Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[Todjaeger]

I don’t think anyone is seriously looking at LRASM from a land based (or indeed) even a vertical launch system, these days… It‘s role seems to be purely air-launched, from a variety of platforms.

There is enough of a question mark over the entire concept of LBASM. I am not at all convinced there is a need for 2x different types of LBASM launchers, with different missiles, C2 and networking capabilities for what will be at most a single Regiment’s worth of them in-service.

I would not rule out a VL version of LRASM just yet. I could see the USN deciding that it, or a derivative of it, might be suitable as a replacement for VL Tomahawks in strike/land attack roles. If that were to happen, sub-launched versions might also end up getting developed as well.

Certainly something worth Australia having a chat with the US about at least.

 

[spoz]

One thing Army will need to make very sure of is that their targeting and weapon release processes are solid. Navy and AF have much experience in long(ish) range targeting using networked sensors -Army not so much.

 

[ADMk2]

I would not rule out a VL version of LRASM just yet. I could see the USN deciding that it, or a derivative of it, might be suitable as a replacement for VL Tomahawks in strike/land attack roles. If that were to happen, sub-launched versions might also end up getting developed as well.

Certainly something worth Australia having a chat with the US about at least.

Time will tell, but I rather suspect they are looking at spending that sort of money on “other” systems, aka HACM or similar hypersonics.

Studies are also bring funded into the possibility of PRsM and it’s various increments into the Mk.41 system and of course there is quite likely a bit going on that isn’t spoken out aloud, so there is a bit going on that space…

We’ll see.

 

[SammyC]

Time will tell, but I rather suspect they are looking at spending that sort of money on “other” systems, aka HACM or similar hypersonics.

Studies are also bring funded into the possibility of PRsM and it’s various increments into the Mk.41 system and of course there is quite likely a bit going on that isn’t spoken out aloud, so there is a bit going on that space…

We’ll see.

Two points that I think are worth considering regarding missile selections

1. LRASM and PrSM are very different missiles (one cruise the other balistic). They each have their strengths and weaknesses, however together as a simultaneous launched attack they are formidable. I think there is a place for both.

2. In the age of mass missile launches, there is also the risk of missile scarcity. There is a lot to be gained from having compatibility with a wide range of missile types as this improves the ability to reload with anything anywhere. Wars in the future might be less about the perfect missile and more about having a missile.