Australia to Speed Missile Defense Development, Turnbull Says
8 replies, posted
[quote]Australia will press ahead with a missile defense program to protect its forces, but a U.S. shield system isn’t appropriate, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said.
The Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, or THAAD, system mentioned in recent briefings is “not really suitable for our situation,” Turnbull told reporters at the Group of 20 Summit on Friday. The meeting in Hamburg has been overshadowed by North Korea’s first successful launch last week of a missile capable of reaching at least part of the U.S.
“The answer in respect of North Korea is the de-nuclearization of North Korea and for it to stop its reckless conduct, its reckless and provocative conduct,” Turnbull said. “The nation with overwhelmingly the greatest leverage over North Korea is China. And so we look to China to bring North Korea to its senses.”[/quote]
[url]https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-08/australia-to-speed-missile-defense-development-turnbull-says[/url]
I can't tell if he's saying Australia should not rely on a US owned and operated system, or if he's saying we should not buy and use a US system.
[QUOTE]“The nation with overwhelmingly the greatest leverage over North Korea is China. And so we look to China to bring North Korea to its senses.”[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]I can't tell if he's saying Australia should not rely on a US owned and operated system, or if he's saying we should not buy and use a US system.[/QUOTE]
I wonder if this means he's taking the first steps towards neutrality rather than purely US-aligned interests.
[QUOTE=ScottyWired;52449704]I wonder if this means he's taking the first steps towards neutrality rather than purely US-aligned interests.[/QUOTE]
I think it's pretty much inevitable. We can't keep aligning ourselves with the US if they as a country are in favour of withdrawing further from the international stage.
[editline]9th July 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=download;52449695][url]https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-08/australia-to-speed-missile-defense-development-turnbull-says[/url]
I can't tell if he's saying Australia should not rely on a US owned and operated system, or if he's saying we should not buy and use a US system.[/QUOTE]
Seems he's saying that the US strategy in general isn't suitable for Australia's situation. So relying on a missile shield for Australia won't work and we need to focus on diplomatic leverage. It's not about which country we should buy from but just saying a US style shield system in general probably won't work.
THAAD is only intended to intercept short to medium range ballistic missiles, which makes the system ideal in countries like Japan and South Korea, assuming that the North can get a nuclear warhead onto a ballistic missile.
To reach Australia, NK would need intercontinental ballistic missiles, missiles which THAAD cannot reasonably intercept. There are ICBM defense systems, but even those aren't fully reliable: a US system has been tested eighteen times but only worked successfully in ten cases, and all eighteen cases were conducted in ideal conditions.
SM-3 on the Hobarts would be the best solution surely. SM-6 is apparantly able to hit missiles in their terminal phase, but not while they're outside of the atmosphere. SM-3 is a very well tested missile that's fully compatible with the new ships being delivered.
Might require some software improvements, but nothing major needs to be changed.
[QUOTE=RVFHarrier;52450010]SM-3 on the Hobarts would be the best solution surely. SM-6 is apparantly able to hit missiles in their terminal phase, but not while they're outside of the atmosphere. SM-3 is a very well tested missile that's fully compatible with the new ships being delivered.
Might require some software improvements, but nothing major needs to be changed.[/QUOTE]
Having boats on standby 24/7 for ABM defence is a waste of resources.
It may not be ideal with only three in the class, but it would be incredibly cost-effective since most of the system is already in place.
No need to have the active boat hampered by the need to keep it perfectly in line with the flight path of a potential North Korean ICBM 24/7, the boat on deployment can simply load up some cells with SM-3 without impeding on its role as an air-defence ship. Other than anti-piracy in the Indian Ocean and supporting efforts in the Middle East what commitments would require the active Hobart to stray from Australian waters? An Anzac/successor would likely be better suited to those anyway.
[QUOTE=RVFHarrier;52450081]It may not be ideal with only three in the class, but it would be incredibly cost-effective since most of the system is already in place.
No need to have the active boat hampered by the need to keep it perfectly in line with the flight path of a potential North Korean ICBM 24/7, the boat on deployment can simply load up some cells with SM-3 without impeding on its role as an air-defence ship. Other than anti-piracy in the Indian Ocean and supporting efforts in the Middle East what commitments would require the active Hobart to stray from Australian waters? An Anzac/successor would likely be better suited to those anyway.[/QUOTE]
You could just as easily put the same system on land for a fraction of the cost. Ships are expensive and we purchased the Hobart class boats with the intention of having a certain amount of capability. You can't use that capability if it's tied up on ABM duty.
[QUOTE=BF;52449871]THAAD is only intended to intercept short to medium range ballistic missiles, which makes the system ideal in countries like Japan and South Korea, assuming that the North can get a nuclear warhead onto a ballistic missile.
To reach Australia, NK would need intercontinental ballistic missiles, missiles which THAAD cannot reasonably intercept. There are ICBM defense systems, but even those aren't fully reliable: a US system has been tested eighteen times but only worked successfully in ten cases, and all eighteen cases were conducted in ideal conditions.[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure it's applicable to Australia, but the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_3"]Arrow 3[/URL] is already operational.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.