True
but we work with what we can do
They are options
They are apart of the others guys calculus
even if we don’t deploy there they know we have the capability
it plays to our advantage
cheers S
but we work with what we can do
They are options
They are apart of the others guys calculus
even if we don’t deploy there they know we have the capability
it plays to our advantage
cheers S
TheBoomerangKid
New Member
Just for additional information do not forget there is a PrSM Increment 4 now called Long Range Maneuverable Fires (LRMF) which aims to deliver effects at longer ranges - projected to be 1000kms+. The US Army has contracts with Lockheed Martin and a Raytheon Technologies-Northrop Grumman teams.
breakingdefense.com
Investing in more HIMARS and supporting munitions development provides significant potential and importantly delivers a more robust and adaptable Army in an uncertain future. Having 2 x Regt of HIMARS is a powerful statement.
Army taps teams to build new Precision Strike Missile for targets beyond 1,000 km - Breaking Defense
The development program carries a new name, the Long Range Maneuverable Fires missile, and includes a new form factor and propulsion system.
breakingdefense.com
It surely is a powerful statement, but what extra options would it provide to ADF in practice? If you have access to SE Asian countries like Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, and Timor-Leste, then range isn't an issue.
Assuming these missiles are launched from Australian territory... Going from 250km to 1000km would allow you to cover Ombai strait from Australian mainland, and Sunda / Lombok (maybe) from Christmas Island. Those are wins, I agree, but at what cost?
I wonder if it is worth thinking of the problem posed by a land-based NSM (equivalent) battery (supported by a NASAMS-equivalent battery and protected by a light infantry company) defending an island held by an adversary in Australia’s northern approaches but outside ready strike range for land-based air. For the ADF to engage those elements it would require a task force including a DDG (of which it has three) and a large ampib that would need to be placed in a risky littoral environment.
Now take away or neutralise the enemy NSM-like battery (or engage an enemy who declined to acquire that capability in the first place because it can be better delivered by frigates or fighters ). The tactical problem posed by the air defence unit and their protecting force would be vastly less complex simply because the ability of the defenders to engage naval targets is so limited. In that situation, 250km sounds like a pretty useful range.
Now turn the situation around again and have the Australian Army defending an island to the north from an adversary with DDGs and some amphibious lift capacity. If NSM is what is available now isn’t that what you would want now?
Now take away or neutralise the enemy NSM-like battery (or engage an enemy who declined to acquire that capability in the first place because it can be better delivered by frigates or fighters ). The tactical problem posed by the air defence unit and their protecting force would be vastly less complex simply because the ability of the defenders to engage naval targets is so limited. In that situation, 250km sounds like a pretty useful range.
Now turn the situation around again and have the Australian Army defending an island to the north from an adversary with DDGs and some amphibious lift capacity. If NSM is what is available now isn’t that what you would want now?
Ok here’s a challenge.
What happens with Cocos , Christmas and Norfolk Island plus any other Australian islands in time of serious conflict.
Do they get a local SAM / SSM capability
or are they a gift to the other team?
In time of regional conflict in our part of the world we would have to make a decision on what is of strategic value
Interestingly our new LCM appear to have the range to service these territories
As we know these islands have a military history
Cheers S
What happens with Cocos , Christmas and Norfolk Island plus any other Australian islands in time of serious conflict.
Do they get a local SAM / SSM capability
or are they a gift to the other team?
In time of regional conflict in our part of the world we would have to make a decision on what is of strategic value
Interestingly our new LCM appear to have the range to service these territories
As we know these islands have a military history
Cheers S
With discussion of missiles launched from various islands would it be prudent to assess the deployment of land based sm-6 and sm-3 to address inbound ballistic missiles
www.twz.com
SM-6 Eyed As New Surface-To-Air Interceptor For The Army
SM-6, which the Army is already fielding to strike targets on land and at sea, could help bolster the service's strained air defense branch.
www.twz.com
Going one step further(although I have not seen it stated one way or another) If the way you rearm the Strikemaster is to swap an empty launcher box with a full one. This also gives you the ability to swap in different launcher boxes with different loadouts.
Think twin launcher boxes each loaded with licence built copies of of Turkish Toros 230 or the Fog-mpm from Brazil or the type 26 from Japan.
Each in its own way a useful addition to the ADF.
And a these then become a good secondary function (perhaps eventually the primary function) of the Strikemaster.
Takao
The Bunker Group
HiMARS, yes. Strikemaster, no. Bushmaster's can't fit on C-130s....
How? It's a developmental vehicle that only shares parts with Bushmaster. You need a new structure, new suspension, new payload - that all costs money. And how many will we buy? It'll be less than the 1100-odd Bushmasters, meaning they won't even have a large run to lower costs
Because it would drive the cost up. And in a fiscally constrained environment, where's the justification? As it is, the HiMARS can fire a bunch of long range, anti-land and anti-ship weapons with precision and area effects.
But, how? If the REDFOR ships are coming for the island, their escorts will be able to handle the handful of NSM thrown their way. And if they are not, how hard is it to steer 251 km away? That's only 135 nm... Worse case scenario is that they bypass you, now you have a BG + NSM sitting isolated with a REDFOR SAG on its supply chains.
Yeah, but the NASAM is useful. It's a genuine threat to REDFOR. NSM....isn't. Complimentary assets have to be useful individually (like NASAM v F/A-18), otherwise one is just a drag.
Except, that's not a feasible strategy. Most of those countries are actively seeking neutrality (especially Indonesia), most have a very strong Chinese diaspora that will complicate domestic politics, and most are highly unlikely to stand up to a Chinese threat of force. What do you think will happen if an Australian force launches from their territory? I mean, we could go in a just do it - but then how different are we to Beijing? It also places significant demand on the supply chains to go to all those places - one PLAN submarine is going to have fun.
The territory isn't Google Earth, its the people.
I'm a bit confused....
If I'm the RAN attacking an island with an Australian Army BG + NSM Bty there, I'm laughing. One DDG can do it easily. Give her an FFG escort to interdict supply runs. I'll pick HMAS Brisbane, because she's now familiar with Tomahawk. She'll carry more than any GBAD system can defend against - smash the distinctive NSM launchers from over the horizon, then close to 5" range and her and, HMAS Toowoomba I think, can then just plink away. SM-2, ESSM and CWIS can cover any leakers. It's 250 km - I have 93.75% more space to play in than with PrSM and all my weapons have more range.
If I'm defending against REDFOR, I want an SSK to the north on the most like approach. I want a MQ-4 orbiting, with F/A-18 or P-8 on standby with JASSM. I want sufficient lift in a harbour with a SAG ready to go pull me out or reinforce me depending on the threat. Remember, I'm part of a joint, integrated force. Combined arms is the bulwark of the Australian Army - I will always seek to fight with my sibling services and leverage their unique capabilities.
Honestly? Who cares? You mean I can tie up a REDFOR BG+ with supply runs with little effort? Sweet! I mean, I'll throw a SSK up there for sure, have some fun stalking resupply ships. If needs be, I'll use it as a training target for new F/A-18 pilots too.
Wait - now we are adding more cost? With bespoke missiles that have two coming from questionable nations? With Australia doing all the integration? This expensive Strikemaster is getting more so (remember Australia has to do all the work on integrating these weapons. And costs). All to do...what HiMARS can do now? 5-6 minutes to reload a HiMARS pod. Shared integration (some already done) with the US and 7 - 17 other partner nations? That's a sucker bet.
Yes bespoke missiles that are currently in service with a limited number of nations.
But the term is currently in service.
Not on paper, not in testing but in service.
So I would assume there is a lot of data around about what happens when you shoot one of these missile out of a box.
But also not having to wait in line for the limited Himars production currently underway.
If a war with China goes hot where do you think Australia will stand in line to receive that very limited Himars missile production.
Given that it seems unable to keep up with the current "peacetime" demand.
Last edited:
None of the articles I have read have given a cost breakdown so I ask how expensive the Strikemaster is.
I note that the Bushmaster is not the cheapest of vehicles but crew protection comes at a cost.
There is also the money spent in Australia stays in Australia factor.
Jobs , tax, supply chains. etc.
If you want to build and maintain a robust industry sometimes you need to look beyond the obvious.
Last edited:
Two questions,
1) what's the source on HIMARS fitting on a C130 but not Bushmaster? Looking on wikipedia it seems that the "height" of HIMARS exceeds C130 cargo dimensions, but Bushmaster is shorter.
2) Why would Strikemaster need new suspension?
The answer is, really easy in the open ocean, really hard if a choke point is only 50km wide. But even if they go round you, why is that the worst case scenario? You're still shaping the other teams behaviour. It adds extra sailing time, sailing half of a circle with a radius of 135nm adds 154nm (8hrs sailing at 20 knots) to your journey (424nm, vs 270nm going straight across), maybe going around you puts them into the teeth of a naval task force, or carrier battle group etc.
OldTex
Well-Known Member
The source for HiMARS fitting on a C130 but not a PMV (aka Bushmaster) is actually doing it. The USMC did a shoot-and-scoot firing of the HiMARS during one of the EX TALISMAN SABRE's and the PMVs moved into and out of Afghanistan needed C17s rather than C130s.
As for Strikemaster requiring a new suspension, that is based on the different weight and distribution of the NSM launcher compared with the structure of the original PMV in conjunction with the forces transmitted through the suspension on firing the NSMs.
protoplasm
Active Member
[QUOTE="PMVs moved into and out of Afghanistan needed C17s rather than C130s.
[/QUOTE]
That wasn’t because of size. They fit in a C-130 with about 6 inches of spare
[/QUOTE]
That wasn’t because of size. They fit in a C-130 with about 6 inches of spare
For what it‘s worth I was asking about the tactical problem for the ADF of engaging the equivalent of an Australian multi domain battle group (Or whatever it is to be called). If the weapons are useless for the Australian Army are they equally useless for an adversary? If the defending force has over the horizon antiship missiles then every attacking landing craft and logistic vessel needs missile protection (that require escorts that are then vulnerable to undersea warfare). If the defenders don’t have those missiles then the attacking vessels can operate with relative impunity until they are in line of sight of shore.
I am totally on board with more range = better options but my understanding is that PrSM is not available this decade.
Sure but your potential adversary is extremely keen on stripping away your sibling services to deny access to areas during conflict. HMAS Brisbane and the sub will be engaging targets in a different theatre. HMAS Toowomba will be hunting subs or escorting a carrier in the Pacific. RAAF will be repairing its air bases after drone and missile strikes (and has all the problems of access to sovereign territory you raise).
The strategic choice of deploying an isolated battle group in a precarious situation may be a poor one but the alternative (with the forces available this decade) would seem to be deciding not to contest the northern approaches at all.
Strikemaster/NSM offers proven target discrimination features that are likely to be critical in crowded littoral regions. In comparison, maritime strike PrSM is not yet available and we don't yet know how effective that will be. If batteries are distributed throughout the archipelago as planned, the 250km range for NSM should be effective although longer ranges are always an advantage. Key choke points for example are only 50km or so wide.
Sovereign production of Strikemaster - both launcher and missile is a big advantage not on the table with a HIMARS only policy. If extra batteries are required because of losses or increasing needs, they can be more easily delivered even during war. Not so with HIMARS, which will be prioritized for the US use.
Although HIMARS offers a more attractive missile development pipeline, we are already committed to obtaining 42 of them, adding Strikemaster to the mix delivers additional resilience associated with local production not possible with HIMARS. This news report suggests Strikemaster is also considerably cheaper than HIMARS. Bushmaster missile launchers with a range of 250 kilometres could soon be in place across the Top End
On the utility of land based maritime strike, this article describes some current ADF thinking. Essentially follows the DSR which calls for an ADF with a focus on long range strike via all domains with best placed shooter delivering the strike. The situation itself determines whether that is via an Army, Navy or Airforce effector.
Sovereign production of Strikemaster - both launcher and missile is a big advantage not on the table with a HIMARS only policy. If extra batteries are required because of losses or increasing needs, they can be more easily delivered even during war. Not so with HIMARS, which will be prioritized for the US use.
Although HIMARS offers a more attractive missile development pipeline, we are already committed to obtaining 42 of them, adding Strikemaster to the mix delivers additional resilience associated with local production not possible with HIMARS. This news report suggests Strikemaster is also considerably cheaper than HIMARS. Bushmaster missile launchers with a range of 250 kilometres could soon be in place across the Top End
On the utility of land based maritime strike, this article describes some current ADF thinking. Essentially follows the DSR which calls for an ADF with a focus on long range strike via all domains with best placed shooter delivering the strike. The situation itself determines whether that is via an Army, Navy or Airforce effector.
Perhaps PRSM is not available for export but certainly being ordered by the U.S this article suggests a range beyond four hundred kilometres ,certainly strangling a chokepoint
news.lockheedmartin.com
.
Lockheed Martin Awarded $219M to Produce Additional PrSM Units for US Army
Lockheed Martin began delivering long-range Precision Strike Missiles to the U.S. Army last year following numerous flight test successes.
TheBoomerangKid
New Member
FYIPerhaps PRSM is not available for export but certainly being ordered by the U.S this article suggests a range beyond four hundred kilometres ,certainly strangling a chokepoint
.Lockheed Martin Awarded $219M to Produce Additional PrSM Units for US Army
Lockheed Martin began delivering long-range Precision Strike Missiles to the U.S. Army last year following numerous flight test successes.
Minister Conroy stated 16 January 2024:
"we'll be acquiring our first batch of precision strike missiles."
and
"we're part of the Development Program for PRSM Increments 1 and 2, which is what we're requiring today. We're now joining the Development Program for Increments 3 and 4. So obviously being part of the Development Program, we got access to the technology and got access to the actual weapon."
and
"the objective of extending the range of PRSM for both land and maritime strike to around 1,000 kilometres"
Press release:
Ok what if Indonesia isn’t on our side?,
Then I would say we are truly imperilled. The darkest days of WWII would repeat.
Darwin is within range of a 1,000 km ballistic missile from the southern most Indonesian islands.