Colin P said:
And how long to provide us with the pointy sticks? Let’s say we sent our units to Africa in 6 months from now and one of the groups we are “peacekeeping” against starts dropping bombs from UAV’s and kills someone, how long before we have the ability to identify and shoot one down before they get into range? What if we suddenly found our guys facing a more sophisticated enemy with military grade UAVs and attack aircraft, much less trying to use AD against a Grad strike from system firing from behind a robust AD screen. With our current procurement system I doubt anyone has any confidence in getting anything quickly and while my firsthand knowledge is purely discussions with Blowpipe operators. Training people to be effective with Manpads takes time, even more if you want 3 or 4 detached detachments to plug into an IAD in areas with limited comms and perhaps against an enemy that will be able to reach back behind your lines and pulverize any radio transmission source. Given that the average range of a Manpad system and the need to protect the frontline, chances are your AD detachment is in range of counter battery fire. When was the last time we exercised AD detachment in a full spectrum war scenario, where radio discipline and counterbattery fire was considered, not to mention a robust enemy?
While I agree that keeping the corporate high level knowledge alive is important, we have done it at the cost of losing the on the ground knowledge and the ability to actually do something. Where reality and the enemy will play havoc with best laid untried plans. We should have Manpad detachments out there now even with those field simulators so the day to day stuff of deploying, managing and protecting that resource can become part of the corporate knowledge.
We exercised this at the battery level until 2012, while the 4th still practices those skills using the MANPAD simulator. In reality, the threat you noted at the beginning of your post, being UAS in an African scenario, would be more in line with a gun system vice a MANPAD as the MANPAD would have extreme difficulty acquiring a target smaller than a TUAS. As the future system MAY be a MANPAD, C-RAM, or medium system or a combination of the 3, MANPAD training would provide "some" usefulness, but would be akin to training field gunners on a 105mm and then throwing them into 155mm detachments or a HIMARS det and being like, "meh, close enough, you get the principles".
Further, the "need to protect the front line" may not really be that whatsoever- AD priorities are based on types of air threat, systems in the IADS, and Criticality/Vulnerability/Recuperability of the target. GBAD is part of the IADS, which is a true "system of systems" so MANPAD very well may not be the appropriate system for engaging the anticipated threat. If the Air Defended assets are more in the rear (Fd Batteries, MLRS, BSA/DSA, etc) than the true planning factor becomes "line of weapon release" AKA, where the aircraft needs to be to use the projected weaponry it has (AT missiles, guns, etc). If the Stand off of a Hinds weapons is 10 KM and the AD system has a range of 8, than the AD system needs to be 2km in front of the asset to actually defend it.
MANPADs, in and of themselves, are no magic bullet and provide in most ways a very limited capability with some significant advantages (short range relative to the line of weapon release, generally poorer TA systems, more difficult to integrate into a positive IADS vice flexibility, economy (they're cheap), and mass). As the future threats are anticipated to be 1) UAS 2) Munitions 3) aviation than it doesn't make sense to buy just a MANPAD which isn't especially effective against threat 1 and 2, but good at 3.
As for plugging into the IADS, that is done via the ASCC, so I am not entirely sure what a MANPAD system would do to change anything whether we are in a high comms or low comms environment (Positive (high comms) vice procedural (low comms). I can
guarantee that both are part of the current AD WO and AD Officer courses being taught at the RCAS.