Yep, if Indonesia or Malaysia buy new fighters and A2G munitions, they are simply "maintaining the regional balance".

 

If we buy new fighters and A2G munitions we are "warmongering" and "putting the regional balance in jeopardy"...

 

And so ADF capability suffers in the process, because as Alexander Downer once whinged, "we don't want to get in a war with Indonesia" as if the purchase of capability by us is ACTUALLY going to make Indonesia go to war with us...

I'll play the Devils Advocate and say that these concerns actually are of importance. WW1 was preceeded by an arms race and the Cold War nearly turned hot because of one, so there it isn't in our interest to spark one in our region by creating mis-conceptions that we have aggressive intentions. The key is that we need to balance that against having enough of an edge to deter any immediate aggression and we need to be able to ramp up our capabilities quickly as potential aggressors do. That's why for instance the lack of SLCM's isn't that important, because (from what I've read anyway) the new combat system in the Collins can handle them so we should be able to operate them pretty quickly by .

 

I would say the opposite is true in that more wars have been preceded by perceived weakness in a strong nation or the opportunity to achieve parity / superiority with through new technology. Also bullies enjoy harassing those weaker than themselves and tend to whinge about or suck upto those stronger.

 

For example the Naval Arms Race prior to WWI was triggered by the development of the Dreadnought making the RN's existing battle fleet obsolete and enabling Germany to challenge the previously undisputed power of the Royal Navy.

 

The UK's retirement of Ark Royal in 1978 along with the proposed sale of Invincible to Australia convinced Argentina that it was worth a shot to take the Falklands.

 

The stronger we are the more secure we are, the weaker the more vulnerable. We are better off being strong but then we must always be wary of abusing that strength and compromising that security.

 

I'll play the Devils Advocate and say that these concerns actually are of importance. WW1 was preceeded by an arms race and the Cold War nearly turned hot because of one, so there it isn't in our interest to spark one in our region by creating mis-conceptions that we have aggressive intentions. The key is that we need to balance that against having enough of an edge to deter any immediate aggression and we need to be able to ramp up our capabilities quickly as potential aggressors do. That's why for instance the lack of SLCM's isn't that important, because (from what I've read anyway) the new combat system in the Collins can handle them so we should be able to operate them pretty quickly by .

Collins don't have land attack cruise missiles, because it is an SSK, it is designed for hunting and attacking other subs and ISR missions. It doesn't have room for a significant land attack capability even if the Australian powers that be, wanted it, which they currently don't.

 

Assuming the Tactom is the same size as current weapons, you aren't going to see more than 10 Tactoms per boat and even then only at the expense of it's intended weapons. A capability to employ maybe 20 weapons in a scenario is hardly a "war winner". A Collins loadout of SLCM's would be so small as to make the exercise futile, IMHO.

 

JASSM etc from an aircraft is a much better strike method, IMHO and if we MUST have such a long range strike capability, I'd rather the funds went on the rumoured JASSM-ER variant and it's 1000k range, then add it onto AP-3C in the short term and P-8A in the longer. 

 

Such a capability would have all the range we are ever likely to need...

 

  

I agree that JASSM armed aircraft along with the F-35's capabilities are better methods for major strike campaigns and have argued it many times on this board. However, I have thought about it and think that there is a place for a small number of TLAM's (incidentally, they aren't developing a sub launched Tactom) on the subs in case we need to make strikes agaist regional terrorist camps during peacetime. The subs can drop off special forces and loiter in an area for weeks, ready to strike as soon as the target is identified and the order is given. An air mission would take much longer to reach the target area, important when the target is time critical. I also think there is a place for a small number of Tactoms (say 6 to 8)on the AWD's as another option hit high-value, time critical tactical targets like C4 facilities, air defence sites, major ships in port and coastal missile batteries.

However, the real point that I was making is that if we don't want to spur a regional arms race then it may be better to equip platforms for but not with while tensions are low, only purchasing the weapons when a change in circumstances dictates that it is necessary.

I would note that global nuclear arms control treaties are designed for precisely the reason of avoiding a nuclear arms race and I think to a lesser extent the principle applies to conventional weapons as well. However, I agree that there is a balance to strike and I don't want us to be too weak to defend our interests. The example of the British proposing to get rid of their carriers when they clearly needed them is exactly the sort of thing that I don't want to see. However, purchasing a capability that is inflamatory when there is no immediate need for it can work in the opposite direction and encourage our neighbours to do the same. We want them to be spending their money on their economic development so that they have it too good to risk it in a war with us, rather than spending up on military hardware because our actions inflamed nationalist sentiments. That's not to say that I want to cut overall spending. Far from it, I would like to see it increased but just in a smart manner which considers these issues. For instance, I don't think an expansion in the size of or the purchase of extra gear for the Army would be percieved as threatenning, nor do I think that extra sealift ships or the extra AWD would be either. However, purchasing for instance nuclear powered subs or a substantial number of  land based cruise missiles pointed at the neighbours would probably represent an unnecessarily provocative stance. 

With due respect, everything that I can find about Tactom, says that it is submarine-launch capable. There is no difference in Block III or IV encapsulated versions, in terms of technical capacity to launch either vertically or horizontially from a sub as far as I can tell.

Can you provide a link which shows otherwise?

I had a look and it seems you are correct, I read it a couple of years ago so the page that I read it on must have been wrong or out of date. Anyway, that's good because they are half the price of the original TLAM and are more suited to what I am suggesting we would use them for.

Maybe the DSCA is reading our posts?

 

From the latest Block IV Tactom production contract:

 

"The Tomahawk Block IV missile is capable of launch from surface ships equipped with the Vertical Launch System (VLS), submarines equipped with the Capsule Launch System (CLS), and submarines equipped with the Torpedo Tube Launch (TTL) System."