Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[Vivendi]

I think it depends on the type of ballistic missile. An ATACMS, GMLRS or PRSM are all a type of ballistic missile, however they are entirely atmospheric, have a relatively flat trajectory and an ESSM would deal with them fine. I would view this is the kind of stuff (the Chinese or Russian equivalents) that the Houthis might get their hands on, or would be fired from shore.

The Chinese DL21, however are an exo atmospheric type of ballistic missile. Their balistic trajectory is much higher and they come down at a near verticle angle. ESSM has a range of about 50km horizontally, but can only go up in the order of about 10-10km. This is where ESSM is fallable as it can only engage very close, and its warhead is the smaller fragmentation type that may not have the mass to disrupt a heavy inbound slug.

The SM6 and the SM3 both have rocket boosters, so can get higher to engage the threat further away. That is why they are more capable at exo atmospheric ballistic threats. Less of a requirement in the Red Sea, more of a need in the South China Sea.

Thanks, I was not aware ESSM could handle the shortest range ballistic missiles. But what about ballistic missiles with a range of 500km-1000km? THese are still considered "short range" and it seems Iran has already developed an anti-ship ballistic missile with range of 700km (the Zolfaghar-e Basir). They are probably not sharing this with Houthis today, but then again the pacing threat for Australia should be China...?
Zolfaghar (Dezful, Qasem) | Missile Threat (csis.org)

Of course as others have pointed out a tier 2 frigate should always be protected by a tier 1 vessel in high threat environment.

 

[swerve]

Not every situation requires an ESSM or better.
Part of increasing missile numbers (against drones in perticular) may may be the adoption of lighter, smaller missiles.
I know this comes at the penalty of range and adds another supply chain but a high/low mix may benifit with lower cost and increased numbers.

If the ESSM can be quad packet in a VLS something like the UKs Martlet (for example) could perhaps be 10/12 packed.

Another way to increase numbers and not use valuable VLS space is to replace 1 or more NSM launcher boxes with ones filled with the Martlet or similar missiles.
Loitering munitions such as the Raytheon Coyote could also be employed this way.
Trying to find ways of employing addition missile capability within existing deck space.

MBDA sells pedestal-mounted launchers for multiple Mistrals. Not sure of the current set, but they used to have options for two, four or six. I wouldn't be surprised if they're now working on something with more missiles. Take up deck space, of course, but doesn't seem to be a lot, from the pictures I've seen.

RAM is bigger & heavier but still very much smaller than ESSM (<25% of the weight), & comes with a 21 round launcher. Needs more space than the Mistral launchers, but I think less than you'd need for 21 ESSM, & I think it can be reloaded at sea if needed, as can the Mistral launchers, with their 20kg missiles.

Martlet & Starstreak are 13-14 kg. Launchers for up to five missiles have been displayed, IIRC including fitting in a 4-round pod. Anywhere Mistral can go, so can they.

 

[Tbone]

Would the RAN ever invest in SeaRam.. over phalanx? Would think with 30mm capable guns with programmable shells coming on line are capable of taking down small drones and small surface boats.. leaving SeaRam to take care of the point defence role. Hunter and new frigates should IMO be fitted with SeaRam.. he’ll they should be popping the SeaRam on the Arafura with a 30mm up front to make them more versatile. With there built in radar sensors it would give them a defensive capability to work alone in gray zone areas

 

[Volkodav]

Would the RAN ever invest in SeaRam.. over phalanx? Would think with 30mm capable guns with programmable shells coming on line are capable of taking down small drones and small surface boats.. leaving SeaRam to take care of the point defence role. Hunter and new frigates should IMO be fitted with SeaRam.. he’ll they should be popping the SeaRam on the Arafura with a 30mm up front to make them more versatile. With there built in radar sensors it would give them a defensive capability to work alone in gray zone areas

What would be interesting is if RAM could be easily integrated into 9LV. If so the standard 21 round launcher could be integrated into the Arafuras, LHDs, even the AORs.

 

[Stampede]

The surface fleet analysis specifies they are to be optimised for undersea warfare and would carry a limited number of point and self defence weapons for air defence.

from the analysis

https://www.defence.gov.au/sites/default/files/2024-02/Enhanced_Lethality_Surface_Combatant_Fleet_web.pdf

*****
Tier 2
At least seven, and optimally 11, Tier 2 ships, optimised for undersea warfare, to
operate both independently and in conjunction with the Tier 1 ships to secure
maritime trade routes, northern approaches and escort military assets. Consistent
with the DSR and our Terms of Reference, it is essential these vessels include the
ability to:
• operate a Maritime Combat Helicopter
• provide undersea warfare through a depressed active/passive towed array
sonar and have the ability to store, handle and employ lightweight torpedoes
• provide air defence through a limited number of point and self-defence
systems
• provide maritime and land strike
• provide force protection.
*****

My interpretation is that “independent operations“ means sub hunting, and “escorting military assets” / “force protection” is primarily about contributing to the ASW screen. The anticipated threats during independent operations would be submarines, shore batteries and isolated maritime patrol aircraft launching cruise missiles. I think you are correct that in high threat environments (e.g, those involving hostile ballistic missiles, air wings, and surface fleets) the Tier 2 vessel would be operating in a task force with (at a minimum) a Tier 1 vessel.

My guess is that a design with 16 VLS cells will be selected but will be found to be inadequate in the 2030s (hopefully a base design that can accommodate a larger magazine, and future hypersonic weapons for ships 7-11 will be selected).

Good to revisit the Tier two criteria

My take is a vessel to operate independently across a broad range of low to medium threat scenarios
Also a vessel that is capable enough asset to be a contributor rather than a liability to a task force operating with tier one units

What does that look like?

In part it will be a compromised solution due to the necessity of time to service.

This is understandable in light of the challenges ahead brought on be the apathy of the past

Put too much into the GPF and you may as well consolidate with the Hunters
Get the the weapon / sensor mix right and IMPORTANTLY get 11 not 7 vessels and then I suggest we have a good out come.

Just looking at size, it should look more like our old FFGs rather than a modern ANZAC.

How does that now look with the contenders

Cheers S

 

[koala]

I am aware that there are advocates for an Australian A2/AD capability but I believe that the actual end product if Australia were to attempt to field land-based AShM launchers or artillery would be more a notional capability than an actual, operational A2/AD capability.

For starters, there are not any real SLOC chokepoints in/around Australia, unlike in the archipelagos to the north. So if the idea was to keep hostile warships away from Australia proper, then launch systems would need to be scattered all around the Australian coast. Given the length of coastline as well as how remote and/or inaccessible some of it is, I just do not see this as being viable, particularly given how limited a capability land-based AShM launchers are. In order for Australia to have an A2/AD capability covering the approaches to Indonesian, Malaysian or Singaporean territory, then Australia would need to have such units forward deployed into those areas or at least within coverage range of them. This is not something I consider likely to happen, or at least not in enough time to do any good. Nor do I foresee Australia being in a position to rapidly deploy land-based AShM to Malaysian or Indonesian territory fast enough to do any good, especially if the deployment was to be made without the consent of the respective national gov't.

So far that is just touching on issues with the idea of launchers, there are also a whole pile of issues which would become involved in target detection, identification, tracking and engagement. Such issues also grow increasingly difficult as the range increases and/or the area of interest grows in size. I suspect that Australia currently would be hard-pressed to be able to monitor, detect, ID, track and then engage hostile targets within 200 km of an Australian coast without either deploying a RAN or RAAF asset to take a look at a suspicious contact prior to engagement. Trying to monitor a busy SLOC were there are some 200+ vessels transiting daily I suspect would cause such an effort to collapse if one were to try relying upon land-based units.

A question I have, is how our major city's are protected, do we have any land-based defense to engage a long-range missile on say Sydney Hapour bridge, Warragamba dam, Melbourne or Brisbane infrastructure. if our major city's had to defend from an attack, what would we do?

 

[iambuzzard]

What would be interesting is if RAM could be easily integrated into 9LV. If so the standard 21 round launcher could be integrated into the Arafuras, LHDs, even the AORs.

Volks, what is the effectiveness of Phalanx (SeaWizz) compared to SeaRam? Obviously Phalanx is a gun and SeaRam are missiles but how effective are each and can they be reloaded at sea? What's the firing endurance of a magazine on Phalanx?

 

[iambuzzard]

A question I have, is how our major city's are protected, do we have any land-based defense to engage a long-range missile on say Sydney Hapour bridge, Warragamba dam, Melbourne or Brisbane infrastructure. if our major city's had to defend from an attack, what would we do?

B****r all as far as this layman knows. I'd like to know as well. I live in Melbourne. We could always throw DA at them.

 

[hauritz]

Volks, what is the effectiveness of Phalanx (SeaWizz) compared to SeaRam? Obviously Phalanx is a gun and SeaRam are missiles but how effective are each and can they be reloaded at sea? What's the firing endurance of a magazine on Phalanx?

Actually I was wondering the same thing. It didn't seem that long ago that some members in this forum were wondering how effective the Phalanx would be against supersonic and hypersonic missiles. There were questions as to whether 20 mm would have the stopping power to be effective against fast missiles.

Since then we have seen the advent of drones so perhaps the Phalanx now has a new lease of life against smaller, slower moving and more fragile targets.

 

[Delta204]

Good to revisit the Tier two criteria

My take is a vessel to operate independently across a broad range of low to medium threat scenarios
Also a vessel that is capable enough asset to be a contributor rather than a liability to a task force operating with tier one units

What does that look like?

In part it will be a compromised solution due to the necessity of time to service.

This is understandable in light of the challenges ahead brought on be the apathy of the past

Put too much into the GPF and you may as well consolidate with the Hunters
Get the the weapon / sensor mix right and IMPORTANTLY get 11 not 7 vessels and then I suggest we have a good out come.

Just looking at size, it should look more like our old FFGs rather than a modern ANZAC.

How does that now look with the contenders

Cheers S

This will be interesting to follow the next number of years. Drawing from recent examples from Ukraine and Red Sea, I believe any surface combatant that wants to operate independently will need robust air defense capability. Maybe this isn't a great example, but imagine saying 30-40 years ago that all frigates would need 3D air radars - people would have probably scoffed and said it was unnecessary, too expensive, to much weight etc. I think pretty soon navies will realize that if you don't have triple digit numbers of missile interceptors including at least a dozen able to engage ballistic threats, you won't be able to deploy independently. By the 30's I would expect a Houthi type of militarized force to be able to strike naval targets out to 1,000 KM away using cheap drones and missiles. They won't be as effective as advanced missiles from western navies, but they will still need to be intercepted; and there will be likely many waves of them before they can be destroyed at the source by counter strikes. So having magazine depth will be key; even if a escort defends itself from these attacks, if it's magazine is depleted it's essentially a mission kill on the escort anyway as it will be out of the fight for days or weeks most likely.

I do wonder if this is part of the current issues with the Constellation design? the USN might have put their foot down on minimum AAW capability that these frigates need to have and they won't accept any compromise in this area.

 

[spoz]

SeaRAM and Phalanx can both be reloaded at sea. For drones etc. Phalanx would be the better (and much more economical) choice; even remotely operated (or indeed manned) weapons in the 20-30mm range would be useful and probably quite effective, For missiles, SeaRAM is the better choice because of its longer interception range and higher kill probability at distance. OTH, Phalanxi in its Mk2B version has an effective anti surface vessel capability. In many ways they are really complementary, not competitive, in the current environment..

It’s CIWS, BTW, only pronounced “Seawhizz” when spoken, and that can be a general acronym for any Close In Weapons System, not just Phalanx.

 

[Delta204]

SeaRAM and Phalanx can both be reloaded at sea. For drones etc. Phalanx would be the better (and much more economical) choice; even remotely operated (or indeed manned) weapons in the 20-30mm range would be useful and probably quite effective, For missiles, SeaRAM is the better choice because of its longer interception range and higher kill probability at distance. OTH, Phalanxi in its Mk2B version has an effective anti surface vessel capability. In many ways they are really complementary, not competitive, in the current environment..

It’s CIWS, BTW, only pronounced “Seawhizz” when spoken, and that can be a general acronym for any Close In Weapons System, not just Phalanx.

Are navies willing to rely on these as their primary defense against drones and other low risk threats? Leaves very little room for error if you allow the threat to get this close. I could see a huge market for reliable 5" guided airburst rounds with CIWS as a second layer but I think modern escorts would want to engage these threats a bit further out.

 

[Stampede]

This will be interesting to follow the next number of years. Drawing from recent examples from Ukraine and Red Sea, I believe any surface combatant that wants to operate independently will need robust air defense capability. Maybe this isn't a great example, but imagine saying 30-40 years ago that all frigates would need 3D air radars - people would have probably scoffed and said it was unnecessary, too expensive, to much weight etc. I think pretty soon navies will realize that if you don't have triple digit numbers of missile interceptors including at least a dozen able to engage ballistic threats, you won't be able to deploy independently. By the 30's I would expect a Houthi type of militarized force to be able to strike naval targets out to 1,000 KM away using cheap drones and missiles. They won't be as effective as advanced missiles from western navies, but they will still need to be intercepted; and there will be likely many waves of them before they can be destroyed at the source by counter strikes. So having magazine depth will be key; even if a escort defends itself from these attacks, if it's magazine is depleted it's essentially a mission kill on the escort anyway as it will be out of the fight for days or weeks most likely.

I do wonder if this is part of the current issues with the Constellation design? the USN might have put their foot down on minimum AAW capability that these frigates need to have and they won't accept any compromise in this area.

Yes. The definition of harms way

if we won’t pressed for time would we have gone down the tier one and two road?

Also fleet numbers have a quality of there own

For this fleet mix to work we have to get a lot right

A brave call

Cheers S

 

[SammyC]

Thanks, I was not aware ESSM could handle the shortest range ballistic missiles. But what about ballistic missiles with a range of 500km-1000km? THese are still considered "short range" and it seems Iran has already developed an anti-ship ballistic missile with range of 700km (the Zolfaghar-e Basir). They are probably not sharing this with Houthis today, but then again the pacing threat for Australia should be China...?
Zolfaghar (Dezful, Qasem) | Missile Threat (csis.org)

Of course as others have pointed out a tier 2 frigate should always be protected by a tier 1 vessel in high threat environment.

ESSM doesn't have a problem with balistic missiles per se. It's fine with their speed, it can track them, it can manoeuvre towards them and it can damage them. It has a problem with the range and altitude that it can engage at.

I'm less familiar with the Iranian products, however using an ATACMS as an example. At its best it has a range of 300km and it will reach about 50km at its apogee (max height). So, if you do the maths, at the 50km mark from the target (maximum bounday for ESSM), the missile will be about 15km up and roughly within the engagement envelope of an ESSM. Given its trajectory, this missile would have been spotted about 150-200km out with a good high mounted radar (like seafar), so an engagement could have been easily managed. Remember general run of the mill atmospheric balistic missiles have limited stealth or manoeuvrability and are easy pickings once in range. They stand out like a fire truck.

For order of magnitude, the apogee of an atmospheric balistic trajectory is about 25% of the range. If you have a 750km missile it will go up about 180-200km. In that last 50km of its path, it will be about 25-30km high. That's going to be hard for an ESSM, but fine for an SM2 or SM6 It's about 15km up at about the 25km range and this would be engageable by ESSM. So uncomfortably close, but still OK. I would have thought missiles like the Zolfaghar-e Basir would have fitted in this category. A modern integrated ESSM battery could deal with a whole bunch of these.

The maths get steadily worse for ESSM the longer the incoming missile range, as the decent angle gets more verticle and comes from a higher maximum altitude.

If you go to the other end of the scale and look at ICBMs, these pick a different very high altitude trajectory and go 1,000-5,000km upwards. If you model that path it means that the missile is still 100s of kms up at the 50km mark and is basically on the verticle. ESSM simply can't reach it until it is too late.

SM3 on the other hand has a ceiling of about 1,000 kms, so can engage much further out.

 

[Armchair]

if we won’t pressed for time would we have gone down the tier one and two road?

Yes I think so (given the defence strategy adopted). The RAN needed more ships to be able to provide at least one task force and independent operations (or two task forces) at the same time. Given its workforce numbers problems those additional ships needed to have smaller crews than were planned for the 12 MFUs

 

[old faithful]

Could be a stupid question, but could ESSM be used against fighter aircraft, should a suicidal pilot come within range? Think A4 in the Falklands.

 

[StingrayOZ]

For order of magnitude, the apogee of an atmospheric balistic trajectory is about 25% of the range. If you have a 750km missile it will go up about 180-200km. In that last 50km of its path, it will be about 25-30km high. That's going to be hard for an ESSM, but fine for an SM2 or SM6 It's about 15km up at about the 25km range and this would be engageable by ESSM. So uncomfortably close, but still OK. I would have thought missiles like the Zolfaghar-e Basir would have fitted in this category. A modern integrated ESSM battery could deal with a whole bunch of these.

The maths get steadily worse for ESSM the longer the incoming missile range, as the decent angle gets more verticle and comes from a higher maximum altitude.

I think you have provide a good explanation, however I would just add this is why there is a difference between terminal BMD and mid course BMD.

Do you want the ship to protect just itself, or do you want it to intercept threats flying around/over it.

For example the red sea, most of the threats are flying towards Israel at geographic positions. Ships are hard to target, they move around, and tend to have a lot of a self defence and electronic defence capability. Even if you get through that, a ship is a small target, 15-20m wide. Even a small cross wind, can make accuracy of a bm, drift. Ships can turn, they can change speed. BM tend to close in very fast, and may not be able to be fitted with IR or radar. Ships can launch decoys. BM are not good weapons against ships. Cruise missiles tend to be much better against ships.

ESSM maybe very small terminal BMD maybe intercept and mop up. SM-2/SM-6 much better terminal ballistic missile defence. Sm-3 can broadly do more mid course intercepts. But its not just about the missile, it is also about tracking and engagement.

Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System - Wikipedia

Could be a stupid question, but could ESSM be used against fighter aircraft, should a suicidal pilot come within range? Think A4 in the Falklands.

ESSM is a capable missile. It was originally developed from the AIM7 sparrow missile, which aircraft carried to shoot aircraft. So it would be able to engage aircraft very easily if they got close enough.

AIM-7 Sparrow - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Takao]

A question I have, is how our major city's are protected, do we have any land-based defense to engage a long-range missile on say Sydney Hapour bridge, Warragamba dam, Melbourne or Brisbane infrastructure. if our major city's had to defend from an attack, what would we do?

Not a question that has an easy answer.

The reality is, to cover all of Australia's major cities (say, top 10?) and key infrastructure outside that area and key Defence assets (which are replying to said attack)...

...you'd need a budget that exceeds nuclear submarines and a new Service that would be bigger than the contractor Service....

The harsh reality is that there is no way for us to protect the majority of the population from an air threat. There will have to be an acceptance of civilian assets being hit, and civilians being killed (sadly, often from falling debris or Australian ordnance missing). This demands resilience built into infrastructure, including easy to access and repair utilities (which, ironically, would aid in day-to-day life as we could repair potholes in days, not months). It demands alternate supply lines, an understanding of rationing, emergency services that can be rapidly redeployed and reinforced (how long to move a detachment of QLD EMS to Melbourne? Can we do it in under 6 hours?). Again, all of which would be better for our day-to-day peacetime life. Especially more so than buying another missile battery.....

Ironically, the best way of defending such terrain is to push the enemy back as far as possible, demanding a strong, expeditionary Army along with a Navy that can support that (plus continue to conduct key maritime roles and missions - like killing those pesky SSGN/SSG) and an Air Force that can support both. Which is a better, logical, spend of resources - but emotions come in to play.

 

[CJR]

A question I have, is how our major city's are protected, do we have any land-based defense to engage a long-range missile on say Sydney Hapour bridge, Warragamba dam, Melbourne or Brisbane infrastructure. if our major city's had to defend from an attack, what would we do?

Depends on what the threat is... There's quite a difference if we expect to be a distinctly secondary target with, say, a handful of subs taking potshots with maybe half a dozen subsonic cruise missiles each or if we expect to be a primary target and need to expect dozens of ballistic missiles.

At the low end (say a handful of SSs each with maybe a dozen subsonic cruise-missiles each), well, given NASAMS with AMRAAM-ER gives coverage of maybe a 100 km diameter bubble per battery (nominal range for AMRAAM-ER or ESSM quoted as being about 50km) you'd probably need one battery per major population center plus probably a similar number to cover other major targets away from population centers I'd expect something north of 20 SAM batteries would be needed. At A$2.5B for 2-3 NASAMS batteries (based on LAND 19) we're talking somewhere north of A$15B for the hardware.

Trading out AMRAAM-ER for Patriot you'd probably be able to halve the number of batteries (nominal range ~120 km against aerial targets for PAC-3 MSE) but you're paying much more per battery (Polish 2018 order for two batteries was US$4.8B, about A$7B at current exchange rates, likely about A$9B once inflation is included), so total cost vs a low end threat is still over A$15B for the hardware..

Against higher end threats (more SSGs; supersonic cruise-missiles; hypersonic missiles; ballistic missiles etc.) you'd probably need to double the number of Patriot batteries (looking at wikipedia stats (yeah I know...) range against ballistic missiles generally seems to be about half of that against aerial targets) and you'd likely want NASAMS as a second line around particularly high value targets. Likely north of A$30B for the hardware.

On top of that there's the problem of actually manning the resulting military units.

So, not completely impossible but neither cheap nor easy.

 

[d-ron84]

SeaRAM and Phalanx can both be reloaded at sea. For drones etc. Phalanx would be the better (and much more economical) choice; even remotely operated (or indeed manned) weapons in the 20-30mm range would be useful and probably quite effective, For missiles, SeaRAM is the better choice because of its longer interception range and higher kill probability at distance. OTH, Phalanxi in its Mk2B version has an effective anti surface vessel capability. In many ways they are really complementary, not competitive, in the current environment..

It’s CIWS, BTW, only pronounced “Seawhizz” when spoken, and that can be a general acronym for any Close In Weapons System, not just Phalanx.

I think you mean "Block 1B", but yes it has an "Anti-Surface" mode that is also useful for slow moving air targets that aren't passing the target criteria.