Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[MARKMILES77]

Army progessing well with introducing their new UAVs.

Defence Imagery: 20260218army8672622_005.jpg

images.defence.gov.au

 

[MARKMILES77]

Stock image of the Sypaq CorvoX

SYPAQ Enhances SUAS Performance with Teledyne FLIR LWIR Boson Camera Integration - SYPAQ

Teledyne FLIR OEM has announced a new Thermal by FLIR collaboration with SYPAQ Systems to deliver the CorvoX Small Uncrewed Aerial System (SUAS)—equipped with the Boson® thermal infrared camera—to the Australian Army under the DEF129 program. This partnership marks a major step forward in...

www.sypaq.com.au

 

[Bob53]

Well according to The Australian today the biggest gap is that we are building Damen LCHs instead of building hybrid diesel electric nuclear stern landing craft in a JV with Fiji. This of course is all Julia Gillards fault .

i read that article and you might have embellished a little. They didn’t blame Julia but stated her government cancelled the original landing craft program and that the can was kicked down the road by subsequent governments. And nuclear hybrid? It was a few days ago but Pretty sure they were referring to Fijian Gov minister stating they would like the ability deliver SMRs onboard LCs into disaster hit areas … I don’t recall it being a form of propulsion energy….

 

[ADMk2]

No - I will quibble with that. Under our doctrine since 1960s-ish, we can protect a single deployment in one location against everything but ballistic missiles; and depending on proximity to the water and geometry of intercept, we can even do that. I know you are talking about GBAD, but the RAAF has provided the wider IAMD capabilities since the 1960s. They have promised and assured that. Army does point defence and Navy needs a bit more because they operate beyond the coverage of land based fighters.

Yes, we can argue it's been optimistic (although air forces writ large have done pretty good since Vietnam - very few Western SAMs have been shot since Korea, the fighters have pretty much provided that assurance. For a small Defence Force, it made sense to take the RAAF at their word and not buy redundant platforms.

That this isn't feasible against a peer threat (or over-peer) or against modern strike weapons has been realised since we put some harder questions to AFHQ in 2019. That and NHQ's work with DDGs and Standard Missiles, as well as the necessity to conduct our own long range operations has meant less faith in the fighter force. Now we have to grow it.

But fundamentally, a deployed Bde with integral cUAS, point defence eNASAMS, F-35 and E-7 coverage and potentially a DDG nearby can provide significant air defence protection to a single location.

We can’t even get basing rights for a counter-UAS system we were told earlier…

Yes, I accept if we deployed everything we had and the geographical environment were suitable, we could defend one single location, with the caveat of requiring almost the entire joint force to do so. I know we are small, our capabilities limited, but that is a choice our Government continues to make. ADF most definitely planned for these capabilities and I suspect they may have been discretely offered, if they were available. But they were cancelled…

But it was in the context of AD at Al Minhad airbase against the weapons that are impacting it today not what the RAAF may have imagined they could manage from the 1960’s until the last time our forces were attacked by ballistic missiles in 2020 at Al Asad (from admittedly hazy memory) and what is happening now. We have forces deployed in theatre and subject to threats, the entire ADF can’t protect against and despite previous planning we are in the same boat today. Even if we could negotiate the basing rights other say we don‘t have, we have nothing to send that would be of use against that threat. NASAMS could intercept drones yes, but only at an unacceptably high cost.

However, for the operational structure proposed we still lack operational cUAS, we don’t have a point air defence system, I am a fan of eNASAMS but it was never meant to be “the” layer it has become rather than the “part of the layers” it is supposed to be and no disrespect to the RAAF, but those 4 squadrons are going to be awfully taxed, if we’re ever in a situation where we need to deploy that sort of force. Not to mention the DDG situation where we only have 2 available at best, now…

 

[ADMk2]

So basically Army and Navy need an organic fighter capability for when they operate outside of RAAF air cover?

Sounds like a good job for a combined army/navy fleet of F-35B.

Also a good job for SM-6 and SM-3. SM-6 ( as a surface strike missile) is integrated in Typhon, SM-3 can fit the launcher, the question will be can they be integrated into an IADS.

No, we need a proper IAMDS capability that was planned under FSP2020 if we are going to keep putting forces in the way of ballistic and perhaps even hypersonic missiles. Which it seems like we are going to continue to do, given our own region has arguably the worst of that threat of anywhere in the world…

At the other end of the scale, we also have nothing below a fighter jet or a NASAMS fire unit that can reliably stop a Group 3 UAS (aka a Shaheed UAS) and they can only do so at horrendous cost. Lots of trials as always but no “capability” as yet…

To be fair, even the US struggles with it, per below. But they at least have systems in place. We have camnets, OHP and prayers…

The Army’s 'most challenging' unmanned threat? Group 3 drones - Breaking Defense

Mid-size, Group 3 drones occupy something of an uncomfortable middle ground between small drones that can be destroyed by self-protection missions and larger drones that are better handled by traditional air defense systems, according to Army Maj. Gen. David Stewart.

breakingdefense.com

 

[SammyC]

i read that article and you might have embellished a little. They didn’t blame Julia but stated her government cancelled the original landing craft program and that the can was kicked down the road by subsequent governments. And nuclear hybrid? It was a few days ago but Pretty sure they were referring to Fijian Gov minister stating they would like the ability deliver SMRs onboard LCs into disaster hit areas … I don’t recall it being a form of propulsion energy….

I had a read of that article too. It feels like Seatransport Group got in the ear of the author to complain about the LCH tender. Sour grapes to me. They have a nice stern landing vessel, but I think the Damen proposal is far more suitable and far less of a prototype.

How on earth was a nuclear generator ever going to fit on one of Seatransport's platforms (or any other similar platform), and how would this ever be realistically cost effective, or have sufficient regulatory oversight.

 

[Lolcake]

So with all thats happening in the world.. Mr Marles and Albanese sitting on their thumbs with regards to procuring missile and drone defence. WHY are we not speaking with the ukros to assist in establishing and improving anti drone tech. Why are we not setting up a Patriot and nasams, production line.

Absolutely ridiculous. We are working at a snails pace.

 

[ADMk2]

So with all thats happening in the world.. Mr Marles and Albanese sitting on their thumbs with regards to procuring missile and drone defence. WHY are we not speaking with the ukros to assist in establishing and improving anti drone tech. Why are we not setting up a Patriot and nasams, production line.

Absolutely ridiculous. We are working at a snails pace.

The Ukraine war has been going for longer than this Government has existed and ridiculously expensive and limited NASAMs interceptors aside, or if the RAAF happens to have some fighters nearby and intercept them with the same expensive interceptors, we have no reliable capability to intercept Group 3 UAS or protect ground forces or critical infrastructure from them…

 

[Bluey 006]

The next Redback order will be the support variants.
Ambulances, bulldozers, cranes, etc are an easy sell to the voters.View attachment 54375

Hopefully, on top of a potential order of support variants they also order another tranche of IFVs (60+) with the T2000-DE (C-UAS). Directed Energy weapons (be they Laser, HPM, EW, or whatever else) paired with kinetic systems is new "gold" standard for modern "layered" defence, especially given the cost-per-shot disparity in drone attrition warfare. As has been demonstrated by the recent events in the Middle East. Iron Beam this month has effectively ended the "theoretical" phase of directed energy, with the first publicly confirmed combat kills. Proving its worth in a real world high-intensity environment.

 

[SammyC]

So with all thats happening in the world.. Mr Marles and Albanese sitting on their thumbs with regards to procuring missile and drone defence. WHY are we not speaking with the ukros to assist in establishing and improving anti drone tech. Why are we not setting up a Patriot and nasams, production line.

Absolutely ridiculous. We are working at a snails pace.

I do feel similarly, but I trust (perhaps somewhat blindly) that there is work going on behind the scenes.

I think a key principle is that, at the moment, we only have the capacity and capability for a few targeted missile production lines. We need to focus where we get biggest impact, and at the moment that is offensive missiles (NSM/JSM, PrSM, GMLRS). I would view that we need to mature these lines before considering further missile types.

While we have some good quality missile steering, vectoring and telemetry component manufacure, we need to develop the payload, rocket motor and seeker units to be able to look at broader missile production. Hopefully this capability should arise from the above lines.

I do however think we should invest in a Shahed drone derivitive as a nice high-low mix with the above more advanced missiles. I can't believe these seem to still be effective in Ukraine and the middle east. They would suit our environment with 1000km range and we would get about 30,000 of them for circa $1B. And my local lawn mower shop could make them (almost).

For defence missiles, I'm wondering if in the short to medium term we partner with Japan for ESSM/AMRAAM-ER and AIM120 missiles. They already have hot lines for these, and we could invest in expansion of their facilities (aka our AUKUS foriegn investments) and support with component manufacture.

They also have an SM2 line and want to expand it to include an SM6. I would have thought we can link in with them in a similar manner.

I doubt that Patriot will ever be available to Australia. I can't see LM getting missile production to anything like what is required globally within at least a decade. Same with THAAD, same with arrow. Leaves us up the proverbial creek without a paddle.

I'm thinking our only hope for a shore based balistic missile system is SM6. We are at least getting some SM6s in the near (ish) future and already have expertise. We should receive something north of 500 of these (my very rough estimate for $7B, accounting for more SM2s than SM6s), which would be enough for a small number of Typon batteries in addition to the Hobarts and Hunters. Enough for key asset protection in WA and NT, and something that could be expanded over time. Not ideal for a mobile detachment, but good for a stationary requirement.

Besides the missiles, I understand the holdup with Typhon launchers is the radar. The new LTAMDS Ghost Eye is in low production and will be in high demand for legacy system as well as new. Perhaps we could instead invest in integrating Typon with our CEAOPS radar for a shorter lead time. Seems like a good use of our local capability.

 

[Volkodav]

So with all thats happening in the world.. Mr Marles and Albanese sitting on their thumbs with regards to procuring missile and drone defence. WHY are we not speaking with the ukros to assist in establishing and improving anti drone tech. Why are we not setting up a Patriot and nasams, production line.

Absolutely ridiculous. We are working at a snails pace.

How do you know we are not?

Defence is (or should be) need to know, and the general public, especially in these days of global information, do not need to know.

I understand the lack of trust of politicians with the various program failures and cancellations over the last couple of decades, but you cant assume nothing is happenjng just because there isnt a press conference or media release.

 

[Bob53]

The Ukraine war has been going for longer than this Government has existed and ridiculously expensive and limited NASAMs interceptors aside, or if the RAAF happens to have some fighters nearby and intercept them with the same expensive interceptors, we have no reliable capability to intercept Group 3 UAS or protect ground forces or critical infrastructure from them…

It’s become a situation where you need something a Skyranger, phalanx or the like embedded with or near every installation and bit of gear. Iran has smashed a number of THAAD and other air defence radars that had no protection.

 

[Stampede]

How do you know we are not?

Defence is (or should be) need to know, and the general public, especially in these days of global information, do not need to know.

I understand the lack of trust of politicians with the various program failures and cancellations over the last couple of decades, but you cant assume nothing is happenjng just because there isnt a press conference or media release.

Speculation in the financial review that additional funds for defence and pending.

let’s see if that happens and what that looks like

Cheers S

 

[SammyC]

Speculation in the financial review that additional funds for defence and pending.

let’s see if that happens and what that looks like

Cheers S

Interestingly it indicates the 2026 IIP will be released prior to the May budget. Earlier than expected.

Missile defence, mine warfare and drone defence are apparently the three items for funding.

All from sources "familiar with the budgeting process but not authorised to speak"

 

[Stampede]

How do you know we are not?

Defence is (or should be) need to know, and the general public, especially in these days of global information, do not need to know.

I understand the lack of trust of politicians with the various program failures and cancellations over the last couple of decades, but you cant assume nothing is happenjng just because there isnt a press conference or media release.

A lot has happened in a relatively short time
China / Ukraine and technology ( drone things ) and now Iran
Add an interesting POTUS
A lot to take in.

I think defence acknowledges above
Money is just part of the answer.
New stuff however just takes time and what new stuff should be prioritised and what it looks actually like is part of the conundrum.

defence is a dynamic space
Particularly for Army with the introduction of so many new and replaced capabilities.

Confident a lot happening that we don’t see

Cheers S

 

[MARKMILES77]

Confirmation the first GMLRS assembled in Wakefield South Australia are about to be delivered to Defence.

https://www.defence.gov.au/news-events/news/2026-03-04/missiles-made-australia

 

[Bob53]

Speculation in the financial review that additional funds for defence and pending.

let’s see if that happens and what that looks like

Cheers S

OT but not ….there were reports last year that Germany was planning an order of 5000 boxers…not a typo ….including around 600 Skyranger versions Plus around 3500 Patria APCs. Is there any chance any of these will be built in Australia on top of the initial order?

 

[Stampede]

OT but not ….there were reports last year that Germany was planning an order of 5000 boxers…not a typo ….including around 600 Skyranger versions Plus around 3500 Patria APCs. Is there any chance any of these will be built in Australia on top of the initial order?

Reuters last year were quoting some big numbers.
The UK also have a respectable order with some speculation ladditional platforms to follow.
Oz could very well be in the supply chain mix as Boxer increasingly becomes a popular vehicle choice .
With economy of scale and reduced unit cost a modest increase in numbers may also suit the ADF.
I think originally we were to get 225 not the now planned 211.

cheers S

 

[K.I.]

Any idea if there is a plan for some sort of air defence or SPAAG version of either Redback or Boxer (Skyranger 30?) perhaps? Such a capability could potentially blunt some of the risks to deployed armour from hostile drones.

The graphic is taken from a presentation @2019 so obviously warfare has changed significantly since then. I strongly suspect if there's a second battalion of IFVs ordered they will have a different turret similar to the Skyranger. AESA radar is at the point now where it's worthwhile integrating into turrets to provide an excellent stand alone capability that can also be networked.
I don't see the point of dedicated SPAAG units though as the cost dictate the primary function should be protecting troops. Mobile AD would be better in the form of say, the Bae Atlas -much cheaper and autonomous. Five would cost the same as a Redback but give much greater coverage with different turret set ups providing a range of gun/missile/sensor options.

 

[swerve]

OT but not ….there were reports last year that Germany was planning an order of 5000 boxers…not a typo ….including around 600 Skyranger versions Plus around 3500 Patria APCs. Is there any chance any of these will be built in Australia on top of the initial order?

From what Kato says, that's not correct. See German Bundeswehr

That number includes other types of AFV (e.g. the Patria CAVS 6x6), & is a total for those types participating in joint programmes (CASV is for several countries), not just Germany. Germany currently plans for 876 CAVS, & about 750 Boxer, plus, I think, a few hundred Boxer platforms for AD & SP artillery (e.g. RCH-155).