Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Aussie Digger]

The British/French effort to develop the Future Air-to-Surface Guided Weapon (Heavy) sounds interesting, although it'll be quite a bit smaller than the weapons discussed above (100 kgs, 40 kg warhead). From what I've read, they want to keep the dimensions similar to Sea Skua while doubling the range and introducing a precision aim point system to broaden the range of effects on the target. They're pegging it for targets up to 1000 tons but if the guidance system works out to be as accurate as they say I imagine it would retain some effectiveness against larger vessels, and a doubling of range would just about be pushing the 20 nautical mile mark (going by publicly available data). A bit small for what we're discussing, I just mention it out of interest - the development of new Western anti-ship missiles seems relatively rare.

There's plenty going on in that field in the Western world...

Lockheed Martin - 2 separate types of ASM.

Lockheed Martin Receives $218 Million for Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) Demonstrations | Lockheed Martin

Konsberg - JSM / NSM

Missile Systems - Kongsberg Gruppen

UK/France - FASGW in light and heavy versions

DSEi: UK, France launch new anti-ship missile

MBDA - Marte Mk2 and variants -

Marte, marte MK2/N, missile system - MBDA MIssile system

As well as continuing development of legacy weapons:

Exocet MM-40 Block 3

Exocet, exocet missile, exocet MM40 Block 3, missile by MBDA

Harpoon Block II developments -

Boeing: Boeing Flies Harpoon Missile With Updated Guidance Control

Harpoon Block III contracts -

http://tinyurl.com/4w88lhe

And there's plenty more if you consider SLAM-ER updates, AGM-154 JSOWC1 maritime mode updates and so on.

See Bug if you need to know more...

 

[Bonza]

Haha, I stand firmly corrected! Cheers for all that mate - I was aware of some of them but it looks like I missed a few as well. Don't know how I managed to avoid hearing about Harpoon Block III...

LRASM sounds like it'll be a really interesting program, I'm curious to see how the B variant will turn out given it's quite a departure from the subsonic sea-skimming approach.

 

[RubiconNZ]

Haha, I stand firmly corrected! Cheers for all that mate - I was aware of some of them but it looks like I missed a few as well. Don't know how I managed to avoid hearing about Harpoon Block III...

LRASM sounds like it'll be a really interesting program, I'm curious to see how the B variant will turn out given it's quite a departure from the subsonic sea-skimming approach.

The Block III Harpoon was relatively easy to miss as it got the chop a few years ago. Though they are still developing the Block II go figure.

The LRASM was an interesting development there were a lot questions in the Navy blogging community (Example on InfoDissemination) and in the general defense pundits about the perceived demise or to be more correct stagnation of USN anti-ship capability, limited (published) development in new ASM tech, removal of Harpoons from most Arleigh Burkes etc.

In addition to this all the noise from Russia and India over their Brahmos Missile, and though a separate weapon system China's ASBM program, questions were being asked. Why is the USN main ASM a 30 year old concept with a moderate warhead, slow and relatively short ranged, from a purely PR perspective the USN had to do something, not to mention the improvement of competitor Anti-Missile systems, I think the LRASM is exciting and will be work very in complement with the Harpoon.

 

[Aussie Digger]

The Block III Harpoon was relatively easy to miss as it got the chop a few years ago. Though they are still developing the Block II go figure.

The LRASM was an interesting development there were a lot questions in the Navy blogging community (Example on InfoDissemination) and in the general defense pundits about the perceived demise or to be more correct stagnation of USN anti-ship capability, limited (published) development in new ASM tech, removal of Harpoons from most Arleigh Burkes etc.

In addition to this all the noise from Russia and India over their Brahmos Missile, and though a separate weapon system China's ASBM program, questions were being asked. Why is the USN main ASM a 30 year old concept with a moderate warhead, slow and relatively short ranged, from a purely PR perspective the USN had to do something, not to mention the improvement of competitor Anti-Missile systems, I think the LRASM is exciting and will be work very in complement with the Harpoon.

Why is the Harpoon subsonic, when the Standard missile from 30 years ago wasn't?

It couldn't have anything to do with the detectability of supersonic weapon systems in a naval environment with no background with which to hide the "bloom" of supersonic weapons launch could it?

Many people on the net (including those on Ares) insinuate that it is because the US/European missile industry is somehow "lagging" and can't build a supersonic missile...

To do this though they have to conveniently ignore all the supersonic missiles in production in the West (Meteor, AMRAAM, Sidewinder, ATACMS, Trident TOW, JAVELIN, Standard, ESSM and so on) when they make such claims though and never pause for a second to consider the absudity in such claims, nor why the overwhelming majority of NEW anti-ship weapons are "slow" missiles if they do in fact lack the capability that some claim they do...

At the same time some of the same people praise weapons like the Delilah... Do they imagine that it loiters at supersonic speeds????

 

[RubiconNZ]

Why is the Harpoon subsonic, when the Standard missile from 30 years ago wasn't?

It couldn't have anything to do with the detectability of supersonic weapon systems in a naval environment with no background with which to hide the "bloom" of supersonic weapons launch could it?

Many people on the net (including those on Ares) insinuate that it is because the US/European missile industry is somehow "lagging" and can't build a supersonic missile...

To do this though they have to conveniently ignore all the supersonic missiles in production in the West (Meteor, AMRAAM, Sidewinder, ATACMS, Trident TOW, JAVELIN, Standard, ESSM and so on) when they make such claims though and never pause for a second to consider the absudity in such claims, nor why the overwhelming majority of NEW anti-ship weapons are "slow" missiles if they do in fact lack the capability that some claim they do...

Ahh the good old faster is better argument Supersonic Missiles, Littoral Combat Ships.

It's certainly a weak argument, interesting from my recollection in the Anti-Ship Missile game it seems to be a near doctrinal thing in terms of development the USSR went faster the US seemed to go for consistency I guess, could anyone give a reason for this (a bit of an aside but I'm interested now)

One thing I failed to include is the absence of a peer competitor in the blue water realm, in a decade of cut spending 90's, then a decade of a protracted land war the 00's.

It will be interesting how the LRASM program pans out they are certainly covering a broad range by having two groups.

LRASM-A leverages the state-of-the-art JASSM-ER airframe, and adds additional sensors and subsystems to achieve a stealthy and survivable subsonic cruise missile.

LRASM-B leverages prior ramjet development activities and a suite of supporting sensors and avionics to achieve a supersonic cruise missile with balanced speed and stealth for robust performance.

Aussie Digger
At the same time some of the same people praise weapons like the Delilah... Do they imagine that it loiters at supersonic speeds????

Lol supersonic loitering would certainly throw the surprise out of the equation.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The best advantage of a supersonic anti ship missile (be it conventional or ballistic) is that it cuts down the escape envelope between targeting and engagement. But as for being more likely to penetrate defences I have my doubts. I would go for a sea skimming stealthy knife in the back over a loud, supersonic kicking down the front door approach any day.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

It's certainly a weak argument, interesting from my recollection in the Anti-Ship Missile game it seems to be a near doctrinal thing in terms of development the USSR went faster the US seemed to go for consistency I guess, could anyone give a reason for this (a bit of an aside but I'm interested now)

There are two important considerations for why the Soviets went for high flying supersonic missiles rather than sea skimmers. Their primarily anti ship attack was via raids of aircraft or ships so needed the targeting advantage speed gave them to ensure they weren’t just throwing missiles away into the deep. Also they planned on a high use of tactical nuclear weapons so near enough was good enough.

 

[Kirkzzy]

Was just reading an article in The Australian on our future subs. And Ross Babbage founder of the Kokoda Foundation thinks that we should have 12 nuclear subs. I wanted to know if we would be able to do it? Our locally built 12 that are currently planned are going to cost 30 billion plus and atm a USN Virginia class submarine is only 1.8 billion in 09, so even simply rounding it off to roughly 2 billion for inflation and possibly problems along the way. Would it be easier to buy 12 nuclear subs (and more efficient) than manufacture our own here which will cost significantly more?

If you think this is a good idea, I got a question, Astute or Virginia class?

 

[SASWanabe]

Was just reading an article in The Australian on our future subs. And Ross Babbage founder of the Kokoda Foundation thinks that we should have 12 nuclear subs. I wanted to know if we would be able to do it? Our locally built 12 that are currently planned are going to cost 30 billion plus and atm a USN Virginia class submarine is only 1.8 billion in 09, so even simply rounding it off to roughly 2 billion for inflation and possibly problems along the way. Would it be easier to buy 12 nuclear subs (and more efficient) than manufacture our own here which will cost significantly more?

If you think this is a good idea, I got a question, Astute or Virginia class?

it would be cheaper to buy MOTS Nukes rather than manufacture our own conventionals here. but that would be taking from the economy and putting it into someone elses.

thru life costs are the killer, we would also need to buddy up with the US or UK for fuel and infrastructure.

my vote is we just stick a big diesel in a virginia. my understanding is they're backup diesels are bigger than most conventional sub primarys

 

[SASWanabe]

and just for the record, we are struggling to find 360 people for 6 subs now, how are we gonna get near 1700 for 12?

and thats just 1 crew rotation letalone 2-3

US Virginia class have annual operating costs of 21m

the first refuell is 200m second is 410m
im sure someone can tell you what a collins currently costs

Edit: Added thru life costs

 

[gf0012-aust]

and just for the record, we are struggling to find 360 people for 6 subs now, how are we gonna get near 1700 for 12?

1) they'll be smaller crews
2) they already have crew availability for 4 on duty - as 2 subs in peacetime are usually in maint or laid up then I'm not sure what the issue is. the crewing is basically there - its the subs that haven't been and thats changed/changing
what impacted on crewing was a govt decision to move everyone to WA - now the Govt might not want that to be known as the primary trigger for crew churn and disharmony, but thats the major grief.

if they work out that fixing this keeps wives, husbands, men friends, girlfriends and kids happy - and thus crew happy, then the churn will go down. this is the last major hurdle.

people will still be pi$$ed off at the service even if they get nukes or new shirts or a free car

even the cynics who know whats going on would agree that crew retention and attraction will go up if the sub force is split to east and west

and thats just 1 crew rotation letalone 2-3

how about discussing what we do know than what the media thinks it does?

US Virginia class have annual operating costs of 21m

and the US has sunk costs already that it uses for its nukes
1) we don't need nukes
2) how long do you think it would take to get all the other requirements to build and support those nukes in place - its just not "vittles" that you need to run a boat

the first refuell is 200m second is 410m
im sure someone can tell you what a collins currently costs


Edit: Added thru life costs

This nuke/conventional argument has been discussed to death.

Search previous threads for answers before posting another one of these when they've been answered before
why do we need a nuke?

this is as bad as an APA argument that we need F-22's
Aust is NOT the US
our tactical and strategic needs are different.

 

[SASWanabe]

i was actualy trying to show that a nuke has more costs involved than just buying it. i know that there s 0% chance of us getting nukes. i was just showing some f the costs involved

 

[Systems Adict]

1) how about discussing what we do know than what the media thinks it does?

....Aust is NOT the US
our tactical and strategic needs are different.

Well said !

The media churn out half truths & bits of regurrgitated clap-trap from politicos who have never been in the service & smoked too much weed in the 70's.

Australia IS NOT the USA, she has specific agreements in place with countries across the pacific rim & has specific defence requirements that are completely different to that of the US.

No disrespect to Oz, but the best analagy I can derive is this:

A mini & a Bugatti Veron are both cars with 4 wheels & an engine, so does that make them the same ??

SA

 

[swerve]

Why is the Harpoon subsonic, when the Standard missile from 30 years ago wasn't?

It couldn't have anything to do with the detectability of supersonic weapon systems in a naval environment with no background with which to hide the "bloom" of supersonic weapons launch could it?

Many people on the net (including those on Ares) insinuate that it is because the US/European missile industry is somehow "lagging" and can't build a supersonic missile...

To do this though they have to conveniently ignore all the supersonic missiles in production in the West ...

Absolutely. Consider France, for example - abandoned the ANS supersonic anti-ship missile project, but already had a 300km range supersonic air-surface missile in service, & has since introduced a longer-range one. "Can't do it" No, doesn't think it's appropriate for the application.

 

[swerve]

The British/French effort to develop the Future Air-to-Surface Guided Weapon (Heavy) sounds interesting, although it'll be quite a bit smaller than the weapons discussed above (100 kgs, 40 kg warhead). From what I've read, they want to keep the dimensions similar to Sea Skua while doubling the range and introducing a precision aim point system to broaden the range of effects on the target.

I think it'll probably come in nearer 150 kg than 100. According to the MBDA Team Complex Weapons info sheet on FASGW(H), it "builds upon the success of Sea Skua, and maintains some of the characteristics of that earlier system. For example, the general external dimensions and mass remain similar".

 

[kato]

Why is the Harpoon subsonic, when the Standard missile from 30 years ago wasn't?

30?

RIM-66A went into service 44 years ago, Harpoon 34 years ago. Also, Terrier was supersonic and in service 55 years ago.

And it might just have to do with the fact that both Terrier and Standard carry miniscule warheads to measly ranges compared to Harpoon (whose range-times-warhead ratio was on the order of 4x for Block 1A and 6x for Block 1C compared to Standard).

abandoned the ANS supersonic anti-ship missile project

You probably mean ANF there. Could also be ASN (ASLP) though, a project dropped in 1996 after five years of development - a nuclear-tipped supersonic cruise missile with a range profile comparable to Tomahawk.

And as there are no conventional warheads for ASMP and ASMP-A (the two supersonic missiles) those are more like last-resort weapons against ships...

 

[Aussie Digger]

30?

RIM-66A went into service 44 years ago, Harpoon 34 years ago. Also, Terrier was supersonic and in service 55 years ago.

And it might just have to do with the fact that both Terrier and Standard carry miniscule warheads to measly ranges compared to Harpoon (whose range-times-warhead ratio was on the order of 4x for Block 1A and 6x for Block 1C compared to Standard).

Standard SM-2 significantly outranges any Harpoon variant (besides SLAM-ER) and it's supersonic, it's a bigger, heavier missile and it's as old or older than Harpoon, which is the point I was illustrating. It is NOT a lack of a capability to design and manufacture a supersonic missile system, which dictates the majority useage of subsonics for Western anti-ship missile design, ergo there must be another reason why...

 

[aussienscale]

1) they'll be smaller crews
2) they already have crew availability for 4 on duty - as 2 subs in peacetime are usually in maint or laid up then I'm not sure what the issue is. the crewing is basically there - its the subs that haven't been and thats changed/changing
what impacted on crewing was a govt decision to move everyone to WA - now the Govt might not want that to be known as the primary trigger for crew churn and disharmony, but thats the major grief.

if they work out that fixing this keeps wives, husbands, men friends, girlfriends and kids happy - and thus crew happy, then the churn will go down. this is the last major hurdle.

people will still be pi$$ed off at the service even if they get nukes or new shirts or a free car

even the cynics who know whats going on would agree that crew retention and attraction will go up if the sub force is split to east and west



how about discussing what we do know than what the media thinks it does?



and the US has sunk costs already that it uses for its nukes
1) we don't need nukes
2) how long do you think it would take to get all the other requirements to build and support those nukes in place - its just not "vittles" that you need to run a boat




This nuke/conventional argument has been discussed to death.

Search previous threads for answers before posting another one of these when they've been answered before
why do we need a nuke?

this is as bad as an APA argument that we need F-22's
Aust is NOT the US
our tactical and strategic needs are different.

Totally agree here GF, and as I think we all know, getting them back (not all of them) on the east side will be the biggest step in correcting the original mistake I have been reading a bit about the Collins II and have seen a few suggestions about the RAN getting 2 types of subs, some of the suggestionS include getting 4-6 Littorial/Coastal patrol subs with the ballance being longer range SSK's, what do you think of this idea ? Would the aquisition of 4-6 MOTS subs for Littorial/Coastal patrol potentially free up money in the budget for a more capable SSK with better and more capable weapons and Combat Systems fitout ?
Just curious about the potential pro's & con's

 

[gf0012-aust]

Totally agree here GF, and as I think we all know, getting them back (not all of them) on the east side will be the biggest step in correcting the original mistake I have been reading a bit about the Collins II and have seen a few suggestions about the RAN getting 2 types of subs, some of the suggestionS include getting 4-6 Littorial/Coastal patrol subs with the ballance being longer range SSK's, what do you think of this idea ? Would the aquisition of 4-6 MOTS subs for Littorial/Coastal patrol potentially free up money in the budget for a more capable SSK with better and more capable weapons and Combat Systems fitout ?
Just curious about the potential pro's & con's

I'm not even remotely warm to the idea of mixed sub hulls, esp when you consider the raise train and sustain tails

it would be a nightmare as you'd have to factor in 3 lots of availability ratios

eg green/blue water, LR blue and then the combination of thereof for supporting the SAG's or ESG's depending on threat AO location etc....

then there is the issue of dissimilar gear on board. eg torpedoes, combat systems, integration thereof, interoperability with different partners, etc....add in the issue of licensing differences with different countries, add in the complexity of ITARs issues which might effect a non US sourced sub (and there's certainly a view in RAN that its only the US and Japan that have relevant contemp fleet conventional sub tech) - then you start to see the problem.

it would kill other ADF projects and they would be quite rightly PO'd with the impact.

 

[radar07]

ANF (anti-navir-future) aka ANS (anti-navir-supersonique) was a conventional armed anti ship missile project with a range of not more than 200 km. germany was also involved in this project.

i don't think that comparing ashm with long range sams like sm-2 is that useful because in generell you want your ashm to stay very low whereas modern sam's obtain range out of their high flight path.