Intra...within
Inter...between
Not really, though it's easy to speed read past it and see what you expected.
oldsig127
Inter...between
Not really, though it's easy to speed read past it and see what you expected.
oldsig127
OldTex
Well-Known Member
There are several possibilities for the type of aircraft. Each will have advantages and disadvantages. There is also the operation and sustainment of the aircraft, including how the selected aircraft gets to and from the Antarctic. It is not necessarily an ADF task, and in fact it is more likely to be a contracted solution managed by AAD. The choices will be very interesting to watch.
Last edited:
Anyone have thoughts on the options for the four helicopters?I read today that the fed gov announced a new Antarctic drone fleet, 4 medium lift helicopter with a 550 km range and investigation into Intercontinental aero planes. Can anyone shed any light on what aircraft these capabilities might involve? Apparently aimed at securing our foothold in Antartica and the Southern ocean.
$800 million to strengthen Australia's leadership in Antarctica – Australian Antarctic Program (News 2022)
Funding to support updated Australian Antarctic Strategy and 20 Year Action Planwww.antarctica.gov.au
- $35 million for four new medium lift helicopters with a range of 550 kilometres that when launched from the Nuyina can access parts of the continent we could never reach previously
Interestingly, the Antarctic division website specifically calls out S-92s as an example of medium life helicopters that can fit in the Nuyina's hanger:
Helicopters
The bit that doesn't make sense is that from what I can see a new build S-92 goes for USD25 - 30m each. So how does the AUD35m stack up? Unless they're going to be leased and/or that's only operating costs and not capital costs.
Yes, but that was in the the Torres Strait, the whole of which is in territorial waters, ours or PNG's. However, it is an "international strait" in terms of international law (because it is a major shipping transit route) therefore although we "own" it we are required to allow ships on innocent passage free access to it, without let or hindrance. Provided these ships didn't do anything on the not allowed list while in the Strait (and they don't appear to have), what ever they might have done while in internation waters or even our EEZ while outside territorial waters, then they are perfectly entitled to be there without the prior approval that is required before a warship enters the normal territorial sea of another country.
Last edited:
I would assume leased, the current fleet are leased aswell. Cheers. Helicopters
Rock the kasbah
Active Member
Do you think we will purchase equipment in Europe and hand it over
I hope this link works. I am not sure if it is behind a paywall or not.
The gist of it is that strike capability, particularly long range strike capability should become Australia's priority. Greg Sheridan points out that if the Ukraine had several thousand missiles that could hit any part of Russia then perhaps the invasion would not have occurred in the first place. Certainly the idea of the Kremlin being reduced to a pile of rubble would serve to disincentivise Russia's leaders.
His answer is that Australia should be looking at an initial buy of around 2000 tomahawks eventually expanding that inventory to many times more than that. He argues that we are currently wasting billions on capability that is not relevant.
He then goes on a rant about cancelling the Hunters and getting ABs instead, building more Collins, doubling the size of the air force and so on.
While I don't necessarily share his views about turning Ararfuras into battleships and the like, I do agree with the overall sentiment that nothing discourages an enemy more than knowing you can strike back at them at any distance with lethal force and that should certainly become one of the priorities for Australia. As to how that can be achieved needs to be further examined.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Yes it is behind a Paywall, 2000 Tomahawks!!!!, well we will need all those Burkes to launch the Bl***y things
Big ships still have a place, as do Tomahawks and all the other bits of kit within the ADF, both planned and in current inventory.
The challenge is finding the correct balance and being able to fund your expectations.
Regards S
cdxbow
Well-Known Member
I think he is suggesting a land based missile force. As you point out hard for us get massed fires from the RAN's limited platforms.Yes it is behind a Paywall, 2000 Tomahawks!!!!, well we will need all those Burkes to launch the Bl***y things
I always reckon Sheridans a bit of a dill, despite this a substantial land based missile force is an idea whose time has come. Being able to project a massed maritime strike out to around 1800km off the coast (without an aircraft or ship) is a big jump in capability for the ADF for pretty modest cost. Not expecting us to buy 2000, something like 500 would be more than enough to fill the RANs needs and keep a substantial number for a continental based maritime strike. If they were really clever the ADF would select a launcher that could also launch standard missiles, so they could be woven into an air defence network in the future. The ADL from BAE is an example of such a launcher.
I think his main gist is that we are again buying gold plated capabilities that won’t be delivered for 10 more years.
If we can’t get a major capability boost for 10 years turn what can be done to add lethality to existing platforms quickly and he makes some good points.
I don’t see any problem with land based tomahawk launchers.
I don’t see any issue with adding any practical weapons to existing platforms and buying more off the shelf platforms like a another 6-10 P8s and equipping those with long range anti ship missiles.
I don’t agree with cancelling hunters but if we come up with the cash instead of coming up with another naval platform or restating the Hobart line could it be at all possible we 3-4 build arleigh burkes here? In hind sight it probably would of been the right decision 15 years ago when the hobarts were selected but it’s a wonderful thing hindsight. All of the issues that tend to drag our builds out must be ironed out on the arleighs by now.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #1,972
I can see a number of problems with attempting to have land-based Tomahawks. Apart from the costs involved (USD$2 mil. per missile for FY2022...), all sorts of force structure and infrastructure questions would need to be answered, as well as how such a capability would be utilized in Australian service. I will be honest and state that I do not think such a capability would be particularly easily for Australia to bring to an operational level, or be particularly useful, and certainly not for the likely costs involved. In many respects it sounds much like proposals and assertions about turning ~1,600 tonne OPV's into warships equivalent to FFG's.
Firstly, would these proposed Tomahawk missiles be in launchers at a fixed location, would be they be mobile in vehicle, trailer, or even train car-mounted launchers? If the launchers are fixed, then Australia just put a large "Shoot Here" sign on wherever the launch site is. If the missiles are supposed to be mobile, then vehicle systems for all the necessary bits to actually launch the cruise missiles need to be produced and integrated into Australian military service. IMO this would not be a particularly easy task, as I suspect quite a few vehicles would be required to enable a strike of useful/effective size. Each TEL from when ground-launched Tomahawks were in service, could transport four missiles, and multiple TEL's would be required, as well as command & control vehicles, comms, etc.
There would also need to a OODA loop setup, with assets needed to provide the observation capability and target quality data. Without that, Tomahawks would only be useful to hit fixed targets that are within range of the launch site. To provide some context, a launch site near Darwin could potentially reach out into Indonesian waters around the southern portion of the Celebes Sea ~1,800 km away. Such a distant target would also take ~2hrs for the missiles to reach the target, which would present a problem if the target was supposed to be a ship or taskforce. Such a target if only cruising at 18 kts could easily be over 60 km away from where they were at the time of missile launch. Therefore some observation asset would need to be able to provide regular, frequent updates of target quality data which could then be relayed to the missiles while in route. Before any were to suggest it, whilst JORN provides a very good, wide area surveillance capability, it does NOT provide target quality data, additional systems would be required for that. Also, I would expect that Australia would be rather reluctant to blindly fire missiles at contacted detected 1,800 km away, without first identifying what the contact was.
As mentioned, the range of a Tomahawk tops out around 1,800 km, so apart from being able to hit targets in Indonesia, or in Indonesian waters, any land-based launchers would be limited in target options when based in Australia. Good luck getting permission for Australia to have land-based Tomahawk launchers operating in another country. Final note for this idea. 2k Tomahawk missiles works out to ~USD$4 bil. for just the missiles alone. It does not include any vehicles or launchers, any control systems, training and maintenance, etc. It also does not provide for any of the additional personnel that the ADF would need in order to operate and maintain the missiles and launchers, never mind whatever surveillance systems and comms arrays in order for Australia to be able to detect, target, and then engage something with land-based Tomahawks.
As for the idea of Australia building Arleigh Burke-class DDG's, in Australia... Yes, I suppose that is a possibility. However, the designs would all need to either be re-worked since the USN does not use the exact same systems as Australia for a number of things, or the RAN would need to adopt the exact same specific pieces of kit the USN uses aboard their DDG's. In short, the things that the US ironed out with their destroyer builds would not necessarily translate into an Australian build, because the two builds would not be identical. There would also be the reality that whatever Australian yard were to do such a build would still have a bit of a learning curve getting up to speed on the design.
cdxbow
Well-Known Member
The launchers would be mobile.
We already have significant maritime surveillance assets and are getting more. If we can't track an opponents task force within 1800km of Oz then we are royally f****** already. I don't see this as an insoluble issue in the 21C. In fact the more I think about it the more I see this as a strawman argument - what strike asset doesn't need accurate targeting data?
From my understanding, with inflight programming and networking, a surface task force moving 60kms during it's flight time should not provide any significant problem unless it was on the extreme margins of range. That's the precise reason these technologies have been developed was to solve the problem of your example.
Many countries have managed to successfully fire missiles from launchers! I'm sure we can do it.
In general missile forces tend be low cost to maintain and two million AUD a missile is cheap in the scheme of things. LRASM is more than twice that. I'm not sure expense can ever be used as an argument against a land based missile force, In terms of bang for buck nothing can match it, yes it's a single use sort of asset but it adds another string to the bow of the ADF. Other than aircraft launched munitions we have no other way to defeat a large sea task force at a distance and do it again, and again. The RAN surface ships weapons have neither the range nor the mass. Subs potentially could, but again we are extremely limited by numbers.
The presence of land based maritime strike complicates an opponents problems and limits their options.
It would give the RAN a tactical advantage in engagements around our coast, a modern day version of fighting under the fortress guns.
Not sure why you say that as it features in quite a number of the CoA documents including getting a mention by Mr Morrison - Press Conference - Canberra, ACT | Prime Minister of Australia (pm.gov.au) Keeping the wolves from the door is always a good strategy. Improving our ability to do that in the declining security situation we find ourselves in would seem to be wise.
I can't say I disagree with what you say fleet size but unfortunately it's irrelevant because we have a ship building plan which guarantees we won't get any new major surface combatants for a decade.
Boagrius
Well-Known Member
As has been discussed earlier in the thread, one issue is that striking targets in PRC territory is probably not on our to-do list. This leaves the question of what effects our long range strike capability should provide. My suspicion is that we are left with attempting A2/AD effects in our immediate region and its approaches.
Realistically if you were going to take that path you'd be looking at the US MRC solution based around the Typhon mobile TEL. This would give you Tomahawk, SM6 and LRASM to potentially play with. Whether it could provide the needed effects in the desired timeframe is another question though.
Considering the time and cost, and simple fact to my knowledge there are no currently fielded ground launchers for the Tomahawk it is a risky costly program whose use would be limited with out it at the same time being tied in with either airborne or spaceborne systems to have an accurate and upto date/time picture of the target. And if you are already having airborne targets on station watching them why the hell not just fit those with ASM's and use them? The proposal to be effective requires two different systems to work in consort with each other when you could do the job with just one of them (The aerial assets).
As to the cost, Well I imagine the NASAM's would be a good starting price range for something like this if not more, Program cost of $2 billion AUD for 2 batterys of NASAM's (Each battery with 3 troops, Each troop I would imagine having 4? launchers so 24 launchers all up? + various support vehicles etc) but taking into account Tomahawk more costly, Size and weight would require even larger support vehicles then a comparable NASAM battery each battery could be pushing $1.5 - $2 billion a peice and number of Tomahawks suggested even taking away ones for RAN could support a half dozen batterys being reloaded 5 times over so $9 - $12 billion or more... Very cheap deal. Buy now and will throw in a toaster.
As to the cost, Well I imagine the NASAM's would be a good starting price range for something like this if not more, Program cost of $2 billion AUD for 2 batterys of NASAM's (Each battery with 3 troops, Each troop I would imagine having 4? launchers so 24 launchers all up? + various support vehicles etc) but taking into account Tomahawk more costly, Size and weight would require even larger support vehicles then a comparable NASAM battery each battery could be pushing $1.5 - $2 billion a peice and number of Tomahawks suggested even taking away ones for RAN could support a half dozen batterys being reloaded 5 times over so $9 - $12 billion or more... Very cheap deal. Buy now and will throw in a toaster.
Obsession might not be the right word. I think the objective is area denial and denial of manoeuvre. It would certainly be a deterrent. Not the thought of lobbing missiles into foreign country but a long range naval strike capacity puts any navy coming into our waters at risk. Another arrow in the quiver To keep any enemy as far from our shore as possible.
Assuming the numbers generated by Vonoobie are about right …no reason to think they would not, it’s means for less than the cost of 3 destoyers we get a fleet of unsinkable missile carriers that can be deployed to our north.
WhiLe it is a 1 trick pony compared to a aircraft or destroyer the cost of the missile carrier and ability to reload would be substantially less. Do we need 2000 tomahawks at $2 Mil $US each …. That might be a bit OTT but a fleet of 24 luanchers with 4 missiles each is more than
the entire Australian navy could launch if every vessel was available. Add 4 x reloads and training loads …. all up about 500 missiles at $2m each.
As for plane launched I don’t think any aircraft in Australian inventory can carry a tomahawk.
This what the US marines are working on. U.S. Marines Experimenting with Tomahawk for Land-Attack and Anti-Ship Missions - Naval News
and there are some costings on this war zone article.
Marines Set To Be The First To Bring Back Land-Based Tomahawk Missiles Post-INF Treaty
The Marine Corps wants to use the ground-launched cruise missiles primarily as long-range anti-ship weapons.
www.thedrive.com
Last edited:
Gryphinator
Active Member
I feel the idea is great but the product poor. Tomahawks are getting on in age. Can they be easily defeated by a ships defences? Unless they're saturating said defences, I'd say yes.
More P-8's with ASM's would be my deterrent....
More P-8's with ASM's would be my deterrent....
I liked a lot of what he said, For their size, the patrol boats should be far more lethal. Some sort of missile capability should be installed. There is expense of course, including qualified staff to operate them. The Hunters seem too big a risk, especially when there are other, ready to go, options available.
I disagree with his stand against tanks and armoured vehicles. If an enemy occupied Darwin or a port town in WA, this is what you'd need to eject them.
This said, I'm not sure how you maneuver armoured vehicles anywhere when drones can pick them off.
I disagree with his stand against tanks and armoured vehicles. If an enemy occupied Darwin or a port town in WA, this is what you'd need to eject them.
This said, I'm not sure how you maneuver armoured vehicles anywhere when drones can pick them off.
Boagrius
Well-Known Member
With an effective GBAD and EW capability I suspect (among other things). It's a joint force/combined arms approach after all. Each piece of the puzzle supports and is supported by the other pieces.