Containerise the launchers and stick them on the back of an Arafura?
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
Containerise the launchers and stick them on the back of an Arafura?
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
It could be argued that the Mk 141 quad Harpoon missile launchers already are containerized. Fitting Harpoons to the Arafura-class might just end up making the OPV's into more viable targets without appreciably increasing their use in the event of hostilities.
Further, if the current missiles or at least parts of them, are approaching the end-of-service life, then coin would still be required to ensure that will go, "bang," if/when needed.
InterestedParty
Active Member
I assume that there are ITAR issues but could the Harpoons be gifted to Ukraine, the range is not excessive
Harpoons are probably still very useful with subs. I don't know how many encapsulations we have, but the biggest issue with Harpoon, being range, is less of an issue with a sub. Also the lack of advanced stealth features, are less of an issue when attacking less well defended land targets, for ships torpedoes are still pretty stealthy.
Superhornets, P8 and subs mean that that is decent number of platforms. I don't think we will be upgrading them, but I also think we aren't yet ready to get rid of them. If NSM becomes sub launched, and LRASM JSM becoming P8, and Superhornets are getting decommissioned, then it would be useful to get rid of them.
Not sure how useful they would be for Ukraine either. there would be other allies in the region that may appreciate bolting a launcher or reloads if required.
Superhornets, P8 and subs mean that that is decent number of platforms. I don't think we will be upgrading them, but I also think we aren't yet ready to get rid of them. If NSM becomes sub launched, and LRASM JSM becoming P8, and Superhornets are getting decommissioned, then it would be useful to get rid of them.
Not sure how useful they would be for Ukraine either. there would be other allies in the region that may appreciate bolting a launcher or reloads if required.
I feel strongly that this will very much be the case.
Big upgrade in capability over the Armidales.
Suspect we will ultimately end up with more, and possibly bigger.
Regards,
Massive
Ideally:
5 New FFM built in Japan
5 New FFM in Australia
Extend Hunter build to 10 & shorten drumbeat
Roll into 5 13DDX to replace the AWDs
Or something like that.
Regards,
Massive
I think there is a reasonable chance that more than three GPFs will be built overseas. Rumours indicate that the two tenderers gave options for a fourth ship as part of their submissions.
It wouldn't surprise me if Japan offered the last two classic Mogamis plus the requisit three upgraded Mogamis, all built overseas. Such a deal could see us with three or four Mogamis before 2030. This might be how the government demonstrates greater commitment to defence expenditure and gets the Americans off their back.
I tend to think that if more frigates are required then they are more likely to be of the GPF rather than Hunter platform. They will be cheaper and quicker. I would think the government will hold the 8 Australian builds regardless of what is ordered from overseas. The industry backlash would be significant if they cut this, and the expenditure is a long way in the future (i.e there is no need to take the pain now; leave that for someone else).
I can see the Hunter platform evolving into the AWD replacement. They will be mature by that time, much cheaper, and ready for an update for batch two (new versions of AI Aegis, laser systems, hypersonics etc).
I'm not sure the 13DDX would be sufficient to warrant moving away from the Hunter platform. An evolved Hunter would be more than a capability match
Doubt we see Japan sell 2 classic Mogamis but one Mogami being stationed here and used for training prior to delivery would be a no brainer, much like the Spanish did with the F100 for 4-5 months.
Possibly, and yes basing in Australia is another option.
I'm looking at it from the Japanese perspective. Releasing some of the classic Mogamis would enable them to replace with the upgraded Mogami. That's an improvement for them, and given how fast the pump them out, result in a one year delay to the overal program (2034 rather than 2033).
From Australia's perspective, while the upgraded Mogami is the better platform, the classic Mogami would still meet our needs and be an improvement on what we have. It would provide us the training ships to prepare for the later fleet, and give us some much needed capability now. Hulls 11 and 12 are scheduled for commissioning in FY27.
I keep coming back in my mind to how the government plans to cope with the evolving defence expenditure picture. The pressure from the US to step up our investment is significant, the global political situation continues to decline, and the government needs to find a way that it does any investment on its terms. Early GPFs seems to be a good fit for that.
I'm not sure they japanese worry too much about having two more upgraded mogami that doesn't change the equation for them. IMO I think they are happier with the smaller mogami. These aren't virginia submarines, these are medium frigates.
The issue with 4 japan built Mogamis is that it eats into the local viability of local ship building for the class. Japan would probably be happy with a 2 transfer and 2 for medium term lease. Having two lightly used ships they can sell onto the market is something that may actually help them with overseas sales. But it would mean Australia has four ships, which is actual deployable capability and enough to have a significant pipeline for training.
I suspect the basic layout design for the upgraded Mogami (passageways, cabins, living spaces etc) will be much the same as the classic. Those same points will remain as they are not easy to change.
Bear in mind most military ships are small, cramped and have no personal space. That comes as standard and is a joy that all sailors quickly learn. Tall people (those over 6') regularly crack their head on ANZACs as well. I have a feeling had that journalist looked at an ANZAC or Hobart they would have had a similar view.
I remember giving my wife a tour of one of the ships I served on. She was horrified when she saw my cabin.
Re the question of potential Harpoon upgrades:
I think in a kinetic exchange, volume is a multiplier in itself.
If it forces a defender to expend its own VLS, that implies its earlier departure from the area to re-arm.
If the defender is expeditionary then that’s a long way to return to, and when one considers that a ship will always aim to return with a retained % of its magazine for its own defence in withdrawal.
If the defender is an escort for more valuable fruit, then that affects their mission set, which has an area denial effect.
So, if the Harpoons can be made effective enough to force a response by a defender, then there is merit in exploring the concept.
I think in a kinetic exchange, volume is a multiplier in itself.
If it forces a defender to expend its own VLS, that implies its earlier departure from the area to re-arm.
If the defender is expeditionary then that’s a long way to return to, and when one considers that a ship will always aim to return with a retained % of its magazine for its own defence in withdrawal.
If the defender is an escort for more valuable fruit, then that affects their mission set, which has an area denial effect.
So, if the Harpoons can be made effective enough to force a response by a defender, then there is merit in exploring the concept.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Again though, the question would be at what cost?
AFAIK, the Harpoon Block II's which had been fitted to the ANZAC-class frigates were RGM-84's meaning ship-launched. These might be adaptable to other types of launches like air, ground/land, or sub, OTOH they might not be.
They also might be able to change the type of launch after some modification. IIRC the UGM-84 (sub-launched) have a booster to propel it into the air from the capsule once it breaches the surface.
If such modifications are an option, they will have some sort of cost associated with it.
How many Harpoons are in the Australian inventory? How many of which types? Also very important is what it their expected service life and/or when would they have to undergo an inspection, maintenance and remanufacture regimen to be kept in service?
Given that NSM is replacing the Harpoon aboard the helicopter frigates, I tend to suspect one of the drivers behind this change is that the existing stock of Harpoons were approaching the point where they would have to be remanufactured or outright replaced. Given that Australia has opted to replace the RGM-84's outright, that makes me suspect that significant costs were anticipated.
I do agree with everything you say, Todjaeger.
I don’t know the actual budget/practicality metrics involved, but in the end of the day these things only need to be a threat enough for the defender to NEED to respond to them. If they COULD actually hit the target, even tho they likely will be intercepted, then it forces expenditure of the defenders limited magazine that it otherwise would not need to.
Isn’t the name of the game in the Australian context ‘Area Denial’?
It’d be pretty annoying if you are an expeditionary unit and you are forced to burn through your magazines at a higher rate, then forced to leave to re-arm again.
Perhaps it is relatively small expenditure?
Would it have the compound value of degrading an adversary so that the high end munition has an even better chance of success?
ie: these could act as a VLS defensive missile sponge. Actually hitting the target would be a bonus.
Wouldn’t that contribute to an adversary ‘mission-kill’?
I don’t know the actual budget/practicality metrics involved, but in the end of the day these things only need to be a threat enough for the defender to NEED to respond to them. If they COULD actually hit the target, even tho they likely will be intercepted, then it forces expenditure of the defenders limited magazine that it otherwise would not need to.
Isn’t the name of the game in the Australian context ‘Area Denial’?
It’d be pretty annoying if you are an expeditionary unit and you are forced to burn through your magazines at a higher rate, then forced to leave to re-arm again.
Perhaps it is relatively small expenditure?
Would it have the compound value of degrading an adversary so that the high end munition has an even better chance of success?
ie: these could act as a VLS defensive missile sponge. Actually hitting the target would be a bonus.
Wouldn’t that contribute to an adversary ‘mission-kill’?
Last edited:
if it is then it is likely to be achIeved with munitions with longer range than Harpoon though. That increase in range is a common theme in many ADF programs (with debates in these threads about the likely efficacy of targeting).
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
It is one of those things which I doubt any of us will really know, because it is very dependent on what the actual status of Australia's stock of Harpoons is. If the missiles are in good nick with years of potential service life left then by all means try and find other ways to keep them useful/relevant as well as to keep potential hostiles guessing.
OTOH if the missiles are at or approaching the end of their useful lives without a period of major inspection and remanufacture, then just let them be retired. No sense in trying to keep missiles in service that may or may not actually fire when called to, or spending significant coin to keep something old in service when newer munitions are coming on line to replace it.
The third option which might be available, would be to do some low cost upgrades, maintenance and/or inspections to keep the Harpoons at least somewhat relevant and still functional.
Again, it is highly dependent on what the actual conditions of the Harpoons are and how much it would likely cost to either keep in them in a functional condition, or bring them back to a functional condition.
Aardvark144
Active Member
The text indicates the final decision is days away, so I guess the decision is imminent, I can not access due to paywall however perhaps this week will be interesting finally.
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/na...m/news-story/568e8dde9491e0a909cd6af4cae1d660
Do I dare to say it is perhaps being used by the GOTD as a leverage with the US call to increase the budget?
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/na...m/news-story/568e8dde9491e0a909cd6af4cae1d660
Do I dare to say it is perhaps being used by the GOTD as a leverage with the US call to increase the budget?
It says
‘But there is growing speculation that up to six of the frigates could be built offshore, amid doubts the facility near Perth will be ready in time, and an expected backlog for the winning bidder’s likely industrial partner, Austal, which has to build two classes of heavy landing vessels for the army before switching to the frigate build.’
’It’s unclear if Defence supports one design or the other, potentially leaving cabinet members with a high degree of latitude on the final decision.’