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

Status
Not open for further replies.
We know Spike missiles can be sea launched and have a range of at least 6km, as documented by the Philippine Navy (!) In 2018

missilethreat.csis.org

Philippine Navy Test Fires Spike ER Missile at Sea | Missile Threat

On August 9, the Philippine Navy successfully struck a target at sea using a Spike Extended Range (ER) missile launched from a multi-purpose attack craft (MPAC) gunboat. The test took place off Lamao Point, Bataan, where the missile struck a floating target with high accuracy from 6 km under...
missilethreat.csis.org missilethreat.csis.org

So perhaps it's not fantasy to suggest that when all the million dollar missiles are expended, deck mounted Spike missiles launchers get installed on whatever ships we have remaining ?
 
So a simple missile that would just launch, go where it is intended to go, and explode releasing shrapnel. My question would be then is, wouldnt a 57mm ORKA or MADFIRES round do the same and you would have more of them ready to be fired from a gun?
 
magicbandit7 said:
So a simple missile that would just launch, go where it is intended to go, and explode releasing shrapnel. My question would be then is, wouldnt a 57mm ORKA or MADFIRES round do the same and you would have more of them ready to be fired from a gun?
Click to expand...

it would be viable if it had 360deg flight path capability and range, perhaps ESSM-esqu, but simple.
a simple missile can still have range.
how hard is it to point a missile?
its not designed to hit an actual target, but simply explode a shrapnel field in a given air block.

the combat system still works, despite optimal rounds already being expended.
it can still track an incoming trajectory. It knows the speed of this cheap 2nd tier missile & an anticipated impact distance
the round flies in the direction and explodes in the area at the time, where the incoming should be.
 
Spike missiles on ships would be more of a last ditch defence which might not be so bad but it is in no way an offensive weapon when we have to close range so much that you can start yelling insults at one another. We theoretically have almost the entire industrial and technical capacity and knowledge to build these missiles outside of engines and propellant but to do it in Australia and have it up and running efficiently early on would require us to be doing this before conflict which means more money. To start it up after the fact means a long wait before it makes any difference. Easy enough to want dumb downed missiles but dumb downed missiles tend to only work in large swarm attacks. So unless money can be found to set such a capability up before hand it is a non starter. Said it before and I stand by it based on current information but our best bet is to increase the lifespan of our munitions thus artificially increasing the stockpile.

We need to work within in our regional, size and financial limitations if it doesn't work then we need to adapt. Simple as that.
 
vonnoobie said:
Spike missiles on ships would be more of a last ditch defence which might not be so bad but it is in no way an offensive weapon when we have to close range so much that you can start yelling insults at one another. We theoretically have almost the entire industrial and technical capacity and knowledge to build these missiles outside of engines and propellant but to do it in Australia and have it up and running efficiently early on would require us to be doing this before conflict which means more money. To start it up after the fact means a long wait before it makes any difference. Easy enough to want dumb downed missiles but dumb downed missiles tend to only work in large swarm attacks. So unless money can be found to set such a capability up before hand it is a non starter. Said it before and I stand by it based on current information but our best bet is to increase the lifespan of our munitions thus artificially increasing the stockpile.

We need to work within in our regional, size and financial limitations if it doesn't work then we need to adapt. Simple as that.
Click to expand...

i agree, it would need some vision to think outside happy boxes, to make these BEFORE conflict events.
its quite presumptuous to believe that Aust, at the bottom of the Pacific, would have a guaranteed priority of sufficient supply of high value expensive optimal spec rounds.

im thinking these conceptual 2nd tier VLS launched missiles are primarily defensive.
they are Flak rounds, a maritime Claymore.
but they have the advantages of the combat system to direct them with meaningful accuracy.
they’re cheap and accordingly relatively basic.


other more offensive variant options perhaps may evolve, but that’s another story. Start with the basic first.
 
John Newman said:
I would suggest that if a time came where the RAN ran out of all those million dollar missiles that would be the time to Get the Hell out of Dodge!
Click to expand...
For a missile exchange event, absolutely.
for a protracted D + 6mths, optimal rounds issued amongst all units in the fleet might start becoming a little rarer.

the RAN will still be expected to patrol and be competitive after 6mths of missile exchanges, wouldn’t it?
would other navies be expecting replacement rounds for their own usage in that time? Why would Australia get priority over them?

- should I/we just accept that after a given time HMAS X will possibly sail with a quarter-filled missile magazine?
 
Last edited:
New thread for interesting and obscure RAN discussions (not related to current capabilities), so as to avoid polluting the main RAN thread.
 
Last edited:
Thank you, mods.
With the pending introduction of Spike manufacturing, I feel there is scope for wider rocketry development.

the value Is in (at least initially) developing a home construction base for (as discussed previously) a cheap, directed air burst munition as a second tier ship defence weapon, fired from the VLS directed (not guided) by the combat system.

where I think there is scope, is it’s not intended to house anything expensive such as terminal guidance. It is literally a set-fly-explode system.
there is basically not much to become obsolete. the type might eventually evolve to better capable variants, but it won’t be obsolete.
there will always be a role for an extra layer of protection.
there is scope to produce large numbers of this type, making per unit costs even less.

it is not intended to compete with full spec missile systems, but be used in their absence as a something that the combat system can still use as a defensive response.

Australian industry would be capable of this?
the RAN would value this enhanced capability if they wargame contested longer duration campaigns?
 
That's interesting and i recon with innovation, we could do it, but wouldn't a guided 57mm round like ALaMO and MAD-FIRES do the same job and have more of them in the gun keeping the VLS space for the more complicated systems?
 
Just to be clear, i am not supporting the idea that we should replace the 5 inch with the 57mm but maybe have them work together the same way how the Italians do it with their general purpose FREMMs
 
magicbandit7 said:
That's interesting and i recon with innovation, we could do it, but wouldn't a guided 57mm round like ALaMO and MAD-FIRES do the same job and have more of them in the gun keeping the VLS space for the more complicated systems?
Click to expand...

i appreciate what u say.
whilst there may be some common envelope, the premise is it’s cheap, it’s a magazine filler when the optimum is no longer freely obtainium.
the missile in its conceptual form is somewhat ESSM-esqu in range, cos that’s what is unable to be re-loaded.

a guided 57mm round is still expensive, and it relies on the correct gun. I don’t think the major combatants field it.
large production numbers of a cheap missile = even cheaper cheap missile.

it’s not meant to be a precision weapon, but an area weapon instead, one directed by the combat system. A crude ESSM.
 
I think im getting in. So like a VLS launched ESSM-ranged flak round guided by the onboard CMS?

If so then it would definitely be an interesting force multiplier but given what stocks the navy has on ESSMs, it would probably take a 6 month prolonged near-peer war scenario for these types of missiles to be produced
 
Last edited:
magicbandit7 said:
so like a VLS launched ESSM-ranged flak round
Click to expand...
Exactly.
because in a protracted scenario the gucci optimum hi-tech terminally guided option might be unavailable.
the VLS would otherwise be empty.

It provides the combat system a crude 2nd tier directed option of a flak screen for an incoming, which an otherwise empty cell could not.
It’s cheap. Make em by the dozen.
 
Wombat000 said:
Exactly.
because in a protracted scenario the gucci optimum hi-tech terminally guided option might be unavailable.
the VLS would otherwise be empty.

It provides the combat system a crude 2nd tier directed option of a flak screen for an incoming, which an otherwise empty cell could not.
It’s cheap. Make em by the dozen.
Click to expand...

Umm... How, without getting into fantasyland? ESSM has a max range of ~50 km, which leaves a very large area of airspace that could potentially have a hostile aircraft in. Without guidance to a degree, a VLS-launched SAM replacement for ESSM or other air defence missiles will not 'know' where to go to detonate. Additionally, some sort of data link system would be needed in order for a blast-frag warhead fuze to know when/where to detonate as well.

As things stand now, most SAM warheads in use seem to be some sort of blast-fragmentation warhead, as opposed to HTK. In fact, fuzed warheads have been used in AAA since WWI. What has changed is the quality of the fuzes and warheads, as well as the engagement ranges expected volume of fire required to achieve hits.

It certainly would be possible to go to some of the older style fuzed warheads in use during WWI, Korea or Vietnam by artillery and guns, which do not require electronics. Production of unguided rockets with either impact or possibly simple time-delay fuzes, neither requiring electronics, would also be possible. Either way though, there would no longer be the current ability to have accuracy and precision at range.

Additionally, some systems would also no longer be viable launchers with VLS immediately coming to mind. With VLS, after the launched missile exits the VLS cell and goes upwards to clear the launching vessel, the missile then changes direction to head towards the target. Without some sort of guidance a VLS launched missile will not know what direction to head in to intercept a target, unlike missiles launched from a steerable launcher.
 
Wombat000 said:
Exactly.
because in a protracted scenario the gucci optimum hi-tech terminally guided option might be unavailable.
the VLS would otherwise be empty.

It provides the combat system a crude 2nd tier directed option of a flak screen for an incoming, which an otherwise empty cell could not.
It’s cheap. Make em by the dozen.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Todjaeger said:
Umm... How, without getting into fantasyland? ESSM has a max range of ~50 km, which leaves a very large area of airspace that could potentially have a hostile aircraft in. Without guidance to a degree, a VLS-launched SAM replacement for ESSM or other air defence missiles will not 'know' where to go to detonate. Additionally, some sort of data link system would be needed in order for a blast-frag warhead fuze to know when/where to detonate as well.

As things stand now, most SAM warheads in use seem to be some sort of blast-fragmentation warhead, as opposed to HTK. In fact, fuzed warheads have been used in AAA since WWI. What has changed is the quality of the fuzes and warheads, as well as the engagement ranges expected volume of fire required to achieve hits.

It certainly would be possible to go to some of the older style fuzed warheads in use during WWI, Korea or Vietnam by artillery and guns, which do not require electronics. Production of unguided rockets with either impact or possibly simple time-delay fuzes, neither requiring electronics, would also be possible. Either way though, there would no longer be the current ability to have accuracy and precision at range.

Additionally, some systems would also no longer be viable launchers with VLS immediately coming to mind. With VLS, after the launched missile exits the VLS cell and goes upwards to clear the launching vessel, the missile then changes direction to head towards the target. Without some sort of guidance a VLS launched missile will not know what direction to head in to intercept a target, unlike missiles launched from a steerable launcher.
Click to expand...
Yes, thanks for your comment.

I appreciate the hurdles.
I’m wondering if target info could be loaded into the missile electronically pre-launch
the combat system knows the trajectory of the identified inbound, it can plot an intercept to suit the fuse type (pre or at the anticipated impact point).
with modern everyday electronics, I’m wondering if it’s no different to what’s done now with other missile systems or similar to data transfer to a phone (To use that analogy).
I wonder if simple data transfer to a prelaunch missile would be a challenge to a missile tech Boffin?

it Would be required to make one single course adjustment from a vertical launch.
again, is that asking too much for a competent missile tech?

the fuse may be timed from pre-launch info or proximity.
modern electronics should be able to work this out, surely. Would it be more difficult that a mobile phone to a tech Baffin?

remembering, this is tier 2. It’s cheap. So it simply flies its course. It’s not hi-spec.
It’s the potato salad at a bbq, pretzels at a bar.
it’s when you need something but the you’ve already drunk the beer and sausages. Otherwise the cell is empty!
would it really be that hard to do??
 
shadow99 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I reckon every meaningful defence discussion is clouded in sensitivity. There’s an element of fantasy in everything cos true knowledge is OPSEC.
I see the window for (Current) Australian Missile industry at its first step. ironically it’s licence building a more complex guided anti tank round.
However, to build an indigenous industry we would need to start basic. - and there is a convincing role for a basic missile.

get a ‘lighter’ weight directed flak burst round first.
perfect it’s simple motor, it’s basic data transfer, see it fly and perform. make sure it’s cheap, and build lots so it’s even cheaper.
THEN, I reckon there’s scope for developing a heavier weight long range basic and cheap fire and forget anti-ship missile.
but until then, it’s hard enough to convince and convey just a cheap Flak round v an alternate empty cell.
 
Wombat000 said:
Yes, thanks for your comment.

I appreciate the hurdles.
I’m wondering if target info could be loaded into the missile electronically pre-launch
the combat system knows the trajectory of the identified inbound, it can plot an intercept to suit the fuse type (pre or at the anticipated impact point).
with modern everyday electronics, I’m wondering if it’s no different to what’s done now with other missile systems or similar to data transfer to a phone (To use that analogy).
I wonder if simple data transfer to a prelaunch missile would be a challenge to a missile tech Boffin?

it Would be required to make one single course adjustment from a vertical launch.
again, is that asking too much for a competent missile tech?

the fuse may be timed from pre-launch info or proximity.
modern electronics should be able to work this out, surely. Would it be more difficult that a mobile phone to a tech Baffin?

remembering, this is tier 2. It’s cheap. So it simply flies its course. It’s not hi-spec.
It’s the potato salad at a bbq, pretzels at a bar.
it’s when you need something but the you’ve already drunk the beer and sausages. Otherwise the cell is empty!
would it really be that hard to do??
Click to expand...

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top