Interesting & obscure RAN discussions (not related to current capabilities)

[Wombat000]

As I see it based off the ideas suggested, it seems that one is advocating for a "simpler" missile which would still require onboard electronics in order to function, at least based off my understanding of how some of these systems work. If one is crash-building missiles with electronic components, then just build PGM's if one has the inherent capability to build not-so-precise guided munitions. To me, what seems to be getting suggested is that Australia could/should start building guided munitions which could be used if Australia ran out of the currently used guided munitions. If that is the case, then why not have Australia develop and sustain the facilities and industries (especially the supporting industries) to domestically produce the currently used munitions.

If one it instead talking about producing medium/long-ranged, unguided munitions, missiles especially, then I do not see how they would be useful, because it would be extremely difficult to get the ordnance to where it needed to detonate in order to be useful.

To put a bit of perspective on this, if an unguided missile or rocket was fired at a target 50 km away and the accuracy was within a MOA (minute of angle) of the target bearing, the missile could be as much as 500 metres off. That is also assuming that no outside forces (like wind velocity and direction/drift) worked on the unguided missile, and that the target was either stationary or not maneuvering (moving but at a set course and speed) and location plotting was perfectly on point.

I like the reply, thanks.
My concern is govt only funds so much for missile inventory. We get good quality stuff, but its expensive.
If WE built expensive stuff straight up (ideal), then govt will only order small production runs & theyll be even more expensive.

We end up with the same problem, that of empty VLS cells in protracted campaigns. Albeit if we made them we would have to make the more expensive and complex rounds faster to replenish stocks.

We would have longer development times.

Your mobile phone is much more capable now than 10yrs ago, i suspect (but am NOT an expert) that alot of data can be transferred over what is today basic electronic interface.

I think the RAN needs meat on its inventory skeleton, and that would be an expendable cheap round that can be delivered by the 'truck load'.

Re accuracy, it depends on the combat system, i GUESS CEA-FAR & Aegis would be capable of generating an intercept solution?
The missile would need the directional integrity to fly its programmed path.

It would also depend on the incoming maintaining course on its latter terminal phase.
And if one is so worried then fire subsequent rounds, after all theyre cheap and more available for reloading.

But it would be a second tier defence measure. - If we were so determined, then we should double our stock of hi-spec ESSMs so as to be certain we dont ever sail with empty cells in the first place (wont happen).

 

[Wombat000]

- deleted post.
I regard this forum as a very valuable conversation.
I deleted this post as in the context was not the best ive ever written.
Cheers.

 

[spoz]

If you are concerned about fuzing, Australia produced VT fuses for 5/54 and 4.5 for several decades at least (and sold some to the Greeks, if I remember correctly). I haven’t been involved in that part of the business for the last 20 years, but for all I know we might still do so for the current 5 inch.

Artillery with other types of WW2 era fuses is effectively useless for AA.

 

[oldsig127]

I think the RAN needs meat on its inventory skeleton, and that would be an expendable cheap round that can be delivered by the 'truck load'.

Re accuracy, it depends on the combat system, i GUESS CEA-FAR & Aegis would be capable of generating an intercept solution?
The missile would need the directional integrity to fly its programmed path.

Two points and then I'm done with this.

"by the truck load" Assuming a missile, or more correctly a rocket given the lack of internal guidance, the size of ESSM you'll be talking about a maximum of under 200 rounds on an AWD which has been sent out with no other useful role than attempting to protect itself. Hardly a truckload, given that hundreds of rounds of proximity fused and radar layed shells were needed for every kill in the last major conflict. The idea of erecting a barrage with them is laughable - area you'd need to saturate would be too large to cover even if you could fire all of them pretty much at the same time.

Re accuracy, it depends on the combat system, i GUESS CEA-FAR & Aegis would be capable of generating an intercept solution?
The missile would need the directional integrity to fly its programmed path.

The missile (sic) would then need the target to fly along its unchanging path. Back in WW1 pilots learned that straight lines are death. I doubt that modern ones would be less aware.

oldsig

 

[Wombat000]

Two points and then I'm done with this.

"by the truck load" Assuming a missile, or more correctly a rocket given the lack of internal guidance, the size of ESSM you'll be talking about a maximum of under 200 rounds on an AWD which has been sent out with no other useful role than attempting to protect itself. Hardly a truckload, given that hundreds of rounds of proximity fused and radar layed shells were needed for every kill in the last major conflict. The idea of erecting a barrage with them is laughable - area you'd need to saturate would be too large to cover even if you could fire all of them pretty much at the same time.

Re accuracy, it depends on the combat system, i GUESS CEA-FAR & Aegis would be capable of generating an intercept solution?
The missile would need the directional integrity to fly its programmed path.

The missile (sic) would then need the target to fly along its unchanging path. Back in WW1 pilots learned that straight lines are death. I doubt that modern ones would be less aware.

oldsig

Please forgive me oldsig, my flippant but not litteral terminology of 'truck loads'.
I was simply intending to convey that these rounds would be very basic, hence cheap.
Because theyre cheap theres hence a probability that they would have a large production run and then be cheaper-still.

Cos theyre simple, and home made theyd then theoretically be in relative plentiful supply = 'truck load'.

They would definately be cheaper than a genuine ESSM. if they were cheap, we may have more of them.
If we manufactured ESSM, theyd be harder to make (cos more complex) but it would ease supply somewhat wouldnt it.

As it stands, an empty VLS cell that cannot be filled (because weve run out of ESSMs) is not as useful as one filled even with a basic point and shoot round.

Yes its basic. No its not like WW1, because even tho we used up all the hi spec ESSMs we still have the radar and combat system.
It can still direct a missile.
It can still find an intercept solution
It makes the missile meaningfully accurate as an area field of flak an incoming should have to fly thru.

Its a second tier cheap missile.
If the target moves, fire another one.
Better still buy more ESSMs to begin with so we wouldnt then rely on a second tier system.

Its better than what we have now which would be nothing.

It could also be the beginnings of our own missile industry.

 

[hauritz]

I am very much an advocate of 3d printing, or additive manufacturing to give it its more accurate title. You also need to consider printable electronics as well. In both cases it allows you to prototype and manufacture pretty much anything in relatively short timeframes. In the longer term it may be more cost effective to simply maintain the capability to rapidly produce weapons and ammunition as required rather than maintain vast stockpiles of weapons.

The secret is that the weapon system itself has to be specifically designed to be printed in the first place. You wouldn't be able to print a harpoon missile but if you set out from the beginning to design a weapon where all of its components could be manufactured using a printer then that isn't a problem. There would be no need to set up production lines for specific products since the product itself would be designed to use the existing facilities.

 

[Shanesworld]

I am very much an advocate of 3d printing, or additive manufacturing to give it its more accurate title. You also need to consider printable electronics as well. In both cases it allows you to prototype and manufacture pretty much anything in relatively short timeframes. In the longer term it may be more cost effective to simply maintain the capability to rapidly produce weapons and ammunition as required rather than maintain vast stockpiles of weapons.

The secret is that the weapon system itself has to be specifically designed to be printed in the first place. You wouldn't be able to print a harpoon missile but if you set out from the beginning to design a weapon where all of its components could be manufactured using a printer then that isn't a problem. There would be no need to set up production lines for specific products since the product itself would be designed to use the existing facilities.

I believe there is several efforts in this space now. At least there was. One UK based and another that had a couple of nations represented. I don't know much more than that but really wanted to be on one. Alas..

 

[Boagrius]

I raised this one earlier and it slipped under the radar, but how likely is it that a near-peer conflict would last 6 months without escalating to a nuclear exchange or at least one side using the threat of such to force the matter to the negotiating table? Not saying I know the answer but it does seem like an elephant in the room.

 

[Wombat000]

I raised this one earlier and it slipped under the radar, but how likely is it that a near-peer conflict would last 6 months without escalating to a nuclear exchange or at least one side using the threat of such to force the matter to the negotiating table? Not saying I know the answer but it does seem like an elephant in the room.

Good question.
I think perhaps conversely states will attempt to coerce competing pressure whilst avoiding nuclear options, cos that result would possibly significantly devalue a victory.
A sustained competing area dominance senario is what most jumps to mind.
Or
A proxy war with supported states perhaps?

 

[Shanesworld]

I raised this one earlier and it slipped under the radar, but how likely is it that a near-peer conflict would last 6 months without escalating to a nuclear exchange or at least one side using the threat of such to force the matter to the negotiating table? Not saying I know the answer but it does seem like an elephant in the room.

Good point. But would war stocks be measured in months, weeks or days?

 

[OldNavy63]

Please forgive me oldsig, my flippant but not litteral terminology of 'truck loads'.
I was simply intending to convey that these rounds would be very basic, hence cheap.
Because theyre cheap theres hence a probability that they would have a large production run and then be cheaper-still.

Cos theyre simple, and home made theyd then theoretically be in relative plentiful supply = 'truck load'.

They would definately be cheaper than a genuine ESSM. if they were cheap, we may have more of them.
If we manufactured ESSM, theyd be harder to make (cos more complex) but it would ease supply somewhat wouldnt it.

As it stands, an empty VLS cell that cannot be filled (because weve run out of ESSMs) is not as useful as one filled even with a basic point and shoot round.

Yes its basic. No its not like WW1, because even tho we used up all the hi spec ESSMs we still have the radar and combat system.
It can still direct a missile.
It can still find an intercept solution
It makes the missile meaningfully accurate as an area field of flak an incoming should have to fly thru.

Its a second tier cheap missile.
If the target moves, fire another one.
Better still buy more ESSMs to begin with so we wouldnt then rely on a second tier system.

Its better than what we have now which would be nothing.

It could also be the beginnings of our own missile industry.

We are currently developing the Loyal Wingman, is there any potential for a “Loyal Missile“?

I do not have current expertise, but missiles are often launched in salvoes in order to overwhelm a target’s defences. That is, two or perhaps more of the fully fledged (=full priced), guided weapons.

Rather than bang off all of our Silver Bullets in the opening stages of a conflict, could these be conserved to some degree by electronically tethering less technically capable missiles that follow the leading Full Monty round to the target?

 

[ngatimozart]

A couple of points. Can someone please explain to me how a bulk standard guided rocket be cheaper than a guided 57 mm frag shell? And why wouldn't it be more sensible to develop an at sea VLS reload system? Yes it is problematic, but that's what we pay engineers big bucks for.

 

[OldNavy63]

I think if you turned this around, you will find so called "cheap missiles" would be better off used offensively as an innitial swarm attack mixed in with some of your high tech weapons. The idea would be for the cheap missiles to mimic the signature of your high tech weapons forcing the red force to shoot its high tech load at all of the incoming targets.
If you offload the "cheap missiles" onto available low end assets or usv's, blue force retains a full loadout on its high-end ships.
By retaining a warhead, or even the kenetic energy alone would be considerable if it hit a target.
Could what is required of this "cheap missile" be effective enough at an affordable price, I don't know. Is it even a viable strategy? Is it easy to counter?

With missiles being classified, this is all fantasy, but with rapid technological advances especially with 3d printing, fantasy and reality seem to be getting closer all the time.

Apologies for my previous post, it followed the gist of your suggestion.

 

[Todjaeger]

Please forgive me oldsig, my flippant but not litteral terminology of 'truck loads'.
I was simply intending to convey that these rounds would be very basic, hence cheap.
Because theyre cheap theres hence a probability that they would have a large production run and then be cheaper-still.

Cos theyre simple, and home made theyd then theoretically be in relative plentiful supply = 'truck load'.

They would definately be cheaper than a genuine ESSM. if they were cheap, we may have more of them.
If we manufactured ESSM, theyd be harder to make (cos more complex) but it would ease supply somewhat wouldnt it.

As it stands, an empty VLS cell that cannot be filled (because weve run out of ESSMs) is not as useful as one filled even with a basic point and shoot round.

Yes its basic. No its not like WW1, because even tho we used up all the hi spec ESSMs we still have the radar and combat system.
It can still direct a missile.
It can still find an intercept solution
It makes the missile meaningfully accurate as an area field of flak an incoming should have to fly thru.

Its a second tier cheap missile.
If the target moves, fire another one.
Better still buy more ESSMs to begin with so we wouldnt then rely on a second tier system.

Its better than what we have now which would be nothing.

It could also be the beginnings of our own missile industry.

The part that keeps getting overlooked is that a vertically-launched missile is only a "point and shoot" missile if the target is directly above the launching platform. If the target is anywhere else, the missile requires guidance. If a missile requires guidance and the to ability change bearing after launch, then it is not a 'simple' missile. The same also applies if the missile is able to receive data after launch. Such missiles would require electronics of some sort, which in turn would also need to be sufficiently hardened/rugged to continue functioning following the forces which would be exerted on the missile during launch and throughout the flight. If the ability exists to manufacture the sort of electronics which would be functionally useful for guidance and a data link exists, then just go ahead and build the ESSM or an equivalent.

Something else to consider, unless a target was extremely close (and even then IMO would an unlikely, very lucky shot) a naval vessel would not be able to carry sufficient ESSM-sized missiles to provide a "flak-like" air defence capability, there just would not be enough missiles in the air to achieve the volume of fire required. Case in point, during the Battle of Britain, the AAA of the Anti-Aircraft Command shot down ~300 Luftwaffe aircraft. In a nearly four month period, with hundreds of guns available and an unknown number of rounds fired but likely numbering into the thousands if not more, ~300 hostile aircraft were shot down. FWIW, the British AA guns, 3.7" and 3" as well as the 40 mm Bofors all had options for explosive charges.

Or look at this from another angle. Modern, gun-based CIWS are short-ranged, and rely upon a high ROF, fuzed submunitions/bursting charges, precision guidance, or a combination thereof in order to successfully intercept a close-in aerial threat. The gun itself can already be aimed at the approaching in bound, and if using WWII-era fuzes, they are mechanical fuzes which can be set when the gun fires them IIRC.

At this point, I have to ask how many such rockets, missiles, etc. does the OP think would be needed to successfully defend against a threat, at what range that threat could be successfully engaged at, and how many a vessel could carry in place of current missiles like ESSM? From my understanding of the idea proposed, it would either be unworkable, or be complex enough that Australia would just be better off establishing a domestic production capability for ESSM and similar type missiles.

 

[hairyman]

I am under impression that ESSM were to be manufactured in AUS. I dont recall the source, but I read it around the time Nasam's were first being discussed and mention was made of ESSM being used from the Nasam. Anyone able to take this further?

 

[Wombat000]

A couple of points. Can someone please explain to me how a bulk standard guided rocket be cheaper than a guided 57 mm frag shell? And why wouldn't it be more sensible to develop an at sea VLS reload system? Yes it is problematic, but that's what we pay engineers big bucks for.

I have been lamenting the lack of a VLS reload system since ive been here.
It does however require the rounds to fill it.

 

[Wombat000]

The part that keeps getting overlooked is that a vertically-launched missile is only a "point and shoot" missile if the target is directly above the launching platform. If the target is anywhere else, the missile requires guidance. If a missile requires guidance and the to ability change bearing after launch, then it is not a 'simple' missile. The same also applies if the missile is able to receive data after launch. Such missiles would require electronics of some sort, which in turn would also need to be sufficiently hardened/rugged to continue functioning following the forces which would be exerted on the missile during launch and throughout the flight. If the ability exists to manufacture the sort of electronics which would be functionally useful for guidance and a data link exists, then just go ahead and build the ESSM or an equivalent.

Something else to consider, unless a target was extremely close (and even then IMO would an unlikely, very lucky shot) a naval vessel would not be able to carry sufficient ESSM-sized missiles to provide a "flak-like" air defence capability, there just would not be enough missiles in the air to achieve the volume of fire required. Case in point, during the Battle of Britain, the AAA of the Anti-Aircraft Command shot down ~300 Luftwaffe aircraft. In a nearly four month period, with hundreds of guns available and an unknown number of rounds fired but likely numbering into the thousands if not more, ~300 hostile aircraft were shot down. FWIW, the British AA guns, 3.7" and 3" as well as the 40 mm Bofors all had options for explosive charges.

Or look at this from another angle. Modern, gun-based CIWS are short-ranged, and rely upon a high ROF, fuzed submunitions/bursting charges, precision guidance, or a combination thereof in order to successfully intercept a close-in aerial threat. The gun itself can already be aimed at the approaching in bound, and if using WWII-era fuzes, they are mechanical fuzes which can be set when the gun fires them IIRC.

At this point, I have to ask how many such rockets, missiles, etc. does the OP think would be needed to successfully defend against a threat, at what range that threat could be successfully engaged at, and how many a vessel could carry in place of current missiles like ESSM? From my understanding of the idea proposed, it would either be unworkable, or be complex enough that Australia would just be better off establishing a domestic production capability for ESSM and similar type missiles.

Yes, the missile would need one directional change following its vertical launch.
It was mentioned previously but i guess easily missed.
I suggest that that requirement is not overly burdonsome even in a modern basic missile.
Cheap does not exclusively imply useless.
Its cheap as it has no terminal guidance, it is pointed and flies and explodes.
It is effective cos its directed to a intercept by the combat system.
You wouldnt necessarily need traditional ww2 style flak barrage (tho mutiple staggered rounds would be plausible) because the combat system gives you Aegis quality intercept bearings.

 

[Todjaeger]

I am under impression that ESSM were to be manufactured in AUS. I dont recall the source, but I read it around the time Nasam's were first being discussed and mention was made of ESSM being used from the Nasam. Anyone able to take this further?

I am not certain if Australia had/has production capability for a complete ESSM, or if it is just component production. I suspect it is 'just' component production given that the ESSM is the product of a multi-national consortium, with production MOU's in place.

 

[oldsig127]

Something else to consider, unless a target was extremely close (and even then IMO would an unlikely, very lucky shot) a naval vessel would not be able to carry sufficient ESSM-sized missiles to provide a "flak-like" air defence capability, there just would not be enough missiles in the air to achieve the volume of fire required. Case in point, during the Battle of Britain, the AAA of the Anti-Aircraft Command shot down ~300 Luftwaffe aircraft. In a nearly four month period, with hundreds of guns available and an unknown number of rounds fired but likely numbering into the thousands if not more, ~300 hostile aircraft were shot down. FWIW, the British AA guns, 3.7" and 3" as well as the 40 mm Bofors all had options for explosive charges.

Or look at this from another angle. Modern, gun-based CIWS are short-ranged, and rely upon a high ROF, fuzed submunitions/bursting charges, precision guidance, or a combination thereof in order to successfully intercept a close-in aerial threat. The gun itself can already be aimed at the approaching in bound, and if using WWII-era fuzes, they are mechanical fuzes which can be set when the gun fires them IIRC.

At this point, I have to ask how many such rockets, missiles, etc. does the OP think would be needed to successfully defend against a threat, at what range that threat could be successfully engaged at, and how many a vessel could carry in place of current missiles like ESSM? From my understanding of the idea proposed, it would either be unworkable, or be complex enough that Australia would just be better off establishing a domestic production capability for ESSM and similar type missiles.

I wish I'd said that.

A missile with no guidance is a rocket. Not a missile. Barrages have to fill a volume that gets bigger and bigger at range. A mere 200 rounds won't cut it. I wish I'd taken the time to post at length and maybe I'd have put this more clearly in post #51 because this thread is rapidly circling a rip in the barrier between reality and fantasy

oldsig

oldsig

 

[oldsig127]

Cheap does not exclusively imply useless.
Its cheap as it has no terminal guidance, it is pointed and flies and explodes.
It is effective cos its directed to a intercept by the combat system.
You wouldnt necessarily need traditional ww2 style flak barrage (tho mutiple staggered rounds would be plausible) because the combat system gives you Aegis quality intercept bearings.

Sorry, I am simply not getting this. What if the target doesn't continue along the predicted path? No amount of computung power will give a quality intercept bearing that will defeat a simple zigzag after the munition is fired and as Tod has pointed out, the time available to dodge is bigger at longer range.

oldsig