Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[StingrayOZ]

I believe the Spainish F-100 was involved in a test firing of SM-3. So its possible from a hull point of view. But AegisFC points out its not what we have ordered for our hulls (although it may become avalible in the future).

At the time the only public ABM in use was SM3, so many drew the conclusion it was to be included. It was not formally announced that SM-3 was to be included.

Navalised PAC3 is far cheaper and suits our purposes just fine. Not that it is limited to terminal BMD either. If SM3 was urgently required it could be fitted at a later date if the Aegis system was updated or we turfed it and got a new one, or if we built a 4th AWD with SM3 ABM capability included.

The white paper stated that the Anzac replacements will also be ABM capable, so I assume PAC3 can be fired from these as well? I would imagine under a CEC setup. I would imagine using the Anzac II sensors.

 

[rip]

I believe the Spainish F-100 was involved in a test firing of SM-3. So its possible from a hull point of view. But AegisFC points out its not what we have ordered for our hulls (although it may become avalible in the future).

At the time the only public ABM in use was SM3, so many drew the conclusion it was to be included. It was not formally announced that SM-3 was to be included.

Navalised PAC3 is far cheaper and suits our purposes just fine. Not that it is limited to terminal BMD either. If SM3 was urgently required it could be fitted at a later date if the Aegis system was updated or we turfed it and got a new one, or if we built a 4th AWD with SM3 ABM capability included.

The white paper stated that the Anzac replacements will also be ABM capable, so I assume PAC3 can be fired from these as well? I would imagine under a CEC setup. I would imagine using the Anzac II sensors.

I know what you are talking about. They are basically some boxes stuck around here and there about the ship with cabals with electronics in them that will become obsolete within the next ten years and need to be upgraded anyway just to keep up with the AAW and other threats. Plus a hell of a lot of very complicated software, communications, and radar signal processing added in that you will probably want and need anyway.

Here is what is going to happen. The US will continue to upgrade its systems at a fast and furious rate simply because the current ABM mission that AEGIS has been tasked with is in its current state of development is only marginally meeting mission requirements. Remember it wasn’t originally designed for ABM missions and though it can do them, it has been pressed in to deployment as a spot gap solution. Since that mission is now considered the US’s most pressing mission deficiency of AEGIS, all future development will have that is their number one goal. The decision has been made that AEGIS can be upgraded to eventually fulfill that role beyond the current capacity of just point and some area defense of a few targets at a time, to the eventual full battle requirements that are coming in the near future. It is a race. The AEGIS system will be in deploy, while we still in final development phase for some time to come.

Some of those boxes I mentioned will disappear as their functions are incorporated into other boxes and a few new boxes will appear. The updated software you will need anyway will have ABM modules if you load them or not. The major elements for ABM system you will already have except for the rounds of course and the new radar signal processor and we never have enough computer power do we? I am not saying that the Australia government will make the decision to go that extra mile but it will be a fairly easy option to take it they decided they want too. When you see the other benefits’ that come with all the upgrades necessary for ABM (by far the hardest challenge to meet) you will want most of them anyway. I have seen this happen before.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Well we can't say for certain what is going to be upgraded and if that is going to be capable. There is nothing really stopping us from from getting SM-3 except a whole bunch of cash and some time. We have not actively sought getting SM-3 so we will have to double purchase some items raising the price of an already expensive system. But in a war time situation it could be done.

SM-3 is expensive, but operational, but there is much more development to be had. SM-3 is one of/the most capable ABD systems and will no doubt be expanded.

PAC3 will be suitable for us. Australia is not under direct missile threat, and anything that is launched heading our way would be the same as some serious US military bases, so would be eliminated in boost or mid course by the US. We participate in their missile shield by providing JORN data for them, particularly useful for missile boosting in launch.

What we do have is a setup that will intergrate into US fleets to provide accurate info for ABM shots.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I believe the Spainish F-100 was involved in a test firing of SM-3. So its possible from a hull point of view. But AegisFC points out its not what we have ordered for our hulls (although it may become avalible in the future).

At the time the only public ABM in use was SM3, so many drew the conclusion it was to be included. It was not formally announced that SM-3 was to be included.

Well that's not quite true. SM-3 had a very high profile but there was nothing secret about the USN's Sea Based Terminal (SBT) proposals from at least 2005, including Sea Based Missile Segment Enhancement (SBMSE, aka PAC-3). Certainly Lockheed were keen to talk up SBMSE in the 2005-07 timeframe but most defence journalists didn't understand what they were saying. The USN still has a wide range of options for SBT, see attachment.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Yes you right, I didn't write that the way I thought it. There were other options but SM-3 was/is getting most of the press.

With SM-6, PAC-3, and tied into the US systems. Can Pac3 be quad packed into VLS? If it can we are way better off with PAC 3 than SM-3 for the threats we are likely to deal with.

 

[hairyman]

I thought we were getting SM-3 and that was the reason for the high price for the AWD's. So we are no longer getting the SM-3 missiles, but still paying the $8.8bil. Or has the price been reduced?

 

[StingrayOZ]

I thought we were getting SM-3 and that was the reason for the high price for the AWD's. So we are no longer getting the SM-3 missiles, but still paying the $8.8bil. Or has the price been reduced?

We are not getting SM-3. Yes the AWD are expensive. The AWD is a very capable ship, and is capable of ballistic missile interception (terminal) or being part of a mid course interception with SM-3 launch from a 3rd party (Japan or US ship). The US has suprisingly few SM-3 capable ships so its not a shocking as you may think. If Pac3 can be quad packed, with our ships we would be better off with Pac3 as we can have 4 times the missiles. Those 48 VLS would be well packed with quad packed ESSM and PAC3. If we wish (for a heavy airdefence) thats 192 missiles plus the 8 harpoons plus the 5" + CIWS.

We can upgrade to Sm3 but I believe newer blocks SM-3 may be longer missiles and require special VLS to launch from. We would also need to change some of our computer systems. Currently the upgraded SM-3 due in 2015 is wider, but will still fit in current tubes. There was some talk about upsizing it beyond this as there is only so much you can fit into a VLS and it certainly wasn't designed for Asat level weaponry.

We don't have a fleet of AWD big enough to launch a SM-3 accurately anyway (the more ships the better the chance of hitting it). You proberly need more than 3 ships linked to do it at the minium. I don't think the US has done it with less than 5. It has used 3 ships, for the ASAT launch, but there may have been data from other sources as well. Data and facts are thin on the ground about this issue.

These are whole systems, so we can't just focus on one aspect. Thats one of the reasons why we need a 4th AWD (and really a 5th too). That way we can easily form a complete Task force capable of most duties. While a hugely capable Anzac II will help, we still need these lynch pins to hold it all together. If the US can spare us a cruise or destroyer, we will be flat out protecting that that we won't be able to deploy anything. We need to be able to do it ourselves.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Thats one of the reasons why we need a 4th AWD (and really a 5th too). That way we can easily form a complete Task force capable of most duties. .

that doesn't reflect how the RAN sees the AWD's deploying.

we don't have australian task forces with RAN, wrt the AWD the construct is about Surface Action Groups (and this is not the same as a USN SAG)

 

[StingrayOZ]

that doesn't reflect how the RAN sees the AWD's deploying.

we don't have australian task forces with RAN, wrt the AWD the construct is about Surface Action Groups (and this is not the same as a USN SAG)

Well no, I should have made that clear thats my thinking rather than RAN or gov policy or intent, its not what we are setting out to do, if we were we would have had the requirement of 5 AWD+. I sort of got carried away talking about SM-3.

But looking at the requirements that incorperating US assets into our force when things heat up wasn't as easy as many Australians naively thought. A 4th would add much depth to the RANs capabilities.

So these Surface Action groups would be based around a AWD I would imagine with other ships in supporting roles but essentially protected by and also protecting the AWD.

Are they also looking at ESG style makeups focusing on supporting the LHD?

 

[gf0012-aust]

A 4th would add much depth to the RANs capabilities.

as a means to provide flexibility to the 2 x fleet based SAGs - then yes. To add a 3rd in operation AWD (4th as in maint/reserve) then no. To get the other AWD would mean buying other assets - and we don't have the capacity to absorb the necessary assets to provide a deliverable available group

So these Surface Action groups would be based around a AWD I would imagine with other ships in supporting roles but essentially protected by and also protecting the AWD.

no, they can support the AWD but their primary role is not adjunct AW

Are they also looking at ESG style makeups focusing on supporting the LHD?

there are concepts to support an ARG/ESG, but the primary role of AWD is not that. The SAG however can obviously merge into the ARG/ESG role as its complimentary

 

[rip]

as a means to provide flexibility to the 2 x fleet based SAGs - then yes. To add a 3rd in operation AWD (4th as in maint/reserve) then no. To get the other AWD would mean buying other assets - and we don't have the capacity to absorb the necessary assets to provide a deliverable available group



no, they can support the AWD but their primary role is not adjunct AW



there are concepts to support an ARG/ESG, but the primary role of AWD is not that. The SAG however can obviously merge into the ARG/ESG role as its complimentary

This might be a little off topic but I think it is germane to the discussion. If the plans hold up as currently envisioned by some in the field but as yet not committed to, because of both technical and tactical uncertainties. The SM-3 block IIA, which will use every inch of the Mark 41 strike length launcher, will have two and a half times the area foot print of the SM-3 Block IB and will be able to take on the full ICBM target t exo-atmospheric engagement requirements. It might eventually be able to have multiple kill vehicles in its play-lode, though that is not for certain. The game changer is not to sea deployment of the PAC-3 in quad packs but to deploy quad packed THAAD’s. This gives you three mutually supporting layers of defense against multiple launched missile salvoes plus the time to evaluate each success or failure of intercept with more missiles on hand to do it with.

The US will probably in the future deploy THAAD batteries as Integrated elements and adjuncts of PAC-3 battalions for land uses as well and not as separate formations as it is now doing.

As to what the threat dose or dose not exist to Australia (from who, with what weapons, and at what possible Australian targets) due to the possible use of ballistic missiles is beyond my ability to judge but what is most often forgotten about this issue, is the political considerations. Say if country “A” clams it has the ability to strike at your civilian population, (if this is true or not is less important than you would think, it is the threat is itself enough, as long as it is just plausible that only counts politicaly) and even if the real damage of a convention warhead when put on a ballistic missile is minimal, it can and has, created panic that the political authorities will have to respond to in some way. Those considerations are above the purely military ones. They, the leaders will not want to be put into a position of appearing to be helpless. They will want options. They will want to add the uncertainty to the equation of being able to defend against that threat (again true or not) to take away the power of that threat and restor their credibility.

 

[StingrayOZ]

as a means to provide flexibility to the 2 x fleet based SAGs - then yes. To add a 3rd in operation AWD (4th as in maint/reserve) then no. To get the other AWD would mean buying other assets - and we don't have the capacity to absorb the necessary assets to provide a deliverable available group

Hmm interesting. So yes the 4th AWD would be useful in supporting the 2 x SAG but not in providing 3 x SAG? I still think in as an SAG group we should have the ability to have 2 AWD in a group, CEC and many other factors would make that a much stronger group, even if its only 1 of the 2 SAG and not all the time. I would imagine the SAG would be able to incorperate allies in a useful way such as NZ, UK and US and to a lesser extent Singapore, Japan, Spain etc.

This gives you three mutually supporting layers of defense against multiple launched missile salvoes plus the time to evaluate each success or failure of intercept with more missiles on hand to do it

The US is way ahead of everyone else in this stuff. And like all defences, its supportable in layers. US has more than 3 layers avalible covering boost, mid and terminal phases.

Looking at Australia. SM-3 we can't do it and we don't have a pressing need for it. We would need 5+ ships really to do it justice. Japan on the other hand does require SM-3 and has the hulls/systems avalible to do it and will proberly look at land based units as well.

PAC3 will fit with us at this stage. The AnzacII's are also ment to be able to use them, and they just aren't for ABM use, they will still be effective against regular air threats as well.

 

[rip]

Hmm interesting. So yes the 4th AWD would be useful in supporting the 2 x SAG but not in providing 3 x SAG? I still think in as an SAG group we should have the ability to have 2 AWD in a group, CEC and many other factors would make that a much stronger group, even if its only 1 of the 2 SAG and not all the time. I would imagine the SAG would be able to incorperate allies in a useful way such as NZ, UK and US and to a lesser extent Singapore, Japan, Spain etc.


The US is way ahead of everyone else in this stuff. And like all defences, its supportable in layers. US has more than 3 layers avalible covering boost, mid and terminal phases.

Looking at Australia. SM-3 we can't do it and we don't have a pressing need for it. We would need 5+ ships really to do it justice. Japan on the other hand does require SM-3 and has the hulls/systems avalible to do it and will proberly look at land based units as well.

PAC3 will fit with us at this stage. The AnzacII's are also ment to be able to use them, and they just aren't for ABM use, they will still be effective against regular air threats as well.

I agree. Australia has far more need for modern ships at this point in time than its need of ABM capacity. I only wanted to point out the trends in thinking that is going on in the world today and how it intersected with what those ships could do. I was not advocating that you go that way at this time. The Government’s approach is a sound one and the future as always remains unknown.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I agree. Australia has far more need for modern ships at this point in time than its need of ABM capacity. I only wanted to point out the trends in thinking that is going on in the world today and how it intersected with what those ships could do. I was not advocating that you go that way at this time. The Government’s approach is a sound one and the future as always remains unknown.

ABM was the 1980s. We need a BMD (2000s) capability if we face a ballistic missile threat. Arguably China's investment in IRBM capability and now a guided IRBM for anti ship use dictates integration of sea based terminal (SBT) BMD capability for any warship wanting to operate at the higher end of combat intensity. In the same way that the proliferation of sea skimming missiles in the 1970s required new missile systems and CIWS with anti sea skimming capability. This is a very different requirement to a mid course BMD capability to defend the homeland from attack. SBMSE (improved, quad packed PAC-3) provides an ideal SBT interceptor because of its reasonable cost, lower impact on VLS magazines and dual use against conventional threats. MSE (improved PAC-3) is also being targeted for an air launched BMD capability providing a joint (Navy and Air Force) solution via a single weapon system.

 

[Kirkzzy]

Just a quick few question for the pros.

Is the 12 future submarines being acquired achievable/too costly and at the same time necessary?

If not how many should Australia be manning? 8-10 what would be the best in terms of capability (and cost/achievable).

What is the reasoning behind this increase? Asian military build up? Indonesia getting 12 subs as well?

Just some questions I was rather curious about.

 

[SASWanabe]

i suggest reading the white paper, that will answer most of you questions

 

[Kirkzzy]

I've gone over it, but I want to know if it is achievable and could we do with less.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Wikileaks made it clear the naval build up was to secure australian interests in the region particularly in regards to Chinese influence. I haven't read the document, but it was pretty clear we were not really worried about Indonesia, but China expanding its concerns off its territory. Rudd seemed extremely concerned about China and how Australia could prepare and secure her interests.

This does not mean we are directly warring with China, but maybe part of a cold war style build up.

The 12 subs are required for what we want to do, we should have built 8 Collins to begin with. Australia can make and operate 12 subs if we make it a priority. Which I think we will, because its becomming apparent our concerns are well founded and we should be prepared.

 

[riksavage]

I hear the UK / Aus Defence Minister gathering raised the issue of lease/buying a Bay Class, any update on this issue?

Hopefully with this rekindling of UK/Aus cooperation a QE lead ARG will find time to cross the equator as part of the five powers initiative and operate alongside a Canberra Class, or the latter venturing into the Atlantic to take part in a NATO exercise.

 

[ThePuss]

I hear the UK / Aus Defence Minister gathering raised the issue of lease/buying a Bay Class, any update on this issue?

Hopefully with this rekindling of UK/Aus cooperation a QE lead ARG will find time to cross the equator as part of the five powers initiative and operate alongside a Canberra Class, or the latter venturing into the Atlantic to take part in a NATO exercise.

Yes, Hip Hip Hooray :dance it has finally been announced that we are currently in serious discussions with the UK about the purchase or lease of the Largs Bay. The following links are from a press conference with MINDEF yesterday.

Australian Government, Department of Defence - Stephen Smith MP

Australian Government, Department of Defence - Stephen Smith MP

The word on the street is that Manoora is beyond economical repair and the Poms are offering Largs at an ridiculously low price. So Manoora will pay off and provide the crew for RFA Largs Bay A.K.A HMAS Jervis Bay III.

Tobruk will follow before Canberra commissions and then Kanimbla will go before Adelaide comes on line (She stays the longest because Manoora will become a Spare Parts Hulk).