• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

GBAD - The return of 'FOBS'

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,198
Points
1,060

The return of 'FOBS': China moves the space arms race into the nuclear sphere​



China recently demonstrated a new orbital hypersonic glide vehicle weapons system, to the surprise and alarm of senior leaders in Washington and allied capitals around the world. Their concern is well placed. This specific weapon is designed to be launched into space on a rocket and then race to targets at near-orbital velocity. The hypersonic payload is designed to reenter the atmosphere at high rates of speed, more than five times the speed of sound, and then maneuver to targets in ways difficult to intercept with current missile defense technologies.

Defenses and tracking sensors against that sort of threat do not presently exist. That’s precisely why it is time for the U.S. Space Force to organize, train and equip to address threats in a warfighting fashion. That means defeating these sorts of capabilities.

The deployment method used by the Chinese for their hypersonic glide vehicle is not new. From the 1960s to 1980s, the Soviet Union tested and deployed such a weapon. This system, called a Fractional Orbital Bombardment System (FOBS), was designed to launch thermonuclear warheads on a south-to-north trajectory to take out northern-facing North American Aerospace Defense Command’s (NORAD) ballistic missile early-warning radars. Following the destruction of those radar sites, a Soviet bomber and missile strike force could launch undetected over the North Pole and take out the Strategic Air Command’s missile and bomber bases in a decapitating first strike.

This weapon was considered by many in the Department of Defense (DOD) as an existential threat to the American homeland and the U.S. nuclear deterrent forces. American leaders demanded a response.

Seeking a means with which to defend the U.S. deterrent forces against a nuclear strike from space, the DOD sought an offensive solution by repurposing existing missiles as a nuclear anti-satellite (ASAT) mission — an effort called Program 437. Missiles tipped with nuclear warheads were stationed at Johnston Island in the Pacific to intercept the overlying FOBS, should circumstances demand action. The crews of Program 437 stood watch until 1975, when President Gerald Ford ordered the mission terminated to pursue a non-nuclear ASAT system to replace it, coupled with a newer missile warning satellite and ground-phased array radar systems.

Today, the United States has no dedicated, active countermeasure to the Chinese FOBS. Cold War systems were retired years ago. Adversarial actions now demand that the United States consider all options for how the Space Force and other agencies and services of the DOD might address this threat.

 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,198
Points
1,060
That suggests to me that the Chinese don't yet feel comfortable with their ability to wage "Precision" warfare.

Their counter to hundreds of thousands of well aimed small missiles is still half a dozen clay pots filled with fire.
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
1,064
Points
1,090
That suggests to me that the Chinese don't yet feel comfortable with their ability to wage "Precision" warfare.

Their counter to hundreds of thousands of well aimed small missiles is still half a dozen clay pots filled with fire.
I know that is meant figuratively 😉 Not sure I would go that far though…

It could be - and I’m just speculating here -

A) The Chinese don’t care to develop or fine tune their ability to wage precision warfare.

Our ability to wage precision warfare has developed all for a few decades of near continuous use and improvement. The use of JTACs, FOOs, a variety of different sized bombs that can all be delivered with near precision & a hefty price tag per bomb dropped.

Perhaps the Chinese don’t want to spend a few million per bomb? I don’t really care if you unlucky civilians get caught nearby.

I personally find a Chinese very hard to read.

On the one hand they want the world to trust them and they want to be seen as an emerging superpower.

Yet on the other hand, they seem to completely not give a shit about human rights or roadblocks when it comes to foreign policy objectives. 🤷🏼‍♂️


B) Basically just reinforcing the last bit from above - they don’t have decades of experience waging war like the west does, and they see that the economics are not in favour of hitting everything with precision-guided munitions.


It seems to me, as well as many of us I’m sure, that a new cold war is already well underway. The leaders of the respective superpowers need to put in the place the same kind of treaties that existed up until recently.

Technologically we are at a place where we can advance incredibly quickly in whatever way we focus. And without some real leadership and mutually agreed-upon treaties, that could go very very bad, very quickly.

Whether it is sub-orbital nuclear sleds of sorts, weaponized AI, or cyber warfare — there should be certain areas where all parties agree are off limits.


0.02
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,198
Points
1,060

Speculation is an enjoyable sport.


I personally find a Chinese very hard to read.

On the one hand they want the world to trust them and they want to be seen as an emerging superpower.

Yet on the other hand, they seem to completely not give a shit about human rights or roadblocks when it comes to foreign policy objectives.

Perhaps you meant the definite, rather than the indefinite article? I too find THE Chinese government very hard to read.

Which brings to the fore your final comment

there should be certain areas where all parties agree are off limits.


I find it difficult to contract with anyone I find very hard to read. I'd sooner trust to my own devices.
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
1,064
Points
1,090
Speculation is an enjoyable sport.




Perhaps you meant the definite, rather than the indefinite article? I too find THE Chinese government very hard to read.

I find it difficult to contract with anyone I find very hard to read. I'd sooner trust to my own devices.
When I refer to ‘the Chinese’ - I’m always referring to the government. Same as if I were to say ‘the Russians’ or ‘the North Koreans.’ (If that’s what you were referring to?)

When the stakes are this high, have a mutually agreed-upon treaties is even more important. Because if you don’t understand each other and you don’t think the same way - at least both sides are aware of what the other is and is not allowed to do.

During the Cold War the Soviets and the Americans didn’t always understand each other’s moves, or long term strategies. Both sides believed in a completely different kind of society.

Treaties helped ensure ‘kinda crazy’ didn’t spill over into ‘we’re all dead because of this bulls**t…’ crazy. (Some young servicemen from both sides with a good head on their shoulders, who aren’t mentioned enough in history books, also helped. In addition to everything else we all know about history wise.)


I think treaties with the Chinese are even more important. Especially now in a day of Internet everything.

The Soviets, while different, had more in common with the Americans than the current Chinese regime does.

Limits on range of missiles, a limit to the number of ICBMs, ban on space based weapons, what is permissible as a cyber target and what isn’t, etc - would be good to have on hand again.


0.02
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,198
Points
1,060
When I refer to ‘the Chinese’ - I’m always referring to the government. Same as if I were to say ‘the Russians’ or ‘the North Koreans.’ (If that’s what you were referring to?)

When the stakes are this high, have a mutually agreed-upon treaties is even more important. Because if you don’t understand each other and you don’t think the same way - at least both sides are aware of what the other is and is not allowed to do.

During the Cold War the Soviets and the Americans didn’t always understand each other’s moves, or long term strategies. Both sides believed in a completely different kind of society.

Treaties helped ensure ‘kinda crazy’ didn’t spill over into ‘we’re all dead because of this bulls**t…’ crazy. (Some young servicemen from both sides with a good head on their shoulders, who aren’t mentioned enough in history books, also helped. In addition to everything else we all know about history wise.)


I think treaties with the Chinese are even more important. Especially now in a day of Internet everything.

The Soviets, while different, had more in common with the Americans than the current Chinese regime does.

Limits on range of missiles, a limit to the number of ICBMs, ban on space based weapons, what is permissible as a cyber target and what isn’t, etc - would be good to have on hand again.


0.02


Your original statement - "I personally find a Chinese very hard to read." I assumed you were not referring to the venerable inscrutable oriental. Just wanted to clear that up for you.

As to making treaties -

I was going to say it doesn't hurt. But sometimes it does. Especially if you intend to honour it and bind yourself to the terms while the opposition only intends to assist you in the binding while generally ignoring its own obligations. Your own supporters, whom you convinced that the treaty would bring peace in their time, will not easily let you give up that hope if you feel the need to break the deal.
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
1,064
Points
1,090
That makes more sense now. Agreed totally.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,198
Points
1,060
Thinking through GBAD and the breadth of targets it might face and the technologies available I got to wondering if the government shouldn't start shifting some of its resources to the RCA.

Should the first move be to stand up 3 RCA as a regular regiment focusing on GBAD and leave 4 RCA to focus on General Support (UAVs and LRPFs etc)?

If that then....

Take the entire complement of RCA reserve regiments and batteries distributed across Canada and convert them to GBAD elements. Perhaps leave them with a residual Close Support Gunfire capability in each local unit? Say three GBAD troops or batteries for each CS troop or battery?


picture-4-nasams-fire-unit.jpg
d2ctjgyugae_3en.jpg
Skyshield_AA.jpg
UGV_Rheinmetall_Mission_Master_XT_Fire_Support_with_Brimstone_missile.png

Robonic_OHTO_Transport_1200px_2.jpg
Meggitt_DS_Banshee_Multiple-e1459265857184.jpeg
Kratos_Drones_BQM-177A_t670.jpg


Drones and Missiles and EW. The benefit is that by simply changing ammunition the Missiles and Drones switch from Defence to Offence. And from VSHORAD to LRPF. In addition the drones can function as targets for the missiles and guns. And the EW/DE capabilities.

GBAD.jpg


This would result in close co-ordination with the operational needs of the RCAF, NORAD and NorthCOM but given it local focus, occasional use and low manning requirements it seems to me to be an ideal employment of the local artillery reservists. Completely separate from just supporting the local infantry brigade when and if it ever gets called out.

And there is nothing to prevent the RCN's Reserve Divisions getting in on the act with SeaCan mounted solutions. Solutions that can be employed ashore and at sea, in ports, on convoyed ships, on converted Coast Guard ships or even Patrol Ships. Or even USVs.

spimm-1.jpg


And if built in a STANFLEX configuration could be swapped out for a crane or a gun.

1635955994892.jpeg
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,198
Points
1,060
The RCA has 19 reserve organizing entities. It has 4 regular entities. The RCN has 24 reserve divisions.

Transferring one of the 19 reserve elements to the regular force would leave a reserve base of 42 elements (18 RCA and 24 RCN). 3 RCA is conveniently located in St John NB and could start as a mixed Reg/Reserve force after the fashion of 4 RCA and 8 CH as a low cost test bed for sorting out the details together with the good people of HMCS Brunswicker.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,198
Points
1,060
The other organizing principle I would use for the federal army in the provinces is the RCE. It already has one Regiment per Territorial Group and it, together with the Svc Battalion (in particular the Tpt/Tn Companies), the Sigs make the basis of a well founded emergency management plan. The regular engineers of the 1 Division formations would make a great attack force to fall in on the local "recce" elements permanently in place and capable of liaising with local civilian, commercial resources.

And they, like the RCA and the RCN reserves can also do security duties if the need presents itself.

The employment of the Royal Engineers in the 1858 Gold Rush in BC might serve as a historical basis of discussion.

 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,198
Points
1,060
And if anybody asked me how to sell the F-35 to the Canadian public, and the Armed Forces generally, I would add the F-35 to the SAR structure.

Those NORAD fighters on the runway, ready to respond to Bears in the Air and Project 23350 Patrol Ships, need company on the ground and need to be employed more often.

So add them to the SAR mix.

Condition the public to think of the F35 like a police cruiser, the guarantor of safety in the form of an armed presence that sees me, and the precursor to rescue and recovery.

Marry the F-35 with its speed and sensors (high speed response and location) to the Herc, (rapid, if not high speed rescue) and the Chinook, (recovery from anywhere to any local strip on which the Herc can land). The Herc then completes the recovery by transferring the saved to the nearest urban medical treatment facility.

Is this the best use of tactical resources? Maybe not. But it might cause the public to support buying tactical resources that you can waste.

I affirm it is a PR exercise. Also known as salesmanship.

As part of the PR package I would give away cheap locator beacons that can be quickly located by any F35 in the area. I would put CAF/RCAF logos all over the things and paint them a bright, fluorescent safety green and give them away at armouries, post offices, ranger patrols, RCMP and Coast Guard stations. (A couple of other advantages of the ubiquitous beacon, speeding up location thereby reducing airframe hours spent in search, and, perhaps encouraging more urban Canadians to get out into Ranger country and get to know the place and the people).

And no, I wouldn't paint them (the CF-35s) hi vis yellow.


Yes. It will eat into the airframe hours. But that can be offset by more airframes.

The sound of a CF-35 overhead then becomes the sound of rescue.


Sure, we can put the sensors of the F-35 onto something like the Kingfisher and use the Cormorant for recovery. But why would we?

CF-35/CC-130/CH-147 results in faster location, fewer hours on the Hercs and Chinooks lost in search time, more efficient rescue and recovery. And we can use the same kit from the same bases to investigate incursions and blow things up real good. If necessary.

Meanwhile the taxpayer is convinced to spend more money to ensure they can safely go kayaking and mountaineering anywhere in Canada because their CF-35 will find them. And their Hercs and Chinooks will pull their butts (and dripping kayaks) back to civilization.
 

GR66

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
889
Points
1,040
Or how about we stop pretending to the Government and the Canadian public that the CF exists to be a team of guardian angels on standby to perform aid to civil powers duties as a back handed way to get the equipment we need and instead explain to them that there are bad people out there and we need to have the ability to kill them if required to defend our nation and its interests.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,198
Points
1,060
Or how about we stop pretending to the Government and the Canadian public that the CF exists to be a team of guardian angels on standby to perform aid to civil powers duties as a back handed way to get the equipment we need and instead explain to them that there are bad people out there and we need to have the ability to kill them if required to defend our nation and its interests.

Because we have tried that and it doesn't work? Canadians don't want to know about blowing up bad guys. It interferes with their beer drinking.

So we have to do something else. And Canadians really like their SAR techs and their Snowbirds. They think the Ceremonial Guard is kind of neat too.

The less said about CANSOFCOM the better.

PS - they also kind of like the guys with the snow shovels.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,198
Points
1,060
Oh, and by the way, "the CF exists to be a team of guardian angels on standby to perform aid to civil powers duties". That is a true statement. It applies to the entirety of the CF (C Armed F if you prefer), to the Mounties, the Rangers, the Coast Guard, the CBSA, the Solicitor-Generals and, in fact the entirety of the Canadian and provincial governments.

That, actually, is your job.

And, when another government of another nation challenges your abilities to be those guardians then we, the guarded paying your salaries, expect you to be able to turn your attention to seeing them off.

We don't expect Mounties to create SWAT teams and have them put them on the open market in some foreign land because there is a lack of crime in Canada. We expect, and can tolerate, a reasonable amount of downtime for the SWAT team that allows it to train and be ready to act in a timely fashion. But, if there is not enough crime to justify those dedicated SWAT team members on standby then the members shouldn't be surprised if the public wants them patrolling the streets, catching criminals and generally making themselves useful making us feel more secure.

We, the Canadian taxpayer, have demonstrated a willingness to maintain a SWAT team of 124,000

Regular Force: 68,000
Reserve Force: 27,000
Civilians: 24,000
Canadian Rangers: 5,200

Total: 124,200



To be fair we have a SWAT team of 68,000

Well maybe it is only the Deployed Naval Task Forces, the two NORAD Fighter wings and the 3 Fighting Brigades of 1 Canadian Division +/- . And CANSOFCOM.

Jobs for 7 or 8 Colonels or equivalents.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,198
Points
1,060





There is a self-evident and continuing need to prevent the arrival of ICBMs in our peaceful and profitable land. Strangely enough we have decided not to pursue active measures to counter them, relying on MADness. And being surprised when effective leaders act mad.

There is a self-evident and continuing need to prevent the arrival of bombers. And we have effective, active measures to prevent those.

Our skies have been kept clear for generations. Without the need for anti-aircraft batteries.

But the situation is changing.

There a many more options available for cheaply delivering packages of high explosives, or even just accurately throwing some grit in a crankcase. Bombardment just got different. It can now be occasional, harassing, aggravating and consequential without ever rising to the levle where the standing army can be engaged to deal with the "bombers". We are looking at the possibility of a continuing siege. A siege with the impact and effectiveness of a swarm of blackflies. They are annoying as hell. They dissuade people from working, and playing, in the woods. They can't be swatted. And they get into everything. But they are part of the background noise. They don't stop work. They just make life miserable and slow everything down.

We are moving into a time of siege where we are besieged by black flies. We can't stop the swarms. We can deal with individual black flies once they get within swatting range. Or the range of a can of spray. Insectocutors. Noxious smoke. DEET applications.

Looking for military analogs for both the black flies, and midges and mosquitoes, wasps and hornets. That isn't too hard.

Dealing with them militarily is becoming easier. Technology is making it easier to swat blackflies at range, cheaply. And the leader in the field are the Israelis who have been trying to live a profitable, if not peaceful life, while under siege by swarms of blackflies for decades.

Now they maintain batteries of insectocutors designed to swat all of those annoying insects - mortar and artillery rounds and missiles (high speed, low speed and hyper speed, high angle, low angle, large numbers, small numbers, overt and covert, stealthy, expensive and cheap). And some of the insects seem to have no physical foot print at all.

But the Israelis function surrounded by their batteries of insectocutors.

Have we arrived at the point where it is worthwhile investing in our own insectocutors? Or own CRAM systems, Iron Domes, Short, Very Short and and Very Very Short Air Defence systems? Our own ABMs? Our own anti-drone systems?

The Mantis/SkyGuard/SkyShield/SkyRanger solution is one form of insectocutor. Manpads are another. Lasers, RF and EW are others. And civil RFDF drone detectors and police snipers are yet another.

Are they necessary? Is there a bombardment? Is a sufficiently effective bombardment that requires a response? Are we reaching the point where we need to "Dash-Down-Observe-Sights-Fire"?


Counters


auds-with-drone-high-rescopy.jpg

TELEMMGLPICT000276299313_trans_NvBQzQNjv4Bq-pfgFGBz9L_4V5dRQnfCxf4Xpit_DMGvdp2n7FDd82k.jpeg
1636128909724.jpeg
24irondome.jpg

NORAD-picture-e1515438810571.jpg



I think it is justifiable to consider accepting the expense and inconvenience of expanding the military response options available domestically to keep our skies open and our aircraft and airports operating. To increase the number, and type, of "insectocutors" on hand to swat bugs.

And if we don't need them at home, perhaps we can take them along to the next patio party. Or lend them to our neighbours.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,198
Points
1,060

Royal Marines commandos test new tactics during desert exercises​

25 Nov 2021 (Last Updated November 25th, 2021 16:44)

Air Defence Troop of 30 Commando were part of commando element of Littoral Response Group.

Navy3-Royal-Navy.jpg


Air Defence Troop of Royal Marines unit 30 Commando Information Exploitation Group have tested new tactics during desert exercises in California.

Deployed as part of the newly formed Littoral Response Group (South), commandos spent the last two months in the Mojave Desert alongside allies.

The best military training area provided an opportunity for the commandos to test new tactics and share knowledge with allies.

The LRG is one of two new British Royal Navy task groups that was established to respond to world events. It will become operational next year.

During an intensive five-day exercise in California, Air Defence Troop worked with forces from the Netherlands, the UAE, Canada, and the US.

Commandos were tasked with protecting allied forces and worked alongside their counterparts US Marines’ 2nd and 3rd Low Altitude Air Defence Battalions.

The adversary was made up of US marines and the commandos had to defend three ‘urban sprawls’.

During the mock battle, commandos deployed into three small teams and took various positions.

Based on the intelligence they received, commandos conducted strikes on three Super Cobras and a Sea Stallion helicopter, as well as also on convoys using surface-to-surface missiles (SSMs).

According to the Royal Navy, commandos also trialled the MRZR vehicle during the exercise.

The US-made Polaris MRZR-D4 is an ultralight 4×4 off-roader vehicle developed by Polaris Defense, a division of Polaris Industries.

It can carry up to four commandos and reach speeds of 60mph for quick movement across the combat field.


TELEMMGLPICT000276299313_trans_NvBQzQNjv4Bq-pfgFGBz9L_4V5dRQnfCxf4Xpit_DMGvdp2n7FDd82k.jpeg


This image from a notorious article is from the same exercise.

The missile seems to be the Startstreak HVM but it could also be the Lightweight Multirole Missile (LMM) known in the Royal Navy as the Martlett.

LMM is intended to provide a single family of weapons that can be used in different modes, including:[9]

  • Maritime – LMM will be carried on the new Lynx Wildcat helicopters of the Royal Navy for use against small surface vessels. ASELSAN of Turkey has developed dedicated mounting systems which can also enable the LMM to be launched from naval platforms such as fast attack craft.[10]
  • Surface-to-surface – The dual-effect (blast fragmentation and shaped charge) of the LMM's warhead makes it suitable for use against a wide range of ground targets including light/medium armour.
  • Air-launched – The missile's modular design allows for future development and introduction of alternative warheads and seekers.
  • Surface-to-air – In July 2019, the Air Defence Troop of 30 Commando Information Exploitation Group tested LMMs in a surface-to-air mode against Meggitt Banshee target drones.[11]
The LMMs in the initial batch use laser beam riding with infrared terminal homing and a laser proximity sensor, although a semi-active laser version is under development for precision surface attack roles.


Again, the SAM and SSM roles are being conflated at FLOT. One team managing all Line of Sight threats from Vehicles (aerial, terrestrial and maritime).
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,198
Points
1,060
30%20Commando%20Royal%20Marines%20with%20counter%20UAV%20system%20the%20NightFighter%20X%2015102021%20Credit%20MOD%20Crown_0.jpg


Another image from the same exercise, also the Air Defence Troop of 30 Commando Information Exploitation Group.

The black thing with three barrels is a Nightfighter X - some sort of electronic device for neutralizing UAS/Drones at ranges greater than 2.5 km


 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,198
Points
1,060
TELEMMGLPICT000276299313_trans_NvBQzQNjv4Bq-pfgFGBz9L_4V5dRQnfCxf4Xpit_DMGvdp2n7FDd82k.jpeg


Can any of the signaller types deduce anything from the antenna array beside the radio?
 
Top