Agree the strales/dart system looks more and more interesting in the light of UAV/USV proliferation.
Also, first confirmation I've seen of any specific navy using the Australian designed EOS r400-m.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
Also, first confirmation I've seen of any specific navy using the Australian designed EOS r400-m.
U.S. Navy Reveals Naval Modular Missile Architecture for Future Air Defense Interceptors
Interesting that the USN look to be moving to a new common missile family to replace ESSM / SM2 / SM6.
More interesting again is the intention for sub launchable variants. A terrifying thought for ASW helos, AWACS and MPAs as long as the sub can solve the targeting problem.
Also puts even more of a premium on VLS for SSN AUKUS.
Interesting that the USN look to be moving to a new common missile family to replace ESSM / SM2 / SM6.
More interesting again is the intention for sub launchable variants. A terrifying thought for ASW helos, AWACS and MPAs as long as the sub can solve the targeting problem.
Also puts even more of a premium on VLS for SSN AUKUS.
Its not so much the capability of having these missiles launched from submarines but for the submarine itself to be networked into the targetting and the communication with the submarine when underwater,Im not sure if a definite method has been worked out with this ot theoretical ,hopefully this option is a consideration for the AUKUS submarine
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
Richo, for numbskull me can you fill me in on the EOS r400-m? I was thinking of a Canon digital SLR camera! Lol
T
it's the maritime version of the r400 remote weapon system by electro optical systems. It does have some fancy optics!
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
Thanks pal.
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-new...upport-virginia-class-submarine-construction/
Another Australian manufacturer, in this case Bisalloy, has been authorised to supply HY80 steel into the American Virginia program, and additionaly with a first order. Hopefully more orders to come, SSNs need a lot of steel.
I imagine we must have made HY80 for the Collins back in the day, and I assume the Hobart and the current Hunter programs would have used some HY80 as well.
I post this as another example of the maturing of the local AUKUS supply chain in preparation for construction torwards the end of this decade.
Another Australian manufacturer, in this case Bisalloy, has been authorised to supply HY80 steel into the American Virginia program, and additionaly with a first order. Hopefully more orders to come, SSNs need a lot of steel.
I imagine we must have made HY80 for the Collins back in the day, and I assume the Hobart and the current Hunter programs would have used some HY80 as well.
I post this as another example of the maturing of the local AUKUS supply chain in preparation for construction torwards the end of this decade.
Going Boeing
Well-Known Member
This article is 7 years old & pre dates AUKUS but is an interesting discussion about the quality of steels used in submarine construction.
In particular, for the Collins class, “The outcome, after input and rigorous testing by DSTO, was the Australian grade BIS 8 l 2EMA plate that is weldable, micro-alloyed, high yield stress steel with excellent low temperature impact properties. It is also reportedly a lighter chemistry and easier to weld than the HY-80 or HY-100 nickel-alloy steel used in contemporary submarine construction projects.”
I understand that Bisalloy received a contract from the US about 12 months ago to supply 250t of their latest version of submarine steel for testing. Now, it appears that testing has been completed and the US has given them a production contract but, I suspect that it is for their hi tech version not HY-80.
In particular, for the Collins class, “The outcome, after input and rigorous testing by DSTO, was the Australian grade BIS 8 l 2EMA plate that is weldable, micro-alloyed, high yield stress steel with excellent low temperature impact properties. It is also reportedly a lighter chemistry and easier to weld than the HY-80 or HY-100 nickel-alloy steel used in contemporary submarine construction projects.”
I understand that Bisalloy received a contract from the US about 12 months ago to supply 250t of their latest version of submarine steel for testing. Now, it appears that testing has been completed and the US has given them a production contract but, I suspect that it is for their hi tech version not HY-80.
Last edited:
devo99
Well-Known Member
Just a replacement for the Standard Missile family which wouldn't include ESSM. Particularly with those boosters, you would lose the quick tipping of ESSM that makes it so good at the closer range bracket. I haven't seen anything that looks like an SM-3 replacement for that matter either.
It does include a medium range version that’s quad packable - surely you wouldn’t run those and ESSM?
Yes ABM seems to be out of scope for the time being.
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
What would the medium range version be replacing? Having it quad packable would give you a bigger magazine
Last edited:
Common launcher, great; common missile, good; many missiles with over lapping capabilities that are intigrated with multiple launch options and multiple combat systems, best. The other guy is at a major disadvantage if you have layered defensive and offensive effectors and they have no idea what you are carrying.
A sensor equipped UUV with data link/optic fiber back to Sub. Bring it to surface a distance from the Sub and track your target.
If fairly close range the missile will aquire the target quickly on its own.
Not such a big risk if you are going to betray your position by firing a missile anyway.
Not sure how often the situation would justify such a risk.
Unclear whether it would be ESSM or SM2.
Something quad packed (or even just dual packed) with SM2 type capabilities would be a major capability enhancement.
Takao
The Bunker Group
Not quite. It's a ESSM and SM-2 replacement. The SM-3 and SM-6 aren't yet covered by the design. Not sure if the SM-3 would ever be, but I expect that as the NMM design matures, you'll see the SM-6 replaced as well. The key to the design is common seeker and warhead (the terminal stage interceptor) but with alternating motors. It'll be a 1:1 replacement for ESSM (4x to a Mk 41) and a 2:1 for SM-2 (2x to a Mk 41) which automatically up to doubles the magazine depth of most combatants. The final surface variant adds speed and range - allowing very long range intercepts.
Sounds like a good idea for the GWEO to investigate, particularly given such missiles may* play important roles in ADF maritime and ground based air defence systems…
Well the US seem to think they will able to do tactical level AWAC from space in the not too distant future.
W
While that is plausible it would mean the sub already expects aircraft in their area which in some circumstances would not be known. Even better the missile fires from the UUV Dozens of miles away from the sub. However is suspect the US is planning on targeting from space.
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
What's the estimated time into service of Ghost Shark?
Hanwha Defense USA seeks to acquire Austal USA in $1.2B potential deal - Breaking Defense
This appears to be the next iteration of Hanwa's interest in Austal. They have proposed buying Austal's US assets only. Apparently it has Austal board approval, so more likely to be successful.
I can see why this suits Hanwa's interest and it resolves conflict of interst issues with MHI for the Mogami build. I'm wondering if this sets up the remainder of Austal to be nationalised by the federal government.
This appears to be the next iteration of Hanwa's interest in Austal. They have proposed buying Austal's US assets only. Apparently it has Austal board approval, so more likely to be successful.
I can see why this suits Hanwa's interest and it resolves conflict of interst issues with MHI for the Mogami build. I'm wondering if this sets up the remainder of Austal to be nationalised by the federal government.