I believe the current SM-2MR Block IIIB requires X-band terminal radar illumination which an E7 wouldn't be able to provide. Cooperative engagement should be more viable with the under development SM-2MR Block IIIC that has active homing so an E7 just needs to provide mid-course updates to guide the missile to the general area of the target. The active homing SM-6 would also work.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
Not convinced that active radar is the way to go. With stealth being more achievable by other nations now, advanced IR would have to be an option along with active radar.
If the missiles active radar can’t achieve a lock on the target, it’s just a long range bullet.
That’s why aircraft like the F35 are so effective, even if an enemy SU35 detects the F35 from a longer range, the AAM of the SU won’t achieve a lock on the target making the F35 more survivable. I think a missile like MICA IR would be more of a headache to the F35 than the EM version.
I’m sure SM 2 would be great against SU30 family or conventional aircraft, but against a missile like Taurus or a stealthy type aircraft might be a difficult task. The RNZN Cana would be a better option at least in close!
Boagrius
Well-Known Member
I have heard speculation elsewhere that the AIM260 may use a combined IIR/ARH seeker-head to address the problem of VLO targets, with the IIR seeker conducting volume search and the active radar seeker providing ranging/fine tuning in the endgame. I wouldn't be surprised to see this sort of thing start to appear on our SAMs, but it may be a while before it comes to pass. IIRC the SM2 MR Blk IIIB uses combined IR/SARH as is.
I wonder if that's why the RCN have gone with Sea Ceptor / CAMM(M) for the CIWS on their T26 variant, because the ESSM Blk 2 doesn’t have that capability. One of the main reasons that the RNZN went with Sea Ceptor was that ESSM Blk 2 wasn't anywhere near ready whereas Sea Ceptor was about to go into service with the RN.
I've been wondering when the RCN choice of Sea Ceptor might come up in the Australian context. With the advent, and potential future proliferation of hypersonic AShM, the declining effectiveness of Phalanx is surely now clearly evident to everyone. I know this (phalanx) subject has been discussed regularly, but given the RCN will be covering the design integration, maybe now is the time to consider looking to the future of CIWS, rather than back to the 70s. Worth noting that Sea Ceptor has now been chosen by 3 of the 5 eyes....Aus could be the 4th if there is anyone in a position to select who, like me, is very uncomfortable about any reliance on phalanx. And I know essm has the capability, but it does in the RCN too, and they have identified the need for a dedicated ciws missile system (as in fact has the USN with RAM).
Boagrius
Well-Known Member
You'd have to expect hypersonic weapons will redefine what constitutes a CIWS system going forward due to the heavily compressed engagement window. A system like ESSM may function as a CIWS for all intents and purposes when faced with an ASCM or ASBM coming in at north of Mach 5.
My understanding is that stealth can be detected with low frequency radar (Radio frequency) due to its long wavelength. However the problem is that it lacks the accuracy to be used in a fire control mode. The Sea Ceptor overcomes this by being an active homing, radio frequency system so as the missile gets closer to the target any inaccuracy reduces with the reduction of range until it is nil at impact.
Boagrius
Well-Known Member
It is standard practice for active radar homing missiles to be guided to a terminal homing basket where they use their onboard seeker to search the area/volume of uncertainty created by any imperfections in the targeting solution provided by the cueing sensor.
The problem is that the VLO signature of the target will work just as well against the missile's own radar as it did against the original cueing radar. If the target employs advanced EW measures, perhaps alongside smart or towed decoys then the problem compounds itself further. Hence the rumoured move in JATM to IIR for volume search then AESA RF for the final moments of endgame.
The problem is that the VLO signature of the target will work just as well against the missile's own radar as it did against the original cueing radar. If the target employs advanced EW measures, perhaps alongside smart or towed decoys then the problem compounds itself further. Hence the rumoured move in JATM to IIR for volume search then AESA RF for the final moments of endgame.
Last edited:
RF stealth effectiveness varies considerably dependent on the frequency band. Missile, ship, AEW radars all use very different RF freq bands.
It is true that a missile seeker will likely have “some” level of effective acquisition range reduction...but typically missiles are extremely close to their targets by the time the seeker starts looking, and closing range improves radar return far more quickly than radar power or gain increases. The specifics would be very relevant here.
Point is, don’t write RF missiles off against stealth, especially ones integrated into a network for control.
It is true that a missile seeker will likely have “some” level of effective acquisition range reduction...but typically missiles are extremely close to their targets by the time the seeker starts looking, and closing range improves radar return far more quickly than radar power or gain increases. The specifics would be very relevant here.
Point is, don’t write RF missiles off against stealth, especially ones integrated into a network for control.
Boagrius
Well-Known Member
Not an SME here so I will naturally defer to your expertise on the matter, but it is my understanding that active missile seekers typically function in the shorter wavelength (~Ka?) bands to which the VLO features of aircraft like the F35, F22 and J20 are best optimised. When you factor in defensive jamming/electronic attack and modern decoys I imagine this would create some unique problems for the kill chain?
I suspect this is a complex issue where things like target aspect and network & seeker performance would all contribute too. For the record, I'm not writing off RF based missiles for taking down the likes of J20 (especially in a net centric context) more acknowledging the potential challenges as I understand them.
Last edited:
Correct, it is complex and it really comes down to what the specifics tell you.
In principle VLO does all those things...however the result depends on the specifics behind them. For a crude analogy, body armor in principle can stop bullets, but the ultimate result can be changed by what the bullet or the armor side do. Same principle just with a lot more variables.
RF seekers span a pretty broad range of frequencies...anything from SA2 target acq Sband up to mmW. In the context of missiles the fact that you can have multiple sensors networked, looking from different angles while also using different freq bands can present a complex challenge.
Indeed, there are plenty of plans in place for future RAN complex guided weapon systems, but that’s my point. It’s mostly all ‘future’ capability, with seeming glacial pace at actually arriving there, compared with the relative urgency seen in other services performing similar roles...
It may be a quirk of current Government messaging, but the previous first pass approval process, certainly seemed a better way of messaging that they are actually getting on with things...
On the AWDs it may feel glacial but much of that has to do with the AEGIS Baseline currently on being based on a legacy traditional software development cycle build - and to be more direct, a dead end Baseline the USN is already moving away from. And the production delays in build obviously did not help things, What is on them now is the best of what was available...in the 2000’s...when AWD procurement started.
The RAAF may feel faster because it has platforms that are fully modernized in lockstep development with the US - Hornet, JSF and P8 weapon upgrades are off the shelf options for Australia shortly after the US tests them (or in conjunction where cooperation exists like NGJ).
This is why Phase 6 and the step up to Baseline 9 to reach commonality with the USN is so essential to making the full suite of AEGIS integrated weapons “off the shelf” for the RAN. However, given the AWD fleet only just completed shipyard production, it is understandable why the update will not happen for a few more years. My observation of much of the RAN surface force - they (particularly CASG) are relearning how to best sustain and modernize a US FMS heavy system.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
There is one thing I think we are going to find missing from our Christmas stocking this year and that’s the updated Naval Shipbuilding Plan.
Back in mid year, when the 2020 Strategic Defence Update was released, the document stated there would be an update of the 2017 NSP released by end of this year, with Christmas only a few days away, I won’t be holding my breath.
There are probably plenty of reasons/excuses the Government could use, Covid, etc, but I think the real reason is something else.
And that something else is the tug of war between the SA and WA Governments over if full cycle docking of the Collins subs will move from SA to WA or not, if I remember correctly a decision should have been made by now.
Until the ‘politics’ of that is sorted and settled then I can’t see the Federal Government releasing the updated NSP.
Just my opinion of course too.
Cheers,
Back in mid year, when the 2020 Strategic Defence Update was released, the document stated there would be an update of the 2017 NSP released by end of this year, with Christmas only a few days away, I won’t be holding my breath.
There are probably plenty of reasons/excuses the Government could use, Covid, etc, but I think the real reason is something else.
And that something else is the tug of war between the SA and WA Governments over if full cycle docking of the Collins subs will move from SA to WA or not, if I remember correctly a decision should have been made by now.
Until the ‘politics’ of that is sorted and settled then I can’t see the Federal Government releasing the updated NSP.
Just my opinion of course too.
Cheers,
Reading alot of forum threads the RAAF seems to be winning the race with technical innovation. Stealth, modern missile, UAV you name it they have it. I think this essentially comes down to Plan Jericho. This plan is not only military but a great marketing plan. As I sit in my cave scratching my head why doesn't the Navy come up with something similar. So they too can get ahead of the technology curve
John Newman
The Bunker Group
So you think the RAN is missing the equivalent of the RAAFs Plan Jericho, correct?
Why don’t you tell us what exactly that should be and how it can be achieved?
As I said in my post Plan Jericho was the start of where the RAAF started to bring all the technical bits into a coherent body. Yes we had F35 ordered and Wedgetail before then but Jericho gels it together into fifth gen . I don't doubt the Navy or Army have a plan. It not in the public like Jericho. That is my point Jericho is a great marketing plan. It got people behind it and it got funded. In my 40 years of being inside and outside defense and a technologist I have never seen things move as fast as Jericho.
I have just been reading about CIWS and naval missiles. I agree all things take time and it is not just buying the missiles. There are other factors. I'm just saying why doesn't the navy make it's priorities public and wrap it up in something appealing and hopefully more funding. It is just an alternative to the status quo.
I'm not sure this is what you are looking for, but Plan Pelorus does seem to be a good Guide for Navy over the next few years.
Whether its just good corporate politics that big organisations put out, or it actually delivers sound results I do not know and others can advise.
With so much development and growth in the maritime sphere good guidelines with sound direction are a must.
If the guide of Pelorus enables all the "maritime bits" to come together to achieve for Navy what the RAAF set out to do in creating a 5th gen force, then perhaps Navy is on the way.
Again others would be better informed on this matter.
Regards S
If you I'm trying to make it an air force vs Navy thing you are wrong. Google Plan Jericho and Plan Pelorus and set the settings to the 12 months. One is multimedia and the other is press releases. As I said in my previous email I have not doubt the navy has a plan and from what I've read it's a sound plan. I'm excited by the ship building program. I appreciate the careful planning and the long lead times when it comes to building ships.I'm not sure this is what you are looking for, but Plan Pelorus does seem to be a good Guide for Navy over the next few years.
Whether its just good corporate politics that big organisations put out, or it actually delivers sound results I do not know and others can advise.
With so much development and growth in the maritime sphere good guidelines with sound direction are a must.
If the guide of Pelorus enables all the "maritime bits" to come together to achieve for Navy what the RAAF set out to do in creating a 5th gen force, then perhaps Navy is on the way.
Again others would be better informed on this matter.
Regards S
I started think about this reading about the Arafura class OPV and the helipads. I thought WHY!!!. You need options and more so in the case of emergencies. I'm assuming it was a cost saving exercise and not an answer to an engineering problem. This to me is an OH&S issue. If this was made public before hand things could be done differently.
Then there is the CIWS discussion. I agree the Phalanax while still current its capability is aging and thought is needed as we go into the future. Again take the public with you. Australians favor protecting our sailors in harms way. It could accelerate the process.
I am not a naval expert and my thoughts are mine alone. I am starting to embrace this forum as a place of ideas. My point is marketing and the way multimedia multidimensional the world has become. The bigger you appearance the more attention you get. I was in the Airforce and I know it is hard to challenge the status quo. I am out now for quite awhile but from my perspective some bright spark challenged and Jericho was born. I am just encouraging and challenging a thought outside the box.
- Status