North Korea has apparently successfully tested an ICBM, the Hwasong-14.

[Triton]

"Missile defence could be on the way"
August 14, 2016 9:56am
Max Blenkin, Defence Correspondent AAP

Source:
http://www.news.com.au/national/breaking-news/missile-defence-could-be-on-the-way/news-story/ae1ec488d62149967e52c5f2e25cc119

Australia's new air warfare destroyers could be equipped to shoot down ballistic missiles threatening the Australian mainland or deployed troops.

That would require a government decision to acquire this politically controversial capability, which could then be retro-fitted to the three vessels.

The 2016 Defence White Paper says the threat of missile attack on Australia is low.

But more nations, such as North Korea, are acquiring ballistic and cruise missiles and that increases the risk of attack on Australian territory or on deployed forces.

Most concerning, such missiles could carry nuclear or chemical warheads.

The white paper says Australia and the US have established a working group to examine options for possible acquisition of a missile defence capability.

In the meantime, existing air defence surveillance systems will be upgraded to serve as a foundation for development of missile defence capabilities, should future strategic circumstances require it.

Australia's three air warfare destroyers are equipped with the Aegis combat system, which in conjunction with the ship's advanced SPY-1D radar, will allow them to defend against air threats out for hundreds of kilometres.

The first AWD, HMAS Hobart, starts sea trials later this year.

With some modification, Aegis can be configured for ballistic missile defence (BDM).

This emerged from US president Ronald Reagan's "Star Wars" missile defence program of the 1980s.

Technical challenges were once so immense that a viable system seemed to be the stuff of science fiction.

However, ship-born BMD based around the Aegis combat system has demonstrated considerable success in trials, although it's yet to be used in actual conflict.

"Literally we are hitting a bullet with a bullet," says Mary Keifer, who heads the international Aegis and warships combat system division of US defence company Lockheed Martin.

Both the US and Japan field a ballistic missile defence capability on some warships. North Korea is Japan's specific concern.

In order for Australia to head down this path, AWD Aegis combat systems would need to be upgraded from the current Baseline-8 to the latest Baseline-9C, which combines BMD and air defence in a single integrated package.

Lockheed Martin says that upgrade path isn't too difficult, considering our warships are brand new.

Older US Aegis warships are being upgraded to Baseline-9 but in a version without BMD. New-built US Navy Aegis warships get the full BMD capability.

In order to shoot down incoming warheads, Australia would need new missiles and here's where it starts getting expensive.

Each SM-3 missile, able to obliterate ballistic missiles as they travel outside the earth's atmosphere, costs in excess of US$10 million ($A13 million). The SM-6, which can destroy hostile aircraft and also missiles in their terminal phase, costs around $US4 million ($A5.2 million).

(Defence correspondent Max Blenkin travelled to the US as a guest of Lockheed Martin)

 

[sferrin]

"n order to shoot down incoming warheads, Australia would need new missiles and here's where it starts getting expensive.

Each SM-3 missile, able to obliterate ballistic missiles as they travel outside the earth's atmosphere, costs in excess of US$10 million ($A13 million). The SM-6, which can destroy hostile aircraft and also missiles in their terminal phase, costs around $US4 million ($A5.2 million)."

I wonder what would be more expensive, 100 SM-3s or Sydney getting nuked.

 

[kaiserd]

Probably because they are overcome with the sort of feebleness that has allowed the NPT to slowly but surely become a joke. As for "certain retaliation", the North Korean regime is interested in little more than its own survival- engaging in some form of massive retaliation as a response to a targeted strike against its nuclear facilities would greatly reduce its chance of survival and so such a thing is highly unlikely.

The North Korean regime is caught in a trap of their own making.
They have their nuclear & missile programmes because they see it as their only way of surviving (and to continue inflicting their terrible regime on their own people).
In that context they would have to strike back hard in reaction to a premptive strike or the're finished; most of all they don't want to end up like Sadam or Gaddafi.
With their back against the wall such a regime (that is clearly largely indifferent to the suffering of its own people) is likely to be very unpredictable.

To expect highly logical game-theory based decisions in such a scenario would be highly risky and lacks insight into real people's decision making.
As mentioned above none of the counties in the area are advocating a premptive attack - as they have to suffer the consequences they are less enthused to take the risks advocated by small numbers of US based arm-chair-"generals".

The North Korean set up is a very long standing complex problem that persists for many different reasons and not due to your perceived "feebleness".

 

[kaiserd]

Probably because they are overcome with the sort of feebleness that has allowed the NPT to slowly but surely become a joke. As for "certain retaliation", the North Korean regime is interested in little more than its own survival- engaging in some form of massive retaliation as a response to a targeted strike against its nuclear facilities would greatly reduce its chance of survival and so such a thing is highly unlikely.

The North Korean regime is caught in a trap of their own making.
They have their nuclear & missile programmes because they see it as their only way of surviving (and to continue inflicting their terrible regime on their own people).
In that context they would have to strike back hard in reaction to a premptive strike or the're finished; most of all they don't want to end up like Sadam or Gaddafi.
With their back against the wall such a regime (that is clearly largely indifferent to the suffering of its own people) is likely to be very unpredictable.

To expect highly logical game-theory based decisions in such a scenario would be highly risky and lacks insight into real people's decision making.
As mentioned above none of the counties in the area are advocating a premptive attack - as they have to suffer the consequences they are less enthused to take the risks advocated by small numbers of US based arm-chair-"generals".

The North Korean set up is a very long standing complex problem that persists for many different reasons and not due to your perceived "feebleness".

I would urge any moderators not to remove or amend the post above.
The information above is accurate and I am not looking to push this discussion off topic or push any personal vendettas; this is fair comment noting the context of a contributors comments.
To not allow contributors to make such fair comments while allowing others with such highly dubious usernames (and potentially agendas) to proceed unaltered would not represent moderators operating on a neutral basis.

(I have no issue with this specific entry being removed if my preceding entry is allowed to remain.)

 

[Triton]

Under the terms of the Australia–United Kingdom Defence and Security Cooperation Treaty of 2013, or other defense treaties, could a nuclear strike on Australia result in a retaliatory nuclear strike by the United Kingdom?

 

[Rickshaw]

We actually do have ABM protection - albeit of a limited type - check out HMAS Hobart and other members of its class.

Radars don't shoot down missiles. :

They are, however, the key to detecting the missile. Missiles, shoot down missiles. Guess what the RAN has been arguing for, for the last few years and equipping their ships to accommodate?

So you actually don't have protection. :

Ah, but as I have said, we rely on the US nuclear umbrella. Are you suggesting that is not protection enough? :

Your claim was you have missile defense in the form of Aegis ships. You don't. At least be grown up enough to admit you were wrong. Again. :

I did? Where? Please quote back to me where I have used the term "Aegis" in any post of mine in this thread. :

"Aegis" is a US Navy codename for a particular advanced air-defence system.

 

[Rickshaw]

"n order to shoot down incoming warheads, Australia would need new missiles and here's where it starts getting expensive.

Each SM-3 missile, able to obliterate ballistic missiles as they travel outside the earth's atmosphere, costs in excess of US$10 million ($A13 million). The SM-6, which can destroy hostile aircraft and also missiles in their terminal phase, costs around $US4 million ($A5.2 million)."

I wonder what would be more expensive, 100 SM-3s or Sydney getting nuked.

Get back to us when their missiles can reach Sydney, OK? :

 

[Rickshaw]

Under the terms of the Australia–United Kingdom Defence and Security Cooperation Treaty of 2013, or other defense treaties, could a nuclear strike on Australia result in a retaliatory nuclear strike by the United Kingdom?

The agreement covers defence co-operation, primarily in the fields of science, technology and development of defence materiale'. It is not a defence treaty which provides any thing like consultation and/or action on either party in the case of defence emergency.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Back to topic please?

 

[sferrin]

I did? Where? Please quote back to me where I have used the term "Aegis" in any post of mine in this thread. :

"Aegis" is a US Navy codename for a particular advanced air-defence system.

We actually do have ABM protection - albeit of a limited type - check out HMAS Hobart and other members of its class.

Radars don't shoot down missiles. :

They are, however, the key to detecting the missile. Missiles, shoot down missiles. Guess what the RAN has been arguing for, for the last few years and equipping their ships to accommodate?

So you weren't referring to Aegis here then? :

 

[sferrin]

"n order to shoot down incoming warheads, Australia would need new missiles and here's where it starts getting expensive.

Each SM-3 missile, able to obliterate ballistic missiles as they travel outside the earth's atmosphere, costs in excess of US$10 million ($A13 million). The SM-6, which can destroy hostile aircraft and also missiles in their terminal phase, costs around $US4 million ($A5.2 million)."

I wonder what would be more expensive, 100 SM-3s or Sydney getting nuked.

Get back to us when their missiles can reach Sydney, OK? :

LOL. Really? :

 

[Rickshaw]

I did? Where? Please quote back to me where I have used the term "Aegis" in any post of mine in this thread. :

"Aegis" is a US Navy codename for a particular advanced air-defence system.

We actually do have ABM protection - albeit of a limited type - check out HMAS Hobart and other members of its class.

Radars don't shoot down missiles. :

They are, however, the key to detecting the missile. Missiles, shoot down missiles. Guess what the RAN has been arguing for, for the last few years and equipping their ships to accommodate?

So you weren't referring to Aegis here then? :

Do you see me use the term "Aegis" at all?

Stop erecting strawman arguments. : :

 

[Rickshaw]

"n order to shoot down incoming warheads, Australia would need new missiles and here's where it starts getting expensive.

Each SM-3 missile, able to obliterate ballistic missiles as they travel outside the earth's atmosphere, costs in excess of US$10 million ($A13 million). The SM-6, which can destroy hostile aircraft and also missiles in their terminal phase, costs around $US4 million ($A5.2 million)."

I wonder what would be more expensive, 100 SM-3s or Sydney getting nuked.

Get back to us when their missiles can reach Sydney, OK? :

LOL. Really? :

Yes. Now, do you really think that Australia should spend a very large sum of money on the off-chance that the DPRK might, just might, send an ICBM or two in our direction? Really? What ever happened to the deterrence of the US's nuclear umbrella? Are you saying that Washington isn't the steadfast ally it once was?

 

[sferrin]

Do you see me use the term "Aegis" at all?

Stop erecting strawman arguments. : :

Wow. I mean, damn. You were wrong. Grow up and admit it.

 

[sferrin]

"n order to shoot down incoming warheads, Australia would need new missiles and here's where it starts getting expensive.

Each SM-3 missile, able to obliterate ballistic missiles as they travel outside the earth's atmosphere, costs in excess of US$10 million ($A13 million). The SM-6, which can destroy hostile aircraft and also missiles in their terminal phase, costs around $US4 million ($A5.2 million)."

I wonder what would be more expensive, 100 SM-3s or Sydney getting nuked.

Get back to us when their missiles can reach Sydney, OK? :

LOL. Really? :

Yes.

So what, next month then? :

What ever happened to the deterrence of the US's nuclear umbrella? Are you saying that Washington isn't the steadfast ally it once was?

Wait, I thought you said Australia had an ABM defense not Aegis-based. Where is this super weapon? :

 

[Rickshaw]

Do you see me use the term "Aegis" at all?

Stop erecting strawman arguments. : :

Wow. I mean, damn. You were wrong. Grow up and admit it.

Admit what? You claimed I had used the word "Aegis". In your own quote, there is no evidence of my using the term "Aegis". If there is any admission required, it is yourself who has to apologise for accusing me of using a word that I did not. : :

 

[Rickshaw]

"n order to shoot down incoming warheads, Australia would need new missiles and here's where it starts getting expensive.

Each SM-3 missile, able to obliterate ballistic missiles as they travel outside the earth's atmosphere, costs in excess of US$10 million ($A13 million). The SM-6, which can destroy hostile aircraft and also missiles in their terminal phase, costs around $US4 million ($A5.2 million)."

I wonder what would be more expensive, 100 SM-3s or Sydney getting nuked.

Get back to us when their missiles can reach Sydney, OK? :

LOL. Really? :

Yes.

So what, next month then? :

What ever happened to the deterrence of the US's nuclear umbrella? Are you saying that Washington isn't the steadfast ally it once was?

Wait, I thought you said Australia had an ABM defense not Aegis-based. Where is this super weapon? :

I have said where it is. It is aboard HMAS HOBART. All it requires is a software update and the acquisition of some missiles. When you going to admit that you claimed I had used a word that I had not? Why is this suddenly become a debate about what you claimed I had said? : :

 

[sferrin]

"n order to shoot down incoming warheads, Australia would need new missiles and here's where it starts getting expensive.

Each SM-3 missile, able to obliterate ballistic missiles as they travel outside the earth's atmosphere, costs in excess of US$10 million ($A13 million). The SM-6, which can destroy hostile aircraft and also missiles in their terminal phase, costs around $US4 million ($A5.2 million)."

I wonder what would be more expensive, 100 SM-3s or Sydney getting nuked.

Get back to us when their missiles can reach Sydney, OK? :

LOL. Really? :

Yes.

So what, next month then? :

What ever happened to the deterrence of the US's nuclear umbrella? Are you saying that Washington isn't the steadfast ally it once was?

Wait, I thought you said Australia had an ABM defense not Aegis-based. Where is this super weapon? :

I have said where it is. It is aboard HMAS HOBART.

What, specifically, is aboard HMAS Hobart?

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Topic locked.