Australian Army Discussions and Updates

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
As I understand it Rapier is long gone, so this is a replacement for RBS 70. My recollection may be faulty but I believe Rapier was replaced ten years or more ago by additional RBS 70 firing posts, while RBS 70 was itself updated with an improved missile at about that time.
Long gone - and i worked on Rapier 2 upgrades which were exhausted stock grabbed by ADF
 

Raven22

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
So has 16 AD (air defence) changed to 16 AL ?
Not sure if all 3 services would be keen to share their stock of amraams either.
16 AD has been called 16 Air Land Regiment (16 ALR) for some time now. They consist of two identical batteries consisting of both GBAD and sense/warn/locate capabilities.
 

Navor86

Member
So this NASAM procurement is for the Australian Army only,right? The RAAF still will get a seperate system?

In accordance with the whole Plan Beersheba,are the any plans to increase the size of 16th Air-land? Will they stand up a 3rd or even 4th battery to equallysupport alls brigades of the army?
 

BigM60

Member
So this NASAM procurement is for the Australian Army only,right? The RAAF still will get a seperate system?

In accordance with the whole Plan Beersheba,are the any plans to increase the size of 16th Air-land? Will they stand up a 3rd or even 4th battery to equallysupport alls brigades of the army?
I am new but a "lurker" around this forum. I think another contributor mentioned that Project Air 6500 will acquire a new medium range system for the RAAF. Raytheon certainly believe that NASAMS will meet the requirement. Possibly ESSM Block II missile? If it is a NASAMS based system, then it would be the canister launchers rather than the high mobility vehicle launcher that is being suggested for the army. I don't believe the vehicle based launchers will accept the larger ESSM or AMRAAM-ER missiles. 3rd or 4th battery for 16 AL? $2 B is a lot even with CEA radars but others more qualified than me may like to comment on what the projected dollars will buy.
 

Massive

Well-Known Member
It implies two separate systems with the NASAM filling the medium range requirement it still leaves the MANPAD requirement unfilled.
Really hard to believe that the Army would have the manpower to operate both NASAMS and MANPADs unless MANPADS at a very small scale - perhaps a single battery of 3-4 platoons for allocation to brigades as required?

Could end up with 2 batteries NASAMS and 1 battery MANPADS I guess.

Then of course there is C-RAM - wonder where this fits.

Lots of new capability but wonder where the manpower will come from?

Thoughts?

Massive
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Really hard to believe that the Army would have the manpower to operate both NASAMS and MANPADs unless MANPADS at a very small scale - perhaps a single battery of 3-4 platoons for allocation to brigades as required?

Could end up with 2 batteries NASAMS and 1 battery MANPADS I guess.

Then of course there is C-RAM - wonder where this fits.

Lots of new capability but wonder where the manpower will come from?

Thoughts?

Massive
Extra manpower and is planned for and catered with the Defence White Paper to accommodate the new capabilities.
 
Last edited:

aussienscale

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
$2 B is a lot even with CEA radars but others more qualified than me may like to comment on what the projected dollars will buy.
Welcome to the other side, always good to have new posters in the community :)

Not sure of your background or knowledge, but a first basic with Australian projects is that the quoted price/price band, depending on what stage the project is at, is a total cost or life cost, so it includes not just the cost of acquisition, but all through life costs as well. So upgrades, maint, crew etc etc

Cheers
 

Massive

Well-Known Member
Extra manpower and is planned for and catered with the Defence White Paper to accommodate the new capabilities.
1500 to meet extra capabilities when the 1500 are needed to man existing according to Raven.

Be interesting to see if the MANPAD gets up in the end.

RBS-70 without GIRAFFE would fill the MANPAD role - not sure there are many more modern alternatives available - most are pretty dated.

Given the Beersheba construct wonder if mixed NASAMS/MANPAD batteries might be raised.

Regards,

Massive
 

meatshield

Active Member
Just for some clarification, Most the new's articles I have read mentions us getting the NASAM and not NASAM 2. Is th at simply an over sight by the journo's?

On a side note when we do acquire it while I see the benefit of having one based upon the Hawkei with it being more manouverable I'd also imagine the RMMV HX would be considered as well being large enough to handle more missiles, C&C, radar etc (Not all on the one vehicle).

Although not stated as such but add in what the RAAF and RAN bring to the game and Australia will effectively have a missile shield in all but name capable of dealing with most any threat short of an ICBM.

Now curious what will replace the RB-70's (The NASAM is a replacement for the Rapier).
Read this today on Jane's. Answers the above question

Raytheon Australia told Jane's that the system would be an 'Australianised' version of the baseline NASAMS 2 that will make use of a common launch rail able to fire the Block II AIM-9X within visual range air-to-air missile and the AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM).
 

Boagrius

Well-Known Member
Read this today on Jane's. Answers the above question

Raytheon Australia told Jane's that the system would be an 'Australianised' version of the baseline NASAMS 2 that will make use of a common launch rail able to fire the Block II AIM-9X within visual range air-to-air missile and the AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM).
Interesting. Hopefully this wouldn't rule out integration of AMRAAM-ER or ESSM. Would seem odd to invest in such a capable system only to deny ourselves the most "future proof" growth path.
 
Last edited:

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
Interesting. Hopefully this wouldn't rule out integration of AMRAAM-ER or ESSM. Would seem odd to invest in such a capable system only to deny ourselves the most "future proof" growth path.
I'd say the Australianized part will come down to the radar and the vehicles it's mounted on, Beyond that I don't see us wanting to make too many changes as we would effectively be reinventing the wheel then.
 

Boagrius

Well-Known Member
I'd say the Australianized part will come down to the radar and the vehicles it's mounted on, Beyond that I don't see us wanting to make too many changes as we would effectively be reinventing the wheel then.
Indeed - in which case I just don't see how you'd get the traditional box launcher onto a Hawkei - would seem to be far too small a vehicle for that. RMMV HX trucks perhaps (as has been said), but not Hawkei. Ah well - all speculation at this point. Shall wait with keen interest to see what becomes of this.
 

rossfrb_1

Member
Stinger MANPADS in ADF service?

Does any part of the ADF still field the Stinger (FIM-92) SAM?
My understanding was that army/SF did have it (replacing Redeye FIM-43), but I am unsure what happened once RBS-70 was brought into service.
If long gone - what happened to them - a big shoot off or quietly disposed of?

In trying to find an answer to my own question i came across this:
http://www.snopes.com/humor/nonsense/kangaroo.asp

I too had heard the story many years ago....

cheers
rb
 
Last edited:

BigM60

Member
Indeed - in which case I just don't see how you'd get the traditional box launcher onto a Hawkei - would seem to be far too small a vehicle for that. RMMV HX trucks perhaps (as has been said), but not Hawkei. Ah well - all speculation at this point. Shall wait with keen interest to see what becomes of this.
I suspect the plan is for the hi mobility 4 round launcher version that is mounted on the Humvee or there is a similar six round launcher for larger vehicles. These are not box launchers but use adapted aircraft launching rails. If so, we won't see AMRAAM-ER or ESSM in the army system because they are not aircraft launched missiles. If they go for the 6 round box launcher then both the former missiles will fit but only with the extended boxes/canisters. Current ESSM would also need an illuminator. The Norwegians tested ESSM in the NASAMS using a Hawk illuminator - from my old memory.
 

Boagrius

Well-Known Member
I suspect the plan is for the hi mobility 4 round launcher version that is mounted on the Humvee or there is a similar six round launcher for larger vehicles. These are not box launchers but use adapted aircraft launching rails. If so, we won't see AMRAAM-ER or ESSM in the army system because they are not aircraft launched missiles. If they go for the 6 round box launcher then both the former missiles will fit but only with the extended boxes/canisters. Current ESSM would also need an illuminator. The Norwegians tested ESSM in the NASAMS using a Hawk illuminator - from my old memory.
Ah, yes I mean ESSM Blk II here, which I believe has an active seekerhead for terminal homing rather than offboard illumination all the way (current version). As I say I kind of hope the extended box/canister iteration gets a close look as it strikes me as being a little more future proof in terms of the weapons it is likely to be able to accommodate.

AMRAAM is a fine and extremely capable missile, but with the D model being the last major iteration of it set to be produced, I doubt the slammer will represent the state of the art over the entire service life of our NASAMS batteries. Just my 2c. :)
 
Last edited:

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Indeed - in which case I just don't see how you'd get the traditional box launcher onto a Hawkei - would seem to be far too small a vehicle for that. RMMV HX trucks perhaps (as has been said), but not Hawkei. Ah well - all speculation at this point. Shall wait with keen interest to see what becomes of this.

when I was at JRA we had a chaparral launcher mounted on a Taipan (competitor to the Bushmaster)

we had a second unit mounted on a LAV (US LAV not AUSLAV)
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Bombs and whatnot
Gidday cobber. Welcome to the forum.
Hi guys its my first post here i am a new member, i think that our defense is in Good Hands
One line posts by newbies are not allowed, and you have already posted two in quick succession. I strongly suggest that you read the rules. We also have an expectation of informed discussion that adds to a topic.
 
Last edited:

BigM60

Member
Ah, yes I mean ESSM Blk II here, which I believe has an active seekerhead for terminal homing rather than offboard illumination all the way (current version). As I say I kind of hope the extended box/canister iteration gets a close look as it strikes me as being a little more future proof in terms of the weapons it is likely to be able to accommodate.

AMRAAM is a fine and extremely capable missile, but with the D model being the last major iteration of it set to be produced, I doubt the slammer will represent the state of the art over the entire service life of our NASAMS batteries. Just my 2c. :)
No doubt other missile options will appear and I get the feeling that Raytheon & Kongsberg are aiming for an adaptable system regardless of it being the highly mobile launchers or the six pack box launcher. If it comes off an aircraft launch rail, then it could in theory incorporated into the highly mobile launcher. Hellfire, Harpoon? CEA's ground multi mission radar has a surface mode and could be part of the future coastal missile system. The fire distribution centers can also be plugged into the coastal missile system. Imagine the box launcher quad packed with stinger or a small CRAM interceptor?
 

zhaktronz

Member
I suspect the plan is for the hi mobility 4 round launcher version that is mounted on the Humvee or there is a similar six round launcher for larger vehicles. These are not box launchers but use adapted aircraft launching rails. If so, we won't see AMRAAM-ER or ESSM in the army system because they are not aircraft launched missiles. If they go for the 6 round box launcher then both the former missiles will fit but only with the extended boxes/canisters. Current ESSM would also need an illuminator. The Norwegians tested ESSM in the NASAMS using a Hawk illuminator - from my old memory.

http://i.imgur.com/aMlUx0t.png this picture very much suggests that the box launcher is just a shroud over a rail launcher - and that AMRAAM-ER should be compatible with the open rail
 
Top