Possibly but I think the down side will be the number of ATACMS that the HIMARS can carry. Preference would be for an existing anti ship missile in the ADF inventory but ATACMS shouldn't be discounted from the thinking.
Understood.
Can't help but feel the 500km range is a massive upside though in a world where detection is solved (bold statement I know).
Regards,
Massive
Agree. The anti ship missile system for Army was the surprise in DCP. A 500 km missile will draw flies politically and become a target for the left anti defence groups, media and an easy "cut" for the opposition who could portray it as a controversial and regionally destabilising addition to the ADF. An existing anti ship missile is likely to offend or give the left something else to whinge about.
I agree with this. I think everyone here is focusing on the defensive aspects of GBAD/CRAM etc, when that is only half the story. The main driver behind the enhancement of these capabilities is for them to be 'offensive', or have an effect on the enemy beyond simply force protection.
As has been mentioned before, imagine placing a NASAMs detachment, ASM missile detachment and rifle company for force protection on the ground somewhere near a choke point in the archipelago to our North. With very little investment we would prevent the use of the choke point to the enemy, with the effort required by the enemy to open it being massively disproportionate to the friendly forces committed. Add in the threat of a submarine in the area, a surface task force within a day or two sailing distance and the possibility of the air force being able to project combat aircraft to the area and the tactical problem for the enemy becomes extreme. It certainly ticks the box for the 'economy of force' principle of war.
I certainly agree with this. I think it is a given that the ASM will be fired from a HIMARS launcher, and a derivative of the ATACMS. While potentially not as effective as a dedicated ASM, it would be far more efficient and flexible, and again the problem for the enemy is they have to treat every HIMARS they see as though it is also an ASM launcher.
The new ATACMS 'Block 2' for want of a better description is being designed to allow 2x such weapons per HIMARS launcher, as well as provide a substantial range increase and perhaps offer ASM seekers.
I should have also mentioned that 500 km exceeds the current Missile Technology Control Regime which the US & Australia are signatories to. 300 km is the cap. If ATACMS anti ship version only comes in a 500 km range variant, then it's unlikely that the US will offer it for export. My quote above should have read "An existing anti ship missile is "less" likely to offend or give the left something else to whinge about".
That only relates to missiles able to carry a 500kg payload, If it is below this payload then it isn't blocked by the treaty.
It is likely one of the reasons why US missiles never tend to have payloads exceeding 450kg.
Looking at current or future ASM's in the range we want and what we are likely to use in other platforms in the future I'd say the Tomahawk, SM-6 and LRASM are viable options.
The way I read it is that both the 500km and 500kg limits apply. I had a look at the Missile Technology Control Regime website FAQS - para 13.
True and the ATACMS unitary warhead is 500 lb but could it be capable of carrying a 500 kg payload? Probably and that's the important bit. So ATACMS has a published range of 300 km (well according to LM web site) and that range restriction automatically gets it under the threshold. ASM? Yes, yes & yes with NSM in the mix.
3CRU based at Williamtown & 114MCRU based at Darwin man the TPS-77's. They also have a couple of deployable PRISM ESM kits that have been deployed on exercise with 16AL in the past.
AGM-158 JASSM breaches the range limit under MCTR rules, but these are listed as category II items under this treaty and I suspect ATACMS Block II would be as well... Cat II are discretionary...
Not unreasonable questions. I'm sure Australia watches the new capabilities of our neighbours both near and far as I'm sure they do with us. In a region of friends our quest for a long range ASM may bring a helping contribution to the greater defence of the region. Given many of our neighbourly relationships have a history that is somewhat friendship elastic over the decades I'm not completely sold on acquiring such a system for both Geo / Political expediency and defence value for money
Not sure if the attributes of the system are worth the fallout and that is the feeling of someone who sits somewhat in the political middle ground
Regards S
ATACMS is essentially a short range ballistic missile with some counter measure maneuvering in the terminal phase of the flight. A ballistic missile with 500 km? I think the US would be reluctant to sell them to friends regardless of where it (ATACMS II) may categorized in the MCTR.. Interesting project.
I can't remember how the White Paper or DCP defined the need for a coastal ASM capability but we could be all jumping the gun (or missile) on what may meet the requirement. I like the idea, they are cheap, mobile and can deny access to much larger and more expensive assets but it's a capability that is probably low down the required list and therefore why potentially offend the neighbours.
The already have sold ATACMS in it's current form to many allies (Bahrain, UAE, Greece, Turkey and South Korea...)
I don't think an upgraded weapon would be any different.
Ignoring the range, missile treaties, anti ship capability, offending neighbours discussion - do you think ATACMS should be part of a future HIMARS acquisition? Can we make maximum use of it's capability? I am new, so I am interested and listening.
I have no doubt whatsoever that it will be, given the DWP2016 specifically mentioned the rocket artillery capability is to provide Army with a precision strike capability out to / in excess of 300k's. Even if we were to look at adding the Boeing ground-launched SDBI capability to the standard MLRs / GMLRS rocket mix, that weapon is looking at a 180k range, IIRC, which is clearly far shorter than our defence planners are envisaging.
As for maximising use of it's capability, certainly we have ranges available (unlike many countries) where we can make full use of a weapon with such terrific range in a training environment, and operationally, I can see a strong need and indeed have often called in the past for our Army to be equipped with far greater firepower than they traditionally have been.
As for need, we traditionally base our capabilities on 'like' capabilities within our region and what we may need further afield on expeditionary operations. Well our neighbours operate mixed fleets of towed light and medium guns, self-propelled guns and rocket artillery systems many (or most...) of which significantly outrange our in-direct fires capability, even in it's current upgraded form and most maintain rocket systems that provide significantly greater firepower than we are (or have ever been) able to provide.
Now deep fires have traditionally been a RAAF provided capability. Which was fine in concept. But RAAF can only be in so many places at once and it is truly putting 'all your eggs' in the one basket. The idea they could fight their own battles and provide all of Army's (and Navy's) long ranged air defence and CAS / long ranged strike needs with just 4 operational fighter squadrons, always seemed just a tad far-fetched to me.
As defence are beginning to wake up to the necessity of required a capability of being able to defend ourselves from air attack (and long ranged fires) without direct RAAF support so it seems is the realisation begining to dawn upon our esteemed leaders, that our in-direct fires are significantly short of where they need to be in this modern age even simply compared to our regional neighbours, let alone any more stringent combat scenarios we may face, and I for one applaud the idea.
OK. It adds another capability to the offensive mix. Takes the pressure off the RAAF to do everything over the horizon and as you commented, RAAF's 4 -5 squadrons will be stretched in a conflict conducted in all three spaces (Land, Sea & Air) . If we are going to have an artillery rocket system, we may as well have the full mix of munitions that go with it. We don't necessarily have to maintain a lot of ATACMS in the inventory but enough to be proficient in their support and application in a conflict.
kiwipatriot69
Active Member
In a related matter, what do posters here especially aussie ones make of North Koreas recent threats to nuke austraila for condemning their policies and supporting Trump? Is it in the realm of possibilty they could develop an ICBM capable within his first term even?
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Australia is under the US Nuclear umbrella at present, so any attack on Australia will supposedly draw immediate retaliation from the US. That threat alone should keep any aggressors at bay but with Kim, who knows?
In a related matter, what do posters here especially aussie ones make of North Koreas recent threats to nuke austraila for condemning their policies and supporting Trump? Is it in the realm of possibilty they could develop an ICBM capable within his first term even?
Our Minister for Defence Industry Christopher Pyne told a gathering at a Australian Strategic Planning Institute Dinner(ASPI)that a announcement on a very expensive ABM capability is comming soon, probably a BMD upgrade for the Hobart class DDGs.
Australia did actually look very closely at developing Nuclear Weapons back in the 60s and supposedly one of the reasons we got the F-111s.