Jeez it was a daring move accommodating you lot underneath the Waafry. The Queen Bee would've been having sleepless nights patrolling the corridors of the Waafry hunting down errant Kiwis with grubby intentions
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
Na, Got too pissed to care, we had the 12-13 hour direct flight back to Ohakea at 0800 in the morning so got smashed in preparation and slept most of the way.Jeez it was a daring move accommodating you lot underneath the Waafry. The Queen Bee would've been having sleepless nights patrolling the corridors of the Waafry hunting down errant Kiwis with grubby intentions
Boagrius
Well-Known Member
Interesting read that echoes some of my own concerns regarding Tomahawk on RAN vessels
www.aspistrategist.org.au
Just can't see us having enough VLS cells in the fleet to make this worthwhile. Even when the Hunters come online, 32 cells per vessel won't go far in the prevailing threat environment. By then you'd probably want NGLAW anyway, since it ought to be better at penetrating an IADS.
That said, a land based Tomahawk Blk V ala the mooted USMC GLCM revival makes more sense to me. If the TEL is Mk41 VLS based you could then upgrade to NGLAW later on. Also ticks off our LBASM requirement at the same time.
Then again I might be way off and this could all be about some sort of hypersonic sorcery being cooked up behind closed doors. Time shall tell.
Does the Royal Australian Navy need Tomahawk missiles? | The Strategist
In my most recent article, I noted that the Department of Defence appears to be in the early stages of identifying a ship-launched land-attack missile for acquisition. The government assessed in its 2020 defence strategic ...
www.aspistrategist.org.au
Just can't see us having enough VLS cells in the fleet to make this worthwhile. Even when the Hunters come online, 32 cells per vessel won't go far in the prevailing threat environment. By then you'd probably want NGLAW anyway, since it ought to be better at penetrating an IADS.
That said, a land based Tomahawk Blk V ala the mooted USMC GLCM revival makes more sense to me. If the TEL is Mk41 VLS based you could then upgrade to NGLAW later on. Also ticks off our LBASM requirement at the same time.
Then again I might be way off and this could all be about some sort of hypersonic sorcery being cooked up behind closed doors. Time shall tell.
Gryphinator
Active Member
A compelling argument for not investing in ships with small numbers of VLS tubes. His final paragraph about B-21's was from left field. I then read the article from the same author in 2019 (available on the above link) and his reasons for investing in B-21's. Again, well reasoned in many areas but the cost would probably kill a lot of other projects. Would the US even sell them to us?Interesting read that echoes some of my own concerns regarding Tomahawk on RAN vessels
Does the Royal Australian Navy need Tomahawk missiles? | The Strategist
In my most recent article, I noted that the Department of Defence appears to be in the early stages of identifying a ship-launched land-attack missile for acquisition. The government assessed in its 2020 defence strategic ...
Just can't see us having enough VLS cells in the fleet to make this worthwhile. Even when the Hunters come online, 32 cells per vessel won't go far in the prevailing threat environment. By then you'd probably want NGLAW anyway, since it ought to be better at penetrating an IADS.
That said, a land based Tomahawk Blk V ala the mooted USMC GLCM revival makes more sense to me. If the TEL is Mk41 VLS based you could then upgrade to NGLAW later on. Also ticks off our LBASM requirement at the same time.
Then again I might be way off and this could all be about some sort of hypersonic sorcery being cooked up behind closed doors. Time shall tell.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Might be wrong but I believe the last semi-strategic bomber the US sold was the FB-111 to Australia. B-21 foreign sales, never, unless WW3 starts and at that point it will be too late.
Takao
The Bunker Group
The author specifically, and ASPI generally, have a hard-on for the B-21. Despite being shown a number of inescapable reasons why it's dumb, before we hit the will they sell it angle, they try and get it in everything.
The complexity behind VLS tubes and their numbers is quite interesting and much more than I expected. Ultimately though, there are two parts to the problem - the tubes and the missiles. You could put 128 tubes on the Hunters (you probably can't...), but can you afford 300+ missiles that the SAG would need?
The answer is buried in the document. You mitigate throw weight of the Hunter's and Hobarts's by adding RAAF and ARA assets to the task force. And working with allies. You also have to accept that there is a limit to their fighting capability; and there is an increased need to return to base. Which actually mimics what was done in the Atlantic and Pacific until early/mid-1945. Perhaps the SAG's mission will only be for 4 days before they RTB.
But that may require more ships, and I've already used two soap boxes today.....
I knew where the article would go when I read the author's name. He's the latest iteration of Kopp and Goon with their fantasist ideas of updated 21st century F-111s divorced from most reality.
oldsig
Edit: oops. @Takao beat me to it and in much more detail
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Any thoughts on what their thinking is, behind the thirst for the B-21? I myself cannot understand where it is coming from, given that the US has demonstrated no interest in exporting such a design, never mind what the costs involved would be.The author specifically, and ASPI generally, have a hard-on for the B-21. Despite being shown a number of inescapable reasons why it's dumb, before we hit the will they sell it angle, they try and get it in everything.
The complexity behind VLS tubes and their numbers is quite interesting and much more than I expected. Ultimately though, there are two parts to the problem - the tubes and the missiles. You could put 128 tubes on the Hunters (you probably can't...), but can you afford 300+ missiles that the SAG would need?
The answer is buried in the document. You mitigate throw weight of the Hunter's and Hobarts's by adding RAAF and ARA assets to the task force. And working with allies. You also have to accept that there is a limit to their fighting capability; and there is an increased need to return to base. Which actually mimics what was done in the Atlantic and Pacific until early/mid-1945. Perhaps the SAG's mission will only be for 4 days before they RTB.
But that may require more ships, and I've already used two soap boxes today.....
When the F-22 might have been a possibility, I could sort of see why there was an interest. OTOH the B-21 has so little info available apart from being intended to first complement, then replace the existing USAF strategic bomber fleets, that it really does not seem fit into any reasonable/rational RAAF force construct.
I agree the cell numbers are an issue. I had a passing involvement in the risk assessment on the Hunter and was advised that the initial batch of 3 would be as close to the T26 as possible to de-risk the process. There was not much appetite for change until batch 2. That may have moved but I would be guessing.Interesting read that echoes some of my own concerns regarding Tomahawk on RAN vessels
Does the Royal Australian Navy need Tomahawk missiles? | The Strategist
In my most recent article, I noted that the Department of Defence appears to be in the early stages of identifying a ship-launched land-attack missile for acquisition. The government assessed in its 2020 defence strategic ...
Just can't see us having enough VLS cells in the fleet to make this worthwhile. Even when the Hunters come online, 32 cells per vessel won't go far in the prevailing threat environment. By then you'd probably want NGLAW anyway, since it ought to be better at penetrating an IADS.
That said, a land based Tomahawk Blk V ala the mooted USMC GLCM revival makes more sense to me. If the TEL is Mk41 VLS based you could then upgrade to NGLAW later on. Also ticks off our LBASM requirement at the same time.
Then again I might be way off and this could all be about some sort of hypersonic sorcery being cooked up behind closed doors. Time shall tell.
What this does mean (if it is still correct) that the number of cells may change between batches amongst other changes. This was always the intent of the batch build process and one of its strengths.
The one thing I would note is ASPI are very focused on the 'big war' not the contained action of something like the Falklands. That could be a very real possibility given the current uncertainty and the desire not to escalate (for very good reason) and the ability to hit key strategic and tactical targets from a distance (in support of or instead of air strikes) may have a place. As noted by Takao above, carrying such ordinance would contribute to a combined task force with other Naval forces as well.
The other attraction of the Tomahawk is the long range anti ship capability being worked. Very useful for land based batteries and ships.
But the concern about load out and limited cells is justified. If the appetite for risk has increased in this project maybe the cell numbers may grow earlier ..... but this is a subjective guess at best.
Oh the raafie bomber faction is full swing on this. Reading tea leaves and making noises about it.
www.defenceconnect.com.au
www.forbes.com
A lot of people feel like the F-111 left a hole in Australia's defences. The B21 program wets the appetites, its currently US only, its the latest tech, no one else even really has modern bomber aircraft anymore, its long ranged
However I think there are some valid concerns that Australia doesn't exactly have a significant VLS capacity in its surface fleet. Splitting it between ESSM, SM-2, Sm-6 and TLAM would seem to be a bit thin, with currently only the DDG with any ability to carry Tlam (and the subs launching those through torpedo tubes which is more likely than DDG's).
TLAM allows you to launch a small precision strike instantly, particularly against less defended, high value and remote targets. Perhaps against a regional power, that might be significant. Being able to knock out coms or a power station or a port or refinery is action, with no risk to your own people. But against a major power this is just going to be a minor annoyance. Harpoon has been able to do this from planes and subs for many years, its just now we want to hit things much further away than our regional rival. But with no carrier and no bomber, following through on that inital strike capability is impossible.
But TLAM isn't that expensive and has already been integrated onto most systems anyway. Its an acquisition cost, but minimal on going costs.
A bomber does give you the ability to first hit targets with long range cruise munitions, but then continue to carpet bomb them with shorter range glide bombs and then eventually just masses of dumb iron. In Australia's application, we would probably find more value in arming it with LRASM and going ship hunting. Like we did with the F-111 when we armed it with harpoons
The issue I have is a stealthy manned bomber able to operate unescorted against a peer power like China? Through past 2030 and beyond.
US seemingly confirms potential for Aussie B-21 participation
A little over a month ago, Defence Connect revealed what at the time seemed like a slip of the tongue by the head of the US Air Force's Global Strike Command, General Timothy Ray regarding the pot
Should Washington Sell The B-21 Bomber To Australia?
It's an unusual idea, but it makes strategic sense if Washington is serious about finding overseas partners to help in containing China.
www.forbes.com
A lot of people feel like the F-111 left a hole in Australia's defences. The B21 program wets the appetites, its currently US only, its the latest tech, no one else even really has modern bomber aircraft anymore, its long ranged
However I think there are some valid concerns that Australia doesn't exactly have a significant VLS capacity in its surface fleet. Splitting it between ESSM, SM-2, Sm-6 and TLAM would seem to be a bit thin, with currently only the DDG with any ability to carry Tlam (and the subs launching those through torpedo tubes which is more likely than DDG's).
TLAM allows you to launch a small precision strike instantly, particularly against less defended, high value and remote targets. Perhaps against a regional power, that might be significant. Being able to knock out coms or a power station or a port or refinery is action, with no risk to your own people. But against a major power this is just going to be a minor annoyance. Harpoon has been able to do this from planes and subs for many years, its just now we want to hit things much further away than our regional rival. But with no carrier and no bomber, following through on that inital strike capability is impossible.
But TLAM isn't that expensive and has already been integrated onto most systems anyway. Its an acquisition cost, but minimal on going costs.
A bomber does give you the ability to first hit targets with long range cruise munitions, but then continue to carpet bomb them with shorter range glide bombs and then eventually just masses of dumb iron. In Australia's application, we would probably find more value in arming it with LRASM and going ship hunting. Like we did with the F-111 when we armed it with harpoons
The issue I have is a stealthy manned bomber able to operate unescorted against a peer power like China? Through past 2030 and beyond.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
One would have to think the B-21 will be able to penetrate most of China’s IADS well into the 2030s or why pi$$ away billions in this program? The merits of having a stealthy strategic bomber carrying long range air launched strike missiles (perhaps themselves stealthy and hypersonic) is understandable. In Australia’s case, having the USAF basing some Raiders in Australia’s interior makes more economic sense and is perhaps possible. A direct sale, no way, just like the Raptor.
Boagrius
Well-Known Member
The other issue to my mind is that Tomahawk is approaching obsolescence, and this would only become more evident by the time we could get it onto the Hobarts. Its lack of sig reduction features mean that larger salvos of TLAM would be needed to overcome the IADS protecting a given target, compounding the VLS cell problem.Oh the raafie bomber faction is full swing on this. Reading tea leaves and making noises about it.
US seemingly confirms potential for Aussie B-21 participation
A little over a month ago, Defence Connect revealed what at the time seemed like a slip of the tongue by the head of the US Air Force's Global Strike Command, General Timothy Ray regarding the potShould Washington Sell The B-21 Bomber To Australia?
It's an unusual idea, but it makes strategic sense if Washington is serious about finding overseas partners to help in containing China.
A lot of people feel like the F-111 left a hole in Australia's defences. The B21 program wets the appetites, its currently US only, its the latest tech, no one else even really has modern bomber aircraft anymore, its long ranged
However I think there are some valid concerns that Australia doesn't exactly have a significant VLS capacity in its surface fleet. Splitting it between ESSM, SM-2, Sm-6 and TLAM would seem to be a bit thin, with currently only the DDG with any ability to carry Tlam (and the subs launching those through torpedo tubes which is more likely than DDG's).
TLAM allows you to launch a small precision strike instantly, particularly against less defended, high value and remote targets. Perhaps against a regional power, that might be significant. Being able to knock out coms or a power station or a port or refinery is action, with no risk to your own people. But against a major power this is just going to be a minor annoyance. Harpoon has been able to do this from planes and subs for many years, its just now we want to hit things much further away than our regional rival. But with no carrier and no bomber, following through on that inital strike capability is impossible.
But TLAM isn't that expensive and has already been integrated onto most systems anyway. Its an acquisition cost, but minimal on going costs.
A bomber does give you the ability to first hit targets with long range cruise munitions, but then continue to carpet bomb them with shorter range glide bombs and then eventually just masses of dumb iron. In Australia's application, we would probably find more value in arming it with LRASM and going ship hunting. Like we did with the F-111 when we armed it with harpoons
The issue I have is a stealthy manned bomber able to operate unescorted against a peer power like China? Through past 2030 and beyond.
Granted, TLAM might still have some utility against regional players with limited GBAD capabilities, but I have to question the wisdom of fielding a new strike capability that could only be meaningfully employed against them. IMO we ought to be in the business of building alliances and relationships with our nearer neighbours, not the opposite.
Last edited:
Boagrius
Well-Known Member
Yeah I think RAAF B21s are a pipe dream at this point. That said I think there is still plenty of scope to integrate true long range strike across the joint force later this decade and early next. For example:
- JSM, JASSM, JASSM-ER and even XR on the F35 once integrated.
- LRASM on Rhino, Poseidon and F35.
- Additional KC30A(?)
- Whatever future hypersonic missiles are in the pipeline.
- Tomahawk for the Army, especially if launched from a Mk41 VLS derived TEL (upgrade path to NGLAW, could also include SM6). USMC seems to be heading this way.
- PrSM for future MLRS units.
- Topside canister launched LRASM on Hunter and possibly Hobart in lieu of Harpoon.
- VLS on future Attack class SSG batches (I can hear Robert Gottliebsen's cries from here)
- Additional Mk41 cells on Hunter, allowing them to carry a useful amount of LACMs.
So it strikes me that there are some good options out there. Just depends which ones fit our needs (and budget!).
Last edited:
I know that this is the RAN thread, but with long range strike a F-111 replacement could be the F-15EX. It is able to carry about 30,000 lb of stores and they've basically doubled the number of missile rails with quad launch rails off each wing hard point. It has a 1200 nm combat radius. It can definitely carry 4 LRASM / JASSM-ER and I think that it would be possible to mount a 5th. If the F-15EX was teamed with the F-35, that would make for a lethal combination. The F-35 to open the door and the F-15EX to do the damage.
Any further discussion of airborne strike platforms are to take place on the RAAF thread.
Any further discussion of airborne strike platforms are to take place on the RAAF thread.
TLAM IMO Isn't likely to be a game changer wonder weapon against a prepared peer adversary. But it would be useful.
But it is long ranged, can do the job of knocking out high value undefended or unaware targets. Its a missile, has minimal ongoing costs, no real manning requirements, and is already integrated in the combat systems on the DDG and subs. IMO it is more likely to be deployed from subs than from anything else. It may be useful to acquire this general capability now however. In the current environment near by nations, are unlikely to feel threatened or oppose the sale.
Block Va gives it back its antishipping powers. In that regard, if your opposition wants to stay out of weapons range TLAM makes that a large radius. Opposing force can sit uncomfortably in range but know they are unable to return fire, move out of range, or move closer to range of their weapons. Key there would be the fact that it would generally prompt a move. Even if you are carrying only 1 or 2, or even if they think its possibly you are carrying them.
Of course then if Australia has 1,500+km ranged weapons then acquiring more or different is also possible. Having the weapon in the stock pile means you have stronger arguments for things like more VLS on surface ships and VLS on submarines. On a diesel submarine Tlam is game changer. You can stay well out of range and launch at targets. A sub launch is unlikely to give much warning. TLAM has enough range that it can be programed to fly a very long and complex path.
In an Australian context, your sub could be sitting in the Tasman sea near Melbourne, and hit targets in Bundaberg, easily. The total radius you can threaten is even larger, while sitting off the coast of Adelaide, a sub would be able to strike targets in Perth and Sydney simultaneously.
Having a 2nd batch (and onwards) of attack subs with say 24 VLS with TLAM would be highly advantageous. If you have three of these lurking around the SCS, it changes the game.
While fighters and bombers have their place, they can't sit forever on station and can only operate so far from their base. A sub is different. They will give you that massive instant first strike. Free of that mission they are now ready for hunting, while aircraft can now take advantage of the chaos.
This idea that a vessel launches its strike load and then needs to vacate the area is wrong. That is how planes work. A sub can launch its full load of TLAM on day 10 of its deployment and its just as useful and deadly for the next 60-70 days. Its in addition to, not replacing.
At what, $1.5m a piece? Handy to have 100 in a war stock
But it is long ranged, can do the job of knocking out high value undefended or unaware targets. Its a missile, has minimal ongoing costs, no real manning requirements, and is already integrated in the combat systems on the DDG and subs. IMO it is more likely to be deployed from subs than from anything else. It may be useful to acquire this general capability now however. In the current environment near by nations, are unlikely to feel threatened or oppose the sale.
Block Va gives it back its antishipping powers. In that regard, if your opposition wants to stay out of weapons range TLAM makes that a large radius. Opposing force can sit uncomfortably in range but know they are unable to return fire, move out of range, or move closer to range of their weapons. Key there would be the fact that it would generally prompt a move. Even if you are carrying only 1 or 2, or even if they think its possibly you are carrying them.
Of course then if Australia has 1,500+km ranged weapons then acquiring more or different is also possible. Having the weapon in the stock pile means you have stronger arguments for things like more VLS on surface ships and VLS on submarines. On a diesel submarine Tlam is game changer. You can stay well out of range and launch at targets. A sub launch is unlikely to give much warning. TLAM has enough range that it can be programed to fly a very long and complex path.
In an Australian context, your sub could be sitting in the Tasman sea near Melbourne, and hit targets in Bundaberg, easily. The total radius you can threaten is even larger, while sitting off the coast of Adelaide, a sub would be able to strike targets in Perth and Sydney simultaneously.
Having a 2nd batch (and onwards) of attack subs with say 24 VLS with TLAM would be highly advantageous. If you have three of these lurking around the SCS, it changes the game.
While fighters and bombers have their place, they can't sit forever on station and can only operate so far from their base. A sub is different. They will give you that massive instant first strike. Free of that mission they are now ready for hunting, while aircraft can now take advantage of the chaos.
This idea that a vessel launches its strike load and then needs to vacate the area is wrong. That is how planes work. A sub can launch its full load of TLAM on day 10 of its deployment and its just as useful and deadly for the next 60-70 days. Its in addition to, not replacing.
At what, $1.5m a piece? Handy to have 100 in a war stock
John Newman
The Bunker Group
After reading Hellyer’s recent ASPI articles and some comments here, you’d think the RAN could hardly launch a handful of skyrockets over Sydney Harbour on cracker night!
So I did some maths, looked at where the RAN had been and where it’s heading to in its ability to launch guided missiles.
The 4 x Adelaide FFG and 8 x Anzac FFH could potentially launch 608 missiles (SM-2, ESSM and Harpoon)
The 3 x Hobart DDG and 9 x Hunter FFG can potentially launch 816 missiles (SM-2/6, ESSM and Harpoon or similar), that’s 208 more missiles than the two previous ship classes.
So how did I come up with those numbers?
* Adelaide FFG - 40 missile magazine for the Mk13 launcher (mixed SM-2 and Harpoon, say 8) and 8 x quad packed ESSM
* Anzac FFH - 8 x quad packed ESSM, 8 canister launched Harpoon
* Hobart DDG - 48 Mk41 VLS (40 SM-2/6, 8 quad packed ESSM), 8 canister launched Harpoon
* Hunter FFG - 32 Mk41 VLS (24 SM-2/6, 8 quad packed ESSM), 8 canister/box launched Harpoon or similar)
And of course all those VLS load outs can be mixed and matched to the requirements, add LRASM and Tomahawk as and when necessary.
If anything, I see more of an issue having enough missiles to fill the cells available.
Cheers,
Ps, and of course you can add the current and future submarines to the mix too.
So I did some maths, looked at where the RAN had been and where it’s heading to in its ability to launch guided missiles.
The 4 x Adelaide FFG and 8 x Anzac FFH could potentially launch 608 missiles (SM-2, ESSM and Harpoon)
The 3 x Hobart DDG and 9 x Hunter FFG can potentially launch 816 missiles (SM-2/6, ESSM and Harpoon or similar), that’s 208 more missiles than the two previous ship classes.
So how did I come up with those numbers?
* Adelaide FFG - 40 missile magazine for the Mk13 launcher (mixed SM-2 and Harpoon, say 8) and 8 x quad packed ESSM
* Anzac FFH - 8 x quad packed ESSM, 8 canister launched Harpoon
* Hobart DDG - 48 Mk41 VLS (40 SM-2/6, 8 quad packed ESSM), 8 canister launched Harpoon
* Hunter FFG - 32 Mk41 VLS (24 SM-2/6, 8 quad packed ESSM), 8 canister/box launched Harpoon or similar)
And of course all those VLS load outs can be mixed and matched to the requirements, add LRASM and Tomahawk as and when necessary.
If anything, I see more of an issue having enough missiles to fill the cells available.
Cheers,
Ps, and of course you can add the current and future submarines to the mix too.
Boagrius
Well-Known Member
Hmm, I see where you are going with this but I'm not sure I agree entirely (permit me to play Devil's Advocate
) .With the rule of thirds in mind, the RAN ought to be able to deploy 1-2 Hobarts with ~3 ANZACs at any one time(?), so I'm not sure if there is a need to fill all of the RAN's VLS cells simultaneously. Moreover, the VLS cells on the ANZACs are taken up by ESSM, so all of your TLAMs and larger SAMs (SM2/6) will have to come from the Hobart(s) alone, giving either 48 or 96 cells to play with. Certainly nothing to sneeze at (especially if integrated in a multinational task force), but with only 3 vessels capable of high end area defence in the fleet, we have next to no room for attrition, at least until several Hunters are in service (circa ~2035?).
Meanwhile the emerging AAW threat environment is pretty fearsome. Stopping supersonic AShMs like the YJ12 and YJ18 (among other things) is squarely in the Hobart's job description, and to achieve this I suspect you'd really need a healthy supply of SM2 (IIIC) and 6 on hand to hit them as early as possible (via over the horizon CEC) and use a shoot-look-shoot approach rather than wait until ESSM could be employed. I say this because at shorter range the margin for error rapidly disappears and available target illuminators could bottleneck SAM output (albeit less so with the ARH ESSM Blk II). This would make full up SM2 and SM6 rounds important (especially for area defence), rather than relying too heavily on large ESSM quantities.
I am certainly no expert on RAN firing doctrine, but if more than one SAM per target is needed (ref USS Mason vs Houthi C-802... a subsonic Exocet clone) the demands on available magazine depth could become severe in a peer fight, reducing on station persistence. The aforementioned need for larger, faster SAMs (SM6, eventually RGPWS/HGI) only compounds this problem, and is itself accentuated by the threat of enemy ASBMs & future hypersonic AShMs.
The question to me is how many SAMs (and in what combinations) does your Hobart need to do its job? On paper it seems reasonable for a taskforce with 2 Hobarts to carry a dozen or so TLAMs between them (give or take) but what effect that would actually be able to provide I am not sure - I leave that one to better minds than my own in the RAN!
Last edited:
Do we know for sure there is no capacity to add VLS cells to the Hobarts, and (probably) the Hunters?
I seem to vaguely recall some discussion about a capability to add up to 16 tactical length Mk 41 cells to the Hobarts, which possible, would free clearly up a fair number of VL cells for land attack, or vertically launched ASM / VL-ASROC type weapons.
Is there anything definitive that says that the Hunters may ‘only’ be equipped with 32 cells?
It seems the obvious course of action. I’m sure RAN is well aware of the logistical and capability implications of all these new weapons they are getting, how to actually take them to sea, I’m sure is one of the foremost questions in their collective minds...
I seem to vaguely recall some discussion about a capability to add up to 16 tactical length Mk 41 cells to the Hobarts, which possible, would free clearly up a fair number of VL cells for land attack, or vertically launched ASM / VL-ASROC type weapons.
Is there anything definitive that says that the Hunters may ‘only’ be equipped with 32 cells?
It seems the obvious course of action. I’m sure RAN is well aware of the logistical and capability implications of all these new weapons they are getting, how to actually take them to sea, I’m sure is one of the foremost questions in their collective minds...
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
The CSC design apparently has been frozen at 32 MK 41 cells but the T26 base design might be able to accommodate more. I am sure the RCN sees merit in more cells but the Canadian government doesn’t want to fund any more missiles whereas the Australian government will closely monitor the need for more cells in future Hunter block builds. That’s the difference between a government takes defence requirements seriously versus a government that does the least investment it can get away with.
VLS can be fitted but your taking something out to fit something in. Self defence VLS would still require ~5.3m of deck penetration. While you may be able to retro fit 8 or perhaps 16, its not going to be wildly different.
I do question if a surface ship is the ideal platform for long range strikes. They aren't steathy, have limited load out, they have a mission which generally involves escorting our amphibs, and we have only 3 DDG's and a long build process to eventually get to 9 FFG's.
You are never going to brow beat a significant power by tomahawk missiles alone. They are a day zero strike option. You don't fight the entire war with them. Sure the US launched 59 from two ships, but it didn't single handedly win the war.
en.wikipedia.org
.
The UK only bought 65 Tomhawks, so clearly this isn't a weapons we are planning to deploy in the hundreds.
The US is only intending to refit about 250 TLAMs with anti-shipping capability.
news.usni.org
At closer ranges harpoon has approx the same hitting power. Every RAN surface ship carries 8 of those already. Harpoon can also do land strike. Tomahawk could also be fired from the Collins class. This is how the UK fires their tomahawks.
The RAAF bomb truck is the Superhornet. They will be likely fitted with the wing tanks once the US solves the problems with them. Combined with LRASM, again, very potent capability. The P8 can also carry the LRASM (9?). Again this is only for early hi value targets. Australia also has a large refuelling fleet that looks to become larger.
Eventually the RAAF will rain some of the 3,900+ SMBII from the Australian war stocks onto targets. After the door has been kicked in. Each F-35A can carry 8 in the internal weapons bay.
We won't be fighting the entire war with Tomahawks.
The RAN information page on the hunters is curiously vague. While specifying the number of 20mm, 30mm guns, they don't specify the number of VLS. I do believe the first batch of Hunters will come with 32, that was the number on the model BAE produced. Future flights may have a different number and different equipment. They are a big ship, space could be found for more, space has been allocated for CAMM. But it would take up existing space, at the bow or from the flexible space/hangar.
I do question if a surface ship is the ideal platform for long range strikes. They aren't steathy, have limited load out, they have a mission which generally involves escorting our amphibs, and we have only 3 DDG's and a long build process to eventually get to 9 FFG's.
You are never going to brow beat a significant power by tomahawk missiles alone. They are a day zero strike option. You don't fight the entire war with them. Sure the US launched 59 from two ships, but it didn't single handedly win the war.
2017 Shayrat missile strike - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
The UK only bought 65 Tomhawks, so clearly this isn't a weapons we are planning to deploy in the hundreds.
The US is only intending to refit about 250 TLAMs with anti-shipping capability.
WEST: U.S. Navy Anti-Ship Tomahawk Set for Surface Ships, Subs Starting in 2021 - USNI News
Any Navy ship or submarine able to launch a Tomahawk Land Attack Missile could be armed with an 1000-nautical mile anti-ship missile in less than a decade
news.usni.org
At closer ranges harpoon has approx the same hitting power. Every RAN surface ship carries 8 of those already. Harpoon can also do land strike. Tomahawk could also be fired from the Collins class. This is how the UK fires their tomahawks.
The RAAF bomb truck is the Superhornet. They will be likely fitted with the wing tanks once the US solves the problems with them. Combined with LRASM, again, very potent capability. The P8 can also carry the LRASM (9?). Again this is only for early hi value targets. Australia also has a large refuelling fleet that looks to become larger.
Eventually the RAAF will rain some of the 3,900+ SMBII from the Australian war stocks onto targets. After the door has been kicked in. Each F-35A can carry 8 in the internal weapons bay.
We won't be fighting the entire war with Tomahawks.
- Status