Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[downunderblue]

The bipartisan decision has been made to not go down the nuclear weapon path. That's another can of worms. However, a long range conventional warhead cruise missile is a better idea. An echidna with very long spikes.

I had a quick scan but isn't SLCM-N just a new more survival TLAM with a revised warhead?

It's clear we will need something and will possess a lot of flexiability on what weapons (+++) we put on our SSN's (just ignoring the Hobart class for now).

From reading, the VLS fittout for the subs will be:

• 2x 87-inch Virginia Payload Tubes (VPTs) (which coincidentally were first contracted to BAE) on the 2x RAN Virginia-class Block IV SSN's
• 4x VPTs on the single RAN Virginia-class Block V SSN totalling either 40-48 missiles (there is some variance here in sources)
• a 'common vertical launch system' on the RAN SSN AUKUS, likely to involve 2x VPT's (tbc) ???

There seems to be some question how many missiles the VPT can carry and of what type. Some say 6, some 7, some even 10 Tomahawk sized missiles but there are also references to hypersonic packages.

There isn't much material on the VPT, but 87 inches is big and offers many options. Have a look at the below graphic from the US Naval Submarine League (source). It references the Conventional Prompt Strike hypersonic missile as well as 'crusie missiles' UUV's etc. Maybe they could even quad pack a SAM???

Eitherway, I guess I am saying that there are many forms of "echidnas with very long spikes" you could potentially use, many of which could utilise differing warhead packages depending on the mission allocated.

 

[JBRobbo]

I had a quick scan but isn't SLCM-N just a new more survival TLAM with a revised warhead?

It's clear we will need something and will possess a lot of flexiability on what weapons (+++) we put on our SSN's (just ignoring the Hobart class for now).

From reading, the VLS fittout for the subs will be:

• 2x 87-inch Virginia Payload Tubes (VPTs) (which coincidentally were first contracted to BAE) on the 2x RAN Virginia-class Block IV SSN's
• 4x VPTs on the single RAN Virginia-class Block V SSN totalling either 40-48 missiles (there is some variance here in sources)
• a 'common vertical launch system' on the RAN SSN AUKUS, likely to involve 2x VPT's (tbc) ???

There seems to be some question how many missiles the VPT can carry and of what type. Some say 6, some 7, some even 10 Tomahawk sized missiles but there are also references to hypersonic packages.

There isn't much material on the VPT, but 87 inches is big and offers many options. Have a look at the below graphic from the US Naval Submarine League (source). It references the Conventional Prompt Strike hypersonic missile as well as 'crusie missiles' UUV's etc. Maybe they could even quad pack a SAM???

Eitherway, I guess I am saying that there are many forms of "echidnas with very long spikes" you could potentially use, many of which could utilise differing warhead packages depending on the

 

[JBRobbo]

We're not getting any Virginia BlockV, its two second-hand Block-4s + a new-build Block6/7 if i remember. Pretty sure we specifically requested that they not be fitted with the additional Virginia Payload Module (VPM) tubes of the Block5. I presume its because it would've been harder to reassure our regional neighbors that the acquisition of nuclear submarines was defensive in nature when a Block5 can dump 40 TLAM or 12x TLAM and 12x 'Dark Eagle' LRHW on them with near impunity.

 

[downunderblue]

We're not getting any Virginia BlockV, its two second-hand Block-4s + a new-build Block6/7 if i remember. Pretty sure we specifically requested that they not be fitted with the additional Virginia Payload Module (VPM) tubes of the Block5. I presume its because it would've been harder to reassure our regional neighbors that the acquisition of nuclear submarines was defensive in nature when a Block5 can dump 40 TLAM or 12x TLAM and 12x 'Dark Eagle' LRHW on them with near impunity.

I stand corrected, so it'll be two Block V's and a Block VII (new build) instead of the Block V.

I've realised my above calcs on are confused with the 87-inch Virginia Payload Tubes (VPTs) most likely being utilised. The below is a USNI-sourced diagram of the 2x VPT on the Block III USS Colarado. 'I assume' we'll end up with two VPT's per boat. It's still a lot of hoopla, likely at 6 missiles or similar per VPT. The only possible contradiction to this is SSN-Aukus and whether the 'common vertical launch system' consists of two VPT's or something different.

Am getting tired now so going to stop looking. Correct me if incorrect and will reassess tmrw.

 

[Reptilia]

We don’t actually need a new block VII.
A new block VII guarantees Uncle Sam will have access to an Indian Ocean maintenance hub into the 2070s.
Would prefer another used block IV, retiring all 3 in the 2050s and just having 1 class(SSN AUKUS).

 

[ADMk2]

We don’t actually need a new block VII.
A new block VII guarantees Uncle Sam will have access to an Indian Ocean maintenance hub into the 2070s.
Would prefer another used block IV, retiring all 3 in the 2050s and just having 1 class(SSN AUKUS).

Just 2 submarines of any kind is not going to provide an operational submarine at all times considering the 3:1 rule. May be manageable with a rotation submarine from either the US or UK, but doesn't do much for our national sovereignty... I am not sure there is much point in spending so much, to not even have an operational submarine at all times...

Is there a particular problem with having a US Maintenance hub? Surely that helps ensure US interest and commitment to sustaining the effort, no? Pecuniary interest is one thing, actual "skin in the game" is something else. Even with AUKUS submarines assuming everything goes to plan perfectly (unlikely) we will still require substantial US commitment to the program due to US combat and weapon systems being included in the design...

 

[Reptilia]

Just 2 submarines of any kind is not going to provide an operational submarine at all times considering the 3:1 rule. May be manageable with a rotation submarine from either the US or UK, but doesn't do much for our national sovereignty... I am not sure there is much point in spending so much, to not even have an operational submarine at all times...

Is there a particular problem with having a US Maintenance hub? Surely that helps ensure US interest and commitment to sustaining the effort, no? Pecuniary interest is one thing, actual "skin in the game" is something else. Even with AUKUS submarines assuming everything goes to plan perfectly (unlikely) we will still require substantial US commitment to the program due to US combat and weapon systems being included in the design...

‘Would prefer another used block IV, retiring all 3 in the 2050s and just having 1 class(SSN AUKUS).’