Australia I understood is to acquire Tomahawk missiles for its submarines under the AUKUS agreem
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I know that the announcement was on the AusGov Defence website, but I would still hold off on making that assumption. The (US) DCMA announcement previously issued on approval for the sale of up to 220 RGM-109E Tomahawk missiles did not mention any inclusion of the sub-launched UGM-109 version and so far I have not come across any new/updated DCMA announcement, or related approvals from either State or the Senate authorizing the sale of sub-launched Tomahawks, or the kit which would likely be needed to convert a ship-launched to a sub-launched cruise missile. So at this point not sure if there is another announcement coming out, or if there is something else which we have missed.
TBH from my POV Australia going to the time and expense of changing Tomahawks into sub-launched versions seems like an unwise and unnecessary waste of time and resources.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
IIRC assuming the Australia goes actually gets one or more Virginia-class subs, it, or at least the first of them, would not actually enter Australian service until sometime in 2034 or later, some nine years from now. This in turn would really mean that anything about it announced by Defence, even on the site, would really be more of an idea than a fixed, it-is-going-to-happen type real capability.
I also do not see a reason why Australia would go and purchase sub-launched VLS Tomahawk (the TTL is out of production, so no way to fire Tomahawk from the Collins-class without VLS installed) for a class of vessel that is not expected for nearly a decade. This then leads to it being unlikely for a DCMA announcement yet since it is so far off into the future. The other consideration for this though is that the Defence announcement makes it look like a done deal, that sub-launched Tomahawks will be entering Australian service. I am dubious of this for a few reasons.
The US could, for a variety of reasons, ultimately decide to not authorize sales of sub-launched Tomahawks to Australia. Since we are also talking about a capability which is set for about a decade into the future, it is also distinctly possible that one/both of two other things could occur. Sub-launched Tomahawks could very well be out of production by then, since we are talking about a missile design which originated in the 1970's and first entered service in 1983. There have been a number of improvements in the design of missile bodies since then, so it is also quite possible or even likely, that a newer sub-launched LACM would be entering service with capabilities beyond what Tomahawk can achieve in terms of LO flight profile or something like this.
Perhaps the A.D.F could consider a missile system that targets incoming missiles aimed at Australia,as per the recent Talisman Sabre exercise to be deployed in Australia
As I understand it, SM-6 in that set up is a long range strike weapon (maritime and land targets) not an air defence weapon (certainly it has been discussed here). In terms of your key point there is still a project AIR6500 for Integrated Air and Missile Defence (this was addressed in Senate Estimates last year) that should eventually deliver ground based medium range air defence but it will be an RAAF not Army system.
d-ron84
Member
Sorry about the Navy talk in the Army thread, but
Horizontally launched UGM-109s have been out of production for some time now, so the only 2 options are;
1- Pay to restart limited production run, which is prohibitively expensive;
2- Purchase from the RN's limited stocks, not going to happen(these weapons are also undergoing Block upgrades)
On top of these two scenarios you would then need to upgrade the weapons handling systems, weapons racks, weapons tubes to move and house them, and then also changes to the Combat System and Payload Control.
All of which are not insignificant undertakings.
Bluey 006
Active Member
Yes agree, Australia must be mindful of regional views and sensitivities, but that shouldn’t mean deploying land based long-range strike capabilities is completely off the table. Rather, it’s a reason to develop them carefully: with strong diplomatic groundwork, transparent strategic communication, and considered sovereign basing.
Strategic ambiguity is one thing; strategic impotence is another.
We may not want an arms race, but at the global level, that horse has well and truly bolted. We are seeking the ability to defend ourselves, to uphold sovereignty, and to deter coercion in an increasingly uncertain strategic environment, not escalation.
The foundation of modern deterrence is not about threatening adversaries or alarming neighbours. It lies in the clear assurance that any act of aggression will carry consequences.
Allowing other nations to dictate what Australia can or cannot do to ensure its own defence is, by definition, a loss of sovereignty
As in the recent Talisman Sabre exercise the Typhon can be air lifted to those countries allied to Australia
www.twz.com
SM-6 Fired At Target Ship Down Under By U.S. Army’s Typhon Launcher
The Army plans to field the Typhon system permanently in the Indo-Pacific, which will provide persistent long-range strike capability on China's doorstep. The Army plans to field the Typhon system permanently in the Indo-Pacific, which will provide persistent long-range strike capability on...
www.twz.com
The Tomahawk as the article goes into can also be deployed from the Typhon ,the sm-6 does though have a dual role for attack and defence , being air portable provides options
MARKMILES77
Well-Known Member
Confirmation Australia is buying an initial number of EOS Slinger systems with a more significant buy possible/likely(?).
eos-aus.com
EOS Part of Successful LAND 156 Bid Team - Electro Optic Systems
Electro Optic Systems Holdings Limited (“EOS” or the “Company”) (ASX: EOS) today announces that it is part of the Leidos Australia team that has been awarded the Systems Integration Partner contract as part of the Australian Defence Force’s (“ADF") Project LAND 156 Counter-small Uncrewed Aerial...
eos-aus.com
And IIRC it's expensive - about US$5 mn a shot.
It would be an interesting table of available missiles for usage ,their effectiveness for specific uses their costs,portability and launch platforms , You would obviously use an sm-6 against incoming supersonic or faster not a drone and have a different system for other threats like Nasams as part of layered integrated defence
With respect to our recent IAMDS discussion for the ADF, the talk was the order book was so long there was no point us looking at medium ranged air defence systems for support of our deployed land forces…
Seems other nations didn’t get that memo…
Seems other nations didn’t get that memo…
Lolcake
Active Member
Frustrating to say the least. We have lacked an adequate MRGBAD to protect vital installations and bases.