John Newman
The Bunker Group
No, you asked a question in two parts.
“Anyone have a preference” or “insider knowledge”.
The answer given by DDG38 was in regard to insider knowledge, and was clear and accurate.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
“Anyone have a preference” or “insider knowledge”.
The answer given by DDG38 was in regard to insider knowledge, and was clear and accurate.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Ok, the second part of your question has been addressed, back to the first part.
Let’s not forget that we are a decade away from Attack entering service, no rush to make a decision today.
Both LRASM and JSM are either just entering service or about to enter service, both as air launched weapons, so again no rush, it’s still early days.
As at today the ADF has ordered LRASM, for use by F/A-18F and P-8A, it appears likely that JSM will find its way to being used for internal carriage on F-35A, but as at today, no order has been made, and equally no decision has been made as to the future AShM for the Hunter class either.
This also gives us time to sit back at watch what the Americans (LRASM) and Norwegians (JSM), might do in regard to future submarine launched AShM for their own submarines.
The answer at the moment is still very much unknown, could possibly be one of the above, or initially Harpoon II.
When a Defence Professional replies to you explaining why such information is not in the public domain there is no need to come the raw prawn. We take OPSEC very seriously here.
Gryphinator
Active Member
Sorry English not my 1st language. Boss man ask me to post question.
Weather here on Hainan Island good. Hope good in Sydney too.
Regards,
Xi
Mod edit: Temp ban instituted to give member a chance to rethink their style and tone of engagement. We don't tend to respond well to members sarcastically ignoring guidance we issue.
-Preceptor
Last edited by a moderator:
Mk48 and harpoon are already in the inventory and already integrated with the proposed combat system.
While Harpoon may be in decline in surface ships, its short comings are less of an issue for a sub. While additional range and stealthiness is always desirable, subs are more likely to use harpoons against land targets. Subs already have a very stealthy munition for surface targets which is hard to intercept, the torpedo. Given the 10 years before IOC of the attack class, its not a huge priority right now. Likely candidates are the aforementioned NSM, LRASM, harpoon II, and perhaps storm shadow/scalp. The US will be making some decisions/development in this area, so there is no reason to rush to a decision before they have.
I doubt we will be building any Collins II hulls. However it looks like we will be refitting 5-6 of the Collins hulls to keep them operational and relevant. There really isn't any issues with Collins hulls, they just need major refit to update systems and components. New Engines, new batteries, new sensors,
While Harpoon may be in decline in surface ships, its short comings are less of an issue for a sub. While additional range and stealthiness is always desirable, subs are more likely to use harpoons against land targets. Subs already have a very stealthy munition for surface targets which is hard to intercept, the torpedo. Given the 10 years before IOC of the attack class, its not a huge priority right now. Likely candidates are the aforementioned NSM, LRASM, harpoon II, and perhaps storm shadow/scalp. The US will be making some decisions/development in this area, so there is no reason to rush to a decision before they have.
I doubt we will be building any Collins II hulls. However it looks like we will be refitting 5-6 of the Collins hulls to keep them operational and relevant. There really isn't any issues with Collins hulls, they just need major refit to update systems and components. New Engines, new batteries, new sensors,
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Relating to the potential weapons fitout for the Attack-class is the question/thought, "why would Australia do something other than go along or partner with the US for sub weapons?" The combat data system has already been selected and is an American system, and Mark 48 ADCAP hwt's and Harpoon are already in RAN inventory. The USN might decide to test and field a new sub-launched missile in the future and I would think it would be wiser for the RAN, with plans to only have up to a dozen subs in the fleet and IIRC never more than eight in service at any given time, to either wait until a larger sub operator adopts a new type, or joins in on the programme. IMO it is far more likely that the USN would develop types that the RAN does not adopt, than the RAN develop/select it's own Harpoon replacement independent of the USN.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
Do we? Really? How?
It’s now the start of 2021, the first Attack boat is due to start construction in 2024.
The new build hall for Attack is only starting construction, the old existing build hall used for Collins is now used for FCD of the Collins boats.
There is no workforce on standby for the Attack boats, that has to start being built, takes time. The workforce that is there is employed on FCD of the Collins boats.
So how do we have time?
Agree, the one new weapon that has been alluded to is sub launched Tomahawk (BMG-109). Nothing concrete on this front yet but certainly something some would like to see integrated into the Attack class.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I myself am somewhat ambivalent about the RAN adopting that specific sub-launched missile. I do feel that the RAN should adopt some type of sub-launched LACM for significant standoff strike. Whether that ends up being a derivative of LRASM, or something else to me is not so important.
While the Tomahawk has certainly been a capable and successful cruise missile, it is also getting rather long in the tooth in some regards. If the RAN has the opportunity, I would rather that a missile which would be harder to detect and engage prior to it striking be adopted. The nearly 40 year active service life of the Tomahawk design has in more recent conflicts seen inbound strikes get successfully intercepted. AFAIK the strikes still were successful due at least in part to the size/volume of the LACM strike packages. While the US military has both the warstocks and platforms to launch dozens of LACM at a time, I doubt that Australia would be able to justify such a capability short of a major conflict.
Boagrius
Well-Known Member
Agree, this seems particularly relevant in the absence of a VLS on the Attack class - making it necessary to launch the weapons from more restrictive (in terms of salvo size) torpedo tubes. Perhaps a sub launched LRASM will materialise, followed by NGLAW down the track.
Navy Investing in Researching Next-Generation Missiles, Enhancing Current Ones - USNI News
CAPITOL HILL – The Navy has a new Offensive Missile Strategy that replaces an older and narrower plan and tackles offensive lethality in a three-pronged fashion: sustaining current systems, enhancing current systems and developing next-generation weapons to address future threats. This Offensive...
news.usni.org
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Likely not just salvo size, but total strike size as well. IIRC the Collins-class SSG could carry a total of up to 21 either Mk 48 HWT, sub-launched Harpoon missiles, or a combination thereof. Absent the inclusion of a VLS, I would anticipate that the Attack-class will have a similar sized limitation in terms of ordnance carried. I would also expect that even for a planned strike mission of national/strategic importance, at least one or two HWT's would be 'saved' for a RAN sub to utilize in the event of engagement by hostile subs or surface warships.Agree, this seems particularly relevant in the absence of a VLS on the Attack class - making it necessary to launch the weapons from more restrictive (in terms of salvo size) torpedo tubes. Perhaps a sub launched LRASM will materialise, followed by NGLAW down the track.
Navy Investing in Researching Next-Generation Missiles, Enhancing Current Ones - USNI News
CAPITOL HILL – The Navy has a new Offensive Missile Strategy that replaces an older and narrower plan and tackles offensive lethality in a three-pronged fashion: sustaining current systems, enhancing current systems and developing next-generation weapons to address future threats. This Offensive...
From such a perspective, I would put a premium on the importance of any such used strike missile actually being able to successfully penetrate hostile/contested airspace to hit the target.
RAN is highly likely to follow the USN. More of a question of when. Harpoon would meets most of the RAN's need in regard to missile strike.
IMO Tomahawk is less important for Australia, its long reach allows it to attack deep land locked targets, from extreme range. However, it is quite an old cruise missile, and not particularly stealthy, smart or dynamic. It would be able to be intercepted by quite old weapons systems and platforms, quite reliably. It can certainly be useful against countries lower on the technology tree, or enmass, or first strike, but really none of these are likely for Australia. Australia operates in a region of archipelagos.
Moving missiles to a dedicate VLS on a submarine is highly advantageous. Carrying mix loads of missiles and torpedo's could require a lot of shuffling in a very tight space very quickly. If your carrying a full warload on a sub, its going to be very, very tight in the torpedo room. Most of the time they are carrying a peace load of ~6, and it feels cramped with 6. I hope that later versions of the attack will have VLS capability.
AFAIK Barracuda has only 4 tubes. So firing off a volley is going to be quite slow.
I get your point .. and agree the Tomahawk is older technology (mind you most of our current missiles are evolutions of older designs ... SM2 being a case in point) and yes only four tubes but ... these are supported by power traverse and load. The Oberons only had traverse and load capability on the bottom set of tubes (6 reloads). The loading situation on the other tubes was ... really basic.
The Virginia cassette system with its flexibility would be a great option (and in and ideal world I would be cheering them on) but these mods change the base design. Given we are looking at a block build process and maybe block 2 or 3 builds can pick up such a capability if desired. In the short term, if the Attack may have to rely on tubes. In this case power traverse and load will give you a pretty good salvo size at good speed (the RN use this option) of any cruise missile you may choose. We do not use block and tackle anymore. Yes it will effect the load out. So.... this begs the question ... in the modern combat environment with smart HWT is 20 torpedoes sufficient.
That is the question to be considered in my view.
cdxbow
Well-Known Member
A 'Loyal Wingman' with a bomb in the nose would make a better land based cruise missile than a Tomahawk. Range is planned to be about 2000 nm, which is pretty decent. Your willingness for it to be 'attritable' will depend on cost mainly, but also the size of the fleet and your ability to replace. It may have the benefit of not upsetting the neighbours.
@cbxbow
On what basis do you make the claim that the Loyal Wingman' with a bomb in the nose would make a better land based cruise missile than a Tomahawk . It is quite an emphatic statement with no fact to support it given the Loyal Wingman is land base prototype and not current envisaged for this role (or being shot out from a submarine for that matter).
Noting the capability of such a system relies upon warhead, agility in an AAW environment, EW capability and low observability ..... and this is a prototype ... how is this a better option? It may be in the future (noting being a cruise missile is not part of the development curve) but spit-balling capability does not mean it is real...
On what basis do you make the claim that the Loyal Wingman' with a bomb in the nose would make a better land based cruise missile than a Tomahawk . It is quite an emphatic statement with no fact to support it given the Loyal Wingman is land base prototype and not current envisaged for this role (or being shot out from a submarine for that matter).
Noting the capability of such a system relies upon warhead, agility in an AAW environment, EW capability and low observability ..... and this is a prototype ... how is this a better option? It may be in the future (noting being a cruise missile is not part of the development curve) but spit-balling capability does not mean it is real...
Last edited:
cdxbow
Well-Known Member
Assuming it will be as 'advertised', it will be stealthier, smarter and sensor rich platform compared to a Tomahawk. It will be loaded with sensors as it has to operate autonomously, and it will have very significant smarts, again to operate autonomously. Some of these are features of the more modern cruise missiles, with the 'loyal wingman' having even more. It's becomes a capability as a by product of the project. That's why it's so brilliant. Fingers crossed they pull it off. To be honest I'm not sure of the stealth aspect, however the vendors keep mentioning it's stealthy, but I am pretty sure of the rest.
t68
Well-Known Member
Not sure what to make of this
Haven’t came across anything in the main stream side of things yet
Edit
I haven’t got a sub can’t read the whole article
www.afr.com
Haven’t came across anything in the main stream side of things yet
Edit
I haven’t got a sub can’t read the whole article
Shot across the bows on submarine contract
The Defence Department might revisit an upgraded Collins class design for the future submarine amid tensions with the French.
That's a big assumption to make considering ADF acquisition history over the last 30 years.
cdxbow
Well-Known Member
Sure. ADF has been better in recent years and thus far the project has proceeded well. There is no argument if that assumption is not fulfilled.
I'd like to know who the brains/drivers of it are because I think it's a perfect project at this moment of time when machine learning systems powering autonomous vehicles' are being introduced to the military. Even one aspect, cheap real time visual recognition is revolutionary. Great project.
- Status