Australia's new armored force - What will it look like? Redbacks, Huntsmans, & Boxers. 

I wouldn't be surprised to see all M113s removed from regular service very soon. Simply not survivable on the battlefield.

@@Strategy_Analysis Yes, aluminium armor versus 155mm artillery or even Lancet style drones - not so good. We are learning a lot from Ukraine.

The first encounter with harsh reality came when the Leopards came into service. The 113s could not keep up with the Leopards, over ANY terrain . What is the point of a mechanized infantry screen if the tanks have to slow to an almost pedestrian pace" @@Strategy_Analysis

@@bruceinoz8002 Agree. That is why is say if there is to be an APC unit with this Armoured Brigade it cannot be equipped with M113s.

@@bruceinoz8002 to be fair the M113 simply was not designed for such things They can still be useful as a battle taxi for the wounded or even mobile large mortars but not much more than that. Even in those roles they would burn more fuel than other options.

Abrams could be the M1A2 Seppo Black Widow too.

all your eggs in the one basket what a great idea

I was disappointed when I heard that it was a South Korean model that was called the Huntsman ....... thats our baby spider!!!

Project Waler? That went well. Integrated air-cover? Integrated anti-air vehicles and toys? "Interesting" that there is a proposal for SP artillery. In the mid 1980's, I, as newly-minted infantry SNCO, asked the then RSM of Artillery Corps why there was NO official interest in Self-propelled Artillery. It's not doctrine", came the reply.

I would have thought that keeping 7 as a Light/Mech Btn would make more sense given its proximity to RAAF Edinburgh as it can be used as a rapid deployment force. Disbanding it and removing this capability seems very short sighted.

Glad to see your brilliant channel making your way here, keep up the good work!

Thanks Mate, much appreciated. I think the SHORAD Boxer might get a look in, or something like it.

Thank you. Onward and upward!

It would be good having them in reserve. If the war in Ukraine shows one thing is that numbers matter and in a long conflicts you should have the capebility to pull old equipement out of storage.

We are seriously fighting to keep ASLAV in service with upgrades and placed in Reserve units...I feel the move of 7 RAR or relining is a detrimental move..we have spent nearly two billion in building, moving and getting 1 Armoured into Adelaide, with the 7 RAR capabilities...im very interested to see final location of 16 Regiment ( Air defence)... still to many unconfirmed stories on their new home , but as one can seriously hope Northern Australia is the logical move. We have thrown around ideas of a Coast watch as a large number of us oldies are willing and even a proposal of a " home guard" only role is vital asset protection to free up regular and reserves for front line service.

I wonder if converting some of the ASLAVs for SHORAD duty, in a similar vein to their American cousins, the LAV-AD, would be another valid option. Especially if it would utilise rbs-70 instead of stinger or mistral (as per the lav-ad's us and expo models) - given the range and target cueing advantages. Certainly all these high end capabilities warrant some serious protection.

@@sir_vix I hadn't seen the SHORAD option, that is a good idea. I was thinking of utilizing the ASLAV's ability to cross rivers in the top end without a bridge. The upgrade of the 25 mm canon was for common Ammo and programable Air burst (I also think all the naval 25 mm should be changed to 30 mm for this so they can defend against small boat swarms). Going on with your SHORAD idea, we have over 200 of these things, how about a version loaded with 4 or 8 SPIKE ER2 missiles as a tank hunting unit. The range of the Spike ER2 should allow them to engage tanks outside the tanks ability to return fire.

Sadly today I spoke with an Expert instructor of LAV family...even though we have nearly 150 LAV that would be considered in very good condition, the stupidity of our defence acquisition, means as they will not be on an inventory of spares and all mechanics trained on other vehicles it's easier to retire than keep in service. The proposals are keep some as " enemy" vehicles or put into Army Reserve armoured units..but sadly they want them retired and not even put into war stocks...donating to Ukraine has been proposal from current government with agreement by powers in defence...

Like it.

Yes and Army General's called Daddy Longlegs

Thank you. Much appreciated. Much to be done before 2030.

That work is to develop nuclear weapons

@@robertruggiero9999 no, thats not required - whats needed is an ABM capability, which is under development, a capable submarine threat, which we already have but will be enhanced with new SSN's, and strong airforce, which we have and are improving. Nuclear weapons are a massive money pit, far beyond the capability of our economy.

Thank you. Much appreciated. More briefings to come on Australia's Navy and Air Force.

We have a population of just over 26 million, not all those pay tax. For reference, Texas has over 30 million (2022 census) We also have a huge coastal border and land mass (Texas is 268,596 square miles or 695,662 km and Australia is 2,941,300 square miles or 617,930 square kilometres, over ten times larger) to protect before you even think of "projecting power" elsewhere. We just do not have the revenue to support "just purchasing more kit and ships", esp when you add the cost of manning and maintaining them. The population, while having a very strong national pride, is not a martial people that likes going to war. We won't start one, but will help finish one if need be. And to be honest, as a citizen and ex soldier of 21 years, Vietnam was an experience we do not want to repeat, for anyone. We've always fought above our weight, and probably always will, we will always help our friends, but our friends need to understand we have serious restrictions on what we can just buy.

@@iffracem I wasn't thinking Australia needed to spend $1 trillion a year or anything. As far as I could find, Australia's military spending equaled 1.98% of their 2021 GDP. The US spent equal to 3.48% of their GDP in 2021 on military spending. So if we're being charitable and rounding up, Australia is meeting the bare minimum of what members of NATO are required to spend. I know, Australia isn't in NATO, but it is a good measure of military commitment in an alliance countering a foe whose military build up is massive. And look, I'm assuming your country is much more sane than mine and actually has social programs like nationalized health care, which costs money. And of course my country is a hyper capitalist hellscape where one side of the political spectrum is utterly insane and thinks programs like nationalized healthcare are some sort of communist tyranny, so we have more room in the budget for guns. At the same time, to be honest, a great deal of Australia's national security is subsidized by the US taxpayer. 10 fleet carriers, hundreds of F-35s, nuclear subs out the wazoo, all of this is extremely expensive and is a major reason why we in the US don't have benefits that are considered standard in every other Western country. So from that perspective, I don't think it's too much to ask that other democracies around the world pitch in more.

@@Jon.A.Scholt Our issue isn't spending, we have no problem spending big. Our problem is manpower. To loosely quote the satirical show about our government, The Hollowmen, "Why would you bother being a diesel mechanic for the army at 70 grand a year, give or take, when you could do the same job at Rio Tinto for double that?". For the skilled professionals our forces need, private industry (particular the miners who command top dollar) pays so much better we end up losing everybody after their several year stint is up. We have poorer retention than a leaky bladder. We literally couldn't man more navy ships even if we built them. I dont intent to lecture you on your own country, but i want to point out military spending isn't why you don't have nationalized healthcare. All up, the US is the biggest per capita spender on healthcare, 50% more than the next highest country, Switzerland. Even your government and compulsory spending is higher than the out of pocket and government spending of the next highest. Your federal government spends 2.5 Trillion-ish per year from mandatory spending on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security; not to mention spending from states. If you want nationalized healthcare you need to make the system more efficient, not throw more money at it. Also maybe look at staying healthy and not having the highest obesity rates in the developed world.

@@fluoroantimonictippedcruis1537 Damn dude, you took that waaaaay too personally. I don't think I was even half as critical (or much at all) about Australia as I was about the US. But instead you decided to get in your feels and just take cheap shots about America' s obesity (very original, by the way). But I won't take any random cheap shots. It''s certainly unrealistic to expect Australia to have a massive military. But there are certainly ways to enhance their lethality that don't require a massive increase in manpower. For examples you don't need thousands of pilots to man more F-35s. You'd need more men for maintenance, but it wouldn't be some extreme number. And if you're having trouble retaining your personnel, pay them more. I'm glad Australia is doing what they are doing, but the bottom line is western democracies have taken for granted for decades that the US Navy would always just be there to defend their commerce. Every other Western democracy gutted their military spending after the cold war, expecting the US to just carry on and pay for the tab. The US has essentially subsidized their national defense for over 30 years; it's time for others to step up, finally pay their share and meet the current threat the same way they did during the cold war. I don't think that's too much of an ask. Also, I find it funny you said you didn't intend to lecture me on my country and then proceeded to do just that.

Interesting varitations on the names. But the Australian Army usually names their vehicles after the local snakes and spiders. ("Hawkei Anacondas" (aka. death adder), Tiger, Taipan, and Bushmaster are snakes. Redback, and Huntsman are spiders). "Scrubmaster" and "Swampmaster" could likely work as variants on the name - just as with the Blackhawk and Seahawk. But if made as a totally different vehicle, it would likely be named from our wide selection of dangerous fauna... (It's not like there's a shortage to choose from).

I am Not Sure If thats what the comment ist referring to but many Versions already exist including the 155mm

And look how good Austal is, the lemon that is the LCS and the weird expeditionary vessels Not to mention west Australia, Philippines and Mobil Alabama have combined visa workforce

Nice. Always better to see things "in the flesh".

@@pavelgaming5470 no worries. Glad you enjoyed it.

I can see some ASLAVs remaining in service. I don't think the M113s would bring any value to the Reserves, given what the government has suggested about its future role.

@@Strategy_Analysis ASLAVs are verry much at the end of their life after many decades of hard use. I understand that armoured units may intergrate a squadron PMV-L as light recon role.

@@cc93691 Thanks for that. Yes, have heard the PMV-L might be integrated into Boxer units, given the Troop structure might change.

@@Strategy_Analysiscould you cover off on your take on the future role of the reserves?

Thank you. Great question. I will try to address those important questions in a briefing.

Exactly. Well said. When 5/7 RAR left Holsworthy for Darwin one thing quickly became clear, they couldn't use the armoured elements during the wet. Plus the training ranges for the Armour are back down south or east. AOF 2028 and DSR are very different in their approach and I can only guess what the next structure proposal will be.....

Thank you. Greatly appreciated.

Thank you. More to come.

Thanks mate. Much appreciated.

Back when I was a lad, 5/7 RAR existed, as did 2/4 and 8/9 :)

Prior to the DSR, under the AOF 2028 model, 4 RAR was to be reraised and located in Darwin. Clearly this was a pipe dream given the retention numbers especially in RAINF and the fact that most RAR BN's were running with 2 rifle coys + support coy which none were near full strength. DSR aside, the Army's problem right now is numbers and retention. We are soon to be an army of E5's (CPL's) and E6's (SGTs) with no operational experience except those who have left the ARA and put out to pasture in Choc world.

@@matt_anita-janeadventuresit’s just like post-Vietnam really, it’s quiet operationally and manning is an issue, at least we have a decent budget unlike post Vietnam

Thank you, much appreciated. You raise the question about the other regular brigade, 7th Brigade in Brisbane. At this stage, I don't think it will be cut. I will do a briefing on it soon.

Haven't heard of anything significant for the Army, but certainly for the RAAF there are prospects.

Thanks, Mate. Much appreciated.

As I mention in the briefing, I think its a possibility. Not a lot, and possibly more as an APC as you says. However, one commentator here has suggested they are worn out, and he may well be right.

Agreed. Cutting the AS21 order forces the ASLAV to stick around, although likely with a major upgrade to capability. 30mm is an obvious upgrade. The Amphibious capability seems useful for a defensive role in the far north, but most nations have moved away from this due to the tradeoff of weight vs survivability.

@@Strategy_Analysis Yeah they have had a long service life of 28 years+ but they are still a relevant platform (just ask the USMC) and with some 'chump change' funding to replace the engines, armament and electronics, we could retain them for at least a decade, re-purposed as APC's. Just look how long we have kept the M113's in service with upgrades.....60 years now??? Its a logical and cheaper option, short term.

@@wimmeraparanormal6581 Certainly worth a serious look. I was an M113 crewman, I know it well!

@@AndyViant If they are to remain in regular service, significant upgrades would be required. Its tactical and strategic mobility would fit with the government's stated objectives for the ADF.

Thanks for that clarification. There were to, but the requirement was removed. Yes, the 25 Block 1s don't have turret-mounted Spike, as you say. The remainder will.

@@Strategy_Analysis Good video tho mate

Sorry, but currently no progress on that front. NO active protection for the near future for boxer. And no interest from Germany anymore, now that we (correctly) chose Redback. They changed the requirement on Boxer to just having the system as a dismount one, because it was too hard. @@Strategy_Analysis

@@cc93691 Thanks, much appreciated.

@@michaelpowell6023 Thanks for the info.

I very hopefully expect more orders for redback and AS9, as we now have the production line here. just a budget timing thing, I hope. I fully agree to keep ALL the Aslav's in service or at least reserve, way to many road closures lately due to floods (even in Vic). I think the choice of Redback was the right one, out of the choices, but VERY BIG, Very HEAVY. At least it is integrated and tested for the systems, unlike the Boxer. If the Ukraine has shown any of us anything, mass over capability maters. Wars stocks of basic munitions, missiles, etc, will make the most difference. We have to face we have a limit to our defence budget. It would be great if we spent less on cancelled, stupidly unnecessarily altered systems, and a little bit more on credible deterrence. I am all for having the second best destroyer in the world (maybe), but only 3? With only an hours missile load? You cannot reload MK41's at sea. As you can't move 55+ ton vehicles in our North during wet season. If we introduced a bill to parliament, that forbade ex defence senior members from taking a related industry job for 4 years, we might have some better decisions.

Thank you. Much appreciated.

Thanks for the update.

Thanks Ken. I understand your points. The Government has said that the Armoured Combined Arms Brigade must be able deploy via amphibious craft from Darwin or Townsville. Troops will take time to deploy to Darwin from Adelaide, and it is far better to have all units within a brigade co-located. Maybe this is not what will be done. We should know soon enough.

@@Strategy_Analysis obviously the government ( or the ADF) don’t realise that a brigade could deploy from Adelaide by rail to Brisbane, Darwin or Perth as a full brigade in about 4 days - if practiced. Townsville would require a standard gauge line to achieve the same. I remember how long it took to deploy 2 CAV to Darwin from Holsworthy and the army never had the capability to deploy 1 Armd from Pucka with its organic assets - never enough heavy lift! Any smart opponent would know that Darwin is a key target and would need to be destroyed & they would have long range capability to achieve that. WW2 showed that, and every exercise i ever participated in proved how hard it was to provide logistical support north. To put it simply 3brigade should be airborne assault to rapidly take and hold ground, then amphibious to secure a landing area for the heavies. 1st brigade amphibious with a structure and equipment similar to the marines - no tanks! 7 brigade light infantry to provide backup to either 3 or 1 & 9th to have the armoured brigade including the tracked artillery. And dare I say it both 7 & 9 could be both ARA & ARES

I've spent the last two decades recycling pizza boxes for this, and I couldn't be prouder. Slava Ukraini!

Indeed air defence is critical. I'm working on a briefing covering that.

Agree. There is significant utility in a self-propelled gun-mortar system of 120mm. I cover the PLA systems in my series of briefings on the PLA Ground Force formations. You might find them interesting.

M10 Booker.

Quite a lto of Western countries do use SP 120 mm mortars, e.g. Finland's AMOS en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMOS or Poland's RAK en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M120_Rak

@@krossbolt4100 the M10 is not portable enough for light units. And it's definitely not artillery.

The US military doctrine uses air power over SPGs so not much money is put into them.

Buddy you just dont like "robbing Peter to pay Paul" but with Labor being in govt,. with all their social programs(which do help a lot of needy people) and Labor's commitment to SSN's, and maintaining a lot of the former govt's acquisitions, -you've just got to cut your coat, according to your cloth!

They stated that they are ordering enough to have a small redundancy, they will also have training vehicles, command posts and joint first. They don't just build enough for one exact battalion, how would they replace losses from damage and maintenance? 129 for one battalion is correct.

Thank you. As others have mentioned, a significant number are required for training purposes, and not just for the vehicle crews but also the mechanics. Also, the attrition reserve is designed to essentially provide enough spare vehicles to replace loses over the life of the vehicle. This is why the number seems so big for only 1 Battalion.

More than likely the order WILL be expanded over time. Particularly if the first vehicles prove to be better than expected. Depends on nearby international threats and political pivoting.

​@@krossbolt4100I agree, once the first 129 are rolled out of the factory, we may hopefully see a follow on order. We need atleast two mech battalions.

We need to remember our history. How often did we use tanks in our region during WW2? I think the choice to limit the number of armoured vehicles is correct. What I would like to see is an increase in Army helicopter capabilities, and air resupply capabilities. These are the capabilities we will need to fight in our region, as we learnt in Vietnam, and on the Kakoda Trail.

@@jamesmaddox7507, well seeing we just had soldiers fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan fir over 20 years and during WW2 we had soldiers fighting in Egypt and Lybia, all of which involved tanks and amoured vehicles, I'd say our soldiers need all the protection they can get, don't you? But we need to increase our military including helicopters and AFVs!

@paulsandford3345 Hey Paul, in a perfect world we could afford whatever we want. The reality is that our defence budget is tight, infact, it is tightening, as such we have to prioritise. The whole point of the Defence Stratigic Review is to point our defence forces in a new direction, our region.

@@jamesmaddox7507, maybe it's not as tight as we're being told, seeing how the defence minister has just blown 3.9 million on fights this year to go to football matches? Just a thought!

@@paulsandford3345 Yeah, I was talking in real terms with our dollar dropping and increased inflation. But we could debate the changes that need to be made to our public service system indefinitely.

Fair question. Remember they also need vehicles for training, for armoured crew, infantry and electrical and mechanical engineers. On top of this they need vehicles for attrition reserve. Kept in storage to replace damaged vehicles.

@@Strategy_Analysis Well a current M113 Troop lifts a company, and has 13 vehicles when we were doing Mech Inf work. If we add a vehicle it is 42 vehicles for 3x Companies. Add 5-6 for BHQ (most of them will not be used directly in combat. So easily 2x BN's worth + spares, training vehicles etc. etc. Which makes sense, so they will most likely have a traditional BDE BG formation with this size fleet.

Absolutely. I'll be covering that soon.

Yes, they are doing very well. While small in size, S.K's population and level of technology explains a lot.

I like how 9,000 is the skeleton crew amount of each commanding tipe I like how the three brigade system is 1/5 of a lieutenant generals 45,000 army an how each type of commander pool is 9,000

I like that it's an armoured bridge of command states

We have made significant progress over the last 20 yrs we are making significant progress

Yes, the idea was to be able to maintain one brigade deployed. So one deployed, one preparing for deployment, and one reconstituting after deployment. That will no longer be possible. So either you can still commit a full brigade to an operation, but that operation will not be sustainable, or you commit an armoured battalion group (so roughly 1/3 the size), but you are able to maintain that level of effort. One or the other.

@@Strategy_Analysis thank you for your answer. It seems that our masters are going for a “idealistic” looking army setup … in preference to practical. Not sure if that is wise.

Thank you, much appreciated.

As I mentioned in the video, this briefing covered the main armoured combat vehicles in the brigade. The AVLBs, ARVs, and AEVs were covered in an earlier briefing: KF41 Lynx or AS21 Redback.

I consider semi trailer system in the cities with side winder in the back of it as a delivery system of missile to strategic defensive positions that'd keep between invading vessels an key infrastructure, they are not going to strategically use missile in the bush, the way I see it for the cities they don't need off-road vehicles to intercept missile around the city that makes room for something like that with a semi trailer that could do above 80km to avoid radar detection.

I’d use a dedicated vehicle for air defence. Land drover and trailer, dedicated command vehicles.

In terms of air defence, we finally have a test launch of NASAMS. We also have the number one company in the world for anti drone tech and defence, but no orders from our Gov? Sold to all our allies, on many others..?

There will also be vehicles in the Support Company and Battalion HQ. The number of vehicles for training will be high as you need them vehicle crew, Infantry, and maintenance training.

@@Strategy_Analysis support vehicles would be hawki and M113 like the US striker battalions employ their support vehicles. Also why wouldn't the ADF just swap out the ASLAV's for the Redbacks in the current armoured cavalry regiments as the point of getting the redbacks was so we didn't have battlefield taxis supporting the M1A2 but a combat vehicle that could support it in a combat engagement

Yes. Any fight will need to be over quickly.

If it carries 8 troops each so 1 per section, 2 per squad, 8 per platoon, up to 30 per company. Not all are IFV, some command ,ambulance, recover, mortar(maybe) then a battalion is 90 with command that could already put nearly at 100. I admit that is more likely 100 vehicles, however it still means 129 redback variants starts to look very close to not enough. My guess is that talked about 350 would be a minimum for 3 battalions but 450 starts to look like 4 battalions.

@thomasb5600 No. As before you are describing an APC company in an Australian Army Armoured Cavalry Regiment who's purpose is to hold the apcs for supporting battalions. A normal Armoured or Mechanised battalion has between 31 vehicles for Russian doctrines armies and 44 for US/NATO armies. That is 2x vehicles in battalion HQ and 3x companies with 14 vehicles each. 3x platoon of 4 vehicles each. Extra vehicles are needed if the battalion has a Support company with Anti-tank, mortar and recce platoons. Then you factor in engineer platoon s and Forward Observers. 129 vehicles would equip 2x battalions easily.

@@tonyaughney8945 so you think they are only going to be used in mechanised Battalions, care to share where information says that. As I see it they are more likely to be used as part of a Cavalry Regiment.

@@thomasb5600 they should only be used in Mechanised battalions. Either way, 129 vehicles are enough for 2x battalions.

Yes. One of the failures of the Battalion Tactical Group (BTG) was lack of organic infantry.

@@Strategy_Analysis I was flabbergasted by the ineptitude of the initial Russian invasion. They could have combined the airborne troops and BTG's into task forces with enough infantry, or even seconded the lightly armed Rosgvardia troops into supervised security details. Instead it appeared to be a shambolic chaos without central direction. They have learnt painful lessons.

@@martinsmith9054 Russians went in with OMON forces ffs. It was never a serious invasion, they were obviously pushing for a negotiation which they pretty much got an agreement until the UK/US forced the Ukrainians to go back on it (which the Ukrainians are seriously paying the price for now). It was a political decision not a military one (Putin gets a lot of criticism for it). Their losses are seriously over overexaggerated, a good example of that being Hostomel, 200 VDV took the airbase and secured it until ground forces arrived - took 17 losses, yet in the western press you get propaganda that they were wiped out.

@@MS-wz9jm I'm aware of that, but military prudence should have suggested that all OMON and other Rosgvardia troops be integrated into the BTG's for their own protection. Since they were lightly armed and the BTG's were short of infantry it was an obvious solution. It also seems pretty clear there was a lot of incompetence in the Russian officer corps. Truth is the Syrian Tiger Force fought better in their campaign against ISIS in the Euphrates river valley, which apparently taught the Russian General Staff little. They've had to learn the hard way in Ukraine with many unnecessary losses and a late mobilisation. That being said the Ukrainians are now making an equally serious mistake pressing an obviously failed offensive while incurring heavy, if not catastrophic losses. For the record I subscribe to the realpolitik school of thought as elucidated by John Mearshiemer. He said as far back as 2015 offering Ukraine NATO membership would cause a war.

Umm sounds like we got a Russian pleaser in here.. Need I remind you of the Donets removed incident… a whole battalion of IFVs and tanks wiped out lol

Thank you. Much appreciated. Well a new plan seems to be in the works. We'll have to see how long it lasts.

It would make sense to have an aggressive defense. Light and mobile being the key. Maybe the Redback or Boxer could be looked at with a higher calibre cannon to provide almost a light tank option instead of a heavy tank core. Strikemaster, Hawkei having AA or long range tickets could be done too.

Would appear so.

Yep - _and_ there doesn't appear to be organic indirect fire, or drone carriers Edit: tell a lie, the Redback can mount the grenade launcher

I haven't seen the breakdown of the 129 Redbacks to be procured, but for the Boxers the critical support vehicles are included. Interestingly, the ambulance version of the Boxer is only an option for Australia.

The Russians have been extremely successful with their equipment and tactics recently despite what our lying media and leaders tell us about their capabilities. Go figure?

I’d start in Canberra . I’d just completely flatten the place and start at Parliament and see where to go from there, just wing it.

HIMARS won't be organic to this brigade. They will no doubt support it, but will be separate. I'll cover HIMARS in the Army's new structure soon.

Actually, only enough for 1 brigade.

Never met him. Of course I know of him.

I hope your channel also grows beyond the dizzy heights of 4k. As an Aussie I love me some home grown channels. Speaking of Perun, what is your professional opinion or thoughts regarding his analysis? Would you like to see your channel grow like his has?

@@nastygollum Thank you, much appreciated.

Thanks for the feedback. Will do. Soon as I get an opportunity. Unfortunately this isn't my only gig.

It was too expensive for what it offered.

In any future conflict the Australian Army is involved in, drone attacks on its vehicles are highly likely. A current deficiency I would say.

The Poles have a radar guided .50 cal gatling gun for drones. Cheap, mobile and effective for the smaller types of kamikaze drones if put on a suitable chassis.

@@martinsmith9054 Yes something like that is needed. 12.7mm would be the minimum I think.

@@Strategy_Analysis the Russians appear to be debating the same issue. The venerable Shilka is seen as ideal by some, while others point to the existing 30mm systems. Whatever the case, it may be cost effective to have 12.7mm or 14.5mm radar guided guns to save the larger ammo for the larger targets.

@@martinsmith9054 range, penetration, and rate of fire are the determinants for any anti-drone gun weapon system.

I haven't seen anything suggesting Australia will purchase an Air Defence version of the Boxer.

I heard the boxer has an Anti-drone laser it it either being tested or fitted.

I could be wrong, but it does look like that.

Yes, another dangerous Australian animal.

@@Strategy_Analysisand for our water drones boats if we do go forward with it Deffs called the box jellyfish

@@markmacqueen9666 Box jellyfish, Blue-ringed octopus, and Stone fish. Plenty of choices.

@@Strategy_Analysis lots of choices and fits our personality as a country naming shit like that

Hmmmm, at the end of WWII Australia was the fourth strongest military in the world. It’s a little difficult in peacetime to make comparisons with that period.

Well done.