I’m pretty sure Raytheon co developed NASSAM with the Norwegians.. I’m just talking about how we get the capability at the best price and in numbers. Yes sm6 is part of what we are attending to use going forward but we are going to need lots of launchers in deifferent areas if NASSAM and skyceptor come together we have a very strong capability and quickly.. in mass and proven!
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
Building integrated air and missile defence for Australia | The Strategist
The defence strategic review has identified a glaring gap in Australian Defence Force capability—the almost complete absence of any form of long-range layered integrated air and missile defence (IAMD). The long-held assumption that Australia is ...
www.aspistrategist.org.au
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
Damn,
I'm in Victoriastan.
I'd view the Skyceptor as a NASAMS add on for medium range ballistic protection. It's capable, battle proven, cheap, and would integrate with the existing Kongsberg fire control systems and CEA radars.
The Skyceptor has a good lineage, being derived from the Stunner, which has roots back to the Python family. It uses duel radar and optical targeting, so has a pretty good tracking system. Norway has invested in it, so it is starting to obtain an international market. Good surface to air missiles have frequently come from air to air missiles.
Australia bought the Spike missile system from Israel, so as much as there is tension, I don't see it as a deal breaker. I agree with you at the moment, but I imagine any deal would be via Raytheon for some separation.
I'm thinking the RAN missile defence is going to be built around the ESSM, SM2 and SM6 systems for the longer term, perhaps with a future SM3.
I'll share a six pack of Crown Larger with you then. Used to enjoy that down at stony point.
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
Look up Mecha Plus. That's me
Which, BTW, when combined with Link 16 and CEC provides an integrated air and missile defence system at sea. That’s the whole point of it, really.
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
How many sites and launchers would we need for decent coverage? A bloody lot I would reckon.
The skyceptor has a range of 200km so you would presume major bases in the north and major capital cities would need coverage.. together with amphibious forces for area defence of expedition forces, we would want to triple the NASSAM launchers and control command we currently have.. all other supply and maintenance controls are in place.. it should be a no brainer!!
I curious when there will be an SM-3 announcement, we have always been heading in that direction. SM-3 is very boutique. We may acquire less than a dozen of them, maybe a half dozen.
Which is fine, being about to strike mid course or at assets in space. I feel SM-3 is more like strategic deterrence. Its a $25m+ USD per munition type thing built and carried in small numbers by very high end platforms. But in this day and age, having that capability organic to the RAN, independent but in support of the Americans, but also in covering the southern hemisphere, could be very, very important, particularly in deterrence and in negotiations.
Its mobile and can be configured as threats arise. The type of weapons its designed to protect from are also fairly short/medium ranged. So maybe only half a dozen sites.
Australia doesn't need total and absolute coverage. Particularly in the north. But there is key infrastructure. Airbases, naval bases, generators, radar sites. Same with the pacific, its not about every island having a shield, but a critical naval port or airbase, sure. Particularly when it comes to projecting power far from mainland Australia.
Off the top of my head?
The Redback IFV has an Elbit systems turret, acquired by the current Government.
We are buying SPIKE LR2 for Redback IFV, Boxer and as our future dismounted ATGW (Javelin replacement). Acquired by the current Government.
RAN has Rafael Typhoon and Mini-Typhoon gun systems and Rafael Toplite EO/IR systems and is buying Rafael Mk.30C 30mm guns for the Hunter Class.
ADF wide Plasan armour solutions are incorporated in ADF platforms.
RAAF is reportedly eye'ing off the Israeli Sea-Breaker anti-ship missile...
Probably more that I can't recall off the top of my head, but there doesn't seem to be too many issues with buying appropriate Israeli kit...
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
That's the problem. Are there enough smart people in Canberra to see this?
downunderblue
Active Member
Do you really think it's from a lack of intellect as you suggest?
It can be very frustrating being a small cog on a very large wheel.
downunderblue
Active Member
I hear you, but in the last 12m it's become a domestic political issue here and most politicians are very risk adverse. What do they gain from approving an arms sale from an Israeli company versus what could they potentially lose or what is the domestic risk associated with the purchase? It's not at all about making the best decision for the ADF.
There are clear divisions within the ALP Caucus, issues of appeasing the Muslim AFP vote given their dissatisfaction over the Gaza conflict, competition after the defection of Senator Fatima Payne/ creation of her Australia's Voice party, and the external pressure applied by the Greens as they throw grenades at the Govt trying to seize an advantage in inner city and working class electorates.
There is even an open letter to the government from 2388 Local, State and Federal public servants (go figure?!). That's a fascinating and potentially alarming read if you have the time to digest it.
My point is? Why stick your head out when you don't have to. Political capital is hard to accrue and has to be preciously used so spending it on Israel makes no sense. If Israel gear is Option A, can we really see any ALP politician favouring that over the non-Israeli Option B?
downunderblue
Active Member
Would INDOPACOM be satisfied with the ABM coverage offered from 6 SM-3 missiles?
Reading between the lines listening to Colby Elbridge and other commentators, I formed the assumption (not sourced) that INDOPACOM wants to utilise their Australian deployed units in the advancement of a forward deployed strategy (operating into SEAsia) not in the protection of Australia, as that was our responsibility?
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
Very nice shots
Another partisan political comment.
downunderblue
Active Member
In what way precisely?
- Partisan Political: describes actions, statements, attitudes, or decisions that are heavily influenced by allegiance to one specific political party or ideology, often at the expense of considering other viewpoints, objective facts, or the broader public interest. It implies bias towards one party's goals and perspectives.
To quote Niccolò Machiavelli in The Prince, Chapter XVII: "For of men it may generally be affirmed that they are thankless, fickle, hypocritical, cowardly, and greedy of gain..."
This quote highlights Machiavelli's largely cynical view of human nature, suggesting that most people are primarily motivated by self-interest and are unreliable in their affections and loyalty.
I think the comment is apolitical within the Australian context. As far as I know, Machiavelli still lies in Florence, and has not nominated as a political candidate nor is a member of any political party according to the Australian Electoral Commision.
In checking though, my discovery of the 'Better Together Party' has raised my eyebrows. They seem a good sort those two. Don't ask me to define my motivations there!
Last edited: