I also came across this article this morning about some of the ADF M113s sent to the Ukraine. Ukrainian Defenders Got Intersting Vehicles from Australia | Defense Express
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure I would get Australia providing NASAMs out of that article, the Australian NASAMS system will be unique to Australia due to being integrated with CEAFAR Radar systems. The US has just cleared a NASAMS sale to Ukraine, they maybe looking at the Hawkeii Ute version to fit these to. Didn't see anything about FA-18s in the article, supplying support and trg for the F-16s is in there.The Australian government considering sending Hawkeis with NASAMs to the Ukraine along with possibly all 41 Fa18 s in storage. Brake problem fixed….
Hawkei armoured cars bound for Ukraine war in Australian support deal
Australia is set to give Ukraine the missile-capable, four-wheel-drive armoured cars that it has been requesting for months.www.smh.com.au
Ukraine – National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile System (NASAMS) | Defense Security Cooperation Agency (dsca.mil)
buffy9
Well-Known Member
It may simply be the high mobility launcher as opposed to the whole NASAMS system, which is unique for us. Ukraine has been asking for Hawkei and providing further mobility, launchers to their NASAMS is a unique way to contribute if they end up operating near the frontline. It is also less likely media will appear of destroyed vehicles, given they are less likely to be directly targeted.
Clearly needs to be resourced properly - this is where the capability need is moving to so RAA is going to be increasingly important.
Would also note that there is also likely to be a need for a loitering munition capability that I would feel would naturally fall to RAA. My sense is that some kind of combination of NLOS and loitering munition capability would make sense but let's see.
Not convinced about the LBASM - hopefully it is deprioritised.
There can't be capability plans without resources being linked to them - just doesn't make sense.
Thought of course that doesn't mean that that is what happens.
Regards,
Massive
Giving them Hawkei HML before we even operate them and before they even operate vanilla Hawkei models? I believe extremely unlikely, if they even exist yet in a version that can be delivered. What we have seen so far is cannister launched eNASAMS components, not the Hawkei HML.
I suspect there is some conflating occurring here. Are there Hawkei HML capabilities that ‘exist’? Yes.
Are they integrated into the version of NASAMS Ukraine is getting? No. (They have been developed specifically for eNASAMS II, to be operated by us).
Could Hawkei be supplied to Ukraine tomorrow? Yes.
Does Ukraine already have and is it acquiring more NASAMS systems? Yes.
I don’t think it follows we would be supplying Hawkei HML before we even introduce it to service ourselves, just like the ‘supply M1A1‘ calls being made, before we receive and introduce our M1A2SEPv3 replacements.
Last edited:
DSR specifically noted LBASM is a priority capability, so Government has directed defence to make it so.
Not sure about NLOS type capability, but loitering munitions are scheduled already under Project LAND 159 Tranche 3 and intended CONOPS seem to envisage employment as an infantry (/ special operations) weapon. I would have thought such a weapon would be usefully employed by our Cavalry units too (the whole Bde recon asset thing…)
On the ‘capability plans without funding’ thing, that is exactly what happens. It was revealed at Estimates last week there is a long-standing bipartisan convention that ‘over-programming’ limits are up to 20% of the IIP. The current Government’s point about the previous one ‘under funding’ is that they were allegedly ’over-programming’ by up to 40% though of course they neglect to mention when saying such that the former Government has missed out on 2 budgets now to have addressed that situation…
Last edited:
I posted the F18 article on the RAAF thread. It might just be AFR pumping it up but sounds like the questions has been formally asked.
Massive I reckon you're wish that the Army's vehicle mounted ASM would go away is unlikely. DSR recommended that PrSM be invested in including its future variants which means the next gen long range PrSM increment/block ii with the moving target ie Anti Vehicle/Anti Ship capacity. I suspect that the future Aust Army anti ship missile system will be just another job for the future HIMARS with moving target PrSMs. If PrSM second generation pans out it will have a lot longer range and hitting power and be a lot cheaper than any NSM on a Bushmaster ever would.
This one caught my eye from defence images
Defence has a broad range of occupations!
Cheers S
Defence Imagery: 20230516army8679501_0090.jpg
images.defence.gov.au
Defence has a broad range of occupations!
Cheers S
Well the python they are holding is non venomous, but when they encounter taipans, Tiger snakes, and the Eastern Brown snakes, definitely rather them than me.This one caught my eye from defence images
Defence Imagery: 20230516army8679501_0090.jpg
images.defence.gov.au
Defence has a broad range of occupations!
Cheers S
AndyinOz
Member
Non venomous yes, but I reckon one that size could give you one hell of a 'hug'. I remember as a teen having a snake catcher remove a 7ft or so Carpet Python from my parents chook pen. He asked us if any wanted to try holding it. I said yes of course as a brash 15yo kid, damn thing wrapped itself around my arm as a few pics were taken. Didn't take long for pins and needles to set in.
I have held a carpet python as well. Had it draped across my neck. Jeez it wasn't half heavy. Yes their hug can be quite a squeeze.
I suspect LBASM will be a dedicated regiment with a system dedicated to the role. It’s a separate project for a start (Project LAND 4100) to HIMARS (Project LAND 8113) that is scoped to acquire targeting, ISR and C2 capabilities in addition to merely the effectors.
Last edited:
In the Army Objective Force orbat the Land 4100 mobile anti ship missile capability was associated with a new Regiment within the re assigned 8th 'Fires' Brigade. But who knows now, the Chief of Army is looking rather depressed with his new assignment of a razor gang reorg of Army's order of battle. Pity really he is a very capable officer who was promoted from the ranks and got to the top by talent not the Duntroon old boys club.
Maybe I'm getting old and jaded, but I still don't really comprehend how the LBASM capability is going to work, or more to the point, what it offers over, or even as well as fighter / strike / MPA with ASMs, or for that matter, destroyers, frigates and corvettes, or even old school FACs.
I get HIMARS, and think the ADFs acquisition of it or MLRS is decades over due. I get longer range tactical missiles, even GLCM (all with ASV capability). I could understand acquiring a mobile system using different missiles for different effects, including ASM. AEGIS Ashore and/or a mobile equivalent also makes sense, especially if cruise missiles or hypersonic missiles are incorporated as well as multi role SM-6. I just don't get LBASM as a stand alone capability.
If it need to be deployed in troop strength minimum, with its versions control, targeting and data links, as well as security elements, we are talking a lot of amphibious lift to get them out of country as well as significant road movement in country. With the amphib s, they will need escorts and logically speaking, those escorts should have an integrated air defence system, data links, ASW and ASV capability themselves.
So why LBASM?
I'm am knocking it but I also, seriously need to have someone explain it to me. I get the feeling this may be like the US Army WWII tank destroyer doctrine or the UKs turret fighters. Seems workable, even, necessary, but ends up being so specialised that it is almost never used as intended and other capabilities would have been a better investment.
I get HIMARS, and think the ADFs acquisition of it or MLRS is decades over due. I get longer range tactical missiles, even GLCM (all with ASV capability). I could understand acquiring a mobile system using different missiles for different effects, including ASM. AEGIS Ashore and/or a mobile equivalent also makes sense, especially if cruise missiles or hypersonic missiles are incorporated as well as multi role SM-6. I just don't get LBASM as a stand alone capability.
If it need to be deployed in troop strength minimum, with its versions control, targeting and data links, as well as security elements, we are talking a lot of amphibious lift to get them out of country as well as significant road movement in country. With the amphib s, they will need escorts and logically speaking, those escorts should have an integrated air defence system, data links, ASW and ASV capability themselves.
So why LBASM?
I'm am knocking it but I also, seriously need to have someone explain it to me. I get the feeling this may be like the US Army WWII tank destroyer doctrine or the UKs turret fighters. Seems workable, even, necessary, but ends up being so specialised that it is almost never used as intended and other capabilities would have been a better investment.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
TBH I have felt that it seemed more like someone in Australia had decided that Army should follow in the direction the USMC seems to be heading, and therefore if the USMC is looking at establishing a capability like ground-launched AShM, then Army should too. This might also explain why the DSR stated:
In some respects, the above taken right from the DSR makes me wonder if some of those who contributed really understood what they were writing or not. Having Army optimized for amphibious operations I could understand, but to state that Army must be optimized for littoral (as in by/on the coast, or the areas between low and high tides, or situated on or near a shore, etc.) seems to be directing Army away from areas where armies traditionally operate to cover a land-based segment that would be more in the RAN's bailiwick. I could seem some Army/RAN overlap of responsibilities in terms of ship-to-shore connectors for amphibious ops, but to direct Army to operate in coastal areas which would naturally also require operating in coastal waters...
I am also at a loss why Army is having LBASM thrust upon it.
Wouldn't a Corvette be a more mobile platform for this capability?
A Corvette could hide among the many islands with its shallow draft, move regularly and be a pretty difficult target.
Once a LBASM battery is on land, it needs to be supported, needs airdefence, needs protection from Special Forces, and is going to be an absolute hog for logistics as well as a horrible place to be.
Imagine being deployed to man such a battery on a remote island, not knowing of the enemy know you are there or not, Wether you are like a re trans position....trust me, being on a retrans station is like a reality TV show "alone" .
Wouldn't a Corvette be a more mobile platform for this capability?
A Corvette could hide among the many islands with its shallow draft, move regularly and be a pretty difficult target.
Once a LBASM battery is on land, it needs to be supported, needs airdefence, needs protection from Special Forces, and is going to be an absolute hog for logistics as well as a horrible place to be.
Imagine being deployed to man such a battery on a remote island, not knowing of the enemy know you are there or not, Wether you are like a re trans position....trust me, being on a retrans station is like a reality TV show "alone" .
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Makes a lot more sense. A LBASM has one job and one job only, you can use a Corvette for a dozen completely different roles, from littoral strike to OPV to HADR and everything in between.
And given plans are for later models of PrSM to have an anti-ship capability (yeah, I know SRBM and sea skimmers are different...) which means that the HIMARS units will likely gain a longer ranged (500km for PrSM Inc 2, potentially up to 1000km in even later models vs 200-300km for NSM) anti-ship capability in 5-10 years there doesn't seem that much value in buying NSM or land launched LRASM now.
Last edited:
knightrider4
Active Member
Volk I don't think anyone can explain it to you in an Australian context simply because the whole concept is irrational.