Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

StevoJH

StevoJH

The Bunker Group
InterestedParty said:
As a manufacturing engineer I would love Australia to have a sovereign manufacturing capability for these missiles but surely it would be cheaper just to lay in a huge war stock. Presumably if we made them here the rate of production would only cover training usage, we couldn't possibly manufacture at the rate they would be consumed during hostilities and therefore would need to have a large war stock anyway. we could perhaps have a sovereign maintenance and upgrade capability (maybe we have already)
I am amazed that the Israelis have been able to sustain the usage rates of their air defence missiles
Click to expand...
Cost isn't going to matter if we get into a situation where they are required. The main concern with purchases from overseas would be whether they would be available to purchase when needed.

Remember that the missile in the Iron Dome system is actually quite cheap and basic compared to something like ESSM.
 
S

seaspear

Well-Known Member
Should Australia develop an anti satellite technology making it harder to target sites or naval assets I am aware that Australia is a signatory to kinetic weapons being used against satellites but should other methods be considered
www.abc.net.au

Will the next big conflict be fought in space? This is how the world is preparing for star wars

Satellites are under threat like never before and more countries are preparing for wars in space. So, what exactly is going on above the atmosphere? And should we be worried?
www.abc.net.au www.abc.net.au
 
John Fedup

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
seaspear said:
Should Australia develop an anti satellite technology making it harder to target sites or naval assets I am aware that Australia is a signatory to kinetic weapons being used against satellites but should other methods be considered
www.abc.net.au

Will the next big conflict be fought in space? This is how the world is preparing for star wars

Satellites are under threat like never before and more countries are preparing for wars in space. So, what exactly is going on above the atmosphere? And should we be worried?
www.abc.net.au www.abc.net.au
Click to expand...
I have little doubt any peer to peer conflict will likely result in a nuke detonation in space to produce a big EMP for disabling satellites.
 
V

Vivendi

Well-Known Member
spoz said:
Aster - not well. In fact, at present, not really in the game although they would like to be.

Iron Dome - good for short range interceptions, not into mid course (ie SM3 stuff).

David’s Sling (Stunner) - more capable but still not up to SM3. More like PAC 3.

Arrow 3. Competent.
Click to expand...
I believe SAMP/T NG using the Aster 30 B1NT should be more relevant, if it meets the specifications of course. IDEX 2025 - Eurosam promotes Advanced Aster 30 B1NT Missile and SAMPT NG - EDR Magazine

The current Aster 30 has several weaknesses but nevertheless been demonstrated to have some anti-ballistic capabilities by both French and UK navies.
French Alsace frigate intercepts three ballistic missiles in the Red Sea - Militarnyi
HMS Diamond makes first Sea Viper anti-ballistic missile kill in action in the Gulf of Aden - Navy Lookout

UK testing of Aster 30: Historic 1st For The U.K! Royal Navy's Most Advanced Warship Shoots Down Supersonic Missile Near Scotland

UK, France and Italy are also ordering more Aster missiles, hopefully this will ultimately lead to a reduction in unit costs: France, Italy and the UK order more than 200 additional Aster missiles from MBDA - Naval News
 
Last edited:
Todjaeger

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
StevoJH said:
Cost isn't going to matter if we get into a situation where they are required. The main concern with purchases from overseas would be whether they would be available to purchase when needed.

Remember that the missile in the Iron Dome system is actually quite cheap and basic compared to something like ESSM.
Click to expand...
If/when a hot conflict breaks out then yes, cost will likely not be particularly important. However cost does very much matter beforehand since that can dictate, at least in part, whether or not a facility and workforce is actually employed and sustained.

If the cost of a given missile is quite high, then Australia (or anyone else for that matter) might not be willing to invest the amount of coin needed to establish a significant warstock pre-conflict. Depending on the size/skill of a workforce as well as the capabilities of the facility itself, it is quite conceivable that a missile production facility could fulfill the stocking order to provide a missile inventory and then gov't/pollies might not be willing to spend more coin to keep production going until a conflict breaks out.
 
spoz

spoz

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Vivendi said:
I believe SAMP/T NG using the Aster 30 B1NT should be more relevant, if it meets the specifications of course. IDEX 2025 - Eurosam promotes Advanced Aster 30 B1NT Missile and SAMPT NG - EDR Magazine

The current Aster 30 has several weaknesses but nevertheless been demonstrated to have some anti-ballistic capabilities by both French and UK navies.
French Alsace frigate intercepts three ballistic missiles in the Red Sea - Militarnyi
HMS Diamond makes first Sea Viper anti-ballistic missile kill in action in the Gulf of Aden - Navy Lookout

UK testing of Aster 30: Historic 1st For The U.K! Royal Navy's Most Advanced Warship Shoots Down Supersonic Missile Near Scotland

UK, France and Italy are also ordering more Aster missiles, hopefully this will ultimately lead to a reduction in unit costs: France, Italy and the UK order more than 200 additional Aster missiles from MBDA - Naval News
Click to expand...
Agree they are moving that way; but there is a lot of difference between being able to take out an ICBM in mid course (SM-3) and being able to takeout a Scud like short range missile (Aster). The Europeans are aiming for the former but haven’t got there yet. I’m pretty sure that, provided the commitment is there, they will. They undoubtedly have the technical capability to do so.
 
StevoJH

StevoJH

The Bunker Group
Todjaeger said:
If/when a hot conflict breaks out then yes, cost will likely not be particularly important. However cost does very much matter beforehand since that can dictate, at least in part, whether or not a facility and workforce is actually employed and sustained.

If the cost of a given missile is quite high, then Australia (or anyone else for that matter) might not be willing to invest the amount of coin needed to establish a significant warstock pre-conflict. Depending on the size/skill of a workforce as well as the capabilities of the facility itself, it is quite conceivable that a missile production facility could fulfill the stocking order to provide a missile inventory and then gov't/pollies might not be willing to spend more coin to keep production going until a conflict breaks out.
Click to expand...
I agree completely, and I don’t think that Australia has the need to build *everything* here.

However a large production line for ESSM would be ideal, especially if something like Typhon could be attached to NASAM batteries to launch them.

If the US would allow overseas production of AMRAAM that would also be ideal since it can be both ground and air launched.

I doubt SM-2/6/3 would ever be acquired in enough numbers to justify local manufacture even if the US allowed.
 
V

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
StevoJH said:
I agree completely, and I don’t think that Australia has the need to build *everything* here.

However a large production line for ESSM would be ideal, especially if something like Typhon could be attached to NASAM batteries to launch them.

If the US would allow overseas production of AMRAAM that would also be ideal since it can be both ground and air launched.

I doubt SM-2/6/3 would ever be acquired in enough numbers to justify local manufacture even if the US allowed.
Click to expand...
I believe ESSM can be fired from the existing NASAM launchers but may not have been certified yet.

I recall seeing an image or mock up on a rail launcher.

Just checked, AMRAAM-ER is an ESSM with an AMRAAM seeker head and is compatible with NASAMS
 
Todjaeger

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
StevoJH said:
I agree completely, and I don’t think that Australia has the need to build *everything* here.

However a large production line for ESSM would be ideal, especially if something like Typhon could be attached to NASAM batteries to launch them.

If the US would allow overseas production of AMRAAM that would also be ideal since it can be both ground and air launched.

I doubt SM-2/6/3 would ever be acquired in enough numbers to justify local manufacture even if the US allowed.
Click to expand...
One potential issue with domestic production of ESSM is that AFAIK ESSM is some sort of a multi-national consortium arrangement, with Australia already involved in to produce some parts of the missile. In order for Australia to be able to begin domestic production of ESSM, there would likely need to be agreement with/by the other consortium member-nations. Australia might also need to source missile subcomponents from other consortium members, which in turn means that production could be interrupted or even interdicted.
 
C

CJR

Active Member
seaspear said:
How likely would Australia look to update its Harpoon missiles
www.navalnews.com

U.S. Navy to Modernize Harpoon Missiles with New Seekers - Naval News

The U.S. Navy is looking to upgrade its aging Harpoon missiles via new seekers in a new service life extension program.
www.navalnews.com www.navalnews.com
Click to expand...
For shipboard use NSM is already coming in, so that'd be a no. For air launch, well, Hornets are gone, Super Hornets and P-8s can use 'em but also have LRASM; F-35s don't have Harpoon integrated (NSM/JSM current, LRASM in progress for -Cs probably could carry over to -As without too much trouble). Submarine launch looks like where Harpoon will stick round for awhile as torp-tube launched Tomahawk is pretty much dead; sub-launched JSM is still on the drawing board and there's no movement on any form of sub-launched LRASM...

So, a smallish buy of upgrades for the Collins class leveraging off the US order looks possible but don't expect much of the inventory to get upgraded.
 
B

Bob53

Well-Known Member
Todjaeger said:
If/when a hot conflict breaks out then yes, cost will likely not be particularly important. However cost does very much matter beforehand since that can dictate, at least in part, whether or not a facility and workforce is actually employed and sustained.

If the cost of a given missile is quite high, then Australia (or anyone else for that matter) might not be willing to invest the amount of coin needed to establish a significant warstock pre-conflict. Depending on the size/skill of a workforce as well as the capabilities of the facility itself, it is quite conceivable that a missile production facility could fulfill the stocking order to provide a missile inventory and then gov't/pollies might not be willing to spend more coin to keep production going until a conflict breaks out.
Click to expand...
You have summed up the fatalistic cycle we face…, build and hope they are not needed. Don’t build and hope they are not needed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top