Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[StingrayOZ]

There was a discussion some time back about maritime strike capability from USAF bombers? (In the context of B-21A V SSN).

Well this sorts that idea out…

US Pacific Air Forces successfully deploy Long Range Anti-Ship Missile from B-2 stealth bomber

The US military has successfully live-fire tested a Long Range Anti-Ship Missile deployed from a B-2 Spirit stealth bomber in the Pacific.

www.defenceconnect.com.au

Maritime capabilities seem to be more important to the airforce these days, it seems the USAF, USN have cleared/lost their turf war, and found funding..

I wonder how well they are getting along with the e7 eating navy funds apparently.
Really all the bombers should have antishipping capability, the Navy doesn't have any bombers, and they can operate at useful ranges..

No lrasm for f15 though.. bridge too far.

B2s operating out of Tindal with lrasm would be interesting.

 

[John Fedup]

Definitely a useful capability assuming the missile inventory, necessary tankers (if needed), and other bomber infrastructure can be protected from where the bombers will be based from. How many LRASMs can a B-21 carry?

 

[spoz]

And appropriate targeting information; that is always the challenge when employing long range weapons against seaborne targets,

 

[ADMk2]

Maritime capabilities seem to be more important to the airforce these days, it seems the USAF, USN have cleared/lost their turf war, and found funding..

I wonder how well they are getting along with the e7 eating navy funds apparently.
Really all the bombers should have antishipping capability, the Navy doesn't have any bombers, and they can operate at useful ranges..

No lrasm for f15 though.. bridge too far.

B2s operating out of Tindal with lrasm would be interesting.

F-15 is getting LRASM...

F-15E and F-15EX Set to Be Armed with AGM-158C LRASM

NAVAIR is working to integrate the AGM-158C-1 LRASM (Long Range Anti-Ship Missile) on the U.S. Air Force’s F-15E Strike Eagles and F-15EX Eagle IIs,

theaviationist.com

 

[south]

There was a discussion some time back about maritime strike capability from USAF bombers? (In the context of B-21A V SSN).

Well this sorts that idea out…

US Pacific Air Forces successfully deploy Long Range Anti-Ship Missile from B-2 stealth bomber

The US military has successfully live-fire tested a Long Range Anti-Ship Missile deployed from a B-2 Spirit stealth bomber in the Pacific.

www.defenceconnect.com.au

Quite ironic given the discussion that was had only a few months ago, which honestly goes back a few years ago. Despite the postulations provided, the USAF hasn’t publicly announced what weapon fit out an early B-21 Raider will have (although they do state a broad mix of stand-off and stand in weapons). The fact that the B-21 will replace the B-1 and eventually means the B-2 means it will certainly adopt some of their capabilities. Funnily enough the USAF also remain world leaders on survivability and understand the use of standoff munitions. I’d be surprised if AGM-158 family aren’t an integration priority from very early on.

Maybe next we’ll get to understanding the ISR ESM horizon from 40kft exceeds that of a surface level mast, or that the B-21 will be operated as a family of systems that previous AF Secretaries have described as having multiple complementary effects.

 

[koxinga]

There are a number of reasons why the use of carbon fibre is limited; effects of damage and fire, ability to flex and to form faraday cages; and maintainability amongst them. It is used, but in fairly carefully selected places.

Re the earlier conversation on composites for naval applications. This would be the largest one so far, following the path of the earlier Independence class

First composite superstructure for Singapore's MRCV breaks cover - Naval News

PENGUIN Shipyard International has completed and delivered a composite superstructure (CSS) using Saab's unique technology for the Republic of Singapore Navy's new Multi Role Combat Vessel (MRCV).

www.navalnews.com

 

[Bob53]

That's impressive, particularly the short period between laying down, launch and commissioning of each ship. It's not warp speed but it's damn fast.

Half a billion Aussie dollars…including weapons systems? Going to be interesting to see how much the Aussie builds cost and if they all get built.

 

[iambuzzard]

Half a billion Aussie dollars…including weapons systems? Going to be interesting to see how much the Aussie builds cost and if they all get built.

I think we may have to modify the contract and get more built in Japan. I don't have confidence in people in Australia doing the right thing.

 

[SammyC]

Half a billion Aussie dollars…including weapons systems? Going to be interesting to see how much the Aussie builds cost and if they all get built.

I know the article quotes the "cost to build" price, however I think this reflects the construction (shipyard) cost. I would have thought the weapons, comms and sensors are all seperate procurements. I can't imagine that the gear on a Mogami comes in at that price.

I've seen elsewhere, just can't find it, that they are closer to the US$1 billion fully fitted, and that is for the classic Mogami, not the upgraded version.

 

[StingrayOZ]

F-15 is getting LRASM...

Well I missed that, I was still of the belief that Japan wasn't able to integrate LRASM onto F-15, so Japan walked it back. I guess things changed. I wonder how long it will take.

I think we may have to modify the contract and get more built in Japan. I don't have confidence in people in Australia doing the right thing.

I think part of it is that Australia can pressure entities, with the fact it can order more from Japan if they don't get things moving. Setting up greenfields production is hard, WA has never built a frigate.

Even if they do, we may run out of time. Being able to source more would be very useful. 3 isn't really much of a force. 5 would give much better deployable capability.

 

[iambuzzard]

I know the article quotes the "cost to build" price, however I think this reflects the construction (shipyard) cost. I would have thought the weapons, comms and sensors are all seperate procurements. I can't imagine that the gear on a Mogami comes in at that price.

I've seen elsewhere, just can't find it, that they are closer to the US$1 billion fully fitted, and that is for the classic Mogami, not the upgraded version.

For what we are getting that's a decent cost. Look at a Ford Class Carrier, or heaven forbid, a Trump Battleship!

 

[StingrayOZ]

Remember the Mogamis can have up to a 40 year service life span. So while somewhat pricey upfront, over the lifetime of the ship acquisition costs aren't that huge. The potential reduced crewing also helps.

The Mogamis are a quality item. Lots of effort put into lowering lifetime costs, sustainment, operations. Its a high end capable frigate in terms of ASW/ASuW. So you get a highly capable combatant, but operational costs are much lower, like a premium opv almost. They have limitations, but they definitely represent a quality mix.

If its too pricey, Flight I mogamis exist. If anyone wanted to save a few bucks, Japan could build a flight I, with no VLS.. But I don't know anyone who would want to

 

[Bob53]

I know the article quotes the "cost to build" price, however I think this reflects the construction (shipyard) cost. I would have thought the weapons, comms and sensors are all seperate procurements. I can't imagine that the gear on a Mogami comes in at that price.

I've seen elsewhere, just can't find it, that they are closer to the US$1 billion fully fitted, and that is for the classic Mogami, not the upgraded version.

Which is what I suspect would be about right. Will be very interesting to see how the Australian built hulks stack up in cost. I really hope we can do a good job of it and not blow it out.