- Reaction score
My point is that you have to determine the point at which multi-purpose capability starts to impact the ability to fulfill a specific role.
When your Mechanized Brigade is conducting an assault which of these two do you think is best suited to keep up with your advance and provide your SHORAD coverage?
View attachment 76559
View attachment 76560
I know this is taking the example to the extreme, but I think you can see what I mean.
Commonality where possible and logical.
I will exactly split the difference
Those systems are tactical systems compatible with Divisional Areas of Interest. And they have a broad band of ranges
23 km 130 mm rockets to 500 km PrSMs and the 250 km NSM anti-ship missile.
NASAMS supports the Sidewinder AIM9X, the AMRAAM AIM120 , the AMRAAM-ER, all Air Force missiles and the ESSM Navy missile giving coverage out to 50 km or so.
Just like the CAF went for the meat of the logistics puzzle by picking the Medium Support Vechicles first perhaps we could ask what we could accomplish with those trucks if they were assigned to the artillery.
The VLS trailer could support the entire array of Standard missiles as well as the ESSMs. That means that it can supply ABM and SAM defence against a whole raft of threats. And they might be more appropriate as a deployable container for protecting our own communities as well as our friends. Deliver the box and leave them on site.
Beyond that I am not sure that M-SHORAD is going to achieve all that is expected of it. Are there going to be enough of them to be able to counter the density of UAS systems being encountered in Ukraine? Or does each vehicle need its own ability to defend against UAS and LAMs?