I'm with
@Todjaeger - I don't believe we actually have a strike capability, despite all the words and dollars.
To me, you have to use the USN model, because the stated target is a PRC target. It's fine to throw a handful of RN Tomahawk or MDcN at Houthi, Syrian or Libyan targets. They barely have an air defence network and the targets have little passive defence. Even then, some of those targets needed 30 -50% of Australian stock to hit, partially for redundancy and partially due to the demands of the target -
61 for an airfield and
105 for three targets.
With all that in mind, how many will we need against a PRC target? They have hardening, passive and active defences and much longer detection range. We didn't buy them to hit rebels in Pacific islands, we bought them explicitly to deter Beijing. Which means we have to hit PRC targets... And if you need 100 missiles to kill a single target, what deterrence does killing a whole two PRC targets achieve?
In it's purest definition, we have a strike capability in that we (when delivered) have missiles, platforms, (assumed) targeting, pre- and post-strike ISR, and all the logistics and other FIC needed. But, can I as a professional say, with a straight face, we have a strike capability (let alone one that deters)? Nope.
(And, while searching for the Syrian links....
deja vu! With
@Todjaeger featuring too!)
