Australian warship test-fires U.S. Tomahawk missile with range of 2,500 kilometers

It sounds great, but in reality, very dated tech. New hypersonic equivalents are far more maneuverable thus harder to shoot down, and obviously far faster.

HopeSpringsEternalToday 11:37 am JST

It sounds great, but in reality, very dated tech. New hypersonic equivalents are far more maneuverable thus harder to shoot down, and obviously far faster.

Flying low is just as good as flying fast, especially given the shaky nature of russian air defenses.

Aussies talk a good game.

RAN stats

Size

16,000 Permanent personnel

4,607 Reserve personnel

27 commissioned ships

11 non-commissioned ships[1]

Fleet

2 landing helicopter docks

1 landing ship dock

6 submarines

3 destroyers

7 frigates

3 patrol boats

8 non-commissioned patrol boats

2 minehunters

1 survey ship

2 replenishment oilers - Wikipedia

It sounds great, but in reality, very dated tech. New hypersonic equivalents are far more maneuverable thus harder to shoot down, and obviously far faster.

I love the foamers, especially the ones who have no hands on with the systems they talk about so knowingly. The Tomahawk of 2024 is a completely different weapon from the Tomahawk of 1984. There is a family lineage but no common parts.

I love the assertion that a hypersonic screamer is naturally and obviously more maneuverable than a subsonic missile. What flight test data are you referencing? The faster you go the bigger your turn radius.

And while the screamers look fearsome, they don't find their target any better than the subsonic cruise missiles. The faster you go the less time you have to detect, track, target and maneuver to hit. And OBTW a low flying stealthy subsonic missile can be exceptionally hard to detect until it is too late to do anything about it. Unlike the screamers a Tomahawk can fly low, below ridges avoiding enemy air defenses along the route to its target. The screamers can't go that low and if they try aerodynamic drag slows them down hugely.

We had Russian Kh-31s for a time as targets. We called them MA-31. The Russians claimed a top speed of Mach 2.5 but they could only do that at 40,000 feet. We needed a low level presentation, under 25 feet ideally. The MA-31 was barely supersonic at that altitude and it's range was barely 16 miles. Kludge.

https://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/ma-31.html

It sounds great, but in reality, very dated tech. New hypersonic equivalents are far more maneuverable thus harder to shoot down, and obviously far faster.

hypersonic missiles are like a Top Fuel drag racer, compared to the tomahawk as a dirt bike. Nowhere near as maneuverable.

The most effective defense against cruise missiles is to actually track them with a fighter jet, and shoot them down with air to air missiles. Costly and difficult, and requiring a multi layered air defense system.

And then the same idiots tell and force you to blow less CO2 into the air. lol

HopeSpringsEternalToday  11:37 am JST

It sounds great, but in reality, very dated tech. New hypersonic equivalents are far more maneuverable thus harder to shoot down, and obviously far faster.

flying fast and high is ok for now but eventually a targeting system will be deployed. Low also has its value too. Sometimes you don’t need the most expensive, the fastest and the biggest to say, take out a dam, take out a command and control centre, a power stations ammunition dump. The right weapon for the right target is what counts. A cruise missile is no different to say an Exocet anti ship missile ( a little different) and look at the threat that still poses. Low flying, subsonic. Created 1967 AIM 9 sidewinder. Still being upgraded. The names maybe old, but the electronics, engines are always being upgraded.

Great news for Australia's defence and for allies to know Australia now has this capability.

The navy is building hard to gain 8 nuclear powered submarines and increase frigate numbers to more than double the current number and to include 6 new manned/unmanned missile carriers.

Hypersonics can fly at low altitude too! Cruise missiles = circa. 1990's tech., much cheaper but hardly cutting edge.

HMAS Brisbane fired the Tomahawk on December 3 off the west coast of the United States, Australia's government said in a statement, making it one of only three countries alongside the U.S. and Britain to acquire and fire the missile.

Japan will bed the next.

HMAS Brisbane fired the Tomahawk on December 3 off the west coast of the United States, Australia's government said in a statement, making it one of only three countries alongside the U.S. and Britain to acquire and fire the missile.

Japan will be the next.

only a few years ago the Aus navy were being negated because they did not have sufficient, manpower for the bots that ere serviceable (fact check ABC). so they enhance their undermanned, undermaintained fleet by launching the latest tomahawk purchased from the US, how many bucks? (how many more vessels to aid any national relief coastal requirements?) another national pride monument?

HopeSpringsEternalToday 01:47 pm JST

Hypersonics can fly at low altitude too! Cruise missiles = circa. 1990's tech., much cheaper but hardly cutting edge.

Heh, and slam into a hospital.

Cruise missiles = circa. 1990's tech.

Nope, Australia are getting the very latest tech version circa 2020's!

There they go again.

Canberra pretending it is the Deputy Sheriff for the SW Pacific of the US Empire.