Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[MARKMILES77]

Opportunity cost isn't just money, it's people and more importantly suitably qualified and experienced personnel SQEP. Its also infrastructure, and industry capacity.

Right now there are five roles my skill set is desperately needed in and they have all been told they can't have me because my current project has priority. Pretty much everyone I work with is in the same boat.

We juggle multiple roles, coaching and mentoring as we go so we are able to get as much done as we can.

Good to have, very sensible and justifiable capability upgrades are being cut, not because they can't be afforded financially, but because there aren't enough people or infrastructure to do them in the required time, as well as doing higher priority stuff.

I'd rather see investment in something like this

Counter-Drone Systems | Electro Optic Systems

EOS' counter-drone systems are flexible and can be customised to meet the demands of military operations and security requirements.

eos-aus.com

An excellent system no doubt.
But the acquisition cost of 30 Slingers would be how much?
The acquistion cost of 30 RBS-70s for Australia is known precisely, it is exactly zero dollars.
We cannot afford to discard capabilities that we already have.
We should be expanding capability at every opportunity.

 

[Todjaeger]

An excellent system no doubt.
But the acquisition cost of 30 Slingers would be how much?
The acquistion cost of 30 RBS-70s for Australia is known precisely, it is exactly zero dollars.
We cannot afford to discard capabilities that we already have.
We should be expanding capability at every opportunity.

But what is the cost (both in terms of financials as well as facilities and personnel) to keep existing stocks of RBS 70 in service?

I could be mistaken but I have taken @Volkodav to mean that we do not have enough personnel with the right skillsets available to both keep RBS 70 in service as well as introduce some of the newer and more important/higher priority capabilities into service. IMO this would be particularly applicable if the RBS-70 was already something which was not being operated at the battalion level or lower. If Army is going to operate air defence capabilities at a fairly high level attached to something like a Brigade HQ, then I would want something in service which has a range greater than 5 km or less, otherwise only the HQ might get any protection. Not to mention that having something which can detect aerial threats at a distance would be good.

If Australia was presented with the choice (which is effectively what seemed to happen) of either staying with the RBS 70 and keeping them in service, or replacing the RBS 70 with a more capable system like NASAMS, then removing/donating RBS 70 to a country which could actually get some use out of them makes sense. Particularly given that I recall Australia had been looking at getting/fielding vehicle-mounted RBS 70 BOLIDE missile launchers with radar queuing options back in the 2000's, well before the 2017 announcement to seek a replacement for the RBS 70 which led to NASAMS getting selected in 2019.

Also, does anyone know/recall which version of versions of RBS 70 Australia owned when they were decommissioned? Was it the original version Mk 0, or the Mk 1, Mk 2, the BOLIDE or RBS 70 NG? I ask this for two reasons. The first reason being that the earlier the version, the less capable the system and missile with a Mk 1 or Mk 2 having a max range of ~6,000 m and a ceiling of 3,000 m vs. 9,000 m range and 5,000 m ceiling for the RBS 70 NG. The other reason, especially if Australian stocks had significant numbers of the earlier versions, is that most types of launched and guided ordnance has an effective service life, a "shelf life" if you will. If one were to then go and trying to use a munition that was service-life expired had not undergone inspection or remanufacture, it would be quite possible that the munition would do nothing/fail. If Australia had stocks of munitions that was approaching the end of their service life and would need to be inspected or remanufactured, then retiring/donating them does sound like a better option than paying to ensure the ordnance is still good, just so that it can stay behind on a shelf somewhere with newer capabilities getting delivered.