Australia’s Navy might only be good for other-than-war missions. The reason? The threats growing in the Pacific Rim are just way too dangerous for RAN surface ships to survive.
The extreme threat will come from super-sonic capable cruise missiles. And while there may be treaties and some defensive measures aboard ship, I don’t think we can expect legacy surface warship thinking and legacy warship procurement, to provide the defensive value we need.
But what about those super long range surface-to-air missiles on our “Air Warfare Destroyer” and U.S. Navy ships? Answer: radar horizon. The clock of threat discovery starts running at about 24 to 30 miles out. The threat will be just above the waves; super-sonic. The target ship combat information center is now in a relatively slow human decision cycle. And, the victim might not even be at battle stations.
These super-sonic cruise missiles proliferating into the region—Indonesia just got their first batch—can be used against ships and land targets.
These high-speed cruise missiles from other nations will be fired from aircraft, ships, submarines and mobile launchers on land.
Australia has no plan to purchase high-speed cruise missiles so it will not even have the option of parity. Secondly, it has no reasonable air power plan to low the risk against these threats. Finally, Australia’s all-important submarine procurement plan is in a complete shambles.
With that, Australia might only be capable of fielding a navy that can perform low-intensity warfare and peace-keeping missions. Since there are no great strategic thinkers and planners ready to exercise true leadership in this area of interest, accepting reality now may save us a lot of wasted efforts.
One of those wasted efforts is the troubled Air Warfare Destroyer project at $8-plus billion. Or should we still continue with the fantasy? Is that more pleasant?
P-800 Oniks
Brahmos
Klub (terminal-only super-sonic)
11 comments:
Ok, fin.
The US navy faces the same threat.
What are they doing about it?
Fielding a carrier air wing that will be effectively obsolete.
Ah, perhaps the F111,Air refuelled with AGM 142, Mach?.80km +range.
The F111 could cover half the Pacific and Asia.
Oh well that honest broker Angus got it correct there!
Supersonics aren't the be-all and end all Eric. They are an assymetric attempt to cover glaring holes in a force structure. You'll note that each and every country that operates supersonic anti-ship missiles is still operating and indeed buying high subsonic missiles right alongside these so-called 'game breakers'.
The biggest problem with the supersonics is their launch signature. For a ship properly equipped with an IRST system, as all RAN major surface ships are, they are simply another threat. One that has to be addressed sure, but don't mistake pure speed for absolute capability. Even the Chinese and Indians do nt operating a missile force predominantly featuring subsonic missiles and glide based munitions.
If sheer speed was the primary determinate of capability, every airforce would fly MiG-25 styled aircraft and every missile would be ramjet powered.
Building a fast missile isn't the sole province of Russian or Chinese engineers. How fast does a Trident missile fly? About Mach 25 isn't it? Building a fast missile is hardly beyond the West. There are certain areas where we need to get inside the enemy's engagement cycle, such as with anti-air missiles, anti-radiation amd anti-tank missiles and we have no problem building supersonics, but we don't need to for maritime strike and most land attack missions.
The acquisition of systems like the Yakhont and Brahmos therefore are a tacit acknowledgement of how good defensive systems like ESSM, Aster-15 and so on really are, because they are trying to win by hopefully getting a weapon inside the engagement cycle of a ships defensive systems rather than by defeating those systems themselves, as we do.
An interesting issue for sure, but hardly one that spells the end for navies.
Actually, there are several countermeasures. Most obviously, airborne early warning of some sort, preferably good enough to get a SAM within seeker range of the target. Which need not be carrier-based. The USN had a design for a VERY capable AEW blimp in the late '80s, there is no reason it can't be done.
Also, there are obvious counter-scouting measures. Defeat the targeting solution and you defeat the threat.
Bonza, some good points but hoping a volley of these will get detected and shot down is just that; hope. For the battleship admirals, I would expect great loss of their prized capital ships.
Mike. Very good points. But that requires air supremacy. In the case of the RAAF or the USN with an obsolete carrier air wing, there won't be much of that. D.C. might want to consider that any future fight they face in the Pacific Rim won't be like Libya or Iraq.
Eric must be wrong.
Look what the RAAF has told the Canberra times.I feel better now.
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/opinion/editorial/general/defending-the-future/2177712.aspx?storypage=0
See we have no worries,thank goodness!(right)
If a volley were fired at a single ship, then it might well be n trouble, but they aren't likely to be sending a single ship against a Yakhont equipped foe. A volley of these rather expensive missiles is going have to defeat a layered defence network of missiles, guns, EW and EW countermeasures to work at all. It's a large challenge and whilst the missiles are a threat, they have no combat experience confirming their lethality.
Only marketing claims. I would have thought you above all people would be suspicious of marketing claims, Eric!
Radar horizon isn't such a huge deal with these missiles when you look at their flight profiles.
RAN isn't buying the Sagem Vampir IRST systems for nothing.
Marketing claims vs.....
Marketing claims.....
Fill the seas with 212's
As long as they do not have to travel more than a couple of thousand k's from the coast.
Useless for th Pacific
Post a Comment