I wouldn't wait for a Cruise missle to come within Stinger range if I didn't have to. The AMRAAM is capable of tackling the missiles at low-level and at longer ranges, so why wouldn't you want to use it?

Have there been any undependent* tests of ground-lanched AMRAAMs against low-flying** cruise missiles? Isn't it a good idea to TEST the thing before even considering it as an option? Do you know that tests with something apparently more capable than ground AMRAAM SAM trying to intercept MA-31 (an unarmed AS-17 missile) resulted in something like 31 to nothing for the defending side? I dought that a less capable missile would produce better results. * - not conducted by the US **- altitudfe of 5-10 meters, no radio beacons and other cheats on-board the missile

Aussiegunner you surprise me a bit. Only the US has GPS??? huh ??? From before 1988 the USSR/Rusia had the GLONASS "gps" system. Works a bit the same but differently :) Also, europe dicided this summer/spring to go ahead with it's own version of the gps system The reason for this is as you mentioned, we don't want to be dependend to the US for EVERYTHING.... As for tests for the amraam. Don't know much about ground lauched tests, but the air lauched tests agains low flying decoys were very impressive. As mentioned before, at 386000 (FY99) missle Australia can't afford enough of the to cover the county. So Just point defenses. A pac 2+ costs about 3 mil a piece, and it has a range of about 160 km. Speed mach 5. It can cover about 80340 km2 A Amraam has a range of up to 40km max speed mach 4 and can cover about 5000 km2 SO you'll need about 17 Amraam's for 1 PAC2+ 17*386000=6562000 or 6.5 mil. Twice the patriot. As an aera weapom the pac2+ gives the best coverage per dollar. But like I said, the amraan will be the better point defence weapon, it will probably be more manouverable, as thus have a larger "no escape" zone. Grinzzz....just some thoughts....let's buy a s300 even cheaper!!...whahahahahaha

GLONASS is operational and the constellation is planned to be complete by 2005. About tests. The important thing is numbers. If "low-flying" is 100 meters, that's not enough for cruise missile interception. Modern supersonic CMs fly at 5 meters and less. How can you compare a real SAM to a converted AAM? And again, tests, man! Without a test, it's all speculation. Australia needs point air defense only, I guess. The population is 80%+ urban, so is the most of industry. A couple of SAMs for Sydney and one for every capital city would be quite comforting (without going into building an integrated national air defense system), plus one per key military bases. S-300 is not an option for Australia for political reasons.

Well Aussiegunner, I'm all for using all components in air defence. But relying on ONE defensive measure is very dangerous. The way I envisage the use of stingers would be an observer corps around the cities up to a comfortable distance - and then fire.

I try to sound like I know everything, but I occasionally slip up. LOL. As for AMRAAM vs PAC-2, yes the economies of scale are their for the PAC-2 if you want to cover 80340 km2. However, to defend a few airfields and ports we probably don't need to do that, so AMRAAM's and there 5000km2 will suffice.

PS, I'm not that worried about Russian and European GPS systems. If anybody starts lobbing their homegrown JDAM's at us, I'm sure that we can get the US to twist a few arms to get the Satellittes turned off. After all, what are alliances for?

The only testing that I know of is mentioned in the news story I refer to in this discussion board. That say's the missle has shot down Cruise missiles and knowing that the AMRAAM is a great missile, I see no reason to doubt it. After all, the Sparrow started off as an AAM and is now a point defence SAM for many navies, isn't it.

I agree that we should have last ditch defences as well as the AMRAAM. I'm sure we would deploy our RBS-70's and their new search radars in a similar role to the Norwegian stingers.

We are currently looking at ways to intergrate Australia into the US national ballistic missile defence program. This is the best bet against land based missles, which would have to be ICBM's to hit anywhere but Darwin or perhaps Townsville. However, a rapidly deployable TBM capability to defend our cities might be in order in the future, if more potential foes develop ship or sub-launched missile systems.