If we are talking about a land based system, then I would have thought upgrading NASAMS to AMRAAM ER is the easier and better pathway, rather than Typhon with ESSM.
Reading this article on its use against drones does microwave limit its deployment to only land based areas , but ships may also have some use
www.twz.com
British High-Power Microwave Weapon Successfully Tested Against Drone Swarms
The Radiofrequency Directed Energy Weapon demonstrator, or RF DEW, uses an intense beam of RF energy to rapidly neutralize close-in drone threats. The Radiofrequency Directed Energy Weapon demonstrator, or RF DEW, uses an intense beam of RF energy to neutralize drone threats.
www.twz.com
Seriously.. what they should be doing is AMRAAM-ER and then getting the Skyceptor missile for NASAM.. it has a 200-300km radius and Dan take down ballistic missiles.. it’s a lot cheaper! The government should be trying to make these in Australia asap. And build more NaSAM batteries. This is the fastest, cheapest method in having an out layer defence quickly. Thoughts ?
Where I see Typhon having potential is with 1Bde. SM-6 for rapid strike and air defence, Tomahawk for long range strike, and have a NASAM in support.
Deploy a reinforced battery to an island, perhaps screened by a Boxer Trp and an Inf Plt with SP 120mm mortars and say Sky Guard. You have not just a "porcupine" that will hurt you if you attack it, it can also hurt you, out to very long ranges, if you don't. Especially of there's a troop of Hypersonics in the mix.
Then you need to wonder, which island gas the actual batteries deployed, and which have decoys? Especially is all have surveillance systems deployed and anti drone measures.
Sort that out, and then there's still F-35, F/A-18, Growler and P-8 to deal with. And where are those submarines?
This would be an absolute nightmare for any naval force trying to navigate through our northern waters. Going east south or west would be even worse as they would be a very very long way from support.
That's why I couldn't understand why everyone got their knickers in a twist about the Chinese "task force". Seriously our 1990s ADF would gave sent it to the bottom. Oberon's, DDG and FFG launched harpoon, Orion's, F-111 and F/A-18A would have been enough.
Deploy a reinforced battery to an island, perhaps screened by a Boxer Trp and an Inf Plt with SP 120mm mortars and say Sky Guard. You have not just a "porcupine" that will hurt you if you attack it, it can also hurt you, out to very long ranges, if you don't. Especially of there's a troop of Hypersonics in the mix.
Then you need to wonder, which island gas the actual batteries deployed, and which have decoys? Especially is all have surveillance systems deployed and anti drone measures.
Sort that out, and then there's still F-35, F/A-18, Growler and P-8 to deal with. And where are those submarines?
This would be an absolute nightmare for any naval force trying to navigate through our northern waters. Going east south or west would be even worse as they would be a very very long way from support.
That's why I couldn't understand why everyone got their knickers in a twist about the Chinese "task force". Seriously our 1990s ADF would gave sent it to the bottom. Oberon's, DDG and FFG launched harpoon, Orion's, F-111 and F/A-18A would have been enough.
Takao
The Bunker Group
I think that if there was an easy/cheap/quick way of doing more air defence, the ADF would already be doing it.
I think people underestimate the current demand for air defence EO. Between Ukraine and Israel using it daily, the naval operations in the Red Sea pumping them out, and the rearmament efforts for INDOPACOMD, Japan, Korea and Europe the current demand is huge. I'm not sure than Australia with a small purchase can make the order books. On top of that, with what money? The IIP by definition is full, so you need to take something out. And it's all important.
That is a headache before you ask - what would we defend? How many batteries do we need to do such a task? There are a bunch of key locations spread of ~7 million square kilometres and any threat that can reach Australia has a huge throw weight. Israel is 21000 sq km (twice Sydney) and uses at least 10 short range and 2 medium range sites. Don't forget that not all the ADF missiles are going to hit, there are going to be leakers. Or you need to have many, many more launchers. And if you only buy, say, 2 Bty - what does it say to the threat's intelligence unit when you deploy those two? Perhaps these two are what the ADF sees as the highest vulnerability? Throw a few more missiles at each and overwhelm that Bty and just imagine what you could do!
Note that an SM-2 according to wiki is just shy of $4m AUD per missile; a Tp with one reload is going to cost just shy of $50m in bang. Assign a Bty per site, with at least one eNASAMS and you have nearly $200m in bang alone. And that's good for one fight. And that's the cheapest you'll get, while ignoring workforce and all the other bits that make up a SAM capability (remember, a Bty of eNASAMS under LAND 19-7b cost ~$2.5b.... the cost of these systems are astronomical). You might say that system x or y is cheaper - in which case you'll need a lot more money because you can't utilise the pre-existing Navy sustainment and training chain. You'll also decrease operational flexibility.
Finally, this is only the easy 'stuff'. We haven't got point defence yet (a single C-RAM unit is about $15 - 18m and covers a really narrow arc - you'd need over a dozen to properly defence a wide open airbase) or ballistic missile defence (the price of ban increases by an order of magnitude!). And what C2 system wraps all of this together?
Again, I think if this was a quick, easy or cheap problem, it would have already been licked.
I, would agree with you regarding the extraordinary expense and consumption rate of rare missile stocks for an effective missile defence. Yet, I think we still need to find a solution.
NASAMS is great, I believe we purchased the right short-medium system. But with AMRAAM and AIM9X it has no ballistic capability. Even with AMRAAM-ER (which I think is a good upgrade) it is limited to short ranged stuff. If this system is used to defend a littoral force, or a major defence facility, then it is vulnerable.
A Type 55 for instance can launch YJ21s from a range of 1,500km, or if China really wanted to, it could launch nuclear missiles from one of its SSBNs from as far away as 7,000-10,000km away.
In a hot conflict (which all forecasts now say is possible), then we have to consider the use of these types of weapons. And we have no current BMD defence outside the Hobarts. And we will be a priority target (FBW and Darwin will be on the same list as Guam, Diego Garcia, Hawaii and Okinawa and Yokosuka).
There are only a couple of choices for the big stuff, THAAD, SM3/6, and AAROW. Even PATRIOT and Skyceptor have limitations in this environment, however both are a big step up from the current AMRAAM based systems and provide effective medium ranged protection.
And we can't defend everything. We probably can't even defend everything that's important. We can perhaps defend some very core assets, that must stay in the fight after first strike.
My personal view is that if we want to have a littoral force capability then it needs to have something like Skyceptor or PATRIOT to accompany it with NASAMS. If we want nuclear submarine and major marine/airforce bases on our home soil, then we need something like THAAD, SM3/6 or AAROW. All are super expensive and super rare.
Skyceptor, in my view has a pathway, because it is cheap and is likely to become the US replacement for the PAC3 MSE. Once Raytheon establishes production (which it is in discussions with the US Government on), it becomes separate from the Israeli supply, resolving all the issues previously raised. It's very easily integratable into an existing NASAMS fire control system and radar package as it uses a Raytheon comms system. It would just need some additional launcher units (too big for the current cells at 5m long). I would suggest that we either place long term missile procurement orders with an American future production line, or consider developing in country production for AMRAAM and Skyceptor. These are perhaps the right missiles to partner with Raytheon on for local factories.
SM6 has the best pathway for Australia for longer ranged BMD, because it is now part of our inventory. Expanding the footprint of this weapon is logistically simpler than the other choices. It's still rare, but I note Japan is looking to establish an SM6 production facility that we could join with. SM3 is a future robusting that I would hope we consider.
So, yes they are expensive, in limited numbers and in high demand, but we still need to figure out a solution.
Last edited:
This article on the P.L.A,s satellite program and its capabilities suggest they are more of a adversarial threat than say the platforms they enable certainly an ability to monitor stealth aircraft is not be ignored,the sm-3 does have an anti satellite configuration so could be a consideration or the A.D.F
www.csis.org
No Place to Hide: A Look into China’s Geosynchronous Surveillance Capabilities
In December 2023, China launched a new optical surveillance satellite, called Yaogan-41, that may allow it to keep watch around the clock on the entire Indo-Pacific region from geostationary orbit.
In a war, why would you leave your enemies eyes and ears intact if you had the option to blind and deafen or even just confuse or fool them?This article on the P.L.A,s satellite program and its capabilities suggest they are more of a adversarial threat than say the platforms they enable certainly an ability to monitor stealth aircraft is not be ignored,the sm-3 does have an anti satellite configuration so could be a consideration or the A.D.F
No Place to Hide: A Look into China’s Geosynchronous Surveillance Capabilities
In December 2023, China launched a new optical surveillance satellite, called Yaogan-41, that may allow it to keep watch around the clock on the entire Indo-Pacific region from geostationary orbit.
Well we had planned to do it ( to some scale) under AIR-6502, until it got sacrificed on the altar of AUKUS…
As to the C2 system to stitch together an IADS, isn’t that the point of AIR-6500?
Another option Australia may wish to considerThis article on the P.L.A,s satellite program and its capabilities suggest they are more of a adversarial threat than say the platforms they enable certainly an ability to monitor stealth aircraft is not be ignored,the sm-3 does have an anti satellite configuration so could be a consideration or the A.D.F
No Place to Hide: A Look into China’s Geosynchronous Surveillance Capabilities
In December 2023, China launched a new optical surveillance satellite, called Yaogan-41, that may allow it to keep watch around the clock on the entire Indo-Pacific region from geostationary orbit.
Satellites spot construction of Russian anti-satellite laser facility: report
Anti-satellite technologies are on the rise as space becomes an increasingly vital domain for military activities.
www.space.com
Takao
The Bunker Group
For the extant system. Addition of brand new capabilities may need an expansion of the network's capabilities. Addition of new units of existing kit will need an expansion of the network's quantity.
Either adds cost, which was my point. IAMD isn't cheap