Bases….Wonder what other capabilities they can cut out?
Bases….Wonder what other capabilities they can cut out?
Well that probably partly paid for the 6 slightly larger H145's the UK just bought to base in Cyprus and Brunei.Looks like we've gone from leasing to owning. I guess good and bad. We have some extra training capability, but the capability gap remains wide open for our helicopter force.
UK sells surplus H135 military helicopters to Australia.
Currently the advantage seems to be with the drones. New cage protection for MBTs is underway which will help. It is much to soon to write off MBTs. There is undoubtedly a $hitload of R&D on anti-drone defence going on. An effective solution will return the MBT to the forefront again.An article from Kym Bergman in todays Australia with his summation of how things are panning out for MBTs in Ukraine and suggesting that going forward IFVs may end up being more valued than MBTs for a range of reasons not the least in have an infantry crew that can provide protection and support.
extract.
What Ukraine has found to be of greater military value are donated Infantry Fighting Vehicles (IFV) such as the US Bradley and especially the Swedish CV 90. While a Western MBT typically approaches 70 tonnes in weight, IFVs are about half that – making them much more manoeuvrable, easier to conceal and use far less fuel. While the 120mm smoothbore gun on an MBT can destroy any vehicle they find, the 30mm and 40mm autocannons on IFVs are no slouches either – and if they can fire a quick burst, they can cripple most targets.
Another advantage is that IFVs typically carry a squad of six to eight soldiers each, who can exit the vehicle and form a screen around it as protection from enemy troops using short range ATGWs. MBTs rely on infantry separately deploying to support them, which is a complication in many rapidly evolving battlefield scenarios.
With this experience, Ukraine has pushed the donation of more IFVs to the top of their priority list – and in the medium term hopes to build 1000 CV 90s with the co-operation of the Swedish government. While MBTs still have a role – particularly to safeguard against a major Russian breakthrough – they are often relegated to the role of mobile artillery rather than spearheading offensive operations.
Ukraine conflict shows the limitations of Main Battle Tanks — The Australian
Credible analysis shows that since Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the aggressor has lost more than 3000 Main Battle Tanks (MBTs) – with that figure increasing daily.apple.news
Got to love a bloke who doesn't understand a fundamental Army truth writing about tanks.An article from Kym Bergman in todays Australia with his summation of how things are panning out for MBTs in Ukraine and suggesting that going forward IFVs may end up being more valued than MBTs for a range of reasons not the least in have an infantry crew that can provide protection and support.
extract.
What Ukraine has found to be of greater military value are donated Infantry Fighting Vehicles (IFV) such as the US Bradley and especially the Swedish CV 90. While a Western MBT typically approaches 70 tonnes in weight, IFVs are about half that – making them much more manoeuvrable, easier to conceal and use far less fuel. While the 120mm smoothbore gun on an MBT can destroy any vehicle they find, the 30mm and 40mm autocannons on IFVs are no slouches either – and if they can fire a quick burst, they can cripple most targets.
Another advantage is that IFVs typically carry a squad of six to eight soldiers each, who can exit the vehicle and form a screen around it as protection from enemy troops using short range ATGWs. MBTs rely on infantry separately deploying to support them, which is a complication in many rapidly evolving battlefield scenarios.
With this experience, Ukraine has pushed the donation of more IFVs to the top of their priority list – and in the medium term hopes to build 1000 CV 90s with the co-operation of the Swedish government. While MBTs still have a role – particularly to safeguard against a major Russian breakthrough – they are often relegated to the role of mobile artillery rather than spearheading offensive operations.
Ukraine conflict shows the limitations of Main Battle Tanks — The Australian
Credible analysis shows that since Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the aggressor has lost more than 3000 Main Battle Tanks (MBTs) – with that figure increasing daily.apple.news
I suspect as with the SPIKE LR2 launch system (in which around 40x launchers are to be acquired for the 137x odd turreted Boxer CRV's we are buying), most Redback and Boxer CRV's will be "fitted for but not with" Iron Fist APS (and the Kongsberg RWS) and there will be a pool of such systems available for specific training / deployment requirements as necessary.The Australian stated there was not any active protection for its armoured vehicles I don't believe this to be correct with the Rafael Iron Fist to be mounted on both the Redback and Boxers
This earlier article from Cove discusses attacks from above on tanks by drones ,somewhere there will be a lot of research done on countering such drones ,but for now these thousands of drones expended every week appear to have thrown pre war doctrine out the windowIron Fists APS for the Australian Boxers - Defense Update:
The Australian Defence Force has asked Rheinmetall Defence to evaluate Israel's Iron Fist Active Protection System (APS) developed by Elbit Systems' IMI. Brigadier Greg McGlone, Australian Army Director General, Armored Fighting Vehicles, broke the news at the International Armoured vehicles...defense-update.com
Hope they have put in some type of warning system for dismounted soldiers, though I doubt even hugging the ground is going to save someone who is directly beneath the explosion. That is the major drawback with these systems you are setting off an explosion that could cause casualties amongst your own troops.I suspect as with the SPIKE LR2 launch system (in which around 40x launchers are to be acquired for the 137x odd turreted Boxer CRV's we are buying), most Redback and Boxer CRV's will be "fitted for but not with" Iron Fist APS (and the Kongsberg RWS) and there will be a pool of such systems available for specific training / deployment requirements as necessary.
I would not hold my breath waiting for the funding to be released to equip every land combat vehicle with such systems...
Could the GMARS be a better option for Australia going forward, twice as many missiles carried compared to HIMARS. I don't think it would fit in a Herc though. Cheers. Rheinmetall, Lockheed unveil GMARS, in talks with European customers: Exec - Breaking DefenseU.S. Army Conducts First Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile SINKEX using PrSM - Naval News
The US has conducted a SINKEX using two PrSM missiles against the former USS Cleveland (LPD-7). They were fired from an Autonomous Multi-Domain Launcher mounted on a HIMARS. As a partner in the PrSM program and a future HIMARS operator and having a requirement for a land based AShM capability, this could be where Australia is headed.
Hope they know how to fit those systems quickly, because that'll be the bottleneck for quick reaction deployment.I suspect as with the SPIKE LR2 launch system (in which around 40x launchers are to be acquired for the 137x odd turreted Boxer CRV's we are buying), most Redback and Boxer CRV's will be "fitted for but not with" Iron Fist APS (and the Kongsberg RWS) and there will be a pool of such systems available for specific training / deployment requirements as necessary.
I would not hold my breath waiting for the funding to be released to equip every land combat vehicle with such systems...
I strongly believe that for at least most APS nowadays, if the APS is in any way a threat to you as an infantryman, it's likely you'll eat an RPG to the face regardless.Hope they have put in some type of warning system for dismounted soldiers, though I doubt even hugging the ground is going to save someone who is directly beneath the explosion. That is the major drawback with these systems you are setting off an explosion that could cause casualties amongst your own troops.
How often are you going to fire so many missiles simultaneously that a full battery (or more) of M142 can't deliver? Ground launched munitions are far more expensive per kg of warhead than air launched munitions, any day of the week, and going for the Lockheed-exclusive M142 or GMARS is essentially that rule pushed further.Could the GMARS be a better option for Australia going forward, twice as many missiles carried compared to HIMARS. I don't think it would fit in a Herc though. Cheers. Rheinmetall, Lockheed unveil GMARS, in talks with European customers: Exec - Breaking Defense
I realise defence stuff is expensive, but sometimes it is a false economy compromising platforms to such an extent.I suspect as with the SPIKE LR2 launch system (in which around 40x launchers are to be acquired for the 137x odd turreted Boxer CRV's we are buying), most Redback and Boxer CRV's will be "fitted for but not with" Iron Fist APS (and the Kongsberg RWS) and there will be a pool of such systems available for specific training / deployment requirements as necessary.
I would not hold my breath waiting for the funding to be released to equip every land combat vehicle with such systems...