# NATO partners agree to mutual air defense systems



## Lancaster (24 Oct 2020)

On Oct/23/2020, see Canada below recently not signing on to mutual air 
defence systems because we have the obsolete Air Defence Anti-tank 
system  (ADATS), are we depending on other countries for defence systems?

Lancaster

1) NATO partners agree to mutual air defense systems.
...Ministers from Belgium, Britain, Denmark, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, 
the Netherlands, Slovenia and Spain signed a letter of intent to implement a 
systematic and modular Ground-Based Air Defense, or GBAD, to defend
against a range of air and missile threats.

 The system will include very short range missiles, including Stinger, Mistral 
and anti-aircraft artillery, and short range and medium range missiles, 
including the HAWK and Network Centric Short to Medium Range Ground
 Based Air Defense System...

https://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2020/10/23/NATO-partners-agree-to-mutual-air-defense-systems/3441603467783/?ur3=1


----------



## Lancaster (24 Oct 2020)

Lancaster said:
			
		

> On Oct/23/2020, see Canada below recently not signing on to mutual air
> defence systems because we have the obsolete Air Defence Anti-tank
> system  (ADATS), are we depending on other countries for defence systems?
> 
> ...


----------



## MilEME09 (24 Oct 2020)

ADATS was retired in 2011, we have no GBAD in the CAF, less you include a C6 or .50 cal in the air defense role.


----------



## CBH99 (24 Oct 2020)

So basically, we have no GBAD   


That seems a Euro-centric agreement, with the US not signing on.  Without more information, hard to comment.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (24 Oct 2020)

A more concise and better written account of what took place or will take place.

Ten Allies agree to explore modular solution for ground based air defence
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_178950.htm


> 23 Oct. 2020 -|Last updated: 23 Oct. 2020 10:37
> 
> Ten NATO Defence Ministers launched a multinational initiative for developing very short range, short range and medium range Ground Based Air Defence (GBAD) capabilities.
> 
> ...



"Signed a Letter of Intent" - in other words, (to quote the footnote in the factsheet) "Initial non-binding document outlining participants’ will to explore the area in question further".  They look at 2022+ as the earliest target that they "may" be able to sign an Memorandum of Understanding after which it's into 2024+ before they would start identifying any actual equipment requirements.

https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2020/10/pdf/2010-factsheet-mod-gbad.pdf


----------



## tomahawk6 (24 Oct 2020)

Cant beat US air defense systems. Buy combat proven AD.


----------



## CBH99 (24 Oct 2020)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Cant beat US air defense systems. Buy combat proven AD.




Not to bash American GBAD systems at all, but in most recent conflicts they haven't been used much - just as in there hasn't been a need.  

While THAAD and Patriot seem like great systems and have performed well in tests, they haven't been used in real world conflict recently.

Providing Stingers to counter Soviet aircraft in Afghanistan is the last 'widespread' use of American systems, as far as I recall?  Although I may be wrong?



If they are going with combat proven, and used often, types of systems - Israel's Iron Dome system, with its most recent upgrades, is pretty effective.  Proven on an almost daily/weekly basis.

 :2c:


----------



## FJAG (24 Oct 2020)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Cant beat US air defense systems. Buy combat proven AD.



Well actually you can and a lot of Russian and Chinese gear does. Your Avengers are 1980s technology as are Patriots all of which were "proven" in combat the last time in 2003 against a second (if not third) rate air force in Iraq.

Sure some of the missiles have been fine tuned over time but air defence in the US has taken a back seat while your folks were puttering around in the sandboxes with insurgents for the last two decades.

All of NATO's air defence (including the US's) is long in the tooth and in need of upgrading (against everything from small slow drones to long range hypersonic missiles) hence things like the IM-SHORAD system, the Integrated Air and Missile Defence Battle Command System (IBCS), the Lower Tier Air and Missile Defence Sensor (LTAMDS), and various direct energy weapons such as the Direct Energy - Manoeuvre Short Range Air Defence system (DE-SHORAD). All of these on a near horizon but not deployed and absolutely not "combat proven".

All that said, you'll be surprised to hear me say that I agree with you as far as Canada is concerned. We should buy into US systems for several reasons. First and foremost is that we do need to be integrated and I expect that in a real conflict we will need to be integrated with your systems. Second is the fact that the US is further along developing new systems than Europe. Third is while there are good systems coming out of various European companies I consider their industry too fragmented to ever produce any really integrated system in the future. Last is that any organization that signs a letter of intent in 2020 with a target date of a memorandum of understanding of 2022 and a stated commencement of procurement for 2024+ is one that I don't want to be associated with (as an aside I find it interesting that Poland, Lithuania and Estonia are not amongst the signature countries at this point)

 :cheers:


----------



## tomahawk6 (24 Oct 2020)

THAAD. Russian systems the US and Israel know how to beat them. As for Patriot with its mach 5 speed is still faster than any bomber or strike fighter out there.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (24 Oct 2020)

Our NATO allies will offer up Canada as a easy target as we neglected to have Air Defense, the enemy will be busy bombing the hell out of our troops and leave theirs alone.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (24 Oct 2020)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> THAAD. Russian systems the US and Israel know how to beat them. As for Patriot with its mach 5 speed is still faster than any bomber or strike fighter out there.



That is not how AD works.

I will grant that a fast missile gives you a bigger engagement box. But.

If you are shooting at stuff your missile has to “catch” up to,  you have already lost.

The idea is to engage the aerial target before they get to your launcher. In effect, you are making them run into your missile. Ideally, as far away as possible.


----------



## tomahawk6 (24 Oct 2020)

My dad commanded a nike battalion in the 60's which was part of the LA defense. It was a very unforgiving command environment with alerts, MI site tests and annual readiness test, forest fires ect. As has been stated you wanted to engage as far out as possible.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (24 Oct 2020)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> My dad commanded a nike battalion in the 60's which was part of the LA defense. It was a very unforgiving command environment with alerts, MI site tests and annual readiness test, forest fires ect. As has been stated you wanted to engage as far out as possible.



That must have been a fascinating time in history!


----------



## CBH99 (25 Oct 2020)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Our NATO allies will offer up Canada as a easy target as we neglected to have Air Defense, the enemy will be busy bombing the hell out of our troops and leave theirs alone.




In all fairness, so has almost everyone in NATO.  With the exception of some northern European allies, we've all put Air Defense on the backburner for a while now as we didn't need to focus on it.


----------



## tomahawk6 (25 Oct 2020)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> That must have been a fascinating time in history!



It was interesting.This was the year that Kennedy was assassinated so the missile defense went on alert.The brigade HQ was in Pasadena and I remember going to the Rose Bowl Parade. One interesting not was that my dad's missile battalion started out with 5 firing batteries arrayed in a horseshoe with 75 miles or so between the tips  ending at the Malibu site. As the threat from Russian bombers was deemed less a threat the nationwide system was shutdown, except units in Florida facing Cuba  and overseas like Germany and Korea. Some CONUS units were turned over to the National Guard. We left California after the one year command tour ended and dad was off for a 3 year tour at the Pentagon. This was a turning point in his career seeing him promoted to Colonel was an accomplishment for a WW2 draftee turned OCS graduate in a West Point dominated world. Not much changed during my service. Either you learn how to manage one's career or you let the career manage you. For example attending the Command and General Staff College was necessary for battalion command but about 50% of all major's were selected. Today I think damn near 100% of Majors are selected but the Army is smaller now than then.


----------



## FJAG (25 Oct 2020)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> That must have been a fascinating time in history!



It really was. You might recall that Canada's air defence contribution at the time were nuclear tipped Bomarc missiles and the newly deployed CF 101 Voodoo fighter soon to be equipped with nuclear tipped Genie missiles.

Strangely enough the Conservative government was split over the issue of the nuclear missiles and collapsed because of that. The subsequent Liberal government of Lester Pearson brought them in and won the 1963 election on the basis of that policy. Hard to believe, huh?

 :cheers:


----------



## tomahawk6 (25 Oct 2020)

Nuke's were to be the big equalizer should a mass attack materialize.Massed bombers might overwhelm one or two launch sites but a nuke would take out everything flying.


----------



## Lancaster (10 Oct 2021)

Poland is investing in their systems see below article. Unlike
Canada which has no systems at all, totally reliant on other
countries such as the U.S. for protection. 

Lancaster

1)  Poland Kicks Off Homegrown SHORAD System: Narew
The new system, which could cost between $12 and $17 billion,
 will be almost entirely homegrown - a major impact on Polish
   industry.

 The estimated value of the contract is 50-70 billion
zlotys, roughly a $12.5 to $17.6 billion range. According to
Poland’s MND, signing contracts with suppliers of individual
elements of the system should end in 2023. The goal is to
 integrate Narew capabilities with existing Polish radar systems
 as well as the Patriot systems already procured from the US.
Poland Kicks Off Homegrown SHORAD System: Narew - Breaking Defense


----------

