Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[ADMk2]

Still not sure how a destroyer equipped with BMD will stop a two-meter long Ballistic missile warhead plunging near vertically at 7 to 9 times the speed of sound. A quick check of the map also tells me that these missiles will probably cross the Australian coastline around about Darwin. So odds are that they won't get much of a look at it before they shoot.

Even if these ships were based just off the Korean coast I would have my doubts about how effective they would be.

This also a long way off being a problem anyway. North Korea have still got a lot of work to do before they could be considered any sort of real threat.

They nuclear warheads would need to be miniaturised, the warheads would need to be able to survive reentry and then there is the accuracy issue.

SM-3 Block IIA has mid-course intercept capability over much of an ICBM's ascent and descent phases and travels itself much faster than 7-9 times the speed of sound...

Indeed an earlier model SM-3 Block 1B was used to shoot down a satellite in 2008 travelling at about 7.6k per second which is much faster than most ICBM's travel (4.5k per second more or less) which was why there was so much more to that shoot than merely the impressive nature of the shoot down.

It was a signal that the US has much more capability than it publicly admits to... An AWD or Future Frigate, appropriately deployed and equipped with SM-3 Block IIA or more advanced future variants and full BMD capability would provide Northern Australia with an outstanding evel of protection against a rogue nations ICBM threat, and one that few nations enjoy...

 

[StingrayOZ]

I agree with almost everything you just said, What I disagree with is your choice of antiship missile, the NSM, in the long run, will not be nearly as useful as the LRASM.

LRASM has longer range, a relative speed, bigger warhead and most likely an easier supply chain (because of US use).

You make good points otherwise.

I see them as complimentary not in competition with each other.
JSM/NSM as a harpoon replacement. It also fits inside the JSF internal bay. It has a small warhead and limited range. But it is entirely likely the 8 harpoon launchers could be replaced with 12 NSM launchers. On basically any platform (Anzacs, AWD, future frigates, possibly even OPV's). It is likely to also fit on platforms like P8, F-18's (four on a super hornet) etc. NSM can also be sub launched.

LRASM is more like a tomahawk replacement it is nearly three times the weight. It doesn't fit in the F-35, if it was used as a harpoon replacement it would be limited to larger platforms and would occupy VLS. I don't see fitting 12 LRASM to the AWD or the future frigates as part of a regular load out, it would compromise the rest of their missions. While Tomahawk has a longer range, IMO for Australia that additional range isn't really important, if we had LRASM I don't think there would be any reason to acquire the older and less capable Tomahawk.

But 12 NSM + say 4 LRASM gives a very significant anti shipping capability (as well as the anti shipping mode of SM-2/Sm-6). Or land attack. If circumstance require more, that can be accommodated.

 

[Todjaeger]

I see them as complimentary not in competition with each other.
JSM/NSM as a harpoon replacement. It also fits inside the JSF internal bay. It has a small warhead and limited range. But it is entirely likely the 8 harpoon launchers could be replaced with 12 NSM launchers. On basically any platform (Anzacs, AWD, future frigates, possibly even OPV's). It is likely to also fit on platforms like P8, F-18's (four on a super hornet) etc. NSM can also be sub launched.

I do wonder what you define as limited range.

The NSM has a range of 100+ n miles, while the Harpoon Block II has a range of 70+ n miles...

Yes, the warhead is smaller, but so it the missile overall (compared to a Harpoon). The NSM might also be able to be launched from naval helicopters like it's predecessor the Penguin AShM.

 

[Muar River]

This article may be of interest for those interested in the BAE offering. I find the comments from the UK enthusiasts interesting to read.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/kind-firepower-will-type-26-city-class-frigate/

Latest article from DTR

http://defencetechnologyreview.realviewdigital.com/?iid=155168#folio=4

Article on "Osborne South Naval Shipyard".

http://defencetechnologyreview.realviewdigital.com/?iid=155168#folio=6

Interesting that the future frigates will be built indoors. With the outlay for the new facilities, I hope the Government approves at least three additional AWDs.especially with the economies of scale which will be achieved.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I do wonder what you define as limited range.

The NSM has a range of 100+ n miles, while the Harpoon Block II has a range of 70+ n miles...

Yes, the warhead is smaller, but so it the missile overall (compared to a Harpoon). The NSM might also be able to be launched from naval helicopters like it's predecessor the Penguin AShM.

Limited in comparison to LSRAM and Tomahawk (antishipping) in range. I really see them in a different class. It isn't sub launched, it won't be in 12 box launchers on ships, a F-18 can't carry 4 of them, P8 probably can't carry them. Given the discounting of the anti-shipping Tomahawk not sure how essential that need is.

NSM is exactly what the RAN (and the RAAF) should be looking at for a harpoon replacement. You get superior range, stealthier, considerably lighter.

The NSM size and space requirements are quite small. The MH-60R's might be able to fire this as well (eventually). Possibly drones as well. An air launch at distance would significantly increase its employable range.

Its size and weight advantage are huge. Even a LCS can fit 18 of them.

Its not much longer than a ESSM, it may even be able to fit into a self defence VLS. Or be accommodated in a different way. You are going to have more options regarding weight and balance.

Certainly for more than 95% of the employed uses, the NSM/JSM is going to be the pick.

However, for actual land strike, you would really want to go with either tomahawk or LRASM (or something better). These days LRASM probably has the range to get the job done (for Australia and its littoral region). It's warhead is nearly four times larger, which is a big difference against harder and more protected land targets. A small buy of <24 LRASM would probably be plenty for the RAN and the RAAF combined. It will give that heavy hitting power and additional range, until a true Tomahawk replacement arrives.

Meanwhile I see the RAN and the RAAF ordering possibly several hundreds of NSM/JSM. And continue to do so for the foreseeable future and becoming the backbone missile for defence. Land, Sea and Air.

 

[hauritz]

Its not much longer than a ESSM, it may even be able to fit into a self defence VLS. Or be accommodated in a different way. You are going to have more options regarding weight and balance.

I believe that they are currently integrating the NSM/JSM with the Mark 41 VLS.

They may even be able to quad pack them.

This would seem to have some implications for the new frigate design. There would hardly seem to be any point in fitting 8 cell NSM launchers if you could use the Mark 41 VLS instead.

It would seem to make sense to confirm the NSM/JSM as the next generation anti-ship missile and perhaps look at installing additional Mark 41 VLS on the new frigates.

 

[ASSAIL]

It's good to see common sense has prevailed and the Huon Class MWVs are to be life extended.
There is no doubt that a GRP hull is a huge benefit apart from its anti magnetic qualities. GRP does not deteriorate, needs no preservation maintenance either internal or external and simply gets stronger over time.
The life extension will be machinery and sensor focused with no regard to hull sustainment.
I have been involved with GRP vessels in the pearling industry for the last 35 years and the oldest hull (1974) is as good as it was on day one without anything other than cleaning and the occasional cosmetic repairs.

Minehunters life extends | Navy Daily

 

[StingrayOZ]

This would seem to have some implications for the new frigate design. There would hardly seem to be any point in fitting 8 cell NSM launchers if you could use the Mark 41 VLS instead.

I would imagine integrating the 2x6 missiles launcher, replacing the 2x8 box harpoon launcher would be easier. Not quite a weekend job, but very quick in comparison to adding more vls to say the AWD's. It would also free up VLS.

Not sure about quad packing, as they aren't as narrow. But for example it might be doable to have another 8 or 16 self defense or tactical VLS installed at the front of the ship, replacing the box launchers. This would then free up the 48 strike length VLS. I think SM-3 and SM-6 are strike length (hence why a 24 strike length Type 26 is a big concern to me). The 16 VLS would eat into existing hull room even as a self defence VLS.

But is it worth it to do all that to really gain just 4 VLS? Swapping 8 harpoon launchers for 12 NSM launchers would seem to be straight forward. The money could be better put putting a 35mm millennium gun on the ship. Improving both the offensive and defense capability.

Given the availability of CIWS in the region, the idea you could fire one or two missiles and score a hit is long gone.

I imagine the mine hunters might be the last to go. They have had easy lives.

Also first welds on the new Ice breaker..

Foundation of Australia’s new icebreaker laid — Australian Antarctic Division

 

[ADMk2]

Just a quick one... A $360m support and upgrade package for the MH-60R's has been cleared. Doesn't specify what the upgrades /engineering change proposals are, I assume simply keeping in lockstep with the USN versions?

Australia – Upgrade Program for MH-60R Multi-Mission Helicopters | The Official Home of the Defense Security Cooperation Agency

PDF Version:
PDF icon australia_17-45.pdf
Media/Public Contact:
[email protected]
Transmittal No:
17-45
WASHINGTON, Aug. 31, 2017 - The State Department has made a determination approving a possible Foreign Military Sale to Australia for an upgrade program for MH-60R Multi-Mission Helicopters. The estimated cost is $360 million. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency delivered the required certification notifying Congress of this possible sale on August 30, 2017.

The Government of Australia has requested a follow-on case for a possible ten-year upgrade program for twenty-four (24) MH-60R Multi-Mission Helicopters and associated training devices, spare and repair parts, support and test equipment, engineering and technical services, U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical and logistics support services, Engineering Change Proposals (ECPs), ECPs for training devices, classified software (JMPS/MDLs), Engineering Technical Assistance (ETA), Logistics Technical Assistance (LTA), Other Technical Assistance (OTA), supply support, support equipment, and other related elements of logistics and program support. The total estimated program cost is $360 million.

This sale will support the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping to improve the security of a major non-NATO ally that continues to be an important force for political stability and economic progress in the Western Pacific. It is vital to the U.S. national interest to assist our ally in developing and maintaining a strong and ready self-defense capability.

The proposed upgrades to the MH-60R helicopters will improve Australia’s antisubmarine and surface warfare capability, provide an improved search and rescue capability, enhance its anti-ship surveillance capability, and will help it carry out international commitments for transport, surveillance, and search and rescue operations with the United States and other allies. The proposed upgrades will also provide Australia the resources necessary to properly maintain its multi-mission helicopters. Australia will have no difficulty absorbing this equipment into its armed forces.

The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.

The principal contractor will be Sikorsky, a Lockheed Martin Company, Stratford, CT and Lockheed Martin, Owego, NY. There are no offsets proposed in connection with this potential sale.

Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Australia.

There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.

This notice of a potential sale is required by law and does not mean the sale has been concluded.

All questions regarding this proposed Foreign Military Sale should be directed to the State Department's Bureau of Political Military Affairs, Office of Congressional and Public Affairs, [email protected].

 

[John Newman]

I see them as complimentary not in competition with each other.

JSM/NSM as a harpoon replacement. It also fits inside the JSF internal bay. It has a small warhead and limited range. But it is entirely likely the 8 harpoon launchers could be replaced with 12 NSM launchers. On basically any platform (Anzacs, AWD, future frigates, possibly even OPV's). It is likely to also fit on platforms like P8, F-18's (four on a super hornet) etc. NSM can also be sub launched.

LRASM is more like a tomahawk replacement it is nearly three times the weight. It doesn't fit in the F-35, if it was used as a harpoon replacement it would be limited to larger platforms and would occupy VLS. I don't see fitting 12 LRASM to the AWD or the future frigates as part of a regular load out, it would compromise the rest of their missions. While Tomahawk has a longer range, IMO for Australia that additional range isn't really important, if we had LRASM I don't think there would be any reason to acquire the older and less capable Tomahawk.

But 12 NSM + say 4 LRASM gives a very significant anti shipping capability (as well as the anti shipping mode of SM-2/Sm-6). Or land attack. If circumstance require more, that can be accommodated.

It's always an interest topic of what will replace Harpoon as the future RAAF/RAN AShM, and there certainly appears to be a number of options, or even a 'combination' of options for the two services.

Firstly, whenever I see NSM/JSM mentioned together, I think it should be pointed out that they are not the same weapon with a different name.

NSM (download the PDF brochure)

https://www.kongsberg.com/en/kds/products/missilesystems/navalstrikemissile/

JSM (download the PDF brochure)

https://www.kongsberg.com/en/kds/products/missilesystems/jointstrikemissile/

Yes JSM is an evolution of NSM, but it's not the same missile, you can't put an NSM inside the weapons bay of the F-35 like JSM (which can also be carried externally too), that's not to say that the ADF can't have both, but still they are not the same weapon.

Similarly for LRASM, it's an evolution of JASSM-ER, which is an evolution of JASSM. We currently have JASSM in service on the Classic Hornets, and potentially we could have JASSM-ER and/or LRASM in the future service too.


Currently of course Harpoon is the AShM of choice, Classic Hornets, Super Hornets, Growler(?), AP-3C and I also understand the RAAF's P-8A is also going to be Harpoon capable too. For the RAN it is FFG, FFH, AWD and the Collins fleet.


For the future, well I think we might actually see a broader combination of AShM's, not just the one type (eg, Harpoon), across the two services.

JSM
I can certainly see JSM as being the weapon of choice for the F-35A fleet, carried both internally and externally, there has also been fitment trials on F/A-18F, but not integration as this stage.

And who knows into the future, possibly a future replacement for Harpoon on the P-8A fleet.

NSM
I can also see box launched NSM being a future replacement for the 2 x 4 canister launched Harpoon on the AWD's and also as the 'original' fitment for the Future Frigates when they start to enter service in the late 2020's or early 2030's, and also box launched (which keeps the Mk 41 VLS free for SM-2, SM-6, ESSM).

LRASM
When it enters US service it will initially be capable of being launched from B-1B and F/A-18E/F, which means integration onto the RAAF's Super Hornet fleet would be seamless too (and potentially external carried on F-35), and of course surface launched via Mk 41 VLS, and I also understand testing has been done from box launchers too, which also potentially means it can replace the tube launched Harpoons without taking up VLS cells.

SM-6
Whilst obviously primarily for long range air defence, it will have an AShM capability too.

Future Submarines
This is going to be an interesting one as to what will be the replacement for sub launched Harpoon. We could potentially see versions of both JSM and LRASM being available in the future too.

The RAN and RAAF are certainly not going to be short of options, or combination of options for air launched, sea launched and sub surface launched AShM's.

Will be interesting to watch in the coming years!!

 

[StingrayOZ]

While they are different, they are heavily related, most of the differences are down to packing requirements of each platform. Fitting it into a JSF bay, made it possible (with further adjustment) to fit into a Mk41 VLS.

Exclusive: New Details on the Kongsberg Vertical Launch Joint Strike Missile (VL JSM)

Either way, both are likely to be procured in great numbers. Well into the order of a hundred of the JSM (F-35 and likely Super hornet, P8, etc) and also over a hundred NSM for the Navy (AWD, Future Frigates, Submarines and possibly helicopters (replacing penguin) and OPVs).

There is also room for development of this missile. These are quite small missiles, mainly driven to that size by JSF and various Norwegian requirements. As mentioned they are smaller than SM-2 or SM-6 and much lighter than Harpoon, LRASM etc.

For Australia they are ideal because you can fit significantly more fire power onto a ship, a sub, an aircraft and smaller platforms (like helicopters) than other competing types.

LRASM is going to be more fitting for the US because they have many large platforms that can carry this. They are going to be less concerned about reduction of rounds per platform. Except on light weight platforms like the LCS where NSM is quite well suited.

LRASM replacing harpoon on Australian ships and planes would likely see significantly less platforms able to fire this type and class of weapon and significantly reduced numbers being carried.

Of course in that category there is also storm shadow/SCALP which the French and British use, including in Submarines. But I think it is unlikely Australia would adopt that. Or you could buy Tomahawk missiles as well.

Apparently cost wise there isn't much between them. Certainly in terms of Bang for your buck LRASM would have the most bang per buck. Its also integrated on most of the key platforms.

All are going to be better than Harpoon, which should really be relegated to 2nd line missiles.

 

[weegee]

Nuship Hobart

So now that Hobart is in Sydney and due to be commissioned later this month. I am wondering if she is going to a member of the RAN's force to go to Rimpac next year? Whilst understanding that she and her crew have A LOT of training ahead of them/her. Will she still be too immature a platform in the eyes of the Navy to send to war games like Rimpac?
I hope she does go over because if she does she would add to one of the RAN's most potent contingents ever for the exercise wouldn't it?
A fully loaded task group/force would be a nice sight.

 

[Muar River]

Pyne in Parliament just advised all options are being considered for the upgrade of the AWDs in terms of missile defence.

Pyne also named Raytheon and CEA Technologies re Land Based Missile Defence system.

 

[Redlands18]

So now that Hobart is in Sydney and due to be commissioned later this month. I am wondering if she is going to a member of the RAN's force to go to Rimpac next year? Whilst understanding that she and her crew have A LOT of training ahead of them/her. Will she still be too immature a platform in the eyes of the Navy to send to war games like Rimpac?
I hope she does go over because if she does she would add to one of the RAN's most potent contingents ever for the exercise wouldn't it?
A fully loaded task group/force would be a nice sight.

Doubtfull they go to San Diego late next year for Aegis qualifying.

 

[ASSAIL]

Pyne in Parliament just advised all options are being considered for the upgrade of the AWDs in terms of missile defence.

Pyne also named Raytheon and CEA Technologies re Land Based Missile Defence system.

My view of Pynes answer at question time was that the upgrade of the DDG to BMD is more than considered, it is essential.

 

[Muar River]

My view of Pynes answer at question time was that the upgrade of the DDG to BMD is more than considered, it is essential.

It was good news for the RAN. I was hoping he would go further and announce the winner of the future frigate programme and that the 9 ships would also be fitted with BMD upgrades.

 

[Hazdog]

It was good news for the RAN. I was hoping he would go further and announce the winner of the future frigate programme and that the 9 ships would also be fitted with BMD upgrades.

Agreed,

Can we all agree that the FREMM design is basically written off due to the lack of numerous VLS cells on board?

Please respond to the above statement.

 

[ASSAIL]

Agreed,

Can we all agree that the FREMM design is basically written off due to the lack of numerous VLS cells on board?

Please respond to the above statement.

All three frigates are still in the reckoning as has been said on here before. We have no detailed knowledge of what each of the bidders has offered, for all we know Fincantieri may have offered 64 Mk41 cells, who knows.
We all have our favourite but that matters not until the winner is announced.

 

[swerve]

Can we all agree that the FREMM design is basically written off due to the lack of numerous VLS cells on board?

Please respond to the above statement.

No, because if there was a minimum number required which FREMM could not be offered with then it shouldn't have got on the shortlist. The fact that it has implies that either 32 Sylver or Mk 41 is deemed enough, or a FREMM configuration with more has been put forward.

 

[Todjaeger]

For Australia they are ideal because you can fit significantly more fire power onto a ship, a sub, an aircraft and smaller platforms (like helicopters) than other competing types.

I doubt more could be fitted aboard RAN subs, unless future subs are specifically kitted out with VLS. The Harpoon sub-launched AShM fired via the torpedoe tubes use a 21"/530 mm diameter canister which is basically the size of a heavyweight torpedoe. Anything significantly smaller would create problems for the mechanisms used to discharge from the torpedoe tubes.

I suppose it might be possible to pack more than one NSM or JSM into such a canister, but that would only permit additional missiles to be launched at a target vs. additional shots/salvos at a target. The limiting factor being the finite amount of internal volume and displacement available to carry canisters and/or torpedoes that are 5.8 m x 530 mm and displacing up to ~1,700 kg.