Gryphinator
Active Member
I was an occasional "bucket" passenger at 8/12 in the early 2000's. RAA already know how to operate them-does that count?
Last edited by a moderator:
t68
Well-Known Member
From my point of view people need to take how often was the USMC supported by the US Army
Take WWII for example more US Army pers served in the Pacfic Campaign than USMC, yes it was mainly the USMC who did the initial lodgement, but it was Army that brought the numbers and heavy equipment
Take WWII for example more US Army pers served in the Pacfic Campaign than USMC, yes it was mainly the USMC who did the initial lodgement, but it was Army that brought the numbers and heavy equipment
Interesting take on the PsSM - very much as an initial move but only a first step in a significant uplift in capability required to be effective/survivable on the modern battlefield.
"The government’s decision to acquire the PrSM is a good initial move that addresses a severe shortcoming for the army."
www.aspistrategist.org.au
Regards,
Massive
"The government’s decision to acquire the PrSM is a good initial move that addresses a severe shortcoming for the army."
More work needed but precision strike missile a good fit for the Australian Army | The Strategist
The Australian Army is set to dramatically boost its land-based guided missile capability with Australia’s decision to join a US-led program to develop the Lockheed Martin precision strike missile (PrSM). It’s a big step forward ...
www.aspistrategist.org.au
Regards,
Massive
It's something to remember to. People should look at at the PTO during WW2 as a reference for future conflict with the PRC. Yes the technologies have changed, but the geography and spatial dimensions haven't. You are still facing the same basic problems of preventing an enemy from holding territory in archipelaegic and island areas, situated in the worlds largest ocean, and / or evicting them from said area island by island.
So the question has to be is the Australian Army correctly structured and equipped for such a campaign?
This article contains some more lessons from OIR. There are some parts that are over-emphasised, but one which is correct is the difficulty of finding targets for long range fires (air or surface). A further point is integration of fires between air and surface forces.Interesting take on the PsSM - very much as an initial move but only a first step in a significant uplift in capability required to be effective/survivable on the modern battlefield.
"The government’s decision to acquire the PrSM is a good initial move that addresses a severe shortcoming for the army."
More work needed but precision strike missile a good fit for the Australian Army | The Strategist
The Australian Army is set to dramatically boost its land-based guided missile capability with Australia’s decision to join a US-led program to develop the Lockheed Martin precision strike missile (PrSM). It’s a big step forward ...
Regards,
Massive
Many of the other problems can (and would) be solved solely through greater acceptance of risk.
Boagrius
Well-Known Member
My vision may yet come to pass! 
www.defensenews.com
This could be compelling as a candidate for the deployed ballistic & high-speed missile defence system referenced in last year's strategic update. Time shall tell just how mobile and deployable AA will become, but it strikes me as sensible to evolve it into a mobile system given the quality and quantity of the PRC's missile forces.
Missile Defense Agency director wants less complex, more mobile Aegis Ashore
After problems in Poland and the need for more survivable missile defense systems, the idea of a more transportable Aegis Ashore system could be back on the table.
www.defensenews.com
This could be compelling as a candidate for the deployed ballistic & high-speed missile defence system referenced in last year's strategic update. Time shall tell just how mobile and deployable AA will become, but it strikes me as sensible to evolve it into a mobile system given the quality and quantity of the PRC's missile forces.
Let someone else sort out all the expensive problems first. TBH the Australian Army doesn't have the best record for for resolving complex technical electronic problems. It's also not as if the Australian taxpayer has gazillions of dollars that it can waste throwing at a problem to see if it can be rectified.My vision may yet come to pass!
Missile Defense Agency director wants less complex, more mobile Aegis Ashore
After problems in Poland and the need for more survivable missile defense systems, the idea of a more transportable Aegis Ashore system could be back on the table.
This could be compelling as a candidate for the deployed ballistic & high-speed missile defence system referenced in last year's strategic update. Time shall tell just how mobile and deployable AA will become, but it strikes me as sensible to evolve it into a mobile system given the quality and quantity of the PRC's missile forces.
Boagrius
Well-Known Member
Agreed on all fronts. My hope is that the US will endure the developmental pain here in its bid to enhance Guam's defences in particular. It is noteworthy that Guam is threatened by much the same systems as our far north from an IAMD/BMD perspective (DF-26, CJ-10 & successors). Consequently it strikes me as worth keeping an eye on in the interim, and only pursuing once mature & deemed appropriate. Decent chance it won't materialise in time for our needs, but we shall see.
t68
Well-Known Member
Appears there is a problem with the EF88 using the attached grenade launcher, seems like you have to go the some sort of corrective action, I might have missed it as its the 1st I have heard of the problem
Thales appeals court judgement - Australian Defence Magazine
From the story
Thales appeals court judgement - Australian Defence Magazine
From the story
Nice to see the NASAMS project moving along nicely
asiapacificdefencereporter.com
Would not be surprised to see the numbers expanded beyond the initial buy, and can see other options for RAN and for other future requirements that tie this whole system together.
Cheers
Kongsberg Defence Australia completes NASAMS tests - APDR
Kongsberg Defence Australia, with support from 16 Regiment, Royal Australian Artillery and Raytheon Australia, successfully conducted fitment checks for the first National Advanced Surface to Air Missile System (NASAMS) Fire Distribution Centre (FDC)
asiapacificdefencereporter.com
Would not be surprised to see the numbers expanded beyond the initial buy, and can see other options for RAN and for other future requirements that tie this whole system together.
Cheers
buffy9
Well-Known Member
"The design changes under investigation involve the underslung 40mm grenade launcher impairing the ability of the rifle to fire its regular round. Once the soldier fired a grenade from the rifle, the gun was unable to fire a normal bullet without the operator having to take corrective action."
I really don't understand how that would work from a technical point of view? The two operate on different trigger mechanisms - firing one really shouldn't be affecting the other. The only thing I could think of is the GLA sight becoming loose and having to be reset before firing from the rifle again.
I've never heard of this issue and have never had an issue on my end personally.
DTR explains it in the September issue. I'm summarising, but basically the GLA firing recoil was enough to cause the gun lock group to move rearward slightly and cause a slightly open bolt, preventing the rifle from firing until re-cocking.
Shanesworld
Well-Known Member
I have had that. Recoil from the 203 would kick the bolt slightly out of battery. Particularly if you didnt gave a good position and kind of limp wristed it like with a pistol. Wouldnt happen alot but you would just go through tilt cock tilt look.
Bigger issue seemed to be the heat build up from the 203 mount on the barrel next to the iw gas block. But our steyrs were pretty flogged out.
buffy9
Well-Known Member
That'd be why, I assumed it was talking about the SL40 nowadays. Have never used the ML40 and, re. the DTR article, the issue seems to have been resolved with the 203 as well.
Just a legal dispute raising its ugly head then I suppose.
RIP, Thoughts and wishes to family, friends and colleagues !!
www.skynews.com.au
Two Australian soldiers die in army vehicle crash outside Townsville
Two Australian soldiers have died following a crash in an army vehicle outside of Townsville.
www.skynews.com.au
RIP to the soldiers. Condolences to the families, friends and their colleagues.RIP, Thoughts and wishes to family, friends and colleagues !!
Two Australian soldiers die in army vehicle crash outside Townsville
Two Australian soldiers have died following a crash in an army vehicle outside of Townsville.
t68
Well-Known Member
RIP, Thoughts and wishes to family, friends and colleagues !!
Two Australian soldiers die in army vehicle crash outside Townsville
Two Australian soldiers have died following a crash in an army vehicle outside of Townsville.
RIP
Not good, I wonder what type of vehicle they were in, appears to be some type of roll over by which could be any number of factors involved
Trackmaster
Member
Anthony_B_78
Active Member
The Courier Mail is reporting they were in a HX77 truck. Story is behind a paywall.
t68
Well-Known Member
Yes just saw that is what the ABC is saying as well, it would be interesting to see what the actual cause was vehicle or human error
Having been close to a roll over in a couple of different vehicles either at speed or off road it’s very easy to do even for an experienced driver, only takes a moment of inattention for it to happen
Two Defence Force personnel killed in truck rollover near Townsville
Defence Minister Peter Dutton describes the deaths as "tragic" and says he is seeking further information about the incident.
www.google.com.au