for a frigate, and we neither have the funds, nor the cash to acquire the Aegis SPY-1F system in the near future.
-
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
This is not a bashing.x 3
Once again,pl note it is just a comparsions to pass this boring weekend,
not a bashing thread.
if its not a bashing thread, is there really a need to explain?
-
absolute waste of tax payer money for this intent.
can spend billions on this while the lower income, old and sick citizens are booted out in the streets.
-
they should have used the technology in Warship Gunner 2..
those superweapons...especially the Druna Skass and the Hell Astche
-
Fingolfin_Noldor
This discussion is irrelevant. The Aussies are getting the most capable Air Defence system possible for a frigate, and we neither have the funds, nor the cash to acquire the Aegis SPY-1F system in the near future.--EOQ
do u decribing the present status or future status?
2.''most capable Air Defence system possible for a frigate,''do u refer to in Asia
or in the world?What is your source and reasons?
3.Aegis SPY-1F system
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/press_releases/2003/LockheedMartinSSPY1FRadarAchievesLi.html
why this sys?Why so special?
I am not belittleing any sys.I just sick of pple worshipping any sys without
grounds and merits.There are a no. of similiar sys in the world.Why so special?
USA sure is a leader in aerospace engineering,like moon walking,
Space Shuttle etc or other technologies.
But it is damn stupid to assume that US is a leader
in other fields.What i need is evidences.Full stop.
Pl dunt asume.Walk the ground or surf the net to get the truths!!
4.Upgrading is damn risky!!
Remembr
Australia cancels contract to buy 11 Seasprite helicopters from US ....
Adelaide_class_frigate were built in 1970's.Though,3 out of 4 ships
have been accepted in late 2007 after upgrading!!
Other two ships in the class have been decomissioned recently
to save funds for upgrading of the remaining 4 ships.
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3778074&c=FEA&s=SPE
Extend their lifes span to 50 years?
The upgrade is two years behind schedule but will extend the lives of the FFGs to 2021 and increase their point and area air defense capabilities, pending their gradual replacement from 2015 by three new Aegis-equipped Hobart-class air warfare destroyers.
The three ships accepted next month - HMAS Sydney, Melbourne and Darwin - will be fitted with the new Australian Distributed Architecture Combat System (ADACS) developed by Thales Australia. The first naval combat system developed entirely in Australia, it includes a new electronic warfare and torpedo defense system, and an upgraded fire control system, the Mk92 Mod12, which will control both the Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile and the Standard Missile-2. This is the first time either missile has ever been installed aboard an FFG-7 frigate.
The Standard Missile-2 will be installed next year under a separate contract, according to Mal Adams, the DMO's FFG upgrade project director.--EOQ
26 November 2008Two upgraded frigates accepted
As a mark of yet another significant milestone in the FFG Upgrade program, Thales celebrated the acceptance of two upgraded FFGs, HMAS DARWIN and HMAS SYDNEY by the Defence Materiel Organisation.@@@@@@@@@@@@@@What happened?I invite u to read for yourself here,among other sources.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adelaide_class_frigate
Pl note again info come from Australian medias.Not this lion!!
Also,pl read what were the responses and silence from Oz DOD!!
I am suprised Oz DOD do not response to all these serious accusations,
nearly defamations!!
ABC is a Oz gavaman sponsored media!!
- ^ a b c d e f g h "Australia's Hazard(ous) Frigate Upgrade". Defense Industry Daily. Watershed Publishing (2008-01-14). Retrieved on 2008-04-21.
- ^ a b c Kirk, Alexandra; (and staff) (2008-01-02), "Dud frigates an inherited nightmare", ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation), http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/01/02/2130610.htm, retrieved on 22 April 2008
- ^ a b McPhedran, Ian (2008-01-02), "Frigates 'can't go to war' despite $1.4bn upgrade", The Advertiser (News Limited), http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22996234-2,00.html, retrieved on 21 April 2008
- ^ a b c d McPhedran, Ian (19 November 2008), "Australia's naval frigates 'worth the wait'", The Daily Telegraph, http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,24673269-5001021,00.html, retrieved on 21 November 2008---EOQ
-
Where are the IOC and FOC of these ships?15 December 2006
Provisional Acceptance for HMAS Sydney
Australia’s largest defence company, Thales Australia is pleased to announce Provisional Acceptance of the guided missile frigate HMAS Sydney by the Department of Defence at Garden Island today.15 June 2007Thales Australia FFG Upgrade on TrackHMAS Darwin leaves dry dock on schedule
10 September 2007FFG Upgrade - Successful Missile TestA significant milestone in the FFG Upgrade Project took place on 20th August when the first of class Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM) firing successfully took place on HMAS Sydney.08 October 2007HMAS Melbourne Provisional Acceptance
Thales Australia’s guided missile frigate (FFG) Upgrade Project celebrates a significant progress milestone with the Provisional Acceptance of HMAS MELBOURNE to the Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO)---EOQhttp://www.thalesgroup.com/Press-Room---2007,2008,Country --Australia -
flamebait +1
-
Lionnoisy: Face fact: The US is the no. 1 when it comes to ship battle management systems, and ship bourne radars. So suck it down and accept the fact. You don't need evidence, you need a lobotomy so that we don't have to listen to your nonsense.
-
perhaps we need a pissing match to see whose system is better...
American system or other naval warfare system
-
i saw the thread title... and i instantly knew who it was..
anws. can ln clarify the purpose of this thread? cos i dont really see the main direction.
but back to the topic. it means tt sg has a higher density in terms of these systems relative to oz rite? if so, what advantage does this provide our forces with?
-
Originally posted by Jianye:
perhaps we need a pissing match to see whose system is better...
American system or other naval warfare system
The US is nearly alone in the world in that it spent decades working to perfect the a combat management system that would allow it to handle saturation attacks the Russians wanted to employ against carrier battlegroups. The work began as far bacck when the USS Enterprise was launched initially with PESA phased array radars, and with the CGN Long Beach which had massive PESA phased array radars. The radar system was termed as "SCANFAR". Back then, the US Navy was pursuing a system called "Typhon" that was predecessor system of the Aegis. That didn't work and was cancelled in the 60s but a lot of the developmental work went into Aegis. The first Aegis platform was the CG Ticonderonga because the system was massive enough that it required a ship of that size to be installed. Later they trimmed some of the capability to squeeze it into an Arleigh Burke. They will soon replace the current SPY-1 radar with the SPY-3, but I suspect, it will take them a while to get it fixed (someone on some other forum listed down a large laundry list of problems that plague the Zumwalt destroyers. Quite simply, he said that it will likely not work well at all without substantial redesigning.)
Why Europe would never ever match the US in AA is in part because the stingy bastards can't fork out as much cash on R&D as the US can. They instead resort to methods such as revolving their phased array radars just so they can cut down on costs. I think only the Germans didn't revolve their phased array radars, while the Brits and French do on their destroyers. The Spanish bought the SPY-1F. On the other hand, the Koreans and the Japanese adopted the Aegis system on their destroyers. The KDX-III is practically a CG in its own right.
-
SPY-1. Agree with F_N. AU with more expeditionary focus may face different kind of enemy. May be overkill for SG.
-
i am not sure on the details of oz two frigates upgradings.
pl share here.
：www.geocities.com/randomsran/AnzacFFH.html
www.ausmarinetech.com.au
It seem this guy do some research before he pens this,
unlike a lot of guys writing empty articles here.
@@@@@@@@@@@@22
Specifications
General
Displacement, tons: 3,600 full load
Dimensions, feet (metres): 387.1 over all; 357.6 water line x 48.6 x 14.3 (118; 109 x 14.8 x 4.35)
Main machinery: CODOG: 1 General Electric LM 2500 gas turbines developing 30,172 hp (22.5MW) sustained; 2 MTU 12V 1163 TB83 diesels developing 8,840 hp(m) (6.5 MW) sustained; 2 shafts, controlled pitch propellers
Speed, knots: 27
Range, miles: 6,000 at 18 knots
Compliment: 174 (including 24 officers)
Armament
Missiles:
2 Mk.141 octuple system:
SSM: 8 McDonnell Douglas RGM 84(?D?) Harpoon Block II (currently only in 152, being retrofitted to other units)
1 Lockheed-Martin 8-cell Mk.41 Mod.5 VLS:
SAM: 8 Raytheon RIM-7P Sea Sparrow (150 and 151 only) or 32 RIM 162 Evolved Sea Sparrow Missiles (ESSM), quadpacked [ESSM to be retrofitted to 150 and 151]
[A Point Defence Missile System (PDMS) is to be fitted, it is believed that a pair of 6-round SADRAL launchers for MBDA Mistral 2 is the current preferred system]
Guns:
1 United Defence 5 in (127 mm)/54/62 cal Mk.45 Mod.2; dual purpose
4-12.7 mm Machine Guns
Torpedoes:
6-324 mm Mk.32 tubes (2 triple); Honeywell Mk.46 Mod.5; [Mk.46 to be supplemented and eventually replaced by MU90]
Countermeasures
Decoys: 2 G & D Aircraft SRBOC Mk.36 Mod.1; fixed 6-barreled decoy launcher for SRBOC and NATO Sea Gnat
4 British Aerospace Nulka; 4 round launchers; expendable hovering off-board decoys
FEL SLQ-25A; towed torpedo decoy
ESM/ECM: Racal modified Spectre A; radar intercept [Spectra A to be replaced by Thales Centaur]
Telefunken PST-1720 Telegon 10; communications intercept
Electronics
Radar:
Air search: Raytheon SPS-49(V)8 ANZ; C-band
Air/surface search: Ericsson Sea Giraffe; G/H-band
Navigation: Atlas Elektronic 9600 ARPA; I-band
Fire Control: CelsiusTech 9LV 453; J-band [To be replaced by CEA FAR; (?X?)-band]
IFF: Cossor AIMSMk.XII
Sonar:
Hull mounted: Thomson Sinatra Spherion B Mod.5; active medium-frequency search and attack
Thomson Marconi TMS 5424 Petrel high-frequency mine avoidance
[Provisions for the fitting of a towed array sonar, although no funding provisions exists for such equipment at the present time]
Optronics:
CelsiusTech 9LV 453 Mk.3 optronics director
Combat Data Systems:
CelsiusTech 9LV 453 Mk.3 [157 to have Mk.3E, and Mk.3E to be retrofitted to older units]
Raytheon CW Mk.73 Mod.1 for RIM-7P [CEA SSCWI to be fitted for ESSM]
OE-2 STACOM; Link 11
Helicopters: 1 Sikorsky S-70B-2 Seahawk [or Kaman SH-2G(A) Seasprite when they finally become available]
Comments
General
As one might guess from the name, the Anzac class frigates are indeed a result of a joint project between us and our trans-Tasman neighbours. A total of ten, virtually identical, units were built in modules by a number of yards, most in Australia one in New Zealand, and assembled in Melbourne. The RAN received 8 ships and the RNZN received 2 (the 2nd and 4th in the production run).
As with some other ship currently in the RAN, the Anzac class are the result of a flawed set of procurement imperatives. As will be discussed later, they envisaged essentially as overgrown Offshore Patrol Vessels, and as such were conceived horribly underarmed. As a result of their heritage, the first units commissioned without any ability to persecute surface contacts other than the main gun, and without any meaningful anti-air capability. As it is, they still don’t have a dedicated helicopter, although that can be blamed on a separate program failure. Luckily, the ships were designed with the ability to mount substantially more equipment than was originally fitted, and this is being done relatively briskly.
In service the Anzac class are used as patrol frigates, and when the Harpoon SSMs are fitted and their helicopter finally arrives they will be a potent anti-ship asset, especially in the littoral environment. Their main gun also gives them a useful ability to persecute targets ashore in support of ground forces (this is also true, although to a lesser extent, of the Harpoon missiles). Interestingly, the main gun was used by HMAS Anzac in support of British Royal Marines during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which makes her the only ship currently in RAN service to fire in anger.
With upgrades the class will develop a meaningful point defence capability. This will be through two layers of missiles (ESSM and probably Mistral 2) guided most probably be a modern active phased-array radar (the CEA FAR). The Anzacs could also have a useful anti-submarine function if they are ever fitted with a towed array sonar, although there is no plan to do so at the moment.
Upgrades
Upgrades to the baseline Anzac class frigate fall under several programs, and are essential for turning these ships into fully useful members of the fleet. Some upgrades were planned as part of the initial project planning. This is particularly true of the Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM). Because the missile would not be available for the commissioning of the first two vessels, they had to make do with the older NATO Sea Sparrow missile. From HMAS Warramunga onwards, ESSM have been carried from build, but the intention was always to refit the older vessels to the same standard. The major upgrade is the replacement of the CW Mk.73 Mod.1 with the Australian developed and manufactured CEA SSCWI. The SSCWI offers roughly similar functionality to the CW Mk.73 (the major difference being the ability to control ESSM), but is a more advanced solid-state design which is substantially more reliable. Interestingly enough, the RAN is the first of the 10 navies in the ESSM program to declare its ESSM capability in-service, a notable achievement.
It was originally envisaged, prior to Anzac’s commissioning, that all the class would go through the so called Weapons Improvement Programme (WIP). This plan was shelved as the price of the project rose. For a while, therefore, there was few plans for major upgrades in the early service life of the ships.
With the release of the 2000 Defence White Paper, upgrades were back on the cards. One of the stated aims of the White Paper as it related to the RAN, was to improve anti-missile capabilities across the fleet. For the Anzac’s this was already partially in hand with the arrival of the ESSM into service, but it was decide that more needed to be done. Consequently project SEA 1448 Anzac ASMD (Anti-Ship Missile Defence) Upgrade was born. There are two essential planks to the ASMD being proposed, a new inner layer weapons system, and a new fire control radar to make better use of the ESSM.
Given the engagement envelope of the ESSM it was presumed by most (myself included) that the Government would opt to add the proven, already in RAN service, Vulcan Phalanx CIWS as a last ditch missile defence system. Indeed the RNZN Anzacs already have a Phalanx mounted aft, at rear end of the hanger roof. The pundits, myself included, were wrong. As of 2003 the Department of Defence instead expressed a preference for a missile based system, an Point Defence Missile System (PDMS). Further they expressed a preference for the French Sadral system firing Mistral 2 missiles. This decision didn’t make a whole lot of sense to those of us yet to be enlightened by behind-the-scenes work on the project. An PDMS makes a certain amount of sense, but Mistral does not.
There are a variety of PDMS options available, the best by virtually any means of measurement being the American-German RAM (Rolling Airframe Missile) system. Compared to the Sadral system the RAM is: longer ranged, has a superior seeker, is being produced in larger numbers (i.e. for the USN and Kiegermarine), and can be self contained (in the SeaRAM variant, itself a modification of the Vulcan Phalanx system). The big advantage of SADRAL is that it is cheaper for initial purchase… The fundamental effectiveness of the system remains to be seen, but is still an improvement over nothing. At the moment plans call for the instillation of a pair of 6 round launchers at the after end of the hanger (see image of one potential installation, made by AMT).
The second component of SEA 1448 is investigating the fitting of a new active phased array fire control radar, the Australian designed and manufactured CEA FAR. To this end HMAS Arunta was fitted with a single FAR panel for tests during 2003, although this image from AMT would seem to suggest that there were provisions for more (from the pictures, it would appear that 6 is the preferred number). Reports from the test were positive, although not gushingly so. It is expected to fit the completed system to ships between 2008 and 2010. Options for instillation include a multi-panel version of the trial installation, or mounting them on the mast (see this AMT generated CAD for one such option). To make full use of the new radar and other systems being integrated into the class, the CelsiusTech 9LV 453 Mk.3 consols are being replaced by the Mk.3E standard COTS (Commercial Off The Shelf) consols, which are ergonomically better and will improve processing speeds.
The other major upgrade announced for the Anzacs in the 2000 White Paper was the fitting of anti-ship missiles (SSM). The logical choice was the Boeing Harpoon II system, which has a useful secondary land attack capability. The contract for 64 missiles (i.e. 8 missiles for the 8 Anzac class, with no war stocks) was signed in late 2002. HMAS Warrmunga is the first ship so fitted, during a scheduled refit period in late 2004, and others will follow. Interestingly the two Mk.141 launchers have been placed forward of and below the bridge (a very British place to put them…), while they have been mounted behind the bridge (and at least two decks higher up) in other MEKO 200 ships. Officially this has been explained as a measure to improve stability in the class which is apparently a cause for concern. It is possible that this concern is precautionary given the likely inclusion in the near future of the CEA FAR instillation.
Otherwise this concern bodes badly for the class, as top weight growth is inevitable as part of SEA 1448. Some comment has been raised as a result of the first photos of the instillation that the cabling has been poorly done, being exposed and unarmoured (which poses reliability and damage control problems). It is unclear as to whether these problems have been either: a). imagined, b). rectified. It is also possible that the photos did not show the final instillation and the concerns are therefore invalid.
Finally as with the Adelaides, the Anzacs will be fitted with the Thomson Marconi TMS 5424 Petrel mine avoidance sonar, and have space and weight provisions for a towed array sonar. Also as with the FFGs, there are currently no plans to fit a towed array sonar, which is disappointing given the growing submarine forces to Australia’s immediate North (one of the few regions in the world where the submarine threat is growing).
In the future there are a number of further options. The design has weight and space margins exist to fit another 8-cell VLS next to the existing system. The instillation of this extra VLS would make sense if the RAN decides to use the upgraded Anzacs as ‘goal-keepers’ for the yet to enter service LHDs instead of an AWD/FFG. The goal-keeper was a British innovation whereby an important ship with poor air-point-defence is guarded by a ship with good point-defence AA which holds position very close to it’s charge. In this role the upgraded Anzac makes better sense than an AWD/FFG, as it’s radar instillation is tailored to close range ASMD, and the PDMS has range to keep another ship within the ‘last-ditch’ engagement envelope (unlike the CIWS of the FFG). The additional 8 VLS cells would give another 32 ESSM, which is important given the goal-keeper doctrine which emphasises the saturation of any potential threat, and thus the extra missiles would be of great use. NB: At the moment no plans exist for this instillation.
-
http://www.geocities.com/randomsran/AdelaideFFG.html
-
All you need is a battalion of aussie sas to fuck everything up.
-
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
unlike a lot of guys writing empty articles here.
LOL, ironies of ironies.
man.. lionnoisy must be IRONY MAN (or IRONY lion)
-
Lionnoisy, what is so difficult about the upgrades? They are just replacing some missiles, adding RAM for point defence, and possibly Sonar. It's really a "poor man's Aegis" ship. Not comparable to a full fledged Aegis destroyer with radars facing outward and not rotated.
The Hobart class "air defence destroyer" (borderline destroyer really) is the one to really look at. -
Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:
Lionnoisy, what is so difficult about the upgrades? They are just replacing some missiles, adding RAM for point defence, and possibly Sonar. It's really a "poor man's Aegis" ship. Not comparable to a full fledged Aegis destroyer with radars facing outward and not rotated.
The Hobart class "air defence destroyer" (borderline destroyer really) is the one to really look at.u seem have a high hope for Hobart.read this
Lionnoisy's War against Everything Australian: Hobart DDGs last
pl note my original thread have been changed without my consent--
I remember it like---
A$8 billions for 3 Oz Hobart class Air Warfare Destroyers
How many war ships and commercial ships in this class
have been made in Australia?
I know only ANZAC,Adelaide class frigates and the Collins class sub!!
One or two ANZAC were said defective and get early decommission.
Collins sub..U read their official report.if i tell u ,i will be labelled as
anti--oz.
-
I wonder if SEALs are trained for underwater limpet mine attachments. Reminds me of Italian attack on UK BBs at Alexandria during WW2.
-
The most authoritative comments is---
Janes Fighting Ship 2008/09 comments
In the Excutive Summary--
....Both designs@@ are selected in favour of highly competitive alternatives but,taking into capacity,technical risk and affordabilty,
there has been little disagreement that right decision was made.@@
lion note:mean AWD and LHD,two amphibious ships worth
another total of (another )$3 billion.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@
little disagreement that right decision was made.---
i dunt know wat to say.
Janes is not 100% perfect nor they have crystal ball.
It is very rare for Jane's to use such strong words
to put their heads in the chopping board.
I guess they judge the track recoreds of oz in managing military projects.
What will they get if the project go smooth?
-
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
u seem have a high hope for Hobart.read this
Lionnoisy's War against Everything Australian: Hobart DDGs last
pl note my original thread have been changed without my consent--
I remember it like---
A$8 billions for 3 Oz Hobart class Air Warfare Destroyers
How many war ships and commercial ships in this class
have been made in Australia?
I know only ANZAC,Adelaide class frigates and the Collins class sub!!
One or two ANZAC were said defective and get early decommission.
Collins sub..U read their official report.if i tell u ,i will be labelled as
anti--oz.
Again, you display the need for a lobotomy because your puny brain is insufficient to process relevant information effectively.
By that same argument, we shouldn't even try to produce stealth frigates, since these are the first frigates we made. The Australian shipbuilding industry is ahead of us, didn't ya know? We can't produce submarines, ya? Because it will cost billions to build the facility to construct them?
-
Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:
Again, you display the need for a lobotomy because your puny brain is insufficient to process relevant information effectively.
By that same argument, we shouldn't even try to produce stealth frigates, since these are the first frigates we made. The Australian shipbuilding industry is ahead of us, didn't ya know? We can't produce submarines, ya? Because it will cost billions to build the facility to construct them?
We KNOW WE CANNOT,so we dunt make sub.What are the consquences of
oz Made in Oz sub?Have u read history of oz official reports on Collins class sub?
Have Oz officially declared any Collins sub reaching Full Operational Capacity?
2.Singapore seem on par with Canadian navy in no. of launchers.
pl note I cannnot compare the range,accuracy ,response time,
quality of maintenances etc in these 2 navies.
This is just a back of envelope comparsions--just comparing no.
of launchers.I am NOT saying any navy is worse than RSN.
Just feel suprised that in term of surface combatants ,
SG's 23 ships is not far behind Canada's 27!!
http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/cms/1/1_eng.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halifax_class_frigate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iroquois_class_destroyer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingston_class_patrol_vessel
http://army.ca/wiki/index.php/Naval_Equipment---all ships are listed here @@@@@@@@@@@@@