Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates

[Boagrius]

Are you talking about something like AEGIS Ashore? It's certainly been discussed in respect to Australia before, including here in response to this article on DefConnect

Aegis ashore, NORFORCE and an integrated Aussie BMD and A2/AD network

With the increasing proliferation of advanced ballistic and cruise missile threats in the Indo-Pacific, the Australian mainland has never been more exposed - meanwhile the cost effectiveness of conte

www.defenceconnect.com.au

oldsig

I was thinking of a mobile version using truck based TELs and mobile radars. Potentially a very flexible set up.

 

[south]

I wouldn’t be surprised that regardless of weapon system chosen, it will be required to have a CEA Radar(s) integrated, just as we have seen with NASAMS, Anzacs and now the Hunter Class.

 

[Boagrius]

I wouldn’t be surprised that regardless of weapon system chosen, it will be required to have a CEA Radar(s) integrated, just as we have seen with NASAMS, Anzacs and now the Hunter Class.

Agree. The beauty of using the naval family of SAMs (apart from the fact that the RAN uses them already) is that the newest versions all seem to be designed with Cooperative Engagement Capability in mind, so they could theoretically take their targeting data from a Wedgetail, DDG, P8 or F35 in addition to the SAM battery's own organic sensors.

 

[OldTex]

I have been wondering about the suitability of a shorebound Mk-41 VLS and and the shore variant of the SPY-7 or CEAFAR equivalent and AEGIS software. It is a proven system and the only difference being is that it's not on the blue wobbly stuff.

At a glance the use of a vehicle mounted VLS offers the shortest flight time for the missile in any direction. Trainable launchers like Rapier and NASAM (perhaps) have an optimal arc of engagement for minimum missile flight time. The way an ADS with trainable launchers can reduce target engagement time is to employ multiple launchers with individual overlapping arcs. So a 4 launcher battery would be covering 120 degrees per launcher. The same size battery with VLS ADS can put up to 4 times as many missiles at the target in the initial firing theoretically.
The tricky bit comes with the radar and the FCS for the battery, but that is not insurmoutable.

 

[Boagrius]

At a glance the use of a vehicle mounted VLS offers the shortest flight time for the missile in any direction. Trainable launchers like Rapier and NASAM (perhaps) have an optimal arc of engagement for minimum missile flight time. The way an ADS with trainable launchers can reduce target engagement time is to employ multiple launchers with individual overlapping arcs. So a 4 launcher battery would be covering 120 degrees per launcher. The same size battery with VLS ADS can put up to 4 times as many missiles at the target in the initial firing theoretically.
The tricky bit comes with the radar and the FCS for the battery, but that is not insurmoutable.

Yes I think there may be precedent for this in BAE's adaptable deck launcher (ADL) which may also simplify the process of reloading VLS cells by doing so from the side rather than top-down (?).

It strikes me that the raw materials for a mobile Aegis Ashore are all there, they just need to be put together. If funds were tight we could always start by only equipping them with ESSM Blk II at first, but the option of SM2, SM6 and even SM3 would be right there if we needed it. All of these are network enabled effectors which gels perfectly with AIR6500's stated goals. As I said before you could also marry it up with SEA4100 via the ASM capability of SM6, alongside NSM, LRASM and/or Tomahawk (talk about an A2/AD capability!). Who knows, the US might even get their act together and follow our lead (Patriot replacement) later on. IMO this is how you build yourself a serious western IADS & A2/AD targeted at 5th gen threats (as per AIR6500 PPT from earlier).

 

[ngatimozart]

Are you talking about something like AEGIS Ashore? It's certainly been discussed in respect to Australia before, including here in response to this article on DefConnect

Aegis ashore, NORFORCE and an integrated Aussie BMD and A2/AD network

With the increasing proliferation of advanced ballistic and cruise missile threats in the Indo-Pacific, the Australian mainland has never been more exposed - meanwhile the cost effectiveness of conte

www.defenceconnect.com.au

oldsig

I am and basically transplanting the sensors, VLS, CMS, and SAM from DDG / FFG to stone frigates. Someone suggested LRASM and NSM / JSM as well, but I think that they would be better as mobile systems rather than fixed systems.

 

[OldTex]

From my reading I get the impression that the Aegis Ashore installed in Romania and Poland (which Russia railed against) were fixed installations due to the 'deckhouses' used for the AN/SPY-1(?) radars. A mobile version would most likely need to employ a different radar system, such as CEAFAR or AN/TPQ-37 style, to simplify set-up (and reliability) of the sensor. Given the locations of the airbases in Australia, the installation of a MR-ADS at each of the airbases would not provide any significant protection for the major civilian population centres. This would be due to the engagement envelope of the missile being 50nm at high allitude (over 50,000ft) but down to 20nm at lower altitude (say from 10,000ft). (Note: these ranges and altitudes are examples only)

 

[ngatimozart]

From my reading I get the impression that the Aegis Ashore installed in Romania and Poland (which Russia railed against) were fixed installations due to the 'deckhouses' used for the AN/SPY-1(?) radars. A mobile version would most likely need to employ a different radar system, such as CEAFAR or AN/TPQ-37 style, to simplify set-up (and reliability) of the sensor. Given the locations of the airbases in Australia, the installation of a MR-ADS at each of the airbases would not provide any significant protection for the major civilian population centres. This would be due to the engagement envelope of the missile being 50nm at high allitude (over 50,000ft) but down to 20nm at lower altitude (say from 10,000ft). (Note: these ranges and altitudes are examples only)

No I was meaning that there Anti Ship Missiles should be on mobile launchers. They don't require AEGIS to be queued because they can be queued from other sensors. If they are at fixed locations they are vulnerable to missile strikes, but being mobile harder to find than a soldier willingly volunteering for extra duties.

 

[Boagrius]

From my reading I get the impression that the Aegis Ashore installed in Romania and Poland (which Russia railed against) were fixed installations due to the 'deckhouses' used for the AN/SPY-1(?) radars. A mobile version would most likely need to employ a different radar system, such as CEAFAR or AN/TPQ-37 style, to simplify set-up (and reliability) of the sensor. Given the locations of the airbases in Australia, the installation of a MR-ADS at each of the airbases would not provide any significant protection for the major civilian population centres. This would be due to the engagement envelope of the missile being 50nm at high allitude (over 50,000ft) but down to 20nm at lower altitude (say from 10,000ft). (Note: these ranges and altitudes are examples only)

Yes while I did refer to the concept as "Mobile Aegis Ashore" perhaps it would be more aptly called "Mobile Mk41 VLS Ashore". I also think that some kind of CEA array would be a likely candidate sensor-wise and am assuming that Aegis would be the CMS of choice. This may not be a safe assumption though and I would readily defer to the expertise of more knowledgeable posters on this one.

 

[OldTex]

No I was meaning that there Anti Ship Missiles should be on mobile launchers. They don't require AEGIS to be queued because they can be queued from other sensors. If they are at fixed locations they are vulnerable to missile strikes, but being mobile harder to find than a soldier willingly volunteering for extra duties.

My impression is a modern day version of coastal artillery using systems like NSM (or equivalent) from mobile launchers and from multiple locations. This approach appears to be very similar to what the Comdt USMC is proposing. In the Australian context I am not sure who should or would be responsible for such a system. To be truly effective it would need to be deployed in the maritime approaches and in the island chains to the north and north-east. It would also need to be relocatable by sea as well as by land and air.

 

[ngatimozart]

Well the modern iterations of AEGIS are

Yes while I did refer to the concept as "Mobile Aegis Ashore" perhaps it would be more aptly called "Mobile Mk41 VLS Ashore". I also think that some kind of CEA array would be a likely candidate sensor-wise and am assuming that Aegis would be the CMS of choice. This may not be a safe assumption though and I would readily defer to the expertise of more knowledgeable posters on this one.

Well the modern iterations of AEGIS are sensor agnostic, so a CEA array shouldn't be an issue at all. After all we know that the integration between the 2 already works because of the Hobart class DDG program.

To me the biggest issue is how many of these facilities are going to be built and where they will be located. Secondly what is the purpose of these facilities? Are they just for ABMD? Or are they going to be part of an IADS for air breathing weapons as well? So before diving into the nitty gritty, it should be determined what the purposes are for this capability.

 

[ngatimozart]

My impression is a modern day version of coastal artillery using systems like NSM (or equivalent) from mobile launchers and from multiple locations. This approach appears to be very similar to what the Comdt USMC is proposing. In the Australian context I am not sure who should or would be responsible for such a system. To be truly effective it would need to be deployed in the maritime approaches and in the island chains to the north and north-east. It would also need to be relocatable by sea as well as by land and air.

I agree and I see no reason why the army gunners couldn't undertake the shorebased deployments of the weapons systems. I can't remember the weights off hand but I think that the Chooks should be able to lift them in and out.

 

[Takao]

While SEA 4100 exists, it's likely the launcher will be an Army crewed asset under the RAA Regt. LAND 8113 and SEA 4100 have significant amounts of potentially common points.

Not likely to be CH-47 liftable though - a -47F only lifts about 10 tonnes and a HIMARS (exemplar only) weighs in at over 16 tonnes. Plus reloads make it harder

 

[Boagrius]

Well the modern iterations of AEGIS are

Well the modern iterations of AEGIS are sensor agnostic, so a CEA array shouldn't be an issue at all. After all we know that the integration between the 2 already works because of the Hobart class DDG program.

To me the biggest issue is how many of these facilities are going to be built and where they will be located. Secondly what is the purpose of these facilities? Are they just for ABMD? Or are they going to be part of an IADS for air breathing weapons as well? So before diving into the nitty gritty, it should be determined what the purposes are for this capability.

I was speculating about using a mobile truck mounted Aegis Ashore as a solution for AIR6500, not fixed facilities. Intended target set is apparently LACM and 5th gen LO aircraft using 10-50nm ranged MR SAM so ESSM may be desired initially with growth to SM2, 6 and 3 available if the balloon went up with you-know-who.

 

[Boagrius]

Last post on this subject for those interested:

China deployed its H-6K bomber onto Woody Island in the South China Sea in 2018. From there it has the range to deliver land-attack and anti-ship cruise missiles against targets across Australia’s north. China is also developing an air-launched ballistic missile (ALBM). Artwork recently appeared in a government-run Chinese military journal of an H-6N bomber carrying what appeared to be an ALBM based on a DF-15 ballistic missile. Later, communist party mouthpiece the Global Times downplayed the story. China’s development of new long-range strike aircraft, including the H-20 stealth bomber and its rumoured ‘J/H-XX’ counterpart, would add to a complex threat environment.

Along with its development of a standoff strike capability, China is engaging in influence campaigns in Southeast Asia and the South Pacific that could provide it with access to airfields which in turn could bring Chinese fighter aircraft closer to Australia. Such a development would fundamentally alter our strategic calculus and compound our air defence challenge...

...New strategic challenges are mounting in our region. The ADF has to be able to respond to threats more quickly and at a greater distance from Australia. That means it’s time to take a more ambitious look at how the ADF does air defence in the 21st century.

Why Australia needs a long-range air defence capability | The Strategist

It’s time for the Royal Australian Air Force to consider how it can build the capability to defend Australia against the long-range, very high-speed threats being developed in our region. The RAAF’s F-35A fighters should ...

www.aspistrategist.org.au

I suspect this sentiment will start to gain more traction once the H20 breaks cover (possibly sooner rather than later). On current trajectory the lowest risk/most likely option would seem to be the procurement of additional NASAMS batteries fitted out with AMRAAM-ER. That said, with an in-service date in the late 2020s and a target set that includes LO 5th gen aircraft like the J20, the AIM120C7 based seeker on the AMRAAM-ER probably makes it a sub-optimal solution here:

The AMRAAM-ER is essentially a RIM-162 Evolved Sea Sparrow (ESSM) airframe and booster with an AIM-120C-7 guidance section, although with some key enhancements to the aerodynamics and rocket motor.

https://www.raytheon.com/sites/default/files/2019-04/ADBR_WorldLeader!_Land19_Supplement.pdf?linkId=66006150

The fact that the US is focused so heavily on JATM for taking down OPFOR LO 5th gens strongly suggests that a more powerful/modern/capable seeker would be needed. Time shall tell what solutions ultimately get offered, but I do think that leveraging some of the incredible capabilities offered by existing and planned naval SAMs could offer a very practical, versatile and future-proof option.

Just my 2c.

 

[aussienscale]

With an Australianised Nasams 2 the way, our involvement in the JSM program and "probably/maybe" getting that for the JSF, the US move and stipulating the NSM for the new FFG(X), LSC and Australia also looking for the yet to be determined replacement of the Harpoon for the Hunters and going forward.

Is the NSM CDS an option ? uses a lot of the same systems as Nasams like the FDC, architecture etc ? below links for both systems and further links to the FDC description, missiles, NSM Missile Launch Vehicle etc, very mobile and flexible systems indeed.

NASAMS Air Defence System

KONGSBERG/raytheon offers a fielded and proven NASAMS Air Defence System with the capability to protect several areas and high-value assets separated bu large distances. NASAMS is the world´s first operational Network Centric Ground Based Air Defence System and is delivered or under production...

www.kongsberg.com

NSM™ CDS – Integrated Air and Missile Defence

The NSM™ CDS is a high performance ground based Coastal Defence System. It has unique features with a net centric architecture that enables multiple simuntaneous engagements and over the horizon (OTH) targeting.

www.kongsberg.com

Thoughts ?

 

[Boagrius]

Between NASAMS2, AIR6500 Ph2, SEA4100 and HIMARS there is a lot of potential for commonality between a variety of different planned capabilities. I could easily see a doubling down on NASAMS for AIR6500 + tacking on NSM getting up as a (possibly?) low risk option.

 

[Boagrius]

In other news, the RAAF recently released some great footage of our F35s practicing AAR with KC30.

Good to see the transition from classic Hornet progressing smoothly.

 

[aussienscale]

Hi all, was not sure if this was going ahead, but yep it is, link for Air Power Conference 2020

Air Power Development Centre - 2020 Air Power Conference

airpower.airforce.gov.au

Had almost forgot about it under the current worldwide circumstances, already a few vids uploaded to go through and catch up on, enjoy

Latest one uploaded today is from NZDF CAF Air Vice Marshal Andrew Clark

Cheers

 

[Bob53]

I haven’t heard much about these 2 programs recently?
Peregrine missile

AIM 260