The next Redback order will be the support variants.
Ambulances, bulldozers, cranes, etc are an easy sell to the voters.
Ambulances, bulldozers, cranes, etc are an easy sell to the voters.
Fingers crossed…
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
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.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
The Skyranger videos are impressive and since Australia is getting Boxers, the platform for Skranger will be available.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
IF (big IF) Australia were to adopt Skyranger, then the similar Rheinmetall Sea Snake 30 might also be an option for RAN vessels to provide an anti-FAC/CIWS small calibre rapid fire gun system.
It will be interesting to see what comes out with the updated National Defence Strategy that should be released soon (does anybody know when this will likely be released?) Drones are certainly going to get an increased mention, but so must counter drone capability, which at the moment seems to be in its infancy.
I know versions of both the Redback and Boxer vehicles come with 30mm cannons, that state a capability for anti-air and compatibility with programmable ammunition, but what converts say an Boxer CRV into a Skyranger? Is it just a suitable radar? If so is this a bolt on extra or does it need to be a whole new turret?
As an alternative, could a Boxer or Redback be paired with say one of the new army CEATAC radars to create this capability with existing equipment? Is it possible for a Bushmaster/Hawkei with an EOS Slinger to do the same. This is not my area of expertise, so would welcome thoughts.
On a separate point, my understanding is that the current Australian and German orders keep the Boxer Brisbane factory busy until 2030, and the Redback Gelong factory has its orders through to late 2028. The Bendigo Bushmasters have orders through to the end of this year.
I can't see the Government closing or loosing the production capability from any of these facilities, meaning future guidance for both Thales and Hanwa will be needed soon and before the 2028 NDS update. I wonder if the 2026 NDS will provide guidance on the plan.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
From what I have been able to gather, the Skyranger 30 is a new turret system with some different features and capabilities from the Lance turret systems fitted to Army's Boxer CRV's. The gun itself, whilst still firing a 30 mm x 173 round is the Oerlikon KCE with a max ROF of ~1,200 rds/min, about twice the max burst rate for the Mk30-2/ABM used in Australian Lance turrets. Perhaps even more importantly for a SPAAG, the max elevation for a Skyranger 30 turret is +85 degrees, but a Lance turret can only do +45 degrees. Of course there are some other differences, like Skyranger being able to accommodate and launch MANPADS missiles like Stinger or Mistral for some additional air defence options.
Word was August 2026 for the updated NDS and IIP26.
However word was (from Marles / Conroy no less) that Mogami contract was to be signed by first quarter 2026 and land based ASM was to be announced in December 2025 and yet, here we are…
At Indo-Pacific 25 Vice Adm Hammond dropped a hint that he “expected” Integrated Air and Missile Defence would “get some attention” under NDS / IIP26,
What that amounts to is anyone’s guess.
Given we are seeing (as of today) Australian forces being directly attacked by ballistic missiles AGAIN with no protection other than bunkering down and praying, I’m hopeful we might see some form of terminal ballistic missile defence / Medium Ranged AD beyond that, which our current TWO Hobart Class AWD’s could theoretically provide, but I’m not going to hold my breath…
If drones - counter -drones gets more money, well excuse my skepticism, but I suspect that will achieve little more than thoroughly funding more trials (all we seem to be able to do now…) and our units will still be trying to fire old shotguns at any incoming…
Or digging in, as usual…
It also has 360 radar coverage around the turret. Probably the biggest thing lacking when considering using a 30mm Boxer or Redback in such a role…
OldTex
Well-Known Member
Given that the basing agreement for AMAB in all likelihood precludes the ADF from installing and operating an independent ADS (short or medium range) on the base there is really nothing else that the ADF can do. An ad hoc or poorly coordinated and controlled ADS would likely result in a blue-on-blue incident (which could be what happened to USAF F-15E in Kuwait in a similar situation, since confirmed by US and Kuwait)
Last edited:
Something rather more drastic also prevents Australian forces from being protected from indirect fires, especially ballistics weapons.
We literally have nothing to protect them with. In any case, I doubt we’d buy anything (at all…) that couldn’t be networked into allied IAMDS architectures. That is indeed one of the main goals of our current (effector less) Joint Battle Management System.
And for the record, I recall there was nothing in the basing agreement that stopped us basing Super Hornets there…
OldTex
Well-Known Member
Super Hornets were based in ADAB.
But even if the ADF had SRADS or MRADS would we want that integrated (to some degree) within whatever IAMDS the UAE might have. Especially as the UAE would control any engagements. The Canadians found out how thin skinned the UAE can be.
UAE use Patriot and THAAD, realistically what we would use as well.
Except we can’t have the nice things…
OldTex
Well-Known Member
It is easy to have nice things when you export lots of things that others want and need (and don't have the same social systems). It is also easy to have nice things to defend your air space when the area is about one-third the size of Victoria.
We can’t even have them to protect a single deployment in one location.
We have a lot more nice things than we used to.
The numbers arent there but the individual capabilities plus the supporting infrastructure are much more than we have had since WWII. This is despite how much is being spent on AUKUS.
I know, but the two most obvious capabilities we are almost completely devoid of are legitimate air defence capabilities, legitimate and deep defensive counter-uas capabilities.
And what do we see requiring the most attention from the 2 major current conflicts?
Exactly those we lack…
We still act like we have 10 years of warning. Our “strategic” documents say we don’t but the realities of our capabilities say otherwise. How are our fuel stocks? How is our materiel situation? How is our navy looking? 7 frigates, 2 destroyers, 2x Supply class, 2x LHD’s, 1x LPD and about 30x un-armed, non-combatant vessels…
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 hear you and I too would like to see more happening in those areas.
My biggest concern is actually the lack of technically competent project management and T&E to even buy MOTS options through FMS, should the money be available.
We simple dont have enough competent people to buy things smartly. Look back to Bill & Ben, Vigilaire, MRH90, and other procurement disasters, hell Spartan was meant to be FMS and that was a cluster.
We are potentially worse off now. Even the smart people are lacking the required experience to do their jobs efficiently, while too many incompetent people have been apppointed and promoted.
Takao
The Bunker Group
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.
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.
Last edited: