iambuzzard
Active Member
It would be easier to get the TTL (Torpedo Tube Launchers) back into production.
To a non military background individual like myself that makes more sense.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
To a non military background individual like myself that makes more sense.
TTL Tomahawk is not ‘currently’ in production, but that is somewhat different from not available. Raytheon confirmed to Naval News when asked about the topic, that TTL configured Tomahawk is ‘likely available’ should someone such as the RAN order it…If we are going to have Collins Class in service for some years more, and torpedo tube launched Tomahawks are not available, is there an option to get the UK/French StormShadow/SCALP missile in service to provide a torpedo tube launched SLCM for the RAN? Its performance in the Ukraine war looks to have been pretty good with recent attacks on Sevastapol by both reportedly knocking out Russian warships in dry dock. It may not be quite as long ranged as Tomahawk (1000km vs 1600km) but is stealthy, hard hitting and evidently not easily shot down by Russian pattern air defences. It would give the RAN a sub launched cruise missile capability for the first time, and a decade sooner.
French submarine fires a cruise missile for the first time
"For the first time, a French submarine has fired a cruise missile."ukdefencejournal.org.uk
The Tomahawk fired by Astute weighs 1300kg and is 5.5 metres long.
The SCALP/MdCN fired from the Suffren SSN weighs 1400kg and is 6.5 metres long. It is reportedly the same missile as Storm Shadow, so I assume the difference in length is due to the capsule for torpedo launch.
MdCN - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Last edited:
As with the AWD’s many seem to be considering the magazine depth on the basis that strike equipped vessels would be expected to conduct all their other missions simultaneously and therefore the strike magazine availability would be limited.
I am not sure that is RAN’s position on the subject. I am sure they would posit that the vessels would be armed according to the needs of the mission they are given.
I am also sure that a Collins Class sub would never sail on an operational mission without carrying Mk.48 HWT’s at the least for their own self-defence. But how many such weapons would they need for self-defence? 10? 4? 6?
If the answer is 4, then up to 18x Tomahawks may be able to be carried, which in our context is probably nothing to sneeze at. It would require a very significant effort from RAAF for instance to deliver that many long ranged strike weapons to the range that Tomahawk will give us (especially on a Collins Class) and if a pair of Collins were deployed so equipped and potentially a Hobart Class similarly equipped for strike operations, then you’d see an available force of Tomahawk CM equipped vessels second only to that (at the present time) which the USN can deploy, unless the Royal Navy has purchased far more, or fired far less Tomahawks than has ever been publicly disclosed…
So while many of us may feel our capability might be inadequate, in many ways it might actually not be all that insignificant when compared to what others can generate.
The Russians for example seem to feel that launching half a dozen or so Kalibr’s from small naval vessels is a worthwhile tactical employment of such weapons, as they regrettably, regularly demonstrate in Ukraine…
Last edited:
Collins with long range strike also gives gov’t another (protected against missiles and drones) option to contribute to national or coalition operations against adversaries that have no ships or subs to sink and/or have limited ASW capability.
Going Boeing
Well-Known Member
On 16 March 2023, it was announced that “Australia has requested to buy up to 200 Tomahawk Block V All Up Rounds and up to 20 Tomahawk Block IV All Up Rounds” and, on 21 August 2023, it was announced that 200 Tomahawk missiles had been ordered for the 3 AWD’s with no mention of the initially proposed 20 Block IV AURs. As the Block IV is the model of choice for the TTL Tomahawks used aboard RN SSN’s, it is possible that they may yet be ordered once all the research has been completed as to their suitability for use on Collins class submarines.
The TTL system was used on the early Los Angeles class submarines (Block 1) so the components that encapsulate the missile may be in USN storage. This could be why there have been hints that TTL may be available if a customer orders it.
US approves Tomahawk missile sale to Australia - Australian Defence Magazine
ADF gets $2billion for new missiles - CONTACT magazine
The TTL system was used on the early Los Angeles class submarines (Block 1) so the components that encapsulate the missile may be in USN storage. This could be why there have been hints that TTL may be available if a customer orders it.
US approves Tomahawk missile sale to Australia - Australian Defence Magazine
ADF gets $2billion for new missiles - CONTACT magazine
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Okay, since is being raised (again...) let us nip it in the bud. Here is a link to the actual US DSCA press release back in March, 2023. This has been referenced and pointed out before, but the missiles are all RGM-109 Tomahawk missiles, which is s designation for Tomahawk missiles launched from surface warships. Other designations are used to identify air-launched, sub-launched, and ground-launched missiles. So unless/until there is another DSCA press release, it does not appear that Australia would be able to have any Tomahawks aboard a Collins-class SSG.
Also I recall GF mentioning back when the RAN subs were getting upgrades done to their CMS so that it would be what the USN used aboard the Virginia-class SSN's, whilst the combat system is the same, not all of the workstations/terminals were fitted aboard the RAN subs. More specifically, stations to control/launch Tomahawks were not fitted. IIRC part of the reason was that there was a finite amount of space and power available which made Tomahawk controls less important than other capabilities.
There's no reason to suggest that surface launched Tomahawks can't be modified with a kit to turn them into UGM's from RGM's. This happened with Harpoons which could be modified into AGM's. Cheers.
I don't think I've ever seen Australia described as an economic power before. But I guess it's true...getting closer every year to $2 trillion GDP, which is pretty big (just not USA/China big)
Scott Elaurant
Well-Known Member
If that is possible then I think it is obviously the best way to go. My questions about SCALP were based on concern Tomahawk was not available.
Looking at what is happening in the Red Sea, I am concerned we may need such capabilities sooner rather than later. We can't afford to wait till 2035+ for a land strike capability in the post F111 era.
Though then you might get involved in escalation strikes on some out of the way like, say, Yemen.
Regards,
Massive
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
From an engineering perspective, I can think of a few potential reasons why RGM-109's might not be able to be modified into UGM-109's. Furthermore, even if it were possible to carry out such a modification, would Australia be able to do so, and even if Australia could conduct such a modification, would it be worthwhile?
I suspect, from an engineering perspective, modifying a surface or sub-launched AShM into an air-launched AShM is a bit easier and less risky. Most of the surface/sub-launched missiles that also have an air-launched version, the air-launched version does not require a booster engine which the other types does, since the launching platform (and therefore the missile itself) is already going to be aloft and moving at speed.
Where I suspect things would get complicated trying to modify a surface-launched LACM to make it a torpedoe tube sun-launched LACM would be to develop and integrate a torpedoe-sized cannister able to survive the rigors of being launched from a torpedoe tube, then rise to the surface and open/deploy in such a way that a booster engine on the LACM could fire to get it into the air and up to speed, so a sustainer motor can take over.
I would realistically expect that it Australia wanted sub-launched Tomahawks, it would be easier and cheaper for Australia to either just purchase UGM-109E's, or pay Raytheon to do the modification (if this is even possible). The only reason I can think why Australia would not go with either of these potential routes is if the US advised Australia that the sale of sub-launched Tomahawks would not be approved, and if this was the case, US materials and support to enable Australia to modify Tomahawks would be unlikely to be forthcoming.
There is also the matter of whether Tomahawk weapons control stations are in or could be fitted into the Collins-class SSG's. Based off commentary from GF from around the time that BYG-1 components were fitted to RAN subs during upgrades, the necessary stations were not fitted. This is not to say that a future refit/upgrade could not see such stations added, but in order to do so, other systems or stations would need to be removed. I suspect that the RAN would be better off carefully considering what the best options would be for the future SSN's instead.
Why would dedicated workstations be needed? Is it a question of every other function having to be constantly available, so nothing can be sidelined while a Tomahawk is launched? Or do they really use Tomahawk-specific hardware?
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I do not know, but that is what I recall GF mentioning. It might also be a case where the US CMS has dedicated hardware and/or software to work with specific systems, as opposed to some other CMS where there are universal consoles which are then configured to work with a specific weapons system depending on what is installed aboard a vessel. The Danish CMS developed to work with StanFlex comes to mind as an example of universal consoles which are configurable. Not sure that the US has or would (without funding and direction from gov't) develop universal configurable consoles, given the competition between US defence companies.
IMO older consoles used to be dedicated to a purpose or task, back when you had to directly access hardware and military meant custom. Back in the dark ages, in the 60's and 70's (30's, 40's & 50's?), wiring went directly from the consoles to dedicated custom electronics to the weapons. The displays were fixed, basically VDU on CRT of older nixietube or analog or electromechanical guages. Often the basic display would be burnt into the CRT after a few decades, unchanging in its layout, and mostly in some of its data.
These days most things are virtualised and the consoles are basically more like terminals that are accessing a server. Consoles are generally much more multipurpose. That way when a screen goes out or a keyboard doesn't work, another terminal can fire the weapons or do the sensor thing. Some are configured with joysticks or dual trackballs for those that need that but generally things are more flexible these days.
Multi Function Consoles | Saab
The consoles are completely silent and emits virtually no heat. They guarantee a clean and uncluttered workspace with adjustable pointing devices, recessed keyboard and tiltable screens.
www.saab.com
The tomahawk console AFAIK had a printer attached to it.
Tomahawk Hardware Team Lauded for Design-to-Deployment Innovations
From humble beginnings designing a workstation color printer for the Tactical Tomahawk Weapon Control System (TTWCS) to becoming the exclusive hardware design agent for all TTWCS systems, this team at NSWC PHD continues to innovate - earning them a prestigious NDIA Award.
A submarine is a really tight space. It sounds easy, add tlam capability. But Workload for sailors, even room for a trackball or a printer can be problematic. Then the missiles themselves. Even in peace time, you basically have sailors sleeping on top of torpedos on Collins, the US subs are configured a bit differently.
To add that capability you may have to remove all the harpoon capability. Given that harpoon is nearing EOL, perhaps that is a reasonable change.
Typically the US tends to have specific things to do specific things. Most other navies, have to be more generalist, and are more multi-function. But the US has seen advantages on things like Multi-function consoles. You can configure the bridge easily, redundancy, easy training and logistics.
IMO tho, adding TLAM to collins would be very powerful capability. Its a very long range weapon, so Collins limitations as a diesel sub are far less of an issue as a TLAM launch platform. Going into the future, Collins isn't an ideal platform for chasing SSK or SSN, or even surface ships. But unleashing TLAM, is a fairly viable thing for a conventional sub. It just needs to be quiet and sit there, something conventional subs can do.
Potentially the future of the Henderson shipbuilding precinct?
A pdf from December on the wa.gov.au website shows a pic of the precinct with several new halls and a dry dock. Page 18.
looks like Silveryachts are moving to the planned Lot 19 Clarence beach rd alongside 3 smaller buildings, a much bigger hall built next to asc (approx 190-200m x 70-80m) and a another new hall next to bae. Also noticed a much larger floating dock and a large ship being constructed in the dry dock, future JSS perhaps?
https://www.wa.gov.au/system/files/..._and_innovation_precincts_prospectus_2023.pdf
A pdf from December on the wa.gov.au website shows a pic of the precinct with several new halls and a dry dock. Page 18.
looks like Silveryachts are moving to the planned Lot 19 Clarence beach rd alongside 3 smaller buildings, a much bigger hall built next to asc (approx 190-200m x 70-80m) and a another new hall next to bae. Also noticed a much larger floating dock and a large ship being constructed in the dry dock, future JSS perhaps?
https://www.wa.gov.au/system/files/..._and_innovation_precincts_prospectus_2023.pdf
Last edited:
Jason_DBF
Member
What makes you believe Collins isn't an ideal sub chaser?IMO older consoles used to be dedicated to a purpose or task, back when you had to directly access hardware and military meant custom. Back in the dark ages, in the 60's and 70's (30's, 40's & 50's?), wiring went directly from the consoles to dedicated custom electronics to the weapons. The displays were fixed, basically VDU on CRT of older nixietube or analog or electromechanical guages. Often the basic display would be burnt into the CRT after a few decades, unchanging in its layout, and mostly in some of its data.
These days most things are virtualised and the consoles are basically more like terminals that are accessing a server. Consoles are generally much more multipurpose. That way when a screen goes out or a keyboard doesn't work, another terminal can fire the weapons or do the sensor thing. Some are configured with joysticks or dual trackballs for those that need that but generally things are more flexible these days.
Multi Function Consoles | Saab
The consoles are completely silent and emits virtually no heat. They guarantee a clean and uncluttered workspace with adjustable pointing devices, recessed keyboard and tiltable screens.
The tomahawk console AFAIK had a printer attached to it.
Tomahawk Hardware Team Lauded for Design-to-Deployment Innovations
From humble beginnings designing a workstation color printer for the Tactical Tomahawk Weapon Control System (TTWCS) to becoming the exclusive hardware design agent for all TTWCS systems, this team at NSWC PHD continues to innovate - earning them a prestigious NDIA Award.www.dvidshub.net
A submarine is a really tight space. It sounds easy, add tlam capability. But Workload for sailors, even room for a trackball or a printer can be problematic. Then the missiles themselves. Even in peace time, you basically have sailors sleeping on top of torpedos on Collins, the US subs are configured a bit differently.
To add that capability you may have to remove all the harpoon capability. Given that harpoon is nearing EOL, perhaps that is a reasonable change.
Typically the US tends to have specific things to do specific things. Most other navies, have to be more generalist, and are more multi-function. But the US has seen advantages on things like Multi-function consoles. You can configure the bridge easily, redundancy, easy training and logistics.
IMO tho, adding TLAM to collins would be very powerful capability. Its a very long range weapon, so Collins limitations as a diesel sub are far less of an issue as a TLAM launch platform. Going into the future, Collins isn't an ideal platform for chasing SSK or SSN, or even surface ships. But unleashing TLAM, is a fairly viable thing for a conventional sub. It just needs to be quiet and sit there, something conventional subs can do.
Chasing SSN's in SCS in 2045?
I know I am probably preaching to those more knowledgable. I just don't think it will be ideal doing that particular job particularly say in the late 2040's.
- Well it doesn't have the speed. The SSN are faster than a Collins can be even on the surface with all 3 diesels. It was never really designed to chase down SSN in open ocean. You might occasionally run into one, but you won't be hanging with them as they leave port like the Americans can do.
- By 2040 we should have SSN, which would I assume be better at chasing subs like SSNs.
- By the late 40's we are talking about 60 year old design, based heavily off earlier designs. Its mechanically, structurally, hydro dynamically and is still limited by sensors.
- Transit times limit Collins deployment to SCS to chase subs or even sitting up ambushes in that region.
- TLAM can strike targets while being still ~1500km. So that is distance and can be more effective with this mission just sitting there, rather than moving at speed. Less transit times, less snorting, etc.
- This mission could overlap with Choke point control with the nearby straits, sitting in Malacca straits, you can reach out to spratley islands.
- Its much cheaper and less crew intensive for this mission.
- We already have them.
Jason_DBF
Member
Well its a broad question what Collins missions will be when in 2030's and 2040's when we have some SSN capability and some Collins capability. The skeptical in me thinks they will simply shut down collins as soon as we have any SSN capability. The skeptical part of me thinks it may not even last that long and we may be down to training ops before too long because everything is too hard.
Its not that Collins can't hunt subs, but its not likely going to hunt ssks in our immediate EEZ as that is to far for the Chinese SSKs, generally. Again, hunting SSK's around Chinese ports isn't ideal either given Collins transit speed, time on station etc. Japanese, Korean, and US subs are better located or better equipped for that particular mission. We could stick our head in, but we aren't likely to linger in numbers.
If we are using Collins around Lombok, Malacca, then carrying TLAM gives us the ability to strike at Chinese "Facilities" in the south China Sea and also hassle any Chinese fleet roughhousing in the area. While not a magic bullet, it gives the Collins added strategic value for Aus/US. Being able to throw half a dozen TLAM from a different direction isn't nothing, particularly if done in conjunction with the US throwing hundreds. It gives Australia a legitimate seat at the table of doing something. As we are seeing in the Red sea. US military power is huge, but US political will and resolve is often confused. Being a stake holder in that decision and can do process is huge.
That is all I am really saying. It would be neat, IMO, if Collins had TLAM capability. Not that it would defeat the Chinese single handed, but it would likely give us tickets to the table where big decisions are being made. 6 or 12 or 48 TLAM isn't likely to bring China to its knees, but being able to give the order would help simply US decision making if there was some sort of impass. Which isn't the point, the point would be to raise Australia as an important stakeholder in dealing with US/China relations, and China and the US taking Australia seriously. China strong-arming Australia's rather flimsy surface combatant fleet, would likely be less confident if Collins had that kind of additional firepower and could be lurking anywhere in 1500km radius.
But I am also consistent that fitting any new capabilities to Collins is going to be a big ask. If it isn't part of the LOTE, which AFAIK it isnt', then its unlikely ever to gain that capability. With the withdrawal of Harpoon, that means loosing all missile antiship/land strike capability. Could the Collins have a kind of Grayback capability? maybe. Its not enough to end all discussions, but its in the mix.
Its not really questioning Collins ability to hunt, its just what happens when the big sexy new SSN come in, and if and how TLAM would be a useful fit to the existing Collins. Collins big threat isn't the Chinese, its our big new SSNs.. Finding a critical mission could be very important in that type of budget environment.