But Penny Wong said.....lol!
I note our government minister is attending the meeting to decide what biscuits are being served and the seating arrangements at the subsequent meeting on what action to take regarding the straights of Hormuz.
I'm thinking zero.
I'm thinking they are positioned to provide services such as rescue, along with force protection for the personnel mobilised for the E-7, possibly counter terrorism.
Of course, if a resource is positioned and ready, then it can be used as needed in the moment for other capabilities.
I assume they have been deployed with equipment, including helicopters?
Nil
Rheinmetall Plans Major Skyranger Production Expansion
Rheinmetall plans to expand production of its Skyranger air defense system to three additional countries as it prepares for a surge in demand.
thedefensepost.com
I think it’s a no brainer that the Government start making the skyranger after they finish the boxers for Germany and Australia in Queensland. Hundreds of these spread out across bases and area defence for deployed troops with the attached mistral 3 planned for product in Australia also a sovereign capability and a much need layered defence for drones and small aircraft that nasam miss. The mistral 3 naval launcher could also be used on the Arafura, landing craft medium and heavy and even attached to LHD’s for area defence. Again navy could even attached the seas snake to all small naval vessels and use the same cannon as the boxer!
I think they have opportunity for Australia.Rheinmetall Plans Major Skyranger Production Expansion
Rheinmetall plans to expand production of its Skyranger air defense system to three additional countries as it prepares for a surge in demand.
I think it’s a no brainer that the Government start making the skyranger after they finish the boxers for Germany and Australia in Queensland. Hundreds of these spread out across bases and area defence for deployed troops with the attached mistral 3 planned for product in Australia also a sovereign capability and a much need layered defence for drones and small aircraft that nasam miss. The mistral 3 naval launcher could also be used on the Arafura, landing craft medium and heavy and even attached to LHD’s for area defence. Again navy could even attached the seas snake to all small naval vessels and use the same cannon as the boxer!
I'm interested to understand why the majority of the commitment to date seems to be for the smaller skyranger 30, rather than the bigger 35. The 35 has better range and more effective ammunition.
I assume this is because 30mm is more common and it is a cheaper system, but Europe spent ages developing a new supply line for the Gepard which uses 35mm.
Any thoughts?
Not sure but wasnt one of the reason the army went for 30mm over 35mm for boxer and redback was ammunition capacity. With a 30mm you can carry a lot more than with 35mm, and if it does the job, more is better.
Integration cost as well. Rheinmetall offered to integrate the 35mm into the Boxer for us, if we wanted to offset the range and effect advantages the AMV-35 had over the Boxer armed with it’s 30x173mm gun. But they didn’t offer it for free…
But the 30x173mm round is cheaper and as you say affords more ammunition capacity whilst still meeting Army’s range and lethality requirements.
I’d say these reasons are more or less similar for the 30 / 35mmm Skyranger variants.
May also simply come down to whatever the user already has in-service too. If the 35mm round is in use already, go that way. If it’s 30mm, fine…
Cost however is one major reason why we won’t see Skyranger in ADF service and even if by some miracle we do, it certainly won’t be in large numbers. It’s bloody expensive and most nations are buying it in the range of dozens at best (as in 2-3 dozen…) Add it onto a Boxer CRV chassis and you might be looking at a $30 - $40m base platform…
Apart from supporting our mobile battle-groups, I am not sure what benefit these sort of numbers provide for us. It’s a lot of money and still doesn’t address the VSHORAD gap we have, so we’d still need to fund a VSHORAD missile system on top of Skyranger…
Wow, that's a step up in price. I'm assuming much of the additional cost is associated with radar systems? Still seems a lot, I'm sure we could fit a CEA package way cheaper than that.
The extra sensors, C2, networking, added on missile systems.
Quite a step up in capability no doubt, but a pricey one. Also putting it on one of the most expensive armoured vehicles the West (or anywhere really) has ever produced just adds to that.
Would we be better off adding CEA radars and reinventing the whole capability? We thought we could do better with eNASAMS too.
Maybe we did, but at what cost and at what schedule and capability impact?
We spent years and hundreds of millions re-inventing the wheel to obtain a NASAMS capability that fires the same number of and same type of effectors as every other NASAMS does. In fact poorer in some respects because while we were busy re-inventing a wheel that literally had nothing wrong with it, other users used that same time to add the GhostEye MR AESA radar and the AMRAAM-ER missile to their NASAMS systems. So did we obtain the “ultimate” NASAMS capability for our attempts to integrate our own radar? Not in my book. CEA radars “may” be better than the new GhostEye MR AESA radars, but then maybe they aren’t. The GhostEye’s are newer tech and they share commonality with the new LTAMDS we most likely will look at for any future IAMDS acquisitions we make.
We also diverged away from the NASAMS user-group shared platform upgrade path by striking out on our own.
All to get 2 operational batteries of a NASAMS capability that offers no more missile envelope OR firepower than existing systems do and less than the newer systems equipped with AMRAAM-ER.
So might it be with Skyranger. We might spend a literal fortune to put our own radar and C2 / BMS systems in it, resulting in our budget reaming affording no more than a handful of vehicles and again striking out on our own in capability terms and gaining less overall capability in the process…
Raytheon’s new GhostEye MR radar proves operational readiness
Raytheon, in collaboration with the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory's Strategic Development Planning and Experimentation (SDPE) office and Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace, recently conducted an extended exercise at White Sands Missile Range, showcasing the operational performance and readiness...
defence-blog.com
Last edited:
Susan Coyle appointed as Chief of Army and the internet has exploded. Oh dear I wonder if there would be this much exvitement if a man with an identical CV had been appointed.
I have an image in my mind of a venn diagram of those who think its inapproriate for a woman to be appointed to a senior leadership role and those who think Pauline Hanson should be PM. Its basically a circle.
I have an image in my mind of a venn diagram of those who think its inapproriate for a woman to be appointed to a senior leadership role and those who think Pauline Hanson should be PM. Its basically a circle.
Usually also the mob who think Trump is doing a fantastic job in the middle east and is the messiah. I just think he is a naughty boy.
I think she is a great choice, and her experience in signals and cyber is right at the forefront of what will be needed.
On other news, sounds like we will get the updated NDS on Thursday. More money for drones apparently, particularly smaller ones.
Whether I was serving or not, I have not really given a thought about the top jobs, never effected me directly.
I never had a "bad" RSM, so had assumed that the bad ones never made to that position, and guess it's the same with Senior officers..... did have a pretty ordinary CO at one stage though....
I never had a "bad" RSM, so had assumed that the bad ones never made to that position, and guess it's the same with Senior officers..... did have a pretty ordinary CO at one stage though....
In most cases it does. We’ll see what Government means by that term though. I have a feeling it is not Patriot that it is seeking…
Hey, question
In the IIP26, table 5 on page 65 details the combined arms land force investments. One of them is titled "combat vehicle systems". There is nil current approved spend, but $7-10 billion in the unapproved planned spend. So it is a major item.
There does not seem to be a reference to this in the text. What is it relating to?
In the IIP26, table 5 on page 65 details the combined arms land force investments. One of them is titled "combat vehicle systems". There is nil current approved spend, but $7-10 billion in the unapproved planned spend. So it is a major item.
There does not seem to be a reference to this in the text. What is it relating to?
Murse
New Member
More Redbacks i would hope. Its seems so ridiculous having a factory built for such a small number.