Australia declares its new air defense missile system combat ready

https://defence-blog.com/australia-declares-its-new-air-defense-missile-system-combat-ready/

The Australian version pairs the Norwegian NASAMS design with locally built CEA Technologies radar, the CEATAC and CEAOPS active electronically scanned array systems, mounted alongside launchers on Hawkei protected mobility vehicles. Raytheon’s AN/AAS-52 Multispectral Targeting System adds day and night optical tracking. The setup replaces the Army’s older RBS-70 man-portable air defense missiles.

11 points · 14 comments · view on lemmy.world

14 Comments

NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone · 4 pts · 1d (4 replies)

Have to say, I bet that would cost less if they just mounted it on the back of a Hilux.

supersquirrel@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 1d (3 replies)

I wouldn't say that if you aren't willing to be the driver of a truck that is a lynchpin piece of regional air defense networks that is completely unarmored. Air Defense is difficult, you essentially need a college education's worth of training and education to do it well and not just shoot down random friendly aircraft... so do you really think it is cost effective to toss away the lives of your air defense operators so carelessly?

Spend the money on the damn armored trucks.

This is the problem with people's obsession with light armor, yes lightly armored vehicles are essential and highly useful, but every new generation of people looking at war inevitably say "ah, this next war we won't need armor we need to make everything as lightly armored as possible!" and then that strategy fails spectacularly until people create more heavily armored versions and the cycle repeats...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMMV_HX_range_of_tactical_trucks

HX trucks are fitted with MAN/RMMV's modular military-specific cab, this tracing back to the Category 1 trucks that entered service in 1976. The evolution of this cab used for HX models is 290 mm deeper than preceding designs, and has more than 600 litres of gross stowage space in the rear. The interior of the walk-through cab is primarily steel or washable plastic/vinyl. Two types of modular detachable hard-top roof are available, a standard flat roof or a version with extended height for the optional air-conditioning equipment, plus an NBC filtration system for the over-pressured IAC cab option if required.[4][9] The reinforced roof can take the weight of two soldiers and the recoil forces of a 12.7 mm heavy machine gun in a ring-mount. A riot protection kit is available for the cab.[7]

To meet increasing demands for crew protection on deployed operations the HX range was designed from the outset with protection options in mind. Appliqué protection kits, for which vehicles are prepared to accept at the production stage, were developed for the cab. Known as the Modular Armour Cabin (MAC), these kits offer protection according to STANAG 4569. Weight of these kits is about 1,500 kg and the hard-top remains removable for air-transport if required.[9] A swap-cab armouring solution known as the Integrated Armour Cabin (IAC) is also available. The IAC was originally developed in conjunction with Krauss-Maffei Wegmann (KMW) for the SX range of trucks, this is suited to models with twin front axles only. A Rheinmetall-developed IAC option is available, this is suitable for all HX range trucks, depending on front axle rating and protection levels.[7]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMMV_HX_range_of_tactical_trucks

If you want the most general, all around applicable picture of what air defense looks like with this kind of platform at the slightly smaller scale of Hiluxes, JLTVs are as good representation of this category as any, and JLTVs are essentially MRAP hiluxes, which is what you need when absolutely everything in the air and ground is hunting you... with mines as well as everything else that comes to mind when you consider that.

..also.... you can also put these on the back of Hiluxes too, I believe that is already being done in Ukraine it is just highly dangerous for the crew to operate that way.

TL;DR you can use a Hilux instead of an armored truck to move money between banks too!

Gorgritch_umie_killa@aussie.zone · 2 pts · 1d (2 replies)

, but every new generation of people looking at war inevitably say "ah, this next war we won't need armor we need to make everything as lightly armored as possible!" and then that strategy fails spectacularly until people create more heavily armored version and the cycle repeats...

Seems like you have an interesting historical annecdote your drawing on where this has happened. Is it a story worth sharing?

supersquirrel@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 1d (1 reply)

The type of vehicle the US military became convinced was optimal for a fight against a near-peer foe.

The type of vehicle that the US realized was essential to fight in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The type of vehicle the US military became convinced was optimal for a fight against a near-peer foe.

The type of vehicle that the Ukraine realized is essential for a fight against a near-peer foe.

rinse repeat

We have already tried this over and over again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M6_gun_motor_carriage

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_British_Army_in_North_Africa_1942_E12643.jpg

It works... until you need armor...

Also see the story of the M10 Booker which is one of the most recent proofs that light tanks are mostly a fantasy because armor sucks to carry but even still you need it otherwise you cannot fight...

Such a platform “sounded great on paper, but as the system progressed through the development process, it became something that, well, maybe we can only get it on a C-17,” he said. Then the requirements changed again “to, well, it doesn’t need to be airdroppable,” which “kind of negates” the original purpose of the platform.

“If it’s not airdroppable, how is it going to be going in alongside … the airdroppable forces themselves?” Haelig said. “So, requirements creep is obviously a problem.”

https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2025/7/8/canceled-army-assault-vehicle-m10-booker-outgrew-its-worth

^ they wanted light and fast but found they had to keep slapping on more armor until they just had a mediocre, critically underarmored and pointless main battle tank.

Gorgritch_umie_killa@aussie.zone · 1 pts · 15h

Ah yes, the humvee. I like that line from the humvee commander in the movie Black Hawk Down. "These things are bullet magnets!"

I suppose a possible answer if they're determined to have heavier armour is compartmentalised and autonomous setups. Having the operator in a separate location to the cannon could reduce the armouring requirements of both and splitting them up could make delivery separately on those c130's possible. Of course the draw back is a platform far more susceptible to electronic warfare.

kibblebits@quokk.au · 1 pts · 1d (8 replies)

Ready for what?

NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone · 4 pts · 1d (3 replies)

In case the emus come back for another pop.

No1@aussie.zone · 1 pts · 1d (2 replies)

Bro, they don't fly.

NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone · 2 pts · 1d (1 reply)

That’s what they want us to think.

No1@aussie.zone · 2 pts · 1d

They are way too clever for us Aussies.

supersquirrel@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 1d (2 replies)

Air Defense

kibblebits@quokk.au · 1 pts · 1d (1 reply)

Defending against whom?

supersquirrel@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 1d

A lock on a door is not usually purchased with the intent of keeping only one thing out.

Eyekaytee@aussie.zone · 1 pts · 1d

I assume blowback after we send aid to taiwan