Informing the Army’s Future Structure

[Kirkhill]

Deep breath. Reset.

Let's try and keep Humphrey out of Dire Straits.

4th Regiment (General Support) has responsibility for Air Space Coordination, STA Coordination and the development of Ground Based Air Defence.

Its primary purchase to date is the EL/M-2084 Multi Mission Radar, employed as a Medium Range Radar, 10 units, an Israeli ground-based mobile 3D AESA multi-mission radar (MMR) family produced by ELTA, a subsidiary of Israel Aerospace Industries and supplied by Rheinmetall in Quebec.

Rheinmetall also has experience delivering Skyguard, Skyshield and MANTIS VSHORAD and C-RAM air defence systems integrating guns and missiles.

I am also aware of the NASAMs system which disperses unmanned palletized pods of missiles up to 25 km from their Fire Direction Centres.

So here is the question:

What would it take to make it possible for 4 Regiment to be able to utilize all of the missiles currently in the Canadian inventory, as well as those anticipated?

The Navy uses ESSM and Harpoon, has used SM2 and is projecting the potential use of SM3/SM6 and Tomahawk as well as the NSM and CAMM.

The Air Force use AIM 9 and AIM 120. And its aircraft (Hornets and Auroras) are used by other air forces to launch Harpoons. It also uses the CRV-7 70mm rocket.


And here is the second question:

With the infrastructure in place to launch GBAD missiles from fixed sites (port and airfield defence - sites from which you can not manoeuver away) what would it take to add emplaced Long Range Precision Fires to the capabilities - another capability for which the 4th regiment is purportedly responsible?

If the RCN can defend a location from which it can launch offensive strikes, helicopters, VTOL UASs, and maintain local situation awareness with multiple radars and eo/ir systems, 24/7, with a Company of 204 what would it take for the Artillery's 4th Regiment to emulate that?



It is my belief that if that set of capabilities could be clarified, defined and vested in the army's structure as a divisional asset then it would clarify the roles of the brigades and the units working for them. That in turn would set the kit requirements and the PY requirements and then the Reg/Reserve requirements.


I suggest that we start by making the best use of the technologies already available to us.


And, I apologize unreservedly for allowing my temper to get the better of me. I know enough to know I don't know enough.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

We have not used CRV-7s for decades.

 

[Kirkhill]

We have not used CRV-7s for decades.

Thanks

 

[FJAG]

Deep breath. Reset.

Let's try and keep Humphrey out of Dire Straits.

4th Regiment (General Support) has responsibility for Air Space Coordination, STA Coordination and the development of Ground Based Air Defence.
...

So here is the question:

What would it take to make it possible for 4 Regiment to be able to utilize all of the missiles currently in the Canadian inventory, as well as those anticipated?

Okay. The previous version of 4RCA (GS) (i.e. 4 AD Regt) was responsible for all things AD as a deployable unit. "Development" of GBAD capabilities as in project definition, evaluation selection, procurement etc" are under a number of Agencies in the Army. The centre for expertise in keeping a minor level of currency in the subject stays with the Artillery school at the CTC.

4RCA(GS) is now the unit that operates MMRs for target acquisition, STACCs for STA coordination, BLackjack UAVs and ASCCs for air space coordination. They have no direct role in AD per se at this point. My guess is that once the project gets closer to coming on line, a decision will be made on how to implement it and I'd be surprised if 4RCA(GS) doesn't get a role in that. A lot depends on the scale of the project as we've had AD batteries as parts of RCHA close support regiments in the past, systems with the Res F and elements with 4 AD.

To answer your question as best as it can be, 4RCA(GS) and the Artillery School are probably the organizations in the Army most capable at this point in time of assisting with the overall implementation of such a program. I have zero idea as to whether the GBAD project has any mandate to work on the integration of the GBAD system with any other system.

One concern I have for GBAD is that the contemplated budget is between $250 - 499 million which isn't very much for a complex system which is to counter everything from drones to inflight projectiles from both ground and air delivery systems.

So the answer to your question at the end of the day is - sure - , 4RCA(GS), if it becomes the GBAD agency, could integrate other AD systems IF the project specifications require it and the necessary command and control data linkage is part of the SOR and is acquired.

 

[GR66]

Okay. The previous version of 4RCA (GS) (i.e. 4 AD Regt) was responsible for all things AD as a deployable unit. "Development" of GBAD capabilities as in project definition, evaluation selection, procurement etc" are under a number of Agencies in the Army. The centre for expertise in keeping a minor level of currency in the subject stays with the Artillery school at the CTC.

4RCA(GS) is now the unit that operates MMRs for target acquisition, STACCs for STA coordination, BLackjack UAVs and ASCCs for air space coordination. They have no direct role in AD per se at this point. My guess is that once the project gets closer to coming on line, a decision will be made on how to implement it and I'd be surprised if 4RCA(GS) doesn't get a role in that. A lot depends on the scale of the project as we've had AD batteries as parts of RCHA close support regiments in the past, systems with the Res F and elements with 4 AD.

To answer your question as best as it can be, 4RCA(GS) and the Artillery School are probably the organizations in the Army most capable at this point in time of assisting with the overall implementation of such a program. I have zero idea as to whether the GBAD project has any mandate to work on the integration of the GBAD system with any other system.

One concern I have for GBAD is that the contemplated budget is between $250 - 499 million which isn't very much for a complex system which is to counter everything from drones to inflight projectiles from both ground and air delivery systems.

So the answer to your question at the end of the day is - sure - , 4RCA(GS), if it becomes the GBAD agency, could integrate other AD systems IF the project specifications require it and the necessary command and control data linkage is part of the SOR and is acquired.

Curious...is there some kind of logical/technical cut-off point between where a counter UAV/VSHORAD system could be integrated directly into an infantry battalion/armoured squadron and when it needs to be split off into a dedicated AD Battery? Does it depend on range bands for aerospace control? Method of detection used (e.g. if a radar system is used), etc.?

 

[daftandbarmy]

Curious...is there some kind of logical/technical cut-off point between where a counter UAV/VSHORAD system could be integrated directly into an infantry battalion/armoured squadron and when it needs to be split off into a dedicated AD Battery? Does it depend on range bands for aerospace control? Method of detection used (e.g. if a radar system is used), etc.?

Given that some types of anti-drone defences can be deployed by 12 gauge shotgun, I'd say you could integrate such technology anywhere. I'm just slightly disappointed that this one isn't connected to the Cyberdyne Corporation :

SKYNET Drone Defense​

Regular price$ 27.00

SKYNET Drone Defense

Maverick Drone Systems activates and deploys enterprise systems for all things unmanned.

www.maverickdrone.com

 

[Kirkhill]

And once again it is all about the Aussies.

LAND 19 Phase 7B will deliver the Army-operated component of the Joint Integrated Air and Missile Defence (JIAMD) capability.

This project will replace the current Short Range Air Defence (SHORAD) capability, including the RBS-70, as the Army's principal air defence weapon. While the Phase 7B solution will be able to operate independently, it will be designed to operate as a subset of the broader JIAMD capability and has a key project interdependency with the Joint Battle Management System to be delivered by project AIR 6500.

The project scope includes acquisition of new capability elements including radars, missile launchers and command & control systems, as well as integration with existing Army vehicles and radios.

Short Range Ground Based Air Defence | Sectors | Defence

CASG Project Short Range Ground Based Air Defence, Land 19 Phase 7B

www1.defence.gov.au

Australia to procure short-range air defence SHORAD capability

The Australian Government has revealed plans to procure short-range air defence (SHORAD) capability to enhance troop safety.

www.army-technology.com

Australia to produce its own guided missiles as part of billion-dollar defence manufacturing plan

Australia will move to produce its own guided missiles under a $1 billion plan to establish a new weapons facility with a global arms manufacturer.

www.abc.net.au

Raytheon Australia

Capability Partner for Australia's Defence.

www.raytheon.com

2.5 BAUSD investment

NASAMs SHORAD system with AIM-120s and AIM-9xs.

Joint Integration with the Air Force and the Navy

Building their own guided missiles

Apparently? Seeking correction.

2 Batteries of 3 Troops - 6 Troops total

Each Troop to comprise 1 Fire Direction Centre, 1 AESA radar, 1 EO/IR vehicle and 3 or more emplaced Multi Missile Launchers or Hawkei roving launchers - equipped with AMRAAMs or Sidewinders.

Other countries are backing into the system in small investments buying troop sets without the missiles for less than 100 MUSD. Others are buying the radars separately.

In Poland's case they have also adapted the NASAMs C4ISR system to mount a couple of NSM firing Coastal Defence squadrons.

null

null

www.defence24.com

 

[Kirkhill]

The Dutch, who also use the NASAMs system, operate Patriot batteries as well as mobile very short range air defence based on 4 Stingers mounted on their Fennek scout car.

 

[Kirkhill]

How a magic box and a new radar delivered a coalition air picture | Canadian Army Today

canadianarmytoday.com

The MRR brings together what were previously separate air defence and surveillance target acquisition functions in one platform. It was initially intended to detect and locate sources of indirect fire such as rocket propelled grenades, mortars and other munitions that were fired at bases in Afghanistan. But in air defence mode, it can identify friend or foe targets such as aircraft at great distance.

Blindback is one of the Air Force’s foremost authorities on Link networks and had volunteered for the exercise when he heard planners needed tactical datalink specialists. He immediately recognized that communicating was going to be a challenge. Though the Alaska NORAD Region (ANR) had communications infrastructure and command and control systems to support the exercise, there was no Link 16 network to connect the MRR in the field to the exercise command centre. However, though the radar troop and Marines would be dispersed and “in the boonies” during the exercise, they could receive a cellphone signal.

The radar troop, based at 5th Canadian Division Support Base Gagetown, N.B., made a pitstop at Best Buy before heading north and bought a 4G modem puck and a sim card. When they plugged it into the spoke kit in the back of their Bison, “boom, we had connectivity,” said Blindback. “We were able to create a computer network and configured the system to pass Link 16 data over the computer network rather than over radio frequency.”


The significance of that became apparent as radios and other equipment used by various Marine, U.S. Army and National Guard units froze or otherwise experienced firmware failures in the frigid conditions. The spoke kit not only connected the MRR to the exercise command, it also provided the air picture to the Canadian and Alaskan regional NORAD command centres and the national chains of command, including Canadian Joint Operations Command in Ottawa.

 

[FJAG]

Curious...is there some kind of logical/technical cut-off point between where a counter UAV/VSHORAD system could be integrated directly into an infantry battalion/armoured squadron and when it needs to be split off into a dedicated AD Battery? Does it depend on range bands for aerospace control? Method of detection used (e.g. if a radar system is used), etc.?

You'd need someone with a lot more technical expertise in data and communication systems to answer that one but linking two or more highly secure and highly specialized C3 system isn't done without a lot of planning and specialized gear and processes. I doubt very much as to whether we have anything in the works that would link Navy and Army systems as suggested here.

 

[Kirkhill]

You'd need someone with a lot more technical expertise in data and communication systems to answer that one but linking two or more highly secure and highly specialized C3 system isn't done without a lot of planning and specialized gear and processes. I doubt very much as to whether we have anything in the works that would link Navy and Army systems as suggested here.

I wonder what we would need to do to get an invite into this place? We used to be on friendly terms.

Raytheon Australia

Capability Partner for Australia's Defence.

www.raytheon.com

AIR6500 Joint Battle Management and Integrated Air and Missile Defence System – Industry Capability Network

icn.org.au

The Royal Australian Air Force’s vision is to transform into a fully networked 5th generation force able to prevail against increasingly complex and lethal threats. Key to this vision is Project AIR 6500, a Joint Air Battle Management System (JABMS) that will interconnect the many disparate platforms, systems and sensors across the air, land, sea, space, electromagnetic and cyber domains into a collaborative environment that provides shared situational awareness of the battlespace and the ability to rapidly plan responses to threats. This JABMS will coordinate and synchronise ADF operations, including the tracking and engagement of forces with an Area of Operations. The JABMS will be deployable in addition to supporting Australian-based capabilities.

The ADF’s existing air defence systems will be upgraded or replaced by Project AIR 6500.

 

[Kirkhill]

Lockheed, Northrop shortlisted for Australian Air Battle Management System

Defence Minister Peter Dutton and Minister for Defence Industry Melissa Price made the joint announcement on Aug. 5.

www.defensenews.com

 

[SeaKingTacco]

You'd need someone with a lot more technical expertise in data and communication systems to answer that one but linking two or more highly secure and highly specialized C3 system isn't done without a lot of planning and specialized gear and processes. I doubt very much as to whether we have anything in the works that would link Navy and Army systems as suggested here.

Link 16?

 

[Kirkhill]

Or other means?

The Army’s medium range radar certainly fit the bill as a niche capability. The MRR brings together what were previously separate air defence and surveillance target acquisition functions in one platform. It was initially intended to detect and locate sources of indirect fire such as rocket propelled grenades, mortars and other munitions that were fired at bases in Afghanistan. But in air defence mode, it can identify friend or foe targets such as aircraft at great distance.

Working alongside the Marines from the back of a LAV II Bison, the radar troop tracked live rocket rounds, accurately identifying the launch and impact points to within a diameter of 60 and 20 metres, respectively. The MRR also supported Special Forces operating at considerable distance, providing accurate location information of their two Chinook helicopters to the Marine Corps commander on the ground.

“One of the biggest things we offered was greater command situational awareness for assets operating in the area of operations, whether that was fixed-wing or rotary-wing assets,” said Lieutenant Travis Fryxell, an artillery officer with the 4th Artillery Regiment (GS).

That the MRR was able to share its air picture was due in no small measure to a little-known RCAF spoke kit, so-called because of its hub and spoke architecture. The magic box, as others quickly dubbed it, “allows you to get that communications infrastructure, no matter where you are in the world, as long as you have some basic rules,” explained Sergeant Tim Blindback, a Joint Interface Control Officer with 21 Aerospace Control and Warning Squadron at 22 Wing North Bay, Ont., the Canadian Air Defence Sector for NORAD.

“The box allows you to plug in a cell phone and as long as you have internet connectivity in any way, shape or form, you can get a good, secure connection back to home base and out into the world.”

Blindback is one of the Air Force’s foremost authorities on Link networks and had volunteered for the exercise when he heard planners needed tactical datalink specialists. He immediately recognized that communicating was going to be a challenge. Though the Alaska NORAD Region (ANR) had communications infrastructure and command and control systems to support the exercise, there was no Link 16 network to connect the MRR in the field to the exercise command centre. However, though the radar troop and Marines would be dispersed and “in the boonies” during the exercise, they could receive a cellphone signal.

The radar troop, based at 5th Canadian Division Support Base Gagetown, N.B., made a pitstop at Best Buy before heading north and bought a 4G modem puck and a sim card. When they plugged it into the spoke kit in the back of their Bison, “boom, we had connectivity,” said Blindback. “We were able to create a computer network and configured the system to pass Link 16 data over the computer network rather than over radio frequency.”

The significance of that became apparent as radios and other equipment used by various Marine, U.S. Army and National Guard units froze or otherwise experienced firmware failures in the frigid conditions. The spoke kit not only connected the MRR to the exercise command, it also provided the air picture to the Canadian and Alaskan regional NORAD command centres and the national chains of command, including Canadian Joint Operations Command in Ottawa.

“That was huge because we did not have that capability before,” said Marshall. “[The Link and MRR teams] were the star of the show. They got to do a lot more than we expected, even with the grand scale of this exercise.”

Getting two systems to share data might not seem that remarkable. But “having it actually communicate with NORAD, because of the encryption and all the different computer systems and software languages, was a marvel,” said Fryxell.

No one had ever envisioned deploying the spoke kit – two heavy servers in a large Pelican case – in the back of an armoured vehicle, admitted Blindback. Though it was “overkill” for the purposes of Arctic Edge, it was a creative solution and an example of how to “make the best use of what you have at the time.

“It was designed to support forward deployments in other countries, like standing up a headquarters,” he explained. “It was meant to serve every possible network need that you might require. We only wanted connectivity to one network. But we saw the opportunity and we happened to have one for use. It took a lot of work to get it into place, but it worked out really well.”

For Blindback’s 22 Wing team, which was co-located with the exercise headquarters and served as the bridge to the MRR troop in the field, being able to provide the HQ staff with a complete air picture, including blue force tracking, and facilitate text messaging and basic chat over a secure connection, was gratifying.

“The Americans were ecstatic. They were able to look at the Ex staff and say, ‘We have active TDLs (tactical datalinks) in the field.’ That was something they weren’t able to accomplish domestically because of those problems with the equipment failures,” he said. “It gave the Ex the only TDL component that it would have had otherwise, and it proved Canada can show up and get stuff done.”

How a magic box and a new radar delivered a coalition air picture | Canadian Army Today

canadianarmytoday.com

 

[blacktriangle]

Or other means?

It sounds like it was still Link 16 data being passed, just via a different transmission medium. JREAP perhaps? Dunno.

 

[Kirkhill]

It sounds like it was still Link 16 data being passed, just via a different transmission medium. JREAP perhaps? Dunno.

I think you're right. But it is nothing that I understand. On the other had there is apparently as Sergeant in North Bay that does.

 

[Kirkhill]

OK - so this should probably be in the GBAD section but Force 2025 seems to be all consuming.

Norway - NASAMs GBAD - built by Kongsberg

The Norwegian structure seems to be based on a mobile emplaced Battery with a CTOC. The components are pallet mounted and transported by truck or helicopter to the Defended Locality for emplacement

The Battery has four troops each controlled by a 2 man Fire Direction Centre. Under command are 2 automated radar units, an EO/IR spotter and 3 Muli Missile Launchers each capable of launching 6 AMRAAMs, ESSMs or Sidewinders.

The Dutch bought 2 single troop batteries each with a single CTOC, FDC, EO/IR and Radar and 3 MMLs launching AIM-120 AMRAAMS- They paid 60 MUSD for the two troops.

The Indonesians also bought the same configuration as the Dutch and paid 77 MUSD. They also paid an additional 95 MUSD for 36 AIM-120 C-7 AMRAAMs.



On the more mobile front the Germans procured a Light Anti-Aircraft System based on their Wiesel/Ozelot tankette.

They purchased 7 Battery CPs, 7 single Wiesel vehicles in total and 10 platoon sets.

Each Platoon set is commanded by one Wiesel CP with a Commander, Radar Operator and Driver and a Radar and EO/IR system. Typically each platoon consists of a CP and 5 Wiesels with 4 ready to launch Stingers and an EO/IR sight.

The system can operate independently or netted.

The Greeks bought the system and mounted it on 16 HMMVWs with each vehicle incorporating a radar, EO/IR and ready to launch missiles.

The Finns also bought the system mounting it in 54 containers that can be carried on UniMog 5000s.

The system has also been proposed for mounting in Boxers with newer missiles and radars as well as in navalized containers for use at sea.


For close in, emplaced defence, or C-RAM (Counter Rocket Artillery and Missiles) Rheinmetall offers the MANTIS system.

The German Army purchased two MANTIS sets with training, manuals and ammunition for 144.2 MEUR. Each set consists of a 2 man Fire Direction Centre, two automated EO/IR-Radar Sensor Packages, and 6 35mm Millenium AHEAD guns. All components are pallet mounted and transportable by truck, in transport aircraft or under MH/HH helicopters.

The US adopted their navy's Phalanx CIWS as the basis of their C-RAM program and have modified it with SeaRAM missiles, lasers and specialized 20mm ammunition.

Canada's GBAD intent​

Funding Range​

$250 million to $499 million

Anticipated Timeline (Fiscal Year)​

• 2019/2020 Start Options Analysis
• 2020/2021 Start Definition
• 2023/2024 Start Implementation
• 2026/2027 Initial Delivery
• 2029/2030 Final Delivery

LeFlaSys (ASRAD) Short-Range Air Defence System - Army Technology

The ASRAD-R export version of the LeFlaSys SHORAD missile system. Recommended White Papers Whitepaper Lemur Remote Weapon Station Training for…

www.army-technology.com

Hensoldt, Rheinmetall and Diehl bid for future Germany air defence system

Rheinmetall Electronics, Diehl Defence and Hensoldt Sensors will bid for the future German short-range and very short-range air defence system.

www.army-technology.com

National Advanced Surface to Air Missile System (NASAMS) - Airforce Technology

The National Advanced Surface to Air Missile System (NASAMS) is a medium-range, network-centric air defence system designed and developed jointly…

www.airforce-technology.com

Kongsberg wins contract to supply NASAMS components to Australia

Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace has received a contract from Raytheon Australia to supply National Advanced Surface to Air Missile System (NASAMS) components.

www.army-technology.com

NSM Coastal Defence contract valued at NOK 1,3 Billions with Poland - KONGSBERG

www.kongsberg.com

One common architecture linking C-RAM, SHORAD, V-SHORAD (Mobile) and Long Range Precision Fires (NSM - Sea and Land Attack) with elements drawn from air force, navy and artillery and variously employed depending on how the services are organized nationally.

The German MANTIS system was bought by the Army and then transferred to the Air Force two years later.

 

[Kirkhill]

Based on the above Force 2030

500 MCAD

100 MCAD for a 6 Gun C-RAM troop
100 MCAD for a 3 launcher NASAMs troop
??? MCAD for a Wiesel/Ozelot VSHORAD (Air Mobile) troop/platoon

Opening Bid

3x NASAMs Troops armed from existing weapons stocks with ESSMs, AMRAAMs and Sidewinders
1x C-RAM Troop

Base Battery for expeditionary force

1x 6 vehicle VSHORAD Troop with Stingers.

Force 2035

2nd Battery

Plus LAV6.0 based VSHORAD system.


Still sticking with AT over AD for Force 2025

 

[CBH99]

The reason I asked to hear the thoughts of the folks on this forum about “If we could only get either AT or AD in place soon, which one would you choose and why?” was because for myself - I’m quite torn.

And everybody has good points on this. Neither side has any faults.

On the one hand, a modern ATGM system would be fairly easy to absorb into the arsenal. Training would be pretty straightforward, simulators would be fairly affordable and easy to implement, and it could be purchased/acquired in a timely manner. (In theory, anyway…ahem…)

It would give the Army a real punch it doesn’t currently have, making our Army units far more lethal in a pretty cost effective manner.

(Aren’t there guided munitions for the 84mm now, in the most recent versions of both the ammo and the Carl G? Is that possibly an option?)




On the other hand, I’m inclined to agree with Kevin - if the enemy controls the skies above us, we can’t do anything - we can’t move, we can’t emit any electronic signatures at all, we can’t communicate, and the enemy can pick off what they want at their own will.

Having some form of AD system would allow our Army units to do their thing, while taking out the enemy’s ability to do anything other than the same.

Just look at the Ukrainian experience against Russia’s modernized warfare. Their troops couldn’t even use their radios without a barrage of artillery landing on them soon afterwards. And without being able to hide or maneuver freely, the Russians were able to employ some devastating EW capabilities against them.


In terms of purchasing a system that could be implemented by 2025 (essentially 3 years time) - there are options for both.

Could we go through the entire procurement process for a sophisticated, layered AD system…have it purchased…manufactured for us…delivered to us…have troops trained and proficient with it at all levels… in that time period?

I don’t think we could, especially at the pace we do things.

Could we purchase a modern, capable MANPAD system that would allow units to engage drones, helicopters, low flying planes, etc?

Yes, I think we could. The process would be extremely similar to buying the ATGM.



Overall, I’m inclined to agree with KevinB (and whoever else went with the AD option, I’ll catch up on reading this week.)

I go this route assuming quite a few things however:

- that we will be operating in a coalition environment, where a sophisticated AD network is already in place.

- even if it isn’t in place at the time hostilities start, it will very much be a top priority and I imagine will be set up fairly early on in any campaign.

- Coalition air assets will be engaging enemy aircraft. Just in terms of sheer numbers & modern technology, coalition air forces would be clearing the skies of enemy combat aircraft in short order.

- I see far more potential for conflict with China than I do with Russia.

Unlike western politicians who are only focused on winning the next election, talking their way out of scandals, their approval ratings, and pondering “Just how woke do I have to pretend to be?” - Putin is a very smart man, who concerns himself with morr important matters. He is, quite noticeably, one of the smartest people in any debate or any conference. Because if this, I see war fairly unlikely, minus the odd land grab like they did in Ukraine.

I don’t have the same confidence in President Xi.


Happy Monday guys! Start the week off strong

 

[KevinB]

The main reason I said AD - was ATGM's can be done easily when the immediate need jumps up to bite like a snake -- AD take a lot more time and effort to get right - and requires JOINT integration to do properly -- ATGM are an Army only issue - unless the AirForce it putting some on an Attack Helicopter - oh wait...

I see China as the main deference need at this point. SO my main focuses would be Navy #1, I say that as it pains me as an Army centric guy - but the best bang for the buck comes in Sea Power at this point - then a Joint Expeditionary Capability.
Maybe I'll call it the JERC - Joint Expeditionary/Reactionary Capability.
That requires a Joint Approach - as the Army can't do anything if it can't get there and be supported, and the Air Force can't do anything if it can't get there and be supported.
Really only there Navy has a solo role - but also a supporting role to ferry the Joint Forces, and provide support.