Australian Army Discussions and Updates

old faithful

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Or phrased another way, the army has replaced an aging short range system with a much more capable modern, self propelled system.

It a bit like saying retiring the F/A-18A/B after the F-35 started entering service is a capability reduction.
Well, actually, Army did maintain both capabilities for some time, red eye/Rapier and for a while RBS 70/ Rapier, so yes, there has been a capability reduction, and both sides of Govt have been guilty of neglect for decades.

A Res would be perfect for a shorad system, but RBS 70 is not that system. Its not a particularly useful system these days. Need a fire and forget type system. I work with a guy who did years in 16 AD before it became whatever it is called now. He maintains its nearly impossible to hit a fast mover with RBS 70, it would be handy for helos and drones, but thats about it.
 

Bob53

Well-Known Member
Or phrased another way, the army has replaced an aging short range system with a much more capable modern, self propelled system.

It a bit like saying retiring the F/A-18A/B after the F-35 started entering service is a capability reduction.
Serious…your talking battery level weapon in NASAMS with million $ missiles vs an infantry carried weapon with a cost of $120 to $200k for a latest RB70, stinger or star streak Per Missile. And will NASAMs be even deployed at platoon or company level? It’s a bit of a gap in my opinion.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Serious…your talking battery level weapon in NASAMS with million $ missiles vs an infantry carried weapon with a cost of $120 to $200k for a latest RB70, stinger or star streak Per Missile. And will NASAMs be even deployed at platoon or company level? It’s a bit of a gap in my opinion.
You believe the RBS was deployed at platoon or company level?

Again, replacing an aging, short range system, with a modern, much more capable system is not a reduction in capability.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Excuse me while I go bash my head against a wall for a couple of hours.

I think it will be far more productive than trying to discus this.
 

Julian 82

Active Member
Excuse me while I go bash my head against a wall for a couple of hours.

I think it will be far more productive than trying to discus this.
??? You are comparing apples to oranges. NASAMS is not a man portable air defence system. We are not even acquiring the AIM-9X missiles for our batteries. So at the present time we do not have a portable IR / EO guided SAM.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
??? You are comparing apples to oranges. NASAMS is not a man portable air defence system. We are not even acquiring the AIM-9X missiles for our batteries. So at the present time we do not have a portable IR / EO guided SAM.
A Boxer is not a horse, a MAG 58 is not a longbow, should the army deploy horse cavalry and archers?

We have limited resources and the unit that was operating RBS70 now has new gear.

When the army procured Redeye then Rapier, they retired their Bofors and 3.7".

We need to new tech, to counter a greater range of evolving threats, not waste resources retaining obsolescent capabilities that have been superceded.
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
A Boxer is not a horse, a MAG 58 is not a longbow, should the army deploy horse cavalry and archers?

We have limited resources and the unit that was operating RBS70 now has new gear.

When the army procured Redeye then Rapier, they retired their Bofors and 3.7".

We need to new tech, to counter a greater range of evolving threats, not waste resources retaining obsolescent capabilities that have been superceded.
Talking of horses, I always thought a small mounted contingent as apart of the Federation Guard would have been appropriate.
Proud tradition and all.
The limited expense would be off set by what it gives back in exposure and the benefits there of.

For clarity not suggesting mounting SAM’s on horseback!!!!!!!!!!


Cheers S
 

Julian 82

Active Member
A Boxer is not a horse, a MAG 58 is not a longbow, should the army deploy horse cavalry and archers?

We have limited resources and the unit that was operating RBS70 now has new gear.

When the army procured Redeye then Rapier, they retired their Bofors and 3.7".

We need to new tech, to counter a greater range of evolving threats, not waste resources retaining obsolescent capabilities that have been superceded.
You are making a straw man argument. Short range man portable SAMs are not obsolete. Every tier one military maintains both SHORAD (for low flying threats) and medium tier systems like NASAMS and Patriot (for medium and higher altitude threats).

I was thinking something akin to our anti-armour/ heavy weapon s platoons in our infantry battalions also being equipped to operate the stinger replacement. Apparently it will be able to use the same command launch unit as the Javelin anti-tank missile. So the platoon could mix and match as appropriate and there would be some synergies for training. Could also equip our Calvary units. Not suggesting 16 AD regiment (our whatever it is called not) operate them. Wouldn’t think 50 -100 system s would break the bank.
 
Last edited:

Armchair

Well-Known Member
A
Well, actually, Army did maintain both capabilities for some time, red eye/Rapier and for a while RBS 70/ Rapier, so yes, there has been a capability reduction, and both sides of Govt have been guilty of neglect for decades.

A Res would be perfect for a shorad system, but RBS 70 is not that system. Its not a particularly useful system these days. Need a fire and forget type system. I work with a guy who did years in 16 AD before it became whatever it is called now. He maintains its nearly impossible to hit a fast mover with RBS 70, it would be handy for helos and drones, but thats about it.
Arguably the reserve artillery battery in Adelaide could be equipped with SHORAD systems (rather than mortars) and train alongside 16th Regiment. I don’t know if that is feasible given the training hours of reserve troops though (and concomitant safety / security risks)
 

Richo99

Active Member
A Boxer is not a horse, a MAG 58 is not a longbow, should the army deploy horse cavalry and archers?

We have limited resources and the unit that was operating RBS70 now has new gear.

When the army procured Redeye then Rapier, they retired their Bofors and 3.7".

We need to new tech, to counter a greater range of evolving threats, not waste resources retaining obsolescent capabilities that have been superceded.
A Boxer is also not an Abram's - despite both being heavily armoured boxes with turreted guns - they bring different things to the party

And, NASAMS is not RBS70 - despite both being guided SAMs - surely they are complementary, not exclusive.

Shooting down the ubiquitous cheap quadcopters with NASAMS, is going to get very expensive, very quickly, and rapidly deplete our minimal warstocks.

Maybe not RBS70, but something small, light, portable and cheap(er).

BTW, anyone know the minimum effective range of NASAMS?
 
Last edited:

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
You are making a straw man argument. Short range man portable SAMs are not obsolete. Every tier one military maintains both SHORAD (for low flying threats) and medium tier systems like NASAMS and Patriot (for medium and higher altitude threats).

I was thinking something akin to our anti-armour/ heavy weapon s platoons in our infantry battalions also being equipped to operate the stinger replacement. Apparently it will be able to use the same command launch unit as the Javelin anti-tank missile. So the platoon could mix and match as appropriate and there would be some synergies for training. Could also equip our Calvary units. Not suggesting 16 AD regiment (our whatever it is called not) operate them. Wouldn’t think 50 -100 system s would break the bank.
Opportunity cost!

Manpads are a specialised capability that do what?

They provide short range defence against some air threats.

Ok, what is the primary threat?

Stand off guided weapons, artillery, and most recently, drones. What do manpads offer against those threats?

To be brutally honest, nothing!

What does offer defence against them?

EWIS, stand off guided weapons, active defence systems, and developing gun and Lazer based hard kill systems.

Notice something? Manpads aren't part of the solution.
 

SammyC

Well-Known Member
I will note that several European countries placed large orders for Stinger missiles within the last year, and the US is still electing to replace its own stock. So there appears to be a place for manpads, at least in the Eurpoean context. Maybe it's an option where forward positioned troops can't be protected by a NASAMS battery, which I'm sure will occure

I am however more aligned with volk's statement above, which is: there is a need for very short range defence, but something that provides mass engagement at low cost.

So perhaps more like say a Rhinemetal Skyranger on a Boxer chassis. Or the Slinger system on a Bushranger. Or Droneshield's Dronesentry on a Hawkei. Or a combination of all three.

Outside of a missile barrage, which NASAMS is designed to counter, then I would think drone swarms become the next most concerning threat. The pop up attack helo, which Stinger is designed for, would be significantly down the list.
 

SammyC

Well-Known Member

An interview with Mick Ryan by Insiders David Speers from this morning. It discusses drone warfare tactics and technology from the Ukraine war, and the Australian perspective.

I thought the conversation about decentralisation of drone procurement and development was interesting. Likewise the vulnerability of our military bases to drone attack aka Ukraine's recent effort. The encroachment of AI into drones is astounding.

I am interested to know more about these interceptor drones from Ukraine. They sound like an upcoming option.
 

MARKMILES77

Well-Known Member
Or phrased another way, the army has replaced an aging short range system with a much more capable modern, self propelled system.

It a bit like saying retiring the F/A-18A/B after the F-35 started entering service is a capability reduction.
A better analogy is we are getting 30mm cannons into service on our new Boxers so we no longer need 5.56 Austeyer for the soldiers.
They are a completely different level of capability to each other. Both would be extremely useful to the ADF.
The RBS-70 should not have been scrapped/donated. It should have been stored so that it would be available in any future conflict.
The RBS-70 is still a highly capable system being purchased new, today, by nations.
The Ukraine war has taught us that even very old equipment (air defence systems for example) can be extremely valuable.
In war you need everything you can get.
I don't understand why the Australian Government seems to think it has to bury/sell/scrap most equipment as soon as new equipment is bought.

One simple example:
In a war with China we put small teams on remote islands, each say operating an anti-ship missile launcher or a HIMARS launcher.
A single RBS-70 launcher would give the team a basic, easily hidden, capability to deal with enemy forces approaching by helicopter for example.
That is not replaced by buying NASAMs. Especially when Australia is only getting TWO batteries.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
A better analogy is we are getting 30mm cannons into service on our new Boxers so we no longer need 5.56 Austeyer for the soldiers.
They are a completely different level of capability to each other. Both would be extremely useful to the ADF.
The RBS-70 should not have been scrapped/donated. It should have been stored so that it would be available in any future conflict.
The RBS-70 is still a highly capable system being purchased new, today, by nations.
The Ukraine war has taught us that even very old equipment (air defence systems for example) can be extremely valuable.
In war you need everything you can get.
I don't understand why the Australian Government seems to think it has to bury/sell/scrap most equipment as soon as new equipment is bought.

One simple example:
In a war with China we put small teams on remote islands, each say operating an anti-ship missile launcher or a HIMARS launcher.
A single RBS-70 launcher would give the team a basic, easily hidden, capability to deal with enemy forces approaching by helicopter for example.
That is not replaced by buying NASAMs. Especially when Australia is only getting TWO batteries.
And I was accused of strawman arguments?

A service rifle versus a vehicle mounted auto cannon?

Seriously guys this is ridiculous, while you can pack some gear in grease and sit it on a warehouse shelf for decades, other types of equipment have support requirements that require very substantial overheads in maintenance and training. This is not to use it, it is just to ensure it doesn't deteriorate and remains usable.

Even simple old gear such as the M-113A1 had ongoing maintenance needs that just about broke many reserve units. They required money, spares and personnel that just weren't available.

The biggest factor with the MRH-90 was the maintenance overheads. It literally became unsustainable. The Seaking helicopter was retired because it was an aging platform that could not be economically and safely supported with so many new capabilities entering service.

RBS-70 is still useful but what is the opportunity cost of retaining it?

One of the things, perhaps the single biggest thing, that the average person never considers is the support system and sustainment costs of a capability. If you can't afford to do it properly you don't actually have a capability at all.

It's not about the Digger in the trigger, it's the dozens of boffins and specialist loggies we need for other things that would needed to support it. Speed the capability out among Infantry Battalions and you quadruple, quintuple the number of technical and sustainment personnel required.

These are the same trades we need for all the new, highly complex systems entering service. Not just NASAMS, but Boxer, Redback, HIMARS, Hawkei, Huntsman, whatever strike missile we end up with. The radars, command communication and control systems, EW, drones, UAVs of all sizes, various UGVs.

Throw in local manufacture of multiple systems, sustaining and life extending aging and obsolescent systems we can't yet get replacements for.

And the big whammy, we have spent decades dumbing down or workforce, we are bribing, blackmailing and manipulating people to stay on in jobs so they can train and mentor the new generation. The small cadre of technically competent people are having to learn multiple new systems, on the run, so they can keep stuff working, introduce new stuff, all while coaching the next generation.

I suspect one of the reasons the Redback was cut back was no-one could workout where the maintainers for the planned three battalions were going to come from.
 
Top