Bases….
Extract from todays Australian newspaper.
The army will get up to $44bn to transform into an amphibious-capable force modelled on the US Marines, while the air force receives up to $33bn over the decade.
The plan includes $14bn to $18bn for missile defence systems, but was unclear on whether already-announced ballistic-defence and medium-range air-defence programs would continue as originally planned.
The blueprint includes $300m over the next four years for new drone and counter-drone systems, while a newly announced $1bn will be spent over the forward estimates to fast-track delivery of land-fired precision strike missiles, and underwater autonomous vehicles including the in-development Ghost Shark.
The army will get up to $44bn to transform into an amphibious-capable force modelled on the US Marines, while the air force receives up to $33bn over the decade.
The plan includes $14bn to $18bn for missile defence systems, but was unclear on whether already-announced ballistic-defence and medium-range air-defence programs would continue as originally planned.
The blueprint includes $300m over the next four years for new drone and counter-drone systems, while a newly announced $1bn will be spent over the forward estimates to fast-track delivery of land-fired precision strike missiles, and underwater autonomous vehicles including the in-development Ghost Shark.
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.
UK sells surplus H135 military helicopters to Australia.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
Well that probably partly paid for the 6 slightly larger H145's the UK just bought to base in Cyprus and Brunei.
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.
apple.news
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
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
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.
Takao
The Bunker Group
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.
The advantage of having an infantry section integral to armour with an IFV is very true - which is why tanks fight with IFVs. FFS, combined arms is a basic building block because the advantages of one system outweigh the disadvantages of another. And honestly? infantry/armour is the oldest pairing in time.
Going into some details, but IFV size v MBT size? Please. I can't find a photo of an AS21 beside an M1, but Boxer is longer, slightly wider and slightly shorter than AS21. Note which is the second smallest vehicle in this photo?
As for performance, generally speaking the M1 has the best power:weight ratio with the gas turbine offering unparalleled acceleration capability. For a fuel bill that, following lots of work, matches the Leopard 2 and honestly? Is probably going to be similar to Boxer or AS21. They are heavy beasties, both are closer to 2/3 of an M1 as opposed to the claimed 1/2. Note also that comes with a protection level that is quite impressive - while you may M-Kill a tank with a 30mm cannon, it is highly unlikely you'll K-Kill one from the front. An IFV though? Chances are that ATGM or 30mm is going through.
Rapidly evolving battlefield scenarios. Pfft. Wellington would recognise combined arms tactics.
And speaking of Wellington's tactics, the 'oh my, tanks are mobile artillery' is exactly how the Australian Army has always seen tanks. Yes, the Brits, Germans, Soviets and American's planned great tank-on-tank battles. For us, the infantry has always been the Corps of decision (because it's the only thing in the entire world that can take and hold terrain). As such, the tank has always been seen as support to the infantry - call it mobile artillery. Yes, our crews will shoot the T-xx or Type xx MBT if possible. And if our REDFOR uses the same stupid tactics the Russians do in Ukraine, we might explicitly plan tank-on-tank attacks. But that's not likely.
Wish I could get paid for smearing on a piece of paper and submitting it....