Could be a long wait on that afaik supers and b1 are the only ones in the pipe at the moment. P8 is likely to make do with updated harpoon for a while.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
The Norwegians might ask Oz to join them in requesting P8 JSM integration for low drag bomb bay carriage and launch - a la co-operative F35 JSM integration by same countries. A Janes report a few years ago stated JSM had up to 300nm range when launched from altitude - more than enough to exploit P8 sensor range.
One noticeable gap in the ADF is the long-range strike capability it lost when the F-111 was retired. This is probably the most cost-effective way of addressing this problem.
The Americans haven’t said anything about integrating LRASM on the P8A yet, though their crews would like it. We would have to pay Lockheed to get LRASM on the Poseidon’s. But the USN would be very happy with us if we did that.
I prefer LRASM over JSM for the P8s due to the former being a swarm missile, thus not needing quite as good targeting info on launch. The attraction of the JSM is it fitting into an F-35 bay. It is nice to have different weapons with different sensors, just in case an opponent is good at jamming/ decoying one type.
The P8A/LRASM combination would make for a quite effective variation on the distributed lethality concept. Half a dozen P8s operating up to several hundred NM apart could deliver as many as 36 missiles. It would take a bit of practice to prefect the tactic and get all of the missiles arriving at once.
We really should be getting more P8s. They are very useful. Ocius Bluebottle surface drone operating with Poseidon would increase their effectiveness against subs. Also hydro sonic data can be used to locate, categorise and possibly target surface threats beyond radar range.
Combined with the subs laying mines in choke points, we could cause real damage to even a powerful navy.
I prefer LRASM over JSM for the P8s due to the former being a swarm missile, thus not needing quite as good targeting info on launch. The attraction of the JSM is it fitting into an F-35 bay. It is nice to have different weapons with different sensors, just in case an opponent is good at jamming/ decoying one type.
The P8A/LRASM combination would make for a quite effective variation on the distributed lethality concept. Half a dozen P8s operating up to several hundred NM apart could deliver as many as 36 missiles. It would take a bit of practice to prefect the tactic and get all of the missiles arriving at once.
We really should be getting more P8s. They are very useful. Ocius Bluebottle surface drone operating with Poseidon would increase their effectiveness against subs. Also hydro sonic data can be used to locate, categorise and possibly target surface threats beyond radar range.
Combined with the subs laying mines in choke points, we could cause real damage to even a powerful navy.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
This capability was not "lost" when the F-111 was retired. Depending on how one looks at it, the capability was retained utilizing F/A-18F Super Hornets with superior standoff munitions, or the capability was actually lost well before the F-111 was retired from RAAF service, when the strike aircraft ceased to be survivable without a fighter escort in contested airspace.
On paper, the F-111 could fly a long distance while carrying a good sized load of munitions. The reality though is that the F-111, being a swing-wing design from 1960's, did not have a particularly small RCS or signature. Ingress and egress was to be accomplished by high-speed, low altitude flight to take advantage of ground clutter. With the improvements to situational awareness made since then with improved sensors and communications, as well as improvements in fighter aircraft to more easily enable them to detect objects on a terrain following course, the need arose for fighter escorts which could deal with hostile interceptors. In the RAAF service, this then limited the strike mission ranges for F-111C's to the escort ranges achievable by RAAF F/A-18A/B Hornets, which was significantly shorter than the paper range of a F-111 on a strike mission.
With the combination of the greater range (at least when compared with the Classic Hornet) of a Super Hornet, plus the standoff range of some of the newer precision munitions available like SLAM-ER, a good portion of the strike range was regained, with the added benefit that the Super Hornets are capable of self-escort
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
It is possible, I suppose, though of the regional air forces it appears that only the RMAF ordered and received Russian fighters with a look-down capability in the 1990's. Not sure how much of a deterrent less than a dozen MiG-29's in the RMAF would have been considered in the 1990's, given the FPDA which included both Malaysia and Australia. The other regional operate of Russian fighters, Indonesia, had placed an order for Sukhoi fighters in the 1990's but this order was cancelled following a financial crisis.
From my POV, if the introduction of Russian fighters was sufficiently great a threat to force the RAAF to change the conops for strike missions, then I would think it would require more to be done than just start including a fighter escort for a strike package.
As it was, the F-111's in RAAF service ended up being retired a bit earlier than had been planned AFAIK, but this was nearly 15 years after some of these possible threat fighters had entered service. More specifically, the F-111 was retired when the cost of keeping the aircraft in service became burdensome and outweighing the value of that service.
Also, the purchase of KC-30A aircraft can be used to extend the strike range of the F-18Fs which effectively replaced the F-111s.
Probably a discussion more suited to the airforces board ... but I am more interested in whether the ADF should have a long range strike capability rather than whether or not the F-111 was adequately replaced with an F-18/F-35/KC-30 combo. I don't think the F-111 was ever allowed to live up to its potential with the RAAF. We never provided aerial refuelling for example. I suspect that was because we didn't want to offend our neighbours.
We are in different times now and frankly a long range strike capability fits in very well with the fully networked nature of the ADF.
We are in different times now and frankly a long range strike capability fits in very well with the fully networked nature of the ADF.
What would be the target of a long range strike?
Long range strikes, unless you use nukes or vast fleets of bombers, tend to be a pitter-patter compared to the amount of Ordnance fast combat jets can deliver if able to base close enough to their target. This lack of mass of conventional precision long range strike doesn’t matter if the targets are ships, as ships are juicy unitary targets.
So we need to identify the nature of the target, other than ships, that would require the sort of limited mass, long range strike capability the ADF might develop.
I wasn't advocating a fleet of long-range strike aircraft. I was simply supporting the idea of a long-range strike capability. We may well have limited long range strike through ships and submarines but they themselves are slow moving targets with limited stocks of weapons. I don't think they are a substitute for even a small number of armed aircraft. A JSM equipped Poisidon might be about the best we can do to meet that requirement.
Discussion of ADF airborne long range strike is best suited on the RAAF thread. Please continue it there, so as not to derail this thread.
CJohn
Active Member
Just a query to those that may know, in regards to the Arafura class OPV's the main armament is listed as a 40mm cannon.
From the official graphics and model of the vessel this looks somewhat like the OTO Melara forty light gun system.
Is there any information out there on what the mount actually will be?
Cheers.
From the official graphics and model of the vessel this looks somewhat like the OTO Melara forty light gun system.
Is there any information out there on what the mount actually will be?
Cheers.
According to reports at Euronaval 2 months ago Leonardo’s Marlin 40 Light has been selected subject to negotiation: Euronaval 2018: Leonardo’s Oto Marlin 40 selected for Australian Project SEA 1180 Phase 1 OPVs | Jane's 360
Another good comparison of competing types was also provided in the following Euonaval report for a separate French AOR project: Euronaval 2018: Which Naval Guns and Missiles for FLOTLOG ?
Not really navy, but the new Australian Icebreaker has now got all its major blocks put together. Bridges is just finishing off and the exhaust stacks are still to go, with the 2 x 55t cranes going in soon..
Superstructure blocks in place
Superstructure blocks in place
Speaking of the Arafura Class, on RAN and wiki sites, it states the range is 4000 nm. I wonder why, since the Brunei version's range is 7500nm.
Any ideas why ours is almost half the range?
Darussalam-class offshore patrol vessel - Wikipedia
Arafura-class offshore patrol vessel - Wikipedia
As for the 40mm gun, from what I read, the RAN signed up for the latest mount, which can move the gun at 120 degrees per second. The previous one moved around at 60 degrees per second. Is this right?
Any ideas why ours is almost half the range?
Darussalam-class offshore patrol vessel - Wikipedia
Arafura-class offshore patrol vessel - Wikipedia
As for the 40mm gun, from what I read, the RAN signed up for the latest mount, which can move the gun at 120 degrees per second. The previous one moved around at 60 degrees per second. Is this right?
Different definitions of range?
As for te gun, this one. And Leonardo agree wrt traverse speed
Leonardo presents its new Marlin 40 Naval Defence System at DIMDEX 2018 - DETAIL - Leonardo - Aerospace, Defence and Security
- Status