ADF General discussion thread

[Todjaeger]

Wouldn’t it be easier to put the missiles on a long distance jet?

Not really understanding the direction of the quoted question. From my POV, with either an Australian or American context in mind, I do not see land-based AShM batteries as being valuable or really worthwhile.

For Australia specifically, the ADF could fairly easily base and support launchers, batteries and units upon mainland Australia and TAS. Establishing launcher sites on Australian territories like the Tiwi Islands, Christmas Island, the Cocos/Keeling Islands or Norfolk Island could be done, but IMO it would be rather expensive given the likely difficulties which deploying and then supporting launchers, or even worse, and entire battery of launchers.

However, what areas could any/all of these launchers provide any sort of A2/AD coverage for? From where I sit, these launchers could really only provide coverage for the areas around and approaches to Australia, and realistically only for surface shipping.

From my POV this is an issue with the entire concept, because wasting precious and limited funding to build an A2/AD around Australia looks to me to more or less just be a modern version of a Defence of Australia strategy, or perhaps an Australian equivalent to the Maginot Line. Sure, Australia might be able to establish an ability to annihilate hostile surface TF's that venture into the Timor Sea, the Arafura Sea, or the Coral Sea, but realistically, Australia can be largely isolated and neutralized without hostile powers needing to send such TF's into those areas. This would especially be the case if the hostile power(s) were able to either neutralize or otherwise come to some sort of arrangement with Indonesia, or to a lesser extent PNG and/or the Solomons.

The most likely reason why hostile TF's might venture into the seas immediately bordering Australia would be if the vessels had embarked forces which were to be landed to establish a beachhead and land base for operations against Australia. I also do not see this as a likely scenario, and one which would most likely only arise if/when there was a major conflict which led to Australian forces reaching the point of exhaustion, as well as Australian allies being unable/unwilling to intervene.

 

[Bob53]

And once they have been deployed, they need to be protected....how would that look like?
If I was General Zod of the Enemy Musurian Armed Forces, a lightly protected LBASM would be targeted with a cheap and easy force. A reconnaissance force to locate, could be drone, satellite, aircraft or human. A small SF detachment of say a 5 man patrol with a javelin type weapon would do, depending on how many targets they identify.

For us, maybe fake HIMARs could be handy.
A larger enemy, maybe Kamaeria, might just use missiles to attack the HIMARs or other conventional means.
I am not sure how we will deploy LBASM systems, and how the force will be protected, but I am thinking they will need protection on a fair large scale, making re supply to multiple deployed units on multiple locations very difficult, and also compromising their locations. Otherwise, and enemy will be forced into a bigger kill zone. So in order for a LBASM to be an effective deterrent, it would need to be a real threat, otherwise the actual threat it represented would be dealt with and the enemy would continue with their plan regardless. A mine field must be covered by fire, unless it's just a nuisance mine field.

I think we are on the same page. Deploying a ship and crew or aircraft and crew to deposit a ASM and its supporting cast off shore or to the far reaches of Australian territory would involve a significant logistics tail. My view is spend a bit more than we do now on surveillance and targeting and we can send a F35 or X 4 with a LRASM to the save effect. Then we don’t need to go and bring them back.

 

[Volkodav]

UGVs with auto cannons, machine guns, SAMs etc. could be used for force protection. In fact almost everything, including the missile launch vehicles, could be unmanned with a couple of crewed command vehicles.

Everything, including sensors and coms connected by fibre optics and line of sight lasers with the whole setup relying on passive sensors and data links. You could have as few as a dozen personnel with the missile section (assuming two launchers to a section, three or four sections to a battery)

 

[old faithful]

UGVs with auto cannons, machine guns, SAMs etc. could be used for force protection. In fact almost everything, including the missile launch vehicles, could be unmanned with a couple of crewed command vehicles.

Everything, including sensors and coms connected by fibre optics and line of sight lasers with the whole setup relying on passive sensors and data links. You could have as few as a dozen personnel with the missile section (assuming two launchers to a section, three or four sections to a battery)

Ok. So let's say we deploy how many? 1 launcher and a crew of 10? How long do they stay in place?
Let's say 2 weeks at a time. That's an around the clock piquet of boredom in a remote area.
After week #2, the crew have cut the legs off their cams, and going bat shit crazy playing golf with a stick and a tin of cheese for a ball....how would I know? I spentv2 weeks on a re trans station on kangaroo 89. There were 4 of us there, to change radio batteries, maintain antennas, change frequencies etc etc.....we were almost suicidal by the end.
The whole idea of land based anti ship missiles is to dictate terms. To channel the Enemy into an area more easily defended. If HIMARs were bought to do this task, I would not speculate the tactics. I don't know what the plan is, but have tried to think how it would/could work. At best, it looks like a nuisance mine field. There is no guarantee the systems missiles would not be intercepted anyway, and not achieve a kill, whether it's fully automated or manned. Regardless, it will need some maintenance.
Could smart sea mines provide the same capability?

 

[OldNavy63]

…. Let's say 2 weeks at a time. That's an around the clock piquet of boredom in a remote area. After week #2, the crew have cut the legs off their cams, and going bat shit crazy playing golf with a stick and a tin of cheese for a ball....how would I know? I spentv2 weeks on a re trans station on kangaroo 89. There were 4 of us there, to change radio batteries, maintain antennas, change frequencies etc etc.....we were almost suicidal by the end.

Sorry to hear about your experience in Ex K89. I must have pulled the lucky straw on that one. Probably because I was working out of branch and an extra hand on a heap of jobs around the NT. I still have a K89 key-ring but couldn’t find a fridge magnet anywhere!

 

[FoxtrotRomeo999]

Why shouldnt this be an Australian Federal Police led force with all a strong ADF force present just in case. The messaging to the Palestinians is important. We are not there as occupiers.

 

[ADMk2]

I think we are on the same page. Deploying a ship and crew or aircraft and crew to deposit a ASM and its supporting cast off shore or to the far reaches of Australian territory would involve a significant logistics tail. My view is Siena’s bit more than we do now on surveillance and targeting and we can send a F35 or X 4 with a LRASM to the save effect. Then we don’t need to go and bring them back.

That troop of missiles can stay there almost indefinitely though, adequately supplied potentially, even during actual conflict.

How many 4x F-35 sorties can we generate? That LBASM battery has precision fires has it’s only job. How many jobs do we have for F-35’s again, just off the top of your head?

Especially now that we have cancelled “MRAD” and “High Speed and Ballistic Missile Defence” in the name of submarines.

 

[Bob53]

That troop of missiles can stay there almost indefinitely though, adequately supplied potentially, even during actual conflict.

How many 4x F-35 sorties can we generate? That LBASM battery has precision fires has it’s only job. How many jobs do we have for F-35’s again, just off the top of your head?

Especially now that we have cancelled “MRAD” and “High Speed and Ballistic Missile Defence” in the name of submarines.

Ok so we have a platform that can fire 2 ASMs. How many are we putting ashore? How many reloads are we putting ashore. As a logistics exercise this is running to the 100s of crew offshore or in harms way. Who protects and feeds them. As opposed to Australian based crew and sending 2-4 F35 plus refuellers …..assuming we had an unwanted navy in our region I’d say that would be towards the top of the priorities of the F35.

 

[Bob53]

Why shouldnt this be an Australian Federal Police led force with all a strong ADF force present just in case. The messaging to the Palestinians is important. We are not there as occupiers.

Leave it to the Arabs.

 

[old faithful]

Leave it to the Arabs.

100% Bob, I hope we no further involvement in this mess.

 

[ADMk2]

Ok so we have a platform that can fire 2 ASMs. How many are we putting ashore? How many reloads are we putting ashore. As a logistics exercise this is running to the 100s of crew offshore or in harms way. Who protects and feeds them. As opposed to Australian based crew and sending 2-4 F35 plus refuellers …..assuming we had an unwanted navy in our region I’d say that would be towards the top of the priorities of the F35.

Your scenario sounds more like a submarine job to me, but you still aren’t getting the layered effects connection, nor the efficiency argument. For $600m and up to 180 or so troops, we are getting the same effects as we would from more than half of the RAAF’s fighter force all devoted to the one mission... RAAF has 96 strike fighters in total and on a good day, maybe 60-65 or so combat coded. To defend our entire country…

This Regiment alone will have 36x missile launchers, equivalent to more than 50% of the RAAF strike fighter force, if we want to measure the number of missiles down range... The F-35 and our Super Hornets however are also needed for ISR, defensive and offensive counter air, SEAD, strike, CAS, interdiction the list goes on. It’s a strange idea that ADF wouldn’t use both, and probably RAN and allied capability however were it to habe to face an entire navy in our region. Certain 4x F-35’s won’t be taking this challenge on alone…

As I pointed out in earlier discussions there is probably a reason why 90% of the countries in the Asia Pacific region and most definitely every single one of the major powers are buying coastal missile batteries. But not for us, right?

Does all that get ignored so we can devote more than 50% of our fighter force to 1 specific role that other platforms can handle, but in which the reverse isn’t true?

Sorry mate, I don‘t agree and neither do the ADF nor Government. It’s a funded project that made it through the DSR / IIP debacle. It’s coming whether you or I agree or not.

 

[Volkodav]

Strikemaster I wasn't so sure, but the longer ranged munitions on HIMARs makes sense.

Two or four launchers with reloads is more than a small taskforce can handle, especially if they are deployed along with UAVs, UUVs and USVs.
Is the asset crewed or uncrewed, is it armed or unarmed, is it Australian, US or someone else's?

Are the HIMARs on that island or the other one. Where are those submarines, whose submarine did we think we heard, is it still there.

Throw in a future acquisition such as Typhon with even greater reach and it even more complicated.

Adaptive Deck Launchers on OPVs and other vessels, are they carrying ESSM, or is it SN-6, or maybe something else?

Where are those F-35s again? The P-8s the Rhinos?

Want to talk about area denial? There will be no sailing around our region with impunity during a conflict short of one where they preemptively strike.

 

[Takao]

Want to talk about area denial? There will be no sailing around our region with impunity during a conflict short of one where they preemptively strike.

No qualms about the rest of your post, but I want to leverage this last sentence to ask a question that many here don't seem to be asking...

What is the most likely threat?

To that end, if it's the PRC then you have to ask, why are they fighting Australia? Does anyone think that we are going to pick a fight with Beijing by ourselves? So - it's an addition to the conflict with the US.

Now, there are many reasons for the US and PRC to go to war, but what is the most likely? I'd argue it's a kinetic attack on the Philippines or Taiwan. It's highly unlikely that the PRC will start with kinetic actions against Japan or Australia because we lie outside their current immediate area of focus, but will grant you a Second Korean War may also be the trigger.

Regardless of this, their most important area of operations is going to be the East and South China Seas. And, by virtue of being the main effort, is where the main resources are going. Which makes sense, because the US Navy's Pacific Fleet is arguably the most dangerous naval force in human history, and they have to be stopped. Which means, in turn, the predominate concentration of high end PLAN, PLAAF, and PLARF forces are going to be focused there - arguably in what will be seen by Beijing as a fight to the death.

Now, what does Australia offer in such a fight. Nothing really kinetic - the range and the diplomatic efforts (which are ongoing today) that are likely to restrict Australian ABO prevent this. Really, the only thing we have to offer is land for the US to operate from. So one can in turn assume that B-52/B-2/B-21 capable bases, SSN capable bases and key C2 nodes are on the target list. All of those will undermine US efforts against the SCS - which, again, is the PRC main effort.

One key thing about those targets? They are all fixed. Meaning they are within current technology levels for the types of weapons used by the PLARF. Add in the increasing number of hypersonics, the increasing range of those weapons systems, and their increasing numbers and I have to ask - why would I send and PLA forces south of Singapore? By risk a SAG, with the applicable propaganda risk, to travel through the archipelago (where the ADF is going to have mines, USVs, and lots of ISR and targeting kit) risking upsetting those countries you've converted to neutrals, to lob a handful of land attack missiles when I can risk 0 PLA lives and 0 ABO issues?


(from Lowy, but in 2021 (so those range rings have gone south))

All in all - I have to ask, what surface ships are cruising around Australia? Just what are these AShM batteries striking?

I'd argue that we already control most of the eastern Indian Ocean, everything south of Indonesia, and the western Pacific Ocean because no superpower needs to operate there. If India was the threat it would be a different question - but I'd argue we are as secure from China operating offshore as we are from Peru.

HiMARS has a better argument. But land-based AShM remain a questionable investment for Australia (unless it's a dual mode HiMARS effector)

 

[Volkodav]

If it can hit a ship it can hit other things. If it's not needed around our coast or within our region, we can deploy elsewhere.

Layered, versatile, capability is critical going forward. We don't actually know what the threat is, what we need to respond to.

 

[Bob53]

100% Bob, I hope we no further involvement in this mess.

If western forces are deployed as peacekeepers and things go bad it’s just killing more invaders. And in fact would be provocative and highly unacceptable for any radical members of Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood. If it’s other Arab or Africans on the ground from Muslim governments it’s more politically sound. I suspect no matter where the peacekeepers are from it will turn to crap.

 

[hauritz]

Australia seems to be building a relationship with the Philippines. Must admit I wasn't aware of just how significant this relationship was.

Australia will be investing in 8 military projects across 5 sites. Exactly what those projects will be and what capabilities will be developed is open to speculation,

 

[Reptilia]

More on PNG partnership.

 

[Bluey 006]

Regardless of this, their most important area of operations is going to be the East and South China Seas. And, by virtue of being the main effort, is where the main resources are going.

The main effort yes, but not the only effort.

Treating said conflict as confined to Taiwan and the South China Sea is dangerously narrow. A modern, globally‑engaged Red force adversary will likely establish a regional A2/AD umbrella while simultaneously expanding pressure and presence in strategic regions worldwide, and peripheral areas adjacent to the primary area of operations. It would also likely seek to control key global supply routes and vital resources that sustain its economy and military, while systematically degrading Blue force capabilities and economic capacity wherever possible.

If Red force secures key nodes in the South Pacific or Southeast Asia, Blue force freedom of action would be constrained. Any conflict spreading into those areas would almost certainly draw Australia into the fight; once Australian forces are directly engaged, neutralizing threats along the southern flank becomes a high priority for Red force.

If competition between Red and Blue forces does escalate into kinetic conflict, it will likely be viewed as an existential struggle, where both sides perceive their survival and global influence as at stake. As things progress, all strategic options will likely be considered, amplifying the risk of uncontrollable and catastrophic escalation.

All that said, one would hope it never comes that and global diplomacy in 2025 is mature enough to sort things out peacefully. Just have a beer and talk about it chaps .

 

[StevoJH]

There are so many Islands controlled by the Philippines and Japan that could make it extremely difficult for PLAN surface forces to break out of the South China Sea, East China Sea and Sea of Japan as long as long as the US, Japan and South Korea retain the ability to contest the skies.

Submarine forces could be a different matter, but do you really think that the choke points aren't literally wired for sound? Likely separately by every country involved including the PLAN.