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       7/18/2008 8:01:53 AM
Also see:
 
w w w.defenseindustrydaily.com/Land-Based-SM-3s-for-Israel-04986/#more-4986
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

AdvanceAustralia       7/18/2008 9:18:39 AM
As the bulk of our population and industrial production is concentrated in a handful of major cities, Australia is more vulnerable than most comparable powers to ballistic nuclear weapons. Further, we don't employ a deterrent of our own but rely on the US nuclear umbrella. Hence, a continental BMD is highly desirable.
 
The flip side of our vulnerability, however, means we have a lesser number of major targets to defend. Hence, the practicality of BMD is high while the relative cost is low.
 
Quote    Reply

Green Dragon    Continental defence ONLY   7/18/2008 11:04:09 PM
I think it would be a sensible and prudent move, but only continental defence mind you.
 
Tasmania, Norfolk Island, Christmas Island etc. can simply start digging.
 
Quote    Reply

Kevin Pork       7/19/2008 3:25:29 AM

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,

IMO you are ignoring another significant advantage of such a system - you get the navy to run, maintain and man it and it provides a number of operational shore postings for highly qualified sailors, giving them potential for reasonable periods of complete lifestyle stability near major pop centres (which is very good for retention), whilst still maintaining a very high standard of critical skills training and performing a useful operational task.
 
Very win/win IMO
 
Quote    Reply

BLUIE006       7/19/2008 7:14:32 AM

Ballistic Missile Defence: ANZAC Style -
The proliferation of missiles and related technologies in Asia is a growing concern for Australia and as stated by other posters Australia's localized population centers and defence assets are exceptionally venerable to missile attack. Ballistic missiles in particular are a major concern to Australia, when tipped with conventional high explosive warheads, or especially nuclear, chemical, or biological warheads, they present a combination of capabilities and destructive power unmatched by any other weapon.  Our limited strategic deterrents and lack of indigenous nuclear capability places us in an extremely high risk category.
This also indicates that we would be prime first strike target due the presence of important US Communications bases and the inability to instantly respond with tactical nuclear weapons.

Defence planners and politicians should seriously consider these factors, wouldn't you agree?

 The unique maritime environment in Australia's battle-space and the fact that our population is majority located around the coast suggests that we should look toward a majority sea based system, with a small number of land based systems Let's say three

- Southern Eastern Australia (Defence Industry infrastructure/population centers)
i.e.  SA/VIC/Southern NSW
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Far North Queensland/Central QLD -Airbases etc
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
- NT ( Pine gap-ADF Bases etc)
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Early warning long range detection radar based in NZ (less venerable to first strike) NZ is less likely to be on Axis of Evil and other first strike target lists.

These land based systems provide a platform for Australia to R&D indigenous space and ASAT program.

Sydney and Perth both house fleet bases, meaning AWD based there would most likely be able to protect those cities.


Extend the production run to five AWD to complement the proposed three ¡K and inevitable forth this allows it to move around to protect deployed forces and other venerable targets of opportunity however the limited cells on the AWD do place limitations on Sea-Based BMD, 4-8 SM-3 on the four and one BMD tasked AWD (24 SM-3) should provide enough limited cover to defend against a limited strike and warrant the expenditure.  By selling the public on BMD, RAN can slip through additional hulls that can also be used for offensive porposes, hopefully.


We need to consider, if you were a rouge nation with ICBMs or WMD... and you wanted to make statement to the world? (As most sociopaths do)  Would you attack a nation (UK/US) with the capability to retaliate instantly and risk being whiped of the planet?  OR Alternatively would you attack a nation that has no capability or resolve* to retaliate with WMDs, thus requiring allies assistance to respond? In which case the aggressor may be able to use diplomacy and intelligence to overt a counter-strike before it could be co-coordinated?

Id attack the one that couldn't respond? Wouldn't you? 

I understand that people will jump up and down about cost! However my analysis is that the public would be more receptive to spending money on assets that actually protect the continental Australia and its people, rather than technologies they don¡¦t understand or appreciate i.e. battle-space awareness etc.  A basic propaganda campaign is  all that is required.
Private top up funding could potentially be obtained via large resources companies that have a lot of infrastructure at stake? Some money may be able to be funneled from other portfolios other than Defence if correctly justified?  

My proposed Light aviation cruisers could also contribute to this BMD capability.


Another key element of BMD is Comprehensive Anti-submarine capabilities, something Australia is badly lacking. The shear volume of water in our battle-space warrants this.  Reports indicate that potential aggressors will have in excess of 180 Sea based Nuclear Warheads by 2012. This presents a clear and present danger.

Cant those fools in tower see that? (LOL quote from Iron Eagle)

 
Quote    Reply

BLUIE006       7/19/2008 7:17:30 AM
 

Iran test-fires more missiles

 ?Brisbane times

July 10, 2008 - 7:52PM

Iran test-fired more weapons as it continued war games on Thursday in defiance of global concern over its launch of a broadside of missiles in the midst of efforts to end the nuclear crisis.

State television said the weapons fired in the Gulf by the naval section of the elite Revolutionary Guards included shore-to-sea, surface-to-surface and sea-to-air missiles.

It said the war games also included the firing of the Hoot (Whale) torpedo that Iran unveiled in April 2006 which it described then as a super-fast weapon capable of hitting enemy submarines.

Iran on Wednesday test-fired its Shahab-3 longer range missile, whose range includes Israel and US bases in the Gulf, and eight other more medium range missiles.

The move caused major concern in Western governments which fear Iran's nuclear drive is aimed at making atomic weapons, a charge that Tehran vehemently denies.

State television also said that Wednesday night more "longer and medium range missiles were fired" in night-time land maneuvers. Pictures broadcast showed several missiles being fired into the night sky.

It was not clear exactly when the naval maneuvers were held.

After a warning from an aide to supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei that Iran would "set fire" to Israel and US ships in the Gulf if it was attacked, US Secretary Condoleezza Rice warned that the United States would defend itself.

"We will defend American interests and the interests of our allies. We take very strongly our obligation to defend our allies and we intend to do that," she told reporters in Tbilisi.

Crude oil prices rose once again in Asian trade as the market feared a regional conflict that could disrupt supplies from Iran, OPEC's number two producer.

The chief of French oil giant Total Christophe de Margerie said it was too politically risky to invest Iran at present, as Western governments lean on commercial firms to cut their ties with the Islamic republic.

His remarks appeared to spell the end of Total's involvement in a deal to exploit the phase 11 of Iran's giant South Pars gas field to produce liquefied natural gas (LNG) for export and to build a liquefaction plant.

"Today we would be taking too much political risk to invest in Iran because people will say: 'Total will do anything for money'," de Margerie told the Financial Times.

The United States, which has never ruled out

 
Quote    Reply

VGNTMH       7/19/2008 3:55:02 PM



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,



IMO you are ignoring another significant advantage of such a system - you get the navy to run, maintain and man it and it provides a number of operational shore postings for highly qualified sailors, giving them potential for reasonable periods of complete lifestyle stability near major pop centres (which is very good for retention), whilst still maintaining a very high standard of critical skills training and performing a useful operational task.

 

Very win/win IMO


Very true
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain    Reality check   7/20/2008 1:02:28 AM
I think land-based BMD should definately be on the agenda for Australia. The types of scenario where I could see it being used would be in the instance of Taiwan, Japan or South Korea being blockaded by China. The Chinese might try to blackmail Australia with the threat of a nuclear strike, into ceasing to provide support with commodity exports and the necessary convoy protection.
 
However, I can't for the life of me imagine that it will happen under the current government due to both cost and ideology. That would mean that we would have to station our AWD's off likely targets (assuming they get a BMD capability), diverting them from the escort role, and/or rely on the US. Personally I think that since we can afford to defend ourselves against this threat we should, but I don't see it happening.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussie Diggermark 2       7/20/2008 4:25:44 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?
 
 
THAAD would give us the ability to deploy the system OS to help a friend in need too...

 
Quote    Reply

Aussie Diggermark 2       7/20/2008 4:29:08 AM
Er that should have been:
 

h*tp://.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/mfc/thaadftt09.wmv

 

 
Quote    Reply
1 2



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics