Australian Army Discussions and Updates

ADMk2 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Todjaeger said:

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.

Click to expand...

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 being 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.

ADMk2 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

SammyC said:

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.

Click to expand...

Just to note that this suggests that Prsm Increment 1 & 2 are ballistic, but increment 4 is not (in the same way)

thatsamguy said:

Lockheed Martin Reveals Ramjet-Powered Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile at AUSA 2025 - Naval News

Lockheed Martin's family of tested Precision Strike Missile (PrSM) variants will expand through 2026 as the company begins testing both the PrSM Increment 2 anti-ship ballistic missile variant and the PrSM Increment 4 long-range maneuvering fire variant. The company is also exploring...

www.navalnews.com

Just to note that this suggests that Prsm Increment 1 & 2 are ballistic, but increment 4 is not (in the same way)

Click to expand...

From what I've read about increment 4 it is based on ramjet technology. While different from a rocket engine, ramjets work better in thinner air. As I suspect the increment 4 will still have a high altitude flight path to get the range that it talks about.

I'm not seeing this as a terrain hugging, sea skimming missile like NSM, LRASM or Tomahawk.

1 LRASM or 10 of these? Ragnarok Mini-Cruise Missile With Big Range Targets $150K Price Tag

Bob53 said:

1 LRASM or 10 of these? Ragnarok Mini-Cruise Missile With Big Range Targets $150K Price Tag

Click to expand...

Could be interesting if a ground launch version will also be available and Kratos is capable of mass producing these LCCM thus further reducing the price.

Bob53 said:

1 LRASM or 10 of these? Ragnarok Mini-Cruise Missile With Big Range Targets $150K Price Tag

Click to expand...

Not quite sure they are looking at the same target set. The Kratos has an 80lbs warhead. The LRASM a 450kg warhead…

Yet another reason to pass on the Strikemaster and opt for the HIMARS / PRsM / ER-GMLRS option for LBASM. 3x strike missiles in a single package…

Maybe both? Or not…

Reptilia said:

Maybe both? Or not…

Kongsberg teases StrikeMaster announcement competing for ADF long-range fires capability

Kongsberg Defence has teased an upcoming major announcement for their new StrikeMaster launcher vehicle being marketed as the Australian Defence Force’s next land based long-range fires capability.

www.defenceconnect.com.au

This week has seen an exciting milestone for Australian sovereignty, deterrence and defence capabilities. The StrikeMaster, which combines Kongsberg Defence Australia’s Naval Strike Missile with… | Thales Defence

This week has seen an exciting milestone for Australian sovereignty, deterrence and defence capabilities. The StrikeMaster, which combines Kongsberg Defence Australia’s Naval Strike Missile with Thales Australia’s proven Bushmaster platform, has journeyed to Europe, and the results are...

www.linkedin.com

Click to expand...

I’m guessing they’ve live fired it for the first time…

ADMk2 said:

I’m guessing they’ve live fired it for the first time…

Click to expand...

Yup.

Reptilia said:

Yup.

Click to expand...

Positive

The testing location does not look like the outback.

Intetesting

Cheers S

video title is 'Strikemaster NSM firing in Norway'.

FoxtrotRomeo999 said:

video title is 'Strikemaster NSM firing in Norway'.

Click to expand...

Self-explanatory

Thanks

Cheers S

Where we are compared to a decade ago is a night and day difference. We are on the right path though fleet expansion, ground missile forces and local manufacturing which is absolutely the correct path forward. The final piece is a competent and comprehensive anti drone and land based missile defence network, defending critical installations and assets this will likely cost 10s of billions. I cant see this being budgeted to be honest, not for a while.

An excellent article.

ADMk2 said:

Yet another reason to pass on the Strikemaster and opt for the HIMARS / PRsM / ER-GMLRS option for LBASM. 3x strike missiles in a single package…

General Atomics Pairing GMLRS, PrSM With Multi-Packed LRMP Submunitions - Naval News

General Atomics unveiled a new concept for an anti-ship submunition capability: Pairing GMLRS, PrSM With Multi-Packed LRMP Submunitions

www.navalnews.com

View attachment 53680
View attachment 53681

Click to expand...

No doubt the HIMARS platform has much more potential and the announcement of the PRsM variants/proposed munitions has got everyone excited are we going for the gold standard again?
Strikemaster is cheaper less capable option but does it have a future with our Pacific partners?

K.I. said:

No doubt the HIMARS platform has much more potential and the announcement of the PRsM variants/proposed munitions has got everyone excited are we going for the gold standard again?
Strikemaster is cheaper less capable option but does it have a future with our Pacific partners?

Click to expand...

Which partners is one considering?

If one is referring to members of the Pacific Island Forum, then TBH I cannot really see them being able to field Strikemasters, especially over time.

As I understand it, the Guardian-class patrol boats, and the Pacific-class patrol boats before them were specifically designed and built to utilize COTS systems as much as possible, because these would be easier for the recipients operate, maintain and support. AFAIK, the various nations' armed forces are not really operators of datalink networks, or even wide area air/sea surveillance. With either of these capabilities absent, it would be difficult for a user to make use of something like Strikemaster, because they would like SA to detect potential targets as well as not being able to relay targeting data to the launcher.

As much as I have an issue with Australia adopting land-based AShM artillery as a capability, Australia at least possesses external systems which are needed in order to make such launchers able to function at all. I rather doubt that most of the other Pacific Island Forum members can say that.

K.I. said:

No doubt the HIMARS platform has much more potential and the announcement of the PRsM variants/proposed munitions has got everyone excited are we going for the gold standard again?
Strikemaster is cheaper less capable option but does it have a future with our Pacific partners?

Click to expand...

Not a single Pacific Island Nation has a missile in-service of any kind.

If by Pacific you mean Asia or North America, then at best it is unlikely.

None of them operate Bushmaster, few of them operate NSM, many of the manjor players have in fact ordered coastal missile battery systems of other types.

Malaysia could be a possibility as it has recently ordered NSM for some of it’s naval vessels, but who would buy this system if even Australia doesn’t?