The claim that US weapons technology is almost always the best is not only based on practice but is in fact true. Given the US spends upwards of 10% of its defence budget on R&D that alone equates to more than most country’s entire defence budget. The US spends around $1 trillion in Australian dollars on its military. No other country can devote anywhere near that kind of money to develop competitive tech across the wide spectrum of military technologies. US kit comes at a premium but it’s generally the best.
The problem for local industry is the Gov orders 10, 50, 100, 200. Then that's it. Factory closes, talent leaves. We don't keep the factories rolling to keep talent. Other countries say keep going. Nah we finish a quota shut the factory. The Collins are a good case. Domestic Subs requiring starting again. Years of relearning skills we had.
Japan keep building their submarines and retiring them early. In case of war they still have the use or the early retired ones as well as have modern ones still being built and keep the experience in manufacturing
100% correct Fault of the states who keep pushing for defense contract time to shut down the American system and go back to ADI (Australian Defense Manufacturing).
Subbed. It's about time we increased our capabilities, as a former soldier of the ADF I've been saying it for years. Great video as per usual, Ta mate.
Ive been waiting 4 months to heard back about a Reserves role as Drone Operator. They fked up my application twice and then the system produced and error....... is there usually such a long wait?
lmao its not really increasing our capability, apparently we are only getting 2 batteries, 1 to protect canberra and the other for training meaning they are gonna take the MANPADs away from the infantry and give them nothing back, even if that "training" battery was sent to a possible front line, there may be 10s of front lines all around the country and would be lucky if 1 battery can cover a single front line in full
@@Igotnothingoinon Finally someone knows what the Pikos's are all about. This is just a channel for them to promote the LNP so they can make money from developments and real estate. Dodgy as.
❤ it Andrew. When he gave the shout out to 6834, l had to track you down. (Thanks for going the full Karen to get this video done) Cheers mate. Have a super weekend
As NASAMS is not intended to intercept ballistic missiles due to limitations in missile range and radar height parameters, the THAAD and Patriot systems with Pac-2 and Pac-3 missiles will be a welcome addition in the near future. I also believe we need to start investing right now into researching and building a home grown ballistic missile capability.
That is your destroyer's mission. By knowing approx what direction ICBM might come from, is enough to know where to place a destroyer or two, in addition to early warning radars.
lol, yeah- R&D, testing, procuring the talent for advanced weapons systems, building the factories, hiring and training a skilled domestic workforce- at cost mind you, building the shipping infrastructure to house and transport, engage the IC domestically to put in measures against Chinese theft of IP while doing all of this and doing it all without killing the taxpayer, no problem mate, thats all so much better than just buying it from the US. glad your ego isnt getting in the way of logic and critical thinking on this one.
@@mremington8 Nothing wrong with his ego, he is correct. We have to develop that capability, if the shit hits the fan we may have a problem with getting resupplied from the US, that's if the US is feeling like lending a hand and that's not such a given nowdays. And before you start with this treaty or that treaty, Ukraine signed what they they thought was a pretty solid treaty with the the major powers in the 90s including the US. The incoming Trump admin. have signalled that they may back away from that treaty and will adopt a more isolationist stance focussing on the threat from China.
The problem is, at the end of the day, the nation with a good military industrial complex will win.. Australia needs to stop buying - design and produce your own..
We are. Gradually, commensurate with the capacity of our manufacturing base. We usually have a technology tranfer component in most buys. The video discusses the local manufacturing share in the missile system. Your comment is obviously rather facile.
OMFG MANUFCTURE IN AUSTRLIA of all our amunitions, missiles etc. Australia is even manufacturing own hypersonic missiles based off of the HAWC scramjet missile of USA since was joint developed with Australia.. do know we Australia have world fastest scramjet engine lmao.. Do you know Ukraines most advanced drones they use come from Australia even USA and UK buy and use Australian military equipments and technology....
Australia keeps buying garbage used in Ukraine. NASAMs is extremely expensive, uses expensive missiles, is a short range system and is not mobile. One of the key learnings from Ukraine is your SHORAD missiles need to be low cost (you will use thousands of them) and the system must be mobile. Australia also purchases Switchblade kamikaze drones at $60,000 a pop for a consumable - how did these drones perform in Ukraine? They were terrible, basically useless as they couldnt withstand the jamming. What does Australia do? Buys them at $60,000 a pop. The question is why - because the yanks told us to
@@MS-wz9jm this system in american service is used to defend Washington and are in permanent emplacements, NASAMS in australian service are also designed to defend canberra, i assume they will move the system around though and not use permanent emplacements, they are not supposed to defend the solider, they are supposed to defend politicians and top brass in canberra
I fully support this purchase. What I find most interesting about this, is that a country like Norway, with a GDP a third the size of ours, and a population under a quarter of ours, is able to MANUFACTURE their own defence equipment. While we can barely manufacture ugg boots. 🐑🐑
because Norway taxes big companies that extract its raw materials/oil/gas etc, whereas Australia just gives its raw materials/gas away virtually for free mostly to benefit o/s interests and the billionaire oligarchy in Oz instead of getting a fair amount of tax for the benefit of all Aussies - its what the LNP and MSM in Oz exists for.
@@simonwood5216you identified a real problem but tied it to the wrong cause. Agree on T he r LNG going for nothing but it has zero to do with Military spending or manufacturing. The reality is that Australia has limited techical resources and needs to identify a military long term project that it will continually evolve. It Coolidge be radar, sonar, drones… whatever. But it needs to be a been project that Australia can specialize in and become a world leader. Australia simply does not have the skills, economy, and public desire to direct spending at the levels needed to develop all its military needs. So, accept that you buy certain H/W “ off the shelf” from allies and specialize in an Australia can beyond the technology- it could be multiple but it can be all.
@@Dottydawes I would argue that a proper return in tax from resources a la Norway would enable massive investment in Australian manufacturing, military and otherwise. We have everything we need, resources, manpower, expertise, capital, energy, raw materials - everything except political will and a myopic corporately corrupted MSM in Oz that doesn't allow long term govt planning, except that which ensures the status quo of current corporate under taxation and no return from our massive raw/materials wealth.
@@simonwood5216the issue of the tax is not in question - I’m fine on that. However to suggest Australia has everything it needs to build its own. Military is simple not reality. Historically, based on Australian geography, it should be at the forefront of ship building because to engage in the rest of the world economy it needs ships to convey materials and goods around the world. The fact is Australia has little to no ship design and manufacturing capacity that is cost effective. My point is other countries have, historically, all the necessary resources to provide some of the military equipment at an overall competitive price. Why reinvent the wheel the develop the F35 or a Nuclear (POWERED) submarine. The expertise ( across the board) does not exist in Australia, or many other countries for that matter. So don’t reinvent the wheel when one already exists. That said, take segments of the military industrial base and become the world leader. Why not be the leader in light military vehicles or patrol Boat design.. and be the best in world. As Australia grows then the industrial base can be expanded to provide more and more domestically. Furthermore, look at Europe. To rationalize cost and technology they banded together on their aircraft industry. Their ship building will head in the same direction because the overall needs are simply economically beyond most counties to afford. One final point. Irrespective of what the Resource tax would bring in I believe the Australian public would want their personal piece of that pie. It maybe in the form of lower taxes, better pensions etc but I doubt they would simply say OK - the military complex can have that - it’s a political non starter.
One of our challenges though will be whether we buy enough. In my experience, we buy just enough of something for peacetime use (raise, train, sustain) and limited operations, but nowhere near enough to cope with the attrition associated with extended conflict.
Adding the ESSM to the mix for Australia would give it even greater capability. The system was designed to integrate them and we already have them in service with the Navy. 🇦🇺
As someone who had hands-on experience with RBS-70 as an OPGBAD, NASAMS is indeed a significant step up in terms of capability and lethality. In terms of short/medium range systems, NASAMS is one of the, if not THE, best SAM systems a US ally and NATO strategic partner can get their hands on. The IAI Spyder and IRIS-T SLM are also highly regarded however seeing as we don't use Israeli munitions, or the IRIS-T AAM, it wouldn't make financial or logistical sense to opt for those systems. I still think we need a better-layered missile defence network: something land-based but longer ranged to extend beyond the reach of what NASAMS is capable of, without risking aircraft or our own fledgling drone systems. We need something like Patriot over the top (long range - preferably with an anti-ICBM capability), and Skyshield or similar (gun-based VSHORAD) to provide that cost-effective, close-in anti-drone capability with a high volume of *accurate* fire to address 'drone swarms'... Using an AIM-120 against a drone is a bit of a diminishing return. AIM-120s are expensive, ISR drones (especially ones that would be used against us) are comparatively cheaper - and NASAMS would be impractical for use against swarms of smaller drones, even though their FCRs can probably detect them. Of all the high profile acquisitions I'm seeing, the Army's are making the most sense to me. The AH-64E Apache, NASAMS, the Boxer and Redback, the SPH, HIMARS... The UGCVs that are being developed to complement our armoured regiments... We're finally beginning to focus on force multipliers instead of thinking we can go 1v1 conventionally with a more numerous adversary.
@@johnnyrocket80085 Yeah but its a French company, and Tal-ess is the way they want it pronounced. Not sure that they refer to Thales of Miletus are the progenitor of their company name either...
@@SamHolmes-mw3qx Russia has been using hypersonic missiles in Ukraine since the war started. They are not seen now as the threat they were seen pre2022. They have been shot down.
Paul Evans on his youtube channel has also being providing a good commentary on the lack and poor planning of the ADF, so well done in keeping those of us who are interested in the defence of Australia or are ex veterans up to date.
Great video. When you said that the system was gonna be "Australianised", all I can say is we never learn that messing with defence systems very rarely ends well for us 🤦♂🤦♂🤦♂
I agree - getting Raytheon Australia to make the missiles for this system would / should be the ultimate goal for a fully organic / soverign capability...
Love your style of presentation - to the point - factual information - and no IA I can observe. P.S. now a new subscriber - first viewing of your marvellous efforts.
Proven outdated overpriced junk. Can't stop hypersonic. Maybe move into the current times. Even THAAD can't defend against Kinzhal attack. Let's not even mention how poorly Patriot system has performed in Ukraine and Middle East. It blows its load so quickly it becomes a sitting duck. You could have more THAAD than surrounds the Whitehouse and Oreshnik would still turn everything to dust.
REALLY? the THAAD or the iron dome were just exposed in Israel and the patriot is no better,it underperformed in the gulf war when it couldn't stop Iraqi scud missiles and they are getting destroyed by Russia in Ukraine LOL 🤦
Or see whether that new hazel irbm is available for purchase as it seems to defeat all known defensive systems, then spend the change on several million cheap drones.
Long overdue, but Australia is a big place, so if we need them we will need lots of them, and lots of missiles too. This means we need to be able to manufacture the entire system in Australia without relying on brittle foreign supply chains, and be able to scale up production rapidly in a time of national emergency. Very good radar, by all accounts Might need more in the way of ECM and AAA to make it more resilient to counter battery fire and defendable against drones.
@@ChrisHUTTON-zc4br That's true but given the range of modern ballistic SSMs, ALCMs, and drones we need to prevent the establishment of forward operating bases within striking distance of strategic assets and population centres. There are many suitable airfields scattered across northern Australia that could serve this purpose and most are not easily accessible to land forces due to poor transportation infrastructure. Some even have nearby deep-water port access. Once established they could prove difficult to defeat. SAM sites represent high priority targets because they serve to undermine attempts to establish air supremacy, and therefore can be expected to suffer a high attrition rate. It takes time to replace them. History shows that, in times of conflict, you are obliged to fight with the assets that you have on hand, and not the assets you would like to have. In the modern age of precision-guided missiles and cheap drones it is difficult to see how you could have too many of them.
I'm a US military veteran and a military historian. It is extremely important for the Anglosphere as a whole and NATO as much as we can to distribute military manufacturing as widely as we can to all of our nations that we can. I'm very happy to say I am proud of our Aussie cousins across the larger pond in their efforts and innovation in military manufacturing. The next time any of you talk with the Kiwis, please urge them to do their part as well. We need all of us in this effort. If we can just make it another decade without China dragging us all into another world war, then I think we can let up a bit on our efforts. Bravo my Aussie cousins!
You think China will be the one to drag everyone into ww3 LMAO, your already brainwashed if you think that, China is prospering with their economy, the last thing they would want is to destroy that
We don't need no Nuke Subs, It's a waste of money to purchase and will cost too much to maintain, The money would be better spent on Jet fighter and fighter bombers with missile systems all over the country. We have a defence force not an attack force and we should not be drawn into anymore fake wars.
I don't think China is interested in starting WW3,I think the main worry in that respect is the country that has hundreds of forward military bses around the globe.
Hi Mel. Just thinking about the short fall in military recruitment issue. I know there is the current program of seeking people from commonwealth countries. What would your thoughts be on standing up a Gurkha brigade like the Brits and India do. They make some of the best soldiers and we like bringing in people from all corners of the earth. I met some whilst serving back in the 1980's in the regular army and they where very impressive. It was proposed in the past but rejected. Just a thought.
Better purchase, Australian anti air has been sub par for years. While tanks and APC are cool, honestly if someone sets foot on Australian soil a lot has gone wrong in the world and we are Fd in the B, costal defense and sea projection are a better long term purchase.
The original name of NASAMS was Norwegian Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile System it'd still listed under, but since it's being exported and produced on license by other countries now.... I hope Australia doesn't make a mistake by doing their own "special" version of NASAM, we in Norway experienced how bad it is when you do your own "version" where getting parts and service are almost impossible, where you find service people going on Amazone looking for parts or parts that can be modified.
Suppose from a procurement perspective it would be beneficial to turn a medium range air to air missile into a short range ground based one. They are 1/4 the cost of a SM-6. Ideally they'd have a bolt on first stage to get them to height and speed...
You can also bolt them on support ships due to the system containerized system and stand-alone system. The ship doesn't even need radar, since NASAM comes with it's own. Kongsberg has on their drawing board a NASAM mounted on a low-level warship, using the ship's own 3D radar.
This has been needed for ever, here in Oz, we need to be self sufficient in repairs and replacement, along with procuring NEW EQUIPMENT right here in Oz !!! Self reliance for the Nation, IS A MUST !!!
A few years ago, I went to a military funeral, a young bloke I knew was killed in Afghanistan. At the funeral, as you do, I chatted at the wake with other attendees. A group of 3 were chatting and I imposed myself onto their group, it eventuated they were all Artillery Officers, all Captains, all veterans. Background, my father was an RSM in Artillery, with 27 years of service, including over 1,200 days in combat. I grew up steeped in Artillery, however, my time in service was in an entirely different branch. The group and I chatted, being interested I sought information on current Doctrine, SoPs, hardware and software. The first surprise I had was not one of the Officers were familiar with the Self-Propelled Artillery used in other Armies! I would have thought they would routinely informed themself with what was out there, it’s features and capacities. My next surprise left me speechless. Not one of the Officers had fired the Radar guided munition for our own artillery system! Further, as far as they knew, no-one had fired the munition. One Officer stated as far as he knew, the munition had been bought (I knew that and knew the price, it was 6 figures per round). That it had been stored and not issued or trained, to “keep it” in case it was needed! Then it was found it had been stored incorrectly and degraded and was no longer certified as safe for use, but the Army was too embarrassed 6:58 to write it off, in case questions were asked!
We came up with a modernised Aug with a lot of improvements that US firearms reviewers here on YT were very enthusiastic about as was Styer itself (sadly we cannot try them out ourselves) so no need for a replacement.
fiert time seeing your channel. I liked your style, knowledge and pressintation , though is it your house you filmed in or are at a mates place bororring an ironed shirt, lol good stuff mate
Fast search on the internet says 75 M1A2 SEPv3. And they are just replacing the aging M1A1 AIM SA. And their use will be the same, there is no need to change how you use them just because you get a newer version of a tank. But what you can do is change how each tank place them self on a battlefield and how many are in a group/team, due to the network capability between each tank.
Hey Mel.. very good video. Very informative. I was wondering if you can do a session into Australia's E-7 Awacs jet? Australia is among the first nations operating that amazing jet.
Hi Mel - I like your contribution to understanding our defence posture. While I have seen many videos on You Tube regarding our defence capability I have not once seen a decent review and comment on the Australian over the horizon radar network which surely must be a great asset to our defence. Would you like to do a look at the system?
Got a good idea for you. Question. Holden was contracted in the great wars to produce mechanical systems for the military. now that Holden has shut down the only machines we produce are military. No more nice cars. Why?
The NASAMS look good. Will they also be integrated into Australia's Over The Horizon Radar? In fact, we don't hear about the Over The Horizon Radar anymore, how much has it improved from the 80s if it is still in use.
Yes, NASAM is just a part system to the overall integrated package, look up AIR6500, Integrated Air and Missile Defence (IAMD) and Joint Air Battle Management System
I worked for Raytheon Australia a while ago and it's really difficult working with Norway with classified IP stuff, which is understandable, but that also affects manufacturing as concerns stated below, and we had US assisting us in the program execution too. Have a look at the NSM being fitted to our frigates currently, it's an absolute nightmare. Is it worth the money, only time will tell, and Australia is only lucky because it's greatly isolated from a military threat like China or Russia, yeah they can send a bomber or 10 to hit a city, but they'd be seen coming from a mile away with a hostile intent.
Interesting video 👍 My concern is how secure is the Tech? I hope the Army I served in, has not lost the field craft and bush skills a soldier needs to know in case the tech fails.
well presented, succinct and clear. felt slightly like a marketing pitch at some point. domestic production should be a requirement for all critical/essential products imported (which are registered at customs), at a specific percentage. Meaning, a portion of the product will always be available locally, and seafaring incidents will not cut supply.
Great video. What about the missiles? Are we shipping them across oceans or making them locally? How do these systems reload? Do we have defence against drone swarms?
To be effective, we must have a minimum of 600 NASAMS to adequately cover the area from the Cape to the VIC. We cannot overlook Perth either; Australia is a vast country that requires comprehensive security measures.
We dont need that many, most of the area is miles of nothing. You don't use a million dollar missile to protect a hayshed. An adversary won't even waste a missile to target the hayshed in the first place. All that needs to be protected are targets of strategic or tactical value exceeding the value of the weapon used.
@@garrysecuramotye mark my words mate those fukin left lunatics are gone nxt yr we’ve had enough just like America it’s a new era. The Labour Party b the death of this country unless we make big change
Two batteries for the entire country LOL go plot the effective range and the overlaps needed to cover and overlap and it’s barely enough to to cover a large city.
We should be across blueprinting and making samples and runs of everything possible so we can ramp construction to every obstacle or every bit of every machine. We need some control of the machine to build the machine, and a massive increase of r&d. Now warehousing and little jobs. We could 10x this.
there wasn't it was a single supplier limitied tender, there wasn't really any other options at the time. There was sky sceptor (CAMM) and IRIS SL. Both of which dont use missiles we have in service.
You say you support Australian self-reliance and independent industrial military manufacturing capability. Well, what about the missiles? Oman is totally producing the AMRAM-ER; we make a single engine component for the ESSM. Utterly insane. The AMRAM-ER used the rocket motor of the ESSM. We need total manufacturing of both missiles. Anything less is disgusting. Also, do we have complete sovereignty? We have had trouble getting full access to US coding and technical info. No weapon is of value unless we have total sovereignty. Finally, how many are we getting? From my understanding, we are getting the bare minimum agai: skills development and retention capability, which is just going through the motions again. What I call tick the box defence, as opposed to providing this nation genuine defensive power.
NASAM is a Norwegian weapon system and they needed the coding for the missiles to make the weapon system to work. So I don't see the problem. Raytheon is part of it at a later stage because to USA bought themself into the system, so they can produce it themself, thus shared production between the Norwegian and USA. Getting codes and technical info for the missiles is very simple, every nation that get access to the system and missiles get also access to the codes and technical info, without it they can't service it.
What about a system that can be built into one of those large passenger sized drones or picked up by one and deployed to even harder to reach locations
Hi Mel, can you give an update on navy ship procurement and construction. We have the very sad and totally useless Cap Class Patrol boats (no gun or self defence capacity), the even worse OPV's, the shocking expensive but under gunned Hunter Frigates (why we did not just get more of the very successful Hobarts ? ), the new Tier 2 Corvettes and the new Daiman heavy landing crafts which comes standard equipped with CIWS's but I am sure, as usual the ADF will remove.
Awesome Video, subbed! As an aside I'd like to understand what AU is doing around producing our own munitions? It's OK having all these new systems and capabilities, but in times of war we don't want to be relying on fixed stockpiles or imports. Besides we should be able to produce similar or better munitions, cheaper and more reliably here.
Please explain how Stralia produce these for less cost, please include your cost analysis on RandD, labour, materials, licensing fees, overheads, facilities, training etc..
Yes very happy to see us taking air defence seriously, but not happy we don’t have any long range or ballistic air defence such as the Patriot or THaaD.
The problem with missile defence is, it is not a 0ne-to-one defence system. The attaching army will send in a combination of dummies and real missiles. Therefore, as Ukraine has found out, your missile defence systems can be quickly depleted. Also, there is no current defence against hypersonic missiles so automatically it renders your missile defence largely useless except against older technologies
Do you think Australia has made a good choice in purchasing the NASAMS capability for their short range air and missile defence?
We also need long range air defence, like THAADs
Do you have a email? i have quite a few topics worth while
@@Matt_JJz no. anything but American shit. Too much ITAR bureaucracy.
@@rawpotatofella9654 THAADs are the best theatre defence in the world
The claim that US weapons technology is almost always the best is not only based on practice but is in fact true. Given the US spends upwards of 10% of its defence budget on R&D that alone equates to more than most country’s entire defence budget. The US spends around $1 trillion in Australian dollars on its military. No other country can devote anywhere near that kind of money to develop competitive tech across the wide spectrum of military technologies.
US kit comes at a premium but it’s generally the best.
The problem for local industry is the Gov orders 10, 50, 100, 200. Then that's it. Factory closes, talent leaves. We don't keep the factories rolling to keep talent. Other countries say keep going. Nah we finish a quota shut the factory. The Collins are a good case. Domestic Subs requiring starting again. Years of relearning skills we had.
Great insight. Short term thinking vs long term
Then export as well instead of relying on domestic demand.
yeah, doesn't help that we are only getting 2 batteries
Japan keep building their submarines and retiring them early. In case of war they still have the use or the early retired ones as well as have modern ones still being built and keep the experience in manufacturing
100% correct Fault of the states who keep pushing for defense contract time to shut down the American system and go back to ADI (Australian Defense Manufacturing).
Subbed. It's about time we increased our capabilities, as a former soldier of the ADF I've been saying it for years.
Great video as per usual, Ta mate.
Ive been waiting 4 months to heard back about a Reserves role as Drone Operator. They fked up my application twice and then the system produced and error....... is there usually such a long wait?
As SHORAD the system is garbage though
lmao its not really increasing our capability, apparently we are only getting 2 batteries, 1 to protect canberra and the other for training meaning they are gonna take the MANPADs away from the infantry and give them nothing back, even if that "training" battery was sent to a possible front line, there may be 10s of front lines all around the country and would be lucky if 1 battery can cover a single front line in full
Subbed? This bloke has no idea what he's saying. He's reading off a script. He's a real estate agent.
@@Igotnothingoinon Finally someone knows what the Pikos's are all about. This is just a channel for them to promote the LNP so they can make money from developments and real estate. Dodgy as.
Finally! He's doing my request.
Yep! Your comments got me looking into it! Thanks for viewing and commenting!
❤ it Andrew. When he gave the shout out to 6834, l had to track you down. (Thanks for going the full Karen to get this video done) Cheers mate. Have a super weekend
@@marcusaurelius6012 full Karen? Righto champ.
@MelPikos I would also like to request you look into the Navy's fleet upgrade that will make it the largest fleet the Navy has ever had.
@andrewsmall6834 it was meant as a joke. No ill will or intent
As NASAMS is not intended to intercept ballistic missiles due to limitations in missile range and radar height parameters, the THAAD and Patriot systems with Pac-2 and Pac-3 missiles will be a welcome addition in the near future. I also believe we need to start investing right now into researching and building a home grown ballistic missile capability.
That is your destroyer's mission. By knowing approx what direction ICBM might come from, is enough to know where to place a destroyer or two, in addition to early warning radars.
lol, yeah- R&D, testing, procuring the talent for advanced weapons systems, building the factories, hiring and training a skilled domestic workforce- at cost mind you, building the shipping infrastructure to house and transport, engage the IC domestically to put in measures against Chinese theft of IP while doing all of this and doing it all without killing the taxpayer, no problem mate, thats all so much better than just buying it from the US.
glad your ego isnt getting in the way of logic and critical thinking on this one.
@@mremington8 Nothing wrong with his ego, he is correct. We have to develop that capability, if the shit hits the fan we may have a problem with getting resupplied from the US, that's if the US is feeling like lending a hand and that's not such a given nowdays. And before you start with this treaty or that treaty, Ukraine signed what they they thought was a pretty solid treaty with the the major powers in the 90s including the US. The incoming Trump admin. have signalled that they may back away from that treaty and will adopt a more isolationist stance focussing on the threat from China.
Kongsberg is working on upgrading the system to include ballistic treats
as the next major upgrade.
The Hobart Class AWD's are being equipped with SM-3 which is capable of ballistic missile defence.
The problem is, at the end of the day, the nation with a good military industrial complex will win.. Australia needs to stop buying - design and produce your own..
Be realistic
We are. Gradually, commensurate with the capacity of our manufacturing base. We usually have a technology tranfer component in most buys. The video discusses the local manufacturing share in the missile system. Your comment is obviously rather facile.
Totally agree.
@@SONMINHTRAN1 victory is realistic. Don't dare say our freedom is too expensive.
OMFG MANUFCTURE IN AUSTRLIA of all our amunitions, missiles etc. Australia is even manufacturing own hypersonic missiles based off of the HAWC scramjet missile of USA since was joint developed with Australia.. do know we Australia have world fastest scramjet engine lmao..
Do you know Ukraines most advanced drones they use come from Australia even USA and UK buy and use Australian military equipments and technology....
as a retired RAA missileman these are long due I've been saying this way back in the 70s hooray cheers
There are many lessons coming out of Ukraine. Any purchase must include a technology transfer so that local manufacturing can be developed.
Australia keeps buying garbage used in Ukraine. NASAMs is extremely expensive, uses expensive missiles, is a short range system and is not mobile. One of the key learnings from Ukraine is your SHORAD missiles need to be low cost (you will use thousands of them) and the system must be mobile. Australia also purchases Switchblade kamikaze drones at $60,000 a pop for a consumable - how did these drones perform in Ukraine? They were terrible, basically useless as they couldnt withstand the jamming. What does Australia do? Buys them at $60,000 a pop. The question is why - because the yanks told us to
@@MS-wz9jm this system in american service is used to defend Washington and are in permanent emplacements, NASAMS in australian service are also designed to defend canberra, i assume they will move the system around though and not use permanent emplacements, they are not supposed to defend the solider, they are supposed to defend politicians and top brass in canberra
@@MS-wz9jm not mobile? also.. quality missiles will always be expensive
The first 'N' used to stand for 'Norwegian' but was changed to 'National' after it started selling internationally.
I fully support this purchase. What I find most interesting about this, is that a country like Norway, with a GDP a third the size of ours, and a population under a quarter of ours, is able to MANUFACTURE their own defence equipment. While we can barely manufacture ugg boots. 🐑🐑
We spend more on Welfare than any other developed country in the world.
because Norway taxes big companies that extract its raw materials/oil/gas etc, whereas Australia just gives its raw materials/gas away virtually for free mostly to benefit o/s interests and the billionaire oligarchy in Oz instead of getting a fair amount of tax for the benefit of all Aussies - its what the LNP and MSM in Oz exists for.
@@simonwood5216you identified a real problem but tied it to the wrong cause. Agree on T he r LNG going for nothing but it has zero to do with Military spending or manufacturing.
The reality is that Australia has limited techical resources and needs to identify a military long term project that it will continually evolve. It Coolidge be radar, sonar, drones… whatever. But it needs to be a been project that Australia can specialize in and become a world leader.
Australia simply does not have the skills, economy, and public desire to direct spending at the levels needed to develop all its military needs. So, accept that you buy certain H/W “ off the shelf” from allies and specialize in an Australia can beyond the technology- it could be multiple but it can be all.
@@Dottydawes I would argue that a proper return in tax from resources a la Norway would enable massive investment in Australian manufacturing, military and otherwise. We have everything we need, resources, manpower, expertise, capital, energy, raw materials - everything except political will and a myopic corporately corrupted MSM in Oz that doesn't allow long term govt planning, except that which ensures the status quo of current corporate under taxation and no return from our massive raw/materials wealth.
@@simonwood5216the issue of the tax is not in question - I’m fine on that. However to suggest Australia has everything it needs to build its own. Military is simple not reality. Historically, based on Australian geography, it should be at the forefront of ship building because to engage in the rest of the world economy it needs ships to convey materials and goods around the world. The fact is Australia has little to no ship design and manufacturing capacity that is cost effective.
My point is other countries have, historically, all the necessary resources to provide some of the military equipment at an overall competitive price. Why reinvent the wheel the develop the F35 or a Nuclear (POWERED) submarine. The expertise ( across the board) does not exist in Australia, or many other countries for that matter. So don’t reinvent the wheel when one already exists.
That said, take segments of the military industrial base and become the world leader. Why not be the leader in light military vehicles or patrol Boat design.. and be the best in world. As Australia grows then the industrial base can be expanded to provide more and more domestically.
Furthermore, look at Europe. To rationalize cost and technology they banded together on their aircraft industry. Their ship building will head in the same direction because the overall needs are simply economically beyond most counties to afford.
One final point. Irrespective of what the Resource tax would bring in I believe the Australian public would want their personal piece of that pie. It maybe in the form of lower taxes, better pensions etc but I doubt they would simply say OK - the military complex can have that - it’s a political non starter.
One of our challenges though will be whether we buy enough. In my experience, we buy just enough of something for peacetime use (raise, train, sustain) and limited operations, but nowhere near enough to cope with the attrition associated with extended conflict.
Adding the ESSM to the mix for Australia would give it even greater capability. The system was designed to integrate them and we already have them in service with the Navy. 🇦🇺
As someone who had hands-on experience with RBS-70 as an OPGBAD, NASAMS is indeed a significant step up in terms of capability and lethality. In terms of short/medium range systems, NASAMS is one of the, if not THE, best SAM systems a US ally and NATO strategic partner can get their hands on. The IAI Spyder and IRIS-T SLM are also highly regarded however seeing as we don't use Israeli munitions, or the IRIS-T AAM, it wouldn't make financial or logistical sense to opt for those systems.
I still think we need a better-layered missile defence network: something land-based but longer ranged to extend beyond the reach of what NASAMS is capable of, without risking aircraft or our own fledgling drone systems. We need something like Patriot over the top (long range - preferably with an anti-ICBM capability), and Skyshield or similar (gun-based VSHORAD) to provide that cost-effective, close-in anti-drone capability with a high volume of *accurate* fire to address 'drone swarms'... Using an AIM-120 against a drone is a bit of a diminishing return. AIM-120s are expensive, ISR drones (especially ones that would be used against us) are comparatively cheaper - and NASAMS would be impractical for use against swarms of smaller drones, even though their FCRs can probably detect them.
Of all the high profile acquisitions I'm seeing, the Army's are making the most sense to me. The AH-64E Apache, NASAMS, the Boxer and Redback, the SPH, HIMARS... The UGCVs that are being developed to complement our armoured regiments... We're finally beginning to focus on force multipliers instead of thinking we can go 1v1 conventionally with a more numerous adversary.
Wow bud,best reply ever.Thankyou for taking the time.I feel much better informed on the subject and issues.Cheers mate.
The correct pronunciation of Thales is Taless.
Beat me to it mate.... its mind numbing to think that people can 'comment' on Military matters without even getting the names right.
You would think Mel with a greek background would know how to pronounce a Greek Philosopher's name correctly.
It's pronounced Thayleez.
@@johnnyrocket80085 Yeah but its a French company, and Tal-ess is the way they want it pronounced. Not sure that they refer to Thales of Miletus are the progenitor of their company name either...
@wimmeraparanormal6581 agreed 🖒
@@wimmeraparanormal6581 😂
Getting Raytheon Australia manufacturing missiles would be a great benefit to ADF
We will need eight hundred units.
Good luck against hypersonic missiles lol.
I agree..... We should increase funding the engineering corp and csio.!!
@@SamHolmes-mw3qx Russia has been using hypersonic missiles in Ukraine since the war started. They are not seen now as the threat they were seen pre2022. They have been shot down.
Great vid mate
Thanks Mr Ratheon Norway lol
Paul Evans on his youtube channel has also being providing a good commentary on the lack and poor planning of the ADF, so well done in keeping those of us who are interested in the defence of Australia or are ex veterans up to date.
Definitely an improvement on the RBS-70 that was a manual system in use when I was in the military 40 years ago
Its a start and we can get there together
Great video. When you said that the system was gonna be "Australianised", all I can say is we never learn that messing with defence systems very rarely ends well for us 🤦♂🤦♂🤦♂
It does make a for a big earner for selected businesses, loads of 'fact finding' junkets and pork barrelling electorates.
@@peterk2455 they probably said the same thing about the Seasprite etc too
Need to get some pork in those barrels somehow.
I agree - getting Raytheon Australia to make the missiles for this system would / should be the ultimate goal for a fully organic / soverign capability...
Love your style of presentation - to the point - factual information - and no IA I can observe. P.S. now a new subscriber - first viewing of your marvellous efforts.
Nice present and very informative. Good on you mate.
Awesome mate! Just Awesome!!!
Now we just need to purchase THAAD and Patriot Pac2 and Pac3 and connect it all together
Proven outdated overpriced junk. Can't stop hypersonic. Maybe move into the current times. Even THAAD can't defend against Kinzhal attack. Let's not even mention how poorly Patriot system has performed in Ukraine and Middle East. It blows its load so quickly it becomes a sitting duck. You could have more THAAD than surrounds the Whitehouse and Oreshnik would still turn everything to dust.
REALLY? the THAAD or the iron dome were just exposed in Israel and the patriot is no better,it underperformed in the gulf war when it couldn't stop Iraqi scud missiles and they are getting destroyed by Russia in Ukraine LOL 🤦
They are usless against drones and hypersonic missiles which china and Russia have.
Patriots are useless.
Or see whether that new hazel irbm is available for purchase as it seems to defeat all known defensive systems, then spend the change on several million cheap drones.
This channel deserves many more subscriber's than it has.
Agreed
agree
As far as I can tell, missile attack is the largest kinetic risk to us by a mile. I hope this is just the beginning for missile / drone defence.
Long overdue, but Australia is a big place, so if we need them we will need lots of them, and lots of missiles too. This means we need to be able to manufacture the entire system in Australia without relying on brittle foreign supply chains, and be able to scale up production rapidly in a time of national emergency. Very good radar, by all accounts Might need more in the way of ECM and AAA to make it more resilient to counter battery fire and defendable against drones.
Australia is a big place, but we dont need missiles to protect desert. Just strategically important places & population centres. if it comes to it.
@@ChrisHUTTON-zc4br That's true but given the range of modern ballistic SSMs, ALCMs, and drones we need to prevent the establishment of forward operating bases within striking distance of strategic assets and population centres. There are many suitable airfields scattered across northern Australia that could serve this purpose and most are not easily accessible to land forces due to poor transportation infrastructure. Some even have nearby deep-water port access. Once established they could prove difficult to defeat.
SAM sites represent high priority targets because they serve to undermine attempts to establish air supremacy, and therefore can be expected to suffer a high attrition rate. It takes time to replace them. History shows that, in times of conflict, you are obliged to fight with the assets that you have on hand, and not the assets you would like to have. In the modern age of precision-guided missiles and cheap drones it is difficult to see how you could have too many of them.
Why? Who are you expecting to attack Australia? Why would anyone want a country full of idiots that's 75% desert?
@@liefsillion2825paranoid delusional thinking. 😅 you sound like the American idiots.
too bad we are only getting 2 batteries, its a joke i know but they are only to defend canberra
Mel great clip, very informative, & its gives a little bit more confidence in our defense capabilities.
ok bro I think your content is so important and I really thank you for this video
I'm a US military veteran and a military historian. It is extremely important for the Anglosphere as a whole and NATO as much as we can to distribute military manufacturing as widely as we can to all of our nations that we can. I'm very happy to say I am proud of our Aussie cousins across the larger pond in their efforts and innovation in military manufacturing.
The next time any of you talk with the Kiwis, please urge them to do their part as well. We need all of us in this effort.
If we can just make it another decade without China dragging us all into another world war, then I think we can let up a bit on our efforts.
Bravo my Aussie cousins!
lol anglosphere
True, the New Zealanders are turning themselves into passengers at best, and a liability at worst.
You think China will be the one to drag everyone into ww3 LMAO, your already brainwashed if you think that, China is prospering with their economy, the last thing they would want is to destroy that
We don't need no Nuke Subs, It's a waste of money to purchase and will cost too much to maintain, The money would be better spent on Jet fighter and fighter bombers with missile systems all over the country. We have a defence force not an attack force and we should not be drawn into anymore fake wars.
I don't think China is interested in starting WW3,I think the main worry in that respect is the country that has hundreds of forward military bses around the globe.
Hi Mel. Just thinking about the short fall in military recruitment issue. I know there is the current program of seeking people from commonwealth countries. What would your thoughts be on standing up a Gurkha brigade like the Brits and India do. They make some of the best soldiers and we like bringing in people from all corners of the earth. I met some whilst serving back in the 1980's in the regular army and they where very impressive. It was proposed in the past but rejected. Just a thought.
Good show. We need to know this. Thanks Mel
Well, better than nothing Australia needs more than just medium range surface to air missile systems
Have started to watch your videos and enjoying the in depth information. Just subscribed. Cheers!
That's hilarious, he's a real estate agent 🤣🤣
Better purchase, Australian anti air has been sub par for years. While tanks and APC are cool, honestly if someone sets foot on Australian soil a lot has gone wrong in the world and we are Fd in the B, costal defense and sea projection are a better long term purchase.
it will still be sub-par, we are only getting 2 batteries and thats to defend canberra
The original name of NASAMS was Norwegian Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile System it'd still listed under, but since it's being exported and produced on license by other countries now....
I hope Australia doesn't make a mistake by doing their own "special" version of NASAM, we in Norway experienced how bad it is when you do your own "version" where getting parts and service are almost impossible, where you find service people going on Amazone looking for parts or parts that can be modified.
they will def do that. tinkering is in their culture
8:20 onwards was a particularly good word salad. Well done.
Thumbs up Subbed! Good Content! Local ,Oz!
BRIG Linda Reynolds (Rtd), CSC was the Defence Minister; someone else was the Defence Industry Minister.
Well presented and informative.
Self reliant system's would be advantageous in numerous ways.
First time coming across the channel and now subscribed.
Suppose from a procurement perspective it would be beneficial to turn a medium range air to air missile into a short range ground based one. They are 1/4 the cost of a SM-6. Ideally they'd have a bolt on first stage to get them to height and speed...
You can also bolt them on support ships due to the system containerized system and stand-alone system. The ship doesn't even need radar, since NASAM comes with it's own.
Kongsberg has on their drawing board a NASAM mounted on a low-level warship, using the ship's own 3D radar.
This has been needed for ever, here in Oz, we need to be self sufficient in repairs and replacement, along with procuring NEW EQUIPMENT right here in Oz !!!
Self reliance for the Nation, IS A MUST !!!
Nice video, clear and concise. Pleased to see Aust. defence focused channel!
Thank you! 😀
"Thales"
I love that you don't even pretend to know how to say it.
Excellent stuff
Pretty cool to see this as I got to transport some equipment for them from Woomera for this training exercise.
They were sick watching them launch
Would love to see a video on the Hunter Class Frigates and issues with build delays, time frame etc. Hard to find real and current info on this.
A few years ago, I went to a military funeral, a young bloke I knew was killed in Afghanistan. At the funeral, as you do, I chatted at the wake with other attendees. A group of 3 were chatting and I imposed myself onto their group, it eventuated they were all Artillery Officers, all Captains, all veterans. Background, my father was an RSM in Artillery, with 27 years of service, including over 1,200 days in combat. I grew up steeped in Artillery, however, my time in service was in an entirely different branch. The group and I chatted, being interested I sought information on current Doctrine, SoPs, hardware and software. The first surprise I had was not one of the Officers were familiar with the Self-Propelled Artillery used in other Armies! I would have thought they would routinely informed themself with what was out there, it’s features and capacities. My next surprise left me speechless. Not one of the Officers had fired the Radar guided munition for our own artillery system! Further, as far as they knew, no-one had fired the munition. One Officer stated as far as he knew, the munition had been bought (I knew that and knew the price, it was 6 figures per round). That it had been stored and not issued or trained, to “keep it” in case it was needed! Then it was found it had been stored incorrectly and degraded and was no longer certified as safe for use, but the Army was too embarrassed 6:58 to write it off, in case questions were asked!
I'm curious where Australia is with the service rifle. Is the styer aug up for replacement in known plans?
We came up with a modernised Aug with a lot of improvements that US firearms reviewers here on YT were very enthusiastic about as was Styer itself (sadly we cannot try them out ourselves) so no need for a replacement.
fiert time seeing your channel. I liked your style, knowledge and pressintation , though is it your house you filmed in or are at a mates place bororring an ironed shirt, lol good stuff mate
Excellent.
Cool 👍🏻
I was at NASAM missile defense when in the military service here in Norway 🇳🇴
Can we take a look at the new M1A2 purchase, how many and how will Australia use them?
Fast search on the internet says 75 M1A2 SEPv3. And they are just replacing the aging M1A1 AIM SA. And their use will be the same, there is no need to change how you use them just because you get a newer version of a tank. But what you can do is change how each tank place them self on a battlefield and how many are in a group/team, due to the network capability between each tank.
Defend Australia don’t attack in any form. Simple
what about the slinger?
great presentation
Australia needs drones. It has been shown in Ukraine that drones are effective weapons systems at low cost.
Kindly make a video of Australia-Philippines alliance or recent military exercises.
Hey Mel.. very good video. Very informative. I was wondering if you can do a session into Australia's E-7 Awacs jet? Australia is among the first nations operating that amazing jet.
What the General actually said was Si vis pacem, para bellum....."Therefore let him who desires peace prepare for war"
Itaque qui pacem desiderat bellum paret ?
I think this is a good start but also we need to look at what is a proven system in combat (like the high Mars System)
Hi Mel - I like your contribution to understanding our defence posture. While I have seen many videos on You Tube regarding our defence capability I have not once seen a decent review and comment on the Australian over the horizon radar network which surely must be a great asset to our defence. Would you like to do a look at the system?
yes am happy
Very strong defence against terrisom money 💸💸 spent on protecting all people in Australia 😊😊😊😊😊😊😊
Nice vid. We need more Aussie defence companies. It's a pity Navy isn't keeping up with the Australian component.
We could have many local suppliers, but under this government in particular, any support for our industry is neglected
@garrysecuramot I don't think that is true. Government does encourage in country manufacturing.
Happy to see such new weapons r&d expansion partners 😊
Got a good idea for you. Question. Holden was contracted in the great wars to produce mechanical systems for the military. now that Holden has shut down the only machines we produce are military. No more nice cars. Why?
The NASAMS look good. Will they also be integrated into Australia's Over The Horizon Radar? In fact, we don't hear about the Over The Horizon Radar anymore, how much has it improved from the 80s if it is still in use.
JORN is on the POC list...
Yes, NASAM is just a part system to the overall integrated package, look up AIR6500, Integrated Air and Missile Defence (IAMD) and Joint Air Battle Management System
I worked for Raytheon Australia a while ago and it's really difficult working with Norway with classified IP stuff, which is understandable, but that also affects manufacturing as concerns stated below, and we had US assisting us in the program execution too. Have a look at the NSM being fitted to our frigates currently, it's an absolute nightmare. Is it worth the money, only time will tell, and Australia is only lucky because it's greatly isolated from a military threat like China or Russia, yeah they can send a bomber or 10 to hit a city, but they'd be seen coming from a mile away with a hostile intent.
should do a vid on Land 129 Phase 3
We have to start somewhere and it is a good base to develop our own home grown industry and expertise. We just need to convince the government
Cut foreign aid and double the military spending then I'll be happy.
It's a good start though 💪🏾🇦🇺
Interesting video 👍 My concern is how secure is the Tech? I hope the Army I served in, has not lost the field craft and bush skills a soldier needs to know in case the tech fails.
well presented, succinct and clear. felt slightly like a marketing pitch at some point.
domestic production should be a requirement for all critical/essential products imported (which are registered at customs), at a specific percentage. Meaning, a portion of the product will always be available locally, and seafaring incidents will not cut supply.
Great video. What about the missiles? Are we shipping them across oceans or making them locally? How do these systems reload? Do we have defence against drone swarms?
Watch the video again carefully. The missiles are reloaded in cannister launchers.
@@ataxpayer723yeah I saw that. Obviously these systems can reload, I was after some data like how long it takes, what the capacity is etc..
Now we are getting the 129 Redback (which is enough for one battalion) have we thought about what we are doing for the other 4 mechanised battalions?
Could you do a piece on coastal shipping and it's potential to contribute to future economic and defence development?
I’d like Australia to have Patriot and THAAD as well.
Good job.
To be effective, we must have a minimum of 600 NASAMS to adequately cover the area from the Cape to the VIC. We cannot overlook Perth either; Australia is a vast country that requires comprehensive security measures.
We dont need that many, most of the area is miles of nothing. You don't use a million dollar missile to protect a hayshed. An adversary won't even waste a missile to target the hayshed in the first place. All that needs to be protected are targets of strategic or tactical value exceeding the value of the weapon used.
Under Labor, we'll be flat out having the budget to scratch our own arses
@@garrysecuramotye mark my words mate those fukin left lunatics are gone nxt yr we’ve had enough just like America it’s a new era. The Labour Party b the death of this country unless we make big change
do we have enough of them, only two batteries, could be easily overwhelmed
Two batteries for the entire country LOL go plot the effective range and the overlaps needed to cover and overlap and it’s barely enough to to cover a large city.
We should be across blueprinting and making samples and runs of everything possible so we can ramp construction to every obstacle or every bit of every machine.
We need some control of the machine to build the machine, and a massive increase of r&d. Now warehousing and little jobs. We could 10x this.
What were the alternative solutions assessed for this requirement of the ADF.
there wasn't it was a single supplier limitied tender, there wasn't really any other options at the time. There was sky sceptor (CAMM) and IRIS SL. Both of which dont use missiles we have in service.
You say you support Australian self-reliance and independent industrial military manufacturing capability. Well, what about the missiles? Oman is totally producing the AMRAM-ER; we make a single engine component for the ESSM. Utterly insane. The AMRAM-ER used the rocket motor of the ESSM. We need total manufacturing of both missiles. Anything less is disgusting. Also, do we have complete sovereignty? We have had trouble getting full access to US coding and technical info. No weapon is of value unless we have total sovereignty. Finally, how many are we getting? From my understanding, we are getting the bare minimum agai: skills development and retention capability, which is just going through the motions again. What I call tick the box defence, as opposed to providing this nation genuine defensive power.
We have been invaded by the US and are run by them. They do not want us to have a strong military, they want their own here.
Start with cars ..
Oh, wait ..😅
NASAM is a Norwegian weapon system and they needed the coding for the missiles to make the weapon system to work. So I don't see the problem. Raytheon is part of it at a later stage because to USA bought themself into the system, so they can produce it themself, thus shared production between the Norwegian and USA.
Getting codes and technical info for the missiles is very simple, every nation that get access to the system and missiles get also access to the codes and technical info, without it they can't service it.
What about a system that can be built into one of those large passenger sized drones or picked up by one and deployed to even harder to reach locations
Can you do a video on Australia war/spy satelites, do be have lazers in space?
Next topics: Progress on Army LC-M and LC-H vessels please.
You beat me to it! I second that request
It would be good to see a vid on Australia's Over the Horizon Radar (OTHR) capability
lol it is top secret....
I may have missed it, but you seem to have forgotten to tell is how many systems we are getting.
we are getting 2 batteries
@gibbo_303 cheers dude. And do you think that's enough?
Hi Mel, can you give an update on navy ship procurement and construction. We have the very sad and totally useless Cap Class Patrol boats (no gun or self defence capacity), the even worse OPV's, the shocking expensive but under gunned Hunter Frigates (why we did not just get more of the very successful Hobarts ? ), the new Tier 2 Corvettes and the new Daiman heavy landing crafts which comes standard equipped with CIWS's but I am sure, as usual the ADF will remove.
Will these be deployed to the Over the Horizon Radar sites which are currently un-defended?
they will not be deployed to defend them no but they will be integrated with them so they can use the data produced by them
What about doing a video on the ground to ground systems being considered from Lockheed Martin,,,,,,,ATACMS /PRISm?
Awesome Video, subbed! As an aside I'd like to understand what AU is doing around producing our own munitions? It's OK having all these new systems and capabilities, but in times of war we don't want to be relying on fixed stockpiles or imports. Besides we should be able to produce similar or better munitions, cheaper and more reliably here.
Please explain how Stralia produce these for less cost, please include your cost analysis on RandD, labour, materials, licensing fees, overheads, facilities, training etc..
could you please look at some of the new naval vessels Australia is purchasing and building
Yes very happy to see us taking air defence seriously, but not happy we don’t have any long range or ballistic air defence such as the Patriot or THaaD.
The problem with missile defence is, it is not a 0ne-to-one defence system. The attaching army will send in a combination of dummies and real missiles. Therefore, as Ukraine has found out, your missile defence systems can be quickly depleted. Also, there is no current defence against hypersonic missiles so automatically it renders your missile defence largely useless except against older technologies
How will this systems work in battle it would be interesting to see in a battle in this country, 🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔