In the mortar platoons of the mechanised infantry battalions, at this stage. Indicative size is 3x tubes with 2x ammunition support vehicles per tube, per platoon if I understand correctly…
A bit of a pea-shooter in comparison isn’t? Almost criminal how little attention has been given to our AD capability…
Thanks for this. Is the expectation that they would be tracked?
Is there any discussion of introducing this capability to cavalry squadrons level? My understanding that this has at times been in the orbat but never actually made reality. May even have been the case for a SHORAD capability?
Thanks again,
Massive
Boagrius
Well-Known Member
Here's hoping NASAMS and AIR6500 Ph2 rectify that before too long...
Last edited:
Really stupid comparison though. RBS-70 is a MANPAD with an approximately 6km range. Patriot is a large missile with the reach to intercept ballistic missiles.
The comparison is a little like saying that a hang glider isn't a very impressive airliner. Very different roles, and if we had Patriot we'd still need something to replace the RBS
oldsig
Boagrius
Well-Known Member
If I may, I think AD was addressing the inadequacy of relying on a MANPAD as the Army's only form of GBAD coverage. Agree that if we divest RBS-70 then a successor MANPAD/VSHORAD solution would be appropriate/desirable.
Last edited:
Easy up there fella, who was comparing them apart from perhaps their physical size differences? Certainly not I… RBS-70 IS a small system compared to Patriot…
The point as observed by others is how inadequate our air defence capability is and arguably still will be even with NASAMS II coming online.
Yep, I think the intention is to mount them on the LAND 400 Phase 3 vehicles at this point. NEMO seems to be the “indicative” system, but I’m not sure it will be sole-selected as K9 was…
Raven would probably be better positioned to answer the Cav question, but I think not. Only intended for the mechanised infantry battalions.
More generally there doesn't appear to be a discussion of an armoured SHORAD capability.
I guess this could well be that it is just yet to be had but it is hard to imagine that it isn't at least a topic of discussion.
Regards,
Massive
I would agree. From my observations it appears that AD has been neglected in most of the FVEY ground forces. Now there are quick catch-ups being undertaken in some but not all and even some of those catch-ups are likely to be inadequate.
If you are going to do that then it's as simple as putting a SHORAD turret on either a Boxer CRV or on the new IFV. Justin a turret with a combination gun / MANPAD missile combo. For the NASAM that should be able to be mounted on the back of an 8 x 8 MAN HGV with the AESA radar on another vehicle or trailer and positioned well away, and the command vehicle positioned under cover. The missile vehicles can be hidden anywhere making them dangerous.
I know that the UK CAMM(L) - Land Ceptor can be hidden in a 20ft ISO shipping container so the launcher sits on the back of truck hidden in plain site until required. When required the top opens, missiles elevate to the vertical, launch, retract launcher close top and truck moves off to next position.
Boagrius
Well-Known Member
Indeed. I remember @Big_Zucchini made a good point elsewhere on the forum that before one develops an IAMD network it is vital to clarify what effects you want it to be able to provide. By way of example, militaries with more developed GBAD systems (thinking of Russian and Israel here) typically task their SHORAD assets with the interception of hostile munitions (eg. C-RAM/PGMs), not just the sensors and shooters that cue and fire them.
This struck me in Australia's case because, while our NASAMS II strikes me as a fine system at a technological level with its GaN AESAs from CEA and excellent suite of possible effectors in AIM9X-2, AMRAAM and AMRAAM-ER, it probably lacks the magazine depth to attrit enemy munitions effectively. It's for this reason that I have long wondered if we are better off treating it as a mobile MRGBAD system roughly akin to the Russian Buk, and leaning more heavily on AMRAAM-ER and/or ESSM Blk II so that it can focus on killing the sensors and shooters instead of what they shoot at us. You could then network it into the joint air picture (ideally with CEC baked in) so that the network-enabled functionality of your effectors is fully leveraged, allowing for OTH targeting and minimising the need for CEA-OPS and CEA-FAR to emit during engagements.
This leaves "gaps" above and below NASAMS in terms of true SHORAD and HIMAD systems, but at least the latter can be looked at under AIR6500 Ph 2...
Last edited:
No there isn’t at this stage among the publicly released capability docs… One might think that would be a priority but if anyone dares raise this issue they point to the 12 or so fire units we are getting under LAND 19 and ask what more do we want?
I guess that’s an upgrade on the 5 or so RBS-70 launchers we are currently running, but still…
Boagrius
Well-Known Member
Not sure it's quite that bleak. IIRC we are getting 2 batteries, each of which typically has 12 launchers, so ~24 in total. I am guessing they will be a mix of the 4 shot Hawkei HML variant and the 6 shot canister launcher. Each battery can then be divided into 3 fire units/troops allowing you to use the larger CEA-OPS for wide-area surveillance while distributing the CEA-TAC radars alongside the launchers to set up ambushes and cue missile shots etc. Still a long way to go in the IAMD arena though that is for sure.
PS. Another thing I will add is that there is a distinct scarcity of high quality, armoured battlefield SHORAD systems across the west in general (I am thinking of something analogous to the Russian Tor here). I suppose you can look at something like CAMM, but you're still tied to a truck-based system with whatever mobility/survivability issues that creates. Doesn't seem to be anything out there on a well-protected chassis that has both the range in its effectors and the magazine depth to make a meaningful impact.
Last edited:
To pile on here, as it was me who made the original comment.
Patriot, whilst it is obviously in a completely different class, provides the ability to provide effects against a bunch of different classes of threats to include area defence against enemy fighters, as well as BMD and cruise missiles. At present RBS-70 provides point defence against low-medium altitude fighters, helicopters and UAS (although from the article is it that effective…)If you are air defence artillery, with RBS-70, and the PAC battery pulls up next to you, I imagine it is difficult not to feel a little envy - particularly as it’s not as though Army has overlapping capes.
as AD stated the ADF has needed better organic air defence for some time. Even the incoming NASAMS (which was labelled in the article as BLOS, I think they meant BVR) has limited capability when you start talking area defence, as surface launched AIM-120 just isn’t going to go very far.
Apologies, seems I mistook 12 overall but it seems as if the total number of launchers has not yet been decided but “probably” 12 per battery. There will be one fire unit per AD troop with 3x AD troops per battery and 2x batteries as you say for 16 ALR. 3-4 launchers per AD troop are planned, with final decision making on troop size perhaps still a contractual option…
Only 16x HML Hawkei missile launch variants are being acquired though, with the remaining launchers being canister launch units...
Yep, not to mention it’s not at all optimised against C-RAM or UAS threats, indeed the previous C-RAM threat ‘sense and warn’ type capability, incorporated into the LAND 19 Phase 7B solution, seems to be envisaged as the ‘only’ method by which Army will seek to protect itself against such threats, beyond traditional force protection measures, armour, OHP, camouflage and concealment and so forth.
I was encouraged to see 2 Cav trialling “Drone Shield” technology recently with several sets of equipment acquired for trial purposes. Once again, it’s threat detection only, no effectors…
Boagrius
Well-Known Member
This strikes me as another tricky one, since the only really practical western C-RAM system I am aware of is Iron Dome, and that would trespass quite awkwardly on NASAMS' jurisdiction. Really not sold on the ability of current/planned gun or laser based systems to usefully influence the kind of barrages that a peer opponent (PLAGF/PLARF) could generate.
Same thing goes for C-UAS. Even the MOTS solutions being looked at in the US (eg. IM-SHORAD) strike me as interim place holders with significant practical limitations. We seem to be butting up against a GBAD problem that extends across the western world on this one. Not exactly spoilt for choice!