Australia's Army has declared Final Operational Capability for its National Advanced Surface to Air Missile System, confirming the ground-based air defense system is ready to support Australian Defence Force operations. Defence announced the milestone on September 9, 2026. NASAMS is

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.

  • Gorgritch_Umie_Killa@aussie.zoneM
    2·
    7 days ago

    , 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.caOP
      2·
      6 days ago

      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.zoneM
        1·
        6 days ago

        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.