There's a difference between man portable and man packable.
Man packable means you can carry it long distances, patrol with it, etc. Standard equipment for a dismounted element.
Man portable simply means it can be moved short distances on foot as required, but are moved long distances in vehicles/helicopters. There are a lot of things that are man portable, but not man packable.
RBS-70 is man portable, but not man packable.
There certainly is a need for man portable air defence, mainly for the amphibious capability. You need something to protect the pre-landing force and air mobile insertions, where a vehicle mounted solution can't be quickly deployed.
Fair enough. Plus I can imagine a need for some capability for an 'anti-air ambush' for lack of a more precise term, ie: a system that can be employed in an appropriate environment, that isn't soley intended for force protection of other assets...
Out of curiosity what are the systems like in comprison between the latest RBS-70 and FIM-92 Stinger?
From what I have found they both seem to have an effective range of around 8 km's, Not sure on the accuracy. If they are pretty much comparable I imagine logic would dictate having the lighter more mobile system.
That aside according to the DWP if we are to take it's word (which so far has been followed prett closely with the decisions since then) we are to get two AA systems one based around a short ranged system to be acquired within the next few years (I read that as being a MANPAD) and another being a medium range system to be acquired I believe around the mid 2020's and with the R&D and such I'd say the NASAM fit's that role and time frame. So question is if we are getting a new MANPAD is there a newer version to the RBS-70 that we could acquire? If not then does indicate some what that we will be acquiring something else and getting rid of them.
From what I have found they both seem to have an effective range of around 8 km's, Not sure on the accuracy. If they are pretty much comparable I imagine logic would dictate having the lighter more mobile system.
That aside according to the DWP if we are to take it's word (which so far has been followed prett closely with the decisions since then) we are to get two AA systems one based around a short ranged system to be acquired within the next few years (I read that as being a MANPAD) and another being a medium range system to be acquired I believe around the mid 2020's and with the R&D and such I'd say the NASAM fit's that role and time frame. So question is if we are getting a new MANPAD is there a newer version to the RBS-70 that we could acquire? If not then does indicate some what that we will be acquiring something else and getting rid of them.
Be interesting to see how this plays out.
The way the US Army uses stinger seems pretty industrial - platoon with 16-18 teams.
My thoughts would be attached to the NASAMS batteries as an additional "platoon" then deployed with deployed troops as required.
Always wonder how MANPADS are operated in an environment with high blue one blue risk.
Regards,
Massive
Based on the commentary in this thread, the strong belief from the contributors is that NASAMS is not replacing RBS70 and that a MANPADS project will develop in the future. That is, no one considers the possibility, that at some point between the publishing of the investment program's MANPADS "like for like" statement, that Army and Government looked at NASAMS, with Hawkei, with in service missiles and the possibility of major work for Australian contractor (CEA) and said "sweet"?
Yes, MANPADS might be useful for certain scenario's but so would Fire Support Vehicles, 105 mm artillery, 120 mm mortar, SP artillery and all the other capabilities that we had or were considered at some point. We can't have everything and AIM9X and AMRAAM will give us everything we need for 95% of what we have to do or likely to do. In a crunch, do you think it would be hard to get Stingers from our US friend if we really needed them? This NASAMS purchase is the short range, low level part of the future IAMDS. It may be the medium range solution but before that, RAAF will look at the command and control platform and the current fixed and mobile sensors replacement in Project Air 6500 which also covers the future medium range SAM. They will want to get the first two phases of the project correct before plugging in a longer range SAM system. The solution may be more launchers and AMRAAM-ER for the Army but with everything going on - Patriot PAC 3 or land based SM-6 may be on the list. Who knows? MANPADS? Let's take the 2 billion for NASAMS and run before some politician wakes up and says "hey, the investment program said MANPADS", why do you need 2 billion?"
I was reading an article on Janes the other week regarding the Reserve component of certain countries special forces.
Regarding Australia it obviously mentioned 1Cdo but also included 5 SQDN SASR which the article indicated was made up of ex fulltime SASR members as reservists.
I have to admit I had never heard of 5 SQDN before, I was wondering if anyone else had. The article didn't indicate a source of the info.
Unfortunately I'm unable to post the article here as I had read it while on the DRN.
Cheers
Regarding Australia it obviously mentioned 1Cdo but also included 5 SQDN SASR which the article indicated was made up of ex fulltime SASR members as reservists.
I have to admit I had never heard of 5 SQDN before, I was wondering if anyone else had. The article didn't indicate a source of the info.
Unfortunately I'm unable to post the article here as I had read it while on the DRN.
Cheers
Peaked my interest so did a little googling, Came across this site which goes a little into the elements of the SASR and does mention the 5 SQDN SASR being the reserve element and reserve support force.
https://bootcampmilitaryfitnessinstitute.com/elite-special-forces/australian-elite-special-forces/australian-sas-regiment-selection/
Defence has confirmed the death of a soldier in a training exercise as Shoalwater Bay. He was travelling in an APC when a tree branch broke and struck the soldier.
RIP, and wishes to family and friends
No Cookies | The Courier Mail
RIP, and wishes to family and friends
No Cookies | The Courier Mail
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Sounds like an absolute freak 1 in a million accident, far to young at 21.
RIP
RIP Trooper. Condolences to your family and mates.
Poor bugger, I'm surprised that WHS haven't raised the issue of collapsible ROPS in the past.
I know its not always practical, but if you look at where we've rejected some platforms on WHS issues in the past, a collapsible ROPS might add some safety insurance
Roll Over Protection System
typically found on mining vehicles to protect cabs from being crushed
also found on quad bikes etc to protect the rider from head and neck damage in a roll over
although designed primarily for roll over protection, there are also collapsible hoop designs to protect people exposed in a cupola etc...
am not aware of the specifics of the actual accident as not at work and haven't seen any specific material that might be available internally, but a collpapsible ROPS would do nothing against a falling tree - but could offer protection against an incoming branch
not necessarily relevant in a combat environment, so I was only considering from a training and WHS perspective against the reference point of armoured vehicles that we've rejected on WHS issues previously
Yup. We were warned of that when I had my first ride of many in an M 113 back in the mid 1970's. Dead trees are anathema too; the branches don't need to be low if you clip the tree trunk at speed and a brittle branch falls on your head from 5 metres up.
The press would prefer it if military life was risk free. I have every sympathy with efforts to mitigate risk when it can be done, but so long as training needs to be realistic and on the edge it'll still be hairier than working as a librarian
oldsig
Reading through the portfolio budget statement, on page 117 it did mention that LAND 9000 Phase ARHCAP - Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter Capability Assurance Program or replacement (ARH CAP) was up for second pass approval consideration within the financial year 2017-18.
It will be interesting to see whether the Tiger ARHs are replaced (possibly with something like the AH-64E or AH1-Z) or whether we will try and upgrade our ARHs to provide the required capability.
If the decision is made in this financial year, what would be the likely timeframe to see the changes in service?
I'm actually curious as to if some or all of the MRH-90s may go the same way, i.e. when it comes time for a midlife upgrade the ADF may consider replacing them instead. Actually I believe this should be matter of course for all defence equipment, what an upgrade would deliver and cost verses what a replacement would.