• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Multi-Mission Launcher, yay or nay?

My point is that you have to determine the point at which multi-purpose capability starts to impact the ability to fulfill a specific role.

When your Mechanized Brigade is conducting an assault which of these two do you think is best suited to keep up with your advance and provide your SHORAD coverage?
View attachment 76559



View attachment 76560
I know this is taking the example to the extreme, but I think you can see what I mean.

Commonality where possible and logical.

I will exactly split the difference

Chunmoo_K239_multi-caliber_MLRS_Multiple_Launch_Rocket_System_South_Korean_army_925_002.jpg
1677272311500.jpeg

1677272482964.jpeg
nsm-launcher-poland2


Those systems are tactical systems compatible with Divisional Areas of Interest. And they have a broad band of ranges
23 km 130 mm rockets to 500 km PrSMs and the 250 km NSM anti-ship missile.

NASAMS supports the Sidewinder AIM9X, the AMRAAM AIM120 , the AMRAAM-ER, all Air Force missiles and the ESSM Navy missile giving coverage out to 50 km or so.

picture-4-nasams-fire-unit.jpg


Just like the CAF went for the meat of the logistics puzzle by picking the Medium Support Vechicles first perhaps we could ask what we could accomplish with those trucks if they were assigned to the artillery.

The VLS trailer could support the entire array of Standard missiles as well as the ESSMs. That means that it can supply ABM and SAM defence against a whole raft of threats. And they might be more appropriate as a deployable container for protecting our own communities as well as our friends. Deliver the box and leave them on site.

Beyond that I am not sure that M-SHORAD is going to achieve all that is expected of it. Are there going to be enough of them to be able to counter the density of UAS systems being encountered in Ukraine? Or does each vehicle need its own ability to defend against UAS and LAMs?
 
@KevinB What are your thoughts of using this MMEV bastardized MML with hellfire or maybe Brimstone 2 for an attack on armour formations from depth?
I am not saying lets get this. But Canada is NOT going to grow its army into an adult army anytime soon. I think having a layered anti-armour plan would be wise, and fuck a duck, our government (regardless of stripe) and people will not buy gucci kit.

Now if not this MML, what about other ground based systems for engaging armour from cover? Your thoughts?
 
I will exactly split the difference

Chunmoo_K239_multi-caliber_MLRS_Multiple_Launch_Rocket_System_South_Korean_army_925_002.jpg
View attachment 76561

View attachment 76562
nsm-launcher-poland2


Those systems are tactical systems compatible with Divisional Areas of Interest. And they have a broad band of ranges
23 km 130 mm rockets to 500 km PrSMs and the 250 km NSM anti-ship missile.

NASAMS supports the Sidewinder AIM9X, the AMRAAM AIM120 , the AMRAAM-ER, all Air Force missiles and the ESSM Navy missile giving coverage out to 50 km or so.

picture-4-nasams-fire-unit.jpg


Just like the CAF went for the meat of the logistics puzzle by picking the Medium Support Vechicles first perhaps we could ask what we could accomplish with those trucks if they were assigned to the artillery.

The VLS trailer could support the entire array of Standard missiles as well as the ESSMs. That means that it can supply ABM and SAM defence against a whole raft of threats. And they might be more appropriate as a deployable container for protecting our own communities as well as our friends. Deliver the box and leave them on site.

Beyond that I am not sure that M-SHORAD is going to achieve all that is expected of it. Are there going to be enough of them to be able to counter the density of UAS systems being encountered in Ukraine? Or does each vehicle need its own ability to defend against UAS and LAMs?
I do get @KevinB point. Engaging air targets (Patriot) vs engaging ground targets (HIMARS) will require different launch systems.

However, why is this system being trialed or designed with the ability of sidewinder and stingers as possible options? Does the USA have a plan we don't see yet? Or is it just a "Fuck it, lets try it out" experiment?
 
What I kind of get here is this.

Air Defence Launchers/systems are one game (soccer balls)

Anti-Armour launchers/systems are another game (Hockey Pucks)

So don't play soccer with a hockey puck and vice versa?

Do we have any bird gunners on here that used the old ADATS?
 
Because a ship is a really big CP as well.
It has a CiC with multiple stations.
It has multiple weapon systems as well.


Do you have a giant sensor system that can coordinate it?
You get that with ships.

USN Cooperative Engagement Capability -

Those ships are not ships they are nodes that share C4, ISR and Effectors across all nodes. Including nodes on shore such as SM6s in 45 foot trailers and AEGIS ashore systems and USMC assets.

Description
Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) is a real-time sensor netting system that enables high quality situational awareness and integrated fire control capability. It is designed to enhance the anti-air warfare (AAW) capability of U.S. Navy ships, U.S. Navy aircraft and U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) Composite Tracking Network (CTN) units by the netting of geographically dispersed sensors to provide a single integrated air picture, thus enabling Integrated Fire Control to destroy increasingly capable threat cruise missiles and aircraft.
Features
CEC is a system of hardware and software that allows the sharing of radar and Identification, Friend or Foe sensor data on air targets amongst CEC equipped units. CEC's two major system functions consist of a Cooperative Engagement Processor (CEP) for sensor networking and a Data Distribution System (DDS) for real-time communications amongst cooperating units (CU). Sensor data from individual units are transmitted to other units in the network via the real time high quality, anti-jam capable line of sight, DDS. Each CEC equipped unit uses identical sensor data processing algorithms resident in its CEP, resulting in each unit having the same display of air tracks. CEC gives an individual ship the added capability to launch anti-air weapons at threat aircraft or missiles within its engagement envelope based on remote sensor data provided by the CEC sensor network. The CEC system makes it possible for multiple surface ships, aircraft and USMC land units to form an air defense network by sharing radar target measurements in real-time.

The CEC system interfaces with the platform's sensors and combat systems. CEC's Common Equipment Set (CES) provides hardware components among the different CEC equipped platforms. The basic CEC equipment set consists of an antenna subsystem, a signal data processor, a backup battery and technician control interfaces. The AN/USG-2 CEC system variant is designed for Navy surface ships, the AN/USG-3 CEC system variant is designed for Navy E-2 aircraft, and the AN/USG-4 CEC system variant is designed for the USMC CTN.

CTN is a USMC program. CTN integrates the CEC system with a mobile USMC High Mobility Multi-purpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV) which incorporates a unique elevated CEC antenna. CTN integrates into the USMC Command and Control system and is capable to operate in a DDS network with other CTN units and/or with Navy CEC equipped units.


You are going to need a massive amount of space to place those effectors on land - and that in turn reduces your dexterity, and increases your footprint.
How many 45 foot trailers can you park at an airport?

That is not to say that the 45 foot trailer is the better answer to the MSVS. It is to say that both systems, if bought, could overlap capabilities regardless of the colour of the uniform employing them.

My major concern from MMEV type things is simply based on two issues quantity of the systems and quality of the sensors.

I agree that quality of the sensors is critical. I'll go one step further and say that even more important than either the sensor or the effectors is the network. And that network needs to be nodal and redundant - and effectors have to be plentiful and cheap.

Rocket Launchers - sure you can launch a ton of stuff from a HIMARS type vehicle by changing the box load out, for ground targets that makes sense, but if your using it for AD, and AT too, that’s generally different telemetry and acquisition requirements.

Agreed


So do you add a ‘Longbow’ type feed ability to all your HIMARS cab’s just to allow AT engagements? Moving them closer in makes the target that much more attractive as well.

Why would I want the truck to be close enough to do that when some dude on an ATV can do that for me while the truck launches from a safe distance? I am looking at launch ranges of 15 to 150 km with precision. Why are we driving into the face of the enemy?

For the AD do you know just get Acquisition and FC systems for the Cans as well, or a node linkage (and requires data ports etc) Plus if that is your AD method / how does it travel with maneuver elements and it’s an relatively poorly armored system with limited off road mobility.

How much armour plate you are going to carry depends on how much transport you have available. Every pound of steel more is a pound of arrows less.

The end of the day, the reason that bespoke systems exist is that they do the role significantly better and cheaper than an all singing and dancing MMEV for a maneuver force.

I'll wait out on that one. MSHORAD shore looks like it has multi-mission capabilities. I'd be surprised if those Hellfires and that 30mm were only used against aerial targets.

If you’re simply looking for static positions. Then a CONEX box multi node system isn’t a bad idea - but they are static, and that comes with its own set of problems.
Agreed.

And that is why I suggested that I would split the difference in Canada by securing the midground first with the HIMARS/NASAMS MSVS capabilities.

And working with the USN on their CEC - the RCN already knows that system. The USN has already started bringing it ashore.
 
I do get @KevinB point. Engaging air targets (Patriot) vs engaging ground targets (HIMARS) will require different launch systems.

However, why is this system being trialed or designed with the ability of sidewinder and stingers as possible options? Does the USA have a plan we don't see yet? Or is it just a "Fuck it, lets try it out" experiment?

No. They require different sensors and different command and control systems both with operators skilled at their particular trades.

But launching rockets from common platforms - well, I can't resist, it's just rocket science. Just like an M72 in a tube.
 
For the record, If Canada got drunk and went on a defence spending spree, I am all for Stryker SHORAD and Leonidas
 
I will exactly split the difference

Chunmoo_K239_multi-caliber_MLRS_Multiple_Launch_Rocket_System_South_Korean_army_925_002.jpg
View attachment 76561

View attachment 76562
nsm-launcher-poland2


Those systems are tactical systems compatible with Divisional Areas of Interest. And they have a broad band of ranges
23 km 130 mm rockets to 500 km PrSMs and the 250 km NSM anti-ship missile.

NASAMS supports the Sidewinder AIM9X, the AMRAAM AIM120 , the AMRAAM-ER, all Air Force missiles and the ESSM Navy missile giving coverage out to 50 km or so.

picture-4-nasams-fire-unit.jpg


Just like the CAF went for the meat of the logistics puzzle by picking the Medium Support Vechicles first perhaps we could ask what we could accomplish with those trucks if they were assigned to the artillery.

The VLS trailer could support the entire array of Standard missiles as well as the ESSMs. That means that it can supply ABM and SAM defence against a whole raft of threats. And they might be more appropriate as a deployable container for protecting our own communities as well as our friends. Deliver the box and leave them on site.

Beyond that I am not sure that M-SHORAD is going to achieve all that is expected of it. Are there going to be enough of them to be able to counter the density of UAS systems being encountered in Ukraine? Or does each vehicle need its own ability to defend against UAS and LAMs?
How's that NASAMS going to work against the quadcopters scouting out your force? You're still going to need your SHORAD that can target one of those moving along a treeline where the NASAMS radar isn't going to pick it up. It seems you're trying to find a one-size-fits-all solution that can perform SHORAD, MRAD, LRAD, close support artillery, deep precision strike and AT fires in a single launcher and trusting a network of dispersed sensors to all feed back into that launch node without EW interference and without delays in response when dealing with a multitude of potential targets of different types all being fed back to you at once.

Again, I sounding like I'm not in favour of platform commonality when I actually am. I just think you're potentially painting the picture with too broad a brush and wishing away some of the advantages that a more focused system might have over a do-everything solution.
 
How's that NASAMS going to work against the quadcopters scouting out your force? You're still going to need your SHORAD that can target one of those moving along a treeline where the NASAMS radar isn't going to pick it up. It seems you're trying to find a one-size-fits-all solution that can perform SHORAD, MRAD, LRAD, close support artillery, deep precision strike and AT fires in a single launcher and trusting a network of dispersed sensors to all feed back into that launch node without EW interference and without delays in response when dealing with a multitude of potential targets of different types all being fed back to you at once.

Again, I sounding like I'm not in favour of platform commonality when I actually am. I just think you're potentially painting the picture with too broad a brush and wishing away some of the advantages that a more focused system might have over a do-everything solution.
So, If get it correctly, Stryker SHORAD can fire stinger and Hellfire, can it also take on sidewinder? I already know it has short 30mm and GPMG
 
picture-4-nasams-fire-unit.jpg


I'll come back to this image of a NASAMS troop or det.

The GWagens are not specific to the NASAMS. The Trucks and trailers aren't. The cargoes they carry are.

The gunners rifles are not specific to the NASAMs.

What do you have to swap out to turn that into a HIMARS or an NSM capability?

All of them are going to be netted into a common picture and a common battle management system.

Is the guy driving the truck with the missiles on board ever going to see the target?

A standard NASAMS unit has a modular design comprising a command post the FDC, an active 3D radar Raytheon AN/MPQ-64F1 Sentinel, a passive electro-optical and infrared sensor and a number of missile canister launchers with AMRAAM missiles. Normally, a number of NASAMS fire units are netted together in a uniquely designed ”hard-realtime” communication network to ensure minimum latency over large distances for maximum system performance utilizing the unique capabilities of the AMRAAM missile.


The nodes in the systems, FDCs, Launchers and Sensors, don't have to be collocated. They can be separated by many kilometers.

I am having difficulty grasping the difference between a gunner loading HE or loading Excalibur and another gunner loading Brimstone or GMRLS or even AMRAAM. All he has to do is get the round into the air.
 
picture-4-nasams-fire-unit.jpg


I'll come back to this image of a NASAMS troop or det.

The GWagens are not specific to the NASAMS. The Trucks and trailers aren't. The cargoes they carry are.

The gunners rifles are not specific to the NASAMs.

What do you have to swap out to turn that into a HIMARS or an NSM capability?

All of them are going to be netted into a common picture and a common battle management system.

Is the guy driving the truck with the missiles on board ever going to see the target?




The nodes in the systems, FDCs, Launchers and Sensors, don't have to be collocated. They can be separated by many kilometers.

I am having difficulty grasping the difference between a gunner loading HE or loading Excalibur and another gunner loading Brimstone or GMRLS or even AMRAAM. All he has to do is get the round into the air.
Mmmmm. My brain is trying to think. Without booze. So lets see.

What about Stryker SHORADs for moving with LAV and Leo2 Units? And could something like your proposing with VAST reach, stay static (like close to an airfield? Protect the airfield, and the HIMARS type launchers?)
 
How's that NASAMS going to work against the quadcopters scouting out your force? You're still going to need your SHORAD that can target one of those moving along a treeline where the NASAMS radar isn't going to pick it up. It seems you're trying to find a one-size-fits-all solution that can perform SHORAD, MRAD, LRAD, close support artillery, deep precision strike and AT fires in a single launcher and trusting a network of dispersed sensors to all feed back into that launch node without EW interference and without delays in response when dealing with a multitude of potential targets of different types all being fed back to you at once.

I agree that NASAMs is not going to solve the QuadCopters. It is going to be busy with cruise missiles.
But I am not sure that even the SHORAD is going to solve the Quad problem. I think every vehicle at the front is going to need a personal airdefence capability. Not to take out UAVs observing from a distance - a separate problem - but something that works in the 1000 m C-RAM engagement.

Again, I sounding like I'm not in favour of platform commonality when I actually am. I just think you're potentially painting the picture with too broad a brush and wishing away some of the advantages that a more focused system might have over a do-everything solution.

I will accept that there are going to be nuances but I would rather start from the outside in with one broad over-arching view than try to piece together a patchwork of exquisite solutions that each tackle a specific problem.

If there is one magic system that solves 70% of the problems I want to find it. Then we can start detailing out the other 30%.
 

Kongsberg signs Polish NSM coastal defence contract​

The Polish Ministry of National Defence has awarded a $177m contract to Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace for the delivery of a naval strike missile (NSM) coastal defence system.

The radar system deploys NSM alongside a command and weapon control system, which is the same as the NASAMS air defence system that is used by four Nato nations, including the US.
 
picture-4-nasams-fire-unit.jpg


I'll come back to this image of a NASAMS troop or det.

The GWagens are not specific to the NASAMS. The Trucks and trailers aren't. The cargoes they carry are.

The gunners rifles are not specific to the NASAMs.

What do you have to swap out to turn that into a HIMARS or an NSM capability?

All of them are going to be netted into a common picture and a common battle management system.

Is the guy driving the truck with the missiles on board ever going to see the target?




The nodes in the systems, FDCs, Launchers and Sensors, don't have to be collocated. They can be separated by many kilometers.
I don’t think you fully comprehend the EW signature that all those interlinked systems would generate.
I am having difficulty grasping the difference between a gunner loading HE or loading Excalibur and another gunner loading Brimstone or GMRLS or even AMRAAM. All he has to do is get the round into the air.
How do they get them on target…
The different launchers all require different targeting.

Honestly at this point I don’t think you are making any attempt to see what an Expeditionary Maneuver Military needs, you are stuck in some sort of territorial defense picture that Canada doesn’t require, and missing what it truly needs from its Military.
 
Mmmmm. My brain is trying to think. Without booze. So lets see.

What about Stryker SHORADs for moving with LAV and Leo2 Units? And could something like your proposing with VAST reach, stay static (like close to an airfield? Protect the airfield, and the HIMARS type launchers?)

That'd be one way of tackling it. That umbrella with vast reach would also be available to supply fire support to the deployed brigades and battalions manoeuvering under its shade.

The manoeuver elements would still need their close quarters point defence capabilities to manage their own defence but I'm of a mind that given the opportunity the guy at the front would prefer that somebody else removed the problem in front before he had to start using his own ammunition.
 
I don’t think you fully comprehend the EW signature that all those interlinked systems would generate.
There may be a massive EW signature but can you honestly state that the nodal cooperative engagement system of battle management is not what is being worked towards by the US, the UK, Aus and all these NATO and allied countries whose companies are publishing all these glossy brochures?

How do they get them on target…
The different launchers all require different targeting.

Do you want me to go hunting to create a list of all the rounds, missiles and bullets that have multi-mode guidance and seeker systems?

Brimstone started as the SAL Hellfire, graduated to GPS/INS guidance with MMW seekers for autonomous targeting, and ended up adding the SAL back for Afghanistan to keep the man in the loop.

Or the 3P Fuzes

The 6-mode programmable 40 and 57 mm Bofors 3P (Pre-fragmented, Programmable, Proximity- fused) ammunition can be programmed in six different function modes to provide optimised effect against any aerial, surface or shore target. This provides weapon systems with the highest possible combat flexibility.

Each 3P fuse is automatically and individually programmed by a Proximity Fuse Programmer which continuously receives data from the Fire Control Computer System. Immediately before firing, the fuse is programmed to the selected mode.

It gives forces superior handling of traditional threats such as anti-ship missiles, aircraft, ships and shore targets, including those with armour protection. It also provides completely new capabilities. Functions such as airburst deal with threats that previously were impossible to engage, such as small, fast-manoeuvring boats and concealed targets.


Honestly at this point I don’t think you are making any attempt to see what an Expeditionary Maneuver Military needs, you are stuck in some sort of territorial defense picture that Canada doesn’t require, and missing what it truly needs from its Military.

Honestly at this point I am wondering how you are going to manoeuvre that expeditionary force once (if) you get it there at all.

My Expedition starts with a Canadian equivalent of a Marine Littoral Regiment - a service battalion, a light infantry battalion, an air defence battalion and a HIMARS battery. All deliverable by air. All capable of protecting our friends and allies and their kids. Then the rest of the Division, with the right equipment for the environment, falls in behind.

As to National Defence - that same MLR equivalent could be employed domestically. And we'll leave the

SM6s in trailers to NORAD and AEGIS ashore.

As for the needs of the infantry battalions, the tanks and the cavalry... there are lots of opinions from many well informed individuals.
 
Last edited:
Watching videos of lancets and other munitions targeting high value targets like S-300's. That layered AD defense pops up. You need a gun/missile for SHORAD to protect the long range system from medium range threats. You also need SHORAD to protect medium range systems both artillery and AD. You need SHORAD to protect all the other systems and as mentioned those systems have their own basic self defense.
 
There may be a massive EW signature but can you honestly state that the nodal cooperative engagement system of battle management is not what is being worked towards by the US, the UK, Aus and all these NATO and allied countries whose companies are publishing all these glossy brochures?



Do you want me to go hunting to create a list of all the rounds, missiles and bullets that have multi-mode guidance and seeker systems?

Brimstone started as the SAL Hellfire, graduated to GPS/INS guidance with MMW seekers for autonomous targeting, and ended up adding the SAL back for Afghanistan to keep the man in the loop.

Or the 3P Fuzes






Honestly at this point I am wondering how you are going to manoeuvre that expeditionary force once (if) you get it there at all.
I am an American, thus I don’t have that issue ;)
Seriously the more I look into the problems the CAF faces today, the more I love my new home. There are so many issues that need to be fixed, and no willingness by the people of Canada to compel the GoC to fix it.
My Expedition starts with a Canadian equivalent of a Marine Littoral Regiment - a service battalion, a light infantry battalion, an air defence battalion and a HIMARS battery. All deliverable by air. All capable of protecting our friends and allies and their kids.
I’d suggest that a Light Bde be a better design, for that.
So in addition to your start, add two more LIB’s, and M777 Reg’t, plus a CER, and potentially a Light Recce Sqn.


Then the rest of the Division, with the right equipment for the environment, falls in behind.

As to National Defence - that same MLR equivalent could be employed domestically. And we'll leave the

SM6s in trailers to NORAD and AEGIS ashore.

As for the needs of the infantry battalions, the tanks and the cavalry... there are lots of opinions from many well informed individuals.
I think the containerized systems are fantastic, but I don’t think the same entities should be doing different roles, as I prefer to have a clear break between ADA and Rocket forces. I want ADA doing Air Defense as a primary task. The same way I want a Rocket Battery concentrating on delivering rockets and missiles on the enemy at distance.

While it may seem an economy of force to dual or triple hat systems, it’s really going to but you when you need those systems each focusing on their primary role.
 
I think the containerized systems are fantastic, but I don’t think the same entities should be doing different roles, as I prefer to have a clear break between ADA and Rocket forces. I want ADA doing Air Defense as a primary task. The same way I want a Rocket Battery concentrating on delivering rockets and missiles on the enemy at distance.

While it may seem an economy of force to dual or triple hat systems, it’s really going to but you when you need those systems each focusing on their primary role.
You don't want to end up like the Japanese carriers at Midway...
 
I am an American, thus I don’t have that issue ;)

Facetious or not I think that explains a lot of the difference between your viewpoint and my viewpoint.

I don't see Canada ever doing a Forced Entry Operation, especially at the Division or Corps level. Even Brigade or Battalion would be a stretch.

I do see Canada offering assistance to a friend asking for it. In other words a permissive environment that does not require forced entry. It does, however require the ability to move rapidly into the theater to exploit the moment before the moment changes. It also requires the ability to defend locally - and locally means a radius of 150 km from the base area. And finally it means the ability to self-rescue or pull off an opposed evacuation with national means if necessary.

Without a hint of irony I will say that my perception of the American way of war is that there are no permissive environments. There are no safe places for America to deploy. That when America deploys it is to crash off the boats, kill a bunch of folks, get back on the boats, reset and prepare to do it all again.

The Green Berets went from advisors to door kickers. New advisor groups are established STABs and SFABs and such but they are anomalies. One of the biggest arguments against the USMC strategy is that if presupposes the emplacement of the Marine Littoral Regiments in permissive environments. That they will be requested by the locals as tensions rise and they will remain in place as an effective fighting force when war breaks out. It also assumes that these are not sacrificial forces, that they can move and relocate in response to threats and that they can be supported in place.

Thus my sense of an MLR analog as a lead element in Canadian foreign policy.

The related enablers as far as I am concerned are.

Heavy lift aircraft to move the force in quickly (one to two weeks) and support any necessary build up.
Transport ships to support any necessary build up and in sufficient numbers to support a rapid evacuation while opposed.

Light, Medium and Heavy Brigades, helicopters (aka in my dictionary as all terrain vehicles) are all up for debate keeping in mind that Infantry can find itself defined as Marines, Mountain, Arctic, Airborne, Heliborne, Motorized, Mechanized or Armoured. It can also just be plain Infantry supplying security, occupying garrisons, vital points, covering lines of communication (although that is actually more of a light cavalry role traditionally), or just holding ground.

Nobody is ever going to be short of jobs for the odd job man - regardless of particular skills he may have acquired.

I agree with @markppcli on the depth battalions for the brigades. I would argue though that even if the ARES, all 19,000 of them were entirely leg infantry that worked with light trucks, helicopters and atvs that there would still be more jobs for them than there are people to get the jobs done.


Seriously the more I look into the problems the CAF faces today, the more I love my new home. There are so many issues that need to be fixed, and no willingness by the people of Canada to compel the GoC to fix it.

Glad to hear you are happy there. I like working with your countrymen but I am just as happy here as you are there. And I have no desire to return to my homeland either.

I’d suggest that a Light Bde be a better design, for that.
So in addition to your start, add two more LIB’s, and M777 Reg’t, plus a CER, and potentially a Light Recce Sqn.

See for me that is a follow on force to work with the locals if the locals request it. And if its a light force it needs both ground transport enablers and air transport - helicopters, fixed wing,, manned or unmanned - the thing is that all the pieces have to nest just like a set of Russian dolls

il_340x270.4643699754_fref.jpg


I think the containerized systems are fantastic, but I don’t think the same entities should be doing different roles, as I prefer to have a clear break between ADA and Rocket forces. I want ADA doing Air Defense as a primary task. The same way I want a Rocket Battery concentrating on delivering rockets and missiles on the enemy at distance.

A sea can is not a manoeuver element. However a rocket in a sea can at a base is a manoeuvre enabler. And the longer the reach of the rocket the more of a threat it presents to the ability of an opposing force to manoeuvre and act.

A base is going to be necessary. And it may as well be collocated to give cover to a local civil population that can't move and needs defending.
Sea can based air defence makes sense to me. And if that sea can launch SM2s, SM3s, SM6s and ESSMs then it covers a bunch of threats. More if Patriot and THAAD can be launched from the same platform.

For the close in defence of the base then you also need shorter range missiles and that is provided by NASAMS launching the same ESSMs as the sea cans, if necessary, as well as the Air Force's AMRAAMs and Sidewinders. And then for the really close fight there is still a role for light anti-aircrat artillery (C-RAM after a fashion) reinforced with manpads and light missile launchers.

I also get that one light battalion is not going to provide local security indefinitely - thus the value of, and need for follow on forces. Forces that may need to be tracked, or that may need to be armoured, depending on the environment they are facing.

But the lesson of Dunkirk is two fold

1 When you need to get out of Dodge fast then you can only take what your transport will let you. If you don't have adequate transport then be prepared to spike your guns and destroy your tanks.

2 You better have spare guns and tanks to reequip those troops you just evacuated.


While it may seem an economy of force to dual or triple hat systems, it’s really going to but you when you need those systems each focusing on their primary role.

I think you are presupposing that when you do your sums you will get your answers right and have the right numbers of the right kit in the right place at the right time. And that if you get it wrong you can call for someone to send you the right stuff you are missing.


I prefer to think that the C3s have HEAT rounds on hand so that they can form an expedient anti-tank line in the event things go normal.


Cheers.
 
Back
Top