Australia to buy new stealth missiles
By Cameron Stewart
August 26, 2004
AUSTRALIA will become the first country in the region to be armed with long-range stealth cruise missiles to help safeguard its military advantage over regional neighbours when the ageing F-111 strike bombers are retired from 2010.
The Howard Government has decided to buy self-guided land-attack cruise missiles for the RAAF’s F/A-18 fighters, and its P3 Orion maritime surveillance planes, that will be able to strike targets 400km away – four times the range of any missile now available to the RAAF.
But the move, approved this week by cabinet’s National Security Committee, has the potential to irritate Australia’s regional neighbours, which have short-range anti-ship missiles, but not the air-launched, long-range cruise missiles Australia will buy.
The multi-million-dollar decision to purchase long-range cruise missiles reflects an urgent need to beef-up the strikepower of the RAAF’s 71 F/A-18 fighters ahead of the planned early retirement of the F-111s.
The Government hopes that the cruise missiles will help fill a looming gap in air capability between retirement of the F-111s around 2010 and the arrival of the new Joint Strike Fighter several years later.
Cabinet’s decision allows the Government to choose from one of three cruise missile options, with the preferred missile being introduced into service between 2007 and 2009.
One option is the joint air-to-surface standoff missile (JASSM), a 2000-pound, precision strike cruise missile that has a range of 400km and flies autonomously to its target after launch.
Described by its maker, Lockheed Martin as a “stealth cruise missile” with a “kick-the-door-down” capability, the missiles cost around $544,000 each.
The two other options are the Swedish/German Taurus KEPD 350 cruise missile, with a range of 350km, and Boeing’s precision strike-missile, known as SLAM-ER, with a range of 250km.
The RAAF is also hoping to fit the new missiles to the JSF when it enters service – a move that would help offset the smaller range and weapons payload of the new plane compared with that of the outgoing F-111.
But technical and design delays have plagued the new JSF, casting doubt on the Government’s hopes that the yet-to-be-built plane will arrive in Australia in 2013. Many experts doubt the JSF will be delivered before 2015, increasing the importance of the new cruise missiles in helping maintain air superiority in the region.
Defence Minister Robert Hill is believed to have told cabinet that the new missiles are needed to ensure the survivability of aircraft and crew in the face of more sophisticated surface-to-air threats.
Moves to enhance Australia’s air-strike capability in the past have frequently drawn criticism from regional neighbours.
Indonesia’s military took years to forgive Australia after the Menzies government ordered the F-111 in 1963, with the specific instruction that it be capable of reaching Jakarta carrying nuclear weapons.
In 1993, when the Keating government ordered 15 extra F-111s to extend the life of the fleet without first telling Jakarta of its plan, the then Indonesian ambassador to Australia said the move would raise doubts about Australia’s commitment to closer defence ties with its neighbours.
The Australian
I think you can pretty much bet the house on th RAAF geting JASSM, pretty sure that is the only weapon that would be compatible with the F-35.
BALMAIN
By: Canpark - 9th September 2004 at 00:25
If we are only arming the Oriens and Hornets with the cruise missiles, I dont think our neighbours have much to worry about. Theyshould be more concerned if we armed the Collins subs with them, and some surface ships.
That is true, but RAAF F/A-18s and Oriens are used purely foe the defence of Australia so what is the point of equipping it with an offensive weapon?
By: d'clacy - 8th September 2004 at 15:30
If we are only arming the Oriens and Hornets with the cruise missiles, I dont think our neighbours have much to worry about. Theyshould be more concerned if we armed the Collins subs with them, and some surface ships.
By: Canpark - 1st September 2004 at 04:18
I really gonna miss the F-111 once its gone…
Hope the cruise missiles make the RAAF happy.
By: Indian1973 - 31st August 2004 at 13:56
Indonesia has been fighting a islamist insurgency for long in the
island of Aceh near the andamans. there are plenty of indonesian terrorists floating around but the Govt for sure is anti-terrorist as it doesnt depend on them for its survival. there’s also a sizeable hindu minority on the island of Bali.
Militarily they are very weak, with nowhere near the logistics to police and manage the 1000s of islands. the biggest threat to australia maybe just refugees fleeing some future chaos. as the foremost US ally in the region,
I suppose Aus is expected to play some part.
but good weapons will of be use against the expected PLAN expansion in the east pacific and USNs inevitable try to block such expansion.
By: GDL - 31st August 2004 at 13:12
Harpoon Block II, which we are getting, does have a land attack capability.
By: Pearce - 31st August 2004 at 08:16
Sorry, I neglected to specify. I was refering to its use in a maritime anti-shipping role.
Australia will never possess enough missiles to make a pre-emptive standoff strike feasible. In indonesias case, it would be like shooting a watergun at a bees nest 🙂
So I just ignored that part of its resume.
Any future missiles’ use will be limited to the one currently occupied by the Harpoon.
By: BALMAIN - 31st August 2004 at 06:52
The Hornet has very short legs compared to the Aardvark.
Thereby leading to this interesting situation: Strike range of F/A-18 w/ JASSM < F-111 w/ Harpoon.
Although the harpoon has no land attack capability.
The real motive was oil.
That doesn’t make much sense as the Australian government had previously signed (a very favourable) an agreement with the Indonesian government regarding the gas reserves, and when E.Timor became an independant state that deal obviously became invalid and had to be re-negotiated with E.Timor (and Indonesia?).
BALMAIN.
By: Pearce - 31st August 2004 at 05:31
Just thought i’d pop in and remind everyone that by the time these missiles come into service, the F-111 will have been decommisioned.
The Hornet has very short legs compared to the Aardvark.
Thereby leading to this interesting situation: Strike range of F/A-18 w/ JASSM < F-111 w/ Harpoon.
Australia is not extenting its strike range. It is mearly preserving it 🙂
By: Canpark - 31st August 2004 at 04:04
If Indonesia don’t like the idea of Australia getting missiles than they should do something about it, instead of just using their mouth.
By: koxinga - 31st August 2004 at 03:57
Yes, I agree the Indonesians are just one notch below the Islamist Pakistan and the Middle East in terroist traits, so I can imagine what happened to the East Timorian population – not a pretty thought.
The real motive was oil, otherwise if it was for humanitarian concerns you have to wonder where the equal Aussie concern for their own Aborigines went.
Nah dah, dude.
Off topic,
1) Oil and minerals are recent finds on both Papua and Timor and was neither a factor during their respective invasions by Indonesia. Pure terrtorial land grab by Sukarno and later Suharto in the name of Indonesian nation blah blah blah.
2) Indonesia being islamic funder is a joke. It has a large islamic population but it HAS been fighting islamic terrorism since the independence (Darul Islam).
The goverment, had until recently been a secular dictatorship and is currently a secular democracy. Islamic terrorism is viewed by the past dictactorship (much like Pakistan at the moment) and the present democracy as a threat to their power. Having said that, they have been unable to get a grip on solving the problem and that is the concern for everyone around these parts.
Don’t mistake the Indon government incompetence in dealing with the threat as being actively supportive.
As for Indo-Aus relationship, it is too complicated to discuss. Let’s just say there are much historical baggage on both sides which both should let go.
———————————————————————–
Anyway back to topic, stand off weapons shouldnt be a big deal. I wouldnt be surpise if the Singapore fighter purchase would come together with a standoff weapon package. Many people also forget that Vietnam had purchased a quantity of SCUD Cs from North Korea afew years ago.. Selective memory.
By: SOC - 31st August 2004 at 01:49
Ok read the site, the MTCR prohibits the transfer of missiles greater than 300 KM in range with a 500 KG warhead. That is its principal objective, and reinforces that by placing such systems as a Category 1 restriction.
Its clear this treaty would best be used as toilet paper, since there have been numerous violations when it made sense for treaty suscribers, such as:
1) Tridents from US to UK
2) Tomahawks from US to UK
3) Chinese ??? 1,400 KM missile to Saudi Arabia
4) NK and Chinese transfer of missiles and production facilities to Pakistan
1. Pre-1987, and therefore not governed by the treaty.
2. Answered by my previous post.
3 and 4.None of these countries are signatories and therefore not bound by the treaty’s guidelines and regulations.
Next?
By: SOC - 31st August 2004 at 01:45
Hey, AirPower, did you miss this part?
5. Where the transfer could contribute to a delivery system for weapons of mass destruction, the Government will authorize transfers of items in the Annex only on receipt of appropriate assurances from the government of the recipient state that:
A. The items will be used only for the purpose stated and that such use will not be modified nor the items modified or replicated without the prior consent of the Government;
B. Neither the items nor replicas nor derivatives thereof will be re transferred without the consent of the Government.
Plus, on what planet does the word “restrict” have the same definition as the word “prohibit”?
By: GDL - 31st August 2004 at 01:16
But wd1 has a good point when he says that a more careful choice of words wouldn’t harm Aussie interests, while keeping Asian neighbours calm.
Words? Fine.
By: Spectral - 31st August 2004 at 00:42
Hint: The international intervention was UN-led, and it envolved many countries apart from Australia.
Not saying that they don’t think about the oil there: one’s gotta only look at how the negotiations with the E. Timorese gov. for the rights over the oil fields were conducted ( almost as one would say “at gun-point”).
By: AirPower - 31st August 2004 at 00:36
Yes, I agree the Indonesians are just one notch below the Islamist Pakistan and the Middle East in terroist traits, so I can imagine what happened to the East Timorian population – not a pretty thought.
The real motive was oil, otherwise if it was for humanitarian concerns you have to wonder where the equal Aussie concern for their own Aborigines went.
By: Spectral - 31st August 2004 at 00:24
OIL
Thats was what East Timor was about, support/arm a local population against Indonesia (not that I really care about that country) – make it a basket case – get international support – then make it a proxy – then get its oil….
Right now the Aussies are strongarming their way into “helpless” East Timor’s offshore oilfields.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004…l?oneclick=true
I have worked with/managed global projects that had a large Aussie team composition. Good people to hang out with at the bar, not too productive in the office….
You really don’t have a clue of what happened in E. Timor in the last 30 years, do you ? :confused:
By: AirPower - 30th August 2004 at 23:57
OIL
Thats was what East Timor was about, support/arm a local population against Indonesia (not that I really care about that country) – make it a basket case – get international support – then make it a proxy – then get its oil….
Right now the Aussies are strongarming their way into “helpless” East Timor’s offshore oilfields.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/04/19/1082326136832.html?oneclick=true
I have worked with/managed global projects that had a large Aussie team composition. Good people to hang out with at the bar, not too productive in the office….
By: John Boyle - 30th August 2004 at 23:51
What’s Australia’s gripe with Indonesia anyway? It’s like Spain citing Morocco as its prime threat.
Yes, I’d like to know too! 🙂
We don’t get a lot of Australian news here in the U.S.
I suspect a general distrust due to perceived backing of terrorist/rebel threats?
By: Charlie Echo - 30th August 2004 at 23:36
And these are the same neighbours that snub us when ASEAN meets!
Sorry, but ‘being sensitive’ is utterly pointless! Apeasement is what eventually led to East Timor having to be helped out by the ADF, when their independence was threatened with indirectly Indonesian-backed anarchy back in 1999. Australia has learned, but from the 70’s. Australia has the US firmly in it’s corner, perhaps even stronger now than ever before since the end of WWII. With that, there is little chance Howard is going to make defence decisions based on how the region feels, nor does he have to. If the region doesn’t like it, stiff…!! 😡
But wd1 has a good point when he says that a more careful choice of words wouldn’t harm Aussie interests, while keeping Asian neighbours calm.
By: AirPower - 29th August 2004 at 15:52
found this in a dictionary:
Noun 1. cobber – Australian term for a pal
buddy, chum, crony, pal, sidekick, brother – a close friend who accompanies his buddies in their activities
Australia had better figure out if it is part of Asia or a cobber for her ex colonialist friend (the trioka UK-Canada-Australia). The next 50 years will not bode well if it continues to work against interests in that region.
Sign In
August 26, 2004 at 3:18 am