Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

iambuzzard

Well-Known Member
$7 Billion will cover the Hobarts and Hunters, and hopefully several reloads. What will the missile capabilities be of the GPFs? If we go with the Ocean 4300 with the pictured CEAFAR what is it capable of supporting? I don't know about the Evolved Mogami?
Are SM2IIIC and SM6 restricted to Aegis equipped vessels?
You guys are the experts, I'm just an interested amateur who's concerned about the future security of his country.
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
Still no mention of SM-3…
Sm3 is pretty specialised. Australia is unlikely to need more than a handful. It's use could have horrible reprocussions for space as using them in numbers on orbital targets may make space inaccessible for thousands of years. Also no platform that is ideal for firing them.

Sm2 and sm6, we need thousands of those. This is a big sexy order of missiles we can fire today.
 

Reptilia

Well-Known Member
This order is obviously spread over 2 decades?
Doesn’t look like we will be producing these missiles in Australia anytime soon.
 

Sandson41

Member
This is a big sexy order of missiles we can fire today.
I wonder how long the delivery timeline is... I assume the US is increasing its inventory as well and will get its fair share of any missiles rolling off the production line, which can only make so many in the next few years.
We could very possibly have the first GP frigates and even hunters online before most of this order is completed. Heck, it may be that we had to order the first load for HMAS Hunter now in order for it to be ready in 2032...
Anyone know more about this area?

EDIT: What Reptilia says.
 

old faithful

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Sm3 is pretty specialised. Australia is unlikely to need more than a handful. It's use could have horrible reprocussions for space as using them in numbers on orbital targets may make space inaccessible for thousands of years. Also no platform that is ideal for firing them.

Sm2 and sm6, we need thousands of those. This is a big sexy order of missiles we can fire today.
Except we won't be getting them "today". Or tomorrow, or next year....
 

SammyC

Well-Known Member
$7 Billion will cover the Hobarts and Hunters, and hopefully several reloads. What will the missile capabilities be of the GPFs? If we go with the Ocean 4300 with the pictured CEAFAR what is it capable of supporting? I don't know about the Evolved Mogami?
Are SM2IIIC and SM6 restricted to Aegis equipped vessels?
You guys are the experts, I'm just an interested amateur who's concerned about the future security of his country.
The average Aussie price for an SM2 is about $3M and an SM6 is circa $6M, so assuming a 50:50 order, that equates to approx 1,500 missiles. Note: some of this money might be allocated to upgrading our current SM2 holdings to the modern baseline rather than new missiles.

I've read somewhere, just can't find the reference, that Raytheon is targeting an SM6 annual production rate of 300 units (from about 125 now). SM2 would be similar, so call it 600 missiles off the production line a year by the turn of the decade. To state the obvious, this is scarily low for total global production.

On that production, I can't imagine us getting say more than 100 per annum, so this is about a 10-15 year procurement program.

The use of the standard missile family is less connected to the type of radar and more the combat operating system. As far as I'm aware, the standard missile family has only been integrated into the Aegis system (FFGs excluded).

The Japanese for instance only use SM2/6s on their Kongo/Atago/Maya destroyers, with the rest limited to ESSM or their own indigenous AAM designs. Same for the Koreans. So the Mogami, despite having a mk41 VLS, to my understanding, is not configured for the SM2/6, nor is it planned at the moment.

The Australian Gov specified in their announcement that the SM2/6 order would only be for the Hunter and Hobart, not the future GPF.

There is no reason that the Mogami (or the Korean FFX) could not be upgraded to use standard missiles, just someone has to write the code, or fit an Aegis interface (such as the virtual system). I can't see much value in doing this for a 16 VLS package, but a 32 VLS unit starts to make sense (just).

Or just stuff them with 128 ESSM and be done with it
 
Last edited:

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
No, but looking at the radar antenna configuration on the Hunters, SM-3 might be more effectively used on them in comparison to the Hobarts. I think that it will be ordered in the future.

At least full-rate manufacturing of the SM-3 Block IIA has commenced at Raytheon.

RTX's Raytheon SM-3® Block IIA achieves full-rate production approval

SM-3 Block IIA production reaches full-rate production

https://defence-blog.com/raytheon-enters-full-rate-production-for-sm-3-block-iia/
Conroy’s comment some time back is looking more like slip of the tongue as time goes by…

People got so excited by it…
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Sm3 is pretty specialised. Australia is unlikely to need more than a handful. It's use could have horrible reprocussions for space as using them in numbers on orbital targets may make space inaccessible for thousands of years. Also no platform that is ideal for firing them.

Sm2 and sm6, we need thousands of those. This is a big sexy order of missiles we can fire today.
Referencing Conroy’s comment…
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
RAN Fleet Air arm flyover of Sydney harbour today (with 3 blow in Blackhawks), along with HMAS Warramunga full dress ship off Mrs Macquarie's chair as part of the fleet review by the King. All photos by me.
View attachment 51930
Nice pics, I read somewhere people criticising the ADF for not having enough helicopters… I note there isn’t a Chinook or Tiger to be seem in this image…

And roughly another 16 or so Romeos parked under a shed somewhere that didn’t even make this flight…
 

spoz

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Standard missiles do not necessarily require Aegis; they require the uplink data to be in the appropriate form. That can, and has, been provided by a number of other CMSs over the years; and indeed the whole missile family pre dates Aegis in USN service. Services with other CMS who have employed them have included the Dutch, Danes, French, Germans and Italians. The Dutch, Germans and Danes are current users.
 

Reptilia

Well-Known Member
Nice pics, I read somewhere people criticising the ADF for not having enough helicopters… I note there isn’t a Chinook or Tiger to be seem in this image…

And roughly another 16 or so Romeos parked under a shed somewhere that didn’t even make this flight…
150 odd helicopters by 2030.
 

iambuzzard

Well-Known Member
The average Aussie price for an SM2 is about $3M and an SM6 is circa $6M, so assuming a 50:50 order, that equates to approx 1,500 missiles. Note: some of this money might be allocated to upgrading our current SM2 holdings to the modern baseline rather than new missiles.

I've read somewhere, just can't find the reference, that Raytheon is targeting an SM6 annual production rate of 300 units (from about 125 now). SM2 would be similar, so call it 600 missiles off the production line a year by the turn of the decade. To state the obvious, this is scarily low for total global production.

On that production, I can't imagine us getting say more than 100 per annum, so this is about a 10-15 year procurement program.

The use of the standard missile family is less connected to the type of radar and more the combat operating system. As far as I'm aware, the standard missile family has only been integrated into the Aegis system (FFGs excluded).

The Japanese for instance only use SM2/6s on their Kongo/Atago/Maya destroyers, with the rest limited to ESSM or their own indigenous AAM designs. Same for the Koreans. So the Mogami, despite having a mk41 VLS, to my understanding, is not configured for the SM2/6, nor is it planned at the moment.

The Australian Gov specified in their announcement that the SM2/6 order would only be for the Hunter and Hobart, not the future GPF.

There is no reason that the Mogami (or the Korean FFX) could not be upgraded to use standard missiles, just someone has to write the code, or fit an Aegis interface (such as the virtual system). I can't see much value in doing this for a 16 VLS package, but a 32 VLS unit starts to make sense (just).

Or just stuff them with 128 ESSM and be done with it
Thanks Sammy.
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
Except we won't be getting them "today". Or tomorrow, or next year....
No but we can fire SM-2 and SM-6 today.

SM-3 is not a good match for our current aegis flavor (would require the reboot on the aegis system we currently have to put it in BMD mode), and AFAIK i don't think there has been a SM-3 launch with just a single ships sensors involved. SM-3 is really a network munition that requires multiple platforms. Space based BMD is hard. It usually requires multiple aegis ships, and air/space/ground tracking stations.


SM-3 becomes more viable with the Aegis update, not requiring a reboot into a dedicate BMD mode.

This is a huge order for missiles. The US is only making around 125 SM-6 missiles a year.

SM-3 is only produced at the rate of 12 missiles per year.
However, these savings are not reinvested in SM-3 Block IIA production, of which quantities remain stagnant at 12 missiles annually over the next five years.

Twelve missiles. Per year.
That isn't Australia's production, that is the current production and acquisition rate for the US and its allies. So obviously if we want to scale production, we need orders, here are the orders, hence everyone can now work to scaling production.

If Australia can produce ~100 SM-2/SM-6 a year that is an entirely sensible production capability, particularly if it can scale, and if there is a deep sovereign part stockpile/supply chain. The US should get back to its cold war capability of over 1000 annually.

The US production capability reflect the issues its having with ships, back in the 1980's there were clearly going to be many new platforms with larger loadouts of SM-2. These days every thing is cut and the US is looking at a reduction of VLS at sea, the decommissioning of the Ticos, availability of the Burkes, particularly while being upgraded and also decommissioned.
 
Last edited:

Going Boeing

Well-Known Member
SM-3 is only produced at the rate of 12 missiles per year.
I understand that there is deep concern in the US that their stocks of SM-3 missiles were reduced recently due to having to fire some in defence of Israel from Iranian ballistic missile attacks. With only 12 missiles being built per annum, it takes time to replenish/expand their reserves.

It may be a while before any are available for an Aus Government order for the RAN.
 

Takao

The Bunker Group
Nice pics, I read somewhere people criticising the ADF for not having enough helicopters… I note there isn’t a Chinook or Tiger to be seem in this image…

And roughly another 16 or so Romeos parked under a shed somewhere that didn’t even make this flight…
Not enough helos?

Noting the importance of minimal viable capability (MVC) and the tightness of the budget, I'd argue we have too many....

** sorry for the acronym...
 
Last edited:

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Not enough helos?

Noting the importance of minimal viable capability (MVC) and the tightness of the budget, I'd argue we have too many....

** sorry for the acronym...
Wasn’t my argument, was Shoebridges… :rolleyes:
 
Top