Posted on 08/14/2016 9:03:08 PM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.com.au ...
“Literally we are hitting a bullet with a bullet,” ...
I love statements like that. Why do people use
“literally” to mean the opposite?
Hitting a missile with a missile is plenty impressive.
They need shore based and afloat systems.
Slashing funds for worthless parasite invaders
could free money up for defending their nation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.