The government has confirmed the defence strategic review is recommending that planned IFV numbers (450) be slashed to 129 and SP trance 2 SP howitzers to be slashed for more long-range strike.
I know this was inevitable because of the AUKUS sub program and increasing costs because modernization of navy and reprioritization of army to be more like marines, but it didn't need to be like this. Australia needed regionally credible armour and 129 IFV is not even worth it. May as well just frick off the program and build more boxers.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-04-21/army-projects-drastically-cut-in-defence-shakeup/102254536
>Recommendations for army projects in review:
Land Combat Vehicle System (infantry fighting vehicle) should be reduced to 129 vehicles to provide one mechanised battalion
>Army Littoral Manoeuvre Vessels (landing craft medium and heavy) should be accelerated and expanded
>Long-Range Fires (HiMARS) should be accelerated and expanded
>Land-Based Maritime Strike should be accelerated and expanded
>Protected Mobile Fires (second regiment of army self-propelled howitzers) should be cancelled
>129 IFVs
>One batallion
Thats a rather large batallion.
Tactical advantage of procuring the exact number of hulls for a unit with zero replacements?
This is what you get when you let Labor touch defence.
And AS4 is what you get with the Libs. Procurement has been fricked since at least 1980 no matter which party is in power.
The Liberals and Nationals fricked ship building and therefor the whole navy for decades.
The Liberals and Nationals cancelled and delayed so many programs and allowed others to become corrupt and incompetent.
Labor appointed the Deputy Prime Minister as Minister for Defence
Good. Missiles are way more important and a major weakness in our defense
Get fricked, the LNP has been fricking up our defense and selling out to the Chinese for a decade. They can have my vote when they become serious again.
This
Artemis III will slip to 2026, no question. Maybe later.
>>the Morrison government's 2020 Defence Strategic Update are underfunded by 24 per cent over the next four years, and by $42 billion over the next decade
also submarine snafu
the slogan "party of economic management" needs to go the way of the dodo
Its gonna take forever like eveything they try to do themselves
They figured out a b***h basic LCM - these things
- isn't able to do the job on its own they need a heavy carrier like the American LCAC and the French Engin de débarquement amphibie rapide (EDA-R)
But when do we ever manage shit like this competently?
three companies + headquarters + training + spares
the subs are going to be as much of an albatross as the stage 3 tax cuts
cont
There were tank battles there in WWII
>Battle of Buna-Gona (1942-1943): Australian troops used M3 Stuart light tanks in the battle to capture the Japanese-held towns of Buna and Gona on the northern coast of Papua New Guinea. The tanks were effective in supporting the infantry and neutralizing enemy positions. Interesting observation by Gailley: "Allied command had failed to make effective provision for supply of artillery or tanks, believing quite mistakenly that air support could replace them"
>Battle of Tarakan: Australian troops used M3 Stuart light tanks and M4 Sherman tanks in the battle to capture the Japanese-held island of Tarakan, off the coast of Borneo. The terrain here is what you're imagining as oppressive for armoured warfare. Despite this, tanks were mostly used in support by fire positions rather than manoeuvre positions. Still useful.
>Battle of Balikpapan: Australian troops used M3 Stuart light tanks and M4 Sherman tanks in the battle to capture the Japanese-held oil fields and refineries in Balikpapan, on the eastern coast of Borneo. The tanks were used to support the infantry and to destroy enemy fortifications. Here's one instance of armour being a decisive factor: The initial infantry assault on Hill 87 was launched throughout the morning, and stalled as Japanese resistance grew; the Australians became pinned below the summit and just before noon, two supporting tanks from the 1st Armoured Regiment came forward, suppressing Japanese fire and assisting the infantry to capture the position
Having pissed off the East Timorese and driven them to look for alternate partners for developing their Natural Gas resources one partner they are now considering is China
What if as part of the Timor development they also happen to build air fields ideal for Chinese strategic airlift?
You are an actual moron who fell for José Ramos-Horta's China card. Timor be looking to China but China isnt looking to them. No one considers imvesting in Timor as worth it not even the chinese else there be more than your drivel to show for it.
>Seething about Osborne still
Queensland would've been a better choice for your sad cope than Worst Australia, next time have an actual industrial base
You dont steal from people who have nothing of value
If nobody wants to invest in them then what are stealing and why are we stealing it
>seething
the natural choice of location to build the Collins would be where they'll be based but it wasn't - industrial policy and jobs too precedent and caused a mess
You cant develop what has been "stolen" which is what you're saying dipshit. And again the chinese arent going to develop or invest in Timor for they dont now - because it's not worth it
The natural choice to build the Collins was where there was land set aside to and a present industrial base that left only QLD and SA.
Australia did not steal the entire territory containing the natural gas
Only a large portion
Timor still has some territory with gas
But under the deals forced upon it in 1999 their gas under their remaining territory we didn't gobble up is piped all the way to Australia for processing
And they get a pittance for this
Timor has been looking for other parties to develop their remaining share of the gas on their territory instead which would see more revenue for them
And the helium too
Because the contracts were curiously worded in such a way as to eliminate sovereign ownership of the helium
Leaving it a free bonus for the contractors
When all other oil and gas contract language ensures all derivatives remain sovereign
So there are really three thefts
1) claiming a signifianct portion of the Timorese territory in a dodgy deal with Indonesia, and forcing the Timorese to accept this in 1999
2) forcing the Timorese to accept what gas they had in the territory left to them was to be processed in Australia
3) the contracts curiously excluded Helium from sovereign ownership
>three companies + headquarters + training + spares
that's still a very large battalion
it only works out if they decided to make all the support shit on the same chassis as well; mortar, recovery, repair, recon, command etc. Picrel is a British cavalry battalion of the 80s which made use of all the CVRT variants. It adds up to roughly 65 CVRT vehicles.
It looks to me like this 129 IFV battalion is likely to have no less than four manoeuvre companies, and a frickton of variants. Something like 5 x 18, including HQ and support variants, and 39 training and spares
it could be they go with 4 companies, when 5th and 7th battalions were merged as 5th/7th they had four companies
if they are once again going back to a single mechanized company then it would seem like they would do the same thing again
but I think a lot will be spares and maintenance - while shits in the shop do you just sit around doing nothing? no you get another unit out
Check the catalog, twat
Any halfway serious country should have 1000 IFVs and 500 MBTs
We already have a thread
>AUKUS
Complete meme, the us doesn't need to be involved at all in the process of making Australia a nuclear power, it's just mutts dragging anglos into their handbag fight with China
Both of those countries are pussies that do not want war
>The independently led review will reveal that new military capability purchases announced since the Morrison government's 2020 Defence Strategic Update are underfunded by 24 per cent over the next four years, and by $42 billion over the next decade.
Fricking Libs and their inability to manage money.
It's not like the total IFVs are being slashed, it's just that now they are being put as options for later batches. Only the first batch has been reduced from 300 to 129 out of 450.
If they order 129, spend years building them, then don't order anymore, I will be mad, but this decision to reduce numbers initially has little impact until 2030 or whenever IFV number 129 rolls off the production line.
There will be men living on the moon before a single Australian-built nuclear submarine touches the water.
Correct. Artemis missions plan to land people in 2025, which is before the planned delivery of the first Australian-made AUKUS submarine in the early 2040's.
It is likely that the Artemis Base Camp will also be up and running by then on the moon.
Hi, Mars.
Hi, South East Asia. Did you guys want some excess solar power dead-cheap?
Indonesia will have the bomb before Ausfalian homosexuals. They have three research reactors and Ausfalia only has one
>Army Littoral Manoeuvre Vessels (landing craft medium and heavy) should be accelerated and expanded
Based. Best thing I reckon.
Defence cuts to pay for
>Nuke Subs
>Land AShMs
>HIMARS
Frick off 2/3s of IFVs
If ADF has a Joint USN/RAN nuke sub presence between Aus and China, backed by AShMs and HIMARS-ATACMS that can dominate our northern coastlines, or forward deploy to chokepoints through the Indon Archipelago, Straya is 100%secure.
IDVs are only needed if Army is to be 'expeditionary' to support YS ground operations.
USMC just dropped all its Tanks for portable missile systems to dominate the region by occupying islands, not play tank-battles on mainland China.
Armoured Corps Generals and tankwank fanbois will seethe, but even Abrams v3 are a waste of money.
>pic: Australias side of the globe - lots of water for subs, and lots of islands between Aus and China to hold missile vatteries not IFVs
Mostly you are right, and the ability to better manouvre into SEA islands to delay, deter and deny Chinese movement is ideal, but lets be real here, armoured forces like IFVs and tanks are ESSENTIAL in SEA jungle/coastal warfare.
WW2 in the Pacific proved this. Tanks saved lives and turned the tides of battles for Australians and US forces in places like Indonesia, PNG etc.
I don’t disagree but the missiles and subs and so forth are much more important for Australia specifically. We need that sort of strategic fires independence and sovereignty (not the least because hosting equivalent US forces might be a bit politically unpleasant for domestic audiences) and we can rely on the US to do the majority of the heavy lifting on the mechanized offensive front while ourselves maintaining more limited capabilities to supplement their own
We will be on our own in defending ourselves (not entirely but mainly) but we will never fight an offensive against China on our own
Also these strengthen our hand diplomatically and politically in a way IFVs and Tanks do not.
I agree with your post, and I support the reduction in, hopefully just initial, IFV numbers to direct spending to more appropriate assets.
Subs are the best asset we could have, but I'm glad to see suggestions saying we should increase our maritime transport capability so we can actually get our Boxers and 75 Abrams up into SEA to protect our missile launching assets.
>tanks ESSENTIAL
RAAC cope.
Tanks in PNG and SVN were mobile HE-delivery systems to destroy coconut-log bunkers not Kursk-tier tank-tank battles or 90s ColdWar Fulda Gap.
Direct and indirect tactical HE now is delivered by Drones and manportable AGLs and ATGWs not 40tonne lumps that cant cross island bridges or fit down mud tracks.
You have a point, except the enemy has light tanks, light IFVs, drones capable of carrying munitions etc.
We only have (currently) 59 Abrams, no IFV capable of deployment, heavy as frick 8x8s, limited ATGMs and no drones capable of carrying munitions.
Even 90% of Ukraine-Russian tank losses aren't Tank-to-Tank with APFSDS and thats happening in flat open 'tank-country' that had the massed tank battles of WW2 Ost-Front, both sides now are hitting tanks with ATGMs and Drone bomblets or Himars strikes on their resupply points.
PLA-N isnt delivering tanks into the Kimberley if we have the Nuke Subs then hit any stragglers with coastal Anti-ship missiles 100s of klicks off the shore
Thing is, unlike WW2 where armour was used correctly as spearheads for breakthrough (in strength), what we see in Ukraine is a handful (at most) vehicles attacking alone with little or no infantry or artillery support.
>PLA-N isnt delivering tanks into the Kimberley
No, but they will into parts of SEA. That's where we should shine, get to parts of Indonesia first to limit their maneuver objectives.
Safe to say we won't get to the Philippines before they do, but Indonesia would be a good goal. Maybe there we could bring forward our useless fighter jets where they can become useful.
Indonesia isnt tank country and "getting there first with tanks" doesn't mean the PLA will just turn up to play tank-tank games.
Occupying random islands with 40mm and 120mm directfire guns that cant dominare out more than 5km means your island just gets bypassed - thats what the AShMs are for, and they dont need IFV defences if no landing ships get closer than the horizon.
Yeah add Apaches into the mix (plus Manpads and SAMs) and tanks and IFVs become even more pointless in SEA Jungles
>Indonesia isnt tank country
No, but tanks were used there with great effect and without them, Australia and the US would have lost far more men.
>Occupying random islands
I don't think China will make the mistake of occupiying random atols far out in the Pacific like Japan did. They're more likely to focus on the mainlands, around key transit and trade routes. So yes, you can bet your arse they will be getting tanks and other vehicles ashore as soon as they can. No need for tank-tank battles when your enemy isn't there yet.
Pic rel is like 30% of our ship-shore assets in one picture.
Tanks were never greatly used in Indonesia - in WW2 the Dutch East Indies surrendered without a shot, and in retaking Balikpapan etc tanks were only infantry-support guns delivered after the initial landings as bunkerbusters
>Tanks were never greatly used in Indonesia
I never said in great numbers, just to great effect. Broke stalemates and saved countless Aus and US lives. Those Japs were dug in expertly.
Exactly tanks in WW2 and SVN were just bunkerbusters not MBTs, a Matilda's 2Pdr tank gun hitting Jap MG bunkers has about the same HE delivery effect as a 40mm HEDP so the same effect now can be a F88GLA or even better a Mk47 AGL
And in SVN the Centurion 20Pdr HE was a 7.5kg 84mm shell, so the same effect could gave been achieved with the CarlGustav HE round - if the Scandis hadnt softwienered politically on letting us use CG in SVN after selling it to us.
True, but times have changed and now the Chinese are more likely to employ armour, and in far higher quantities, in support of their ground forces, far more than Japan ever could in WW2.
Even if, thats not an argument to also buy tanks that are equally unsuited to the terrain.
We are already replacing the useless Tiger ARH with Apaches - it will be a turkeyshoot if the PLA ever does manage to ship tanks further than their own backyard.
>Drones
Never mind it's one of those idiots who only discovered drones because of the Ukraine war.
An Apache Longbow operating how it's intended to operate would blow your fricking mind c**t.
>USMC just dropped all its Tanks for portable missile systems to dominate the region by occupying islands, not play tank-battles on mainland China.
Yeah but the USMC did that because US military culture in general is changing to that of training for a peer war. The USN is going to dominate the coastline, the USMC and US Army are going to land, then the US Army is going to frick everything with legs. The USMC is not built for and is not intended for prolonged land warfare.
The Australian Army on the other hand is the fricking ARMY. If it's not capable of fighting a prolonged land war on Australian soil, what's the point of having it?
Stupid fricking idea IMO. I'd sooner welcome limited conscription and a tripling of the military budget than this bullshit.
Oh you’re one of those morons who thinks we should aim to fight a land war in Australia
Thank fricking Christ no one in power listens to you people.
Been sucking the dick of any American you meet, frickface?
You genuinely do not understand how solid defense policy works. The goal of the Australian defensive policy/strategy is to prevent a land war in Australia. We’re not fricking Poland you moron - do you think the Americans center their defense policy on fighting a land war on US soil? No, it centers on making it untenable to reach US shores in the first place - and they’re not even a fricking island.
You defend a coast by rendering landing impossible not by focusing on making sure you can scoot around the fricking land behind the coast.
This is genuinely too complex an idea to explain to a moron like yourself, however, so when you inevitably make another post about how evil america is just imagine I replied with “have a nice day chink shill” because you’re ultimately just a Chinese useful idiot. Emphasis on idiot
You two are both so fricking stupid it hurts, so I'm just going to leave it at this then abandon the thread (as your presence in it makes rational debate impossible):
In a few years China is going to turn Indonesia into a vassal/puppet state/whatever you want to call it. It's going to station an armored division there, plus the necessary naval forces to make it across to WA/NT/QLD, plus several air wings. It is going to make it its mission to cut off any US support to Australia, this time by actually invading the continent.
When this happens you two are going to suddenly want a standing army capable of operating anywhere in the country, you're going to see that both parties have neglected it since the late 90s, and you're going to blame it on trannies or something. Or I don't know, depending on your politics maybe tradies. Or unions.
Mark my words.
Uppercut yourselves, stupid fricking c**ts. Thankfully neither of you work for the APS so at least your contribution to this moronation is contained to this imageboard.
>In a few years China is going to turn Indonesia into a vassal/puppet state/whatever you want to call it.
Not really, even Indos hate Chinks, and have had tussles with their fishing militia. It's part of the reason Indonesia is up-arming, and it's not because they feel threatened by Australia.
Yeah you’re moronic kek. I don’t know where to start. Even if your cope fantasies were real (they aren’t) you want FORCE PROJECTION because if you focus on only being able to defend the Australian mainland, especially neglecting and navy and long ranged precision fires, you have four vulnerability ones
>no strategic deterrence
>no ability to do an expedition into Indonesia
>no ability to prevent landings, only contest them post landing
>no ability to attack the force attacking you
You don’t fricking win by turtling and you don’t win by starting from a point of
>they will land, definitely, so we should fight them as close to home as possible
And that’s assuming your stupid indo fanfic is real. You are probably a chink “abc”
This. The dumb c**t doesn't realise that to stop China from using Indonesia as a staging ground in a war to then invade Australia, is to deny the enemy from being able to get establish it as a staging ground....by moving assets into Indonesia and once more fighting side-by-side with Indonesia to kill Chinks.
Yes definitely Chinese. I wasn’t certain until he said
>In a few years China is going to turn Indonesia into a vassal/puppet state/whatever you want to call it. It's going to station an armored division there, plus the necessary naval forces to make it across to WA/NT/QLD, plus several air wings.
They always give themselves away every time by saying
>China military very big, too big to defeat, they will simply land a million tanks on a million boats. It’s pointless.
>Everyone love China, everyone will be China friend not America. I’m sad about this for sure.
Also they tend to say X country should stop being americas ally because america is exploiting them
>plus the necessary naval forces to make it across to WA/NT/QLD
fricking moron, if this was ever the case then australias security has failed and I'm joining the CCP.
>it's not capable of fighting a prolonged land war on Australian soil, what's the point of having it?
Ironically correct.
Australia doesnt actually need an Army for defence - we own the entire continent so we have no Land enemy threat - our defence is in the Air-Sea Gap.
We have only kept a permanent Army since 1946 to attend US Expeditionary wars for Anzus/Aukus policy, not to defend Australia.
From pre-Federation to 1945, we only kept Militia/Reservist army units and then formed 1st and 2nd AIF to go overseas to fight non-defensive wars to support international alliances with the UK then the US afterwards.
In WW3 we will send our NukeSubs, some minor surface additions to US CBGs, possibly forward base some F35s in Japan or Phillipines (if theyve survived), and niche units like SASR - that's our 3rd AIF not an Armoured Brigade storming Shanghai Beach.
Agree with your post, but Australia does in fact need an army, operating in SEA, to defend Australia. You have to remember that we have like 12 combat ships, 6 submarines, and no real air cover for either of them.
It''s well known that now the Army is more important than ever before due to how capable land-based assets are in defeating naval power.
>Air Sea Gap meme
>In 1999+24
pls jump off a bridge Hugh White
>>USMC just dropped all its Tanks for portable missile systems to dominate the region by occupying islands
The USMC did this because the fricking US army still exists to perform the other roles. This isn't the case for Australia. I hate when homosexuals in here float this army as US marines bullshit.
It's moronic, dumb even.
bless you anon, these morons cant comprehend something so obvious
Berger even says this though, it's even a misunderstanding of the USMC approach. What grinds my breasts is how confident all are about the approach to begin with (it isn't widely accepted in the US and has many many critiques).
And let's be clear what these homosexuals are saying, they're saying with their polished crystal ball that they know what a future war in the Indo-Pacific will look like, that it won't involve army or armour.. and how do our defence psychics get there... Through overstating the land-sea gap, MANPATS and utility of navy, air and long/medium fires.
I'm sorry homosexuals but you don't know what all the contingencies are and whether we'll need to capture and hold territory. You just fricking don't.
The only big brain take on here is that we should have the IFVs AND all the other shit because frankly in this strategic environment we need it. Anyone in this environment advocating for cuts to defence programs to supplement more priority areas is a fricking idiot. We need massive defence spending increases because we need to stop being a boutique force with small power pretentions and we need real money to do it.
If the DSR just rejigs existing funding so it doesn't have to dump in significantly more spending (which looks likely) then it was ultimately fricking moronic mistake and one that reflects labors unwillingneas to cut public funding in other areas to pay for defence.
You c**ts should feel fricking moronic for buying into the goy argument about the need to 'cut' defence in some areas to bolster others, it's moron logic in the current geostrat conditions.
mechanized brigade
boxer brigade
motorized brigade
you can do a variety of company and battalion sized battlegroup deployments with that
look at Frances GTIA doctrine
>you can do a variety of company and battalion sized battlegroup deployments
It's really quite simple
Here's a notional TOE for the Australian Army
4 Boxer CRV squadrons, 4 Abrams squadrons, 4 Redback battalions, 8 APC battalions
you can deploy an armoured brigade - blue
a mechanised infantry brigade, no tanks - red
or a mech infantry brigade, with tanks - orange
or any other combination you can think of
the real question is 1) how do you train for all these combinations and 2) can you afford all this manpower
>look at Frances GTIA doctrine
stripped of the high falutin nonsense, it's cope for having patchwork readiness across the Army
I do not for one second believe that units drawn from different formations can be thrown together on the fly and work together with ALL of the effectiveness as units that have been given a working-up period together first
Isn't this pretty much what Germany did in the late 80/90s? It was done out of necessity not because it made sense anon. And you'll note they fricked it off as soon as they could.
I'm not saying it should be so
however look at the current TO&E, and tell me you think those brigades are ready to deploy independently? bollocks
>they aren't they come from the same brigade
wrong
>look at serval
not a peer war against a heavy mechanised enemy
did the jihadis even have actual artillery?!
the units were quickly organized, deployed, and worked cohesively in a high tempo operation
which they should not be able to according to your claim:
>I do not for one second believe that units drawn from different formations can be thrown together on the fly and work together with ALL of the effectiveness as units that have been given a working-up period together first
>the units were quickly organized, deployed, and worked cohesively in a high tempo operation
>to fight Toyota-wielding islamic jihadis
yes
your claim however is that
>the units would work EQUALLY as well as a bunch of units organised months beforehand, given time to train together, and sent to fight a near-peer mechanised battlegroup
THAT is unproven
well in that case it is also unproven that you're not a troon
>uh uh um (insult)
I accept your grudging white flag, cheese monkey.
>evidence it works is not evidence because reasons
if you're going to play these games it is only fair
>evidence that it works against ISIS is the same evidence it works against a peer mechanised army
Go ahead, make that argument anywhere, make a fool of yourself.
>games
You attempted to defend the indefensible, ran out of arguments and resorted to insult. Endex.
What are you c**ts b***hing about?
>4 Boxer CRV squadrons, 4 Abrams squadrons, 4 Redback battalions, 8 APC battalions
lolwut just bring back the 2nd AIF while you're at it
>I do not for one second believe that units drawn from different formations can be thrown together on the fly and work together with ALL of the effectiveness as units that have been given a working-up period together first
they aren't they come from the same brigade
and practice such deployments
and the proof is in the pudding look at serval
>The only big brain take on here is that we should have the IFVs AND all the other shit because frankly in this strategic environment we need it.
USMC dropping tanks is still moronic.
The funds they free up to use in other ways makes it worthwhile.
>the US caring about being cost effective
>The marines have limited money
>Like, there's a reason they used the M16 forever
>Tanks cost millions
>Marines don't plan to use them to fight China on their islands
>They get more f-35b, more choppers, more ships by not using tanks
Getting rid of the tanks is like when your last child moves out and you don't have to pay for their meals and shit anymore. Suddenly you can afford more things for yourself.
>we have to be cost effective
>shall we share the same common helicopters with the rest of the military, thus lowering unit costs and simplifying logistics and maintenance and training
>no
If you can’t understand why you want to shift the battleground as far away from your population centers, territories, manufacturing centers and barracks you’re beyond all hope of saving and are actually more stupid than a chinaman. Because they recognize their inability to do so is their greatest strategic vulnerability and part of why they want muh first island chain
they bought german, they don't need more IFVs anyway. a german made IFV is worth like 10 american IFVs.
>May as well just frick off the program and build more boxers
Just spend the money on a real deterrence like ICBM's.
They’re better off dropping the advanced IFV in small numbers and just ask the US to sell 500 bradleys on the cheap. The US is replacing the Bradley anyway so when that happens you’ll have an unlimited supply of parts available to maintain your fleet of 500. Bradleys are getting old but they’re still capable in large numbers
IMO we only have an army in the first place to good goy and follow the US into whatever dumb shit they are doing this week.
We should focus on airforce and navy because we are an island that isn't about to invade anyone, 1 year manditory conscription with take home rifle to make invading a non-option for anyone that doesn't want Afghanistan 2: Bruce Boogaloo.
>inb4 conscription and take home assualt rifles won't happen
I know but at least let me dream.
>fighting your enemy only once they're on your territory
ngmi
The airforce and navy are to make sure they don't get that far.
I think it's a bad fit for us, if the chinks make landfall we are done and blowing up some ports isn't going to change that.
>fighting an enemy when they have airbases within range of attacking your territory
ngmi
gotta attack them and deny them the battlespace
What a defeatist and irrelevant argument. we're talking about IFVs vs HIMARS. By your defeatist logic the IVFs wouldn't make a difference either. HIMARS is better because it's a quasi anti ship missile and also a good rapid response to any landfall attempts.
Simply set the HIMARS in direct fire mode.
Getting a shit ton of HIMARS makes sense. We're seeing them being used to great affect in Ukraine. More so than IFVs.
>more so than IFVs
cause they dont have anyway
25mm bushmaster will penetrate the side armor of a T54
Yeah? HIMARS will blow up a targeted building in Canberra with a missile fired from Sydney. Sounds way more useful.
>blowing up buildings in Canberra from Manly beach
God that’s the dream. In Roblox
129 Redbacks are better than nothing I guess
It's not though, at 129 we'll be paying twice as much to buy them and twice as much to maintain and sustain them. That's literally what Germany did and It's a strategy for spending more for less. Boxers by contrast are being pumped out and we have scale already, dumping the L400 money into boxers actually makes sense and will bring the cost down even more. A token IFV force (a fricking battalion) isn't much better than a bullshit force and that's what we are used to being in Australia.. perpetually a boutique force with great capabilities but not enough of them to more the dial even a little. And yet here we are.. with losers ,on /k/ no less, supporting cuts to defence.
We need to track these c**ts so when the day of rope comes we know who to kill.
>We need to track these c**ts so when the day of rope comes we know who to kill.
Fricking gigabased
Calm down, incel. The Redback, unlike the Boxer/Lynx, actually has sales behind it like the US, Egypt, Poland, Romania and Norway so maintenance parts won’t be a problem.
>The Redback, unlike the Boxer/Lynx, actually has sales behind it
What the frick are you talking about, the redback hasn't sold anywhere.
>Calm down, incel.
Ok reddit?
france has decided to go all wheeled including wheeled IFVs
but thats cause they're west africas policeman
the sahal is ideal environment for wheeled armor, look up operation serval
tracks are good for rugged terrain
which we could be in
ASLAV weren't very good offroad in East Timor
a boxer is 10+ ton heavier than an ASLAV
iirc when they did the return in 2006 they didn't even bother bringing them it was just M113s
Black person I want tracks. I don't think we should cut the original number of IFV. The issue is that token tracks don't get us anything other than saying we have IFV, whereas boxers in large fricking numbers is an actual capability.
*Albeit an imperfect one
>whereas boxers in large fricking numbers is an actual capability.
in an actual war in the indochina region with troops on the ground in PNG/Timor/Indonesia fighting China the wheeled vehicles might not be able to move offroad
We don't know how the boxer would perform and yes it's imperfect anon but what does a battalion of IFV get you re fighting a numbered Chinese force? Nothing.
well I never said it should be one battalion
the armor brigade needs at least two