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
Coalition to deliver defence bonanza, promising billions more than Labor
Peter Dutton will pledge to better prepare Australia for future geostrategic threats by spending an additional $21 billion between now and 2030, which would be almost double Labor's planned increase to the defence budget.
www.abc.net.au
Very late announcement by the coalition.
Strange, I thought the 2.5% was released a couple of weeks ago.
Coalition to deliver defence bonanza, promising billions more than Labor
Peter Dutton will pledge to better prepare Australia for future geostrategic threats by spending an additional $21 billion between now and 2030, which would be almost double Labor's planned increase to the defence budget.
Very late announcement by the coalition.
I need to read back.
Aardvark144
Active Member
I thought the release a couple of weeks ago was a Press Release by the Coalition as a precursor to the full policy announcement due today.
I see it is apparently linked to revoking the recent tax cuts. I suspect that will go down like a lead balloon with the outer suburbs.
MARKMILES77
Well-Known Member
Australia clearly needs more NASAMs batteries.
An interesting question is, could NASAMs fire the AIM-174B?
Without the booster it is not going to have the rumoured 400+ km range of the SM6 but it might give you the capabilities of the SM-6 with
a range of 150+ km. If this is feasible, a buy of these would provide a common missile, which could greatly enhance the air to air range of the Super Hornets and the Surface to Air range of NASAMs.
The same question could be also be asked about the AIM-260?
The SM-6 Block IA is a 6.6m long missile weighing 1500kgs that features a 13.5inch (34.29cm) diameter missile body and a 61.2inch (1.57m) wingspan.
The AMRAAM-ER based on the ESSM Block II missile body that has been integrated onto the NASAMS Mk2 canister launcher and is a 3.66m long missile weighing 280kgs featuring a 10inch (25.4cm) diameter missile body and a 44 inch (1.12m) wingspan.
Even the smaller Block IA variant of the SM-6 is far too big and heavy a missile to fire from a NASAMS Mk2 canister launcher (even if you removed the booster, which seems rather self-defeating for a ground launched missile) it would still be far too big and heavy.
Raytheon (RTX) has previously discussed the idea of integrating their SkyCeptor missile onto NASAMS, a missile that comes in at 4.95m long, with a 9.1inch (23.11cm) missile body (12 inch - 30.48cm with booster) and a wingspan of 19 inches (48.26cm). But even that would require the development and testing of a longer and wider NASAMS canister launcher.
That missile would give us a genuine Medium Ranged AD capability with ranges in the vicinity of 180k and altitudes of up to 50k, as well as terminal BMD interception capability (if paired with an appropriate sensor and C2 environment) but it remains a “what if” until someone invests in it. The only current users are those who employ the Israeli version of the missile (Stunner) in the David’s Sling SAM system and Romania who are integrating it into their Patriot PAC-3 MSE systems. It really is a missile in the class of Patriot PAC-3 MSE.
It would likely be a great capability boost for Australia’s (virtually non-existent) Integrated Air and Missile defence system, but good luck in convincing the ADF, when we would be an orphan user of such a system. They won’t (or are nit allowed) to even buy the AMRAAM-ER missile which IS integrated onto NASAMs and is already on order by other NASAMS users and which would offer a boost to capability, but isn’t even half the missile SkyCeptor is… One potential advantage which addresses yet another problem as mentioned by @Takao is the cost involved with such high-end missiles. According to RTX at least, the SkyCeptor is substantially cheaper than other missiles in it’s class, so that might help if true - certainly Romania seems to agree, but we all know what ADF’s appetite for developmental programs where they would be the lead customer, is like… Still funding this could easily lead to other NASAM’s users adopting it after us, so you never know I suppose and Australia’s version of NASAM’s itself was a developmental version of the basic system afterall…
As to AIM-260, there are no specs available to begin to assess whether it could ‘work’. The whole program is classified, but of the information that is out, I have not seen any indication of a program to adapt to a ground-launched configuration…
Last edited:
FormerDirtDart
Well-Known Member
Short answer, I'm thinking NO
According to the article indications are that the AIM-174B weighs around 1900 lbs, while an AMRAAM weight is close to 360 lbs
And given the visual size comparison, pretty doubtful the -174B is going to fit in the launcher
These Photos Provide a Size Comparison Between the New AIM-174B and AIM-120 Missiles
The air-launched SM-6, designated AIM-174B, is significantly larger than the AIM-120 AMRAAM missile. As reported in detail recently, F/A-18E/F Super
theaviationist.com
I think Skyceptor for Australia depends on the US adopting it as a cheap mass produced replacement/supplement to PAC3 MSE. If the US go this way, then it becomes a gimme for Australia to follow suit. Australia could be a founding partner for it with the US, with long term annual orders and priority access. If not, then it's a lot more difficult for Australia to adopt it.
The Skyceptor's low cost, without sacrificing capability, makes it a solution for mass production. Every country is currently looking for this magic pudding, and there does not seem to be an alternative competitor with the same capability and cost. I will note that it's publicly available cost indicates it's way cheaper than anything Anduril, for instance, is putting on the table.
As for a Skyceptor launcher, then something like what the Israelis use would be logical (it has a 12 pack launcher, that would fit on similar trucks that we use). I can't see the need to modify the existing NASAMS launchers, keep them for the AMRAAM that would still be needed with the Skyceptor (it is not effective under 40km). A battery would have a mix of both launcher types connected to the same fire control system and sensors.
SM6 would either need a mobile Typhon system or a permanent fitted system like the mk41 (like an Aegis Ashore).
This is why I am a fan of Typhon.
It is literally an erectable Mk-41 on a trailer.
So long as you have agnostic systems the sky is the limit to what you can integrate. Theoretically quad packed ESSM, ExLS and anything integrated with that. Dual packed PAC 3?
Same missile stocks as the RAN as well as commonality with the RAAF going forward.
We need Swiss Army Knife systems, not bespoke.
It will also cause serious issues for any aggressor because they won't know what each battery is packing. Is it SM-6, Tomahawk, or maybe hypersonic. Networked SM-3 could also be an option, a deployable ABM capability.
It is literally an erectable Mk-41 on a trailer.
So long as you have agnostic systems the sky is the limit to what you can integrate. Theoretically quad packed ESSM, ExLS and anything integrated with that. Dual packed PAC 3?
Same missile stocks as the RAN as well as commonality with the RAAF going forward.
We need Swiss Army Knife systems, not bespoke.
It will also cause serious issues for any aggressor because they won't know what each battery is packing. Is it SM-6, Tomahawk, or maybe hypersonic. Networked SM-3 could also be an option, a deployable ABM capability.