It wouldn't make much sense to give them to the RAAF. The missiles are designed to protect the land force, keep up with their manouvre, and integrate into all the assets given to the combat brigade. The RAAF have very little understanding of ground manoeuvre, and zero ability to sustain the missiles away from their fixed land bases. I'd also argue whether the RAAF really have corporate knowledge of ground based air defence (when was the last time they operated a SAM?) or much knowledge about data linking with dispersed ground callsigns (a mobile SAM battery leapfrogging from hill to hill in the middle of nowhere being rather a different problem than the aircraft and fixed land bases they normally deal with). It makes by far the most sense to give them to Army.
Any operational level SAMs purchased as part of AIR 6500, which will be more or less static and aimed at the theatre air picture, make sense to be operated by the RAAF, but the tactical SAMs should belong to the Army.
Boagrius
Well-Known Member
Speaks to the benefits of the Hawkei option from our POV I suppose. Just hope those rails do end up supporting AMRAAM-ER. Would make for a nice combo with AIM9X...
EDIT: Seems it may be plausible to get AMRAAM-ER on Hawkei after all:
NASAMS is available as a canister launcher system or as mobile one mounted on a 4x4 High Mobility Launcher (HML). Hagen said that there are only small modifications needed to the rail on the launcher because the ER variant is longer and to the control system software. The rail is the same as that on the F-16.
However, the AMRAAM-ER is heavier than the AMRAAM already fired from the NASAMS. The additional weight means that the HML vehicle used in the mobile system would need adapting to carry the weight, but it would be able to carry two ER missiles in its current form. The HML can carry six standard AMRAAM missiles.
https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/landwarfareintl/idex-2015-extended-range-air-defence-fires/
Last edited:
Raven - note that I said almost. I fully expect the Army to operate NASAM, and Tac and strategic SAMs are long needed ADF capability. Your first 3 sentences are completely valid..... without getting into a urination competition but when it comes to corporate knowledge of AMRAAM, Medium range RF Sams, Long range/Large RF Radars, utilisation of Link 16 the Army has essentially zero knowledge. That is without considering the detection, classification and identification of air tracks, area air defence, Joint engagement zones and air defence doctrine. The Army is essentially starting from a very low baseline. The RAAF and to a equal but differing extent the RAN have the technical expertise and established doctrine in these areas.
Last edited:
Low level air defence quite rightly belongs to the Army but I don't see it operating in isolation from the greater air defence picture. Army's ability to manoevre these assets and logistically support them in the field is excellent but in the end, AMRAAM & Sidewinder will be RAAF managed missiles, a lot of data will be coming from RAAF assets ( 3D radars, Wedgetail, F35) and Army may be fighting from the same fixed bases (or expeditionary airfields) that the RAAF operate from. We may see RAAF technicians maintaining missiles in the field and probably more Army personnel integrated into RAAF air defence system. I also don't necessarily believe that the future longer range missile system will be RAAF operated. It may be Army but under the control of RAAF. When was the last time the RAAF operated a SAM? 70's? Bloodhounds 30 Sqn. Probably a better chance of shooting down a cruise missile with one than RBS70.
The thing is, it's not the weapon system itself that dictates who operates it, its the employment of the equipment. It's the same argument as for helicopters. Logically, as the RAAF are the SMEs for aviation, it would make sense that helicopters were operated by the RAAF. However, since all battlefield helicopters exist to support ground manoeuvre, battlefield helicopters are operated by the Army - the SMEs at ground manoeuvre. Naval helicopters exist to support the maritime domain, hence naval helicopters are operated by the Navy - the experts in the maritime domain.
BTW, I don't think the RAAF have all the advantages you listed in operating SAMs. They certainly have the technical expertise, but not the operations expertise relevant to mobile GBAD. After all, the main ADF unit responsible for air land integration is 16 ALR. Their entire job is to do what you describe.
Last edited:
t68
Well-Known Member
Do RAAF ADG's have a GBAD capabilty when supporting austere airfields?
not their job
the defensive ring is based around the status, ability, persistence and nature of the threat
army AD belongs to 16 ALR
in a high tempo model, SOCOMD would trigger insertion, seize/capture the primary loc (airfield/airport) until big army arrives (ASAP). Once loc is secure then the commander would determine how and where it's air defence would be positioned, strength of etc...
once the loc is secured counter air could be by our own air - but deconfliction rules would be in place as well and that could impact on how 16 ALR are employed
bear in mind though, that at the same time that initial forces are securing the site, RAAF could concurrently be delaminating/destroying enemy air support infrastructure and air so that they can't do follow ups gefore/during and after local forces are setting up and securing the field etc....
mission planning at the big picture level is a purple event
Not the ADGies job, but it should be. C-RAM is only going to become more important as years go by and as ADF have finally woken up (thanks to a bit of time on the two way range and actually receiving some incoming...) to the fact that they are terribly vulnerable to indirect fires and air attack, this understanding will (or at least should) inevitably extend across the services and if RAAF don't secure the airfields they are always going to need to do their thing, who will?
Expecting a single Army Regiment to do their security for them (when they don't expect Army to do ground based security) is I think a budget issue, rather than a realistic operational expectation.
16ALR has the basic capability to support a single TF on operations, against a VERY low level threat. Now clearly that is being upgraded, but ascribing all sorts of different roles to this capability on a planning document or through any desktop exercises is irrelevant due to the actual threat we face. I always found the idea of desktop exercises and the full range of 'notional capabilities' we could bring to bear quite quaint.
A friend of mine (now an Lt Col of a RAINF battalion in Darwin) once boasted of a great command post victory where his team destroyed a squadron of tanks with a notional ATGW capability (that bore all the hallmarks of Javelin). How wonderful, the ability to destroy forces Army fully expects to have to face in command post notional world, yet when you walk outside the tent you are of course entirely without the actual capability to do so...
Airbases are and will always be priority targets yet we are acquiring upgraded air defence to support our ground manoeuvre elements. They need protection and so do our airbases and logistics centres. Expecting one regiment to provide all that is a farce.
RAAF maintains ground combat and in-direct fires capabilities to defend it's own airbases. I think at a minimum thought needs to be given to providing it's own C-RAM protection too.
yep, don't disagree, just stating the current reality
bear in mind that the ADG's weren't that respected a few years back. eg seen as wannabe SOCOMD operators etc..., originally formed up with transition troops from the garrison support conversion issues
eg, ex green car drivers, gate guards etc.... so started from a low baseline skillset....
Realistically, as most of our major air bases are adjacent to large population centres and industrial hubs a substantial fixed air defence /ABM capability would be a no brainer. It would also be logical to make use of composite regular / reserve units to operate them. The next sensible level would be a deployable system for bare Bose bases and expeditionary operations were there may be a need for a missile shield over a task force, likely centred on an airbase. Finally you would have your tactical that supports maneuver units.
To me it doesn't matter who operates the different systems but I imagine RAAF for the fixed with RAN SMEs if the selected system is SM-3/6 based, the expeditionary element would be an army / air force affair, maybe with RAN SMEs, and the tactical capability would be army with RAAF input. The end result would be a high end, fully integrated, "purple" capability with specialist air defence expert operators and maintainers rotating between the different elements.
The RAAF won't be given a CRAM capability for airbase defence. Clearly there is the budget issue (a Defence force of ~60 000 people can only do so much), but if there was a call for more CRAM capability (for air base defence or otherswise) then the capability provided by 16 ALR would simply be expanded. Having two services providing the same capability is a recipe for inefficiency.
There's no threat to the Australian mainland that could possibly justify fixed air defence/ABM of permanent air bases. A mobile system for protection of expeditionary bases would be appropriate, but that would certainly be a joint asset (ie, for the protection of whatever needs to be protected, not simply for air bases). Considering that the ADF arguably has no ability to sustain more than one expeditionary air base independently anyway, there wouldn't be a need for a huge number of systems. Being able to adequately defend a single piece of real estate against air/BM threats would be a good result, and significantly complicate the threat picture for any aggressors.
Not to argue semantics, but that is precisely what RAAF does with Adgies in the first place... If you need infantry forces to defend an airbase, why not just add an extra battalion to Army's orbat and provide that capability and not be so inefficient...
If 16ALR is going to take on all the new Ground Based Air Defence capability coming on-board (regardless of whether you call it AD or C-RAM counter fire capability) it's going to end up a mighty big unit...
The point about a RAAF provided C-RAM capability is probably best argued in another thread, but air defence of it's own bases was a traditional role for RAAF ground units, which is why we had simultaneous RAAF and Army air defence units in the past when protection of itself from air attack was still a priority for the ADF...
The thing is, ADGies are not infantry, and infantry are not ADGies. The ADGs do a similar but different job. The ADGs are entirely an internal security force, optimised for security against SF and other advance forces, are integrated into all RAAF units/bases for training and other security tasks, and have no mandate (or ability) to go more than 5000m outside the perimeter fence. Obviously infantry can do a lot more. You could task an infantry battalion to do the job, but you'd need to provide them a whole lot of extra training, never use a lot of the training they've already received, and place them under the operational control of the RAAF and integrate them into the CoC - at which point you'd be back where you started with RAAF ADGies in all but name. The ADG madly point this out everytime someone has a thought bubble about disbanding the ADG and giving the job to the Army. Its the same argument as the helicopters - the RAAF employ the ADG capability, so the capability should reside with RAAF.
If the RAAF operated CRAM or similar capabilities, all they could do is protect airfields - nothing else. Boost the Army CRAM capability and you can protect airfields, or remain mobile and do anything els you need them to do. Plus avoid the inherant inefficiencies of doubling up the capability.
Even if the RAAF was given CRAM or low level air defence capabilities, I doubt they would be given to the ADG. I'd imagine they would be given to whatever organistion it is the mans the deployable TPS-77 radars that provide airspace control during expeditionary ops. It would almost certainly be a better fit with the specialists there than the knuckle draggers in the ADG.
I don't see why. They only consist of a two small batteries at the moment - there's a lot of room for growth. When all the new capabilities are delivered I don't know if they will keep the integrated batteries they have now or go back to specialist batteries, but the endstate size of 16 ALR is still less than the size of an infantry battalion.
NASAMS will give us a capability against cruise and other stand off missiles and these are the most likely weapons used against an airfield. A longer range missile system proposed under AIR 6500 will give us another envelope to get the shooters. The Army would get more and flexible use out of C-RAM. Counter UAV's & helo for a gun based system like Rhienmetall's Millenium 35mm would be a plus.
I'd say due to their cost, cruise missiles and PGM's will only ever be few and far between, unless we are engaged with a nation state in state v state conflict and we will have bigger problems then, than RAAF having no air defence...
The greatest likelihood IMHO, for any aerial threat we will have to face on future ops is that we having incoming mortars, followed by rockets and finally artillery systems.
The ADG are trained as ECN 343 through Singleton if my memory serves and whilst they are not called upon to do the full infantry role, their mandate being different as you point out, their skill sets aren't different to infantry soldiers...
Yes, I agree. I was using the term 'Adgie' for convenience sake. I expect we would see any such capability added to a unit within RAAF's combat support group, either within the Security Forces Squadrons or within a dedicated squadron, as their previous air defence capabilities were.
As for the idea of equipping Army vs RAAF, that was not my thought. My thought of RAAF would be that it would be in addition to Army gaining C-RAM interceptor capability, much as RAAF is equipped with Bushmasters, 81mm mortars and Javelin's etc in addition to Army's fit out. I get that Army 'could' do that role, I just wonder in practical terms exactly how much capability there would be within Army to provide such capability in addition to it's own pressing demands, combined with the spectre of the old inter-service rivalry of supporting ones own needs, before assisting others...
So do you see the Regiment staying as a single formation to take on the 'kinetic' C-CRAM role in addition to the 'sense and warn' role, as well as the new air defence launcher and radar system capabilities?
We had separate (and later integrated) batteries for the Rapier and RBS-70 systems 16 AD Regt operated, but that was only for a short, overlapping period before Rapier was phased out, I thought? The new systems will obviously be in-service for decades / generations and are significantly different capabilities (depending on the C-RAM solution...)
I think they will find it a steep curve operating NASAMs effectively to what has pretty much previously been an unintegrated WVR system. I have to admit that I am unfamiliar with how 'integrated' the PSTAR-ER radar is with the RBS70 (I imagine it is minimal) but they effectively are stepping from the complexity of a pc9 to a Hornet/JSF- and having to build up all of the knowledge / experience along the way. Good luck to them.
No way known the RAAF would let the ADGies loose with anything bigger than a Stinger... The ACO's would be all over it like fat kids on easter eggs... I expect you will find that a new / old unit would be stood up for it.
for a near peer threat in the early days of a conflict - potentially. But as has been seen in Afghan / Iraq unless we are in a WW3 scenario most likely thing that will be shot at an airfield / MOB will be IDF (Rockets / Mortars).
I think the HIMARS capability will also end up meeting the anti-ship requirement
Ballistic-trajectory missile.
Would be extremely effective given the integrated view of the battlespace that will likely be available to commaders.
Regards,
Massive
I don't believe the ADF is building an integrated missile and air defense system at considerable cost because the most likely thing to be shot at an airfield are rockets & mortars. We love the "near peer" scenario because it justifies the amount of effort we put into our defence and scares the punters less than saying we are actually training for something bigger. Look around the world and what you really see or have seen are large powers enforcing their will over smaller powers. China over countries in the South China Sea, Russia over Ukraine, US over Syria, UK over Argentina in the Falklands, NATO over Serbia as examples. This is not about who was right or wrong in those conflicts but rather an observation that none of these conflicts could be seen as "near peer". If Australia's planning revolves around insurgents or some non state actors using IDF, then Army doesn't need NASAMS or the future coastal missile system.