Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[John Newman]

I am surprised that we have not already ordered the NSM, even if only for the F35;s. Perfect fit for our current frigates too, having twice the range of the Harpoon missile.

NSM and JSM are two different animals, closely related but different.

NSM is ship or land launched, but not air launched, JSM is air launched and if I remember correctly, has the potential for use via VLS and the potential for submarine launch via a capsule.

As to why no ADF order as yet for NSM or JSM, I would imagine that the DDG and FFH fleets will continue to operate Harpoon, at least if and until NSM is chosen for the Hunter class.

As for JSM, I can’t see that happening until JSM is integrated into the Block 4 software and hardware upgrades to the F-35A fleet, still a few years away.

In the interim, I would imagine that the RAAF will be busy with LRASM integration on the Super Hornets and eventually Poseidon fleets.

 

[ngatimozart]

NSM and JSM are two different animals, closely related but different.

NSM is ship or land launched, but not air launched, JSM is air launched and if I remember correctly, has the potential for use via VLS and the potential for submarine launch via a capsule.

As to why no ADF order as yet for NSM or JSM, I would imagine that the DDG and FFH fleets will continue to operate Harpoon, at least if and until NSM is chosen for the Hunter class.

As for JSM, I can’t see that happening until JSM is integrated into the Block 4 software and hardware upgrades to the F-35A fleet, still a few years away.

In the interim, I would imagine that the RAAF will be busy with LRASM integration on the Super Hornets and eventually Poseidon fleets.

I think that the USN is undertaking LRASM integration onto the both the Shornet and Poseidon at the moment.

 

[StingrayOZ]

As an addendum, I should acknowledge that AFAIK only the Type 052D DDG and Type 055 CG carry the YJ18 & 100, both of which are in a very different weightclass to something like the ANZACs. Remaining PLAN surface vessels (like the more analogous Type 054/054A) seem to use C802 derivatives, to which the NSM would be a very capable answer. That said, where the larger Hobarts and Hunters are concerned I do wonder how future proof the NSM would be(?).

LRASM is ideal for heavy hitters, and would be carried by the P8 and strike aircraft (initially super hornets) and possibly the DDG. The RAAF have already ordered it, $1.5 billion. Great long range strike for the P8 and SH, which the USN is integrating, I think everyone is happy with that with very long range and real hitting power and smarts to get there.

LRASM is never going to fit on the Anzacs and the Type 26 are going to have a more limited VLS capacity. Even if a type 26 was to have a few LRASM in its VLS inventory, carrying 12 x NSM in box launchers is going to give more options. As harpoon becomes older, its either NSM or nothing on a lot of platforms. We don't need to equip every ship with 12 x NSM, but having enough to fit launchers to two or three ships at a time would be significant. As the Hunters come on line and start replacing the Anzacs, NSM is still going to be relevant. Even after the Hunters are all delivered, NSM is still going to be relevant. Even beyond that, for smaller platforms, say in the 1000-3000t range, NSM is ideal in smaller launch boxes.

Sm-6 anti-shipping mode will be useful, but again, that is a Hunter/Hobart missile, and with a smaller warhead again, half the size of NSM.

If for nothing else NSM would be relevant on Anzacs for the next 20-25 years.

 

[Boagrius]

If for nothing else NSM would be relevant on Anzacs for the next 20-25 years.

Agree, and I think part of what we are butting up against is the fact that the USN hasn't really chosen an obvious Harpoon replacement as far as surface vessels are concerned. For the time being they seem to be content with NSM for the LCS and then leveraging their forthcoming stocks of Tomahawk Blk V, which will give them significant standoff range against both YJ18 and YJ100 for the foreseeable future.

In the absence of the latter in our inventory, I think a good argument can be made for weighing the 12 x topside NSM option against the 8 x topside LRASM that was mooted a few years ago (this with respect to Hunter and Hobart classes specifically):

As I've said before, the main reason is that it would give our most valuable surface combatants the ability to shoot from outside the range of the YJ18, which is probably the most dangerous threat AShM we face. The geek that I am, I plugged this into CMO (formerly CMANO) to give a better visual approximation of the difference(s) we are talking about.

The image below shows the approximate range rings for a Type 052D class DDG armed with YJ18 (left) against a Hobart class DDG armed with NSM (right).



The next shows the same vessels, this time with Hobart (right) armed with SM6 Blk IB:



Finally, we have the same vessels again, but this time we arm the Hobart with LRASM:



As you can see, the difference is actually quite dramatic (assuming the sim has the range figures in the right ballpark). Now, I want to emphasise that this is obviously an extremely simplified way to view things, since the problem of OTH targeting, among many other things, will limit just how much of a given AShM's range can actually be employed against a given target, and our vessels are more than likely to operate as part of a joint force coalition, not alone. That said, for a medium sized Navy that can ill afford to put its scarce vessels and people at undue risk, a topside LRASM in lieu of NSM on Hunter and Hobart has a lot going for it, with very little appreciable downside (IMO).

 

[Redlands18]

Agree, and I think part of what we are butting up against is the fact that the USN hasn't really chosen an obvious Harpoon replacement as far as surface vessels are concerned. For the time being they seem to be content with NSM for the LCS and then leveraging their forthcoming stocks of Tomahawk Blk V, which will give them significant standoff range against both YJ18 and YJ100 for the foreseeable future.

In the absence of the latter in our inventory, I think a good argument can be made for weighing the 12 x topside NSM option against the 8 x topside LRASM that was mooted a few years ago (this with respect to Hunter and Hobart classes specifically):

As I've said before, the main reason is that it would give our most valuable surface combatants the ability to shoot from outside the range of the YJ18, which is probably the most dangerous threat AShM we face. The geek that I am, I plugged this into CMO (formerly CMANO) to give a better visual approximation of the difference(s) we are talking about.

The image below shows the approximate range rings for a Type 052D class DDG armed with YJ18 (left) against a Hobart armed with NSM (right).

View attachment 47881

The next shows the same vessels, this time with Hobart (right) armed with SM6 Blk IB:

View attachment 47882

Finally, we have the same vessels again, but this time we arm the Hobart with LRASM:

View attachment 47883

As you can see, the difference is actually quite dramatic (assuming the sim has the range figures in the right ballpark). Now, I want to emphasise that this is obviously an extremely simplified way to view things, since the problem of OTH targeting, among many other things, will limit just how much of a given AShM's range can actually be employed against a given target, and our vessels are more than likely to operate as part of a joint force coalition, not alone. That said, for a medium sized Navy that can ill afford to put its scarce vessels and people at undue risk, a topside LRASM in lieu of NSM on Hunter and Hobart has a lot going for it, with very little downside (IMO).

The Constellation Frigates class are getting 16 NSM as well.

 

[Boagrius]

The Constellation Frigates class are getting 16 NSM as well.

Thanks, I missed that. I guess it comes back to the question of CONOPS - do we plan to use the Hunters and Hobarts in the same way that the USN will use the Constellation class? I get the impression we will be asking them to do more - ie. to spearhead our future joint task forces etc. Without wanting to beat a dead horse, I think topside LRASM instead of topside NSM makes more sense in that context (even if the former gives you 1/2 as many missiles).

 

[StingrayOZ]

That said, for a medium sized Navy that can ill afford to put its scarce vessels and people at undue risk, a topside LRASM in lieu of NSM on Hunter and Hobart has a lot going for it, with very little appreciable downside (IMO).

Not sure we will see many topside LRASM launchers.
It is a 2000kg 4.3m plus booster missile which is what ~ 1.8m and ~250kg. So it is pretty close to Tomahawk in length and Mass. Say two quad boxes, at around 10t each, but also quite a bit larger than the harpoon launchers. I dunno, I would doubt few ships would have that kind of top weight margin. I don't see it replacing 1 for 1 harpoon in the same position as harpoon launchers are. Its not that kind of missile.

With the Hunters, SM-6 has a ~240km range which would be plenty for many engagements. I doubt any ships will have large loadouts of LRASM. They are more likely to be launched from aircraft that have a targeting data and a firing solution. So even a small load out may be sufficient, particularly for a Navy like the RAN.

The problem we have is the Anzacs which will be with us in significant numbers for the next 15-20 years. They have effectively no growth margin, and are top weight tight as is. They are 70% the mass of harpoon, and much more deadly and much longer ranged. Replacing like for like would give an additional top weight margin while being a significant upgrade. I'm not sure we would need 8 anti-shipping missiles on the Anzacs.

I wonder if that was dropped to 4 NSM, if that would provide enough margin to put something back onto the Anzacs (SeaRAM?).

NSM could be useful in the land base/coastal defence role as well. It could be launched from a bushmaster type vehicle.
NSM most promising application may be in the Sub Launched variant. Not so much for its extra range but for its other features which would make it more successful than harpoon.

 

[Boagrius]

Not sure we will see many topside LRASM launchers.
It is a 2000kg 4.3m plus booster missile which is what ~ 1.8m and ~250kg. So it is pretty close to Tomahawk in length and Mass. Say two quad boxes, at around 10t each, but also quite a bit larger than the harpoon launchers. I dunno, I would doubt few ships would have that kind of top weight margin. I don't see it replacing 1 for 1 harpoon in the same position as harpoon launchers are. Its not that kind of missile.

Yes I will defer to the experts on that one. FWIW Lockheed have claimed that their 4 x LRASM topside canister launcher would occupy much the same footprint as the one for Harpoon, and tested it back in 2017:

Lockheed Martin Demonstrates LRASM Launch Capability from Topside Cani

Lockheed Martin Demonstrates LRASM Launch Capability from Topside Canister Lockheed Martin successfully conducted the fir

www.navyrecognition.com

As I say definitely out of the question for the ANZACs, but possibly not for the Hunters and Hobarts.

 

[John Newman]

Thanks, I missed that. I guess it comes back to the question of CONOPS - do we plan to use the Hunters and Hobarts in the same way that the USN will use the Constellation class? I get the impression we will be asking them to do more - ie. to spearhead our future joint task forces etc. Without wanting to beat a dead horse, I think topside LRASM instead of topside NSM makes more sense in that context (even if the former gives you 1/2 as many missiles).

Why does it have to be LRASM or NSM? Why not both?

On a Hobart DDG for example, I could see the appropriate number of NSM in box launchers in place of Harpoon.

For LRASM, I could see them being loaded into the Mk41 VLS, the 48 cells could have a variety of load outs, but for example:
* 8 x quad packed ESSM - 32 missiles
* 8 x LRASM
* 32 x SM-2/-6

That’s just an example, the mix could be more or less of the different missiles types, and when operating with another Hobart or future Hunter, CEC adds to flexibility too.

Cheers,

 

[Boagrius]

Why does it have to be LRASM or NSM? Why not both?

On a Hobart DDG for example, I could see the appropriate number of NSM in box launchers in place of Harpoon.

For LRASM, I could see them being loaded into the Mk41 VLS, the 48 cells could have a variety of load outs, but for example:
* 8 x quad packed ESSM - 32 missiles
* 8 x LRASM
* 32 x SM-2/-6

That’s just an example, the mix could be more or less of the different missiles types, and when operating with another Hobart or future Hunter, CEC adds to flexibility too.

Cheers,

A very valid point. I make the comparison between topside NSM (12-16 missiles) and topside LRASM (8 x missiles) also because I expect that there will be a premium placed on AAW and ASW weapons going forward. I say this because the region is on track to be increasingly populated by the whole gamut of ASW & AAW threats, including ASBMs. Where the Hunters are concerned, the expected 32 VLS cells might also be partly filled by ASW weapons like VL-ASROC, making available VLS cells all the more precious. My concern is that - in practice - getting into NSM range of a hostile ship/SAG may be prohibitive in a theatre replete with YJ18 and YJ100 derivatives. That said, I do take your point in that this should be less of an issue for the Hobart class with their larger VLS count.

 

[ngatimozart]

A very valid point. I make the comparison between topside NSM (12-16 missiles) and topside LRASM (8 x missiles) also because I expect that there will be a premium placed on AAW and ASW weapons going forward. I say this because the region is on track to be increasingly populated by the whole gamut of ASW & AAW threats, including ASBMs. Where the Hunters are concerned, the expected 32 VLS cells might also be partly filled by ASW weapons like VL-ASROC, making available VLS cells all the more precious. My concern is that - in practice - getting into NSM range of a hostile ship/SAG may be prohibitive in a theatre replete with YJ18 and YJ100 derivatives. That said, I do take your point in that this should be less of an issue for the Hobart class with their larger VLS count.

With 32 Mk-41 cells in the Hunter Class you can still load out e.g., 4 LRASM in the MK-41 and don't be overly concerned with ASROC because the range of that isn't that great compared to a shipboard helo. If you require more LRASM then you vary your VLS loadout. Just don't get hooked up on ASROC or that the Hunter Class will only ship NSM. Every deployment / mission will be different and as such loadouts may be different. You could limit yourself by preconceived ideas that have no bearing in fact at the moment.

I know I like to hark back to WW2 lessons, but that was the last major peer on peer conflict. One lesson that was quickly learnt from that, was that many preconceived strategies, tactics and plans did not meet the facts on the ground. Equipment that was thought to be modern, was in fact obsolete on the day the war started. The technology has changed but has the mindset amongst the pollies, brass hats and weapons manufacturers? Are they in the same mindset that their counterparts were in during 1938 / 39? We have forgotten many of the lessons of that war.

 

[Boagrius]

With 32 Mk-41 cells in the Hunter Class you can still load out e.g., 4 LRASM in the MK-41 and don't be overly concerned with ASROC because the range of that isn't that great compared to a shipboard helo. If you require more LRASM then you vary your VLS loadout. Just don't get hooked up on ASROC or that the Hunter Class will only ship NSM. Every deployment / mission will be different and as such loadouts may be different. You could limit yourself by preconceived ideas that have no bearing in fact at the moment.

Another fair point that I do take onboard. FWIW I am not claiming one option to be superior to the other as such - I simply don't have the expertise to do so - but I can see a good case for evaluating them both. That said I am sure this is an area that the RAN would be well aware of, and I suspect we will get more insight when a decision is made on the Hunter Class' AShM.

I know I like to hark back to WW2 lessons, but that was the last major peer on peer conflict. One lesson that was quickly learnt from that, was that many preconceived strategies, tactics and plans did not meet the facts on the ground. Equipment that was thought to be modern, was in fact obsolete on the day the war started. The technology has changed but has the mindset amongst the pollies, brass hats and weapons manufacturers? Are they in the same mindset that their counterparts were in during 1938 / 39? We have forgotten many of the lessons of that war.

True, although I suppose it is difficult to sort the wheat from the chaff until said strategies, tactics and plans are truly tested against the enemy. In this context, the flexibility of having a wide array of options does make a lot of sense. I will be watching with interest as I simply don't have the knowledge or expertise to examine other important factors like the engineering/integration issues alluded to earlier, or the broader CONOPS involved.

 

[ngatimozart]

@Boagrius It can be difficult figuring out what's what and that's why sometimes we have to look at things at different scales at the same time. The simultaneous micro, meso, and macro scale approach favoured by geographers. It's one especially used in climatology and in the study of coasts. It's very much a system of systems approach in that a change to one part of a system can have an effect upon the total system.

In some systems the permutations are quite complex, yet in others they can be reasonably straightforward. For example we know that changing one thing on a beach will cause other changes further along the beach. Some may be good such as enhancing a surf break, but others maybe quite detrimental, such as increasing significant erosion across one section of the beach.

So it's the same thing when we are looking at the Hunter Class AShM and other weaponry. We not only have to consider the AShM type, but the missiles launch system, location on the ship, the RAN CONOPS for the ships class, and so on. Finally we don't even know if a decision about what type or types of AShM the RAN will procure to replace the Harpoon with has even been made yet. To many variables at the moment.

 

[Pusser01]

NSM and JSM are two different animals, closely related but different.

NSM is ship or land launched, but not air launched, JSM is air launched and if I remember correctly, has the potential for use via VLS and the potential for submarine launch via a capsule.

As to why no ADF order as yet for NSM or JSM, I would imagine that the DDG and FFH fleets will continue to operate Harpoon, at least if and until NSM is chosen for the Hunter class.

As for JSM, I can’t see that happening until JSM is integrated into the Block 4 software and hardware upgrades to the F-35A fleet, still a few years away.

In the interim, I would imagine that the RAAF will be busy with LRASM integration on the Super Hornets and eventually Poseidon fleets.

The NSM has been cleared for use from the MH-60R I guess replacing the previous Penguin.

 

[Pusser Tas]

Somewhere in this thread there was a chap inquiring about the 'Collins Class' submarines. Cannot locate the original post but can provide information about this query.



Read this book decades ago. It's no longer in print but can be obtained from libraries though an inter-library loan.

Good read.

 

[Redlands18]

Somewhere in this thread there was a chap inquiring about the 'Collins Class' submarines. Cannot locate the original post but can provide information about this query.

View attachment 47888

Read this book decades ago. It's no longer in print but can be obtained from libraries though an inter-library loan.

Good read.

This book has actually been mentioned many, many times on this thread and recommended by a number of very senior members.

 

[alexsa]

Somewhere in this thread there was a chap inquiring about the 'Collins Class' submarines. Cannot locate the original post but can provide information about this query.

View attachment 47888

Read this book decades ago. It's no longer in print but can be obtained from libraries though an inter-library loan.

Good read.

Good day

It is still in print but as print on demand and is pretty easy to find.

The Collins Class Submarine Story: Steel, Spies and Spin: Yule, Peter, Woolner, Derek: Amazon.com.au: Books

 

[StingrayOZ]

RAN has never been tremendously into ASROC. I don't see that changing a whole lot.

We do have ship launched torpedo's, I assume that they are useful as decoys, anti-torpedo's and hail Mary situations. Launching them from the helicopter seems like a much better idea as well.

LRASM launchers may take up similar footprint (deck area) but would most likely be much taller having longer missiles at a steeper nearer vertical angle. Also you give up missiles, and its heavier, and has more top weight.


IMO sticking 4 or 8 LRASM in VLS is a nicer place for them to be, then you can put 16 NSM on the deck launcher. I also don't see VLS JSM missiles being popular either, for the same reason, why not just stick in a LRASM instead or NSM on a box launcher. There may be a specific case for an application, but I don't see it that way for the RAN. However, I certainly see an argument for both missiles.

 

[Pusser Tas]

Members were querying my source for a previous post on periscopes that did not break the surface.

It's my understanding that besides the RAN the Royal Navy and the Japanese are equipping the new submarines with such a system.

Safran Electronics & Defense

Observe, Decide, Guide Intelligence Onboard Safran Electronics & Defense is an international company with over 12,000 employees. They mobilize their expertise and team spirit to design high-tech solutions in the aerospace, defense, and space industries. By combining human and technological...

www.safran-electronics-defense.com

@Pusser Tas

I tried to do this nicely in case I missed something. Optical masts have to break the surface of the water for most of their functionality (they have been used for an 'underwater look' at other vessels in the past). The link you provided is to non-penetrating masts which do not require an opening in the pressure hull of the submarine. These masts still have to break the surface oo the water.

We will call this one done

 

[oldsig127]

Members were querying my source for a previous post on periscopes that did not break the surface.

It's my understanding that besides the RAN the Royal Navy and the Japanese are equipping the new submarines with such a system.

Safran Electronics & Defense

Observe, Decide, Guide Intelligence Onboard Safran Electronics & Defense is an international company with over 12,000 employees. They mobilize their expertise and team spirit to design high-tech solutions in the aerospace, defense, and space industries. By combining human and technological...

www.safran-electronics-defense.com

Maybe I'm missing the point, so I'll risk being embarrassed in order to get clarification on this "non-penetrating" business.

I took it to mean that the periscope (or sensor mast) doesn't penetrate the *pressure hull* of the submarine being electro-optical rather than purely optical and still penetrates the water surface when in operation. Benefit being that the above water section of an electro-optical scope can be much smaller and more discrete, sweep faster and provide an image that can be shown on screens rather than in a small optical viewfinder AND allow a more leisurely inspection of the recorded electronic image after lowering the scope.

Some of the discussion here seems to suggest the periscope doesn't go above water at all, hence my confusion

oldsig