I had heard on the grape-vine that the ASRAAM’s had been sent back to the UK and have potentially found a new home since. But I can’t peovide a link to support that…
Australia provides the Pacific Maritime Air Surveillance capability, on behalf of a number of Pacific Islands.Don't normally venture into the RAAF realm but saw this article and was a bit puzzled by it. I'm not sure what program this acquisition came from and for that matter does anyone know what's happening with MC-55A Peregrine. Haven't heard a peep about it since the photos of the "prototype" came out.
Bombardier Defense to deliver 2 ISR aircraft for Australian ops
Bombardier Defense has announced that Principle Finance, a leading provider of customised operating leases for aircraft in Australia, has acquired two Bombardier Challenger 650 jets earmarked for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance missions.www.defenceconnect.com.au
Is this the same type of ASRAAM sent to the U.K
www.twz.com
I'd be interested to understand why we would buy the C8, when the later D3 version (with the bigger rocket and range) is available. Anyone know why?
Perhaps a combination of delivery and price could be the reason.
Possibly, OTOH it might also because of slightly different missile characteristics. I would be curious to find out whether or not the two missiles have the same total weight. If not, that difference, even though slight, might be enough to impact various ordnance loadouts.
It isn't a procurement of one or the other. It is a procurement of both the C8 (up to 200) and the D3 (up to 200) variants as detailed in the DSCA notification. It was reported by other sources that:
Army ordered the AIM-120C7 as the initial weapon to arm the NASAMS air defence system. Perhaps this is being updated with the C8 version, or perhaps this entire order is for RAAF employed weapons?
www.defenceconnect.com.au
There are a few reports (scuttlebutt really) that USN may have operationally deployed the "Sidekick" weapons adaptor in the Red Sea Ops currently underway, but if so they are an early operational test type scenario at best.
It appears it may allow for more flexible load-outs too. For example a Sidekick adapted in one bay providing 3x AMRAAM missiles with a normal weapons load in the adjoining bay offering (for example) 4x SDB I/II and a single rail carried AMRAAM offering 4x strike weapons and 4x A2A weapons internally.
www.aspistrategist.org.au
breakingdefense.com
Smoking crack is not great for cognitive ability, I understand…Ok, are Euan Graham and Linus Cohen smoking something? Breaking Defence and ASPI article recommending Australia pursue the B2.....
Now, I could understand looking at B21 but the B2?
The Spirit for Australia: why Canberra should pursue the B-2 bomber | The Strategist
China’s recent naval circumnavigation of Australia has highlighted a pressing need to defend Australia’s air and sea approaches more effectively. Potent as nuclear submarines are, the first Australian boats under AUKUS are at least seven ...
Australia should talk to Washington about buying B-2 stealth bombers - Breaking Defense
Australia should acquire B-2A stealth bombers to help defend against China, argue Euan Graham and Linus Cohen of ASPI.
Linus seems new, with only a few months publishing at ASPI and often in partnership with someone senior.Ok, are Euan Graham and Linus Cohen smoking something? Breaking Defence and ASPI article recommending Australia pursue the B2.....
Now, I could understand looking at B21 but the B2?
The Spirit for Australia: why Canberra should pursue the B-2 bomber | The Strategist
China’s recent naval circumnavigation of Australia has highlighted a pressing need to defend Australia’s air and sea approaches more effectively. Potent as nuclear submarines are, the first Australian boats under AUKUS are at least seven ...
Australia should talk to Washington about buying B-2 stealth bombers - Breaking Defense
Australia should acquire B-2A stealth bombers to help defend against China, argue Euan Graham and Linus Cohen of ASPI.
I'm sure they'd tell you its their role to publish articles putting forward ideas, some of which are out of left field, and play devil's advocate. Like Vice Adm Shackleton's article saying we should just buy Burke DDGs, or that we need to go back to the French Attack class or SSNs, etc. Generally reasonable, if a bit pie in the sky sometimes...
TBH I wonder if the two have played too much contact sport and are suffering some of the impacts (heh!) of TBI's, since them seem to blithely assume that the US would be willing to sell such a strategic asset which has such limited numbers and that Australia could and would be willing to spend the coin likely required. IIRC the US per unit cost reached something like USD$2 bil. during the programme, which now would roughly equal USD$4 bil. in current dollars.