Ground Based Air Defence

[marktigger]

so can this system be lifted into place by a puma, merlin or chinook?
if you can't drive it to where its needed?

[Gabriele]

Puma and Merlin surely no. Chinook perhaps, but for now they don't say.

They did something with LEAPP (Skykeeper).

Would be nice to see a test lift of the launcher element.

[Ron5]

CAMM-ER was advertised with a 3,000m ceiling.

40+km range but a max height near 10,000ft?!

Not the most challenging system to avoid......

Many apologies, Gabriele is correct. 10k meters. 33 thousand feet. Goddam metrics tripped me up again.

[Ron5]

Perhaps a container expert can help me out. These sure look to me like standard ISO 20' container size (20x8x8.5) except for height. They look taller than 8' 6".

Is it my eyes and they're really that high? or is there a military container standard that enables the greater height.

2017-EMADS-Data-Sheet-1.jpg

[indeid]

Many apologies, Gabriele is correct. 10k meters. 33 thousand feet. Goddam metrics tripped me up again.

Fair one, I can't really talk, I struggle with the 1 hour difference between ZULU time and British Summer Time, let alone different units of measure.....

[indeid]

Perhaps a container expert can help me out. These sure look to me like standard ISO 20' container size (20x8x8.5) except for height. They look taller than 8' 6".

Is it my eyes and they're really that high? or is there a military container standard that enables the greater height.

With the exception of the launcher, the rest of the kit in that picture is from LEAPP, the SAAB radar and then the Lockheed Martin Control Node. They both look about right in terms of height on the wagons compared to ISOs that I've seen on the same vehicles, but thats a poor method of comparison. The radar certainly has parts that raise above the level of the cabin roof when it is stowed, so even if it is a standard container the actual height will be a bit higher.

The Control node is also the element underslung on Gabs picture, although since its normally on the 6 tonner it will be easy CH-47 territory. LM didn't get the C2 contract for FLAADS though so no idea about what that bit of FLAADS will look like.

[Gabriele]

Rafael MIC4AD selected. I can't find a good picture of its outside other than this drawing:

[ArmChairCivvy]

except for height. They look taller than 8' 6".

I don't think they plan stacking these, looking at the various antennae sticking out, esp. the elevating ones.

Whereas the other dimensions are helpful in planning transport routes, or even switching between the modes of transportation... send a whole battery a thousand kilometers by train (eg)

[marktigger]

just thinking of a san carlos water type scenario where the launcher sites and radars were inaccessible to vehicles

[Zealot]

Rafael MIC4AD selected. I can't find a good picture of its outside other than this drawing:

That is the same system used for Iron Dome, is it not?

[Ron5]

I've seen a photo of the Giraffe system where all the antenna, and radar head itself, fits below the metal railing. The actual radar head has an empty space within the container envelope into which it fits (sorry for Yoda-speak). So you end up with a clean container outline for transport. No sticky out bits.

[ArmChairCivvy]

So you end up with a clean container outline for transport. No sticky out bits.

We Brits play it safe, and have added a roll-over cage
https://arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-mco.s3 ... FW7NHE.jpg
The racing green go-faster stripes do not show on the picture (nor in inventory; they have been entered as camouflage paint - to be applied onto the army green background)

[indeid]

So you end up with a clean container outline for transport. No sticky out bits.

We Brits play it safe, and have added a roll-over cage
https://arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-mco.s3 ... FW7NHE.jpg
The racing green go-faster stripes do not show on the picture (nor in inventory; they have been entered as camouflage paint - to be applied onto the army green background)

From memory the rails in the picture above are as low as they go (they extend upwards) and the antenna is not higher than the rails when stowed, although it can still be seen from ground level so sits above the container roof.

It can certainly be craned, although I imagine it needs to be removed from the truck if it needs to be transported on a low loader or by rail.

In terms of lift if a landing can't take wheels, I can't see why not, although even light forces are far heavier than in 82, would we land on a site that can't be engineered to infil trucks?

[Ron5]

So you end up with a clean container outline for transport. No sticky out bits.

We Brits play it safe, and have added a roll-over cage
https://arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-mco.s3 ... FW7NHE.jpg
The racing green go-faster stripes do not show on the picture (nor in inventory; they have been entered as camouflage paint - to be applied onto the army green background)

Yeah, when I said railing I was talking about ACC's roll over bars

It has legs (once again stowable within the container outline) so the container can be raised up and the truck driven away leaving it behind.

[2HeadsBetter]

Just come across this video on youtube, sorry if it's already been posted:



So we've got Sea Ceptor for the navy, now Land Ceptor for the army. Whatever will they name the air force version, if it happens at all.

[ArmChairCivvy]

The model has two telescopic masts and the real thing (anything installed on) only one
- - so the EO not opted for?

The radar is also different from Giraffe (which are v capable and hence - presumably - costly).

[Ron5]

The video jumps between 3 different systems: old land ceptor, new land ceptor and MEADS. Fail.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Fail.

Didn't think the video was that bad at all
- homework for you: find the EO and report back

[Zealot]

The video jumps between 3 different systems: old land ceptor, new land ceptor and MEADS. Fail.

MEADS? Don't you mean Samp-T? Fail.

[Ron5]

Fail.

Didn't think the video was that bad at all
- homework for you: find the EO and report back

I don't know if the UK Land Ceptor has EO and I don't know if the second mast carries it but you can clearly see the second mast in the pictures of the UK launch vehicle outside of DSEI. The mast is not deployed and it doesn't appear to have a head but it's there.

[Ron5]

The video jumps between 3 different systems: old land ceptor, new land ceptor and MEADS. Fail.

MEADS? Don't you mean Samp-T? Fail.

You're right eagle eye! That's an Aster being launched. The Eurosam sign should have given me a big clue

Still a shitty video.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Nevermind, as you passed your home work (no detention on Friday ):

The mast is not deployed and it doesn't appear to have a head but it's there.

The model has two telescopic masts and the real thing (anything installed on) only one
- - so the EO not opted for?

[Ron5]

Nevermind, as you passed your home work (no detention on Friday ):

The mast is not deployed and it doesn't appear to have a head but it's there.

The model has two telescopic masts and the real thing (anything installed on) only one
- - so the EO not opted for?

I'm a bit confused what you are asking but you are incorrect: the real thing has two masts just like the model. But the 2nd mast does not have a head fitted.

[ArmChairCivvy]

the 2nd mast does not have a head fitted.

the real thing (anything installed on) only one
- - so the EO not opted for?

Have you, by now, done two or three rounds of repeating what I said in the first place, and still insisting that you disagree with me

But let's move the discussion on, for the reasons I drilled on the omission of EO in the first place.

Rapier was a PDM/ PDS as it had a radar (in most cases.Iit was omitted from some orders - whether that was based on capability or available budget, would be interesting to know) and EO command system. It was also rapid, for dealing with targets that popped up, having closed in under radar cover, and with EO the radar could be left out of the equation altogether, for a v quick response.

CAMM-L has much better range, but have these pop-up threats gone away since the days of the Rapier? I would say no. The soft launch (one second to the rocket motor fully taking over) method further adds to the reaction delay, without giving benefits of equal importance from Seaceptor's case (of being able to utilise the limited real estate on a ship better than hot launched equivalents, and not needing a dedicated fire-control radar, opening up the applicability to smaller vessels).
- to add: that even when at sea the radar has better coverage to pick up approaching threads, still it has been deemed necessary to to have a gun-based "last mile" defence as an add-on
- should we add a MANPAD for "baby sitting" each CAMM-L launch unit to achieve that last mile coverage?

[indeid]

the 2nd mast does not have a head fitted.

the real thing (anything installed on) only one
- - so the EO not opted for?

Have you, by now, done two or three rounds of repeating what I said in the first place, and still insisting that you disagree with me

But let's move the discussion on, for the reasons I drilled on the omission of EO in the first place.

Rapier was a PDM/ PDS as it had a radar (in most cases.Iit was omitted from some orders - whether that was based on capability or available budget, would be interesting to know) and EO command system. It was also rapid, for dealing with targets that popped up, having closed in under radar cover, and with EO the radar could be left out of the equation altogether, for a v quick response.

CAMM-L has much better range, but have these pop-up threats gone away since the days of the Rapier? I would say no. The soft launch (one second to the rocket motor fully taking over) method further adds to the reaction delay, without giving benefits of equal importance from Seaceptor's case (of being able to utilise the limited real estate on a ship better than hot launched equivalents, and not needing a dedicated fire-control radar, opening up the applicability to smaller vessels).
- to add: that even when at sea the radar has better coverage to pick up approaching threads, still it has been deemed necessary to to have a gun-based "last mile" defence as an add-on
- should we add a MANPAD for "baby sitting" each CAMM-L launch unit to achieve that last mile coverage?

CAMM-L is for the Falklands, and with the state of the threat I doubt they have the fuel to fly a low level attack from far enough out to worry about a close in pop up threat. If it goes to contingency then the EO option is useful, both for pop ups and also as a passive capability. I imagine that the EO sensor provides an initial steer and tells the missile where to look with its own sensor.

If you increase the max range, you usually increase the min range too. A loss of EO and soft launch may add time, but there is no need to slew launcher/FCR to the target, so you claw some of it back.

GBAD to protect GBAD? I'd argue that this system is ideal as a guardian to a Patriot Battery, especially with medium range 360deg organic radar coverage. The Russians will often place a something like SA22 alongside longer range systems.

CIWS are more difficult on land, as you are usually working with a larger defended area with more possible targets in than a bubble round a self defending platform. Not against a return to AD guns, but would rather expand the current systems.