Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

r3mu511

New Member
^re. launch phase intercepts:

fwiw, Thaad currently only provides terminal phase intercept capability (for short-range BMs there is a claimed ascent phase capability, but this would only be useful against BMs launched by NoKor directed at SoKor, so not much use for Australia's BM defense)... boost phase intercept was to have been provided by the canceled KEI (kinetic energy interceptor), now replaced with the in-development ABL (airborne laser) systems... post-boost, ascent-phase intercept is planned to be partially provided by the in-development SM-3 block-2A interceptor... (for ref see fig. 1-2, p.27, "Making Sense of BMD: An assessment of concepts and systems for US boost-phase missile defense", Nat'l Research Council 2012; also the various MDA update reports archived at mostlymissiledefense.com)...

so it's only when ABL and SM-3-2A come online that systems will be available to address boost-phase and ascent-phase interception... until that time there's only midcourse-phase interception (ie. SM-3-1A/1B) and terminal-phase (ie. SM-6, Thaad, PAC-3, etc.)...
 
Last edited:
R

rjtjrt

Member
No one has intercepted a nuclear armed ballistic missile.
With a terminal-phase intercept, how much and over how big an area is the nuclear material spread?
Infinitely preferable of course to an unintercepted nuclear strike, but I imagine still a lot of physical effect on the receiving nation/target.
 
alexsa

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
hauritz said:
How realistic is it to cram all of that into a frigate size ship?

It seems to me that we might be trying to fit the capabilities of the Hobart along with improved ASW capability and a second helicopter into a 7000 ton hull.

This seems to go beyond what the Italian, British and Spanish plan for their own versions of these ships.
Click to expand...
Yes, but with a different radar suite and an increased all up displacement over the AWD.

The Burke flight I and II are about the same length as the AWD but with a greater beam, however, for the speed required of them (35+ knots) they pack an extra two GT isn that hull.

I suspect space and generating capacity will be the biggest issues to solve.
 
A

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
hauritz said:
I sincerely hope that this doesn't become a focus of Australian Defence Policy.

If it does I can see tens of billions of dollars being pissed up against a wall trying to develop an Anti-Ballistic Missile Defence system which will probably not work anyway.

Ballistic missiles aren't like cruise missiles. The further away they are fired the higher they fly. The trajectory of a ballistic missile fired from North Korea to Australia will effectively put it out of the range of any surface to air missile system until it enters its terminal phase.

The best bet would be for Australia to support the US in basing the THAAD missile system in South Korea. The best chance of intercepting North Korean ballistic missiles is during the launch phase.
Click to expand...
Not GMD but as they are so expensive, they are a non-starter for Australia anyway...
 
StingrayOZ

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
hauritz said:
The best bet would be for Australia to support the US in basing the THAAD missile system in South Korea. The best chance of intercepting North Korean ballistic missiles is during the launch phase.
Click to expand...
THAAD, SM-3, SM-6 should all be based in and around NK to be effective. Say a dozen Aegis ships in and around the sea of Japan. Get em early when they are slow and low to the ground and you have time to work out multiple intercepts.

It is not like if North Korea, they they do press the button, is going to launch a single missile. In an easily detectable direction towards Australia, . Needs to be a cohesive approach to be effective.
 
H

hauritz

Well-Known Member
StingrayOZ said:
THAAD, SM-3, SM-6 should all be based in and around NK to be effective. Say a dozen Aegis ships in and around the sea of Japan. Get em early when they are slow and low to the ground and you have time to work out multiple intercepts.

It is not like if North Korea, they they do press the button, is going to launch a single missile. In an easily detectable direction towards Australia, . Needs to be a cohesive approach to be effective.
Click to expand...
I guess that raises the possibility that if this situation is not resolved you could see Australia's AWD regularly patrolling the waters around North Korea.
 
H

hairyman

Active Member
Maybe the time is right for Australia to build two or three additional AWD's with a larger flight deck and hanger to take two helicopters, and additional VLS. Build two or three less frigates if necessary.
 
StingrayOZ

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
hauritz said:
I guess that raises the possibility that if this situation is not resolved you could see Australia's AWD regularly patrolling the waters around North Korea.
Click to expand...
I think that is a real possibility. Of course to get to North Korea, you will be cutting across the South China Sea, maybe. China is going to love that. You would also likely have to upgrade the AWD's.

So I wouldn't be surprised if the first 3 replacement frigates are AWD's with an extra hanger, CEAFAR, latest Aegis, come fitted with Sm-6 and able to take SM-3. Perhaps replace Harpoon with NSM and fit 16 extra VLS upfront. Replacing the harpoon boxes gives 8 extra cells, a useful, but hardly outragous upgrade. Sm-6 is already budgeted.The only extra cost is Sm-3 if we want that.

That would give 6 AWD's. Australia could support a 2 ship commitment most of the time.
 
R

Raven22

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
There is a lot of Kool Aid being drunk here. North Korea currently don't have the ability to hit themselves with a nuclear tipped missile, let alone anyone else. The chance of them ever having the capability to hit Australia with one is miniscule. The chance of them ever having the capability and the intent to hit Australia is even smaller. There might be a number of good reasons for Australia to gain a basic BMD capability, but defending mainland Australia against North Korea is not one of them.

Australia is not going to completely change the future force structure based on one of NKs hundreds of daily impotent threats being aimed at Australia.
 
H

hauritz

Well-Known Member
StingrayOZ said:
I think that is a real possibility. Of course to get to North Korea, you will be cutting across the South China Sea, maybe. China is going to love that. You would also likely have to upgrade the AWD's.

So I wouldn't be surprised if the first 3 replacement frigates are AWD's with an extra hanger, CEAFAR, latest Aegis, come fitted with Sm-6 and able to take SM-3. Perhaps replace Harpoon with NSM and fit 16 extra VLS upfront. Replacing the harpoon boxes gives 8 extra cells, a useful, but hardly outragous upgrade. Sm-6 is already budgeted.The only extra cost is Sm-3 if we want that.

That would give 6 AWD's. Australia could support a 2 ship commitment most of the time.
Click to expand...
It is starting to look like the navy needs extra AWDs.

The US has not bothered with Harpoon since commissioning DDG78 back in 1999. Perhaps we should have just went with extra VLS and SM-6 from the very beginning.
 
John Fedup

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Given the huge advances in missile development, ships being commissioned 15-20 years from now hopefully will incorporate laser and railgun technology along with the necessary power generation capability. This will likely require larger vessels that can accommodate the necessary diesel/GT power packages. IEP is a natural fit into this future design as well. If the laser/railgun technology falls behind missile development then submarines would seem to be a more viable naval investment until the laser/railgun technology matures. A swarm of missiles is a fraction of the cost of a major surface combatant ship.
 
weegee

weegee

Active Member
So I was a lucky guy and had a leave pass from the missus yesterday and so with the boys went for a dirt bike ride at yalwal. But as I was driving there I went past albatross and noticed a peculiar gun ship chopper? It looked a lot like a Tiger but it was painted navy grey and it had folding rotors?
Are we trailing a naval tiger at the moment? Because isn't that a small issue with the tiger it's not really naval ready?
 
S

Stampede

Well-Known Member
weegee said:
So I was a lucky guy and had a leave pass from the missus yesterday and so with the boys went for a dirt bike ride at yalwal. But as I was driving there I went past albatross and noticed a peculiar gun ship chopper? It looked a lot like a Tiger but it was painted navy grey and it had folding rotors?
Are we trailing a naval tiger at the moment? Because isn't that a small issue with the tiger it's not really naval ready?
Click to expand...
My guess it's the life sized mock-up used for handling and movement training which I understand is painted naval grey.

It does not fly!!!!!!!!!

Regards S
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top