Would the single cab, flatbed version of the Bushmaster not be ideal for this? 4m long tray x almost 2.5m wide.
Were you thinking the box launchers or a lightweight launcher? The box launchers are usually deployed on larger trucks. Bushie with a lightweight launcher? Perhaps but we would be adding a new vehicle type and the original flat bed Bushie never made the cut anyway.
The Hawkei with a 4 or 5 round launcher will give us a protected, highly mobile and easily deployed system. Perhaps Defence will head towards the box launchers on HX but as everything get's bigger - so does the cost, including the ongoing costs of sustainment. The highly mobile launchers will have three components that are or will be in the ADF inventory - missiles, aircraft launch rails & Hawkei. I am pro commonality and simplicity. I am also still a taxpayer.
Hi BigM, was referring to the box launchers. I assumed box launcher would probably be preferred as it's mostly shroud to protect those million dollar missiles from extreme weather and transport damage. I am under the impression that the rails are the same. The base has some manner of hydraulics to allow it to be positioned independently from the vehicle and remotely operated to some degree which is probably of some operational value.
The Spanish mount their box launchers on 6x6 Iveco-Pegaso M250 trucks with length to spare so the SC Bushmaster tray should fit it just nicely. I brought up the Bushmaster because (based on my box launcher assumption) it would at least still have the same moving parts as other current variants, making it simple to support and maintain with what is already in service. It would also offer greater off road mobility than a truck could do, in a similar manner to the Hawkei.
Agree that the smaller package you highlighted is significantly easier to air transport, which is a very, very big plus, but I'm not sure it's significantly simpler or more common than the above.
We can only guess in the meantime though. Nice to chat mate, cheers!
Boagrius
Well-Known Member
Sounds promising. Now nobody tell Boeing or they'll try to slap a pair on their latest Super Duper Hornet Blk XIV+++ and call it god's gift to air supremacy
::lol3 In all seriousness though, the picture also gives a good perspective on where AMRAAM and AMRAAM-ER get their longer legs from. Cheers for that.
Thank you Zhaktronz for the image. The AMRAAM-ER is the big boy in that trio.Sounds promising. Now nobody tell Boeing or they'll try to slap a pair on their latest Super Duper Hornet Blk XIV+++ and call it god's gift to air supremacy
In all seriousness though, the picture also gives a good perspective on where AMRAAM and AMRAAM-ER get their longer legs from. Cheers for that.
On the Advance Super Hornet? - I couldn't see a pair - let's put one on the center line and see how it flys - no seriously.
There's been alot of talk about using F-22 and F-35 in a cooperative engagement capability with 4th gen fighters - but it never really made sense when your longest range missile was an AMRAAM. If you've got 4th Gens with 4-6 AMRAAM-ER a piece, cued by lurking F-22/35 - then we're talking some serious arsenal plane capability.
Agree with lightweight launcher on Hawkei, the heavier box launcher could also be fitted to the the same vehicle as the proposed artillary rockets (HIMARS?).
This would also produce commonality in spares and maintainence .
Those extra bodies in the white paper are tied directly to the new capabilities (GBAD, HIMARS, ASMs etc). As the funding for the new capability is released, so is the authorisation to increase the number of soldiers by the required amount.
Outside of the new capabilities, the army is reducing the size of the force structure to fit inside the current personnel cap, and other new capabilities that don't come with extra bodies (such as under armoured breaching) have to be offset from within the current force.
You could fit the box launchers to the HIMARS vehicle or any similar armoured cab truck but again you would be sacrificing mobility. Think about 16 AL having to move quickly to.........Learmonth WA to support a maritime operation with RAAF & Navy. How many of those big HIMARS type launchers will go into a C17 compared to the lighter Hawkei's? It's about the logistics - two launcher systems just adds. Bigger heavier carrier, again just adds. It may be arguable if Kongsberg offers the box launchers as part of the future coastal anti ship missile requirement. Then by default we have the capability, this weeks anti ship missile launcher is next week's SAM launcher Let's see what the Norwegian Army up comes up with in their recently announced NASAMS purchase. There may be an armoured carrier version. Also, I am only punting on what we may end up with - defence purchasing is politics - like it or not.
Because it is popular on the internet to think the AMRAAM no longer has sufficient range for it's mission, particular in comparison to competitor missiles and is a bit behind the curve, as they see it.
Neverminding of course, that some countries that operate some of these competitor missles, continue to buy AMRAAM as well...
Last edited:
Especially as everyone knows Russian missiles can orbit the globe three times in 2.5 seconds while punching through multiple F-35s before turning their attention to ground targets and finally expending themselves with a kinetic kill on an aircraft carrier.
AMRAAM ER does sound interesting though in that it could give legacy platforms a greater stand off range. I wonder if they could be deployed defensively from AEW or other command / surveillance platforms. Besides we are talking GBAD so the extra coverage potential would be a plus, especially with the networking the ADF has / is developing.
Last edited by a moderator:
Boagrius
Well-Known Member
This is what I was thinking. ESSM/AMRAAM-ER was always meant to take off from a standing start, so would not surprise me if its effective engagement envelope in GBAD is that much better vs AMRAAM (which functions best via launch at speed in higher, thinner air?).
Not like it would be deficient at short range either - ESSM already does all the heavy lifting at short range for the RAN surface fleet as it is.
Last edited:
AMRAAM-ER can out range attempts to 'shoot the archer' that is your 4th gen missile truck. AIM-120D - less so.
Alternatively it can support penetrating F-22/35 deep within the enemy IADS zone.
Plus, assuming it can withstand the rigours of external carriage (large if) most of the development costs are already paid.
EDIT: Look dont get me wrong - AIM-120D almost certainly has long enough range for now - just in the future (late 2020s?) you might want an even longer range capability and the option would be there with AMRAAM-ER maybe
Was not thinking of having both launcher vehicles in service, but rather either one or the other.
Not sure of the size and weight of the individual launcher boxes so I may be talking s**t.
But to use your example, would if but better to deploy 2 Hawkei each with 4 launcher rails or to deploy 1 heavier vehicle with say 12 launcher boxes and the ability to carry it own reloads.
I have seen the box launchers on 6x6 & 8x8 carrier vehicles. The launch units are 6 box. The launchers are dismounted to fire, so not self propelled in the true sense. If you want to shoot and scoot, then big carrier vehicle has too pick up the launcher and move it. For me, if we can get a 5 round launcher on the Hawkei, then the extra round in box launcher is not a big plus. More fire units will give a more resilient network, remembering that launchers can be some km from each other and form an area defence system networking with multiple sensors.
Boagrius
Well-Known Member
Good point. You could really lay some very nasty SAM traps once you start to factor in data sharing from other ISR nodes. Might not even have to fire up the resident CEA AESA set if you can get your targeting data from the local Wedgetail or DDG. Possibilities...
Exactly. I think this project brings great additional capability to the ADF as a whole. I think RAAF will see it as a great capability. NASAMS is a serious air defence system. Also, I don't work for Raytheon or Kongsberg.
Boagrius
Well-Known Member
Absolutely, and if the RAAF end up with something like MEADS under AIR6500 then the difference between AMRAAM and AMRAAM-ER/ESSM might not be that meaningful in the grand scheme of things. Time shall tell I guess! Just glad to be having the discussion at all TBH
Given the RAAF corporate knowledge with AMRAAM, air defence and data linked environments it would almost be worth this system residing with them...
Regarding the ER - absolutely it is meant to overcome the kinematic limitations of shooting from 0kts at 0ft... going uphill in dense air a standard amraam will be compromised. I dont buy thibk we wil see it strapped to a jet anytime soon, could well be wrong though....
Regarding the ER - absolutely it is meant to overcome the kinematic limitations of shooting from 0kts at 0ft... going uphill in dense air a standard amraam will be compromised. I dont buy thibk we wil see it strapped to a jet anytime soon, could well be wrong though....