Multi-Mission Launcher, yay or nay?

[ArmyRick]

Check this out. 15 launch tubes that can fire Hellfire, Stinger or Sidewinder. Probably needs a radar or control unit paired with it, but your thoughts?
Could this have a place in the CAF? Air Defence? Fire Support? Anti-Armour?

@FJAG @Colin Parkinson @KevinB @Kirkhill Anybody?

Multi-Mission Launcher - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[KevinB]

My major issue with MM systems is that they are often bought with a goal of economy of effort.

So instead of buying X of each needed system, only X total is bought and the belief than not every take will be required at once / or that the system can do it all.

 

[dimsum]

My major issue with MM systems is that they are often bought with a goal of economy of effort.

So instead of buying X of each needed system, only X total is bought and the belief than not every take will be required at once / or that the system can do it all.

Also, MM systems are by design a compromise. I'm not sure about this one in particular but you sacrifice some aspects of the various roles to be "good enough" at others.

 

[ArmyRick]

My major issue with MM systems is that they are often bought with a goal of economy of effort.

So instead of buying X of each needed system, only X total is bought and the belief than not every take will be required at once / or that the system can do it all.

The "economic factor" is a horrible reality for Canada. I agree that its better to get optimal systems.

So would say 100 MML be better or worse than 25-30 High end product of lets say air defence systems?

 

[blacktriangle]

What about something like M-SHORAD?

 

[ArmyRick]

What about something like M-SHORAD?

What I am getting at is, is there any use for MML. Not lets get this X or Y system. I agree the stryker M-SHORAD is excellent but its probably a "too much $$$" system for the CAF (unless we get a real fire lit under the governments ass)

 

[ArmyRick]

Perhaps we have a bird gunner that could tell us if launching a salvo of sidewinder missiles from this platform would be a credible air defence asset? Assuming it has some kind of radar guidance or FCS to get it locked on target.

 

[ArmyRick]

I want to be clear, I am not saying, lets get MML. I am asking if it has potential as a system and if so how and where?

 

[Kirkhill]

My major issue with MM systems is that they are often bought with a goal of economy of effort.

So instead of buying X of each needed system, only X total is bought and the belief than not every take will be required at once / or that the system can do it all.

Also, MM systems are by design a compromise. I'm not sure about this one in particular but you sacrifice some aspects of the various roles to be "good enough" at others.

The Mk 41 VLS is a multi-missile launcher. The P-8, RPASs, every tactical fighter in existence and all helicopters are multi-missile launchers. And they are designed that way and optimized that way with intent. Their ideal is one hanger, or one cell, will launch everything in the arsenal.

Why is the army different?

One thing that I have difficulty with, and Ukraine has been pointing this out, is the focus on the launch platform rather than the missiles.

Poland wanted to order hundreds of launchers. Ukraine complained because it only got a few launchers. However even a few launchers, operated over a period of time, are eating up missiles faster than we can build them.

The artillery keeps going on about how the missile (the bullet) is the weapon. They don't care what plane, ship, railcar or truck carries what seacan with what ammunition to the front as long as it gets there.

What is wrong with having one system that can launch every missile in the inventory from mobile or static positions, or can be launched from ships and aircraft?

Do we need specialized kit to keep reminding the operators what their job is and what they are not supposed to do?

This echoes the discussion of not making support guns look like tanks in case people forget themselves and use them like tanks.

 

[ArmyRick]

The Mk 41 VLS is a multi-missile launcher. The P-8, RPASs, every tactical fighter in existence and all helicopters are multi-missile launchers. And they are designed that way and optimized that way with intent. Their ideal is one hanger, or one cell, will launch everything in the arsenal.

Why is the army different?

One thing that I have difficulty with, and Ukraine has been pointing this out, is the focus on the launch platform rather than the missiles.

Poland wanted to order hundreds of launchers. Ukraine complained because it only got a few launchers. However even a few launchers, operated over a period of time, are eating up missiles faster than we can build them.

The artillery keeps going on about how the missile (the bullet) is the weapon. They don't care what plane, ship, railcar or truck carries what seacan with what ammunition to the front as long as it gets there.

What is wrong with having on system that can launch every missile in the inventory from mobile or static positions, or can be launched from ships and aircraft?

Do we need specialized kit to keep reminding the operators what their job is and what they are not supposed to do?

This echoes the discussion of not making support guns look like tanks in case people forget themselves and use them like tanks.

Interesting comparing it to a VLS from the navy. A land based VLS? Maybe thinking outside the box.

I have zero air defence experience. I did serve in an Anti-armour platoon (TOW). I understand a little bit of anti-armour warfare. Only a little.

I have wondered what it would be like, to have an observer on ground or air, mark targets and then fire a barrage of Hellfire or Brimstones from depth, to wipe out a squadron of tanks. Then again, 2 apaches could probably do the same thing.

 

[Kirkhill]

Interesting comparing it to a VLS from the navy. A land based VLS? Maybe thinking outside the box.

I have zero air defence experience. I did serve in an Anti-armour platoon (TOW). I understand a little bit of anti-armour warfare. Only a little.

I have wondered what it would be like, to have an observer on ground or air, mark targets and then fire a barrage of Hellfire or Brimstones from depth, to wipe out a squadron of tanks. Then again, 2 apaches could probably do the same thing.

Here's the land based VLS - already tested by the USN on land in Europe and on a Unmanned Surface Vessel in the Pacific

Navy Unveils Truck-Mounted SM-6 Missile Launcher In European Test (Updated)

A recent Navy demonstration in Europe reflects growing interest in new ground-based long-range missile capabilities across the US military.

www.thedrive.com

The Pentagon’s Robot Warship Just Fired Its First Missile

One of the U.S. Defense Department’s two prototype robot warships just fired its first missile. It's an important step in the Navy's plan to supplement, if not partially replace, its traditional manned warships with large numbers of inexpensive unmanned vessels.

www.forbes.com

The box can also launch missiles when on a ship. That same system could be mounted in an AOPS. Or placed on the ground at Pearson airport. Or launched from a rail car or truck.


This is a HIMARS/MRLS pod in a sea can for launching Ground Launched Small Diameter Bombs.

 

[Kirkhill]

I have wondered what it would be like, to have an observer on ground or air, mark targets and then fire a barrage of Hellfire or Brimstones from depth, to wipe out a squadron of tanks. Then again, 2 apaches could probably do the same thing.

Rick, I'm guessing you and your designator/range finder could hug the ground a lot closer than that Apache.

 

[ArmyRick]

Rick, I'm guessing you and your designator/range finder could hug the ground a lot closer than that Apache.

Unless I am drunk and passed out or hiding from my wife when she is enraged, I will no be hugging the ground. Retired now. However, the poor sap who has to do the job now may have to (FOO/FAC/JTAC?)

 

[daftandbarmy]

I have no deep knowledge of this subject but NASAMS looks like a pretty good, 'Swiss Army Knife', solution...


NASAMS (Norwegian Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile System, also known as the National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile System[5]) is a distributed and networked short- to medium-range[6]: 4  ground-based air defense system developed by Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace (KDA) and Raytheon.[7] The system defends against unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), helicopters, cruise missiles, unmanned combat aerial vehicles (UCAVs), and fixed wing aircraft,[6]: 11  firing any of a wide range of existing missiles.

NASAMS was the first application of a surface-launched AIM-120 AMRAAM (Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile). NASAMS 2 is an upgraded version of the system capable of using Link 16, which has been operational since 2007. As of 2022, NASAMS 3 is the latest upgrade; deployed in 2019, it adds capability to fire AIM-9 Sidewinder and IRIS-T SLS short-range missiles (25 km (16 mi)[8]) and AMRAAM-ER extended-range missiles (50 km (31 mi)[2]), and introduces mobile air-liftable launchers. NASAMS has proven interoperability with longer range systems such as Patriot.[9]

NASAMS - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[GR66]

The Mk 41 VLS is a multi-missile launcher. The P-8, RPASs, every tactical fighter in existence and all helicopters are multi-missile launchers. And they are designed that way and optimized that way with intent. Their ideal is one hanger, or one cell, will launch everything in the arsenal.

Why is the army different?

One thing that I have difficulty with, and Ukraine has been pointing this out, is the focus on the launch platform rather than the missiles.

Poland wanted to order hundreds of launchers. Ukraine complained because it only got a few launchers. However even a few launchers, operated over a period of time, are eating up missiles faster than we can build them.

The artillery keeps going on about how the missile (the bullet) is the weapon. They don't care what plane, ship, railcar or truck carries what seacan with what ammunition to the front as long as it gets there.

What is wrong with having one system that can launch every missile in the inventory from mobile or static positions, or can be launched from ships and aircraft?

Do we need specialized kit to keep reminding the operators what their job is and what they are not supposed to do?

This echoes the discussion of not making support guns look like tanks in case people forget themselves and use them like tanks.

I think the point that @KevinB was trying to make wasn't that MM Launchers themselves are an issue, rather it's the "Swiss Army Knife" mentality that it engenders in those potentially purchasing the systems.

Say a military determines that it needs 100 x AD systems and 100 x SSM systems. The concern is that when you have a MM Launcher that can fire BOTH types of missiles the (natural) temptation is to just buy 100 x MM Launchers to fulfill both roles.

The reasoning being that when you need an AD system you load them with AD missiles and you've fulfilled your AD requirement. When you need a SSM system you load them with SSMs and you've fulfilled that requirement. The problem is when you need both 100 x AD systems and 100 x SSM systems at the same time.

The other thing to take into account is the balance between the cost of achieving that multi-functionality vs the advantages of equipment commonality. Say for $X you are able to purchase the 100 x dedicated AD systems and 100 x dedicated SSM systems you determined that are required. What if for that $X you are only able to purchase 175 x MML systems? Do the benefits of commonality and the ability to shift the roles of each of the launchers as required make up for the lower overall number of systems?

Even if the costing is the same for 200 x MMLs as for 100 each of the dedicated systems, does each MML perform as well in each role as the dedicated system? Are the multi-role sensors required as good in each role as the dedicated sensors? If you need a separate dedicated external sensor for each role then are you really getting advantage of the commonality of the launchers? Is the containerized MML system less mobile, easier to detect than a dedicated system? If the same individual launcher is being used to fire munitions in multiple roles does that force you to use TTPs for placement, etc. that are less than ideal for one or the other roles?

Don't get me wrong, I'm very much in favour of commonality and multi-role systems - especially from a logistics point of view - and think they should very seriously be explored, but I think it's a much more complex decision than just picking a launcher that can fire multiple types of missiles over one that is more specialized. Each combination of roles and systems would need to be closely examined individually to see which ones make the most sense in a particular case.

 

[Kirkhill]

Unless I am drunk and passed out or hiding from my wife when she is enraged, I will no be hugging the ground. Retired now. However, the poor sap who has to do the job now may have to (FOO/FAC/JTAC?)

With age comes wisdom....

Except for that wife bit.

 

[Kirkhill]

I think the point that @KevinB was trying to make wasn't that MM Launchers themselves are an issue, rather it's the "Swiss Army Knife" mentality that it engenders in those potentially purchasing the systems.

Say a military determines that it needs 100 x AD systems and 100 x SSM systems. The concern is that when you have a MM Launcher that can fire BOTH types of missiles the (natural) temptation is to just buy 100 x MM Launchers to fulfill both roles.

The reasoning being that when you need an AD system you load them with AD missiles and you've fulfilled your AD requirement. When you need a SSM system you load them with SSMs and you've fulfilled that requirement. The problem is when you need both 100 x AD systems and 100 x SSM systems at the same time.

The other thing to take into account is the balance between the cost of achieving that multi-functionality vs the advantages of equipment commonality. Say for $X you are able to purchase the 100 x dedicated AD systems and 100 x dedicated SSM systems you determined that are required. What if for that $X you are only able to purchase 175 x MML systems? Do the benefits of commonality and the ability to shift the roles of each of the launchers as required make up for the lower overall number of systems?

Even if the costing is the same for 200 x MMLs as for 100 each of the dedicated systems, does each MML perform as well in each role as the dedicated system? Are the multi-role sensors required as good in each role as the dedicated sensors? If you need a separate dedicated external sensor for each role then are you really getting advantage of the commonality of the launchers? Is the containerized MML system less mobile, easier to detect than a dedicated system? If the same individual launcher is being used to fire munitions in multiple roles does that force you to use TTPs for placement, etc. that are less than ideal for one or the other roles?

Don't get me wrong, I'm very much in favour of commonality and multi-role systems - especially from a logistics point of view - and think they should very seriously be explored, but I think it's a much more complex decision than just picking a launcher that can fire multiple types of missiles over one that is more specialized. Each combination of roles and systems would need to be closely examined individually to see which ones make the most sense in a particular case.

Your point, and Kevin's is well taken, and I'm pretty sure that we agree across the board. Although I disagree that finding a multi-role launcher is that complex. There are ample examples of multi-role missile launchers already in existence. From the Mk41 VLS, to the MLRS, to NASAMs to even the 70mm missile launchers with their multiple warheads, guidance systems and motors. For me the problem is not the use of a single launcher but the answer to two separate questions.

How many places do you expect/need/want to defend?
How many targets do you expect/need/want to destroy?

And the related question is what does it take to destroy the targets?

The Navy has to ask how many general purpose ships does it need? How many missiles of what type are necessary when the ship leaves port?
The Air Force has to ask how many Multi Role Combat Aircraft does it need? How many missiles of what type are necessary when the aircraft leaves the ground?
The Army, confronted with the same target sets, and the same missiles couldn't manage mission loadouts for one common multi-role launcher?

Rather than a fleet of MAN trucks carrying IRIS-T and SkySabre with MTVRs carrying HIMARS and Rheinmetall carrying Brimstones while FMTVs drag ammunition for them all why not have one modified HIMARS truck that can load

122mm rockets
MRLS rockets
GMRLS
GMRLS-ER
GLSDB
PrSM
ATACMs
NSMs
NASAMS - ESSM
NASAMS - AMRAAM
NASAMS - Sidewinder
IRIS-T
CAMM
CAMM-ER
Brimstones
Hero-120s
Switchblade 600s
Spike NLOS
Coyote UAS

etc



stretch our imaginations.

Then you buy one truck, or better one specification that can be manufactured on any existing production line without interrupting the production flow, equip it with an electro-hydraulic power pack and use it as a PLS/LHS/TEL/MHC unit.

Similarly you make all your missiles platform independent so that they can be produced on any suitable production line.

Just like bullets - there are many bullets with many effects from many manufacturers that will all function adequately from any gun (of the right calibre).

You are right to focus on the logistics advantages.

 

[GR66]

Your point, and Kevin's is well taken, and I'm pretty sure that we agree across the board. Although I disagree that finding a multi-role launcher is that complex. There are ample examples of multi-role missile launchers already in existence. From the Mk41 VLS, to the MLRS, to NASAMs to even the 70mm missile launchers with their multiple warheads, guidance systems and motors. For me the problem is not the use of a single launcher but the answer to two separate questions.

How many places do you expect/need/want to defend?
How many targets do you expect/need/want to destroy?

And the related question is what does it take to destroy the targets?

The Navy has to ask how many general purpose ships does it need? How many missiles of what type are necessary when the ship leaves port?
The Air Force has to ask how many Multi Role Combat Aircraft does it need? How many missiles of what type are necessary when the aircraft leaves the ground?
The Army, confronted with the same target sets, and the same missiles couldn't manage mission loadouts for one common multi-role launcher?

Rather than a fleet of MAN trucks carrying IRIS-T and SkySabre with MTVRs carrying HIMARS and Rheinmetall carrying Brimstones while FMTVs drag ammunition for them all why not have one modified HIMARS truck that can load

122mm rockets
MRLS rockets
GMRLS
GMRLS-ER
GLSDB
PrSM
ATACMs
NSMs
NASAMS - ESSM
NASAMS - AMRAAM
NASAMS - Sidewinder
IRIS-T
CAMM
CAMM-ER
Brimstones
Hero-120s
Switchblade 600s
Spike NLOS
Coyote UAS

etc



stretch our imaginations.

Then you buy one truck, or better one specification that can be manufactured on any existing production line without interrupting the production flow, equip it with an electro-hydraulic power pack and use it as a PLS/LHS/TEL/MHC unit.

Similarly you make all your missiles platform independent so that they can be produced on any suitable production line.

Just like bullets - there are many bullets with many effects from many manufacturers that will all function adequately from any gun (of the right calibre).

You are right to focus on the logistics advantages.

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?





I know this is taking the example to the extreme, but I think you can see what I mean.

Commonality where possible and logical.

 

[ArmyRick]

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.

Sad reality. Canada is NOT capable of taking part in serious offensive operations against a grown up army without being in a coalition with allies. At best, we are going to be a niche of some kind for our allies (remember when everyone used to beg for Canadian Coyote Recce vehicles?)

However, we are expected to put up some kind of defence for Canada (With probably only the USA willing to help while the rest of NATO dithers to help)

Now, this MML with sidewinders might be useful parked on the side of our airfields ensuring our very used F18s are protected? If its dirt cheap, might be worth it.

Also, I am going to scream this out loud again. As an old school anti-armour guy, I would love a system that lets us engage armour targets with precision from depth (Hellfires in MML, Akeron, Javelin 2? @KevinB, Spike NLOS, Switchblade 600). I got a gut feeling that for an army not willing to ever get serious about armour, we better invest in a damn good anti-armour game.

 

[KevinB]

The Mk 41 VLS is a multi-missile launcher. The P-8, RPASs, every tactical fighter in existence and all helicopters are multi-missile launchers. And they are designed that way and optimized that way with intent. Their ideal is one hanger, or one cell, will launch everything in the arsenal.

Why is the army different?

Because a ship is a really big CP as well.
It has a CiC with multiple stations.
It has multiple weapon systems as well.

One thing that I have difficulty with, and Ukraine has been pointing this out, is the focus on the launch platform rather than the missiles.

Poland wanted to order hundreds of launchers. Ukraine complained because it only got a few launchers. However even a few launchers, operated over a period of time, are eating up missiles faster than we can build them.

The artillery keeps going on about how the missile (the bullet) is the weapon. They don't care what plane, ship, railcar or truck carries what seacan with what ammunition to the front as long as it gets there.

What is wrong with having one system that can launch every missile in the inventory from mobile or static positions, or can be launched from ships and aircraft?

Do you have a giant sensor system that can coordinate it?
You get that with ships.

You are going to need a massive amount of space to place those effectors on land - and that in turn reduces your dexterity, and increases your footprint.

Do we need specialized kit to keep reminding the operators what their job is and what they are not supposed to do?

This echoes the discussion of not making support guns look like tanks in case people forget themselves and use them like tanks.

My major concern from MMEV type things is simply based on two issues quantity of the systems and quality of the sensors.

Rocket Launchers - sure you can launch a ton of stuff from a HIMARS type vehicle by changing the box load out, for ground targets that makes sense, but if your using it for AD, and AT too, that’s generally different telemetry and acquisition requirements.
So do you add a ‘Longbow’ type feed ability to all your HIMARS cab’s just to allow AT engagements? Moving them closer in makes the target that much more attractive as well.
For the AD do you know just get Acquisition and FC systems for the Cans as well, or a node linkage (and requires data ports etc) Plus if that is your AD method / how does it travel with maneuver elements and it’s an relatively poorly armored system with limited off road mobility.

The end of the day, the reason that bespoke systems exist is that they do the role significantly better and cheaper than an all singing and dancing MMEV for a maneuver force.

If you’re simply looking for static positions. Then a CONEX box multi node system isn’t a bad idea - but they are static, and that comes with its own set of problems.