StevoJH
The Bunker Group
Not only that. Each Bushmaster ute appears to carry 2 NSM Launch canisters.
How many missiles would need to be fired to saturate the defences of a single modern combatant? Let alone a flotilla or task group sized formation.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
How many missiles would need to be fired to saturate the defences of a single modern combatant? Let alone a flotilla or task group sized formation.
Thanks for the insight.. but the idea behind land based anti ship batteries is to plug holes in areas. Having a frigate patrol the areas where reach from shore based battieries will effectively reduce the area they need to defend. All the nations I have presented are friendly nations with diplomatic ties and standing defence agreements. We are their defence partner of choice. With many small naval and military ports and bases where strikemaster could be stored ahead of war or quickly moved into place. It would be easily determined that Taiwan would be the most likely start to conflict in our region. Which would allow plenty of time for our armed forces to pivot to a stance like forward deployment. My point is that Australia just doesn’t have the mass to compete on the seas with China. We need to look at cheaper (budget requirements) and areas where we can produce on mass effective ways to control the seas around us. 100’s of strikemaster launchers and strix drones with jindalee, satellite and new high flying drones networked with our frustrate and patrol boats ie with upgraded bam launchers would provide a kill web over vast distances. Our nuclear subs and destroyer to provide assistance to a coalition force further north. What happens when we lose a couple of frigates and a destroyer?? It’s conflict we are going to have ships sink.
The whole army is transitioning to a marine style force with 18 medium landing craft.. and heavy class to continue after they are built. these launchers are cheap compared to a frigate which could be sunk by the same way.. also east to find and sink. Losing launchers is like losing a billion dollar ship and 100s is sailors onboard. Hiding in the jungles and shore lines would command an enemy to waste resource and time. It’s gorilla warfare something I think Australian army would excel at. I would imagine they would be light flexiable battieries but what they would comprise of regarding protection is something to look into.. the skyranger 30 based on the boxer would be perfect to protect these batteries from drones and incoming missiles.. we could build them after the boxer run has finished.
Strikemaster build in Victoria - strike
Skyranger build in QLD - protection
Strix drones built in Australia. - iSR
Low cost.. low manning..
While only carrying 2 missiles per bushmaster a frigate only has 8. The NSM is designed as a stealth missile that manoeuvres before impact. To evade ciws.
It’s about changing the way China uses its navy in our near region.. directing them into kill zones for our subs and fleets.
I’m not advocating for shore based systems to be the sole deterrent but to work with our navy and airforce to create doubt and to funnel the enemy into areas we can manage and control in a cost effective way. Using our army in a naval way to command and control the seas around us.
Looking at this simplistic view of Strikemaster spread out over northern australia.. why this couldn’t be developed to spread out over our near region from Indonesia..png and pacific islands to create a defensive line together with the evolved cape class with NSM and GPF moving about the seas to command and control the environment. The government could use this to speed up the missile program by making the NSM in Australia. Bushmaster, skyranger boxer already ready to be produce on our shores. NSM picked for our navy and airforce to use variant inside F35. Why we haven’t started this mind numbing .
Attachments
Yep, that's simplistic.
That model is using a large manned resource to provide a nuisance mine field, that does not channel an enemy anywhere. By sitting them with interlocking range overlaps, you find 1 unit you then know where the rest are based on the operational range. Sorry, I am far from convinced that this will be even a useful resource. I would rather the money be spent on SAMs , both long and medium range, more IFVs, SPG, and even small fast missile boats that can change positions quickly, hiding in literal waters, and also provide mine laying capabilities. The missile boats would be as well as the frigates and nuke subs, not instead of. No one is going to invade us, not worried about that, but keeping our lines of communication open are a must.
RE: Strikemaster, instead of land-based NSM launchers, could the future Coastwatch fleet take on a dual role with armed bizjets?
AFAIK the Surveillance Australia contract expires in 2027 and the 10 Dash 8s will be due for replacement around the same time so folding the maritime surveillance capability back into the Border Force might open up an opportunity for jets with a more military role to complement the RAAF’s 12 P-8s. The idea of adding anti-ship capability to bizjets has been proposed at various times by several vendors including Gulfstream, Saab, Dassault, IAI… and implemented in a few cases.
AFAIK the Surveillance Australia contract expires in 2027 and the 10 Dash 8s will be due for replacement around the same time so folding the maritime surveillance capability back into the Border Force might open up an opportunity for jets with a more military role to complement the RAAF’s 12 P-8s. The idea of adding anti-ship capability to bizjets has been proposed at various times by several vendors including Gulfstream, Saab, Dassault, IAI… and implemented in a few cases.
Last edited:
I think before we come up with solutions we need to consider how a modern naval war would even be fought. I am still trying to get my head around that one.
I don’t see a direct attack against Australia as the main threat. Rather I see the threat being swarms of near undetectable UUVs.
Not sure what the solution for combating those things even really exists at the moment.
I don’t see a direct attack against Australia as the main threat. Rather I see the threat being swarms of near undetectable UUVs.
Not sure what the solution for combating those things even really exists at the moment.
Last edited:
I thought the propulsion issues were the Freedom class LCS, not the Independence class trimarans.
The capability would be useful against an adversary like Iran, maybe even Russia. Against a theoretically hostile Indonesia? maybe yeh.
But against China? These aren't small ships going out one at a time with 70's 80's soviet era tech. Also Australia is so massive, and our oceans are so massive, small planes carrying small loads, travelling long distances, niche capability won't matter. If China was to impinge on Australian EEZ, they would do it with a force to match the entire ADF, if not greater. However, the Chinese would have to solve other problems before it came to that anyway. But, perhaps if they were based at Butterworth.
I'm not sure NSM is really the ideal weapon we are looking for in land based units for our region based on continental Australia. I think they have some merit elsewhere around choke points, and would be quick to develop and deploy as a concept. Australia however is basically choke point free. We can never be blockaded in our waters, that's not really a thing. But having them means we could be invited to friendlies, or give them to friendly who are fighting. But again, NSM isn't perhaps ideal for that. But we could definitely develop a longer cruise type munition that would give larger coverage, multi-vector attack, and provide some stand off capability. Around PNG, maybe. That could be a critical point, particularly if the Chinese ever had a base in the South Pacific. So to deter China from building a base in South Pacific, maybe.
We are however, near key global choke points in Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia. If those choke points were blocked or insecure, then the other way is down through our southern waters.
I think Tbone, one of the problems with stationary or even ground based anti ship defences, is that they are vulnerable to air strikes. The LRASM for instance can be fired from about 400km, and there are other ship based land strike missiles with similar ranges that potential enemies posess, all outside the range on NSM. So a strikemaster then needs air protection, such as a NASAMS platoon. Yes skyranger type solutions could be employed, but they are going to struggle against advanced missiles.
Secondly, any slow or fixed defence is spottable in the modern era. There are other conversations on the detectability of a submarine snorkle in this forum for example, let alone something as large as a missile team.
Ships are also detectable and vulnerable to attack, but they move (relatively) fast, easily shifting 1,000km in a day with near instant mobilisation, and are (reasonably) well equipped to defend themselves.
Thirdly defence systems go where there is something to protect. So on our northern approaches for instance, there is validity around Darwin, but then Darwin has several air bases close by which provide more effective cover than a strikemaster would do. If an enemy wishes to make a landing in the Kimberly, then I am of the view that the mangroves, snakes and crocodiles should keep us safe.
I think its also worth understanding the capabilities of the NSM and its ability to get through a modern frigate defence system. The actual data here is largely classified, however it is reasonably understood that a single NSM style attack is unlikely to be successful against a modern surface combatant. A high chance of success will require multiple missiles combined with other tactics, such as distractions, multi directions, SEAD and the like. As such a single strikemaster deployment has limited capability. Several would be needed with other assets.
My view is that strikemasters can work in small numbers that move around as a combined force, and this aligns with the US and Australian army current philosophy. But it has however limitations for mass use and protection, which is why ship and aircraft based systems are necessary.
I think one of the biggest questions to what gear gets purchased and when, relates to when and how conflict might occur. Everybody will have a different view on this ranging from imminently, to next decade to never, and from push and shove, to conventional to nuclear. If it's imminent then we will go to war with what we have today, no acquisitions will help us including strikemaster and new GPFs. If its next decade then we have some time to prepare and can invest in the better purposed procurements. This is the million (billion) dollar question, with no easy answer.
I think these issues all favour a system like the in-development Typhon launcher the US Army is working on which is essentially truck based Mk41 meant to launch maritime strike tomahawk against naval targets and SM-6 against air threats. The universal VLS has revolutionised ship armament so utilising it on land seems like the right way to go. Particularly as it would fulfil the RAAF's desire for a long range are defence system.
I am not sure that Typhon uses SM-6 in the air defence role (I guess it could be cued by another asset for that purpose).
They are also really big!
The SM-6 has been tested and able to be used in the typhoon system. While ideally the mk42 launcher for the typhoon is ideal for the army to add long range missile defence and long range anti shipping strikes. It is very large and cumbersome unit. The point of the Strikemaster is it’s small Im Le and moveable in almost any terrain. The point of the systems is to work with navy become a deterrence. Move Chinese fleets into directions of the high seas where our subs could strike. I understand Strikemaster range is low but it’s a cheap start we can produce in numbers and speed out wide across near nations. Built in Australia.. don’t get me wrong I think making every ship in the RAN with a shooter weapon is needed. Using sensors across our armed forces as the pointers of needed. I would like typhoon to be taken up asap.. just thought Strikemaster is capable I’m numbers now.
Arafura class training facility opened - Australian Defence Magazine
A new training facility to be run by the Royal Australian Navy (RAN) with support from Luerssen Australia to train OPV crews has been officially opened at HMAS Stirling.
www.australiandefence.com.au
In 2023, government were saying both Arafura and Eyre would be in service this year, looks like it will just be Arafura. You would think Eyre will be in service mid next year and Pilbara in late 2025.
6 month intervals puts Gippsland mid 2026, Illawarra late 2026, Carpentaria mid 2027.
Possibly Landing Craft or GPF work to follow?
Is Austal just the lead (LC+GPF) with other partners at Henderson doing most of the steel hull construction/fabrication?
Last edited:
Austal is not involved at all in the Arafura build. This is entirely between Luerssen and Civmec. Yes I suspect it will take the record for the longest 80 m build. Don't be suprised if they never get a gun.
In regards to the landing craft medium, Austal are the constructor and Birdon are the designer. They seem to be working happily together. Their existing sheds and crew are good for this program.
The GPF build contracting arrangement is yet to be seen. I doubt Civmec will be involved and if they are it will be as a subcontractor only. Austal will need some new sheds.
In regards to the landing craft medium, Austal are the constructor and Birdon are the designer. They seem to be working happily together. Their existing sheds and crew are good for this program.
The GPF build contracting arrangement is yet to be seen. I doubt Civmec will be involved and if they are it will be as a subcontractor only. Austal will need some new sheds.
We have some agreement there Tbone. I have enjoyed the discussion on strikemasters and earlier on mine hunters. Some of it got me thinking differently. Well done.
I’m aware that Austal is not involved with the Arafura build…
Both Landing craft and GPF are steel, Austal does not do steel, the prototype landing craft medium was built down the road at Echo Marine.
Question I’m asking is if austal/designer(Birdon/incat crowther/overseas tbd) will subcontract all the steel fab and pipe work to civmec and do fit out in a new hall (possibly next to bae?) or more likely where silveryachts is currently.
If civmec is not involved, it’s hard to see where austal finds the room for multiple new halls up to 150m long, steel/pipe fab, paint, fit out, storage and electrical, car park for 1200+.
Last edited: