From memory the first 3 went straight to SF (6 AAvn?) so it is likely that more than half of the 9 expected to be delivered this year will also go there (to ensure SF have the capabilities they desire) with the rest going to AAVN TC at Oakey. If that turns out to be the allocation then it will be end of 2027 before Army has a full squadron in 5 AAvn to support 1, 3 and 7 Bde.
It depends what lens you look through. It could be argued that those who promise, but don't fund defence are worse.
Stop making excuses for them. It's Hawke and Keating All over again. Remember the $22.1 bn budget surplus that Labor claim?
Not excuses, just laying out the established patterns. There have been exceptions on both sides, but what I have outlined is the established pattern.
The current gov has an order from a supplier placed by previous government for new build aircraft that have certain specifications. It has maintained that order. That is, on this matter, the new government is following what the previous government decided (there are separate debates about Taipan grounding).
Schools out on the Naval review pending a public announcement.
Actually I wasn't thinking cancelling new orders at all. Still maintain that order, but baring a speed up of delivery then currently set get surplus aircraft as interim assets that can not only provide lift capability but also something for the personnel to use and maintain skills on because the fleet getting thrown away and slowly rebuilt will not be good for keeping personal in service.
Interesting bit about the Arafura class at the bottom…
Can someone elaborate what was covered in the article re Boxer and the Arafura.
Thanks for the response.
Both of those platforms have either reached or passed their end-of-life. Keeping them in service would become a further drain on the sustainment funding as well as complicating the training and manning plots for Army. If the Boxer CRV order is reduced then it is more likely to be as part of "Defence of Australia version 2.1". It is the highly flawed belief that a few planes and ships with missiles can defend continental Australia which seems to be embedded in the DNA of the current government. Sadly the alternative has the beancounter and spin doctror DNA embedded, which is as bad but for different reasons.
Just looking at todays battles, would you want be sitting in a mbt, ifv, crv, pmv against swarms of drones?
You’re absolutely right. Troops should sit in unprotected vehicles and face such a threat…
Growler upgrades are next on the chopping block as is the lay-up of more RAN vessels…
They should be at a keyboard in front of a display far from combat…
The loss of 1000s of vehicles has more to do with the use of poor tactics and an overblown sense of superiority against an innovative and determined opponent using the full range of their capabilities than to swarms of cheap drones. Yes the cheap drones do help by providing ISR, but it is the tanks, artillery and infantry with anti-tank weapons that are doing the majority of the destruction.
The keyboard warriors can contribute by helping to shape the battlefield. But again it is the infantry, armour, artillery and cavalry that actually seize and hold the ground, fix and destroy the enemy.
Actually the 1,000's of vehicles lost if you actually break it down most of them, like 99%+ of them are Soviet era/early-mid NATO era assets. M113's, MT-TB's, T-72's etc etc either all poorly armoured or the munitions are located in spot easy to set off. Now compare drone hots to late cold war era NATO vehicles such as Leopard 2 and the Bradley and in most cases crew's have survived with limited to no injuries when their vehicles got hit.