IMHO this is most definitely a good thing.
We should be avoiding going an bombing anyone - particularly somewhere as far away as mainland China.
Agree on all counts. To my mind the existing Aegis Ashore concept is a good fit for countering the more limited capabilities of Iran or NK, but probably inadequate when dealing with the PRC going forward. I have advocated for a mobile Aegis Ashore system here in the past, but understand that the technical challenge and cost of such a system could be prohibitive, especially in the context of existing time constraints. There is an interesting piece on a dis-aggregated approach to AA (that might be more relevant to Aus, especially around Darwin/Tindal etc) here:I would have thought that the place that Aegis Ashore might make sense is HMAS Stirling. This is the home of our only truly strategic asset and is the most important to defend.
Not an advocate - I feel that a mobile system, in the Patriot class and likely operated by the RAAF, acquired in regiment strength, would be a better solution.
Although the current Terminal High Altitude Area Defense battery on Guam can defend against some ballistic missiles, its single AN/TPY-2 radar is vulnerable and cannot provide 360-degree coverage.
Re: Stirling, it is well and truly out of the reach of PLARF conventional BM, so any iteration of Aegis Ashore would surely be wasted there. The primary airborne threat would be LACM, and even then it would have to be ship or sub launched. Agree that a mobile system based around Patriot, possibly with an inner IFPC-esque layer would be ideal, alongside elevated sensors like those described in the article above. That said, our resources are not infinite, so we will see what comes to pass. Would suggest that NASAMS could help here, but I suspect it will be "busy" supporting Army maneuver.