Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[Todjaeger]

Well the LOCSV is the selected solution to the VLS count problem (For Hobart and Hunter). The RAN, however, does not know how the LOCSV program (effectively a bilateral program led by US) will turn out though. Will it work? will the USGov cancel it even if it works? If LOCSV ends up simply as a long range strike magazine, with no ability to track the missiles it launches, then Hunter will need the ability to control Tomahawk. Given the unknowns exploring the fit of Tomahawk to Hunter seems sensible.

Two other thoughts.

If the RAN is anticipating having a vessel available to provide a contribution to a firing line in the event of a major Pacific war (or a Houthi Red Sea style contingency) then there are only 3 Hobarts to deliver that between now and 2050 or so. If there is no Hobart available (e.g, escorting a LHD or providing cover for Fleet Base East or for an off shore deployment) then maybe they will need to send a Hunter to fulfill that commitment.

Finally, if Hunter could carry Tomahawk then adversaries need to plan for the maximum strike range available to it. The ship seemingly on ASW patrol 2000km off your coast might be just about to launch a first strike on your airbase.

I could be mistaken, but I was under the impression that once a Tomahawk was launched at a designated target, the onboard guidance system would be responsible for getting the missile to target and not any control system from a launching platform. IIRC there can be some potential for midcourse correction and/or updates via data links, but those are launch platform agnostic.

As a matter of practicality, a ship launching Tomahawk cruise missiles would only really be able to track and directly communicate with them if they were in the 'local vicinity' of the launching vessel. One needs to remember that the flight profile of a Tomahawk missile has it flying at low altitude, some 30 m - 50 m above ground level, which means the missile would be below the radar horizon of most launching ships after ~30 km. Given that the range of Block V Tomahawks are believed to be in excess of 1,600 km there really is no way for a ship to directly communicate with missiles at such extreme ranges.

From my POV, if Australia was really serious about having the ability to launch sudden 'surprise' strikes at the fixed infrastructure of hostile powers there are potentially much better options than ship-launched RGM-109E Tomahawks. As it stands now, the Hobart-class DDG's can carry and launch them, at the expense of VLS cells which otherwise could be loaded with ESSM or members of the Standard Missile family to provide air defence. Further, this does not appear likely to change prior to ~2034, which would put the Tomahawk design even older/longer in service at that point. The potential battlespace of the mid-2030's might very well be one where long-range Tomahawk LACM strikes targeting a peer (or possibly beyond peer) level power are no longer realistically viable/effective.

A concern of mine is that Australia (and elements of the US and UK for that matter) are working to build a combat capability in the mid-2030's that is appropriate for conditions now. If one considers the likelihood of a hostile nation adopting and implementing systems comparable to those which NATO and major allies have used for decades, specifically integrating broad area surveillance systems like AEW platforms and effective datalink systems and networks, then the relevance of something like Tomahawk might not be all that much by the time the Hunter-class frigates enter service.

 

[Todjaeger]

Naval Strike Missile

Interesting. This Ratheon site states a 500 lb (226kg) warhead. Mind you I would believe the Kongsberg brochure more, and 120kg sounds more balanced for a 400 kg weapon.

I saw that, but noted that the page specifically claimed this;

500-pound class warhead

My take on that is that Raytheon is listing/claiming the warhead as having a certain effectiveness, not that it is necessarily a 500 lb. warhead. Not unlike how certain types of warheads have a different degree of effectiveness depending on target. HE does certain things, whereas HEAT is a bit different, same goes for MAC and blast-frag warheads.

 

[StevoJH]

I saw that, but noted that the page specifically claimed this;



My take on that is that Raytheon is listing/claiming the warhead as having a certain effectiveness, not that it is necessarily a 500 lb. warhead. Not unlike how certain types of warheads have a different degree of effectiveness depending on target. HE does certain things, whereas HEAT is a bit different, same goes for MAC and blast-frag warheads.

That is definitely possible.

Possibly also depending on the actual composition of HE that is used in the warhead as well.

 

[StingrayOZ]

If SM-6 was on hunter, we may not need many. You get the capability and reach with a single missile. If the idea is to hit launch platforms, or intercept long range ballistics, I would expect those would be rare encounters, we probably aren't the highest value targets for them. Particularly in our neck of the woods. SM-6 won't replace all SM-2 missiles, just like SM-3 doesn't really replace anything else.

NSM is probably much more effective than anything else as a strike munition. Tomahawk is not particularly agile, or stealthy. But it has a chunky warhead and tremendous range and offers deterrence. NSM is an assassins shot from a silenced weapon and would enable taking out high value targets.

Things like Spear3 have tiny warheads. Its like a Searam missile in size, but a micro cruise missile. The idea is that through precision and low observable profile, a hit is more effective. Probably the future of many munitions, smaller, subsonic, but long range for its size.

 

[hauritz]

Well the LOCSV is the selected solution to the VLS count problem (For Hobart and Hunter). The RAN, however, does not know how the LOCSV program (effectively a bilateral program led by US) will turn out though. Will it work? will the USGov cancel it even if it works? If LOCSV ends up simply as a long range strike magazine, with no ability to track the missiles it launches, then Hunter will need the ability to control Tomahawk. Given the unknowns exploring the fit of Tomahawk to Hunter seems sensible.

Two other thoughts.

If the RAN is anticipating having a vessel available to provide a contribution to a firing line in the event of a major Pacific war (or a Houthi Red Sea style contingency) then there are only 3 Hobarts to deliver that between now and 2050 or so. If there is no Hobart available (e.g, escorting a LHD or providing cover for Fleet Base East or for an off shore deployment) then maybe they will need to send a Hunter to fulfill that commitment.

Finally, if Hunter could carry Tomahawk then adversaries need to plan for the maximum strike range available to it. The ship seemingly on ASW patrol 2000km off your coast might be just about to launch a first strike on your airbase.

Not sure I would consider the LOCSV a done deal. There does seem to be some push back on the US Large Unmanned Surface Vehicle (LUSV) program with a couple of senior members of the Senate Armed Services Committee pushing for the accelerated development of the smaller Medium Unmanned Surface Vehicle (MUSV) program instead.

Two Senators Want Navy to Stop Working on Large Unmanned Warship

Two key senators with defense oversight powers are asking the U.S. Navy to drop its Large Unmanned Surface Vehicle (LUSV) program, one of two major a...

maritime-executive.com

Interestingly the MUSV will be based on the Incat Crowther design.

https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2022/april/navy-launch-musv-prototype-year

Current plans of the USN appear to be based around a mix of MUSV (ISR), LUSV (Missiles) and XLUUV (Mine Warfare). Australia already seems to be lockstepped with the USN with its own plans for LOCSVs and XLAUVs. It could be many years before we see the final makeup of Australia's own Ghost fleet. I would suggest the final fate of a lot of the ADFs acquistion programs will depend on how quickly unmanned technology matures over the coming decades.

 

[Armchair]

I could be mistaken, but I was under the impression that once a Tomahawk was launched at a designated target, the onboard guidance system would be responsible for getting the missile to target and not any control system from a launching platform. IIRC there can be some potential for midcourse correction and/or updates via data links, but those are launch platform agnostic.

The launch platforms SammyC was considering were a LOCSV and a Hunter. The second of these will be an Aegis frigate with huge sensors and communication and command systems for managing battles (Including retargeting missiles). If the LOCSV follows the LUSV program it may not even have the capability to launch missiles without commands from another asset let alone retarget them.

I

 

[Armchair]

NSM is probably much more effective than anything else as a strike munition. Tomahawk is not particularly agile, or stealthy. But it has a chunky warhead and tremendous range and offers deterrence. NSM is an assassins shot from a silenced weapon and would enable taking out high value targets.

If the warship cannot approach close enough to shore to launch its stealthy missile at the high value targets then the stealthier missile is not more effective though.

less stealthy long range missiles that force air defence radars to activate may, however, create opportunities for stealthy platforms.

I know we have rehashed it many times on this thread but, I feel it is worth repeating. Long range has an extra virtue when it allows ships to engage from outside the effective range of the weapons denying those ships access to an area.

 

[SammyC]

Not sure I would consider the LOCSV a done deal. There does seem to be some push back on the US Large Unmanned Surface Vehicle (LUSV) program with a couple of senior members of the Senate Armed Services Committee pushing for the accelerated development of the smaller Medium Unmanned Surface Vehicle (MUSV) program instead.

Two Senators Want Navy to Stop Working on Large Unmanned Warship

Two key senators with defense oversight powers are asking the U.S. Navy to drop its Large Unmanned Surface Vehicle (LUSV) program, one of two major a...

maritime-executive.com

Interestingly the MUSV will be based on the Incat Crowther design.

https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2022/april/navy-launch-musv-prototype-year

Current plans of the USN appear to be based around a mix of MUSV (ISR), LUSV (Missiles) and XLUUV (Mine Warfare). Australia already seems to be lockstepped with the USN with its own plans for LOCSVs and XLAUVs. It could be many years before we see the final makeup of Australia's own Ghost fleet. I would suggest the final fate of a lot of the ADFs acquistion programs will depend on how quickly unmanned technology matures over the coming decades.

It is a bit of a concern that the Senators' main point against the LOCSV is the USN might not have the missiles to put in the LOCSV. Better not buy to many new Arleigh Burke destroyers then.

 

[Todjaeger]

The launch platforms SammyC was considering were a LOCSV and a Hunter. The second of these will be an Aegis frigate with huge sensors and communication and command systems for managing battles (Including retargeting missiles). If the LOCSV follows the LUSV program it may not even have the capability to launch missiles without commands from another asset let alone retarget them.

I

Two key things. The first is that an unmanned/optionally manned vessel (if they ever do actually emerge as currently envisioned) unless it was also setup to either be autonomous would need to receive significant data from other assets. Adding in the sort of sensors and CMS to make such a vessel able to operate essentially independently would add significantly to both cost, complexity, and value of the vessel as both an asset and target. IIRC the rough cost numbers for vessels with advanced sensors and CMS have the electronics typically cost between a third and half the initial cost of the vessel. That is but one of the potentially fatal flaws with the idea of unmanned/optionally manned warships and not unlike one of the problems behind the arsenal ship concept.

The other thing is, if re-targeting is even possible it would not be done by the launching platform unless both the platform, missile and targets were quite close to one another. As I mentioned before, the radar (and RF) horizon would most likely come into play after ~30 km preventing direct/LOS communications. Instead, satellite data links for Tomahawk missiles (which entered USN service back in ~2004 ahead of Block IV) would send the ne/updated target information to the missile with the controlling party being any other system which could link to the missile via the two-way satellite data link. Trying to cram additional functionality into unmanned shipboard systems which would themselves be reliant upon remote commands coming in from offboard operators just does not make much sense.

 

[StingrayOZ]

If the warship cannot approach close enough to shore to launch its stealthy missile at the high value targets then the stealthier missile is not more effective though.

less stealthy long range missiles that force air defence radars to activate may, however, create opportunities for stealthy platforms.

I know we have rehashed it many times on this thread but, I feel it is worth repeating. Long range has an extra virtue when it allows ships to engage from outside the effective range of the weapons denying those ships access to an area.

Tomahawk is extremely valuable due to its range. You don't even really need to be in theatre in the conventional sense. Typically the americans use it to deny critical infrastructure, sensors, communication, refueling depots etc. Not every shot is a heavily defended warship. Taking out eyes and ears can make an enemy withdraw. Often used in first strikes, or even pre-war strikes to give a response. You can spread out your assets, and make wide hits across the planet all at the same time.

Fancy fighter jets can't fly if they don't have fuel. Nor can ships sail.

Even better when launched from subs, as the enemy can't assume they even know if you are ready or target your launch assets easily.

Australia's tomahawk capability isn't massive on its own, particularly to China. Like a panda and flies. But it would mean it would be Australia, UK and the US (the three tomahawk operators) in the loop around making decisions around first strike and battleplans. That is huge. 8 or 9 SSN alone isn't going to completely disable China. But the level of integration with US leadership is huge.

Given black eyes straight off the bat, and standing lock step with tight coalition is big. The Uk only originally purchase 65 Tomahawks, a tiny number really. Launched from subs only.

China only thinks they can do things because they believe US leadership is distracted or doesn't care enough and they have made it too costly for the US to do anything about it..

 

[Todjaeger]

Tomahawk is extremely valuable due to its range. You don't even really need to be in theatre in the conventional sense. Typically the americans use it to deny critical infrastructure, sensors, communication, refueling depots etc. Not every shot is a heavily defended warship. Taking out eyes and ears can make an enemy withdraw. Often used in first strikes, or even pre-war strikes to give a response. You can spread out your assets, and make wide hits across the planet all at the same time.

Fancy fighter jets can't fly if they don't have fuel. Nor can ships sail.

Even better when launched from subs, as the enemy can't assume they even know if you are ready or target your launch assets easily.

Australia's tomahawk capability isn't massive on its own, particularly to China. Like a panda and flies. But it would mean it would be Australia, UK and the US (the three tomahawk operators) in the loop around making decisions around first strike and battleplans. That is huge. 8 or 9 SSN alone isn't going to completely disable China. But the level of integration with US leadership is huge.

Given black eyes straight off the bat, and standing lock step with tight coalition is big. The Uk only originally purchase 65 Tomahawks, a tiny number really. Launched from subs only.

China only thinks they can do things because they believe US leadership is distracted or doesn't care enough and they have made it too costly for the US to do anything about it..

Just imagine the amount of potential havoc RAAF aircraft could unleash from a half-dozen C-130J's and three of the C-17's if they were loaded with AGM-158B's in Rapid Dragon pallets... That would work out to ~200 LACM's with a range of ~1,000 km (give or take) and LO features to make it more difficult for targets to detect possible inbounds. Such a strike could potentially be launched in a matter of hours vs. nearly a week for a RAN warship to get on station.

 

[SammyC]

Good grief, that's like $400 million in one shot. That's my taxes for the next several millenia.

Would want to see some serious fireworks and spectacular explosions in vivid colour for that.

 

[Todjaeger]

Good grief, that's like $400 million in one shot. That's my taxes for the next several millenia.

Would want to see some serious fireworks and spectacular explosions in vivid colour for that.

That is about the same number of LACM's as Australia ordered of RGM-109E Tomahawk Block IV/V LACM. One of the differences though is that Australia could actually conduct a volume strike using existing assets, without giving up the RAN's area air defence capability for 10+ days.

One of the other things we have seen that Tomahawk strikes do seem to need to be done in volume to have an appreciable effect and even this might be something a hostile can rapidly recover from. This notion that 'penny packet' sized Tomahawk strikes of eight missiles or less can be a deterrent is something I am quite dubious of.

 

[hauritz]

It is a bit of a concern that the Senators' main point against the LOCSV is the USN might not have the missiles to put in the LOCSV. Better not buy to many new Arleigh Burke destroyers then.

A quick google search indicates that the USN has around 9900 VLS across its fleet. For Australia that number is currently 200 soon to drop to 192. Australia is more in need of additional VLS than the USN.

The value of something like the LOCSV and its US counterpart isn’t just the extra missile loadout. Rather it is that you can send these ships places you wouldn’t want to send manned vessels. The life expectancy of a manned warship operating deep in enemy waters could probably be measured in hours these days.

 

[SammyC]

That is about the same number of LACM's as Australia ordered of RGM-109E Tomahawk Block IV/V LACM. One of the differences though is that Australia could actually conduct a volume strike using existing assets, without giving up the RAN's area air defence capability for 10+ days.

One of the other things we have seen that Tomahawk strikes do seem to need to be done in volume to have an appreciable effect and even this might be something a hostile can rapidly recover from. This notion that 'penny packet' sized Tomahawk strikes of eight missiles or less can be a deterrent is something I am quite dubious of.

I do agree with the need for these to be sent in large numbers to have any chance against a defended target. Small strike missile volleys are of limited use these days.

The cost is still however mind boggling and its hard to get past. That is equivalent to 20% of the cost of Putin's castle on the Black Sea. Or more soberingly, money that would put some of the leading edge cancer drugs on the PBS for all Australians.

A key point here is that our missile stocks won't last long in a serious conflict. We need heaps more. And it's going to cost heaps more. And that's going to be a problem for a substantial period in time. And I would view missile inventory/production is still more of a concern than the shortage of platforms to fire them from. GWEO has a long way to go, despite recent good progress.

I am personally of interest to see how the likes of Anduril go over the next few years with their missile and torpedo designs, which are supposed to be an order of magnitude cheaper than the traditionals. I'll take a grain of salt with their media releases, but it creates a game changer with the volume problem if they can pull it off. Long way to go though.

In regards to the selection of Tomahawk as the apex strike missile, I'm suprised there has not been more rapid move to the JASSM/LRASM platform away from the Tomahawk. The Tomahawk has a heavy payload and a long range, but it is a lumbering bus and is vulnerable when attacking hardened targets, hence the need to send large numbers to overwhelm. It's also a ship/land based system only, with no air release option.

The AGM 158 family ER variants have the 1000km plus range (as detailed above by Tod) and the new XR (prototype only) taps out at upwards of 2,000 km. That's more than the Tomahawk in a much more low observable and manoeuvrable design. It's cheaper than a Tomahawk as well.

The base LRASM has been attached to a booster and is capable of being fired from a mk41 VLS (the Americans did some test firings a little while ago), so it is ship/submarine capable and could go on any platform that a Tomahawk could fit. The XR has similar dimensions to the base and ER versions except it is longer (6.3m v 4.3 m), so it should still fit in a strike length VLS with a booster.

I believe we have small numbers of the JASSM ERs, ordered back in 2021, so I assume these are on the shelf now. It would be interesting to see if we order more Tomahawks or more JASSMs/LRASMs in the future.

Admitedly the XR and even the ship launched LRASM are new systems with further design work required and limited production facilities, so they are scarce. Lockheed is however aparently investing to increase production to around the 1,100 units per year, that's more than the Tomahawk factory.

Perhaps the Tomahawk provides the interm long range strike capability until the 158s mature and come online in numbers.

 

[SammyC]

A quick google search indicates that the USN has around 9900 VLS across its fleet. For Australia that number is currently 200 soon to drop to 192. Australia is more in need of additional VLS than the USN.

The value of something like the LOCSV and its US counterpart isn’t just the extra missile loadout. Rather it is that you can send these ships places you wouldn’t want to send manned vessels. The life expectancy of a manned warship operating deep in enemy waters could probably be measured in hours these days.

Agree. My comment regarding the American senators was tongue in cheek. These are the same senators who also argued to keep the ageing Ticonderogas is service and put them through extraordinarily expensive refits, all to keep additional VLS cellls in service. Which in another breath they say can't be filled with missiles.

Yes, we have a much more acute need for additional VLS cells than the Americans. Given we are tied so closely to their LOSV program, we are in a vulnerable position. Hopefully they hold the course.

 

[Armchair]

Tomahawk is extremely valuable due to its range. You don't even really need to be in theatre in the conventional sense. Typically the americans use it to deny critical infrastructure, sensors, communication, refueling depots etc. Not every shot is a heavily defended warship. Taking out eyes and ears can make an enemy withdraw. Often used in first strikes, or even pre-war strikes to give a response. You can spread out your assets, and make wide hits across the planet all at the same time.

Fancy fighter jets can't fly if they don't have fuel. Nor can ships sail.

Even better when launched from subs, as the enemy can't assume they even know if you are ready or target your launch assets easily.

Australia's tomahawk capability isn't massive on its own, particularly to China. Like a panda and flies. But it would mean it would be Australia, UK and the US (the three tomahawk operators) in the loop around making decisions around first strike and battleplans. That is huge. 8 or 9 SSN alone isn't going to completely disable China. But the level of integration with US leadership is huge.

Given black eyes straight off the bat, and standing lock step with tight coalition is big. The Uk only originally purchase 65 Tomahawks, a tiny number really. Launched from subs only.

China only thinks they can do things because they believe US leadership is distracted or doesn't care enough and they have made it too costly for the US to do anything about it..

Agreed but you seem to be leaving out the JMSDF which ordered Tomahawks at the same time as Australia in larger numbers and for more vessels. You can argue that it is coincidence but they are likely seeking to deter actions by the same potential adversary. Imagine staging an amphibious assault on Taiwan. Now contemplate the same operation with 20 Aegis vessels lobbing missiles at the staging and landing areas. SS(G)Ns are better because they don’t need the same cover from ballistic missiles but those USN, JMSDF and RAN vessels would be vastly safer than armed cargo planes (Rapid Dragon - outside thread scope is a great idea for other things).

 

[StingrayOZ]

One of the other things we have seen that Tomahawk strikes do seem to need to be done in volume to have an appreciable effect and even this might be something a hostile can rapidly recover from. This notion that 'penny packet' sized Tomahawk strikes of eight missiles or less can be a deterrent is something I am quite dubious of.

Your right, attacking mainland China with Tomahawks isn't going to be a thing. You will never do enough damage, and the Chinese have enough layered systems to defend from that and make instant responses to anything that fired them.

Destroying a hypothetical Chinese fuel/weapon depot in Samoa definitely could be. Attacking a Chinese artificial island in the south China sea, could be. Destroying a sensor outpost could be.

So for Australia now we have that capability and can fire it. Hopefully it means that the Chinese aren't interested in building a whole bunch of stuff in the south Pacific because they would be pretty vulnerable. We don't need to be able to take out mainland China, that will be someone elses fight. We are far enough away we just need to make sure there are no easy closer points to project power from. Island or by sea. Also everyone knows this capability exists, so other countries are unlikely to enter arrangements due to the very long range strike capability.

The value of something like the LOCSV and its US counterpart isn’t just the extra missile loadout. Rather it is that you can send these ships places you wouldn’t want to send manned vessels. The life expectancy of a manned warship operating deep in enemy waters could probably be measured in hours these days.

In a war against China I'm not sure that really matters either not in the traditional sense. Endurance is probably a better reason. For presence. They won't be operating deep within the enemies range, but as outer pickets creating a bubble. Of which manned assets would come and go and move around a lot. When used in conjunction with submarines for example, it creates a bubble of air denial that allows them to operate unencumbered. Or in turn, allow our anti-submarine ships to operate without harassment from the air.

You probably don't want them carrying mega loadouts of long range munitions. Just enough to deter ASW patrols, bombers etc.

Agreed but you seem to be leaving out the JMSDF which ordered Tomahawks at the same time as Australia in larger numbers and for more vessels. You can argue that it is coincidence but they are likely seeking to deter actions by the same potential adversary. Imagine staging an amphibious assault on Taiwan. Now contemplate the same operation with 20 Aegis vessels lobbing missiles at the staging and landing areas. SS(G)Ns are better because they don’t need the same cover from ballistic missiles but those USN, JMSDF and RAN vessels would be vastly safer than armed cargo planes (Rapid Dragon - outside thread scope is a great idea for other things).

Yeh planning for an amphibious assault on Taiwan is going to be bonkers crazy. When the sky is absolutely darkend by missiles going in all directions, that's kind of a whole other thing. Tomahawk doesn't dramatically change things for the Japanese, but does give them an prompt strike option at range from ships and enable them to strike in force with the Americans. Big ponderous amphibious ships would be ideal targets for tomahawk. As would any beach head on remote islands or strategic locations.

Flinging bombs/missiles from aircraft is still going to be the heavy hit option. Even from just multirole fighters. Japan has ~200 F-15 ~40 F-35 and ~85 F-2. The US has probably at least that number of fighters also based in Japan.

Which gets back to our light frigates, I see Japan is hitting up Indonesia to buy some Mogami. Japan is super worried about securing its shipping lanes. But that is something it needs to partner with others for. Japan herself will be very tied up with what is happening around Taiwan.

 

[Armchair]

A quick google search indicates that the USN has around 9900 VLS across its fleet. For Australia that number is currently 200 soon to drop to 192. Australia is more in need of additional VLS than the USN.

The value of something like the LOCSV and its US counterpart isn’t just the extra missile loadout. Rather it is that you can send these ships places you wouldn’t want to send manned vessels. The life expectancy of a manned warship operating deep in enemy waters could probably be measured in hours these days.

True for LUSV but if LOCSV enters RAN service it is proposed to be a crewed platform (presumably those crew members will contribute navigation, maintenance and security functions and, perhaps, ensure a human in the loop for firing). It will be an auxiliary magazine operating under the protection of a Hobart or Hunter rather than a forward launch platform (as the ADF would not operate unprotected crewed platforms in . Presumably the surface fleet analysis rejected batches of Hunters with more VLS as an option (just as the Defence Review rejected B-21 - albeit publicly in that case) but that was the other way to go.