Australia may be exposed to ballistic missile threats while its military bases receive Iron Dome-style protection, according to a leading defense expert. Tender documents from the Australian Department of Defence indicate a request for pricing and delivery timelines for a medium-range, land-based missile shield intended for use from the early 2030s, primarily for military installations and deployed troops.
Bids are being sought for US systems, as well as equipment from companies in Norway, South Korea, and Israel. Rafael, an Israeli firm, manufactures the Iron Dome and the David's Sling system, both noted for their air defense capabilities.
Michael Shoebridge, director of Strategic Analysis Australia, has sharply criticized this approach, suggesting it represents a "disastrous failure" in the military's core mission. "In what war will it be acceptable for the Australian Defence Force to use missile defence systems to protect itself and not the population?" Shoebridge questioned, highlighting that the proposed systems are not intended for civilian protection. He argued that focusing solely on self-preservation for military assets over safeguarding the general population is "incredibly self-interested."
While acknowledging the vastness of Australia's territory, Shoebridge stated that neglecting even limited defense for population centers is a significant oversight. "Australia is a very big, expansive territory to protect, and we've got large cities," he noted. "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."
This debate emerges amidst heightened Chinese military activity near Australia. In July, China conducted a missile test in the Pacific involving systems capable of reaching major Australian cities like Brisbane and Sydney from Beijing, according to defense analysts. The technology reportedly included a 10,000km-range submarine-launched ballistic missile.
Shoebridge also raised concerns about the age of the technology being considered. "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 systems under consideration are the US Marine Corps' Medium Range Intercept Capability and the US Army's Patriot system, the latter of which has been used in combat intercepting Russian missiles.
However, Shoebridge pointed out the significant cost and potential supply issues associated with these systems. Interceptors can cost approximately US$4 million (A$6 million) each, and the Patriot system is "eye-wateringly expensive." He added that the US has struggled to meet its own demand for these systems, making large-scale procurement for Australia unlikely.
Regarding the extension of defense systems to cities, Shoebridge suggested it would be costly and would require a willingness from the military to alter its long-standing plans. "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."
He characterized the government's approach as focused on maintaining a small, deployable force for distant conflicts, a strategy he believes is "immune to change" and influenced by outdated 21st-century thinking, failing to account for the current global security landscape. Shoebridge also noted the absence of modern, adaptive defense systems, such as those developed in Ukraine, from the government's considerations, calling it an "alarming gap in defence's basic knowledge and competence."
The Department of Defence has reportedly prioritized a battle management system from Lockheed Martin Australia, allocated $190 million in funding, which would serve as the network's core. Companies like South Korea's Hanwha are already involved in manufacturing military vehicles in Australia, and Norway's Kongsberg supplies a short-range system to the Army.