Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates
Nope, but I’m thinking you would need a crane and it probably wouldn’t be a real quick process.
Two cells per launcher means 2x SM-2/6 per firing unit before you need to reload, or 8x ESSM.
Murse
Member
Which begs the question, who operates them, RAAF or Army? Being of the green persuasion, I'd advocate for Army as they can defend themselves and have recency of practice WRT GBAD and LR fires.
OldTex
Well-Known Member
Why should the Army operate a medium/long range ADS rather than the RAAF? Surely it is more in the operational domain of the RAAF, especially if the IAMD is also likely to be managed by The RAAF. A medium/long range ADS could be provided as part of the RAAF elements attached to an Australian Task Force or deployed force.
Although a MRADS could also be provided to the Army using this system and relying only on the ESSMs and SM-2 (which would allow for the shorter tactical length Mk41 VLS to be utilised. Such a system would still need to be integrated into the IAMD system for the ADF.
Also if tomahawks are being fired from the same type of land based launchers that will be more likely to be again a RAAF capability (i.e. strategic strike) in the same vein as the F-111s were employed.
Last edited:
Murse
Member
In the voice of Mr Bill Lawry "yes hes got one!"
Rationale though, is as per my post. Organic self defence (to an extent) and recency of practice. I'm sure the counter arguments will be better thought out and I'll concede that RAA operating them is not a hill I'll die on...
MRAD is for the RAAF, most likely purple in reality particularly if they choose the virtual AEGIS solution, CEAFAR and SM based effectors.
4/5 star hotels will never be so well protected as they will be then!
Slight correction mate. Displayed with but not attached. I’d guess integration won’t take long but nit done yet or they would of slung it under a wing…don’t think it would fit in weapons bay.Yes and no. They typically use low latency network links, they usually aren't just sending it through the cloud. Active seekers mean they are less reliant for a kinetic kill in that final phase, so if that data can get them as close as possible that the munitions sensors can lock in, and send them trajectory and threats etc, then most munitions will be able to make that last loop on their own.
Some aspects like the radar and sensor fusion, there is already latency from data processing etc.
Yes, locally hosted is going to be better most of the time, but in some situations, coordinating complicated attacks with multiple munitions from multiple platforms, local means different things.
MQ28 has been seen with meteor missile attached.
Boeing, MBDA Showcase MQ-28 With Meteor Missile | Aviation Week
Boeing Defense, Space and Security CEO Steve Parker says the MQ-28, which appeared alongside MBDA Meteor missiles, is designed to quickly integrate weapons.aviationweek.com
The Germans are apparently very excited about it.
120d AIM and meteor are about the same size.
I could see the appeal of this for Germany, they can build that drone locally, fire local missiles, control it with their own C3. Its already flying not just a development mule. Having something with long reach from an already long range platform opens up plenty of options.
You could see how having Globaleye or E7, and then using those long range sensors couples with mq28 to make long range kills, or have a bubble even further out of manned fighters, and they cue with their radars.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Some more Ghost Bat news. The ability to share a CCA is interesting.
Australian MQ-28 Ghost Bat Fighter Drones Could Be Commanded By U.S. Pilots
Australian MQ-28 Ghost Bat Fighter Drones Could Be Commanded By U.S. Pilots