Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Australia Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: SM-3, AEGIS, and BMD of Continental Australia
VGNTMH    7/18/2008 7:42:24 AM
I sense a continental ballistic missile defence option for Australia developing here. 1) Land Based AEGIS / SPY-1 / SM-3 See: w w w.strategypage.com/htmw/htada/articles/20080718.aspx 2) SM-3 Block II And then remember that the fully 21 inch diameter SM-3 Bock II missile under development will have the range / speed / altitude to be able to intercept IRBMs or even ICBMs as well as MRBMs. Comments? I am constantly bemused by the lack of interest in BMD for Australia. I know it could be costly. I know it has politically incorrect overtones dating from the MAD mindset of the cold war. And before anyone says that ballistic missile defence of continental Australia would be technically impossible without purchasing GBI from the US, surely continental BMD would be possible with SM-3 Block II? And before anyone says that BMD with AEGIS and SM-3 Block II would divert AWDs from what they are needed for, that is true! Hence my interest in Israeli land based AEGIS! And before anyone says that BMD is an unnecessary luxury and that an attack is very unlikely, I would argue that a ballistic missile threat to Australia is much more likely than a DOA like amphibious invasion! Especially as alternate blackmail-able targets in North American, Europe, and Japan get BMD protection and Australia is left out of any umbrella! And before anyone says it would be costly, how much more would it cost to get a fourth set of AWD AEGIS / SPY-1D / VLS / SM-3 fitout and land base it like the Israelis are talking about? An incremental cost at most. You would have to provide duplicate combat data systems, but they run on COTS computers now anyhow! And one AWD’s AEGIS fitout would provide four SPY-1D panels, at least two terminal illuminators, and many VLSs. Surely enough to provide two to four land based BMD installations? Each consisting of one SPY-1D, one combat data system, one eight cell VLS loaded with only three or four SM-3s? Joint venture with Japan and the USN? Comments as to the necessity and practically and cost of all this?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2
VGNTMH       7/20/2008 5:21:25 AM

I agree that a land based BMD capability is desirable for Australia.

 

Why would you attempt to employ SM-3 and SPY radars from land based installations, when you can just acquire THAAD instead, unless you are going to employ SM-3 from Naval vessels as well?


 

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/thaad/index.html link />
 
 
 
But neither THAAD nor SM-3 Block IA can intercept IRBMs let alone ICBMs.
True?
 
Whereas SM-3 Bock II will be able to intercept much longer ranged missiles.
 
I will see if I can find the details.
 
 





 
Quote    Reply

Aussie Diggermark 2       7/29/2008 5:50:24 AM
All Raytheon has to say about the matter is that SM-3 is suitable for Intermediate range ballistic missiles. SM-3 IIA is to provide enhanced range and a new warhead. They don't mention any ICBM capability for this system...
 
THAAD provides a land based system for short and medium ranged systems.
 
Personally I think this would be more than sufficient for Australia's needs. Anyone launching ICBM's against Australia, is more than likely going to invite a similar response from our friends...
 
To the best of my knowledge, MAD has provided the only "assured" protection against ICBM or SLBM threats...

 
Quote    Reply

BLUIE006       7/30/2008 4:35:46 AM
THAAD probably would do for land based system ( just),
 However then you have another system and related logistical cost, lose the advantages of having the navy run it (rotational posts etc..... )
 
My vote still goes to additional AWD and SM-3 variants .....  
 
.....as I've said ...  BMD  goes beyond  Defence portfolio and should be funded by almost all portfolios....
 
MAD: although relatively successful  for the duration of the Cold War, doesn't stop Crazy Sociopaths (looking to make there make on the world).... and I'm not sure the family of the city.... that got hit, would  give two... *****  weather a rouge nation  was wiped off the planet  by W-88's etc .....  ?  I dunno, I am quite an alternative thinker ...
What do the Crew reckon?
 
Quote    Reply

stingray1003       8/6/2008 3:32:27 AM
The great advantage of getting AWD is that:
Australia is an island, any threat is likely to come over sea..
Ships can move about, making a preemptive strike more difficult and can be best positioned
Ships systems don't just protect from large nuclear missiles, but planes etc and can protect islands, fleets, shipping etc.
Ships can link up to help a friend out
Australia needs more ships!
 
 I don't think Australia is at a great risk of ICBM landing on it, but many of its interests and shipping could be a threat.Taking a pot shot at a few oil/gas rigs or ships could dramatically change things.
 
SM-3 can take our more than just missiles. If you really want to control your airspace (or atleast a portion of it) you really need this sort of kit. And 4 ships makes a lot more sense than 3.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussie Diggermark 2       8/6/2008 9:01:45 AM

THAAD probably would do for land based system ( just),

 However then you have another system and related logistical cost, lose the advantages of having the navy run it (rotational posts etc..... )

 

My vote still goes to additional AWD and SM-3 variants .....  

 

.....as I've said ...  BMD  goes beyond  Defence portfolio and should be funded by almost all portfolios....

 

MAD: although relatively successful  for the duration of the Cold War, doesn't stop Crazy Sociopaths (looking to make there make on the world).... and I'm not sure the family of the city.... that got hit, would  give two... *****  weather a rouge nation  was wiped off the planet  by W-88's etc .....  ?  I dunno, I am quite an alternative thinker ...

What do the Crew reckon?


Just?
 
 
THAAD's got a (successful) longer range shot than any SM-3 has achieved to date...
 
As to ICBM's there is no effective weapon deployed to stop this sort of weapon by any Country, only effective , ie: "nuke us and look out. We've got more of em"...
 
As to THAAD/SM-3, the SM-3 on-board on AWD's might have a slightly mobility advantage, but we're only getting 3 (so far) and one of them will usually be in maintenance for an extended period and THAAD will be as deployable as a land system can be. 
 
Personally I doubt we'll get either under the current Government. We'd be flat out getting a slingshot and a spare rock if Goliath attacked us, IMHO...
 
 

 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       8/7/2008 3:06:16 AM
As to THAAD/SM-3, the SM-3 on-board on AWD's might have a slightly mobility advantage, but we're only getting 3 (so far) and one of them will usually be in maintenance for an extended period and THAAD will be as deployable as a land system can be. 
 
In an interesting development it has been reported that Defence has formally requested a quote for the acquisition of a fourth AEGIS system.  Also note that the AWD's are getting the baseline 7 system as being retro fitted to the upgraded Ticonderoga class CG's not the baseline 5 as used on the Spanish F-100's.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       8/7/2008 7:12:48 AM


In an interesting development it has been reported that Defence has formally requested a quote for the acquisition of a fourth AEGIS system.  Also note that the AWD's are getting the baseline 7 system as being retro fitted to the upgraded Ticonderoga class CG's not the baseline 5 as used on the Spanish F-100's.


the fourth is not a complete system, and is only an advice given under FMS obligations (it doesn't denote the purchase of a shipboard system) .  Like other systems it could just be spares (eg, like some of the land based test sites we have)
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Enterpriser       8/7/2008 10:58:43 AM





In an interesting development it has been reported that Defence has formally requested a quote for the acquisition of a fourth AEGIS system.  Also note that the AWD's are getting the baseline 7 system as being retro fitted to the upgraded Ticonderoga class CG's not the baseline 5 as used on the Spanish F-100's.






the fourth is not a complete system, and is only an advice given under FMS obligations (it doesn't denote the purchase of a shipboard system) .  Like other systems it could just be spares (eg, like some of the land based test sites we have)

 

 


At this stage the option for the 4th AWD expires on the 3/4 October.
Brett.
 
Quote    Reply

stingray1003       8/7/2008 5:50:05 PM
I would have thought that the 4th awd would have had more time.. Atleast a decision to delay the decision...
 
 I sure hope we order it..
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       8/8/2008 10:33:55 PM
As I understand it the timing for ordering a fourth AWD has always been linked to the end of production of the AEGIS system. i.e. once LM finish the last of the current batch of systems the cost of restarting production of a single additional system for Australia becomes prohibitive.
 
Getting a quote for an extra system, with firm dates attached, makes sense.
 
Another positive development for Australia is the canning of the DDG 1000 program after two ships which would indicate additional Burkes will be ordered there by increasing the production run of AEGIS and perhaps result in previously unplanned enhancements / developments that would be compatible with our ships.
 
Quote    Reply
1 2



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics