The Australian government is rapidly pushing ahead to equip the Australian Army with a second long-range fires regiment. In line with the priorities of the 2024 National Defence Strategy, the Australian Army must be equipped with land-based, long-range fires to protect Australia’s northern approaches. The government will select from two options:
- The Precision Strike Missile fired from the High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) launcher vehicle.
- The Naval Strike Missile fired from the StrikeMaster launcher vehicle.
To inform this selection process, a competitive evaluation process will occur over the course of 2025. This follows the government’s decision in August 2023 to accelerate the acquisition of 42 land-based, surface-to-surface HIMARS launchers and precision munitions for the Australian Army. Together, these capabilities will see two regiments based at the Edinburgh Defence Precinct in South Australia equipped with long-range fires.
The government is investing $28–35 billion over the next decade to develop and enhance targeting and long-range strike capabilities across Defence. The provision of a long-range maritime strike capability for the Australian Army is another significant milestone towards delivering an integrated, focused Australian Defence Force, equipped to respond to Australia’s complex strategic circumstances.
Deputy Prime Minister, Richard Marles said: “The National Defence Strategy and our Government’s response recognises that land‑based maritime strike is a critical element in achieving a strategy of denial. Today’s announcement represents another historic milestone, which will see our Army equipped with this capability for the first time in history.”
Minister for Defence Industry and Capability Delivery Pat Conroy said: “This announcement is another example of the Albanese Government delivering on its commitment to modernise the ADF and keep Australians safe. With today’s announcement, we are accelerating the delivery of a land-based maritime strike capability that will bolster our ADF and at the same time provide a path to grow the Australian defence industry.”
For Editorial Inquiries Contact:
Editor Kym Bergmann at kym.bergmann@venturamedia.net
For Advertising Inquiries Contact:
Group Sales Director Simon Hadfield at simon.hadfield@venturamedia.net
With how different the 2 systems are PRSM being a ballistic type, 500km range, NSM being a cruise type, 250km range. I can’t help but wonder if we wouldn’t be better served to go for an enhanced or compromise deal. Buy 7 Strikemaster NSM systems with 6 launchers each (1 system for training etc) for 2nd Reg, but also reinforce 1st LRF Reg with 12 more HIMARS (2 batteries giving a total of 48 launchers, plus training battery) and equip that Reg with PRSM inc2, complementing PRSM inc1. then we get the best of both the range and (presumably) heavier hit from PRSM backing up the stealthier purpose designed anti-ship cruise missile of NSM. Giving HIMARS Reg the versatility and numbers to double as maritime strike when needed. I know what you’ll say “Tell him he’s dreamin'”.
But we effectively get 2 full Reg capable of Maritime Strike, expand Himars no’s for all purposes (can’t have too many) + NSM can back as precision strike on the battlefield when needed which gives much greater versatility and depth to Armies choices around Long Range Strike.
How will the ADF supply targeting information for either? The Predator Bs in cancelled AIR 7003 would have been perfect. Now? I suppose we will just have to guess where hostile forces are located. Both PrSM and NSM need coordinates of where to fly to.
Maybe they think the Tritons will fill that role.
Nevermind that they cost an order of magnitude more than the Predators.
Just get the US to sell us some more
I thought about that – but you only fly Triton one at a time and I’m not sure how good they are at supplying targeting data rather than the broad area surveillance picture.
More than likely that Marles and Co are completely unaware of the differences between the Predator and the Triton.
Wouldnt the strix drone be perfect for targeting.. mobile on the back of a truck and accompany the Strikemaster.
Yes that might work.
Good point.
Does Australia have coastal radar systems? This might be suitable in the tight straights among the 2nd island chain (should the said nations agree to host us) as demonstrated by the Houthis and Bab el Mandeb. Worth noting the Fire Control Centre for the Strikemaster proposal is a modification on the Enhanced NASAM’s FCC (Reduced to two consoles and also installed on a Busmaster variant) and therefore could share targeting data with the eNASAM’s CEATAC and CEAOPS radars. It is not unlikely that they would be deployed together.
Otherwise I’m not so sure the Predator’s would have been a good choice for targeting a surface combatant from a peer threat. Any modern warship with an AESA radar would be able to out detect (out range) the electro optical sensors of the Predator and likely be taken out. The Triton, as capable as it is, is to few and also risks getting shot down. Satellite imagery (from the US) + JORN might be enough to identify and track and target, with the built in passive sensors of the NSM doing the rest. Submarine intelligence might also work if the target is moving at an economical speed or escorting slower supply/support ships.
How about the Innovaero Fox uav, CTOL/VTOL, Australian sovereign design and developed with an apparently good range etc and specifically designed for working in the maritime environment. Army can finish its development while their waiting for the 2nd LRF Reg to be equipped. And it could be expanded to the navy OPV’s and added to improve Border Force’s recon abilities too. (or is it TOO Australian for them?)
https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/540535-why-not-both-why-dont-we-have-both
This announcement is years late. The Strikemaster concept first debut in 2022 at the Land Forces event and here we are in 2024 excitedly announcing a competition to be conducted in 2025 with IOC likely years later. The government keeps banging on about the lack of time to prepare for conflict but seems to be dragging it feet on this obvious no brainer. I guess the HIMARS + LRASM concept from the same convention was abandoned?
We should do both. Acquire the Strikemaster to fill the short range ~200 Km envelope and the acquire the Prism increment 2 for the 200-500+ Km envelope. Layered capabilities are almost always better than the a single perfect solution. The Strikemaster would be cheaper to acquire meaning we could have many more of them and I would also expect them to be in service far more quickly than the extensively ordered HIMARS. Prism increment 2 (for the active seeker) would serve both a land attack and and anti-shipping role increasing it’s versatility.
Are the F35s & Super Hornets able to provide targeting information? Wedgetails & P8’s? I would have thought so. What about Ghost bat?
F-35s can – not sure about the others.They might have better things to do with their time – like keeping enemy aircraft away.
In the shadow of land launched Tomahawk, Prism and LRASM, who exactly defines the 180-250km offered by land launched Naval Strike Missiles as “long range”, and why don’t Defence Industry publications/commentators like APDR challenge Aus gov – DoD pedaling such a blatantly misleading description to Aus tax payers ?
I rarely bother because definitions of long range, short range etc are so fuzzy as to be almost meaningless.
Just a thought. Does the army possess the ability to conduct surveillance of broad ranges of ocean and coast line? Isn’t this an airforce and navy thing? Perhaps the capability should be given to navy detachments from on-shore. Also why aren’t all our systems talking to each other?