However, and here’s the real irony, by being equipped with land attack missiles in the first place the shaping effect on the enemy is even greater, as they now have to act to protect not only their naval vessels but also critical land targets. That might take key ASW assets etc away from other areas, and reduce the enemy’s freedom of action even more. Therefore it makes sense to equip Australia’s submarines with land attack missiles even if we would never intend to actually fire them in all but the most unusual of circumstances.
This is the key. China has many bases. Many quite exposed. China has a significant opposition. The more China pressures its opposition, the more it will feel the need to draw back and protect these various bases. The more it needs to be ready, the more it fatigues itself. The SCS is generally very shallow, firing something like harpoon (or a torpedo) out from a sub in the SCS would be a one way ticket to davey jones's locker. But Tlam makes it much more believable and viable. Its range makes trying to hunt it down nigh on impossible, even for a ratty diesel sub. There is no 1500km Asroc to fire back, a sub can choose when and where to engage. China would have to do the hard yards and build up its ASW capability, which we know is, weak. Every dollar we spend they would need to spend many multiples.
The problems with fighting stealthy phantoms is you can't prove they aren't there, only that they could be there. So every blip becomes a possibility. Australia would be yet another power, another vector of annoyance coming from seas far away, seas it doesn't control. During the cold war, the US had to try and tail all the soviet subs. Its a hugely draining exercise, even for a power as immense as the US. How do you do that against multiple powers all over the planet? You can't. You live in fear. You know there are many lose ends, many unaccounted. In chasing those you bring your assets into the range of the enemy ASW and their capabilities.
If Australia ever fires TLAM, we won't be doing it alone (the US can launch a tremendous number), and it won't be the only thing coming at them.. But it does give us a card to be in the discussions about launching strikes.
Which for China, is much, much worse than all the missiles Australia could ever purchase/launch. Australia is unlikely to be seen as a calming influence on US strategy and leadership. If the US ever launches, it won't be doing it unilaterally, it will now be a joint launch and joint decision.
The missiles could sit in storage rusting, never fitted, and they would be well worth the money to be in that loop.
You don't need a massive war chest.. UK purchase ~65, and only, can only fire them from subs (all 7 SSN), from their torpedo tubes. Which is a slow way of firing them at the best of times. (
Why did no Royal Navy submarine launch missiles against Syria? | Navy Lookout). They should already be integrated with the combat systems of the subs and the DDG's.
The biggest issue previously was annoying the neighbors. That is no longer an issue. No one cares. The Indonesians in defence circles, would be giggling about this. Its in their interests, they probably would take up a collection in the office to make sure it happens.
www.warshipsifr.com
