Could be the case
My bet is they are destined for the Virginia Class.
Time will tell.
Cheers S
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
My bet is they are destined for the Virginia Class.
Time will tell.
Cheers S
There has been some discussion in the media regarding the latest CRS report to Congress on the Virginia Class (see link below for those who have not seen it). Some commentators are hyping this while others are playing it down as nothing. I think this last report though, is a bit more significant.
Even though the CRS reports to Congress don't provide recommendations, they do build cases for and against policy issues under consideration by Congress. The significance of the latest report IMO is the considerable hardening of the case against Virginia transfers to Australia when compared to previous versions of the same report.
Even though the CRS reports to Congress don't provide recommendations, they do build cases for and against policy issues under consideration by Congress. The significance of the latest report IMO is the considerable hardening of the case against Virginia transfers to Australia when compared to previous versions of the same report.
The AUKUS subject does ignite emotions.
The CRS report raises fair questions for the USA if we don’t go “all the way “ as it does for Australia ,should we choose not to go “all the way” in the Virginia Class construct.
How and why these questions were not addressed before the deal was settled seems perplexing, but it does sort of make sense re the speed to which this deal was put together in the first place.
So a sovereign capability for the ADF or not.
Did we realistically think the US were going to through us the keys to a Virginia SSN and they were not going to have considerable expectations of its use and deployment in both times of peace and conflict.
AUKUS an interesting gamble!
Cheers S
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
This just gets worse and worse. Make a deal and stick to it!
Stay with me here guys, before the hand-wringing gets too out of control.
Congressional. Research. Service.
Their literal job is conduct research and provide options to Congress. Congress is not obliged to accept such options. They are discussion points only.
Remember when Trump said he actually wants AUKUS accelerated if possible? Remember when Joe Biden actually signed the thing and agreed to it, to begin with?
Remember when both sides of Congress overwhelmingly voted in favour of AUKUS and passed legislation that literally allows it to happen?
Real action. By those in charge.
Not an options paper by a library, guys…
Precisely. Ronald O’Rourke has been the head of the Naval research section for years; there are dozens of reports under his name available on all sorts of subjects. And each one of those provides analysis on both sides of the matter being discussed. Their purpose is to inform members of Congress on the subject, and arm them with multiple arguments around the subject. You can, for example, find arguments for and against almost every acquisition program, major or (relatively) being run or contemplated by navy. O’Rourke is widely respected for the impartiality he brings to his work; but he does not make policy.
Going Boeing
Well-Known Member
I understand that the post LOTE Collins class will not be fitted with Tomahawk missiles and will keep using Harpoon missiles as there is currently no sub launched version of the NSM - are there any plans by the ADF to modify the Harpoon’s seeker to the new Block II+ version? This would give them limited capability against shore targets in addition to ships.
U.S. Navy Completes Final Flight Test of Harpoon Missile Update
U.S. Navy Completes Final Harpoon Block II Missile Update Test for Littoral and Land-Strike Operations
U.S. Navy to Modernize Harpoon Missiles with New Seekers - Naval News
U.S. Navy Completes Final Flight Test of Harpoon Missile Update
U.S. Navy Completes Final Harpoon Block II Missile Update Test for Littoral and Land-Strike Operations
U.S. Navy to Modernize Harpoon Missiles with New Seekers - Naval News
My understanding is that the answer to that question is no.
The RAN employs the UGM-84D Block 1C Harpoon missile from it’s Collins Class submarines. It may be the case that RAN acquired UGM-84 (submarine launch capable) variants have been life extended through sustainment activities and upgraded to the UGM-84G standard.
The AGM-84 and RGM-84 missiles acquired by RAN (air-launched and sea-launched) have been A/RGM-84D models and upgraded into A/RGM-84J standard missiles (which is how Harpoon Block II missiles are designated) but as they have been developed from the -D model, my understanding is they are too long to be fired from submarines, which is why the RAN UGM-84 models have seemingly remained ‘stuck’ at the Block 1C or possibly G standard.
It will be interesting to see where RAN goes from here with submarine launched missiles. Apart from Tomahawk and Harpoon, there aren’t very many Western options for submarine launched anti-ship or land attack missiles. The French Naval SCALP is the only other one AFAIK and clearly we won’t be going with the French option in submarine matters…