Australia is set to bolster its defence by committing approximately £1.34 billion.
This investment will be directed towards acquiring some of the world’s most sophisticated weaponry, aiming to enhance its long-range strike capabilities.
The majority of this funding, around £1.02 billion, will be used for the procurement of over 200 Tomahawk cruise missiles from the United States.
These missiles, with an “impressive range of 1,500 kilometres,” will be integrated into the Royal Australian Navy’s Hobart Class destroyers. This acquisition propels Australia into a select group, including the US and the UK, harnessing this advanced technology.
Additionally, the government has approved the purchase of 60+ Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile – Extended Range (AARGM-ER) missiles from the US, which comes at a price tag of approximately £340 million.
Tailored to target adversary radar systems, these missiles are set to boost the Royal Australian Air Force’s capabilities, with deployment planned for the Growler, Super Hornet, and eventually, the F-35A Lightning II fighter jets.
Supporting ground forces, the Australian Army’s Boxer combat reconnaissance vehicles will be armed with the Spike Long-Range 2 anti-tank guided missiles. This will enhance their ability to engage enemy forces from a distance of more than five kilometres. The first Spike missile contract, facilitated by Varley Rafael Australia, is valued at over £39 million, with ongoing discussions related to domestic manufacturing.
Aligning with the Defence Strategic Review, which underscored Australia’s need to deter potential adversaries from a greater distance, these investments will ensure the ADF’s ability to strike with precision from extended ranges.
Deputy Prime Minister, the Hon Richard Marles MP, in referencing the Defence Strategic Review, stated, “We are investing in the capabilities our Defence Force needs to hold our adversaries at risk further from our shores and keep Australians safe in the complex and uncertain world in which we live today.”
They are not alone! Good to see Australia investing wisely in its homeland security, let’s hope we do the same. 👍
“On 21 August the US State Department announced its approval of Poland’s USD12 billion purchase of 96 Boeing AH-64E Apache attack helicopters.
If Poland follows through with the full purchase – the approval does not necessarily commit the country to do so – it would become the largest operator of AH-64s outside the US. The helicopters are to be purchased via the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) process.”
LINK
Whilst the UK Armed Forces continue to shrink. So much for the UK Government taking seriously their primary job – Protecting the people of the UK. When will the MOD order the 2 x missing airframes to bring the E7 fleet up to 5? We have paid for the radars already!!!!!! And weapons for the RN fleet too.
They don’t give a stuff. We have accountants in charge of number 10 and 11. None of their families will ever end up in the military. Their focus is on the City, $$ and the family business. They can up sticks and be as far away from it as they want if it goes south.
We (the United Kingdom) are on course for a disaster of epic proportions. And it will be the fault of every MP who has sat between 1991 and today.
And every announcement of new spend seems to be spread over years to come and for some vague capability idea. I know that we need to invest in new technologies and the future but like Australia and Poland HMG needs to accept that we have capability issues and gaps NOW. It was very telling that the CDS/CGS commenting on the troop cuts to the army were talking about having sufficient troop numbers to meet our CURRENT commitments. The armed forces are not in the business of simply meeting current commitments, they need to be able to react quickly and effectively to emergencies and changes in the global situation. As it stands some sources are saying that the army will no longer to be able to help the civil authorities in case of flooding as seen in recent years.
👍 🇬🇧
They are not shrinking – stop this bollox
I think a British Army chief went home earlier because he said that…
No bollox. The UK armed forces have been shrinking for years. Because some people have buried their head in the sand doesn’t mean it isn’t happening. There are shortages and delays everywhere and a lack of political commitment to do anything about it.
100% Geoff.
😉
I think it’s fair to say they are shrinking…sometimes that shrinkage is countered by an increased capacity….a reduction from 12 AAW escorts to six has still seen the RNs AAW capability increase massively…other times it’s not…and sometimes even the increased capability does not offset the reduction in numbers…
What metrix do you have to show that UK Defence Force is not shrinking.
The UK needs to have an economy that is fit for purpose before much more cash can be spent.
We are doing the same. We have the 5th most capable Armed Force’s on the planet. Let’s keep things in perspective. Australia is ranked 16th.
NEWS FROM THE FLIGHT DECK
“Let’s keep things in perspective.” 😂
Overtaxed F-35 engines rack up $38 billion in extra maintenance costs2 June 2023
“US government auditors say a failure to improve output and cooling capacity on the Pratt & Whitney F135 engine powering the Lockheed Martin F-35, while simultaneously increasing the load from heat-producing sensors and radar, has significantly increased wear on the powerplant and the cost of keeping the fifth-generation type flying.”
LINK
And for those who still think that the F-35B has more range than the Typhoon even though they have been told numerous times on here.
Typhoon: Range:1565.87473nm
F-35B Range: 900 nm
I love this one 😂 “It isn’t just the purchase price though.”
Has he finally got it after all these years of me telling him? I very much doubt it 😆
Telling me what exactly? That you are clueless about defence, and just made yourself look a fool. Silly old sod.
And to think that US president who won the UN peace prize before he even took office cancelled the alternative F35 engine designed to operate at higher temps, just as the adaptive engine was cancelled in March this year. Who needs China,Iran, North Korea, Russia as an enemy when you can have a democratic President
Exactly. And the problems continue.
Pentagon to halt upgraded F-35 deliveries in July amid software woes
LINK
I think that’s a little extreme thinking.
And the only way a typhoon would be able to attack an integrated air defence system is using its low low low ground attack configuration….combat range for the typhoon doing that is 325nms…and that’s with 3000lbs of external fuel stores….do you know the combat range of a f35b attacking the same integrated air defence system safely no you don’t…the simple fact is the F35b has a comparable strike range to contemporary aircraft….and would wipe the floor with a fourth generation aircraft even an advanced one like the typhoon if engaged.
A sensible man has entered the conversation 👍
That may well go some way to counter the range issues – but not the engine wear & tear/maintenance issues surely?
If they aint in the air due to numbers and/or maintenance issues they ain’t much good are they.
Always good to gen up on todays technology.
LINK
As for the idiot in the room who professes to know all regarding the 138 F-35s we were supposed to be purchasing and loves the sound of their engines as they roar overhead 😂 along with his famous quote!
WHERE’S THE MONEY COMING FROM NIGEL 😂
“A cost per flight hour that is not significantly improvingIn fiscal year 2020 (FY2020), the flight hour for an F-35 (all versions) is $41,986 (GAO-23-106217, p. 205) or about €39,500 at current prices.
While this is a 2.3% decrease from FY2019, the cost is still too high and unsustainable over the long term. Indeed, the arrival of the F-35 was originally intended to retire the F-16s in the USAF, yet the flight hour for the ageing F-16 fleet has indeed increased by 16.3% over FY2019, but it is “only” $26,927 (GAO-23-106217, p. 232) or ~€25,400 current.
From a financial perspective, therefore, it is unthinkable to replace the entire F-16 fleet with F-35s, as the cost of operating the F-35 was originally intended to be equal to the F-16.”
LEONARDO UNVEILS NEXT PACKAGE OF UPGRADES TO SURVIVABILITY OF EUROFIGHTER TYPHOON
Fairford 14 July 2023 12:19
LINK
Australia do seem to take defence seriously wish I could say the same for HMG 🙄
We have had TLAM in service for years. £2.35bn being spent on Typhoon upgrades. F35, E7, P8, Protector UCAV’S. T26, T31, maybe T32. New Dreadnought class of SSN’s. 2 more Astute boats to come. AUKUS agreement. 14 more Chinooks to enter service. A host of new weapons. SPEAR 3, Meteor, ASRAAM cap 6. Tempest. God knows how much new Army kit is coming over the next few years. And the list is a lot longer than that. So what part of that is us not taking defence seriously. $1.34billion is peanuts. Everyone is so quick to do us down when one nation announces something new, and forgets what we have today, and what is coming further down the line.
Yes Robert there is some good news ,but on the hole mate we are short cited our Ammunition stocks are low ,and to be honest our Army is far to small and our US friends doubt is in some areas.Believe me mate I am not one for putting the UK down.A little navy news MOD may be putting to RFA Tankers up for sale there are in good shape and even the USA navy are interested in buying least one .Cheers 🍺
Though I do wonder how 200 missiles divided by 3 destroyers (which you would think are normally AA missile heavy) works out. Once Hunter class comes online (or SSN’s) then ok. How many cells could be dedicated to land attack? 8-16 at the most I would think (48 total per ship). They still have their primary air defence role & as per rule of 3, it’s 1 at sea, 2 sometimes, 3 if you are lucky & normally not for long. Could some of these be for Collins? They are already integrated to the CMS. Though it would have to be the submarine torpedo tube launched version to make that work. Otherwise that’s an awful lot of reloads for very few ships. Likely to run out of ships before running out of missiles.
Regards defence spending, I purchased the latest issue of Airforce’s monthly yesterday and it has 2 eye opening articles on the UK. The first is on the delay in confirming a follow-on order to the initial order of 48 F35s, with a statement from the UK Parliamentary defence select committee warning that not committing to go beyond the current 48 order could have serious consequences
The second is regards the Wedgetail and that is a real damming article, initial order of 5 E7s to replace 7 E3s, with that order cut to 3 to save money. Well, the cost for 5 E7s came in at £2.1 Billion, the cost for 3 comes in at £1.89 Billion. and it gets worse the IOC for the E7 started at 2023, that slipped to 2024 and that has now slipped to 2025, at the way the MOD likes to drag military procurement out via its novel capability holidays, the US will have an operating E7 before the UK.
But back to those 3 E7s, apparently in any war time setting they will only be able to provide cover for 12 hours citing that during the Bosnian war 7 RAF E7s just managed to provide a full 24-hour coverage requiring waivers regards flight time for air crews.
I’m pretty sure that the Gov will be looking with Interest at how the Norwegians instead of replacing its 15 Bell 412s, has decided to keep them in service for another 15 years and spend $92 million on upgrading 9 of them
12-hour cover? That’s alright, the politicians can stand on the lines and cover that half of the day.
I am getting angrier and angrier. The politicians and those muppets in the MOD don’t care about the lives of servicemen. We are really starting to see a system where those at the top look at the balance sheet rather than what the butcher’s bill could be and how that affects our objectives.
See my reply to Farouk.👍
The assumption being that we won’t be providing 24hr coverage on our own. And we will be part of a coalition, sharing the tasking with USAF and NATO assets. As it would be a major conflict if we needed 24hr AEW. And E7 is not the only ISTAR asset that would be feeding into the big picture. F35’s networked together can provide a huge air picture along with persistent UCAV’S. I’m not defending only buying 3. But that is the reality until our funds are in a position to aquire 2 more airframes.
In reality Robert, the government finds money on wasteful projects and causes.
I know that if it’s a NATO Op, the lifting is shared. However, what about our ability to act alone? If Uncle Sam/Germans/French/Etc don’t approve of the action/cause at the time, we’re stuffed.
I know people will point to the Falklands, but in reality, even the US didn’t back us up at first and our closest neighbour went and flogged them more weapons that sank our ships.
In this day and age, and after the experience of conflicts in hot sandy parts of the world for the last 20 years. I’m struggling to see what kind of operation we would conduct on our own, apart from quick, specialist extractions. I’m not defending defence cuts. But politics plays a massive part. And the UK, like all Western nations, are now very reluctant to get involved unless we have UN backing or it’s a NATO operation.
We can sell it how we want, the simple fact remains somebody (who it appears had the same maths teacher as Diane Abbott) at Whitehall thought cutting 2 E7s for a total saving of around £200K was a brilliant idea in which to save a little cash
Cost of 5 E7s = £2.1 Billion
Cost of 3 E7s = £1.89 Billion
Figures from House of Commons defence committee report dated 11/07/23 serial 43 page 16
It isn’t just the purchase price though. But the operating costs, support, aircrews and engineers ect. I totally agree its penny pinching. But the maths doesn’t currently add up when you look at the wider equipment plan and the budget available.
Robert wrote:
But isn’t that the entire basis of the governments and by default the “MODs” entire raison d’être regards shrinking the arms forces simply so as to better equip the military. Yet as we have seen that hasn’t happened be it E3s and Nimrods taken out of service before their replacements, the Type 26 fewer in numbers and a dragged-out IOC, Chally 2 Warrior and AS90 not getting upgraded, how about the pathetic situation regards the Anti-Ship missile situation which not only saw the Harpoon become obsolete around 2018 due to not upgrading them but the missile was scheduled to be taken out of service in 2020 with no replacement until 2030 at the earliest.
All I see with the MOD, is a pound-foolish penny shy attitude, an attitude which needs to change. But for some reason refuses to and all we hear in return is waffle such as ”
“”We are ensuring our armed forces are equipped with the best tools in which to defend the country”
Ive no issues with reducing the size of the miltary , but in return the powers that be, have to ensure that the equipment the armed forces receive is on time and of a quality and standard which affords them the edge that we keep getting told our much smaller forces will have. To that end here is a snippet from a parlimentry report from July this year:
“”It was also reported that the gearbox was delivered severely late, which meant that it could not be placed into the hull sections before the compartments were sealed. Therefore, the first ship, HMS Glasgow, had to be cut open and the gearbox skidded into position, an extremely unsatisfactory state of affairs.””
Right. I’m not going to go through each of the listed equipment projects you mentioned and argue the toss. Because I agree with most of what you said. But with the equipment budget we have, we can only do so much. And we still have very capable Armed Force’s. Is it in the numbers we would like? No. Are things delivered as quickly as we would like? No. But most other countries are just as bad, or worse. 3 E7’s is better than none. We have 9 P8’s finally. We have a host of anti ship capability. I’m not going to mention Army kit because I don’t know much about it.
We can have quality. Or we can have quantity. We cannot have both.
We keep choosing quality, which is correct.
Though I’d like to see a little quantity in a few targeted areas instead of quality to go alongside the Tier 1 stuff mate.
Not easy with Successor and AWE in core…
T42 v T45 is a quality Vs quantity example that in the air defence spere works for the RN.
T42 could shoot at 2 targets with a Sea Dart Salvo for a first hit at around 70miles. It could then shoot again at the next target for a hit at around 40 miles
So, one T42 could if it were lucky engage 4-6 targets before being overwhelmed.
T45 can engage 48 separate targets over 360 degrees simultaneously something that would take around 6 T42s to do.
Where it starts to have issues is the other spheres because 6 T45s cannot do all the other things that 14 T42 could do like being in various locations doing Soft Power stuff.
Its always going to be a balance and yes quantity needs upping in some areas
That’s the issue the less platforms you have ,the shorter punch 👍
Sort of…we have a better AD Punch but we can only land the haymaker punch in a couple of locations. We cannot jab and annoy the other guy like we used to… Ho hum
🤗
I remembered reading this a short time ago. On our budget can we afford to have them in any real quantity including engine upgrades ect.
42,000 $ per flight hour for the F-35: operating costs are not improving
LINK
The TLBs offer up stuff to be cut to the Govt.
i would think that those responsible for suggesting it are the RAF Command budget holders that though not recruiting pilots of a certain ilk was a good move despite having a dearth of pilot numbers. ?
Now that a Spanner wan**er Engineer (A good thing !) is in charge I suspect that things may take a turn for the better in the RAF.
Farouk
Bosnia, I think you ment E3, not E7. Australia has managed 17 hours straight in the air (on a single E7) in a war setting (including 2 A-A refuelings). Keeping that up though is another thing (they also had alternative full crews on the ground as they could turn around the aircraft faster than the aircrew). USAF can’t keep E3’s in the air. Neither can anyone else. Two E7 in the air gives you 24 hours coverage (wartime). Three let’s you keep it up (for a while). RAF need the additional two. It’s going to take years for anyone else (other than UK) to get onboard now that USAF have finally gone E7.
Weapons are expensive. If someone can figure out how to make them nearly as capable but cheaper they will make a fortune.
Brimestone …we did but the army is buying JAGM instead…because it wants to save short term by not paying for integration.
Sea Ceptor is a good example of a relatively cheap but fearsomely capable weapon.
As usual over inflated missile spending program costs
The US military is required to make public its procurement contracts ( except black programs) and we can easily see each year or so what they are spending
‘https://news.usni.org/2022/05/25/raytheon-awarded-217m-tomahawk-missiles-contract-for-navy-marines-army
thats 154 missiles for US$217 mill
Australia is getting around 220 for * A$1.3 BILL* ( or US$900 mill)
as reported in Australia
https://www.australiandefence.com.au/defence/sea/us-approves-tomahawk-missile-sale-to-australia
I know the program cost includes more than just the unit cost of the missiles themselves but its way way inflated. US$4 mill average per missile cost as compared to US services US$1.4 mill each
The AUS price includes lifetime support, the US price does not. Many components on the TLAM are life-limited and must be tested, overhauled or replaced at 3/5/10 year increments, just like an airplane. The UK Trident Missile program is no different. The problem with these ultra high end products is the only maintenance shop is the dealer!
But the implications when covering the lifetime support costs is that will be spent over over many many years . The buy cost only is up front
Many readers seem to think each missile is bought for $4 mill
Go to the source.
Search out the costing spreadsheets that are available from the US Armed Forces to Congress to justify their yearly budgets in procurement.
S. Rept. 117-39 – NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022 | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
Similar result to what Im looking for.
Did some quick calcs and assumed a couple of things.
For a procurement of 500 JAGM or Brimestone 3 (B3).
JAGM currently = 330K -400k a missile (USD but may come down in cost) Total cost with FMS fudge factor is going to come in north of 170 mil or more
Brimestone 3 = 250k a missile Cost = 125mil.(GBP)
So the Army is going to be paying more for a missile that is not supporting UK PLC (MBDA).
Many conclude JAGM to be an inferior missile in range (16km vs B3 20+ km?).
B3 is being bought for ground launch by Poland and probably will be by the UK Army anyway for its overwatch requirement.
FFS we stuck Brimestone on an Iveco truck, ASRAMM on a Supacat and hung Stormshadow’s off of a Soviet era jet. Even with Haddon-Cave driving risk management and safety cases I cannot see how B3 integration would cost 50 mil… The launchers on Apache need modding and upgrading anyway to take JAGM because they are not the same as Hellfire R.
Why would they do this? Unless someone is due to retire from the Apache project soon and will be moving to a contractor job…its not unheard of?
Army procurement and project (mis) management really is its own worst enemy.
It would have helped if this website hadn’t mixed up the Dollars and the Pounds.
Australia spending around $1.3 billion Australian Dollars for 200 Block V Tomahawk missiles and 20 Block IV missiles; systems and support (detailed below). The question is are they a mixture of Maritime Strike and Tactical Tomahawks or just the one type?
You can not deconstruct a systems package to determine a single missile inventory cost. You point out the Australian Denfence Magazine link to the missile sale, and on that very page it details some of the included costs. However, more details of the overall costs can be found through American – Defense Security Cooperation Agency.
https://www.dsca.mil/press-media/major-arms-sales/australia-tomahawk-weapon-system
“…The Government of Australia has requested to buy up to two hundred (200) Tomahawk Block V All Up Rounds (AUR) (RGM-109E); and up to twenty (20) Tomahawk Block IV All Up Rounds (AUR) (RGM-109E). Also included is support for all three segments of Australia’s Tomahawk Weapon System (TWS) to include the All Up Round (AUR), the Tactical Tomahawk Weapon Control System (TTWCS) and the Theater Mission Planning Center (TMPC). The support consists of unscheduled missile maintenance; spares; procurement; training; in-service support; software; hardware; communication equipment; operational flight test; engineering and technical expertise to maintain the TWS capability; and other related elements of logistical and program support. The estimated total cost is $895 million….”
(That US$895 million is ± AU$1.382 Billion Australian Dollars or about £704 Million British Pounds)
As a side note the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022 shows a request of 60 x Tomahawk Missiles at a cost of US$124,513,000.
I assume that those figure are All Up Rounds costs as other costs for Tomahawks systems, intergration and updating are included in other parts of the Appropriations Bill.
If you go to https://www.dsca.mil/tags/australia you can see other bits of kit being purchased by Australia from the USA.
I agree you cant divide the program cost by the unit buy and get an ‘average cost’. It happens though.
But you can work the other way , find the unit cost from a US military contract ( its also an average but mostly fairly close)
Then compare an actual unit cost X number to buy ( it will be over a number of years) to find total weapon cost .
That can be compared to the budget program cost to see that its often 1/3 for the “buy” , the rest for inflation, training, maintenance and one off entry into service costs
That last item was my main point and I wish that governments should be transparent in that way , So a price to buy, plus a one off cost to set up and finally a yearly running costs.
Its much more acceptable to say we are buying 200 missiles at ‘around’ US$1.5 mill each and leave it at that