Australian Army Discussions and Updates

buffy9

Active Member
A small article in the Army Newspaper re the future of Force generation.




"Read, Readying and reset are a thing of the past"

Looks like a very significant restructure that throws Plan Beersheba / Keogh out the door, but it's in Army speak so I need and interpreter.

Can anyone assist?

How does this fit with some of the future Army structures mentioned in previous posts.


Welcome any feedback


Regards S
Basically gets rid of the force cycle introduced under Beersheba. Intent seems to be that all units will be of a minimum/nominal degree of 'readiness' with some units being better prepared as necessary. More flexible so contingencies don't throw everything into chaos.

Less of a restructure and more of a reorg. IIRC the force cycle was already falling away even prior to COVID and the bushfires - I recall some Taji deployments being based around units not in the ready brigade.

What is interesting is the brief dot point "some units will be dedicated to supporting modernisation activities," with another noting that every platform in army will be replaced or upgraded in the next 10 years.

Accelerated Warfare and Army in Motion, I suppose...
 

Terran

Active Member
This strikes me as another tricky one, since the only really practical western C-RAM system I am aware of is Iron Dome, and that would trespass quite awkwardly on NASAMS' jurisdiction. Really not sold on the ability of current/planned gun or laser based systems to usefully influence the kind of barrages that a peer opponent (PLAGF/PLARF) could generate.

Same thing goes for C-UAS. Even the MOTS solutions being looked at in the US (eg. IM-SHORAD) strike me as interim place holders with significant practical limitations. We seem to be butting up against a GBAD problem that extends across the western world on this one. Not exactly spoilt for choice!
There are a couple other CRAM systems but with marginal success mostly only suited to fixed base defense. The Rheinmettall MANTIS which uses remote fixed 35mm guns. Phalanx Centurion based around basically a trailer mounted naval Phalanx turret. These are more point defense systems much like their Naval siblings.
Iron Dome is to date the only system west or east that seems to offer both the track record and flexibility. It’s both trailer mounted and able to be used from a vehicle mine a mobile configuration on a heavy truck. I can’t think of any other existing systems that work like it.
 

Boagrius

Well-Known Member
There are a couple other CRAM systems but with marginal success mostly only suited to fixed base defense. The Rhrinmetall MANTIS which uses remote fixed 35mm guns. Phalanx Centurion based around basically a trailer mounted naval Phalanx turret. These are more point defense systems much like their Naval siblings.
Iron Dome is to date the only system west or east that seems to offer both the track record and flexibility. It’s both trailer mounted and able to be used from a vehicle mine a mobile configuration on a heavy truck. I can’t think of any other existing systems that work like it.
Yep, and the problem with the gun-based systems is that you still have to wait until the incoming salvo is on top of you before you even start to knock out any inbounds. It's a bit useless to try and stop ~half a dozen incoming rockets/mortars/shells/whatever when the salvo itself is composed of dozens of them - like a naval vessel trying to absorb a massed AShM raid with only CIWS systems. Iron Dome at least lets you meet dozens of inbounds with dozens of interceptors, as demonstrated in Gaza recently. The problem, though, is that we've already committed to a system that sits pretty squarely in Iron Dome's range envelope (NASAMS... even though it lacks the C-RAM part), so I'd be surprised to see us duplicate that capability here.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Yep, and the problem with the gun-based systems is that you still have to wait until the incoming salvo is on top of you before you even start to knock out any inbounds. It's a bit useless to try and stop ~half a dozen incoming rockets/mortars/shells/whatever when the salvo itself is composed of dozens of them - like a naval vessel trying to absorb a massed AShM raid with only CIWS systems. Iron Dome at least lets you meet dozens of inbounds with dozens of interceptors, as demonstrated in Gaza recently. The problem, though, is that we've already committed to a system that sits pretty squarely in Iron Dome's range envelope (NASAMS... even though it lacks the C-RAM part), so I'd be surprised to see us duplicate that capability here.
Yes Iron Dome is good, but can you fit it on a Boxer, IFV, or an 8 x 8 MAN HGV firing and reloading whilst the vehicle is moving at speed? Can you do that with C-RAM? You are confusing both naval air defence and some GBAD capabilities that require significant assets and capabilities. How does that help a mobile force on the move?

In a ground forces context mobile SHORAD gun systems are not about countering incoming rockets / mortars / shells. They are Air Defence systems with fixed and rotary wing aircraft as primary targets. So I would suggest that you first decide which threat you want to counter first and then suggest how you intend to counter it. Whatever it is, it has to be practical and viable, not some fantastists wet dream. GBAD for ground forces has two basic components - static AD and mobile AD and whilst NASAMS maybe great, it like everything else has its limitations. Can it be vehicle mounted and used to knock down a low flying fixed or rotary wing threat at a distance of 1 - 3km? Or 5km? Can the sensor be mounted on the same vehicle? Can it interface with an E/O sensor package?

Another point to remember is that whatever vehicle your SHORAD system is mounted on has to be able compatible with your mobile forces. So you want mobile AD for your armoured forces and that requires a vehicle that is capable of operating in that environment. It requires both a gun and missile solution because on the modern battlefield, both have a part to play. The missile doesn't need to be something with a long range, probably no more than 10km at most but it must have the capability of knocking out threats such as armoured aircraft (A-10) and armoured helicopters. Mostly MANPAD are used and in the Western context these generally are Mistral, Stinger or Starstreak. Some are mounted in box launchers of 4 missiles or 2 missiles.

The gun should also have AP capability but also be capable of killing RPAS regardless of size. Currently the Rheinmettall 35mm Millennium gun is probably the best around for that and IIRC it can be turret mounted on a vehicle. Also they are supposed to be releasing a 30mm variant of that gun. The advantages of the Millennium gun are that it is a revolver and the AHEAD ammunition it uses.

For the defence against incoming artillery and rocket rounds, you have to have a more specialised defence because of the physical size (small and smaller) and sheer quantity of targets. For example in a 30 minute barrage how many rounds could a regiment of 152mm guns fire onto a specific target? I don't particularly know, but the Russians and Chinese love their artillery and they place great stock in it. The Chinese invented it. I wouldn't like to be on the receiving end especially if they have their tot (time on target) synchronised.
 

Boagrius

Well-Known Member
No argument with any of the above, but I will clarify that the comparison I drew to naval technology was for illustrative purposes only. Simply highlighting that while Milleniun/AHEAD et al. are sometimes marketed as C-RAM solutions, in a peer conflict a purely gun based system may be a losing proposition. There is obviously a big difference between using a Centurion C-RAM to mop up token mortar rounds from a few insurgents sneaking around your FOB, and surviving a PLARF rocket attack. IMO the issue of massed fires warrants special attention here, especially for an Army as small as ours. An event like the 2014 Zelenopillya rocket attack would be something we could ill afford to suffer.

As I said earlier, NASAMS strikes me as a good system for targeting a wide array of sensors and shooters, both manned and unmanned, but it is not a C-RAM system. The simple fact seems to be that Iron Dome is presently the only western system with the range and magazine depth to meaningfully impact peer artillery salvos - a comparable more mobile system simply isn't out there.

That's not to say that I think we should acquire it, just pointing out that there is quite a challenge involved in assembling the GBAD capability we want. I suspect this is because GBAD is something the west is only starting to seriously revisit quite recently.
 
Last edited:

earthyman

New Member
So I was reading
“The Browning 9mm pistol will remain in service until a replacement is considered under the Land 159 ADF Small Arms Replacement Project,” a Defence spokesperson said. “The Project is currently due for Government consideration in 2022.”
Which pistol do you think will be the replacement? New Zealand uses glock, U.K and U.S sig sauer, given how long it's taken to switch, do you think there is a sentimental element when choosing a new pistol? As in the history of the company?
 
Last edited:

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Yes Iron Dome is good, but can you fit it on a Boxer, IFV, or an 8 x 8 MAN HGV firing and reloading whilst the vehicle is moving at speed? Can you do that with C-RAM? You are confusing both naval air defence and some GBAD capabilities that require significant assets and capabilities. How does that help a mobile force on the move?

In a ground forces context mobile SHORAD gun systems are not about countering incoming rockets / mortars / shells. They are Air Defence systems with fixed and rotary wing aircraft as primary targets. So I would suggest that you first decide which threat you want to counter first and then suggest how you intend to counter it. Whatever it is, it has to be practical and viable, not some fantastists wet dream. GBAD for ground forces has two basic components - static AD and mobile AD and whilst NASAMS maybe great, it like everything else has its limitations. Can it be vehicle mounted and used to knock down a low flying fixed or rotary wing threat at a distance of 1 - 3km? Or 5km? Can the sensor be mounted on the same vehicle? Can it interface with an E/O sensor package?

Another point to remember is that whatever vehicle your SHORAD system is mounted on has to be able compatible with your mobile forces. So you want mobile AD for your armoured forces and that requires a vehicle that is capable of operating in that environment. It requires both a gun and missile solution because on the modern battlefield, both have a part to play. The missile doesn't need to be something with a long range, probably no more than 10km at most but it must have the capability of knocking out threats such as armoured aircraft (A-10) and armoured helicopters. Mostly MANPAD are used and in the Western context these generally are Mistral, Stinger or Starstreak. Some are mounted in box launchers of 4 missiles or 2 missiles.

The gun should also have AP capability but also be capable of killing RPAS regardless of size. Currently the Rheinmettall 35mm Millennium gun is probably the best around for that and IIRC it can be turret mounted on a vehicle. Also they are supposed to be releasing a 30mm variant of that gun. The advantages of the Millennium gun are that it is a revolver and the AHEAD ammunition it uses.

For the defence against incoming artillery and rocket rounds, you have to have a more specialised defence because of the physical size (small and smaller) and sheer quantity of targets. For example in a 30 minute barrage how many rounds could a regiment of 152mm guns fire onto a specific target? I don't particularly know, but the Russians and Chinese love their artillery and they place great stock in it. The Chinese invented it. I wouldn't like to be on the receiving end especially if they have their tot (time on target) synchronised.
The interesting thing about C-RAM in reality, and recent Iron Dome usage provides an excellent example of this, is that not every single round needs to be physically intercepted. What does need to be done, very very quickly and very accurately, is working out with extreme precision the tracking and engagement geometry required to ensure that only incoming rounds that present a genuine threat are even attempted to be intercepted.

Once you can achieve that, things such as stowed kills or magazine depth can be contemplated, along with ranges / altitudes at which interceptions will be attempted and so on.

I’m not confident we are there yet, especially with Mobile Protected Fires Tranche 2 focussing heavily on weapons locating radar. Because there is more than one way to skin a cat. Usually the best and most complete C-RAM capability is one that includes laying down extensive amounts of HE and frag on them first...

Which is why I am concerned about ANY hesitation Army might have about acquiring a precision rocket artillery / long range surface to surface missile capability.

Thinking we’re getting ready for modern combat without something like that is absolutely astonishing…

Having said that, I believe that a gun / missile combination for VSHORAD / C-RAM - C-UAS capability, is clearly the best short term path forward to provide us with a force protection capability against these type of threats and the lack of such a defined program a puzzling one…
 

Terran

Active Member
@ngatimozart Iron Dome is normally carried on MAN 8x8 trucks. Reload on the move. No obviously not. Yet that’s not an ability for any missile systems. A gun system is a good fall back but only for close targets.
@Boagrius it would depend on If the Australian MOD deems a CRAM a need. If not than NASAMS. Which I would argue is more a anti chopper, anti large drone weapon system. If the Australian MOD feels that the threat from short range rockets, Mortars and artillery are not a big deal then they won’t spend the money.
@ADMk2 spot on.

@earthyman the winner will have a G in there name. If that’s the start of the end I don’t know. When the US Army held the Modular Handgun system competition both guns pretty much equaled in every aspect save for one. $$$$. The dollar dollar bills y’all. Sig underbid Glock and Glock wasn’t happy about that. They tried to protest claiming that the army hadn’t compared XM18s yet realistically I doubt the shorter barrel and slide would have changed the game enough to reverse the contract. Sig P320 has some unique aspects vs comparable Glocks but end game they are equally matched. So land 159 it will be based on what Australian shooters favor and what the bean counters like for the package.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Not to get to OT here but Glock seems to be having some bad tender outcomes. They are contesting the CAF’s tender to replace their 70 year old Browning handguns. Given the C-F Canadian military procurement operation, a company has nothing to lose with a challenge.

 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Not to get to OT here but Glock seems to be having some bad tender outcomes. They are contesting the CAF’s tender to replace their 70 year old Browning handguns. Given the C-F Canadian military procurement operation, a company has nothing to lose with a challenge.
So I was reading
“The Browning 9mm pistol will remain in service until a replacement is considered under the Land 159 ADF Small Arms Replacement Project,” a Defence spokesperson said. “The Project is currently due for Government consideration in 2022.”
Which pistol do you think will be the replacement? New Zealand uses glock, U.K and U.S sig sauer, given how long it's taken to switch, do you think there is a sentimental element when choosing a new pistol? As in the history of the company?
In the mid 1990s the NZDF replaced their Browning 9mm pistols with Sig Saur 9 mm pistols. I remember the Brownings well because when you pulled the trigger it went bang followed by rattle rattle as the bullet rattled its way othe the barrel off on an unknown and undetermined trajectory irrelevant to the point of aim. That was 1990 - 94 and the barrels were well worn. About five years ago NZDF replaced their Sig Saur 9mm with, IIRC Glock 17s. That was after they did an extensive science based study of all the weapons submitted. Our cops use an earlier model Glock.
 

Shanesworld

Active Member
So I was reading
“The Browning 9mm pistol will remain in service until a replacement is considered under the Land 159 ADF Small Arms Replacement Project,” a Defence spokesperson said. “The Project is currently due for Government consideration in 2022.”
Which pistol do you think will be the replacement? New Zealand uses glock, U.K and U.S sig sauer, given how long it's taken to switch, do you think there is a sentimental element when choosing a new pistol? As in the history of the company?
Yes nz army - glock 17 gen 4 and small number of 19's.
Sig initially had some issues with drop safeties not working on the new us army winner the sig m17 and m18. But i imagine it will improve in short order.
Our pistol scores imprived noticiably with the glock over the older sigs.
The browning was a brilliant design but the way things are going with rifle transition drills the glock is pretty much tailored for it.
 

FormerDirtDart

Active Member
...
Sig initially had some issues with drop safeties not working on the new us army winner the sig m17 and m18. But i imagine it will improve in short order.
...
No they did not. The problem was/is with P320s. It is not an issue with the M17 & M18, and never has been.
The fix for the P320s is the instillation of components derived from the M17/18 MHS trigger system
 

Shanesworld

Active Member
No they did not. The problem was/is with P320s. It is not an issue with the M17 & M18, and never has been.
The fix for the P320s is the instillation of components derived from the M17/18 MHS trigger system
My apologies and thanks for the correction.

I actually heard about this from a canadian over here on exchange. They have adopted the p320 for species and supposed to roll out later for the rest. And i thought he said the m17/m18 was suffering same issues they had. But read8ng up on it, the story is actually as you say.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
My apologies and thanks for the correction.

I actually heard about this from a canadian over here on exchange. They have adopted the p320 for species and supposed to roll out later for the rest. And i thought he said the m17/m18 was suffering same issues they had. But read8ng up on it, the story is actually as you say.
Apparently the P320 incident with the Canadian soldier was the result of operator error.
 

Observer27

New Member
Really interesting discussion on our future air defence capability. Long time lurker here thinking I might throw in my two cents.

That's not to say that I think we should acquire it, just pointing out that there is quite a challenge involved in assembling the GBAD capability we want. I suspect this is because GBAD is something the west is only starting to seriously revisit quite recently.
I fully agree that the ADF and western militaries generally have fallen behind on ground based air defence. There are understandable (if not justifiable) reasons for this, but it is where we are now. The question is how do we deal with it.

The Australian NASAMS solution looks to be an excellent first step in addressing this issue and will serve as a solid foundation for building up a multi-layered integrated air and missile defence system.

C-RAM

NASAMS is definitely not suitable for a C-RAM role, and is clearly not intended to be. Our current C-RAM capability is simply sense and warn with Saab radars (which the NASAMS CEA radars will also be capable of) and while something more than this would be nice to have, it probably shouldn't be a high priority for our near term spending.

Usually the best and most complete C-RAM capability is one that includes laying down extensive amounts of HE and frag on them first...
Totally agree!

C-RAM is mostly needed for either protecting your own civilian population in close proximity to an enemy launching indiscriminate attacks short of full scale war (e.g. Israel), or for protecting static expeditionary bases against irregular insurgents (e.g. western forces in Afghanistan and Iraq). As @ngatimozart indicated, C-RAM may not be all that useful against a peer-technology enemy during full scale war launching barrages of precision guided rockets and conventional artillery. Much better to find and hit them first before they find and hit you (to prevent a 2014 Zelenopillya-like situation).

C-UAS

When it comes to C-UAS, it really helps to have an idea of exactly what type of unmanned aerial systems are being considered. There is a massive and ever growing variety ranging from small hand launched systems to high altitude long endurance autonomous reconnaissance systems (and in the probable near-future semi-autonomous fighter jets). No single air defence system will deal with all of these.

To break it down into just two classes, most discussions about dedicated C-UAS capabilities are addressing "low and slow" leaving the "high and fast" to traditional air defences. Low and slow also tend to be small and cheap, leading to the twin problems of detection and cost to engage. Keeping the cost to engage down leads to either soft-kill countermeasures, lasers, or hard-kill gun-based systems - ideally a combination of all three. Air defence missiles (even the latest proximity fused stinger) are generally too expensive to field and use against most low and slow systems.

My opinion is that a C-UAS capability must be organic in some form or another to every close combat unit right down to the section level. I also think that in some ways the UAS threat has been overblown, as there really are many ways to address the threat posed by small cheap UAS systems. An example of this at the dismounted individual soldier level is the Smartshooter Smash AD system, which may be used in the SIG Sauer's US Army's Next Generation Squad Weapon (NGSW) optic. I really hope the Land 159 project is taking a close look at systems like these. Also at the dismounted individual soldier level is the new Saab Guided Multipurpose Munition fired from the Carl-Gustaf M4 - I believe this has the potential to offer an organic air defence capability against larger manned and unmanned rotary aircraft.

Every vehicle remote weapons systems can and should incorporate C-UAS capabilities. EOS are already looking at doing something like this with their Titanis C-UAS suite that could be integrated into just about all of our current and future combat vehicles. It includes an option for using the M230LF 30x113mm cannon with new Northrop Grumman XM1211 proximity fused ammunition. Also our future armoured combat vehicles, the Boxer CRV and Lynx or Redback will all have the capability of firing 30x173mm programmable airburst and proximity fused rounds.

The advantage of all the above systems is that while they offer a C-UAS capability, they are also multi-purpose systems for use in traditional land combat.

On the detection front I see two primary options, active radar or passive infrared. For radar, dedicated hemispherical ASEA radars can be used either vehicle mounted or dismounted. Better would be dual purposing a vehicle Active Protection System radar like the RADA aCHR system integrated into Elbit's IronFist APS. This looks to be the same radar used by EOS in Titanis and using a single radar system for both missions would be ideal. For passive infrared detection, again sensors already integrated into a vehicle APS could be dual purposed or the detectors from a system like IronVision could be used. While there is no integrated APS system doing all this just yet, the SkyRanger 30 demonstrates a similar technology configuration dedicated to air defence. With current APS technology, current vehicle weapons and a SkyRanger 30 style integration, all the ingredients are there for creating a C-UAS capable Active Protection System. I suspect that Hanwha Defense, Elbit Australia and EOS Australia could be interested in making something like this work as part of the Redback IFV based on the IronFist, IronVision, and Titanis technologies.

Multi-layered IAMDS

I think the concept put forward by @Boagrius of deploying NASAMS into more of a medium range role based on the AMRAAM-ER (which is essentially an ESSM with an AMRAAM seeker) is a very good one. Personally I'd like to see at least a third battery, but as with all such desires the manpower and money would have to come at the expense of some other capability.

This leaves "gaps" above and below NASAMS in terms of true SHORAD and HIMAD systems, but at least the latter can be looked at under AIR6500 Ph 2...
I would see the gap below covered by both organic C-UAS capabilities I discussed above and an armoured vehicle mounted SHORAD capability system mounted on Boxers or the new IFV platform. In addition to C-UAS and SHORAD capabilities, this could provide a measure of point defence C-RAM capability too. A ready to field solution for this would be the Rheinmetall SkyRanger system (a.k.a. Millenium, Mantis, AHEAD) having already proven integration with NASAMS. However my personal fantasy fleet solution would be something like the Centauro Draco with an OTO Melara 76/62 Strales 76mm gun firing DART guided projectiles modernised and paired with a CEA radar (NORINCO of China has also developed a similar concept).

In terms of the gap above, yes Air6500 Phase 2 will be focused on Ground Based Air Defence in this space, but we also already have some coverage provided by the air force with JSFs and Wedgetails and the navy with SM-2 (and hopefully soon SM-6) missiles. For GBAD, I think something like Option Four of this US Congressional Budget Office report using ground-launched LRASM and SM-6 missiles could be a versatile solution - Australianify it using HX77/HX81 truck mounted launchers, the Kongsberg fire control unit already used in NASAMS, and CEA developed radars.

Finally, the gap above also includes ballistic missile defence that could be addressed in the medium term by the Navy with Aegis BMD using SM-3 and SM-6 missiles.
 

Boagrius

Well-Known Member
Yep, while a mobile Aegis Ashore centred on SM6 would have to be just about the most capable Western HIMAD system one could field, I'm not confident in how quickly and affordably it could be brought into service.

As it stands, AIR6500 Ph2 is still targeting an MRGBAD system, which makes me think some iteration of Patriot is more likely to get up. Time shall tell!
 

Observer27

New Member
Yep, while a mobile Aegis Ashore centred on SM6 would have to be just about the most capable Western HIMAD system one could field, I'm not confident in how quickly and affordably it could be brought into service.
Certainly not quickly, but the technology mostly already exists and could realistically be integrated and operational in less than a decade if there was political will and funding (faster with a crash program). Look at how fast CEA developed and integrated radars for NASAMS as an example. As to affordable, some very broad cost estimates are included in the US Congressional Budget Office report link I provided, and yes fielding such a capability would be a substantial investment. It would have to be considered an air and naval Anti-Access Area Denial (A2AD) strategic capability (much like the Attack submarine or the JSF programs provide strategic capabilities).

As it stands, AIR6500 Ph2 is still targeting an MRGBAD system, which makes me think some iteration of Patriot is more likely to get up. Time shall tell!
I must confess I really don't understand (or like) the Patriot system. While it started out as a general purpose medium range air defence system, it has since become hyper-specialised. In it's current iteration it is really more of a short range ballistic missile defence system than a long range air defence system (think S-400). I don't see any pressing need for this in Australia, and it doesn't seem to me to fit any concept of operations except expeditionary warfare in the Middle East. I think the fact that the Americans are frantically looking around for alternative GBAD options indicates it has limited versatility. If we really wanted to go down that sort of path then MEADS with it's open architecture, 360° surveillance radar and the same PAC-3 missile might be a better (if more expensive) choice allowing the possibility of incorporating SM-6 type missiles later.
 
Last edited:

Boagrius

Well-Known Member
I must confess I really don't understand (or like) the Patriot system. While it started out as a general purpose medium range air defence system, it has since become hyper-specialised. In it's current iteration it is really more of a short range ballistic missile defence system than a long range air defence system (think S-400). I don't see any pressing need for this in Australia, and it doesn't seem to me to fit any concept of operations except expeditionary warfare in the Middle East. I think the fact that the Americans are frantically looking around for alternative GBAD options indicates it has limited versatility. If we really wanted to go down that sort of path then MEADS with it's open architecture, 360° surveillance radar and the same PAC-3 missile might be a better (if more expensive) choice allowing the possibility of incorporating SM-6 type missiles later.
A few things to consider here:

- Assuming MEADS is not effectively defunct (?) I'm not sure it would provide a meaningfully different capability to a Patriot system equipped with the LTAMDS GaN AESA with 360 degree coverage. Both systems are fundamentally centred on the PAC-3 MSE interceptor which, while technologically exquisite, comes with a correspondingly exquisite price tag. That said, the latter can at least augment its arsenal with the cheaper but longer reaching PAC-2 GEM-T and Skyceptor missiles.

- AFAIK no existing Patriot/MEADS system could accommodate the SM-6. It is a monstrous missile compared to anything they shoot, and I am not sure what sort of integration work (datalinks etc) would be necessary to make this happen. A brand new TEL/canister launcher strikes me as a minimum requirement here.

- Arguably this brings you back to your home-grown mobile Aegis Ashore, which I will admit is attractive. I have argued the merits of this concept on the forum for some time now, as a ~4 cell TEL based around a Mk-41 style VLS (BAE ADL on a truck?) would open up a huge suite of possible weapons. For IAMD you could use SM6 for HIMAD and BMD (covering everything up to IRBMs), while quad packing ESSM Blk II gives you greater magazine depth with additional protection against hostile ARM/PGM/LACM (much like the 9M96 on the S400). It does also open up the possibility of using Tomahawk/LRASM/SM6 as A2/AD weapons, but this might fall beyond the scope of the system.
 
Top