Yes I agree that if we were to join in ona Taiwan excursion we could probably expect something coming back our way. It is interesting the major media players have not really commented on that point though. But a shield to protect Australia is a bit nonsensical given the geography and the budget that could possibly allocated. Who to buy from. Well know your starting to accuse me of thinking the idea through in full ...... but then again as far as technology go's I would not see this at the top of the complexity spectrum. More of an engineering capacity/capability and will power question that we would want to do it. But an interesting capability that must be ultimately cheaper/easier than buying, supporting, manning and sending a sub or a fleet of bombers with strike missiles with a lot less to lose.
Quote from the article "Ray was especially critical of the weapon's utility in the Pacific, where a number of American allies, including Australia and South Korea, have already said they have no interest in hosting them. "Who would we buy it from? The west isn't exactly replete with IRBMs these days. That said, I can see an argument for looking into LRHW if the US eventually made it available to us.
The Army Has Finally Revealed The Range Of Its New Hypersonic Weapon
The missile's range would've violated a now-defunct treaty with Russia and this disclosure comes amid criticism of its utility in the Pacific region.www.thedrive.com
Does this mean Australia is not interested in Hypersonic weapons or LRHW missiles?
Considering Australia is asking for a bigger US presence in the Pacific/Asia. So we are going to say to them bring your ships with nuclear missiles but not your LRHW.
Peter Dutton flags more US troops on Australian soil citing potential China conflict
Defence minister says increased presence good for both countries and it’s time for a discussion about ‘threats we face’
www.theguardian.com
Also we have a research agreement with the USA into air launched hypersonic weapons.
Department of Defense Announces New Allied Prototyping Initiative Effort With Australia to
The U.S. Department of Defense and the Australian Department of Defence announced a bilateral effort to advance the development of air-breathing hypersonic technologies.
www.defense.gov
Homepage - Hypersonix
REVOLUTIONISING HYPERSONIC TECHNOLOGY Hypersonix is Australia’s leading aerospace engineering, design and build company,specialising in hypersonic technology and scramjet engines. Reusable Technology Our reusable launch technology and engines provide superior speed, performance and reliability...
hypersonix.com.au
Australian Army is concidering long range strike like the HIMARS. Why isn't the LRHW in the mix? I'm guessing the technology hasn't matured but it is just around the corner.
Regards
DD
BTW none of these claims are linked to sources as they are freely advailable using google. Is that okay?
No Worries problem solved!!!
@Depot Dog The claims are not common knowledge so they should be linked to sources. After all this is an international forum so many posters and readers, myself included, will not be aware of the info in your claims. Let it go this time but something to remember for the future.
Ngatimozart.
Last edited:
Boagrius
Well-Known Member
It's an interesting question, because if we are looking seriously at long-range strike, then LRHW would definitely give us that, and do so in a package that could launch repeated salvos from Australian territory with relative impunity. Given that the lower bound for the max range is cited as 2775km, you're talking about a system that might very well reach out and touch the SCS from our far north, and certainly from somewhere like Christmas Island. I would not be surprised to find that the resistance to something like LRHW wanes as the strategic environment continues to change, but time shall tell.
I think that at some stage Australia may have to consider the politically suicidal option and consider the nuclear option. If Japan at any stage develops and fields its own nuclear weapons, especially with American approval, then Australia should expect the same support from the US. A long range strike capability comprising of nuclear tipped IRBM would give the PRC some cause for concern, especially if you possessed a second strike capability.
However there has to be the political will for such a program and I believe at present that's highly doubtful. Secondly, there has to be public support but I understand that is even less than the political will. Thirdly, it's not going to be cheap by any standard and it will be a considerable drain on national resources.
There are other WMD besides nukes and that depends upon how cold blooded your pollies are. TBH the CCP won't be overly concerned if a few millions, even tens of millions, of their population are wartime casualties. To make a big difference you have to either decapitate the leadership or kill hundreds of millions. The leadership will be in very secure quarters and the second option is not really acceptable to an Aussie or a Kiwi. It's not how we think or do things. However when the nation is in extremis sometimes we have to open the darkest vaults in the deepest pit of Hell in order to survive.
Do you have the moral fortitude to both use this as a deterrent and use it if and when required? If you don't then don't go down this road because it is something that cannot be done half arsed; it's either all or nothing.
However there has to be the political will for such a program and I believe at present that's highly doubtful. Secondly, there has to be public support but I understand that is even less than the political will. Thirdly, it's not going to be cheap by any standard and it will be a considerable drain on national resources.
There are other WMD besides nukes and that depends upon how cold blooded your pollies are. TBH the CCP won't be overly concerned if a few millions, even tens of millions, of their population are wartime casualties. To make a big difference you have to either decapitate the leadership or kill hundreds of millions. The leadership will be in very secure quarters and the second option is not really acceptable to an Aussie or a Kiwi. It's not how we think or do things. However when the nation is in extremis sometimes we have to open the darkest vaults in the deepest pit of Hell in order to survive.
Do you have the moral fortitude to both use this as a deterrent and use it if and when required? If you don't then don't go down this road because it is something that cannot be done half arsed; it's either all or nothing.
Boagrius
Well-Known Member
I think that's a very "cross that bridge when you come to it" question, and mercifully I don't think we have to seriously contemplate it just yet. For the time being I would view a system like LRHW (armed with conventional warheads) as another means for Australia to implement its current strategy - one that appears to revolve around forward defence and securing our SLOC. I suppose you really need to be clear on what you want your long-range strike capability to achieve in this context, but I can see the argument for LRHW or similar here, especially if it can eventually be used as an anti-shipping weapon.
t68
Well-Known Member
While I do not agree that the AusGov should have nuclear weapons, but if were to wait until we to cross the bridge I would imagine then it would be to late anyway, getting nuclear weapons into the ADF is the same as trying to regenerate a strike carrier capability in the RAN
Beside I think the ADF has missed the boat by about 70 years when the poms were letting off there own firecrackers in our own backyard
and food for thought
Should Australia build its own nuclear arsenal? | The Strategist (aspistrategist.org.au)
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Nuclear bombs won't happen, that has long passed and now the civil and political views won't allow for it let alone the geopolitical fall out from such a move outside of china.
While we might not be keen on hosting US weapons at least on a permanent basis it won't mean we want something like a LRHW in the future. Having our own weapons outside of US control is politically more palatable to the region then Australia just hosting US weapons. If it's our own then it's us who others need to talk with, if it's a US unit based in Australia then becomes far more complicated.
We may be investing in facilities to house some of the best none nuclear weapons the US has but that is more of an insurance then anything else.
While we might not be keen on hosting US weapons at least on a permanent basis it won't mean we want something like a LRHW in the future. Having our own weapons outside of US control is politically more palatable to the region then Australia just hosting US weapons. If it's our own then it's us who others need to talk with, if it's a US unit based in Australia then becomes far more complicated.
We may be investing in facilities to house some of the best none nuclear weapons the US has but that is more of an insurance then anything else.
To Quote Mao Zedong
“We shouldn’t be afraid of atomic missiles. No matter what kind of war breaks out, conventional or nuclear, we will win… If the imperialists unleash war on us, we may lose more than 300 million people. So what? War is war. The years will pass and we will get to work making more babies than ever before.”
Mao Zedong to Nikita Khrushchev, 1957
It is frightening to think the CCP thinks that way and he is not at war with you. With the 2021 threat of missile retaliation as per post: 1,356. We really need to think what this what these jokers are capable of. Then have a hard discussion on what we are prepared to do about it.
Regards
DD
My point was never about nuclear weapons. The political climate will not allow nuclear weapons at this point of time. I am talking missiles armed with conventional warheads.
We have 20 plus years of Hypersonic experiance at the University of Queensland. The includes launching ground based rockets. They achieved hypersonic speed successfully during these launches. They have made a successful scram jet engine that powers a vehicals at hypersonic speed. Our partners are USA defence, NASA and our agencies.
Hypersonics - School of Mechanical & Mining Engineering - University of Queensland
Today we are in partnership with the USA and BAE designing a air launched air to ground hypersonic missile.
Australia’s new sovereign hypersonic capability
BAE is expected to invest another $5 million throughout 2021 to research creating an Australian-based hypersonic missile capability. BAE Systems Australia today confirmed that they are looking to deve
We already have launched a ground based hypersonic concept missile. To me why don't we combine the two projects and develop an air and ground launched missile. This is a possible alternative for the army long range missile project. It's not fantasy just a possibility. We have the smarts, we just need the political will, money and a General to make the request.
Regards
DD
Last edited:
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Mao’s comment to Nikita was conformation Russia should be concerned about its southern neighbour, something Vlad seems to be forgetful about.
Boagrius
Well-Known Member
The difference is that an IRBM class weapon like the LRHW uses a hypersonic glide vehicle (HGV) rather than an air-breathing hypersonic cruise missile (HCM). AFAIK the hypersonics research conducted in Australia to date (with scramjets etc) has been entirely directed at more HCM-like applications. This probably wouldn't give us the reach we are talking about here, at least not without using a truly enormous and expensive missile (ref the Chinese DF-100). I suspect we'd be relying on the US for an HGV based system, and even theirs isn't ready yet.My point was never about nuclear weapons. The political climate will not allow nuclear weapons at this point of time. I am talking missiles armed with conventional warheads.
We have 20 plus years of Hypersonic experiance at the University of Queensland. The includes launching ground based rockets. They achieved hypersonic speed successfully during these launches. They have made a successful scram jet engine that powers a vehicals at hypersonic speed. Our partners are USA defence, NASA and our agencies.
Hypersonics - School of Mechanical & Mining Engineering - University of Queensland
mechmining.uq.edu.au
Today we are in partnership with the USA and BAE designing a air launched air to ground hypersonic missile.
Australia’s new sovereign hypersonic capability
BAE is expected to invest another $5 million throughout 2021 to research creating an Australian-based hypersonic missile capability. BAE Systems Australia today confirmed that they are looking to devewww.defenceconnect.com.au
We already have launched a ground based hypersonic concept missile. To me why don't we combine the two projects and develop an air and ground launched missile. This is a possible alternative for the army long range missile project. It's not fantasy just a possibility. We have the smarts, we just need the political will, money and a General to make the request.
Regards
DD
Last edited:
Gryphinator
Active Member
A HCM would have better range if they were on a submarine. A new, custom built sub that's in its design phase, fitted with strategic weapons-could be just crazy enough to work...
Boagrius
Well-Known Member
Plausible, but that would mean installing a VLS on the Attack class (which, admittedly I have advocated for in the past) and possibly quite a large one at that. Not a given by any means.
My suspicion is that any domestically developed HCMs will be air launched at least to begin with, but I doubt you'd be looking at LRHW level reach (roughly JASSM-esque seems more likely). With a more modestly sized missile you can go very far or you can go very fast, but not both at once ;-)
Last edited:
I'm not sure if we need to go the full nuclear option.
But I would be taking a hard look at south Korea. They have their own ballistic missiles, they can launch them from their subs vertically. We can make ourselves a much closer near nuclear power, while making more credible conventional strike capability.
I don't see us sending troops to Taiwan. Maybe a Hobart. Maybe P8's operating out of Japan.
Australia's role in that conflict will be closing/protecting the Malacca, Sunda and Lombok straits.
IMO time is running out. China movements and actions seem to indicate things are going to come to a head one way or another fairly soon. We should focus more on what capability can we actually add <5 years.
To that end I propose we add vertical launch capability to the Collins class during their refit (at least to two subs). 7 Tomahwak missile VLS.
Acquire 4th squadron of F-35
Acquire 24 x GE FA-50 or T7 as both training and non-stealthy self defence/support platforms. (the remaining acquisition can just be regular trainers)
Acquire 2 x more P8's
Acquire 24 x tlam for Collins and the AWD
Acquire Sm-6 x 32
Acquire Sm-3IIA x 8 for the AWD/Hunters
Acquire NSM x 64 for frigates and AWD replacing harpoon
Most of these are either expansions of existing capability, or already existing acquisition projects/programs. Munitions are fairly cheap, and readily able to bring into service.
I don't think we can continue to plan that any great power conflict is going to wait until after 2030 or even 2040.
But I would be taking a hard look at south Korea. They have their own ballistic missiles, they can launch them from their subs vertically. We can make ourselves a much closer near nuclear power, while making more credible conventional strike capability.
I don't see us sending troops to Taiwan. Maybe a Hobart. Maybe P8's operating out of Japan.
Australia's role in that conflict will be closing/protecting the Malacca, Sunda and Lombok straits.
IMO time is running out. China movements and actions seem to indicate things are going to come to a head one way or another fairly soon. We should focus more on what capability can we actually add <5 years.
To that end I propose we add vertical launch capability to the Collins class during their refit (at least to two subs). 7 Tomahwak missile VLS.
Acquire 4th squadron of F-35
Acquire 24 x GE FA-50 or T7 as both training and non-stealthy self defence/support platforms. (the remaining acquisition can just be regular trainers)
Acquire 2 x more P8's
Acquire 24 x tlam for Collins and the AWD
Acquire Sm-6 x 32
Acquire Sm-3IIA x 8 for the AWD/Hunters
Acquire NSM x 64 for frigates and AWD replacing harpoon
Most of these are either expansions of existing capability, or already existing acquisition projects/programs. Munitions are fairly cheap, and readily able to bring into service.
I don't think we can continue to plan that any great power conflict is going to wait until after 2030 or even 2040.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #1,376
I have to ask this question; which items on the above list could realistically be acquired and integrated into the ADF within the next five years?
From what I am aware of, fitting VLS to the Collins-class SSG could technically be done, but it would be a significant modification requiring either the addition of a hull plug, or removal and/or rearranging of existing kit within the sub to free up space for the VLS and requisite control systems. Unless such design work was already underway (and more likely would need to have already been completed and approved) I do not foresee all the work required being able to be completed within a ~five year span.
A number of these items I think are realistic if considered as aspirations. For instance, developing plans to add NSM, SM-3 and SM-6 to the ADF's inventory, and integrating the ordnance to the appropriate platforms as them become available. Making plans (or adding as a design requirement if it is not already required) for the Attack-class SSG to be fitted with a VLS appropriate for launching LACM/AShM of up to UGM-109 Tomahawk-size.
Ordering the fourth F-35 squadron could certainly be done, but unless things have changed, I do not believe delivery would come before until near the end of the decade. The T-7 Red Hawk could also be ordered (either as a replacement for the Hawk 127 or to augment them) but I doubt it would be realistic to think they could be delivered within five years, never mind being able to be stood up as a functioning capability. The USAF currently has a plan to purchase 351 T-7's to replace the current force of T-38 trainers, but the USAF order could increase to 475 aircraft under the current contract. With production having just started in February, and with Boeing expecting this line to continue after the F-15 and F-18 lines close this decade, I would expect that it will be several years at least before production slots for a hypothetical RAAF order might become available.
Upgrading the subs is certainly a bold option, but one at least worth looking into.
The USS Washington was a converted SSN to SSBN and that occurred quite quickly, as did the Russian conversion of its Zulus. Obviously products of a different time and age. However, as you are already cracking them open, and doing a lot of work, they are an existing platform, it is possible that such work could be completed in less than 5 years. It would be a challenging project, and <5 years would be a challenging demand. However, they are likely to be out of the water for 3-5 years anyway, with their life extension. Doing this may not significantly impact the timing of the program at all. But there is risk, and certainly expense.
There really isn't any spare space on the Collins, they are quite space constrained as most subs are. I am talking about a hull plug. Not a large one, probably 1-2 m in length. However, for that you have a stealthy survivable platform that can make long range strikes and dash. It would be a real leap in capability and a real adjustment and realization of how the strategic situation has changed.
Waiting for the Attack class really pushes the time frame out. Particularly if you are waiting for later batches for that type of capability. Could be decades before FOC of a single sub. So we either upgrade Collins with that capability, or we essentially go forward without it. I certainly think its worth considering for both classes.
Aircraft.. if the T-7 can't be done in the timeframe, then t-50/FA-50. Which is essentially a lower powered, higher availability F-16. It is already in production. It could be upgraded with the 414 engine. While the T-7 might be a superior trainer, if its not available until the mid 2030's, then we may be at the stage where we need things now rather than later.
There are of course other projects..
The USS Washington was a converted SSN to SSBN and that occurred quite quickly, as did the Russian conversion of its Zulus. Obviously products of a different time and age. However, as you are already cracking them open, and doing a lot of work, they are an existing platform, it is possible that such work could be completed in less than 5 years. It would be a challenging project, and <5 years would be a challenging demand. However, they are likely to be out of the water for 3-5 years anyway, with their life extension. Doing this may not significantly impact the timing of the program at all. But there is risk, and certainly expense.
There really isn't any spare space on the Collins, they are quite space constrained as most subs are. I am talking about a hull plug. Not a large one, probably 1-2 m in length. However, for that you have a stealthy survivable platform that can make long range strikes and dash. It would be a real leap in capability and a real adjustment and realization of how the strategic situation has changed.
Waiting for the Attack class really pushes the time frame out. Particularly if you are waiting for later batches for that type of capability. Could be decades before FOC of a single sub. So we either upgrade Collins with that capability, or we essentially go forward without it. I certainly think its worth considering for both classes.
Aircraft.. if the T-7 can't be done in the timeframe, then t-50/FA-50. Which is essentially a lower powered, higher availability F-16. It is already in production. It could be upgraded with the 414 engine. While the T-7 might be a superior trainer, if its not available until the mid 2030's, then we may be at the stage where we need things now rather than later.
There are of course other projects..
Well this is all a very ugly and reluctant conversation.
I think we can all agree, none of us want such terrible outcomes.
I'm sure all of us would prefer the major players to talk through the issues to achieve a peaceful outcome.
So is history repeating itself, or are we blowing things up out of all proportion to what they actually are?
I don't know, but I do have concerns
So is their strength in unity against against a conversationalist shy aggressor.
Yes
But how far do we / you commit to this unity when talking about the N word.
Hmmmmmmm!
Do we seek to increase our military capacity where possible and what would we emphasis.
I would say yes,
But at this stage its about dollars ,priority's and being realistic.
There is no magic Q Store to buy stuff.
Aspirations even with a blank cheque take time.
Probably our best potential defence is economic.
"Iron Ore"
If we played very ,very hard with this one commodity even the CCP would take note.
How would they react?
How would the global community support both our use of this economic leverage and how the PRC responds to this " hostility "would be part of the decision to go down this path.
The other major consideration is doing the math on lost Iron Ore revenue to China and all that that entails.
Certainly not underestimating it's a very big economic call, but so is spending a F&^k tonne on military hardware.
Stopping exports is a bigger card to play than sending ships to the SCS; but we should still commit to freedom of the sea's this none the less.
So yes we can and should up gun ships and planes , but our true trump card are our export recourses.
We are not at this stage yet, but it should be apart of our broad holistic defence inventory.
It's certainly apart of China's kit bag of "Diplomacy "
Regards S
t68
Well-Known Member
Yep restricting essential exports to China is a bold move one that equally hurts both sides, so far the Chinese have only really put trade sanctions on goods they can get elsewhere
Iron Ore might be China's Achilles heel much in the same way as when Roosevelt signed the Export Control Act in July 1940 then about 12mths later the US froze all Japanese assets in the US, would things get this far I do not know but we all know what happened next.
Gryphinator
Active Member
I don't know about shoe horning a VLS onto our Collins at refit, but I certainly do believe it's an absolute must on the Attack Class.