Thread replies: 20
Thread images: 5
Thread images: 5
Anonymous
Australia wants ballistic missile defences 2017-07-09 08:58:16 Post No. 34488629
[Report] Image search: [Google]
Australia wants ballistic missile defences 2017-07-09 08:58:16 Post No. 34488629
[Report] Image search: [Google]
File: ranges.png (982KB, 1312x1039px) Image search:
[Google]
982KB, 1312x1039px
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-08/australia-to-speed-missile-defense-development-turnbull-says
So we want a missile shield, but don't want THAAD (likely because of it's short range - see pic) - the article talks about Australia developing something, but that'll likely mean getting existing systems and developing an overall shield out of them. So what missiles should be used?
Ground-Based Midcourse Defense could provide defence for not only Australia but also (to a lesser extent) NZ, Christmas Island, Guam, etc. Only problem is that they're essentially ICBMs themselves meaning they're expensive.
AEGIS Ashore is a step down, but using SM-3 Block IIAs a couple of installations could cover the entire country.
THAAD could work (despite what the PM says), but due to Australia's distances you'd need an installation for just about every city or base you want to protect, not to mention it's a terminal intercept system, making any failures to intercept that much more dangerous.
Also, what about radars?
JORN has detected missile launches over China before, so it can provide some early warning, but then for targeting do we get something like a bunch of TPY-2s? Is there any use for something like a HAVE STARE system?
>>
File: australianspaceprogramme.webm (2MB, 1280x720px) Image search:
[Google]
2MB, 1280x720px
>>34488629
where did this come from? they never really said anything about it in the past
>>
>>34488629
Buying GBMD interceptors outright might be a good option. Put them in North Queensland to protect the East Coast.
>>
>>34488629
Why not all of them? THAAD for dense population centers, AEGIS Ashore for general coastal regions, and GMD for overall coverage?
>>
>>34488725
>where did this come from?
north korea can hit us now, m8.
>>34488738
does THAAD even pose a threat against your typical RV? i'm pretty sure that it's tailored towards use against scuds.
>>
>>34488738
Probably the prohibitive cost of installing all three. If they decide to implement a missile defence they'll probably go for the middle ground in cost and defence
>>
>>34488629
A hetz and David's sling combination like what Israel has is an extremely competent setup.
>>
>>34488738
THAAD is not ICBM rated.
>>
>>34488629
The Aegis coverage looks pretty good depending on its effectiveness at the outer limits of its range.
If they were going with two I feel like one a little south of where they placed it on the map so it can just about cover Can, Syd, Mel and Per while still being far forward enough to hit missiles before they even reach our landmass (since most likely the missiles will be coming from NNW). Then a second battery around say Can to give deeper protection around Mel, Syd and the SA sub bases while still hopefully having the range to just about protect Per
>>
>>34488725
>where did this come from? they never really said anything about it in the past
We've very quietly wanted this since the 70's, when it was obvious that if the phillipines could have their own ballistic missile program, Indonesia could too. But without a valid reason for this sort of thing we'd be starting a new kind of arms race in the region.
>>
>>34488795
Hetz has negligible range and you'd need dozens of installations to get any decent coverage; David's Sling is a bit better, but still only comparable to THAAD.
>>34488982
The map is just a screenshot from CMANO; I ran a few little experiments and having one near Darwin and another down near Sydney or Canberra seems ideal. One issue I ran into was tracking the MIRVs though (CMANO doesn't have any NK ICBMs so I used one of China's more advanced systems as a decent test) - a lot of ground-based radars don't look high enough, so they maybe catch them a while after they come over the horizon, but then quickly lose them again, making interception difficult. scatting TPY-2's around the country worked well but that's not ideal. I'll play around a bit more to look at better launcher / radar locations - if the MIRVs can be hit up north then there's fewer radars required.
>>
>>34489212
2400 km and capable of exo-atmospheric interception of ICBMs. Pretty good imo.
>>
File: straydg.jpg (104KB, 577x1024px) Image search:
[Google]
104KB, 577x1024px
>>34488629
can we leave a gap around Melbourne?
>>
File: Seymour_Station_Street.jpg (114KB, 1024x667px) Image search:
[Google]
114KB, 1024x667px
>>34489227
Only if this gap is big enough to accommodate Seymour and somehow leave Pucka unmolested....
>>
>>34489223
So roughly 10 times the range of THAAD.
>>
>>34489223
My bad, I was looking at Hetz 2 which only has a ~100km range.
>>
>>34489223
>>34489282
Did some more research and 2,400km is one claim, but others only give it ~200NM. Either way it'd be something to consider.
Did some maths and something like HAVE STARE would actually be really beneficial - at the sorts of orbital heights ICBMs reach, a big radar at Alice Springs could get a good fix by the time a missile is passing Guam.
>>
>>34488629
When will Australia own up to producing Hitler? I don't trust them with ballistic rockets.
>>
File: ausnob.jpg (46KB, 720x540px) Image search:
[Google]
46KB, 720x540px
>>34489472
once our V3's can reach Israel
>>
>>34489520
Shitposting on a world stage
Thread posts: 20
Thread images: 5
Thread images: 5