Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[ADMk2]

From my POV given the current composition of the RAN fleet, even with the introduction of RGM-109E the RAN still lacks an effective long-range strike capability, which is why I have issues. One also needs to keep in mind what else could have been done with that nearly USD$900 mil.

If Tomahawk, or some other VL LACM were getting added into service circa ~2032 just ahead of when the RAN fleet should be expanding along with the per vessel VLS count, the situation would be a bit different. However, as selected the Hobart-class DDG's were kitted out with 48 VLS cells, which is the same number of VLS cells that the RN and typically the USN load for air defence aboard their respective destroyers. Yes, I am aware that the RN's Daring-class DDG's are getting modified to include 24 Sea Ceptor cells, enabling the 48 A50 VLS cells to be used for Aster 30 missiles providing more missiles for both long-ranged and short-range/point defence engagement. However that is sort of making a different point IMO, in that air defence capabilities need to be expanded. With Australia currently only having three air defence destroyers in service (and therefore likely only one or two available for or on deployment at any given time) that means the potential size of a strike package is limited and would come at the expense of the RAN's area air defence capabilities. I would suggest looking possible missile loadout combinations might be, whilst asking the question, "do I want a strike missile, or air defence?"

See my previous answer. An effective strike capability might be one missile, impacting on one target. Depending entirely on the circumstances of the strike, whereas the capability to launch 57x cruise missiles against one airbase (which is realistically larger than the whole RAN will be capable of employing) was not a demonstrably effective strike capability.

The nuance and context is important here. The effectiveness starts before we even consider which launch point can hit which target and that is the addition of threats which any potential enemy has to consider and has to cater for.

Yes we have 3. Which is 3 more than we had last year and that capability will expand over time.

What else could that $900m have bought? Well an extra Regiment of SP guns or 4-5 JSF’s or Super Hornets with all their capability enablers included, thereabouts. Do any of those options have the strategic effect that parking a destroyer full of Tomahawk land attack cruise missiles off the coast of some country we are having “issues” with does? I would think not… Forget the missile and the perception of it’s relative capability for a moment and consider what it’s intent is meant to achieve. Just like the F-111 was in it’s day, the capability is designed to allow near impunity at striking targets we have chosen. Whether they actually can or not in reality (NVA forces proved able to shoot down F-111’s in real combat after all) isn’t the point of acquiring them. The perception of that capability is, just as it is with nuclear submarines. How much rumbling did we hear when we announced nothing more than an intention to acquire them? I feel pretty confident in suggesting that that similar rumbling has occurred against the only user of the most famous cruise missile in the world, based in the southern hemisphere…

The idea that because it’s limited it’s therefore not effective can be broadened to encompass the entire ADF if you really want to. What’s the point of an airforce with 4 operational fighter squadrons, that has to try and defend a whole continent?

What’s the point of having a single armoured combat team? You could make that argument til the cows come home, but that still isn’t a reason not to generate such capability.

We could always spend less on the gold-plated high end stuff we buy. We didn’t “need“ Wedgetails. Most airforces in the world don’t have them and ground controlled intercept and radar surveillance works well enough for most forces.

We could have bought plenty more fighters for the cost of the Wedgetails, or more maritime patrol, possibly more relevant given our geography...

But they substantially elevate the overall capability of our force packages. So does the presence of Tomahawk in our naval taskforces, which without them have only limited capability to do anything at all, beyond self-defence and everyone knows this. Now they know what they knew previously of the capability of our naval taskforces, but they also now know we can reach out and touch, what they likely don’t want touched. Not hugely, not overall war changing in most circumstances, but not nothing either.

 

[Stampede]

I agree with @Todjaegerwith respect to the limited nature of the capability, but I differ on the perspective of the relevance of the capability we do have.

The example of this, is the demonstrated reality that small number of missiles can often have a strategic effect, while occasionally large numbers of missiles have almost no tactical relevance whatsoever.

The perfect example of this is the Russian use of Oreshnik missiles, of which it has fired about 5, last I checked. A similar example are Kalibr missiles of which Russia has fired dozens at most. They demonstrate the capability to hit the targets (more or less..) that they want to at extended range. This “strategic shock” isn’t even intended for Ukraine, but rather Western audiences.

Another strategic use of a small number of missiles was the famous Apache strike using Hellfires against an Iraqi air defence post that was aimed at large scale air defence missions and not at all configured to defend against a small, limited, low level attack. Yet these handful of Hellfire missiles opened up a critical ingress into Iraqi defences that allowed the Coalition to dominate them, with astonishingly little opposition.

On the flipside is the large use of Tomahawk missiles in futile strike missions in Afghanistan and Syria. 57 missiles fired to cause some little damage to an airfield that was repaired within hours or hitting caves that may or may not have anyone in them. In reality these strikes didn’t send the strategic message that was intended, because what it actually demonstrated was just how unwilling the US was to get in and seriously fight. They’ll do a bit of threatening, fire a handful of missiles maybe and thump their chest, but what they won’t do is hook in and seriously combat their enemy.

The point is obvious, savvy employment of capability, beats chest-thumping useless gestures every day of the week and capability, though small in comparison to other capability most definitely CAN have serious outcomes, when employed judiciously…

I’d like to think such will be the hallmark of any RAN operational use of their capability, should that unfortunately reality hit...

I think it was in 1998 that Tomahawks were used in Afghanistan.
If I recall a comment regarding its use.
“All we did was blow up a tent!”

A sceptical response for sure , but it does highlight somewhat the effect you want to achieve , be that military or political.

No doubt the ADF sees enough merit in the Tomahawks capability to justify its purchase and potential as a government response to a given situation

Cheers S

 

[ADMk2]

Following on from the earlier discussion about the load-out of AWD’s and all the things we might want to fire from them, I am wondering if RAN thinking on that matter might be starting to change on that as well? I have certainly been thinking about it for a while, and clearly RAN has been, introducing 3 new missile types in 2024 alone.

We have for a long time been all in on ESSM. It made sense. 75% of our surface fleet could only really operate one air defence missile without unacceptable compromise in other areas (such as perhaps the loss of the 127mm gun).

The main air launched threat was also cruise missile attacks and unarguably they remain one of the main threats today. ESSM has long demonstrated it’s excellent performance against such threats. Block II not being entirely tied to ship-borne radar makes it no doubt even better against such threats. However it isn’t the only missile RAN uses which can defend against them, SM-2 is also excellent in that role.

But cruise missile attacks are only one threat modern forces including navies are facing. As we see in Ukraine (and in return in Russia) and in the Red Sea, ballistic missile attacks and drone attacks are making up at least as much of the threat, if not more. Further to this ”drone” attacks are not restricted to air-launched drones, but USV drone attacks are occurring more frequently and with increasing levels of capability as well.

One of the issues we have seen, is that big, powerful radar systems designed for extended range air defence against fast moving air and missile threats, have not fared well against low, slow drone attacks. In many cases they have been an absolute liability. Such is exactly the type of capability you need to employ ESSM and is certainly what we employ with CEA radars or SPY-1D radars used to employ ESSM (and yes, other weapons).

Add to which ESSM is a very solid mid-range missile, but it has problems against high-end ballistic missile threats as well as being far too much missile for most drone threats. It also (crucially) requires VLS launch cells…

RAN has a similar albeit lesser problem with Phalanx. They have been all in on Phalanx since the 80’s and whilst it has been enhanced with a FLIR sensor and other upgrades, it has the same problem of being “too much” for drones (though it can certainly defeat them) and not being enough for any ballistic threat and arguably not enough for modern cruise missiles either. Plus it is facing increased competition from medium calibre gun systems typically carried on-board modern ships, which out-range it and have useful anti-drone and anti-surface effects as well.

Recently we have seen RAN request information on 127mm counter-drone ammunition, indicating they are well aware of that threat. I have little doubt we will see additional kinetic and non-kinetic responses to drone threats from RAN. We have also seen RAN respond to ballistic threats with the acquisition of SM-2 Block IIIC and SM-6, as well as (if you choose to believe Mr Conroy’s one time words) SM-3.

In actual recent combat we have seen the USN overwhelmingly employ SM-2 (and SM-3) to address both ballistic threats and cruise missile threats fired by Houthi and Iranian forces, despite many of those threats being well within the ‘wheelhouse’ of ESSM and despite the increased cost and more limited magazine depth that SM-2 imposes compared to ESSM. On the other hand we also haven’t seen any substantial ESSM use on drone threats they have similarly had to counter, preferring non-kinetic means, guns and lighter missiles such as RIM-116 RAM Blk 2. The Germans I believe have also employed RIM-116 RAM operationally in the Red Sea against drones (but happy to be corrected on that point).

So musing on these issues and coming back to the AWD load-out situation, makes me wonder if we might not see RAN carry fewer ESSM missiles in it’s precious few VLS cells moving forward and perhaps look to other missile solutions for lower end drone and “leaker” self-defence roles and more SM-2 / SM-6 for the higher threats, as well as the threats that once ESSM was intended for, just as the USN is doing?

In addition to which, we have our Canberra Class LHD’s which are still listed as intended to carry Phalanx (per below link) yet the RAN clearly having no intention whatsoever of increasing it’s absolutely glacial pace in integrating these aboard the ships, having had them commissioned for some 10 years now and still no sign of Phalanx…

Given the current operational imperative to counter drones and ballistic threats (and in the near future hypersonic ones) as well as other defensive systems such as directed energy systems becoming more prominent, I am wondering whether we will start to see the decline of RAN interest in ESSM and Phalanx and a move towards more contemporary defence systems?

I have no opinion either way, but it seems to me a combination of RAM Block II (or similar) and more SM-2 / SM-6 would offer numerous advantages over the more ESSM and less SM-2 based load-outs we currently employ, especially as we move forward into an era where our vessels are no longer restricted to one principle air self-defence weapon type? Additionally if a case existed for employing RIM-116 RAM Blk2 within RAN surface’s combatants, might not the case be a similar situation for the LHD’s and perhaps RAN’s other major surface craft?

I am wondering accordingly if the RAM Blk 2 fired from the Mk.49 GMLS in 21 round launch configuration or in SeaRAM 11x round configuration, might not become the modern “CIWS” for RAN? This system fits wherever Phalanx fits and offers more engagements per loadout than Phalanx does whilst also operating over a greater engagement envelope. The weapon also has multiple guidance modes including active radar and infra-red homing meaning it is likely much better at engaging small drone targets than a radar-guided only ESSM and each RIM-116 is less than half the cost of an ESSM equivalent. Additionally with a 21 round launcher it offers self-defence firepower (equivalent to 5x VLS cells fitted with ESSM) and can be reloaded between engagements, unlike ESSM. The intent with RIM-116 is that it would be for leaker and drone threats, while freeing up cells for SM-2 / SM-6 which will be the primary defensive missiles anyway, if we follow the USN pattern. The LHD’s would be better protected with RAM Blk 2 than they are today and better protected than they would even if they were fitted with Phalanx. SeaRAM would of course leverage our existing investment in Phalanx and require little to no integration on the ships, it was being placed upon.

Finally the 2024 IIP document stated that specified RAN vessels would receive ‘upgraded phalanx self defence system to improve anti-ship missile defence capabilities and provide the ability to engage targets including slow flying aircraft, uncrewed aerial vehicles and surface vessels’.

Now this could mean the Phalanx Block I B2 upgrade that has been in existence for years already (and should be already finished according to the project timeline below) or it could refer to some upgrade beyond Block I B2, of which SeaRAM is the only publicly acknowledged one I can find, at present...

https://www.defence.gov.au/defence-activities/projects/phalanx-close-weapons-system-block-upgrade

 

[hauritz]

I think it was in 1998 that Tomahawks were used in Afghanistan.
If I recall a comment regarding its use.
“All we did was blow up a tent!”

A sceptical response for sure , but it does highlight somewhat the effect you want to achieve , be that military or political.

No doubt the ADF sees enough merit in the Tomahawks capability to justify its purchase and potential as a government response to a given situation

Cheers S

The way I look at it is that these missiles cost us $1.3 billion. They can potentually do a lot more damage than that. Take out a single ship and you have more than recouped your cost. Realistically I think these missiles, if deployed sensibly, could do a lot more damage than that.

This doesn't take into account how much more an adversary will need to spend to counter this capability. More air defences, hardening bases and dispersing assets ... that all cost money.

In short the mere existence of these weapons, even if they are rarely used, will force them to rethink their defence posture and cost them disproportionally more to defend against than it cost to produce them. During an actual war an adversary would not have the same freedom of movement or be able to fight the war the way they would like.

The ability to carry out long range strikes is a strategic capability and at $1.3 billion it is a bargain.

 

[Armchair]

Because the ADF’s job is to provide military options to Government. Having no effective strike capability limits the option the RAN can provide, it limits the threats that any potential enemy has to consider and literally makes their job far simpler.

The only thing about this that doesn’t make sense is why we ever introduced a Destroyer into service that doesn’t have such a capability.

As I recall, when Tomahawk was first mooted for RAN (decades ago) there was debate about the risk of launching a regional missile race. Not sure if that was a factor in decision making. In the context of acquiring LHDs (that look like aircraft carriers) after East Timor (and alongside Australian involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq) it is worth asking what Australian plans for long-range strike would have looked like to Indonesia in the 2000s (both to the military and segments of Indonesian domestic opinion).

The other issue was at the time of introduction of DDGs it was anticipated that those vessels could provide air defence against plausible threats. The proliferation of shore-based ballistic and cruise missile threats now necessitates strike at stand off ranges. Arguably should have been foreseen.

 

[seaspear]

Does the ADF have the capability for launching Tomahawk missiles from land ,I understand these can be deployed from a C-17

Army successfully fires Tomahawk missiles from MRC system

WASHINGTON — The Army took its next step in bolstering its top modernization priority with a successful launch of the Tomahawk missile from its mid-rang...

www.army.mil

 

[Todjaeger]

Does the ADF have the capability for launching Tomahawk missiles from land ,I understand these can be deployed from a C-17

Army successfully fires Tomahawk missiles from MRC system

WASHINGTON — The Army took its next step in bolstering its top modernization priority with a successful launch of the Tomahawk missile from its mid-rang...

www.army.mil

At present, no. The Tomahawk missiles that the US approved for sale to Australia (DSCA approval found here) are RGM-109E, up to 200 Block V AUR, and up to 20 Block IV AUR. The R in the prefix indicates that these are ship-launched versions, whilst I believe that the ones launched by the US Army were BGM-109 Tomahawks, with the B prefix indicating a version able to be launched from more than one environment.

 

[SammyC]

Following on from the earlier discussion about the load-out of AWD’s and all the things we might want to fire from them, I am wondering if RAN thinking on that matter might be starting to change on that as well? I have certainly been thinking about it for a while, and clearly RAN has been, introducing 3 new missile types in 2024 alone.

*Shortened*

Now this could mean the Phalanx Block I B2 upgrade that has been in existence for years already (and should be already finished according to the project timeline below) or it could refer to some upgrade beyond Block I B2, of which SeaRAM is the only publicly acknowledged one I can find, at present...

https://www.defence.gov.au/defence-activities/projects/phalanx-close-weapons-system-block-upgrade

Its an interesting assessment. Everything is evolving and its not clear what will be the dominant systems down the track.

I think one of the anchoring issues is the number of VLS cells. For better or worse, we have small to medium VLS ships and this will always put a strict limitation on selection of missile types, and force difficult choices.

On a missile numbers game, say a 32 VLS platform is loaded with an air defence loadout (no strike or ASW), then it could hold 32 SM2/6, or 32 ESSM and 24 SM2/6 (total 56 missiles), or 64 ESSM and 16 SM2/6 (total 80 missiles). A Mk49 would give an additional 21 RAM, so the loadout range here is potentially between 54 and 101 missiles depending on selection. That's a big difference.

In a focused force (which we are now aligning with), I'm thinking that extra missile magazine depth means better resiliance against larger or more sustained attacks, regardless of what that attack consists of. My read on the Ukrainian war is that it is about attrition, and volume wins in the end. Probably a good indication of what future conflicts with a large adversary will look like. The Red Sea is different in that it entails sparodic single strike attacks, but spread out over a long period of time. You get the ability to respond with your tier 1 defence (best foot forward approach), but also ability to reload between attacks. In my view that's why SM2s have been predominantly utilised in this theatre. Future war might entail this, but not as the predominant.

The difference between ESSM and RAM is that ESSM is out to 50km and RAM is about 10km. 50km is a fairly comfortable buffer that is also effective for small convoy protection, 10km feels very close to do that function and its only single ship point defence. Fine if it is an occasional leaker, easy to fall apart if there is several. Additionally ESSM can deal with the shorter range balistic threats, but I'm not sure RAM would have much capability here at all.

I personally feel the three layers work well together, SM2/6 (100km plus, dealing with 60-80%), ESSM (50km, dealing with 10-30%) and then RAM (10km, dealing with 5-10%).

In regards to drones, guns, seem to be the emerging low cost and mass rate solution rather than missiles. Smaller calibre seems to be the sweet spot too with ranges between 10-15km. Ships like the Type 31 have gone with the bofors 40 which seems ideal for this subject, (good range and smart ammunition). We are a little more stuck with the only gun choice of 127mm, which is perhaps not so ideal for drone defence, but I think the developing air burst shells for the 127mm system might provide a solution. There would be a question of do you go with a 40mm anti air gun or a RAM to balance missile defence with drone defence. Difficult choice, would prefer both.

Unfortunately with our intended ship sizes, we need to make choices and we can't just have everything on the one platform.

 

[76mmGuns]

Its an interesting assessment. Everything is evolving and its not clear what will be the dominant systems down the track.


In regards to drones, guns, seem to be the emerging low cost and mass rate solution rather than missiles. Smaller calibre seems to be the sweet spot too with ranges between 10-15km. Ships like the Type 31 have gone with the bofors 40 which seems ideal for this subject, (good range and smart ammunition). We are a little more stuck with the only gun choice of 127mm, which is perhaps not so ideal for drone defence, but I think the developing air burst shells for the 127mm system might provide a solution. There would be a question of do you go with a 40mm anti air gun or a RAM to balance missile defence with drone defence. Difficult choice, would prefer both.

Unfortunately with our intended ship sizes, we need to make choices and we can't just have everything on the one platform.

Back when the Arafura was supposed to have the 40mm gun, I became hopeful we'd see the 40mm on many other ships, replacing the 30mm. Alas not to be. While the 40mm weighs more , the shells give a lot more options- range, types available, amount of damage.

 

[ADMk2]

Its an interesting assessment. Everything is evolving and its not clear what will be the dominant systems down the track.

I think one of the anchoring issues is the number of VLS cells. For better or worse, we have small to medium VLS ships and this will always put a strict limitation on selection of missile types, and force difficult choices.

On a missile numbers game, say a 32 VLS platform is loaded with an air defence loadout (no strike or ASW), then it could hold 32 SM2/6, or 32 ESSM and 24 SM2/6 (total 56 missiles), or 64 ESSM and 16 SM2/6 (total 80 missiles). A Mk49 would give an additional 21 RAM, so the loadout range here is potentially between 54 and 101 missiles depending on selection. That's a big difference.

In a focused force (which we are now aligning with), I'm thinking that extra missile magazine depth means better resiliance against larger or more sustained attacks, regardless of what that attack consists of. My read on the Ukrainian war is that it is about attrition, and volume wins in the end. Probably a good indication of what future conflicts with a large adversary will look like. The Red Sea is different in that it entails sparodic single strike attacks, but spread out over a long period of time. You get the ability to respond with your tier 1 defence (best foot forward approach), but also ability to reload between attacks. In my view that's why SM2s have been predominantly utilised in this theatre. Future war might entail this, but not as the predominant.

The difference between ESSM and RAM is that ESSM is out to 50km and RAM is about 10km. 50km is a fairly comfortable buffer that is also effective for small convoy protection, 10km feels very close to do that function and its only single ship point defence. Fine if it is an occasional leaker, easy to fall apart if there is several. Additionally ESSM can deal with the shorter range balistic threats, but I'm not sure RAM would have much capability here at all.

I personally feel the three layers work well together, SM2/6 (100km plus, dealing with 60-80%), ESSM (50km, dealing with 10-30%) and then RAM (10km, dealing with 5-10%).

In regards to drones, guns, seem to be the emerging low cost and mass rate solution rather than missiles. Smaller calibre seems to be the sweet spot too with ranges between 10-15km. Ships like the Type 31 have gone with the bofors 40 which seems ideal for this subject, (good range and smart ammunition). We are a little more stuck with the only gun choice of 127mm, which is perhaps not so ideal for drone defence, but I think the developing air burst shells for the 127mm system might provide a solution. There would be a question of do you go with a 40mm anti air gun or a RAM to balance missile defence with drone defence. Difficult choice, would prefer both.

Unfortunately with our intended ship sizes, we need to make choices and we can't just have everything on the one platform.

Yep RAM isn’t going to be much use except as a leaker last ditch defence and as a cheap(er) missile option for anti-drone. In both roles it is substantially superior to Phalanx though, particularly in it’s Block II form and in Mk.49 form adds substantial capacity to the air defence missile load-out.

The problem with ESSM as I said earlier as I see it, is it’s apparently limited and worsening effect against ballistic and soon (if not already) hypersonic threats. While a 127mm hypersonic round for air defence might eventuate - it hasn’t yet, so an AWD or a Hunter in future will be relying heavily on SM-2 and SM-6 for defence against these threats. ESSM might well have the benefit of firepower being quad-packed, but that isn’t going to be terribly useful if the missile itself can’t reliably intercept the threats the ship is facing.

The VLS cells occupied by ESSM in such a situation, may end up being more of a liability than a benefit, especially when you factor in that land attack now needs to be added to the equation.

Given the Red Sea experience and current Ukraine experience as well as China’s (and NK) burgeoning stockpile of ballistic and likely hypersonic missiles, I can see a similar situation occurring where a surface combatant is going to want as many SM-2 and SM-6 missiles as it can get and given our limited VLS setups, something may well have to make way. SM-2 is of course a very capable anti-cruise missile weapon as well as possessing anti-ballistic missile capability, but the reverse is nowhere near as true for ESSM.

Some other missile with good anti-ballistic and ( potentially) anti-hypersonic capability that ‘also’ allows improved firepower per cell, such as Patriot PAC-3 MSE ‘might’ become more attractive as we move along this path but that is way into the future and might require a completely different missile altogether.

Anyways, just some thoughts…

 

[SammyC]

Yep RAM isn’t going to be much use except as a leaker last ditch defence and as a cheap(er) missile option for anti-drone. In both roles it is substantially superior to Phalanx though, particularly in it’s Block II form and in Mk.49 form adds substantial capacity to the air defence missile load-out.

The problem with ESSM as I said earlier as I see it, is it’s apparently limited and worsening effect against ballistic and soon (if not already) hypersonic threats. While a 127mm hypersonic round for air defence might eventuate - it hasn’t yet, so an AWD or a Hunter in future will be relying heavily on SM-2 and SM-6 for defence against these threats. ESSM might well have the benefit of firepower being quad-packed, but that isn’t going to be terribly useful if the missile itself can’t reliably intercept the threats the ship is facing.

The VLS cells occupied by ESSM in such a situation, may end up being more of a liability than a benefit, especially when you factor in that land attack now needs to be added to the equation.

Given the Red Sea experience and current Ukraine experience as well as China’s (and NK) burgeoning stockpile of ballistic and likely hypersonic missiles, I can see a similar situation occurring where a surface combatant is going to want as many SM-2 and SM-6 missiles as it can get and given our limited VLS setups, something may well have to make way. SM-2 is of course a very capable anti-cruise missile weapon as well as possessing anti-ballistic missile capability, but the reverse is nowhere near as true for ESSM.

Some other missile with good anti-ballistic and ( potentially) anti-hypersonic capability that ‘also’ allows improved firepower per cell, such as Patriot PAC-3 MSE ‘might’ become more attractive as we move along this path but that is way into the future and might require a completely different missile altogether.

Anyways, just some thoughts…

Missiles evolve as the threat environment changes. I'm wondering if some of the limitations on the current ESSM you refer to leads to an extended range version.

ESSM has the sensors, manoeuvrability and punch to defeat high altitude and fast ballistic missiles, it just doesn't have the legs.

One of the advantages of the ESSM is that its length is substantially less than the strike VLS, so it could take an additional second stage booster (the current missile only takes up about half the length). Such an option could give ESSM a higher ceiling, say 20km (similar to SM2) and perhaps a 100km range.

An ESSM-ER that remained quad packable, would suddenly become a different proposition where it could be used alongside SM2.

In regards to the PAC3, I know its been test fired from a VLS. The Americans are investing in heavily upgrading this production line, so it might be a viable option from an availability perspective later on. I do hold the view that ships need to be capable of using a variety of missiles from multiple providers in order to manage scarcity.

On the PAC3 point, I wonder if the SM and ESSM series might move away from the fragmentation head to an impact hit to kill type as well. PAC3 moved to this style to be more effective against heavy ballistic missiles which had reduced vulnerability to blast damage.

 

[iambuzzard]

Yep RAM isn’t going to be much use except as a leaker last ditch defence and as a cheap(er) missile option for anti-drone. In both roles it is substantially superior to Phalanx though, particularly in it’s Block II form and in Mk.49 form adds substantial capacity to the air defence missile load-out.

The problem with ESSM as I said earlier as I see it, is it’s apparently limited and worsening effect against ballistic and soon (if not already) hypersonic threats. While a 127mm hypersonic round for air defence might eventuate - it hasn’t yet, so an AWD or a Hunter in future will be relying heavily on SM-2 and SM-6 for defence against these threats. ESSM might well have the benefit of firepower being quad-packed, but that isn’t going to be terribly useful if the missile itself can’t reliably intercept the threats the ship is facing.

The VLS cells occupied by ESSM in such a situation, may end up being more of a liability than a benefit, especially when you factor in that land attack now needs to be added to the equation.

Given the Red Sea experience and current Ukraine experience as well as China’s (and NK) burgeoning stockpile of ballistic and likely hypersonic missiles, I can see a similar situation occurring where a surface combatant is going to want as many SM-2 and SM-6 missiles as it can get and given our limited VLS setups, something may well have to make way. SM-2 is of course a very capable anti-cruise missile weapon as well as possessing anti-ballistic missile capability, but the reverse is nowhere near as true for ESSM.

Some other missile with good anti-ballistic and ( potentially) anti-hypersonic capability that ‘also’ allows improved firepower per cell, such as Patriot PAC-3 MSE ‘might’ become more attractive as we move along this path but that is way into the future and might require a completely different missile altogether.

Anyways, just some thoughts…

What secondary guns will be fitted to the GPFs? Will it be 25mm, 30mm or 40mm? Or will we get a few 50 calibre MGs?

 

[Stampede]

Back when the Arafura was supposed to have the 40mm gun, I became hopeful we'd see the 40mm on many other ships, replacing the 30mm. Alas not to be. While the 40mm weighs more , the shells give a lot more options- range, types available, amount of damage.

Gun calibre often comes up in conversation on DT
While I feel the RAN will standardise on the 30mm across the fleet , I can’t but feel it’s a missed opportunity not going for something larger.
If your not looking at a medium sized weapon in the 57 to 76mm class, the 40mm hits the sweet spot in its range, rate of fire and throw weight in presenting a inner layer of defence against most threats.

To be fair any threat a few km from the ship is a hail Mary solution , but compared to a 30mm it’s significantly better in so many ways and still a relatively small and light weight system.




cheers S

 

[ADMk2]

What secondary guns will be fitted to the GPFs? Will it be 25mm, 30mm or 40mm? Or will we get a few 50 calibre MGs?

Will definitely have 50 cals, we are addicted to them...

I suspect that is all the Army’s landing craft (of all sizes) will carry.

But no idea on secondary guns for the GPF. If RAN is smart they will choose the same Typhoon Mk.30C as they have for the Hunter class, but there are no guarantees with RAN…

 

[SammyC]

If we choose the upgraded Mogami, will we also get the new Upgraded Type 12 SSM? 4-5 times the range of the NSM.
A mix of Tomohawk block V, Type 12 and NSM, exactly like the Japanese.

If you take the Government's words literally (which I take with salt ) and that the GPF selection is the upgraded Mogami (still strictly 50/50), then it would come with the Type 12 as its strike weapon.

The current version of this weapon, as fitted to the existing Mogamis and the rest of the Japanese fleet is not much better than Harpoon. The new version of the Type 12 puts it into the same category as a ground/ship launched JASSM/LRASM ER. So much better, but I suspect it will be in short supply for a while (Japan is directing the first batches of this missile to their land batteries). Longer term, with future upgrades, it becomes a competitor for the Tomahawk.

Back to an earlier principle, weapon selection is a choice, and you can't eat your cake and have it too. The upgraded Mogami, from recent photos only has space for 8 SSMs. I was hoping with its longer length it might have increased this bay to accomodate 16, but that looks unlikely. So we will get a choice or either 8 Type 12s or 8 NSMs. Not both.

The second point is that we have for better or worse nailed our colours to the NSM. We can't build a factory and then have nowhere for these missiles to go. We are going to be building lots of them to pay for that investment. As such I would have thought we commonalise on the NSM across all ship platforms, including the GPF.

Thirdly, back to the other earlier principle of missile selection flexibility. Even if we don't take the Type 12, I would imagine we would keep the CMS integration (and possibly even testing) for the Type 12 so that it could be used if need be later on.

On the NSM, when we selected it, the Government would have conducted a review of all the developing missiles that had a naval strike capability. NSM, LRASM and the upgraded Type12 would have all been evaluated (I imagine). The outcome was that the NSM was picked, despite its shorter range. That suggests that it is a good missile and the longer range of the other missiles is either not valued (unlikely) or the NSM has better other attributes such as stealth and AI that outweigh it. I'm not sure.

As with all missiles, I wonder if the NSM may evolve with an extra booster or longer length to increase its range over time in order to reduce this shortfall.

 

[Reptilia]

If you take the Government's words literally (which I take with salt ) and that the GPF selection is the upgraded Mogami (still strictly 50/50), then it would come with the Type 12 as its strike weapon.

The current version of this weapon, as fitted to the existing Mogamis and the rest of the Japanese fleet is not much better than Harpoon. The new version of the Type 12 puts it into the same category as a ground/ship launched JASSM/LRASM ER. So much better, but I suspect it will be in short supply for a while (Japan is directing the first batches of this missile to their land batteries). Longer term, with future upgrades, it becomes a competitor for the Tomahawk.

Back to an earlier principle, weapon selection is a choice, and you can't eat your cake and have it too. The upgraded Mogami, from recent photos only has space for 8 SSMs. I was hoping with its longer length it might have increased this bay to accomodate 16, but that looks unlikely. So we will get a choice or either 8 Type 12s or 8 NSMs. Not both.

The second point is that we have for better or worse nailed our colours to the NSM. We can't build a factory and then have nowhere for these missiles to go. We are going to be building lots of them to pay for that investment. As such I would have thought we commonalise on the NSM across all ship platforms, including the GPF.

Thirdly, back to the other earlier principle of missile selection flexibility. Even if we don't take the Type 12, I would imagine we would keep the CMS integration (and possibly even testing) for the Type 12 so that it could be used if need be later on.

On the NSM, when we selected it, the Government would have conducted a review of all the developing missiles that had a naval strike capability. NSM, LRASM and the upgraded Type12 would have all been evaluated (I imagine). The outcome was that the NSM was picked, despite its shorter range. That suggests that it is a good missile and the longer range of the other missiles is either not valued (unlikely) or the NSM has better other attributes such as stealth and AI that outweigh it. I'm not sure.

As with all missiles, I wonder if the NSM may evolve with an extra booster or longer length to increase its range over time in order to reduce this shortfall.

The Japanese will integrate NSM also, my assumption is they will have 4 quad launchers staggered. 2xquad for upgraded type 12 and 2xquad for nsm.

Naval News

‘These changes would logically include local standards for safety and electrical equipment. Naval News also understands RAN has preferences requiring adjustments for the combat management system and armament of a successful bid. One notable event that may improve prospects is a release by the Japanese MoD seeking applications for work concerning the integration of the NSM antiship missile onto Japanese naval combat platforms. As Naval News understands, this effort aims to integrate NSM as a complement to Type 17 and Improved Type 12 AShM onto relevant Japanese naval combatants. Such a step would also ensure “Upgraded Mogami”-capability to mount a weapon system currently in use with the RAN. In addition this plan offers a prospect to deliver offsets via NSM sourced from a notional Australian production line.’

 

[Todjaeger]

If you take the Government's words literally (which I take with salt ) and that the GPF selection is the upgraded Mogami (still strictly 50/50), then it would come with the Type 12 as its strike weapon.

The current version of this weapon, as fitted to the existing Mogamis and the rest of the Japanese fleet is not much better than Harpoon. The new version of the Type 12 puts it into the same category as a ground/ship launched JASSM/LRASM ER. So much better. Longer term, with future upgrades, it becomes a competitor for the Tomahawk.

Back to an earlier principle, weapon selection is a choice, and you can't eat your cake and have it too. The upgraded Mogami, from recent photos only has space for 8 SSMs. I was hoping with its longer length it might have increased this bay to accomodate 16, but that looks unlikely. So we will get a choice or either 8 Type 12s or 8 NSMs. Not both.

The second point is that we have for better or worse nailed our colours to the NSM. We can't build a factory and then have nowhere for these missiles to go. We are going to be building lots of them to pay for that investment. As such I would have thought we commonalise on the NSM across all ship platforms, including the GPF.

Thirdly, back to the other earlier principle of missile selection flexibility. Even if we don't take the Type 12, I would imagine we would keep the CMS integration (and possibly even testing) for the Type 12 so that it could be used if need be later on.

On the NSM, when we selected it, the Government would have conducted a review of all the developing missiles that had a naval strike capability. NSM, LRASM and the upgraded Type12 would have all been evaluated (I imagine). The outcome was that the NSM was picked, despite its shorter range. That suggests that it is a good missile and the longer range of the other missiles is either not valued (unlikely) or the NSM has better other attributes such as stealth and AI that outweigh it. I'm not sure.

As with all missiles, I wonder if the NSM may evolve with an extra booster or longer length to increase its range over time in order to reduce this shortfall.

Just a couple of things. Firstly, I believe that the missile you are talking about is the Japanese Type 17 ship-to-ship missile, which itself is a derivative of the Type 12 surface-to-ship missile. I tend to suspect that the difference in language also makes things somewhat confusing for us, be the Mogami-class frigate (and other JMSDF vessels) are also armed with other Type XX weapons, like Type 12 torpedoes, which can just add to the confusion. Not unlike how people can talk about a US M1 used in service and be talking variously about a modern MBT, a WWII battle rifle, armoured car, SMG, and so on...

Regarding the selection of the NSM to replace the RGM-84 Harpoon Block II in RAN service, I rather doubt that either the LRASM or Type 17 was considered as a candidate to replace RAN Harpoons.

As far as I have been able to tell (and using translation software) the Type 17 SSM did not enter Japanese service until ~2021, with the commissioning of the 2nd Maya-class DDG. The NSM was selected by the RAN just over a year later, in April 2022, with contracts getting signed in 2023. I have not been able to find out when Australia first started seeking a replacement for the Harpoon, but I tend to suspect it was some time before the Type 17 entered service, and possibly before Type 17 shipboard testing ~2017. OTOH the NSM (or RGM-184A in US nomenclature) first entered service with Norway ~2012, and was selected by the USN in 2018 to kit LCS starting in 2019, as well as having been selected by several other nations. Given Japan's lack of experience in exporting and supporting military kit, and particularly developing and integrating PGM's to work with CMS not in Japanese service, I could easily foresee concerns Japan and/or Australia might have in being able to get such a new missile into service by the 2024 date that NSM was to begin replacing RAN Harpoons.

I also would not really consider the AGM-158C LRASM (or a ship-launched version which would then properly be either a RGM-158C or BGM-158C) to be a direct or comparable replacement for RGM-84 Harpoons. For one thing, whilst the RGM-84 is a fairly large missile, the LRASM is larger still, with nearly twice the diameter and displacement when compared with Harpoon, and three times the displacement of NSM. More importantly, whilst there has been ship-launched testing of LRASM, this was done using launches from Mk 41 VLS cells, and not twin quad-tube launchers like the US Mk 141 which is what the Harpoon used. This means that Australia could indeed have adopted the LRASM as a Harpoon replacement, but would need to use VLS already in short supply across the RAN. It also might not have been possible for the ANZAC-class frigates to be used due to topweight limitations, since a single LRASM appears to have greater displacement than four quad-packed ESSM.

From what I have been able to put together, there were only a few other potential missile candidates for the Harpoon replacement, since there are not all that many missiles of comparable size and role in service. Most of these alternatives appear to be the current/latest variant of AShM designs which first entered service around the same time as the Harpoon examples of this would be the RBS 15 Mk IV, the Otomat Mk 2, or Exocet MM40 Block 3.

 

[SammyC]

The Japanese will integrate NSM also, my assumption is they will have 4 quad launchers staggered. 2xquad for upgraded type 12 and 2xquad for nsm.

Naval News

‘These changes would logically include local standards for safety and electrical equipment. Naval News also understands RAN has preferences requiring adjustments for the combat management system and armament of a successful bid. One notable event that may improve prospects is a release by the Japanese MoD seeking applications for work concerning the integration of the NSM antiship missile onto Japanese naval combat platforms. As Naval News understands, this effort aims to integrate NSM as a complement to Type 17 and Improved Type 12 AShM onto relevant Japanese naval combatants. Such a step would also ensure “Upgraded Mogami”-capability to mount a weapon system currently in use with the RAN. In addition this plan offers a prospect to deliver offsets via NSM sourced from a notional Australian production line.’

Yea I remember that article. Its hard to decipher if this was a tactic to improve their GPF tendering position, a desire to increase missile interchangeability (to my point above), or to actually consider using both simultaneously on the same platform.

A principle with any strike missile type is that they require firing in volleys to be effective. In this ship context, a minimum of four, or, if I was CO, everything that I had onboard at once. When you have a mixture, I think that becomes complicated.

I should note that strike missiles and ship defences live in a balance, and at the moment ship defences generally have the upper hand. Strike missiles are evolving to resolve this, however at the moment volume to overwhelm is necessary as the capability to penetrate is still limited and at a disadvantage.

My mind says that if 8 is the maximum ship strike holding, then it is better as one system rather than split in two.

 

[SammyC]

Just a couple of things. Firstly, I believe that the missile you are talking about is the Japanese Type 17 ship-to-ship missile, which itself is a derivative of the Type 12 surface-to-ship missile. I tend to suspect that the difference in language also makes things somewhat confusing for us, be the Mogami-class frigate (and other JMSDF vessels) are also armed with other Type XX weapons, like Type 12 torpedoes, which can just add to the confusion. Not unlike how people can talk about a US M1 used in service and be talking variously about a modern MBT, a WWII battle rifle, armoured car, SMG, and so on...

Regarding the selection of the NSM to replace the RGM-84 Harpoon Block II in RAN service, I rather doubt that either the LRASM or Type 17 was considered as a candidate to replace RAN Harpoons.

As far as I have been able to tell (and using translation software) the Type 17 SSM did not enter Japanese service until ~2021, with the commissioning of the 2nd Maya-class DDG. The NSM was selected by the RAN just over a year later, in April 2022, with contracts getting signed in 2023. I have not been able to find out when Australia first started seeking a replacement for the Harpoon, but I tend to suspect it was some time before the Type 17 entered service, and possibly before Type 17 shipboard testing ~2017. OTOH the NSM (or RGM-184A in US nomenclature) first entered service with Norway ~2012, and was selected by the USN in 2018 to kit LCS starting in 2019, as well as having been selected by several other nations. Given Japan's lack of experience in exporting and supporting military kit, and particularly developing and integrating PGM's to work with CMS not in Japanese service, I could easily foresee concerns Japan and/or Australia might have in being able to get such a new missile into service by the 2024 date that NSM was to begin replacing RAN Harpoons.

I also would not really consider the AGM-158C LRASM (or a ship-launched version which would then properly be either a RGM-158C or BGM-158C) to be a direct or comparable replacement for RGM-84 Harpoons. For one thing, whilst the RGM-84 is a fairly large missile, the LRASM is larger still, with nearly twice the diameter and displacement when compared with Harpoon, and three times the displacement of NSM. More importantly, whilst there has been ship-launched testing of LRASM, this was done using launches from Mk 41 VLS cells, and not twin quad-tube launchers like the US Mk 141 which is what the Harpoon used. This means that Australia could indeed have adopted the LRASM as a Harpoon replacement, but would need to use VLS already in short supply across the RAN. It also might not have been possible for the ANZAC-class frigates to be used due to topweight limitations, since a single LRASM appears to have greater displacement than four quad-packed ESSM.

From what I have been able to put together, there were only a few other potential missile candidates for the Harpoon replacement, since there are not all that many missiles of comparable size and role in service. Most of these alternatives appear to be the current/latest variant of AShM designs which first entered service around the same time as the Harpoon examples of this would be the RBS 15 Mk IV, the Otomat Mk 2, or Exocet MM40 Block 3.

Japan unveils first images of new Type 12 anti-ship missile tests - Naval News

My apologies for missile name confusion. I was referring to the upgrade to the Type 12 detailed in the above article. It is apparently in development, but at the stage of testing for the ground launched variant. One assumes this will go into production in the next few years for the army. It is quite a big change from the current Type 12/17 in operation. It's a longer term prospect for the Naval version, maybe at the turn of the decade.

The earlier question from Reptilia (my understanding at least) was around would we take this missile if it came with the upgraded Mogami, given the transaction is all around the 2030s when this upgrade type12/17 missile is likely to be the Japanese Naval standard.

I take your points on the NSM competitors at the time of evaluation. Probably slim pickings in that timeframe.

If we do however forward project to say 2030, when our own production line becomes fully active, the NSM would likely be stacking up against evolved versions of ship launched LRASM and the above Japanese Type 12, not to mention whatever the likes of China is fielding by that time. Its range does start to stand out in that context. Do we face an obsolete/outgunned missile given the advancements with other types of missiles. Are we potentially sinking an obscene amount of money into a system that may not be competitive when our factory comes on line.

I take the point that LRASM (in any form) would be too heavy for an ANZAC platform, however if we are talking 5,000 and 10,000 tonne future frigates, then I would have thought this becomes more viable to manage.

While LRASM has only been tested from a Mk41 VLS, any missile that works with this launcher should be compatible with adaptable deck launchers. So it could be a replacement for the NSM topside rather than canibalise the mk41. Or it could be a Tomahawk alternative launched from a LOCSV.

I get that the NSM is perhaps our best option now, but will it still be so in five years time.

 

[ADMk2]

Japan unveils first images of new Type 12 anti-ship missile tests - Naval News

My apologies for missile name confusion. I was referring to the upgrade to the Type 12 detailed in the above article. It is apparently in development, but at the stage of testing for the ground launched variant. One assumes this will go into production in the next few years for the army. It is quite a big change from the current Type 12/17 in operation. It's a longer term prospect for the Naval version, maybe at the turn of the decade.

The earlier question from Reptilia (my understanding at least) was around would we take this missile if it came with the upgraded Mogami, given the transaction is all around the 2030s when this upgrade type12/17 missile is likely to be the Japanese Naval standard.

I take your points on the NSM competitors at the time of evaluation. Probably slim pickings in that timeframe.

If we do however forward project to say 2030, when our own production line becomes fully active, the NSM would likely be stacking up against evolved versions of ship launched LRASM and the above Japanese Type 12, not to mention whatever the likes of China is fielding by that time. Its range does start to stand out in that context. Do we face an obsolete/outgunned missile given the advancements with other types of missiles. Are we potentially sinking an obscene amount of money into a system that may not be competitive when our factory comes on line.

I take the point that LRASM (in any form) would be too heavy for an ANZAC platform, however if we are talking 5,000 and 10,000 tonne future frigates, then I would have thought this becomes more viable to manage.

While LRASM has only been tested from a Mk41 VLS, any missile that works with this launcher should be compatible with adaptable deck launchers. So it could be a replacement for the NSM topside rather than canibalise the mk41. Or it could be a Tomahawk alternative launched from a LOCSV.

I get that the NSM is perhaps our best option now, but will it still be so in five years time.

NSM has a growth path towards ( or complemented) by the under-development SSM by Konsberg. Although not stated in the article below, I understand this new weapon is being sized and configured as a plug and play replacement for existing NSM users, to provide a complementary supersonic (near hypersonic) / LO subsonic attack capability utilising similar fire control, launchers and targeting systems.

As we are going all in on NSM and JSM across RAN and RAAF and are building a production facility, I can forsee future interest in this new capability…

Signs development contract for Supersonic Strike Missile (3SM)

Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace (KONGSBERG) have today signed a contract with the Norwegian Defence Materiel Agency (NDMA), for the initial development phase of the new German-Norwegian missile system Supersonic Strike Missile (3SM).

www.kongsberg.com