Australians could remain without protection from ballistic missiles while the military shields its own bases using Iron Dome-style technology, a leading defence expert has warned.
Tender documents released by the Albanese government’s Department of Defence seek pricing and delivery schedules for US technology that would provide a medium-range, land-based missile defence system from the early 2030s.
According to The Australian, bids are being invited for US systems, along with equipment from companies based in Norway, South Korea and Israel.
Israel’s Rafael, one of the companies involved, produces the Iron Dome, a mobile, all-weather short-range air defence system used to protect towns and cities, as well as the longer-range David’s Sling system.
However, the proposed systems are understood to be intended for protecting Australian military bases and deployed troops from the mid-2030s, rather than the civilian population.
Michael Shoebridge, director of Strategic Analysis Australia, criticised the plan, saying it appeared to prioritise the protection of military assets over Australians.
‘In what war will it be acceptable for the Australian Defence Force to use missile defence systems to protect itself and not the population?’ he said on Thursday.
‘What they’re proposing to do is, about 10 years from now, acquire a limited set of defensive systems to protect themselves and their bases and leave the Australian population exposed.
The Albanese government’s Department of Defence requested pricing and delivery schedules for technology that would shield military bases and deployed troops from missiles
Bids are being sought for several systems, including equipment from Israel’s Rafael, the manufacturer of the Iron Dome (pictured)
‘It is an incredibly self-interested program when the mission of our military is to protect Australian people, not just themselves.’
Mr Shoebridge recognised the challenge posed by Australia’s vast territory, but said failing even to consider missile defence for cities was a serious error.
‘Australia is a very big, expansive territory to protect, and we’ve got large cities,’ he said.
‘But to say it’s all too hard, therefore we’ll protect none of it, but only protect ourselves. That is a disastrous failure in their basic purpose and mission.
‘It’s not like Australia could afford a continent-wide missile defence system, like Donald Trump’s Golden Dome, which cost a trillion dollars.
‘However, to not even scope their program, to acknowledge a need for some limited defence of population centres, and only scope it to protect themselves is beyond extraordinary.’
The dispute comes as Chinese military activity near Australia increases, including a July missile test in the Pacific involving systems fitted with dummy warheads. Beijing described the launch as part of a ‘training program’.
The technology reportedly included a submarine-launched ballistic missile with a range of 10,000km. Defence analysts have said such a weapon could reach Brisbane from Beijing and potentially Sydney.
Defence expert Michael Shoebridge, director of Strategic Analysis Australia, said the proposal prioritised military assets rather than protecting Australians
The debate follows increased Chinese military activity near Australia, including a July Pacific missile test involving systems fitted with dummy warheads
Another issue raised by Mr Shoebridge is the fact that the technology being sought in the tender is old.
‘The other really striking thing about this, apart from them forgetting that their fundamental mission is to protect Australia and the Australian people… you look at the list of systems that they’re thinking about and they’re all things that existed 10 years ago and 20 years ago,’ he said.
Among the technology listed in the tender, Defence is seeking further information on the US Marine Corps’ Medium Range Intercept Capability and the US Army’s Patriot system.
The latter, which has previously been seen in combat intercepting Russia’s hypersonic Kinzhal in Ukraine, is understood to be favoured by the Australian Army.
Interceptors cost approximately US$4million (A$6million) each.
‘Patriots are very effective. Iron Dome is very effective, but these are the traditional conventional systems, and we know that the Patriot is eye-wateringly expensive,’ Mr Shoebridge said.
‘We also know that America can’t make enough for its own needs and, therefore, it’s very unlikely we would get them in any numbers if we chose them.’
When asked whether the defence systems could be extended to cities, Mr Shoebridge suggested the decision would not only be costly but a change the military would not be willing to make.
Mr Shoebridge acknowledged that Australia includes a significant amount of land to cover, but highlighted that not even considering systems for cities was a mistake. Pictured, ADF members look at a vehicle during the Land Forces expo in Perth in October
Join the discussion
Should the government protect its citizens from missile threats or focus resources on military bases?
‘If they were to look at defending the Australian people from ballistic missile and long-range drone threats, it would be expensive,’ he said.
‘And it would mean they had to change some of their plans. If there’s one thing the defence institution has shown an incapacity to do, it’s to change their plans as the world around them changes.’
The government’s approach has been to keep a small, deployable force to participate in distant conflict, according to Mr Shoebridge.
‘Their plan is just immune to change,’ he added.
‘Their thinking is entirely flavoured by the first two decades of the 21st century, and it has been unaffected by the changed world that we’re living in now.’
He added that another ‘striking omission’ was to not look at modern, constantly updated weapon defences such as those developed in Ukraine following Russia’s invasion.
‘To have them not even in the potential solution space is an alarming gap in defence’s basic knowledge and competence when it comes to missile defence, missile and drone defence,’ he added.
Speaking to the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee on Thursday, Air Marshal Robert Chipman, Vice Chief of the Defence Force, said there had been market analysis carried out to determine options for land force systems.
‘We have not yet got to the point of identifying systems which systems will compete.. we’re just not advanced enough in the project to be conclusive,’ he said.
Air Marshal Chipman said Defence was looking for ‘mature’ options that they could field as quickly as available.
He confirmed systems like Patriot were in the mix but was unable to name the other systems.
Senator James Paterson asked witnesses at the committee about the consideration for Rafael, to which Defence’s Acting Deputy Secretary in Capability Acquisition and Sustainment Group, Racheal Kuczama, said they were looking at US-manufactured technology based on ‘Iron Dome’.
But the witnesses at the committee highlighted that it remains a hypothetical discussion as the government carries out market research.
It is understood the government has prioritised a battle management system being built by Lockheed Martin Australia.
The system would serve as the focal point of the broader defence network and has been allocated $190million in funding.
South Korea’s Hanwha is already building the army’s Redbacks and K9 Huntsman vehicles in Geelong, which were seen at the Land Forces expo in Perth earlier in October.
Norway’s Kongsberg currently supplies the Army with a short-range system.
