What is that attached to the soldiers barrel?
OldTex
Well-Known Member
At a guess I would say it is the blank firing attachment (BFA) fitted to the EF88. As there does not appear to be electronics harness worn by the soldiers they aren't involved in an instrumented activity.
FormerDirtDart
Well-Known Member
He's definitely wearing laser sensors on his helmet, and the box on the barrel certainly appears to be a laser emitter.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Yes definitely a very well used BFA, they are normally a bright Red in colour.
A mobile version of Aegis ashore would be a non trivial challenge - whatever the radar but assuming SPY-1 you have large emitters with complex power and cooling requirements. Getting that mobile and then connected and groomed would be difficult. And that’s before you start on the CMS, large and complex even when using COTS hardware; and the missiles which, if you are intending to use the Standard series, are not wee beasties.
It is interesting to look at what Israel is doing:
Stinger
Iron-Dome
Barak
David's sling
Arrow
Comprehensive and informative as to a possible future direction for the ADF
Interesting to me is the comfort with overlap. Iron-Dome (with a relatively inexpensive missile) overlaps with Barak (suggest the best approximation of NASAMS), David's Sling overlaps with Barak and Arrow at either ends of the capability envelope,
What might the ADF GBAD look like?
Man-packed Stinger, Gun+Stinger turret - on CRV & IFV chassis
NASAMS
David's Sling equivalent
Possibly an Arrow equivalent (possibly RAAF or at least purple)? An Iron-Dome equivalent also makes sense, as does some form of C-UAS
Can't help but feel that there might be a reprioritisation of both GBAD & massed fires in the near future. Appears to be an emerging need for a brigade-sized capability for both and that that need is being brought forward.
Thoughts?
Massive
aviation_enthus
Member
But what does Australia actually need?
I’d argue the following at a bare minimum:
- Ballistic missile defence to cover the major cities plus the Darwin/Tindal area
- portable MANPADS for all Army units
- perhaps a vehicle based “Phalanx type” multiple barrel weapon. I think @ngatimozart suggested something based on the Boxer. Something like a modern version of the ZSU-23 (to deal with drones and helicopters).
- the only other suggestion is reserve units based in major cities to run a medium range system. This would only be used in the event of major conflict hence covered by cheaper reserves during peacetime.
The Army needs to have a portable system to follow them on deployment plus we should have a more general system for our major cities/infrastructure given historically we haven’t had a lot of fighter aircraft.
*EDIT:
Australia definitely needs to be doing far more research in to drone/UAV defence. I think the recent advances by the USA/China plus the experience of the Russians in Syria shows this will be a “new” area of technology we will face in the next conflict. Even if it is another insurgency type war, we need this for the Army.
I’d argue the following at a bare minimum:
- Ballistic missile defence to cover the major cities plus the Darwin/Tindal area
- portable MANPADS for all Army units
- perhaps a vehicle based “Phalanx type” multiple barrel weapon. I think @ngatimozart suggested something based on the Boxer. Something like a modern version of the ZSU-23 (to deal with drones and helicopters).
- the only other suggestion is reserve units based in major cities to run a medium range system. This would only be used in the event of major conflict hence covered by cheaper reserves during peacetime.
The Army needs to have a portable system to follow them on deployment plus we should have a more general system for our major cities/infrastructure given historically we haven’t had a lot of fighter aircraft.
*EDIT:
Australia definitely needs to be doing far more research in to drone/UAV defence. I think the recent advances by the USA/China plus the experience of the Russians in Syria shows this will be a “new” area of technology we will face in the next conflict. Even if it is another insurgency type war, we need this for the Army.
Last edited:
My suggestion was based on the Rheinmettall revolver 30mm not the ZSU-23. That's a mean weapon especially the ZSU-23-4 which would ruin any jet jockeys day, but its now outdated unless it can be integrated into modern optronics.
A man portable short ranged air defence weapon was listed in the Defence White Paper 2016, but seems to have been omitted from the FSP 2020. A “counter UAS” and medium ranged air defence weapon along with high speed / ballistic missile defence systems in support of deployed forces, seem to be the only references to GBAD I can recall, besides NASAMS II?
I suspect Australia is actually quite well positioned to create a strong drone/UAV defence at the squad/platoon level with both EOS and Droneshield being Australian companies. To me it looks like army is not sure what they currently want at that level and will probably wait until they see what the Boxer and future IFV can do before committing to any one strategy or piece of kit.
Droneshield has already sold some gear to the army for trial purposes - see here.
EOS has got their Titanis system which while not currently being bought by army I suspect we may see it eventually. This looks like it could be a relatively simple swap out of RWS systems. Particularly as EOS RWS are already used by army.
There has got to be some sort of EW that can deal with drones, surely?
www.realcleardefense.com
Just found this among a few others.
Electronic Warfare Is Becoming the Most Lethal Counter Drone Technology
There is a new urgency to the search for cost-effective counters to the growing threat posed by unmanned aerial systems (UAS) or drones. Large, high-flying UASs can be countered by anti-aircraft syste
Just found this among a few others.
Terran
Well-Known Member
Would depend on the drone. Smaller drones commercially derived are going to suffer more susceptibility to EW jamming than larger ones. So if you are an insurgent force with some hobby shop DIY drone, EW is going to be very very effective. Military models would depend on builders. Lower cost less protection. Higher end more sophisticated more hardened. Larger drones farther would have the bandwidth potential of a higher payload. I E a drone the size of a predator can pack a satcom. Something a drone the size of a Tea cup can’t. A larger drone is going to have the potential to be plugged into some other datalink or even Autonomus operating system. Even the circuit boards a hardened board vs a commercial board comes into play. This can be seen in the report a year or so ago about a US LHA jamming an Iranian drone.There has got to be some sort of EW that can deal with drones, surely?
Electronic Warfare Is Becoming the Most Lethal Counter Drone Technology
There is a new urgency to the search for cost-effective counters to the growing threat posed by unmanned aerial systems (UAS) or drones. Large, high-flying UASs can be countered by anti-aircraft syste
Just found this among a few others.
Realistically C-UAS is not a one size fits all solution. A number of types are needed. From very low end to very high end to deal with a mix of Red UAS.
John Newman
The Bunker Group
According to ADBR some MRH-90s have been spotted flying again:
adbr.com.au
ADF MRH 90s back in the air | ADBR
The Australian Defence Force’s fleet of 47 Airbus/NHI MRH 90 Taipan helicopters has apparently returned to flight following a grounding of nearly two months. ADBR first noticed two MRH 90s…
adbr.com.au
The RNZAF NH90 have been merrily flying around the place whilst the Aussie MRH-90 have been grounded. The article said that it was an IT records problem. Sounds like someone somewhere stuffed up.According to ADBR some MRH-90s have been spotted flying again:
ADF MRH 90s back in the air | ADBR
The Australian Defence Force’s fleet of 47 Airbus/NHI MRH 90 Taipan helicopters has apparently returned to flight following a grounding of nearly two months. ADBR first noticed two MRH 90s…
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Home - Defence Technology Review
IN THIS ISSUE ACCESS CURRENT ISSUE NEWS Land 400 Phase 3 latest The current status of the Australian Army’s Land 400 Phase 3 project and what the next few months may hold. Read the full article NEWS MRH-90 woes continue With poor rates of effort and climbing costs the MRH-90 trooplift helicopter...
dtrmagazine.com
The Army is going to trial a 6x6 Patrol Vehicle developed by Queensland based automotive engineering specialists, Australian Patrol Vehicles(APV). Its based on the Toyota Landcruiser 79, looks like it would be a great Vehicle for NORFORCE.
FormerDirtDart
Well-Known Member
Is there a problem with the G-Wagons that were recently procured and fielded with the RFSUs? Or is this just an effort to spend limited funds on "sovereign" produced systems that aren't necessarily needed at this time?
Haven't heard anything but looking at the APV site SPECIFICATIONS — AUSTRALIAN PATROL VEHICLES and the specs on it appears to be a true replacement for the now gone LRPV. Without knowing the reason for its offering I would say on APV specs listed it would be a better fit for long range off the beaten track patrol then the G wagon.
The width of the Toyota is considerably narrower, which is definitely a plus in the top end off road, also fording depth is 1m vs 750mm , again advantage Toyota. Cost is lower, and range is MUCH longer. landcruisers are everywhere in the North of Australia, meaning that just about every remote community has some spares and knowledge on hand.its a very smart idea for RSU like norforce ,51 RQR and the Pilbara regt.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Bit of a Hot Rod too with a quoted max speed of 150kph!, has a lot going for it, carrying and towing advantages are massive at 1500kg v 3500kg. Never underestimate the ability to be able to call in at a local Toyota Dealer and be able to buy spare parts either. And there are a lot more Toyota Dealers in Australia then Merc dealers.
I am a bit of a LCAT fanboy. I think we should get something like that built locally. Fast, long ranged, large capacity. They aren't perfect for every situation but I feel like they could be useful assets generally.
The toyota is going to be a bit easier in remote areas, not just Australia, globally. G wagons are not that common regionally. I would imagine say for a deployment in Timor or the Pacific Islands or Africa, where its a very small, minimal supported deployment, something like the toyota would require less logistics and service, easier sourcing parts etc.
I think this is more a niche vehicle. I don't think we are looking at mass replacement of the g-wagons. But something specific for really remote, light operations. Maybe a few dozen. Nor force. Also possibly for builds for other countries forces. Fiji/PNG/Timor don't really want G wagons, I would imagine they would be really into this as an off the shelf.