Long gone - and i worked on Rapier 2 upgrades which were exhausted stock grabbed by ADF
16 AD has been called 16 Air Land Regiment (16 ALR) for some time now. They consist of two identical batteries consisting of both GBAD and sense/warn/locate capabilities.
So this NASAM procurement is for the Australian Army only,right? The RAAF still will get a seperate system?
In accordance with the whole Plan Beersheba,are the any plans to increase the size of 16th Air-land? Will they stand up a 3rd or even 4th battery to equallysupport alls brigades of the army?
In accordance with the whole Plan Beersheba,are the any plans to increase the size of 16th Air-land? Will they stand up a 3rd or even 4th battery to equallysupport alls brigades of the army?
I am new but a "lurker" around this forum. I think another contributor mentioned that Project Air 6500 will acquire a new medium range system for the RAAF. Raytheon certainly believe that NASAMS will meet the requirement. Possibly ESSM Block II missile? If it is a NASAMS based system, then it would be the canister launchers rather than the high mobility vehicle launcher that is being suggested for the army. I don't believe the vehicle based launchers will accept the larger ESSM or AMRAAM-ER missiles. 3rd or 4th battery for 16 AL? $2 B is a lot even with CEA radars but others more qualified than me may like to comment on what the projected dollars will buy.
Really hard to believe that the Army would have the manpower to operate both NASAMS and MANPADs unless MANPADS at a very small scale - perhaps a single battery of 3-4 platoons for allocation to brigades as required?
Could end up with 2 batteries NASAMS and 1 battery MANPADS I guess.
Then of course there is C-RAM - wonder where this fits.
Lots of new capability but wonder where the manpower will come from?
Thoughts?
Massive
Extra manpower and is planned for and catered with the Defence White Paper to accommodate the new capabilities.
Last edited:
Welcome to the other side, always good to have new posters in the community
Not sure of your background or knowledge, but a first basic with Australian projects is that the quoted price/price band, depending on what stage the project is at, is a total cost or life cost, so it includes not just the cost of acquisition, but all through life costs as well. So upgrades, maint, crew etc etc
Cheers
1500 to meet extra capabilities when the 1500 are needed to man existing according to Raven.
Be interesting to see if the MANPAD gets up in the end.
RBS-70 without GIRAFFE would fill the MANPAD role - not sure there are many more modern alternatives available - most are pretty dated.
Given the Beersheba construct wonder if mixed NASAMS/MANPAD batteries might be raised.
Regards,
Massive
meatshield
Active Member
Read this today on Jane's. Answers the above question
Raytheon Australia told Jane's that the system would be an 'Australianised' version of the baseline NASAMS 2 that will make use of a common launch rail able to fire the Block II AIM-9X within visual range air-to-air missile and the AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM).
Boagrius
Well-Known Member
Interesting. Hopefully this wouldn't rule out integration of AMRAAM-ER or ESSM. Would seem odd to invest in such a capable system only to deny ourselves the most "future proof" growth path.
Last edited:
I'd say the Australianized part will come down to the radar and the vehicles it's mounted on, Beyond that I don't see us wanting to make too many changes as we would effectively be reinventing the wheel then.
Boagrius
Well-Known Member
Indeed - in which case I just don't see how you'd get the traditional box launcher onto a Hawkei - would seem to be far too small a vehicle for that. RMMV HX trucks perhaps (as has been said), but not Hawkei. Ah well - all speculation at this point. Shall wait with keen interest to see what becomes of this.
Stinger MANPADS in ADF service?
Does any part of the ADF still field the Stinger (FIM-92) SAM?
My understanding was that army/SF did have it (replacing Redeye FIM-43), but I am unsure what happened once RBS-70 was brought into service.
If long gone - what happened to them - a big shoot off or quietly disposed of?
In trying to find an answer to my own question i came across this:
http://www.snopes.com/humor/nonsense/kangaroo.asp
I too had heard the story many years ago....
cheers
rb
Does any part of the ADF still field the Stinger (FIM-92) SAM?
My understanding was that army/SF did have it (replacing Redeye FIM-43), but I am unsure what happened once RBS-70 was brought into service.
If long gone - what happened to them - a big shoot off or quietly disposed of?
In trying to find an answer to my own question i came across this:
http://www.snopes.com/humor/nonsense/kangaroo.asp
I too had heard the story many years ago....
cheers
rb
Last edited:
I suspect the plan is for the hi mobility 4 round launcher version that is mounted on the Humvee or there is a similar six round launcher for larger vehicles. These are not box launchers but use adapted aircraft launching rails. If so, we won't see AMRAAM-ER or ESSM in the army system because they are not aircraft launched missiles. If they go for the 6 round box launcher then both the former missiles will fit but only with the extended boxes/canisters. Current ESSM would also need an illuminator. The Norwegians tested ESSM in the NASAMS using a Hawk illuminator - from my old memory.
Boagrius
Well-Known Member
Ah, yes I mean ESSM Blk II here, which I believe has an active seekerhead for terminal homing rather than offboard illumination all the way (current version). As I say I kind of hope the extended box/canister iteration gets a close look as it strikes me as being a little more future proof in terms of the weapons it is likely to be able to accommodate.
AMRAAM is a fine and extremely capable missile, but with the D model being the last major iteration of it set to be produced, I doubt the slammer will represent the state of the art over the entire service life of our NASAMS batteries. Just my 2c.
Last edited:
when I was at JRA we had a chaparral launcher mounted on a Taipan (competitor to the Bushmaster)
we had a second unit mounted on a LAV (US LAV not AUSLAV)
Gidday cobber. Welcome to the forum.
One line posts by newbies are not allowed, and you have already posted two in quick succession. I strongly suggest that you read the rules. We also have an expectation of informed discussion that adds to a topic.
Last edited:
No doubt other missile options will appear and I get the feeling that Raytheon & Kongsberg are aiming for an adaptable system regardless of it being the highly mobile launchers or the six pack box launcher. If it comes off an aircraft launch rail, then it could in theory incorporated into the highly mobile launcher. Hellfire, Harpoon? CEA's ground multi mission radar has a surface mode and could be part of the future coastal missile system. The fire distribution centers can also be plugged into the coastal missile system. Imagine the box launcher quad packed with stinger or a small CRAM interceptor?Ah, yes I mean ESSM Blk II here, which I believe has an active seekerhead for terminal homing rather than offboard illumination all the way (current version). As I say I kind of hope the extended box/canister iteration gets a close look as it strikes me as being a little more future proof in terms of the weapons it is likely to be able to accommodate.
AMRAAM is a fine and extremely capable missile, but with the D model being the last major iteration of it set to be produced, I doubt the slammer will represent the state of the art over the entire service life of our NASAMS batteries. Just my 2c.
http://i.imgur.com/aMlUx0t.png this picture very much suggests that the box launcher is just a shroud over a rail launcher - and that AMRAAM-ER should be compatible with the open rail