Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[Todjaeger]

Japan unveils first images of new Type 12 anti-ship missile tests - Naval News

My apologies for missile name confusion. I was referring to the upgrade to the Type 12 detailed in the above article. It is apparently in development, but at the stage of testing for the ground launched variant. One assumes this will go into production in the next few years for the army. It is quite a big change from the current Type 12/17 in operation. It's a longer term prospect for the Naval version, maybe at the turn of the decade.

The earlier question from Reptilia (my understanding at least) was around would we take this missile if it came with the upgraded Mogami, given the transaction is all around the 2030s when this upgrade type12/17 missile is likely to be the Japanese Naval standard.

I take your points on the NSM competitors at the time of evaluation. Probably slim pickings in that timeframe.

If we do however forward project to say 2030, when our own production line becomes fully active, the NSM would likely be stacking up against evolved versions of ship launched LRASM and the above Japanese Type 12, not to mention whatever the likes of China is fielding by that time. Its range does start to stand out in that context. Do we face an obsolete/outgunned missile given the advancements with other types of missiles. Are we potentially sinking an obscene amount of money into a system that may not be competitive when our factory comes on line.

I take the point that LRASM (in any form) would be too heavy for an ANZAC platform, however if we are talking 5,000 and 10,000 tonne future frigates, then I would have thought this becomes more viable to manage.

While LRASM has only been tested from a Mk41 VLS, any missile that works with this launcher should be compatible with adaptable deck launchers. So it could be a replacement for the NSM topside rather than canibalise the mk41. Or it could be a Tomahawk alternative launched from a LOCSV.

I get that the NSM is perhaps our best option now, but will it still be so in five years time.

If we are talking about five years (2029/2030) from now, then yes, I would expect that NSM and derivatives would likely be the best options for the RAN. TBH I do not think more options would really start becoming available until perhaps are early as 2032 with 2034 being more likely IMO. That is around the time that the Hunter-class FFG's should start to enter service, as well as when whatever gets selected for the overseas build for the SEA 3000 GPF should likely not only be completed including sea trials, but also the training and support activities required to actually operate and keep a new design with different kit in service.

Regarding the RAN adopting LRASM... I think there is potential for this to occur, but it would need to be once the RAN is closer to getting more Mk 41 VLS (that would not have serious cell count and topweight issues) into RAN service. Unless/until someone like the USN begins to develop a multi-missile, angled launcher like the Mk 141, to fire LRASM, I do not think smaller navies would both trying to develop this for just themselves. Also give the per missile weight for LRASM, I do not think a quad-launcher is really feasible, since the individual missiles are themselves twice the mass of Harpoon.

Now a further thought occurred to me on potential RAN AShM/LACM options. Currently it appears the RAN also fields the UGM-84C the Sub Harpoon Block 1B, aboard the Collins-class SSG. If these missiles could be remanufactured to add some of the features available from the RAN's current RGM-84 Harpoon Block II, then that could introduce a sub-launched land attack/strike capability to the RAN, which currently does not exist. Alternatively, the RAN could see about replacing the Sub Harpoons with the NSM-SL which would provide RAN subs with both a strike capability and more modern/advanced AShM. I do not consider it likely that sub-launched versions of Tomahawk, which would be UGM-109's, would ever get fielded from the Collins-class subs for several reasons. If memory serves, when the RAN fitted a version of the AN-BGY 1 from the Viriginia-class SSN to the Collins-class SSG, elements needed to carry/launch Tomahawk missiles from the subs were not included. Further, IIRC Tomahawk was excluded because some of what was needed (in terms of the CMS and/or weapons stations) to deploy Tomahawks could not be fitted within the spaces available within the sub. These modifications would also be atop the need for Australia to get approved to purchase sub-launched versions of Tomahawk, and so on.