Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[Going Boeing]

Has an announcement been given by the RAN on what happens with Harpoon missiles replaced by the N.S.M either kept as war stock or given to some country that might find a use for them

I believe that a decision has been made to NOT equip the Collins class with Tomahawks as part of the planned LOTE and the NSM currently does not have an underwater launch capability so, the Harpoon looks like remaining in service with the RAN for the foreseeable future (with a good number available).

Also, the P-8 is still using them but JASSM-ER & JSM are currently being trialed for release from the P-8 so, it’s just a matter of time before they are retired from RAAF service.

 

[Volkodav]

I think it's a valid concern. To your point, killing a submersible drone with a MK48 torpedo is akin to shooting down a Shahed aerial drone with a PAC3 MSE.

A Collins holds I think 20 torpedos as a full load. A Virginia does not hold a lot more. So what does it do if there is more than 20 drones.

Traditional anti submarine warfare is aligned with hunting a lone tiger. The game changes if it's a pack of hyenas.

The answer is already in development, Compact Rapid Attack Weapon (CRAW).

Northrop Grumman Reveals New Mini Torpedo That Could Arm Navy Submarines In A Few Years

The mini-torpedoes could be a game-changer and are set to be fielded on Virginia class submarines in the next few years.

www.twz.com

Also manned submarines have been seen as future UUV, even UAV, motherships.

 

[Going Boeing]

I can't help but think we are on the cusp of a change in undersea warfare. These drone subs are equal or better to dipping sonar and sonobuoys. They can be fitted with towed arrays and coordinate with each other.

Unlike other procurement activities, we will have a capable force of ghost sharks within a year, and an armada within 3-4 years.

How does a crewed submarine deal with a large pack of these. It would not be hard to saturate an area of ocean with them.

Crewed subs work on the ability to stay hidden because they can't outrun threats. I think a large pack of ghost sharks could make it hard to hide, and turn the ocean into a giant spotlight.

No ability to hide under thermoclines. No ability to avoid active sonar. Too many to fend off. Too persistent to outrun.

In addition to that, don’t forget that Anduril has designed the Ghost Shark to deploy and retrieve their Seabed Sentry sonar system. The Ghost Shark is modular allowing extension sections to be added thus increasing the number of these systems that can be deployed during a single deployment. This is looking like a very capable system and I can see the RAN purchasing more Anduril products as they deliver bang for buck.

Anduril Introduces Seabed Sentry Undersea Sensor Network

 

[seaspear]

I believe that a decision has been made to NOT equip the Collins class with Tomahawks as part of the planned LOTE and the NSM currently does not have an underwater launch capability so, the Harpoon looks like remaining in service with the RAN for the foreseeable future (with a good number available).

Also, the P-8 is still using them but JASSM-ER & JSM are currently being trialed for release from the P-8 so, it’s just a matter of time before they are retired from RAAF service.

I understood the Anzac class frigates and Hobart class destroyers are equipped with Harpoon missiles

Australian Navy rehearses loading NSM onto Anzac frigates - Naval News

Kongsberg recently provided training for the Royal Australian Navy on how to load Naval Strike Missiles (NSM) onto its Anzac-class frigates

www.navalnews.com

 

[iambuzzard]

Has an announcement been given by the RAN on what happens with Harpoon missiles replaced by the N.S.M either kept as war stock or given to some country that might find a use for them

What would be involved with using the Harpoons on other platforms? The CMS has to be up to par.

 

[ADMk2]

I understood the Anzac class frigates and Hobart class destroyers are equipped with Harpoon missiles

Australian Navy rehearses loading NSM onto Anzac frigates - Naval News

Kongsberg recently provided training for the Royal Australian Navy on how to load Naval Strike Missiles (NSM) onto its Anzac-class frigates

www.navalnews.com

They were. Now most if not all are equipped with the Harpoon replacement, NSM.

 

[ADMk2]

What would be involved with using the Harpoons on other platforms? The CMS has to be up to par.

A bit.

A trailer or similar sized platform to handle the weight and power needs of the launch system.

A radar targetting system, including the networking elements required.

A fire control system allowing the missile to be employed. The Harpoon Weapon Control System we put onto the ANZAC Class and the AWD might be able to be put on a similar semi-trailer type vehicle, perhaps in a modified shipping container or similar assuming sufficient SWAP were available.

Similar systems exist already, so we wouldn’t be starting from scratch. But our Harpoon II missiles have been in-service for 20 odd years already. They must be close to life expired by now and both services that currently use them are in the process of replacing them with newer and more capable systems.

I’m not sure attempting to put them into service in a land based role is a worthwhile expenditure of resources. Probably better off just devoting these extra resources to getting more capability from the land based ASM we do intend to operate…

 

[Todjaeger]

I believe that a decision has been made to NOT equip the Collins class with Tomahawks as part of the planned LOTE and the NSM currently does not have an underwater launch capability so, the Harpoon looks like remaining in service with the RAN for the foreseeable future (with a good number available).

Also, the P-8 is still using them but JASSM-ER & JSM are currently being trialed for release from the P-8 so, it’s just a matter of time before they are retired from RAAF service.

Quite possibly. However, one also needs to remember that Harpoon, like other multi-service weapons, has different types of launch methods which are not interchangeable. Ship, surface and sub-launched Harpoons have a solid rocket booster, whilst air-launched versions do not. Sub-launched versions are encapsulated, but other versions are not.

This is also all before one considers how old the Australian Harpoon inventory is. AFAIK the guidance packages were upgraded some years ago to Block II standard, but still have a range limit of ~124 km. Do not know exactly how old the Australian Harpoon missile bodies and motor are but are likely approaching if not already past their end-of-service-life dates. They might be able to be inspected and/or remanufactured, but it would be a question of whether or not it would be worthwhile. Much like one might question whether or no it worth doing a tune up on a junker auto, to try and keep it as a spare rather than scrapping it and using a newer auto that will be reliable.

 

[Morgo]

Quite possibly. However, one also needs to remember that Harpoon, like other multi-service weapons, has different types of launch methods which are not interchangeable. Ship, surface and sub-launched Harpoons have a solid rocket booster, whilst air-launched versions do not. Sub-launched versions are encapsulated, but other versions are not.

This is also all before one considers how old the Australian Harpoon inventory is. AFAIK the guidance packages were upgraded some years ago to Block II standard, but still have a range limit of ~124 km. Do not know exactly how old the Australian Harpoon missile bodies and motor are but are likely approaching if not already past their end-of-service-life dates. They might be able to be inspected and/or remanufactured, but it would be a question of whether or not it would be worthwhile. Much like one might question whether or no it worth doing a tune up on a junker auto, to try and keep it as a spare rather than scrapping it and using a newer auto that will be reliable.

It does seem like mothballing them would be prudent given the rate of munition use in a high intensity conflict, at least for as long as we have P8s / Super Hornets / anything else that could conceivably fire them.

 

[Todjaeger]

It does seem like mothballing them would be prudent given the rate of munition use in a high intensity conflict, at least for as long as we have P8s / Super Hornets / anything else that could conceivably fire them.

By my estimate, Australian RGM-84 Harpoons would be at least ~15 years old at this point, but it is also quite conceivable that some Harpoons or at least critical components of them like motors, could be much older since Harpoon would have entered Australian service at least as far back as 1980 aboard the Adelaide-class FFG's.

Depending on just how many Harpoons Australia still has, what their condition is and how much time is left before they need to undergo re-cert/re-manufacture then even mothballing them might be a waste of resources. If many or even most of the Australian warstock is about to become expired, then Australia is likely better off with just a complete replacement, with any funding going towards purchasing more new ordnance rather wasting it on mothballing or re-manufacture.

Trying to preserve old ordnance could end up leading to Australia funding a stockpile of duds.

 

[Pusser01]

They were. Now most if not all are equipped with the Harpoon replacement, NSM.

At this stage I would say 2 of the oldest Anzacs won't be fitted with NSM prior to their decommissioning over the next few years.

 

[hauritz]

I can't help but think we are on the cusp of a change in undersea warfare. These drone subs are equal or better to dipping sonar and sonobuoys. They can be fitted with towed arrays and coordinate with each other.

Unlike other procurement activities, we will have a capable force of ghost sharks within a year, and an armada within 3-4 years.

How does a crewed submarine deal with a large pack of these. It would not be hard to saturate an area of ocean with them.

Crewed subs work on the ability to stay hidden because they can't outrun threats. I think a large pack of ghost sharks could make it hard to hide, and turn the ocean into a giant spotlight.

No ability to hide under thermoclines. No ability to avoid active sonar. Too many to fend off. Too persistent to outrun.

Andural will no doubt be pushing for Copperhead UUVs for the Ghost Sharks. Even named them after an Australian snake. Anduril claim that dozens of Copperheads can be carried by each Ghost Shark. That means potentially hundreds of swarming UUVs, some of which have warheads, and are capable of reaching speeds of 30 knots.

Team these with a Seabed Sentry system and you have a nightmare scenario for manned submarines and surface ships.

 

[Todjaeger]

Andural will no doubt be pushing for Copperhead UUVs for the Ghost Sharks. Even named them after an Australian snake. Anduril claim that dozens of Copperheads can be carried by each Ghost Shark. That means potentially hundreds of swarming UUVs, some of which have warheads, and are capable of reaching speeds of 30 knots.

Team these with a Seabed Sentry system and you have a nightmare scenario for manned submarines and surface ships.

Um... there are actually five different snake species that are named, "Copperhead,". Two are North American pit vipers, one is a SE Asian pit viper, there is the Australian pit viper, and then a non-venomous SE Asian rat snake.

Me being me, I would like to see an Australian ordnance-carrying UUV named something like Irukandji. Rather fitting for a UUV/self-deploying mine.

 

[OldTex]

Um... there are actually five different snake species that are named, "Copperhead,". Two are North American pit vipers, one is a SE Asian pit viper, there is the Australian pit viper, and then a non-venomous SE Asian rat snake.

Me being me, I would like to see an Australian ordnance-carrying UUV named something like Irukandji. Rather fitting for a UUV/self-deploying mine.

Very appropriate, very small and can be deadly, so a very significant pain for users of the sea.

 

[seaspear]

How feasible would it be for Ukraine to deploy the retired Harpoons from its aircraft inventory?

 

[Todjaeger]

How feasible would it be for Ukraine to deploy the retired Harpoons from its aircraft inventory?

Hard to say, might be relatively easy OTOH might be difficult, expensive and/or impractical. The ex-NATO F-16M's (Block 15 MLU) might have already been integrated to launch Harpoons since post-MLU they should have electronics comparable to the Block 30 or 50/52. If this is the case then Harpoon deployment might be easier.

Also, the type and condition of Australian Harpoons could make a difference. For instance, if the retired Australian Harpoons are the ship-launched RGM-84 version, which features a solid rocket booster, then they might not be able to launch from aircraft without getting modified.

It is also possible that Ukraine might be able modify the missiles or the avionics of other aircraft in service to apply other aircraft and ordnance combinations. Unfort quite a bit we just do not know enough details about.

 

[ADMk2]

Quite possibly. However, one also needs to remember that Harpoon, like other multi-service weapons, has different types of launch methods which are not interchangeable. Ship, surface and sub-launched Harpoons have a solid rocket booster, whilst air-launched versions do not. Sub-launched versions are encapsulated, but other versions are not.

This is also all before one considers how old the Australian Harpoon inventory is. AFAIK the guidance packages were upgraded some years ago to Block II standard, but still have a range limit of ~124 km. Do not know exactly how old the Australian Harpoon missile bodies and motor are but are likely approaching if not already past their end-of-service-life dates. They might be able to be inspected and/or remanufactured, but it would be a question of whether or not it would be worthwhile. Much like one might question whether or no it worth doing a tune up on a junker auto, to try and keep it as a spare rather than scrapping it and using a newer auto that will be reliable.

The AN/B44G 2/3 booster rocket fitted to the A/RGM-84 series missile is a modular rocket booster which can be fitted or removed from the missile body as required and is attached to the rear of the missile body via a flanged interface. If fitted, when fired it is subsequently discarded from the missile body after firing for 2.9-3 seconds of flight. The addition of the solid rocket booster or not is what differentiates the particular missile designation as apart from the encapsulated version, there is no other difference between missile variants of the same block etc.

It has long been an ADF practice to configure -84 series missiles for either air-launched or surface launched as required for particular missions or LFE‘s and provided to the services so configured accordingly from the same “stock” of baseline missiles. The rocket booster is thus attached (or not) during missile assembly or configuration changes as required by the user (RAN needs them, RAAF does not).

That the missile is so interchangeable and has been upgraded so substantially is the main reason it has retained it’s place as the principal ASM (and in many cases) land attack cruise missile in the West for so long.

That range figure is also out of date too. A larger fuel tank was fitted from AGM-84D onwards which pushed range under most mission profiles to 220k but as with all such things, range is context dependant. Start flying lo-lo-lo profiles with waypoints included, then range reduces, fly hi-hi-lo profiles the range increases, etc…

 

[ADMk2]

How feasible would it be for Ukraine to deploy the retired Harpoons from its aircraft inventory?

Their F-16’s should be no real problem. When the USAF first started F-16 trials, they were able to employ the Harpoon missile from F-16‘s equipped with an AGM-65 Maverick hardpoint interface and stores management system in the F-16’s avionics system. The European airforce standard F-16’s were AGM-65 Maverick capable, so the dots can be joined…

However that was a wartime work around and didn’t represent a full integration and usually such “quick and dirty“ integrations involve a reduction in features of “modes” such weapons are equipped with. For example one of the capabilities of the Harpoon Block II missile ADF uses, is the ability to attack vessels close to shorelines. The enabling capability for this is data on said shoreline being provided to the missile from the launch platform prior to launch.

A “quick and dirty“ integration is unlikely to feature such data transfer and as such the missile is less likely to be capable of employing such features, however this is not to say that the weapon can’t still be profitably employed nonetheless.

Ukrainian MiG-29’s for example have been documented as having had AGM-88 HARM anti-radiation missile capability added to them. Such was reported to have involved a work around whereby the MiG-29 stores management system was not employed at all in the launch of such missiles and as such little to no data from the launch aircraft seems to be provided to that missile prior to launch. Yet we have seen innumerable videos of MiG-29 / HARM video launches, so clearly they derive operational benefit from firing them in some “direct” mode.

So to summarise, Ukrainian F-16’s probably can employ our Harpoon missiles fairly easily, other types are less certain. There may be other work arounds that could be implemented reasonably quickly as we have seen with tablet computers being “tethered” to HARM missile via bluetooth, but only time would tell if that were feasible…

 

[ADMk2]

By my estimate, Australian RGM-84 Harpoons would be at least ~15 years old at this point, but it is also quite conceivable that some Harpoons or at least critical components of them like motors, could be much older since Harpoon would have entered Australian service at least as far back as 1980 aboard the Adelaide-class FFG's.

Depending on just how many Harpoons Australia still has, what their condition is and how much time is left before they need to undergo re-cert/re-manufacture then even mothballing them might be a waste of resources. If many or even most of the Australian warstock is about to become expired, then Australia is likely better off with just a complete replacement, with any funding going towards purchasing more new ordnance rather wasting it on mothballing or re-manufacture.

Trying to preserve old ordnance could end up leading to Australia funding a stockpile of duds.

Australia presently operates at least 3 variants, with UGM-84D Block 1C Block I’s being fitted to our Collins class, AGM/RGM-84J (upgraded AGM/RGM-84D Block 1C) and A/RGM-84L Block II.

The UGM missiles fitted to Collins “may” also have been upgraded to UGM-84G standard which are an upgrade to the UGM-84D Block 1C standard which dates back to 1985, but I can’t find any writings on that, however re-certification efforts conducted through sustainment would likely be with the more recent variants, not the older ones.

Australia acquired both new build AUR Block II’s (64x) and 64x Block II upgrade kits for AGM-84D Block 1C (hence the AGM-84J missiles in-service) in the mid-late 2000’s, so at best even including re-certification efforts our remaining missiles are 15-20 years old.

This may not matter too much in a Ukrainian context, a supply of +/- 120 - 130 missiles (for example - have no idea what the actual inventory is) would likely be exhausted within months I would expect, but I am quite sure they would be profitably employed in such a context. Much more so than in a coastal battery role for Australia (which would require development and integration work and resources) or in some “warstock” role, which would require on-going sustainment, training and logistics resources to maintain.

Such resources would be better directed to acquiring and supporting the more capable weapons we have / are replacing Harpoon with and which in some cases we are manufacturing (NSM / JSM) locally. I’d rather put that money into buying and sustaining more NSM / JSM than keeping an older missile that could actually be profitably employed elsewhere.