Experts Say Australia Needs Intermediate-Range Ballistic Missiles

Experts Say Australia Needs Intermediate-Range Ballistic Missiles.

Sunday, August 17, 2025.

In his article in The Strategist, defense analyst Ross Babbage argues that Australia must urgently develop an independent long-range strike capability to prepare for an era of increasing strategic uncertainty. He argues that the Australian Defence Force (ADF) cannot rely entirely on US assurances and must pursue a "very strong independent deterrent," even against a great power adversary. Babbage outlines the need for a select set of capabilities that would be difficult for any adversary to match, affordable at scale, and domestically produced. Among his key recommendations is the introduction of a road-borne, intermediate-range ballistic missile with a range of 3,000 to 5,500 kilometers. He describes this system as highly resilient, fast, and versatile, with the ability to strike land or sea targets within minutes. "A mobile ballistic missile would be the right choice," Babbage writes. "These missiles are difficult to intercept, can cover thousands of kilometers in just tens of minutes, can strike land or sea targets without endangering friendly life, and are difficult to detect before launch if paired with decoys, camouflage, and concealment.

" He recalled the challenges faced by US and allied forces in hunting Iraqi Scud missile launchers during the 1991 Gulf War as evidence of their effectiveness in complicating enemy operations. Babbage emphasized that while such weapons would not provide a complete deterrent, their deployment would increase the cost of aggression for any enemy and force them to think twice before considering an attack. He argued that such missiles should have long range, be equipped with internal sensors to operate without satellite guidance, and carry penetration aids such as decoys and electronic countermeasures. Ideally, each missile would be equipped with multiple independently targetable warheads to maximize impact. He added that launchers would need an encrypted link to the Australian combat network for targeting and firing commands, while camouflage and concealment would be critical for survivability. Babbage proposed a three-step pathway. The first step involves selecting a partner nation with existing ballistic missile capabilities, an allied or at least friendly nation, and free from close ties with China, Russia, or Iran. The second step is to acquire interim capabilities by purchasing missiles, mobile launchers, spare parts, and limited modifications to integrate them with ADF systems.

The third step involves developing a joint program with a partner, combining expertise and resources to produce a missile with longer range and improved survivability. In considering potential partners, Babbage singled out Israel and South Korea as prime candidates. Israel's Jericho 3 ballistic missile has a range of 4,800 to 6,500 kilometers, while South Korea's Hyunmoo 5 can strike targets up to 5,000 kilometers away. Both countries also produce their own sensors, warheads, and missile defense systems, giving them a detailed understanding of the technical requirements for ensuring penetration against advanced defenses. "Israel and South Korea have advantages over other potential competitors," he wrote, highlighting their indigenous missile programs and self-sufficiency in key technologies. He noted that South Korea is a member of the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), an informal arrangement designed to prevent the spread of long-range missile technology.

While not legally binding, membership could complicate cooperation. Israel, which is not a member of the MTCR, could be an alternative partner if Seoul is unwilling to provide missiles or transfer technology. The urgency behind Babbage's proposal lies in the uncertainty about the US's role in a future crisis. "We cannot now rule out the possibility that in a future crisis, the US might choose to remain indifferent or impose conditions on support that undermine our sovereignty," he warned. Therefore, he argued, Australia should prioritize the development of an independent strike system that could significantly alter an adversary's strategic calculations. By increasing the risks and costs of military action, such a capability would strengthen deterrence and protect national sovereignty in a volatile Indo-Pacific environment.

source: admin facebook technology military strategy