GBAD - The return of 'FOBS'

[Kirkhill]

Australia announces $4.7 billion purchase of US air defense missiles

The deal checks off a top priority in Australia's 2024 defense strategy, published this spring.

www.defensenews.com

Australia announced this week it was buying $4.7 billion in American-made SM-2 and SM-6 missiles — two of the world’s most advanced air defense interceptors — in a colossal foreign military sale.

Funding for a decade, numbers not stated.

“There was a strong view we needed to both upgrade the capability of air defense, but also increase the numbers of missiles we’re holding,” Conroy said in an interview while visiting Washington.

Missile defense is one of the top priorities listed in Australia’s 2024 defense strategy, published this April, which name drops the SM-6. In the plan, the government pledged to double its number of major warships and build a firmer defense industry of its own — as the country, like America, accepts competition with China as the norm.

Canberra’s defense budget, published a month after in May, committed a record $37 billion, or just over 2% of GDP, toward its military. The government aims to reach 2.3% of GDP, right now around $67 billion, by 2033-2034.

The SM, or Standard Missile, Block IIIC and 6 included in the sale will help Australia defend against advanced missile attacks and, in the case of the latter, can provide an anti-ship weapon. The American missile company Raytheon manufactures both, which have a medium and long range respectively.

“This combination of long range air defense, anti-ship strike capability ... and giving us our first ability to defend against ballistic missiles through terminal ballistic missile defense was a huge step forward for our navy,” Conroy said.

 

[Kirkhill]

IBCS and IAMD

How The Army Will Use Its Super Integrated Air Defense System

Branded Content: Northrop Grumman's Bill Lamb provides an in-depth look at the soon-to-be-fielded Integrated Battle Command System.

www.twz.com

IBCS tackles evolving air and missile threats, from incoming drone swarms to hypersonic weapons, while creating a ‘any sensor, best shooter’ strategy. This enables operators to select the optimal effector for the situation.

Since 2015, the IBCS program has successfully executed multiple developmental and operational flight tests under increasingly realistic conditions, including early engineering to integrate the U.S. Navy’s Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) to the IBCS Integrated Fire Control Network (IFCN). The joint multi-domain command-and-control provided by IBCS, along with its data integration and distribution capabilities, make it a pillar of the U.S. Department of Defense’s Joint All-Domain Command and Control (JADC2) vision. IBCS’s capability to fuse data from joint service sensors to create and distribute a single integrated air picture is particularly key.

 

[Kirkhill]

In the context of IAMD (Integrated Air Missile Defence) and the NORAD/NorthCom mission for the defence of North America I find myself bumping into the newish US concept of the Multi-Domain Task Force.

The US Army intends to field 5 MDTFs,

2 Indo - Pacific (1 Fielded)
1 Europe (1 Fielded)
1 Arctic
1 Global Response (Strategic Reserve)

Multi-Domain Task Forces: A Glimpse at the Army of 2035

*/ /*-->*/ /*-->*/ /*-->*/ */

www.ausa.org

Army accepts delivery of first prototype MRC battery

Middle River, MD. – The US Army accepted delivery of the first prototype Mid-Range Capability (MRC) battery. The MRC provides a land-based, ground-launc...

www.army.mil

HIMARS Battery with the PrSM will have a range of 500 km from air transportable launchers.
MRC Battery with the Typhon/Mk70 PDS (40 ft ISO Containers) will have a range out to 1500 miles with Tomahawk and SM6 missiles
LRHW Battery has a planned/announced range of 2000 NM

In addition there is an AD Battalion and an ERSE Company - the latter presumably incorporating MQ-9 type assets (>5000 NM).

....

If Canada is going to pony up its 2% why not take on the Arctic MDTF as a national responsibility and a contribution to NORAD?
My personal addition would be for the Long Range "Drones" to supplement ERSE with a faster strike capability that also gives a loitering capability (5600 km range).

If anybody is operating in the Arctic, why not us?

 

[GR66]

In the context of IAMD (Integrated Air Missile Defence) and the NORAD/NorthCom mission for the defence of North America I find myself bumping into the newish US concept of the Multi-Domain Task Force.

The US Army intends to field 5 MDTFs,

2 Indo - Pacific (1 Fielded)
1 Europe (1 Fielded)
1 Arctic
1 Global Response (Strategic Reserve)

Multi-Domain Task Forces: A Glimpse at the Army of 2035

*/ /*-->*/ /*-->*/ /*-->*/ */

www.ausa.org

View attachment 88773

Army accepts delivery of first prototype MRC battery

Middle River, MD. – The US Army accepted delivery of the first prototype Mid-Range Capability (MRC) battery. The MRC provides a land-based, ground-launc...

www.army.mil

HIMARS Battery with the PrSM will have a range of 500 km from air transportable launchers.
MRC Battery with the Typhon/Mk70 PDS (40 ft ISO Containers) will have a range out to 1500 miles with Tomahawk and SM6 missiles
LRHW Battery has a planned/announced range of 2000 NM

In addition there is an AD Battalion and an ERSE Company - the latter presumably incorporating MQ-9 type assets (>5000 NM).

....

If Canada is going to pony up its 2% why not take on the Arctic MDTF as a national responsibility and a contribution to NORAD?
My personal addition would be for the Long Range "Drones" to supplement ERSE with a faster strike capability that also gives a loitering capability (5600 km range).

If anybody is operating in the Arctic, why not us?

Rather than investing in strike assets for the Arctic I'd prefer to spend that money on AD/BMD capabilities to make use of the increased sensing capabilities that will be provided by the NORAD modernization project.

 

[Kirkhill]

Rather than investing in strike assets for the Arctic I'd prefer to spend that money on AD/BMD capabilities to make use of the increased sensing capabilities that will be provided by the NORAD modernization project.

So you would prefer to leave the actual arctic fight decisions in the hands of our neighbours?

I'd prefer to be able to tell them "We've got this."

 

[MilEME09]

Rather than investing in strike assets for the Arctic I'd prefer to spend that money on AD/BMD capabilities to make use of the increased sensing capabilities that will be provided by the NORAD modernization project.

any strike asset for the arctic could be used else where, to its investing in a capability to be able to conduct deep strikes on our adversaries we are investing in. As Ukraine has proved, defense for AD can only go so far, missiles will still get through. The only way to guarantee you don't get hit, is to take out the enemies ability to conduct the strike in the first place.

 

[GR66]

So you would prefer to leave the actual arctic fight decisions in the hands of our neighbours?

I'd prefer to be able to tell them "We've got this."

Building defence capability is like building a successful hockey team...you start from the goal line out.

Right now we have the ability to detect direct missile threats to Canadian territory (which will improve with NORAD modernization) but limited ability to actually counter those threats (AA missiles on our CF-18's and SAM's from our Frigates if they happen to be in a position to intercept).

As far as GBAD and BMD options we are currently 100% dependent on the United States to defend us against a serious threat. So yes, I put adding that capability before a long range strike capability on the priority list.

Doesn't mean I wouldn't like to see Canada have a long range strike capability (air launched, ship launched, sub launched and ground launched) but in my opinion missile defence (in particular BMD) is a significantly higher priority in terms of defending our sovereignty.

 

[Kirkhill]

Building defence capability is like building a successful hockey team...you start from the goal line out.

Right now we have the ability to detect direct missile threats to Canadian territory (which will improve with NORAD modernization) but limited ability to actually counter those threats (AA missiles on our CF-18's and SAM's from our Frigates if they happen to be in a position to intercept).

As far as GBAD and BMD options we are currently 100% dependent on the United States to defend us against a serious threat. So yes, I put adding that capability before a long range strike capability on the priority list.

Doesn't mean I wouldn't like to see Canada have a long range strike capability (air launched, ship launched, sub launched and ground launched) but in my opinion missile defence (in particular BMD) is a significantly higher priority in terms of defending our sovereignty.

So buy SM6s ..... lots of them.

Better yet, make them.

 

[Kirkhill]

https://www.rtx.com/raytheon/what-we-do/sea/sm-6-missile

RIM-174 Standard ERAM - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

One missile, the RIM-174 ERAM Standard SM6

It was designed for extended-range anti-air warfare (ER-AAW) purposes, providing capability against fixed and rotary-wing aircraft, unmanned aerial vehicles, anti-ship cruise missiles in flight, both over sea and land, and terminal ballistic missile defense. It can also be used as a high-speed anti-ship missile.

It can be launched from the Mk41 VLS installed on a ship or emplaced on land. It can be launched from the containerised Mk70 Payload Delivery System on land and at sea on the back of any compatible transport. Consequently it can be transported by truck, rail, ship or air (C17).

And there is a new variant, the AIM-174

AIM-174B - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Could they be made compatible with the CF-18? The CF-35? The P-8?

....

The MDTF allows for three "flying" units or sub-units.

An Air Defense Battalion
A Strategic Fires Battalion
An Extended Range Sensing and Effects Company.

The Americans are working their way through the mix of weapons. I don't think their preliminary mix has to be the same as our preliminary mix.

Suppose, for starters, we ditched the LRHW requirement and swapped that out for an SM6 battery, or a second SM6/Tomahawk battery?
For the AD Battalion (Regiment) we built that around the SM6, the ESSM/AIM-120 and the AIM-9? Perhaps some SkyNex batteries?
Maybe we retain the HIMARS battery, enlarge it or add another, to give mobile/expeditionary strike capability?

Leave the LRHW to the Americans to work out, and to supply if and when.

The missile inventory would be common across platforms and services.

...

An adjunct to the 2nd Canadian Division (modeled on the US 11th Abn Div with two small brigades and the CRPG).

1st Canadian Division could be modeled after the WW2 Armoured Division with 1 armoured brigade and 1 motorized brigade.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

https://www.rtx.com/raytheon/what-we-do/sea/sm-6-missile

RIM-174 Standard ERAM - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

One missile, the RIM-174 ERAM Standard SM6



It can be launched from the Mk41 VLS installed on a ship or emplaced on land. It can be launched from the containerised Mk70 Payload Delivery System on land and at sea on the back of any compatible transport. Consequently it can be transported by truck, rail, ship or air (C17).

And there is a new variant, the AIM-174

AIM-174B - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Could they be made compatible with the CF-18? The CF-35? The P-8?

....

The MDTF allows for three "flying" units or sub-units.

An Air Defense Battalion
A Strategic Fires Battalion
An Extended Range Sensing and Effects Company.

The Americans are working their way through the mix of weapons. I don't think their preliminary mix has to be the same as our preliminary mix.

Suppose, for starters, we ditched the LRHW requirement and swapped that out for an SM6 battery, or a second SM6/Tomahawk battery?
For the AD Battalion (Regiment) we built that around the SM6, the ESSM/AIM-120 and the AIM-9? Perhaps some SkyNex batteries?
Maybe we retain the HIMARS battery, enlarge it or add another, to give mobile/expeditionary strike capability?

Leave the LRHW to the Americans to work out, and to supply if and when.

The missile inventory would be common across platforms and services.

...

An adjunct to the 2nd Canadian Division (modeled on the US 11th Abn Div with two small brigades and the CRPG).

1st Canadian Division could be modeled after the WW2 Armoured Division with 1 armoured brigade and 1 motorized brigade.

The Canadian Rangers enable conventional forces but do not undertake direct combat operations. Envisioning them as part of an 11th ABN style formation (which has global remits) shows a misunderstanding of both elements' roles.

The MDTF is the US Army answer to the problem of Chinese and Russian Anti-Access Area Denial (A2AD). It is a theatre-level asset (think Corps as the lowest Land Component Command) intended to punch into and disable the A2AD system of an adversary.

 

[Kirkhill]

The Canadian Rangers enable conventional forces but do not undertake direct combat operations. Envisioning them as part of an 11th ABN style formation (which has global remits) shows a misunderstanding of both elements' roles.

The MDTF is the US Army answer to the problem of Chinese and Russian Anti-Access Area Denial (A2AD). It is a theatre-level asset (think Corps as the lowest Land Component Command) intended to punch into and disable the A2AD system of an adversary.

The MDTF is a solution universally applicable. Essentially one per theater. One firm expeditionary base from which to launch a Corps.

They are ISR rich assets with the ability to strike anywhere throughout the theater of interest.

2 for the Indo Pacific
1 for Europe
1 for the Arctic
1 Global Response.

I am suggesting that we relieve the US Army of responsibility for the Arctic, in which we have an entrenched interest, and guarantee them a safe and secure base of operations so that they do not have to worry about our space and can either deploy their MDTF "Arctic" elsewhere or they can spend the money otherwise.

With respect to the 2nd Canadian Division and the Rangers. I am fully cognizant that the Rangers are not a conventional force and I do not expect that they will be converted into a conventional force. I would keep the Rangers organized and tasked exactly as they are. I would, however put them under the command of a Canadian Army Division HQ that is tasked solely with the defence of Canada and North America.

That Division I would also assign two weak brigades after the fashion of the 11th Abns two weak brigades, or the 25th Infs two weak brigades or the 7th Infs two weak brigades. As people never tire of telling me the threat to Canada and North America is not great, nor is it conventional. So the 2nd Div, in my view, would be more likely to be involved in Situational Awareness, in which the Canadian Rangers specialize, and responding rapidly in small forces (Coy and Platoon).

I would fix that 2nd Division in place. As I would the MDTF (Canada). Canada is geographically a theater unto itself. And the associations with NORAD/Northcom would be permanent.

The 1st Canadian Division - put all the rest of the Canadian Army in there - 2 Brigades plus Division Troops - and use the WW2 Armoured Divs as a model.

Then you have two combatant Div HQs, one for expeditions and one for national defence, a body of troops that can be expanded and 4 Brigades that can be chopped to either of the Div HQs.

....

 

[Kirkhill]

PREPARE TO LAUNCH

Two new missile programs deliver enhanced capabilities to thwart emerging threats and bolster joint force effectiveness.

www.army.mil

The article goes into detail on the development of the planned effectors for the MDTF

There are three levels based on three launcher and missile combinations.

The longest range system is the 1725 mile (2750 km) LRHW or Long Range Hypersonic Missile with its bespoke towed launcher

The next tier is the MRC or Mid Range Capability based on the USN's Tomahawks and SM6s and the containerized Mk70 Payload Delivery System with ranges in the vicinity of 1500 km (OS) but constantly being improved and increased.

The third tier is based on the HIMARs launcher and the PrSM or Precision Strike Missile. The PrSM is being fielded in 4 increments

Increment 1 is being fielded as the ATACMS replacement and has a range of 500 km

Increment 2 has been tested as an LBASM or Land Based Anti-Ship Missile and has a range of 1000 km. It is faster than Increment 1 and has a multi-mode seeker. First Procurement by the Marines and the Aussies is planned for 2028.

Increment 3 apparently is the portmanteau project for developing new payloads for the missile with no delivery schedule in place

Increment 4 is the project to push the range of the missile family out beyond 1000 km - to infinity and beyond.

....

Projecting those ranges onto the Arctic Ocean, and assuming Alert is the regional high ground ...



The yellow circle is the LRHW at 2750 km
The red circles are the MRC range bands in 500 km increments
The small blue circle is the PrSM 1 at 500 km
Those are all within the competency of the MDTF programme as stated.

The green circles are similar capabilities if launched from existing Russian bases on Franz Josef Land and Wrangel Island.

And, for information, the large blue circle is that one way range of the Valkyrie MQ-58A. Like the missiles it too is runway independent and can be transported in a container that will fit inside a C17.

The HIMARS system fits inside a C130.

...

We don't need to permanently station any effectors at Alert. They can be kept nice and secure (and warm) in Ottawa or Trenton. As can most of the IntOps of the Multi-Domain Effects Battalion.

But we could rapidly fly the batteries into battery if the international situation demanded it. Our own A2AD capability that would also assist our NATO and NORAD allies in securing their flanks.

 

[Good2Golf]

I am suggesting that we relieve the US Army of responsibility for the Arctic, in which we have an entrenched interest, and guarantee them a safe and secure base of operations so that they do not have to worry about our space and can either deploy their MDTF "Arctic" elsewhere or they can spend the money otherwise.

The US doesn’t, and frankly shouldn’t ever, trust Canada to relieve itself of any responsibility in a regions where it has national-level interest. ‘Guarantee’ them [US] a safe and secure base of operations? You think more of Canada and its will to defend itself and allies than the US does. Canada can’t even maintain integrity of all aspects of its territory now (365-day marine presence in the North). Canada has neither the will nor the capacity to implement an MDTF…ever.

 

[Kirkhill]

The US doesn’t, and frankly shouldn’t ever, trust Canada to relieve itself of any responsibility in a regions where it has national-level interest. ‘Guarantee’ them [US] a safe and secure base of operations? You think more of Canada and its will to defend itself and allies than the US does. Canada can’t even maintain integrity of all aspects of its territory now (365-day marine presence in the North). Canada has neither the will nor the capacity to implement an MDTF…ever.

I take your point. Unfortunately. And I suspect that even if we stood up our own national MDTF Arctic the Americans would stand up a parallel one. So the solution would be the NORAD solution. A jointly manned system. If we don't offer up the possibility of Alert I am pretty sure that the Danes will offer up the possibility of Greenland and we would lose all say in Arctic operations.

 

[Furniture]

PREPARE TO LAUNCH

Two new missile programs deliver enhanced capabilities to thwart emerging threats and bolster joint force effectiveness.

www.army.mil

The article goes into detail on the development of the planned effectors for the MDTF

There are three levels based on three launcher and missile combinations.

The longest range system is the 1725 mile (2750 km) LRHW or Long Range Hypersonic Missile with its bespoke towed launcher

The next tier is the MRC or Mid Range Capability based on the USN's Tomahawks and SM6s and the containerized Mk70 Payload Delivery System with ranges in the vicinity of 1500 km (OS) but constantly being improved and increased.

The third tier is based on the HIMARs launcher and the PrSM or Precision Strike Missile. The PrSM is being fielded in 4 increments

Increment 1 is being fielded as the ATACMS replacement and has a range of 500 km

Increment 2 has been tested as an LBASM or Land Based Anti-Ship Missile and has a range of 1000 km. It is faster than Increment 1 and has a multi-mode seeker. First Procurement by the Marines and the Aussies is planned for 2028.

Increment 3 apparently is the portmanteau project for developing new payloads for the missile with no delivery schedule in place

Increment 4 is the project to push the range of the missile family out beyond 1000 km - to infinity and beyond.

....

Projecting those ranges onto the Arctic Ocean, and assuming Alert is the regional high ground ...

View attachment 88805

The yellow circle is the LRHW at 2750 km
The red circles are the MRC range bands in 500 km increments
The small blue circle is the PrSM 1 at 500 km
Those are all within the competency of the MDTF programme as stated.

The green circles are similar capabilities if launched from existing Russian bases on Franz Josef Land and Wrangel Island.

And, for information, the large blue circle is that one way range of the Valkyrie MQ-58A. Like the missiles it too is runway independent and can be transported in a container that will fit inside a C17.

The HIMARS system fits inside a C130.

...

We don't need to permanently station any effectors at Alert. They can be kept nice and secure (and warm) in Ottawa or Trenton. As can most of the IntOps of the Multi-Domain Effects Battalion.

But we could rapidly fly the batteries into battery if the international situation demanded it. Our own A2AD capability that would also assist our NATO and NORAD allies in securing their flanks.

There are better places to put those sorts of systems than Alert. Alert is a very long way from help if things go bad, and has a very rough airfield.

We have other arctic options, that have better runways.

 

[FJAG]

There are better places to put those sorts of systems than Alert. Alert is a very long way from help if things go bad, and has a very rough airfield.

We have other arctic options, that have better runways.

Alaska and Norway would provide good coverage of the area in question as well as other, more strategic areas as well.

 

[Kirkhill]

There are better places to put those sorts of systems than Alert. Alert is a very long way from help if things go bad, and has a very rough airfield.

We have other arctic options, that have better runways.

Alaska and Norway would provide good coverage of the area in question as well as other, more strategic areas as well.

And Alert is well advanced into the Arctic Ocean and in the secure territory of Canada. Alaska is more remote from Norway and the GIUK gap and Norway is too proximate to the actual threat. Would you position an ATACMS battery on your own FEBA? Or would you take advantage of its stand-off range?

Alert stands as an advanced battery that dominates the entire Arctic with the package of missiles envisaged with the MDTF.

 

[Furniture]

And Alert is well advanced into the Arctic Ocean and in the secure territory of Canada. Alaska is more remote from Norway and the GIUK gap and Norway is too proximate to the actual threat. Would you position an ATACMS battery on your own FEBA? Or would you take advantage of its stand-off range?

Alert stands as an advanced battery that dominates the entire Arctic with the package of missiles envisaged with the MDTF.

Alert is a massive target, with zero support close by. In reality, I suspect Alert will be abandoned and flipped to "auto" as soon as a realistic threat in the arctic shows up.

Have you ever even been to Alert in peace time to see how remote it actually is? It's about as remote as anyone can get in the northern hemisphere... You don't plan to fight from your remote listening posts.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Meanwhile back in Canada 1990's....

 

[quadrapiper]

Meanwhile back in Canada 1990's....

View attachment 88907

Possibly accidental comment on the state of our rail network, as well.