Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[old faithful]

Or phrased another way, the army has replaced an aging short range system with a much more capable modern, self propelled system.

It a bit like saying retiring the F/A-18A/B after the F-35 started entering service is a capability reduction.

Well, actually, Army did maintain both capabilities for some time, red eye/Rapier and for a while RBS 70/ Rapier, so yes, there has been a capability reduction, and both sides of Govt have been guilty of neglect for decades.

A Res would be perfect for a shorad system, but RBS 70 is not that system. Its not a particularly useful system these days. Need a fire and forget type system. I work with a guy who did years in 16 AD before it became whatever it is called now. He maintains its nearly impossible to hit a fast mover with RBS 70, it would be handy for helos and drones, but thats about it.

 

[Bob53]

Or phrased another way, the army has replaced an aging short range system with a much more capable modern, self propelled system.

It a bit like saying retiring the F/A-18A/B after the F-35 started entering service is a capability reduction.

Serious…your talking battery level weapon in NASAMS with million $ missiles vs an infantry carried weapon with a cost of $120 to $200k for a latest RB70, stinger or star streak Per Missile. And will NASAMs be even deployed at platoon or company level? It’s a bit of a gap in my opinion.

 

[Volkodav]

Serious…your talking battery level weapon in NASAMS with million $ missiles vs an infantry carried weapon with a cost of $120 to $200k for a latest RB70, stinger or star streak Per Missile. And will NASAMs be even deployed at platoon or company level? It’s a bit of a gap in my opinion.

You believe the RBS was deployed at platoon or company level?

Again, replacing an aging, short range system, with a modern, much more capable system is not a reduction in capability.

 

[Julian 82]

You believe the RBS was deployed at platoon or company level?

Again, replacing an aging, short range system, with a modern, much more capable system is not a reduction in capability.

We still need a SHORAD system for army (in addition to NASAMS). Something akin to the Stinger or its future replacement.

 

[Volkodav]

Excuse me while I go bash my head against a wall for a couple of hours.

I think it will be far more productive than trying to discus this.

 

[Julian 82]

Excuse me while I go bash my head against a wall for a couple of hours.

I think it will be far more productive than trying to discus this.

??? You are comparing apples to oranges. NASAMS is not a man portable air defence system. We are not even acquiring the AIM-9X missiles for our batteries. So at the present time we do not have a portable IR / EO guided SAM.

 

[Volkodav]

??? You are comparing apples to oranges. NASAMS is not a man portable air defence system. We are not even acquiring the AIM-9X missiles for our batteries. So at the present time we do not have a portable IR / EO guided SAM.

A Boxer is not a horse, a MAG 58 is not a longbow, should the army deploy horse cavalry and archers?

We have limited resources and the unit that was operating RBS70 now has new gear.

When the army procured Redeye then Rapier, they retired their Bofors and 3.7".

We need to new tech, to counter a greater range of evolving threats, not waste resources retaining obsolescent capabilities that have been superceded.

 

[Stampede]

A Boxer is not a horse, a MAG 58 is not a longbow, should the army deploy horse cavalry and archers?

We have limited resources and the unit that was operating RBS70 now has new gear.

When the army procured Redeye then Rapier, they retired their Bofors and 3.7".

We need to new tech, to counter a greater range of evolving threats, not waste resources retaining obsolescent capabilities that have been superceded.

Talking of horses, I always thought a small mounted contingent as apart of the Federation Guard would have been appropriate.
Proud tradition and all.
The limited expense would be off set by what it gives back in exposure and the benefits there of.

For clarity not suggesting mounting SAM’s on horseback!!!!!!!!!!


Cheers S

 

[Julian 82]

A Boxer is not a horse, a MAG 58 is not a longbow, should the army deploy horse cavalry and archers?

We have limited resources and the unit that was operating RBS70 now has new gear.

When the army procured Redeye then Rapier, they retired their Bofors and 3.7".

We need to new tech, to counter a greater range of evolving threats, not waste resources retaining obsolescent capabilities that have been superceded.

You are making a straw man argument. Short range man portable SAMs are not obsolete. Every tier one military maintains both SHORAD (for low flying threats) and medium tier systems like NASAMS and Patriot (for medium and higher altitude threats).

I was thinking something akin to our anti-armour/ heavy weapon s platoons in our infantry battalions also being equipped to operate the stinger replacement. Apparently it will be able to use the same command launch unit as the Javelin anti-tank missile. So the platoon could mix and match as appropriate and there would be some synergies for training. Could also equip our Calvary units. Not suggesting 16 AD regiment (our whatever it is called not) operate them. Wouldn’t think 50 -100 system s would break the bank.

 

[Armchair]

A

Well, actually, Army did maintain both capabilities for some time, red eye/Rapier and for a while RBS 70/ Rapier, so yes, there has been a capability reduction, and both sides of Govt have been guilty of neglect for decades.

A Res would be perfect for a shorad system, but RBS 70 is not that system. Its not a particularly useful system these days. Need a fire and forget type system. I work with a guy who did years in 16 AD before it became whatever it is called now. He maintains its nearly impossible to hit a fast mover with RBS 70, it would be handy for helos and drones, but thats about it.

Arguably the reserve artillery battery in Adelaide could be equipped with SHORAD systems (rather than mortars) and train alongside 16th Regiment. I don’t know if that is feasible given the training hours of reserve troops though (and concomitant safety / security risks)

 

[Richo99]

A Boxer is not a horse, a MAG 58 is not a longbow, should the army deploy horse cavalry and archers?

We have limited resources and the unit that was operating RBS70 now has new gear.

When the army procured Redeye then Rapier, they retired their Bofors and 3.7".

We need to new tech, to counter a greater range of evolving threats, not waste resources retaining obsolescent capabilities that have been superceded.

A Boxer is also not an Abram's - despite both being heavily armoured boxes with turreted guns - they bring different things to the party

And, NASAMS is not RBS70 - despite both being guided SAMs - surely they are complementary, not exclusive.

Shooting down the ubiquitous cheap quadcopters with NASAMS, is going to get very expensive, very quickly, and rapidly deplete our minimal warstocks.

Maybe not RBS70, but something small, light, portable and cheap(er).

BTW, anyone know the minimum effective range of NASAMS?

 

[Volkodav]

You are making a straw man argument. Short range man portable SAMs are not obsolete. Every tier one military maintains both SHORAD (for low flying threats) and medium tier systems like NASAMS and Patriot (for medium and higher altitude threats).

I was thinking something akin to our anti-armour/ heavy weapon s platoons in our infantry battalions also being equipped to operate the stinger replacement. Apparently it will be able to use the same command launch unit as the Javelin anti-tank missile. So the platoon could mix and match as appropriate and there would be some synergies for training. Could also equip our Calvary units. Not suggesting 16 AD regiment (our whatever it is called not) operate them. Wouldn’t think 50 -100 system s would break the bank.

Opportunity cost!

Manpads are a specialised capability that do what?

They provide short range defence against some air threats.

Ok, what is the primary threat?

Stand off guided weapons, artillery, and most recently, drones. What do manpads offer against those threats?

To be brutally honest, nothing!

What does offer defence against them?

EWIS, stand off guided weapons, active defence systems, and developing gun and Lazer based hard kill systems.

Notice something? Manpads aren't part of the solution.

 

[SammyC]

I will note that several European countries placed large orders for Stinger missiles within the last year, and the US is still electing to replace its own stock. So there appears to be a place for manpads, at least in the Eurpoean context. Maybe it's an option where forward positioned troops can't be protected by a NASAMS battery, which I'm sure will occure

I am however more aligned with volk's statement above, which is: there is a need for very short range defence, but something that provides mass engagement at low cost.

So perhaps more like say a Rhinemetal Skyranger on a Boxer chassis. Or the Slinger system on a Bushranger. Or Droneshield's Dronesentry on a Hawkei. Or a combination of all three.

Outside of a missile barrage, which NASAMS is designed to counter, then I would think drone swarms become the next most concerning threat. The pop up attack helo, which Stinger is designed for, would be significantly down the list.