Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[Todjaeger]

CAMM-ER isn't "a possible ER version which has similar range to ESSM". It exists. Test firings to qualify it have been done, It's on order for the Italian army & AF & an unnamed foreign customer (thought to be Pakistan IIRC).

The possible extended range version is CAMM-MR, a proposed >100 km range joint development by the UK & Poland.

It is my understanding that the CAMM-ER missile is somewhat longer than the original Sea Ceptor missile. This in turn raises the question of whether or not a CAMM-ER missile can fit into one of the Sea Ceptor VLS cells, which triggers a whole line of questions about whether the two missiles can be swapped back forth interchangably. Given that the -ER version is still referred to as CAMM-ER, and not Sea Ceptor-ER, I do not take it as a given that a vessel fitted for Sea Ceptor can swap over to CAMM-ER.

 

[Volkodav]

It is my understanding that the CAMM-ER missile is somewhat longer than the original Sea Ceptor missile. This in turn raises the question of whether or not a CAMM-ER missile can fit into one of the Sea Ceptor VLS cells, which triggers a whole line of questions about whether the two missiles can be swapped back forth interchangably. Given that the -ER version is still referred to as CAMM-ER, and not Sea Ceptor-ER, I do not take it as a given that a vessel fitted for Sea Ceptor can swap over to CAMM-ER.

Depending on the booster diameter, it could possibly be quadpacked in a Mk-41.

This makes me wonder if there are various length ExLS options.

 

[Morgo]

Depending on the booster diameter, it could possibly be quadpacked in a Mk-41.

This makes me wonder if there are various length ExLS options.

Why would we do this though when ESSM is already fully integrated into the RAN? What’s the incremental benefit?

 

[Volkodav]

Why would we do this though when ESSM is already fully integrated into the RAN? What’s the incremental benefit?

Not saying CAMM-ER should be adopted by Australia, just speculating that even if it doesn't fit in the Seacepter launchers the UK and Canuk ships could possibly still carry it in the Mk-41.

Then again it could be a good option for our ships that don't have Mk-41 as it is a low impact system.

 

[John Fedup]

Not saying CAMM-ER should be adopted by Australia, just speculating that even if it doesn't fit in the Seacepter launchers the UK and Canuk ships could possibly still carry it in the Mk-41.

Then again it could be a good option for our ships that don't have Mk-41 as it is a low impact system.

The CSC has the ExLS for CAMM so why take up space in the MK41? There will be some quad packed ESSM in some MK41 cells and the rest will have SMs (2, 6, and maybe the 3). The only question is the ratio which probably will be dictated by the bean counters.

 

[swerve]

Depending on the booster diameter, it could possibly be quadpacked in a Mk-41.

This makes me wonder if there are various length ExLS options.

CAMM has been tested in ExLS, & LM & MBDA both say it's qualified in standalone 3-cell ExLS. LM shows it in ExLS brochures from 2019, & the Canadians are fitting it to their T26 version for CAMM.

CAMM-ER has a thicker mid-body. Not sure about measured across the fins. But the body is still much slimmer than ESSM, which is quad-packed in Mk41. The only issue is the length, with the soft launch thingy. Basic CAMM 3.2 metres & CAMM-ER 4.2m. Should be no problem in strike length Mk 41, but not sure about tactical.

ExLS comes in lengths to match Mk41 tactical & strike length. Maybe LM could do an "extended tactical" if necessary. I think it'd just be a question of extending the structure a bit. But not necessarily worth it unless significant sales are expected.

 

[hauritz]

Australia

Why would we do this though when ESSM is already fully integrated into the RAN? What’s the incremental benefit?

The navy is showing interest in the C Dome system for the Arafura class and I do see something like CAAM being a competitor in that role. A self contained, fire and forget missile such as CAAM could be perfect for OPVs, LDHs, AORs etc.

Probably makes less sense for Hunters, Hobarts and ANZACs though.

 

[ddxx]

Australia

The navy is showing interest in the C Dome system for the Arafura class and I do see something like CAAM being a competitor in that role. A self contained, fire and forget missile such as CAAM could be perfect for OPVs, LDHs, AORs etc.

Probably makes less sense for Hunters, Hobarts and ANZACs though.

I don’t believe that the Navy has shown any public interest in “C-Dome” but rather the company has shown interest in pitching it to the RAN.

Adding C-Dome to our missile mix would be a very questionable move, increasing the number of different missiles, systems, training etc required for a capability that lacks fleet wide applications.

In this hypothetical, RAM would arguably be a far more astute move as it would have far greater utility across the fleet and wouldn’t be a niche system with limited applications.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Adding C-Dome to our missile mix would be a very questionable move, increasing the number of different missiles, systems, training etc required for a capability that lacks fleet wide applications.

I think C-Dome will be pitched to the Singaporeans, they have a close relationship with the Israelis, they have concerns for marine and land air defence where that type of short range mass fires would be of interest. They also tend to avoid acquisitions from Major powers, as they are non-aligned. And Israeli probably won't be selling many units to Malaysia or Indonesia. Singapore will have many small platforms, and it may also fit with air and land options. So pitching to Australia as a side pitch to the Singaporeans makes sense.

In this hypothetical, RAM would arguably be a far more astute move as it would have far greater utility across the fleet and wouldn’t be a niche system with limited applications.

RAM is still quite expensive. Before the Ukraine war I would have said CIWS guns are dying, now, I am not so sure. Guns are back and very useful, plus you can get munitions for them.

The RAN mostly operates in Blue water, and so threats tend to be big and thus ESSM is probably more appropriate. In more contested environments in the littorals (the med the Malacca straits, SEA, Africa), where cheap smaller weapon systems and you have smaller platforms are then RAM and C-Dome and other systems may be more useful.

60 minutes did a tour of Virginia class. Interviewed, Marles. Nothing really new. Except those LAND400 cuts seem to be permanent.

 

[swerve]

I think C-Dome will be pitched to the Singaporeans, they have a close relationship with the Israelis, they have concerns for marine and land air defence where that type of short range mass fires would be of interest. They also tend to avoid acquisitions from Major powers, as they are non-aligned.

Singapore isn't non-aligned. It's definitely aligned with the west, & is in the Five Powers Defence Arrangement with the UK, Australia, New Zealand & Malaysia.

Its weapons have mostly been bought from the UK, France, Germany & the USA, or made in Singapore. The air force has operated A-4, F-5E & E-2 & now has F-15 & F-16, mostly American missiles & PGMs, & F-35 on order. Airbus tankers, Italian trainers . . . The navy has French frigates & SAMs. It bought secondhand minesweepers & submarines from Sweden, but is currently taking delivery of new German subs.

And so on . . . .

 

[StingrayOZ]

Singapore isn't non-aligned. It's definitely aligned with the west, & is in the Five Powers Defence Arrangement with the UK, Australia, New Zealand & Malaysia.

Singapore is officially, non-aligned. It officially joined the non-aligned movement in 1970.

Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) and Group of 77 (G77)

Learn how Singapore works with the Non-Aligned Movement and Group of 77— helping developing nations share their voices and tackle shared challenges like sustainable development.

www.mfa.gov.sg

Non-Aligned Movement - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

China’s rise challenges Singapore’s non-alignment

The Economist Intelligence Unit

country.eiu.com

In defence of non-alignment | The Strategist

Critics of geopolitical non-alignment have long characterised it as a flawed and doomed policy, and in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, non-alignment is rapidly falling out of favour. After all, Ukraine was invaded ...

www.aspistrategist.org.au

Singapore isn't an allied nation.

They are certainly west friendly. But that is different to being allied to the West.

Its weapons have mostly been bought from the UK, France, Germany & the USA, or made in Singapore. The air force has operated A-4, F-5E & E-2 & now has F-15 & F-16, mostly American missiles & PGMs, & F-35 on order. Airbus tankers, Italian trainers . . . The navy has French frigates & SAMs. It bought secondhand minesweepers & submarines from Sweden, but is currently taking delivery of new German subs.

Purchasing items from a country doesn't make it allied to that country. China isn't allied with Australia because it buys iron ore from Australia. The US wasn't allied with the Soviet Union when it was buying titanium from them during the cold war. Ukraine operates a lot of Russian and soviet military gear, it doesn't mean they are aligned with Russia. India buys a lot of Russian military gear, it doesn't mean they are aligned with Russia.

The FPDA is not a military treaty of alliance.

This is why NATO doesn't work in Asia, particularly south East Asia. Just because your not a member of NATO or have a US military alliance doesn't mean you are the enemy. Singapore is a classic example of that. This polarized view of the world is damaging to international relations.

The fact that un-aligned Singapore can buy F-35's but aligned Turkey can't should explain that the world isn't black and white.

 

[swerve]

Many members of the non-aligned movement are openly aligned with one side or the other.

Arms suppliers (not who you buy raw materials from) correlate rather well with real (as distinct from theoretical) political & military alignment. And there are degrees of alignment. India has always bought from both East & West: the USSR, plus the UK, France, etc. It avoided buying from the USA for a long time but changed that some years ago. Turkey has been a semi-detached NATO member for a while now, & one of the ways it's demonstrated that has been by buying some Russian military equipment.

"The fact that un-aligned Singapore can buy F-35's but aligned Turkey can't should explain that the world isn't black and white."
Exactly. That's my point. Singapore isn't "non-aligned" just because it's a member of a loose "non-aligned" movement. That just indicates a certain flexibility in its alignment. Not black & white. For example, its air force has used a training base in France for 25 years, training with the French, not just in the same space.

Citing Ukraine is silly. Ukraine's not bought Russian military gear. It inherited a lot from the USSR, & at independence had factories that used to supply the Soviet & allied armed forces. Ukraine's T-64s, for example, were all made in Ukraine, as were a lot of Antonov aircraft.

But the main fault in what you wrote is this - "They also tend to avoid acquisitions from Major powers, as they are non-aligned.". That is obviously mistaken. Most of Singapore's air force is made in the USA, & most of the rest of its non-indigenous arms are from NATO countries. I think the main non-NATO suppliers have been Israel & Sweden. Nothing from Russia or China.

 

[H_K]

Bungled navy warship referred to anti-corruption watchdog

Greens senator David Shoebridge says the process of picking the winner of the $45 billion future frigate contract should be examined.

www.afr.com

Thoughts on whether this will impact future Hunter hulls and upcoming programs?

While the auditor-general and Senate committees have dug further into the problems, Senator Shoebridge believes the NACC’s standing royal commission-like powers, including powers to compel witnesses to give testimony and seize documents, will get to the bottom of how a “bloated” and unaccountable bureaucracy picked the Hunter frigate.

“What we do know about the Hunter frigate procurement is that loud warnings were ignored, key checks and balances bulldozed, critical documents lost, and a small group of powerful insiders got the result they wanted,” Senator Shoebridge said.

 

[Morgo]

Bungled navy warship referred to anti-corruption watchdog

Greens senator David Shoebridge says the process of picking the winner of the $45 billion future frigate contract should be examined.

www.afr.com

Thoughts on whether this will impact future Hunter hulls and upcoming programs?

i expect it to have zero impact. Shoebridge is an idiot who should consider whether a National Anti Corruption Commission should be referred situations where, by his own admission, there’s no allegations of corruption.

The NACC isn’t there to second guess decisions made by the public service.

 

[Redlands18]

i expect it to have zero impact. Shoebridge is an idiot who should consider whether a National Anti Corruption Commission should be referred situations where, by his own admission, there’s no allegations of corruption.

The NACC isn’t there to second guess decisions made by the public service.

Our place in the world | Policies | Australian Greens
Ever seen the Greens Defence policy? They want to cut Defence by half and it gets worse from there. The entire Greens party lives in a fantasy world.

 

[hauritz]

Singapore is officially, non-aligned. It officially joined the non-aligned movement in 1970.

Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) and Group of 77 (G77)

Learn how Singapore works with the Non-Aligned Movement and Group of 77— helping developing nations share their voices and tackle shared challenges like sustainable development.

www.mfa.gov.sg

Non-Aligned Movement - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

China’s rise challenges Singapore’s non-alignment

The Economist Intelligence Unit

country.eiu.com

In defence of non-alignment | The Strategist

Critics of geopolitical non-alignment have long characterised it as a flawed and doomed policy, and in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, non-alignment is rapidly falling out of favour. After all, Ukraine was invaded ...

www.aspistrategist.org.au

Singapore isn't an allied nation.

They are certainly west friendly. But that is different to being allied to the West.


Purchasing items from a country doesn't make it allied to that country. China isn't allied with Australia because it buys iron ore from Australia. The US wasn't allied with the Soviet Union when it was buying titanium from them during the cold war. Ukraine operates a lot of Russian and soviet military gear, it doesn't mean they are aligned with Russia. India buys a lot of Russian military gear, it doesn't mean they are aligned with Russia.

The FPDA is not a military treaty of alliance.

This is why NATO doesn't work in Asia, particularly south East Asia. Just because your not a member of NATO or have a US military alliance doesn't mean you are the enemy. Singapore is a classic example of that. This polarized view of the world is damaging to international relations.

The fact that un-aligned Singapore can buy F-35's but aligned Turkey can't should explain that the world isn't black and white.

To be honest I am not sure Australia really has any official Allies. The closest we have is the ANZUS treaty but that is really an agreement to consult and assist. It isn’t a water tight NATO kind of agreement which guarantees that our allies will fight with us.

Research

Research

www.aph.gov.au

For all intents and purposes we should consider ourselves as being alone. Certainly we should not assume that allies will come rushing to our side in times of conflict.

 

[Todjaeger]

To be honest I am not sure Australia really has any official Allies. The closest we have is the ANZUS treaty but that is really an agreement to consult and assist. It isn’t a water tight NATO kind of agreement which guarantees that our allies will fight with us.

Research

Research

www.aph.gov.au

For all intents and purposes we should consider ourselves as being alone. Certainly we should not assume that allies will come rushing to our side in times of conflict.

From my POV the above is rather inaccurate. Unless something had happened which rendered the US occupied so that it was enable to come to Australia's aide, the US would, for reasons of self-interest if nothing else. One needs to remember that there are joint-US/Australian facilities in Australia that whilst somewhat obscure and little known, are quite important. Pine Gap comes to mind, as do a number of space comms/observation and tracking facilities.

 

[hauritz]

From my POV the above is rather inaccurate. Unless something had happened which rendered the US occupied so that it was enable to come to Australia's aide, the US would, for reasons of self-interest if nothing else. One needs to remember that there are joint-US/Australian facilities in Australia that whilst somewhat obscure and little known, are quite important. Pine Gap comes to mind, as do a number of space comms/observation and tracking facilities.

If war were to break out between the US and China it would almost certainly be an America first policy. If Australia’s interests happened to coincide with America’s, which I concede they largely would, then you could rely on US help. Certainly if America’s joint facilities were attacked I would expect The US would jump in.

If it were a blockade or Grey Zone conflict or the Americans were caught up in a major conflict somewhere else then we might largely be left to fend for ourselves.

To be fair that is our position as well. Marles made it clear when talking about Australia’s nuclear submarines that it didn’t mean we would fight side by side with American forces.

 

[Scott Elaurant]

Thoughts on whether this will impact future Hunter hulls and upcoming programs?

I don’t know, and I doubt anyone knows till we see what comes out in the inquiry. If there is nothing more than what was in the Audit then I don’t see how it changes anything. If there are more damaging revelations then I think it could be quite dangerous for the Hunter contract.

If the contract was found to be awarded improperly Navantia or Fincanterri might demand a rethink. They could press to use Judicial Review to set the original decision aside, which would be disastrous. This sort of legal fight over awarded defence contracts has become common in some other countries, notably Germany.

Militarily I agree the Greens’ defence policy is nonsense. But David Shoebridge is a skilled lawyer and Labor needs the Greens’ votes to pass its IR legislation. I find myself wondering what he knows?

 

[Scott Elaurant]

If war were to break out between the US and China it would almost certainly be an America first policy. If Australia’s interests happened to coincide with America’s, which I concede they largely would, then you could rely on US help. Certainly if America’s joint facilities were attacked I would expect The US would jump in.

If it were a blockade or Grey Zone conflict or the Americans were caught up in a major conflict somewhere else then we might largely be left to fend for ourselves.

To be fair that is our position as well. Marles made it clear when talking about Australia’s nuclear submarines that it didn’t mean we would fight side by side with American forces.

To try to get a better idea of the debate over strategic issues motivating AUKUS, I have been reading a new book out by Lowy Institute defence analyst Sam Roggeveen, formerly of the ONA. So far I am finding it well written and acknowledging the reality and seriousness of rising Chinese naval power, and the need to rethink Australian defence in light of it.

Roggeveen is in favour of increased spending on naval defence and mines and submarines specifically. However he criticises the logic behind AUKUS and value in SSNs, and so far as I have read he is arguing for a more self reliant posture for Australia. This review by former FM Gareth Evans gives a useful summary, and there are some podcasts where he sets out his thinking.

A compelling voice for rethinking Australia’s national security | Lowy Institute

Sam Roggeveen’s Echidna Strategy rightly challenges Australia to act as a diplomatic powerhouse, not a military one.

www.lowyinstitute.org