Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[SammyC]

The graphic is taken from a presentation @2019 so obviously warfare has changed significantly since then. I strongly suspect if there's a second battalion of IFVs ordered they will have a different turret similar to the Skyranger. AESA radar is at the point now where it's worthwhile integrating into turrets to provide an excellent stand alone capability that can also be networked.
I don't see the point of dedicated SPAAG units though as the cost dictate the primary function should be protecting troops. Mobile AD would be better in the form of say, the Bae Atlas -much cheaper and autonomous. Five would cost the same as a Redback but give much greater coverage with different turret set ups providing a range of gun/missile/sensor options.

I'm assuming that a Skyranger style IFV could be multi purpose. It could provide traditional ground troop protection and also AD within the same turret. So it would not be limited to AD only.

I get how a Skyranger could be paired with a NASAMS for local protection. And how Skyranger could be utilised at bases. I'm not sure how such an asset would be employed with a moving troop detachment. I assume they would be just mixed with the other IFVs for distributed protection?

The Atlas is interesting. I wounder just how autonomous it could be made with regards to target detection and engagement. Can't see you wanting a remote radio or sat link for the type of environment it could be used in.

 

[rossfrb_1]

Any concrete news or progress following the MBDA 'export' deal with Australia for the Mistral 3?
All I can find is general information regarding the agreement, nothing about any follow on progress.

France Authorises Full Export Of Mistral Missile To Australia, Marking A Shift From Western Dependence On The US – VWC News

www.vwc.org.au

IR and RF guidance for an ~8km ranged missile could fill a need for army and navy I would have thought.

 

[SammyC]

Any concrete news or progress following the MBDA 'export' deal with Australia for the Mistral 3?
All I can find is general information regarding the agreement, nothing about any follow on progress.

France Authorises Full Export Of Mistral Missile To Australia, Marking A Shift From Western Dependence On The US – VWC News

www.vwc.org.au

IR and RF guidance for an ~8km ranged missile could fill a need for army and navy I would have thought.

It's a nice missile, however everything I've read says that NASAMS is the official replacement for RBS70. So, I'm not quite sure why Nioa partnered with MBDA on Mistral 3, and why the French Government granted this export, with no evident Australian Government commitment. Have I missed something. This one seems back to front for the normal procurement process.

For the RAN, I think it overlaps with RAM too much, which is the more likely pathway up from Phalanx. I can't see a frigate having both RAM and Mistral 3. And I can't see Mistral 3 being employed on OPVs. Can't even get a 30mm gun on those.

I get that NASAMS is not suitable for small non motorised detachments that operate outside the cover of a battery (probably a substantial part of a deployed force). I can't see what Defence is doing to cover this gap, perhaps Mistral 3 is the solution. I know other countries have incorporated Mistral 3 into gun systems like Skyranger for additional capability and range for mechanised forces. Seems a good concept.

It's still a very expensive system, at from what I have read upwards of $500k per shot. So its not a drone defence. I look at what Ukraine has done to mature interceptor technology, where they have several Shahed style drone killers that are back packable and cost about $1,000 per shot. They combine these with Slinger style machine guns on small vehicles to great effect.

Does Mistral 3 have a place where bigger systems are more capable, and interceptor drones/guns are cheaper.

 

[ADMk2]

It's a nice missile, however everything I've read says that NASAMS is the official replacement for RBS70. So, I'm not quite sure why Nioa partnered with MBDA on Mistral 3, and why the French Government granted this export, with no evident Australian Government commitment. Have I missed something. This one seems back to front for the normal procurement process.

For the RAN, I think it overlaps with RAM too much, which is the more likely pathway up from Phalanx. I can't see a frigate having both RAM and Mistral 3. And I can't see Mistral 3 being employed on OPVs. Can't even get a 30mm gun on those.

I get that NASAMS is not suitable for small non motorised detachments that operate outside the cover of a battery (probably a substantial part of a deployed force). I can't see what Defence is doing to cover this gap, perhaps Mistral 3 is the solution. I know other countries have incorporated Mistral 3 into gun systems like Skyranger for additional capability and range for mechanised forces. Seems a good concept.

It's still a very expensive system, at from what I have read upwards of $500k per shot. So its not a drone defence. I look at what Ukraine has done to mature interceptor technology, where they have several Shahed style drone killers that are back packable and cost about $1,000 per shot. They combine these with Slinger style machine guns on small vehicles to great effect.

Does Mistral 3 have a place where bigger systems are more capable, and interceptor drones/guns are cheaper.

It’s place is VSHORAD and Army and perhaps the other services most definitely have a capability gap in that role.

At the moment our air defences consist of all arms fire. A canister or vehicle launched, fixed site short ranged air defence system, a RAN destroyer or fighter jets.

We are massively deficient in Counter-UAS. We are completely deficient in VSHORAD. We are completely deficient in ground based medium or long range air defences and we are all but completely deficient in ballistic missile defence capability.

MISTRAL 3 would provide counter-UAS - acknowledged at the more expensive end of the threat spectrum, but there are Group 3 and above drones that require such systems. Guns and EW just don’t cut it at that threat level, per attached.

MISTRAL 3 also addresses the VSHORAD capability gap, vastly cheaper than NASAMS ever could and far more broadly across a theatre than our 6 fire units ever could. By way of comparison, our recent Lightweight command launch unit request for Javelin LWCLU was for 161 systems… A bit more of a comprehensive presence across the battlespace than our 6 fire unit NASAMS will ever manage…

MISTRAL 3 depending on launch systems (SIMBAD-RC etc) offer a lightweight standalone system, that could be employed from a wide variety of RAN or Army craft (a single turret loaded with a pair of missiles weighs 480kg in total) and can be integrated into a combat system or operated as an autonomous launching system, able to be rapidly moved between ships, something that RIM-116 Block 2 (as much as a fan as I am) cannot offer.

Might not a SIMBAD-RC launcher or two look out of place on a 4000t Army Littoral Manoever Vessel - Heavy? I wouldn't have thought so… But is a high end naval defence system out of reach for the intended purpose of that class? Most likely, given Army have so far specified (publicly) nothing more than a pair of remote weapon station mounts to defend these craft…

it also offers a variety of land based applications from a simple ground based launcher to more complex vehicle integrations, offering some substantial base or point defence capabilities.

I can accordingly see why Australian industry are preparing to offer it for any up coming air and missile defence projects we may see under NDS / IIP 26. Local production etc would also fit well within the philosophy of the Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance Enterprise. Were such a capability to be sought, I’m sure it won’t only be MISTRAL 3 that will be bidding for it, Army will probably be looking at other systems as well - the Stinger replacement program would be likely, but I could see MISTRAL 3 offering a lot of capability options for the ADF.

 

[SammyC]

It’s place is VSHORAD and Army and perhaps the other services most definitely have a capability gap in that role.

At the moment our air defences consist of all arms fire. A canister or vehicle launched, fixed site short ranged air defence system, a RAN destroyer or fighter jets.

We are massively deficient in Counter-UAS. We are completely deficient in VSHORAD. We are completely deficient in ground based medium or long range air defences and we are all but completely deficient in ballistic missile defence capability.

MISTRAL 3 would provide counter-UAS - acknowledged at the more expensive end of the threat spectrum, but there are Group 3 and above drones that require such systems. Guns and EW just don’t cut it at that threat level, per attached.

MISTRAL 3 also addresses the VSHORAD capability gap, vastly cheaper than NASAMS ever could and far more broadly across a theatre than our 6 fire units ever could. By way of comparison, our recent Lightweight command launch unit request for Javelin LWCLU was for 161 systems… A bit more of a comprehensive presence across the battlespace than our 6 fire unit NASAMS will ever manage…

MISTRAL 3 depending on launch systems (SIMBAD-RC etc) offer a lightweight standalone system, that could be employed from a wide variety of RAN or Army craft (a single turret loaded with a pair of missiles weighs 480kg in total) and can be integrated into a combat system or operated as an autonomous launching system, able to be rapidly moved between ships, something that RIM-116 Block 2 (as much as a fan as I am) cannot offer.

Might not a SIMBAD-RC launcher or two look out of place on a 4000t Army Littoral Manoever Vessel - Heavy? I wouldn't have thought so… But is a high end naval defence system out of reach for the intended purpose of that class? Most likely, given Army have so far specified (publicly) nothing more than a pair of remote weapon station mounts to defend these craft…

it also offers a variety of land based applications from a simple ground based launcher to more complex vehicle integrations, offering some substantial base or point defence capabilities.

I can accordingly see why Australian industry are preparing to offer it for any up coming air and missile defence projects we may see under NDS / IIP 26. Local production etc would also fit well within the philosophy of the Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance Enterprise. Were such a capability to be sought, I’m sure it won’t only be MISTRAL 3 that will be bidding for it, Army will probably be looking at other systems as well - the Stinger replacement program would be likely, but I could see MISTRAL 3 offering a lot of capability options for the ADF.

Thanks, good summary. The SIMBAD-RC looks an interesting system, could be used in a lot of places. Seems it could suit the LCH vessels, not sure if the Government would ever prioritise that though.

Keen to see what the NDS/IIP 26 says.