Musashi_kenshin
Well-Known Member
Yes, it's a politician being clever. The long-lead items have started construction. Technically he is correct ("the best kind of correct").
Last edited:
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
Yes, it's a politician being clever. The long-lead items have started construction. Technically he is correct ("the best kind of correct").
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
A clever politician? That's a new one. Lol
AndyinOz
Active Member
They fact that he mentioned Derby was kind of the giveaway considering that is where Rolls Royce have their nuclear related activities based and the Ministerial announcement on the Defence website the other day. https://www.minister.defence.gov.au...g-lead-items-aukus-nuclear-propulsion-systems so yeah technically correct.
Completely unknown the actual “variant” the RAN has bought of course, but some back and forth has been had on the continued relevance of the TLAM - Tactical Tomahawk cruise missile.
However the current hostilities in Iran are seeing some new footage of previously, publicly unknown Tomahawk variants.
We have one with a “new” black coating, that appears similar in nature to the black coating fitted to AGM-158 LRASM missile, which given the LO nature of that system, appears to be a new LO coating of some form.
We also have a more radical weapon, which appears to be a Tomahawk that has re-designed “forward swept” wings which have been observed in several different pieces of footage (from different locations - though it may have been the same missile). Although this is being called a Tomahawk by many commentators, this may be some other missile yet to be identified, publicly, perhaps even an Israeli weapon.
It seems in any case, that continued development of the missile system is seen as a worthy investment and it clearly remains at the forefront of US conventional strike capability…
www.twz.com
However the current hostilities in Iran are seeing some new footage of previously, publicly unknown Tomahawk variants.
We have one with a “new” black coating, that appears similar in nature to the black coating fitted to AGM-158 LRASM missile, which given the LO nature of that system, appears to be a new LO coating of some form.
We also have a more radical weapon, which appears to be a Tomahawk that has re-designed “forward swept” wings which have been observed in several different pieces of footage (from different locations - though it may have been the same missile). Although this is being called a Tomahawk by many commentators, this may be some other missile yet to be identified, publicly, perhaps even an Israeli weapon.
It seems in any case, that continued development of the missile system is seen as a worthy investment and it clearly remains at the forefront of US conventional strike capability…
Black Tomahawk Cruise Missile Seen For The First Time In Strikes On Iran (Updated)
We may have gotten our first look at the Maritime Strike Tomahawk, and the missile appears to share the same coating as another Navy anti-ship weapon.
www.twz.com
Going Boeing
Well-Known Member
The forward swept wing configuration is interesting. Some years ago, the US did some testing on an aircraft fitted with forward swept wings - the perceived advantage was that it would be much more nimble for dogfighting but it was inherently unstable and if the fly-by-wire computers failed, the pilot had to eject - it was not flyable manually.
The main advantage of this configuration on a missile would be that it could be more evasive if it was being intercepted and could fly a final attack profile that was more difficult to predict.
I’m sure that its performance will be analysed in depth after this conflict.
The main advantage of this configuration on a missile would be that it could be more evasive if it was being intercepted and could fly a final attack profile that was more difficult to predict.
I’m sure that its performance will be analysed in depth after this conflict.
I suspect they have made the tomahawk more lower observable, and more agile to make it more effective in modern strike missions. Its probably not wildly better, but the original weapon was designed a long time ago, so the chine nose, coatings, signal management, more manoeuvrable aero configuration with more dynamic attack profiles.
Its still going to be pretty useful if launched in mass numbers on day zero against many valuable but mostly undefended targets.
I don't think its some unnamed israeli weapon.
Its still going to be pretty useful if launched in mass numbers on day zero against many valuable but mostly undefended targets.
I don't think its some unnamed israeli weapon.
Takao
The Bunker Group
I can say that I've never questioned the use or feasibility of Tomahawk. On the contrary, it's pretty close to ideal - reasonably cheap, capable of ops in an EW contested mode, carried by a bunch of platforms and has significant range. It may not be optimal for AShW anymore - it's just too big to avoid a DDG or CG defences - but for land attack its excellent.
My criticism has always been in the numbers. 200 is good for, at best, two strikes. The belief that you can just kill something with 5 - 10 per raid is demonstratively and historically wrong. But still, we announce the same 200 over and over and over and over again
My criticism has always been in the numbers. 200 is good for, at best, two strikes. The belief that you can just kill something with 5 - 10 per raid is demonstratively and historically wrong. But still, we announce the same 200 over and over and over and over again
The first E-Cape delivered, Cape Otway, is now manned by Teekay as the new navigation training vessel based in Sydney. She has been painted blue & white & has replaced the Mercator.
I reckon the keypad on the ordering system is stuck…
Every time we order, 200 is the number….
But then what platform are we launching them from?
A conventional submarine with the ability to launch a dozen or so would be useful capability, hence why I had hoped this might be scoped into the Collins refit. It could be a pretty potent strike platform. Both Japan and Korea have that kind of capability. Japan has a new sub launched strike missile, it might be worth looking at, but then you have integration costs.. Tomahawk is already compatible with the combat system.
Given the current shortage, I'm not sure the US could easily deliver Australia (and Australia integrate/Inservice) more than 200 in a timely way, Japan and other countries have orders too (400 for Japan).
Historically production was at ~90 a year. They are trying to ramp that to 1000 a year.
There are real concerns that now after the Iran strike that stocks are perhaps not as robust as they could be, particularly for a proper Sino-American conflict.
Its what amazon allows via credit card.
Fingers crossed land based aswell. Typhon, or whatever its called now would be a good option.
There woukd probably be eight on each Hobart, Hunter and Mogami.
Typhon MRC would be my pick. Maximise the usefulness of whatever stockpile of Tomahawk and SM-6 that we have. To acquire such a capability we need:
A truck.
A trailer with a Mk.41 VLS bolted onto it.
A fire control vehicle.
An ammunition re-supply truck.
it really isn’t a huge challenge. The capability of the missiles is what makes this system work, otherwise it’s a Transport Corps sub-unit with an AFADTS tablet and a fancy radio…
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
What about THAAD to defend the cities against terminal ballistic missiles? Iran were developing an ICBM.
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
We're getting a little off topic on a naval thread. At the moment our only defence against ballistic missiles are the three AWDs.
2.
Defence has been a bit too busy to let us know anything lately, awarding service dogs medals and making Russell Crowe an honorary Naval Commander. Richly deserved no doubt.
But in the meantime we are down to 2x AWD’s for the next half a decade or more and that’s only if everything goes smoothly…
Last edited:
Something like THAAD was costed under FSP2020 back then at $25B.
That’s an awful lot of the defence estate they are going to have to sell off to raise that sort of funding…
It certainly won’t be coming from the Australian Government.
Its almost like we needed more than three ships to replace nine.
It really is too bad we didnt have something like a mining construction boom at the time we needed to build these ships to pay for builing more of them.
Its not like a mining super profits tax could have been usedcto create a soveriegn wealth fund that could have beeb used to build the required infrastructure, train and retain the workforce and pay enough to recruit and retain crews.
Its not like being smarter twenty five years ago would have made any difference today.